Advantages of going XP64

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 14:03:10 +0000, Black Shuck wrote:

Already run Linux on my home server (a Gentoo box), but as a workstation
OS, Linux sucks badly. Perhaps in a few years it would be ready for
mainstream...

Sorry, I just don't believe you run linux. Because if you did, you
wouldn't make such statements. I've been running Linux for about 3 or more
years now and it is much better than Win every thought about being. And if
you like Win so much why aren't you running a windows server instead of
linux? So tell me what sucks so badly about Linux. Is it that it's free?
Is it that you get almost every application you will ever need when you
get a distro? Is it that you don't have to have tons of driver disks for
all your hardware? Is it that you don't have to worry about all the
viruses you get free with Win? What is it?

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.htm

A stupid argument. Both OS's have their strengths and weaknesses. For any
serious games-player out there, for example, Linux is simply not in the
running. End of story. For servers, yes Linux is the only proper alternative
as its not encumbered with any of the trademark Microsoft short-commings.
95% of application support bypasses Linux completely - rendering it
uselessly pathetic in keeping up with any demand as an application
alternative. Its choices are limited. As for XP or such - applying that same
argment is blatantly moronic. To get one side of this argument even remotely
considered, it's probably best not to exhagerate points which are, at best,
weak and try being a little more objective. Fanboys go home.

"Wes Newell" wrote in message
newsan.2005.01.23.00.58.39.708395@TAKEOUTverizon .net...
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 14:03:10 +0000, Black Shuck wrote:

Already run Linux on my home server (a Gentoo box), but as a workstation
OS, Linux sucks badly. Perhaps in a few years it would be ready for
mainstream...

Sorry, I just don't believe you run linux. Because if you did, you
wouldn't make such statements. I've been running Linux for about 3 or more
years now and it is much better than Win every thought about being. And if
you like Win so much why aren't you running a windows server instead of
linux? So tell me what sucks so badly about Linux. Is it that it's free?
Is it that you get almost every application you will ever need when you
get a distro? Is it that you don't have to have tons of driver disks for
all your hardware? Is it that you don't have to worry about all the
viruses you get free with Win? What is it?

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.htm

In article ,
says...
Is there any benefits loading XP 64bit version instead of normal 32bit XP?

Yes. But if you have to ask...

You could of course install any of the stable x86_64 Linux distros instead.
But, if you are a gamer, you probably are hogtied to Windows. So, wait it
out.

It seems driver support is less than complete.

It is still in Beta. What do you expect? If you were *given* a free
prototype car to drive for a year before the production version came out,
would you whine because the heated seats didn't work?

I only have 1GB of RAM in my AMD64 3500+ system, so do not need the
extended memory addressing.

Ok. So why did you buy it anyway? To be the coolest geek at the next
LAN party? Oh wait, you have only 1GB, so that can't be it. Hmmm...

Is there any other benefit of a 64bit operating system? or is it snake oil?

*sigh*

Apps that need a lot of virtual address space, such as those that use threads,
where each thread is allocated a stack, but may not use it all are limited on
some 32-bit platforms, regardless of physical memory limitations.

64-bit means data types are MUCH larger naturally in the CPU. Less need for
extended precision, or resorting to floating point where its not really needed,
which means more propagation of error.

Large files 2GB or 4GB comes naturally, without special hacks in the file
system code (and applications) to go past 32-bit signed or unsigned file
offset limits.

You can still run 32-bit applications, but not 32-bit drivers. Future-
proofing, you can still run your existing apps, while gaining the ability
to run newer 64-bit ones as well.

Hypertransport memory is *MUCH* faster, particularly in multi-processor systems
(it scales quite well with additional CPUs if you know how to take advantage
of it), but that is mostly true with a 32-bit OS running on the same hardware
also.

Moving twice as much data in a single operation (bulk data I/O transfers) is
obviously going to be much faster.

Taking advantage of the "supposedly" beneficial page protection (for virii)
on 64-bit processors. I say it in quotes, because so far turning it on
just slows everything down. Plus, XP SP2 (32) also supports this now. So
ignore this item.

16-bit apps won't run natively. I'm sure somebody will come out with an
emulator, but that is nothing to wish for. Let it die peacefully.

It will not be very long before all new hardware being sold is 64-bit capable
from both Intel and AMD. The Mac crowd has had access to 64-bit solutions,
as well as most of the higher end workstation and server crowd for a lot
longer.

People asked the same questions when going from 8-bit to 16-bit, from real
mode to protected mode OS's, from 16-bit to 32-bit, and now you get to carry
on the ignoble tradition.

--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"For some reason most people seem to be born without the part
of the brain that understands pointers." -- Joel Spolsky

In article , says...
A stupid argument. Both OS's have their strengths and weaknesses.

Very true. Linux is stable, reliable, and low-cost, with source code
available for practically everything. Conversely, it expects the
user to actually know how to use their computer, not just be capable of
launching Outlook Express and a web browser.

Windows is good at running games, exposing you to security problems,
crashes both predictably and randomly to increase excitement, and
costs a lot of money. Practically all of the software for it is
expensive. On the other hand, 90% of the computer population is
at least somewhat fluent on it. Let's not pretend like I mean
fluent in the common sense here, because most computer users today
can't hold a candle to the computer population of 10 years ago
as far as technical knowledge goes. Expecting these pseudo-capable
users to migrate to Linux is insanity. To borrow from an old UNIX
joke, Linux is user-friendly; it is just highly selective about who
it makes friends with.

For any serious games-player out there, for example, Linux is simply
not in the running.

True. Game developers seem incapable of producing games that don't
crash. If they ported their crap to Linux, it would become immediately
apparent that it was their fault, as they would not have MS to blame
for their lockups anymore. Of course, Windows is inherently fragile
itself, but the "serious gamer" (hah, hard to mix serious and gamer
together without laughing) has it even worse.

--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)

"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message
...


Oh yes, there is also the problem with the fact that the very old 16-bit
Windows apps will now no longer work in XP64. They maintained 32-bit
backward compatibility, but they dumped the 16-bit compatibility. I don't
know why they did that, it shouldn't have been all that much harder to
implement it, but it was Microsoft's decision.

Just a guess here, but wouldn't retaining 16 bit code compatibility in the
kernel create the potential for unnecessary instability issues?

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 17:14:12 +1100, Blaedmon wrote:

"Wes Newell" wrote in message
newsan.2005.01.23.00.58.39.708395@TAKEOUTverizon .net...
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 14:03:10 +0000, Black Shuck wrote:

Already run Linux on my home server (a Gentoo box), but as a
workstation OS, Linux sucks badly. Perhaps in a few years it would be
ready for mainstream...

Sorry, I just don't believe you run linux. Because if you did, you
wouldn't make such statements. I've been running Linux for about 3 or
more years now and it is much better than Win every thought about being.
And if you like Win so much why aren't you running a windows server
instead of linux? So tell me what sucks so badly about Linux. Is it that
it's free? Is it that you get almost every application you will ever
need when you get a distro? Is it that you don't have to have tons of
driver disks for all your hardware? Is it that you don't have to worry
about all the viruses you get free with Win? What is it?

A stupid argument.

I'm not arguing with you, merely pointing out you don't know wtf you are
talking about.

Both OS's have their strengths and weaknesses.

Linux doesn't have many weaknesses. OTOH, Windows has many.. all one has
to do to see this is look at all the viruses for it.


For any serious games-player out there, for example, Linux is simply not
in the running. End of story.

Games (or any app) can be written for any os. Neither having an app, or
the lack of an app, has nothing to do with the os environment. There are
Linux apps that aren't witten for Win also, so this has no real bearing
either.

For servers, yes Linux is the only proper alternative as its not
encumbered with any of the trademark Microsoft short-commings.

Screw the MS trademarks. MS servers are so full of security holes it's a
joke. I wouldn't call Linux an alternative server, but the only logical
choice between it and Windows.


95% of application support bypasses Linux completely - rendering it
uselessly pathetic in keeping up with any demand as an application
alternative. Its choices are limited.

This is just BS and you know it. Lunix has more applications than Windows
does. Like I said, all or most distros come with all the apps most users
will ever need. You have to buy Windows office suites, etc, extra. You'd
spend literally thousands of dollars to buy windows equivilent software
that comes with a linux distro. Just as a small example, here's the amout
of CL apps I have, and I didn't load anywhere close to all of them.

[root@wes2 wes]#
Display all 3173 possibilities? (y or n)

After reading back, I see that all of your response is just like windows,
bs.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.htm

Randy Howard wrote in
:

Very true. Linux is stable, reliable, and low-cost, with source code
available for practically everything. Conversely, it expects the
user to actually know how to use their computer, not just be capable of
launching Outlook Express and a web browser.

Which explains very succinctly why it isn't suitable as a desktop
alternative to Windows. If most users can't competently use Windows then
how will they possibly administer their own Linux box.

Windows is good at running games, exposing you to security problems,
crashes both predictably and randomly to increase excitement, and
costs a lot of money.

Actually, my XP installation, since getting it set up and configured, has
never crashed. It's only been running a couple, though. My old system did
eventually develope a tendency to hang, but only after my old PSU died an
I replaced it with an under-powered spare. It was hardly predictable,
however.

Practically all of the software for it is expensive. On the other
hand, 90% of the computer population is at least somewhat fluent on
it. Let's not pretend like I mean fluent in the common sense here,
because most computer users today can't hold a candle to the computer
population of 10 years ago as far as technical knowledge goes.
Expecting these pseudo-capable users to migrate to Linux is insanity.

Prescisely.

As much as I hate Windows and would love for Linux to become widely
accepted by Joe User, I'm not going to delude myself. Maybe if the Linux
community would quit deluding themselves they'd realize they aren't
getting the job done when it comes to making Linux acceptable as a
mainstream desktop OS.

In article ,
says...
Actually, my XP installation, since getting it set up and configured, has
never crashed. It's only been running a couple, though.

There is a word missing I think, after 'couple'. Assuming it is days, weeks,
or even months, consider yourself lucky.

As much as I hate Windows and would love for Linux to become widely
accepted by Joe User, I'm not going to delude myself.

Why would you love that?

Maybe if the Linux community would quit deluding themselves they'd
realize they aren't getting the job done when it comes to making Linux
acceptable as a mainstream desktop OS.

I hope they never do. Think about it. For that to happen, Linux has
to become as bloated, riddled with feature-creep driven hacks, filled
with resource consuming paper clips and other garbage as Windows is
today. I for one would much rather see Linux concentrate on building
a stable server OS and let the lemmings run wherever they can find a
mouse that they can click without a training class.

Because a stable server OS makes a very good platform for someone
serious about using a computer as a computer, rather than as the QVC
channel or a gameboy.

--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)

"Randy Howard" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
says...

There is a word missing I think, after 'couple'. Assuming it is days,
weeks,
or even months, consider yourself lucky.


My copy of Windows XP has been running for months (about 6) with out any
real issues... My parents computer ran Windows 2000 for approximitly 3 years
with out a single incident.. Until very recently when it got taken over by
spyware and I was forced to reinstall the operating system (Windows true
achilies heal, it's very trusting...).Microsoft doesn't make a bad Operating
System product by any means, in some ways it's quite a bit more robust then
Linux (see driver development!!) Every platform has it's strengths and
weaknesses...

As much as I hate Windows and would love for Linux to become widely
accepted by Joe User, I'm not going to delude myself.

Why would you love that?

Perhaps he hope *real* compition in the Operating System market will lower
prices for us all? I would love to see that!


Maybe if the Linux community would quit deluding themselves they'd
realize they aren't getting the job done when it comes to making Linux
acceptable as a mainstream desktop OS.

I hope they never do. Think about it. For that to happen, Linux has
to become as bloated, riddled with feature-creep driven hacks, filled
with resource consuming paper clips and other garbage as Windows is
today. I for one would much rather see Linux concentrate on building
a stable server OS and let the lemmings run wherever they can find a
mouse that they can click without a training class.

Because a stable server OS makes a very good platform for someone
serious about using a computer as a computer, rather than as the QVC
channel or a gameboy.

There's a serious flaw in this theory.... Operating System development takes
lots and lots of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.... This means the big Linux distrabutions
need to find a way to fund development... Hence all the Major Distro's now
"encourage" users to pay for support (i.e. make it very difficult to find
free ISOs). It's the law of economics... If you want a modern operating
system that is stable and has all the features you need to get your work
done, then you need lots of money... In order to get lots of money you have
to make your product appealing to businesses. Hence paper clips and other
"garbage" bloat ware.


--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)

"Dracir Venostos" wrote in message
news:ErQId.1008$al1.178@lakeread07...

"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message
...

Just a guess here, but wouldn't retaining 16 bit code compatibility in the
kernel create the potential for unnecessary instability issues?



No, that is not what causes issues... What causes issues is trying to blend
a modern 32bit preemptive multi-tasking OS with a not-so-modern coopertive
multitasking OS which features NO memory protection etc... Windows XP
maitains 16bit dos compatibility as long as it will play nicely in a world
where you are not allowed to directly access hardware, aren't allowed to
read and write to/from any memory location at will etc... Which is why you
find many old DOS apps (espeacially games) not functioning in XP.