Best Os For 64bit Platform?

[legend_jo]

I'm upgrading to an Athlon64 3500+ and was wondering what OS you guys mostly use on it? I was just going to install XP Pro on it. Do you find the Windows64(V1218 or whatever is out now) better suited for the Athlon64's? Does XP Pro still function well?

 

opinions?

[oralpain]

Standard XP Pro finctions better than the 64-bit v1218 in my experience. I prefer windows 2000 over both however.

[MindDrive]

oralpain Posted on Aug 28 2004, 03:56 AM

  Standard XP Pro finctions better than the 64-bit v1218 in my experience. I prefer windows 2000 over both however. 

 

if you use windows 2000 on a beefy machine like that you are hindering your systems performance - windows2000 has a memory cap half that of either version of XP - i would say use xp HOME or professional till the REAL version of XP64 comes out or use windows 2003 if you are more the windows 2kpro person

[oralpain]

Umm, windows 2000 can use 4 gigs of ram (though it would be divided into 2GB kernel and 2GB application) just like windows XP can. It's virtually the same OS, only differnces are a few tweaks and alot of multimedia garbage.

 

I don't have 4 gigs of ram, but I have personally used 2 gigs with no trouble what so ever in windows 2000. Also, all the games I play and most benchmarks i've tried run better with windows 2000 on this system than with windows XP. Windows XP 64-bit lags behind a good deal as I am stuck useing the 61.76 drivers for my video card, the 65.62 beta is far superior.

Edited August 28, 2004 by oralpain

[MindDrive]

i read on the windows.com website somwhere that was comparing the kernel of windows2000 (all versions) to windows xp (all versions) to windows 2003 (all versions) that shows windows 2000 to have a memory allocation cap of 1.3GB's where as XP has a cap of 6GB's and i think 2003 is even more - i didnt read too much or pay attention to 2003's specs

 

im looking for the link ....... *taps patiently*

 

this isnt it but it corrects things:

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platf...PAE/PAEmem.mspx

 

there is something majorly different about XP and 2000 that makes XP so much faster than 2000 ..... i just forget what the hell it was specificly -

 

i know if you take the same EXACT system - and install 2000 - benchmark it 3 times using whatever proggy, then format and install XP(pro/home) then your benchmarks will actually be HIGHER using XP on high end systems - which this performance can also be seen in realtime applications ----

 

im still looking for the link.......

[cybergrunt69]

MindDrive is right. Win2k is slower and less stable than XP. XP does have it's issues, but it will run faster.

 

Go with the 64-bit version if you want - it is free... Or, you can try some Linux distro that will support it - that should be free too!

[oralpain]

Thats BS. On my system with both operating systems set up well, Windows 2000 is clearly faster. Stability is exactly the same (perfect). I have very recently used XP on this computer with the exact same drivers/settings as 2000 and I have come to this conclusion. The differences where VERY small, but in every game and benchmark windows 2000 had the lead.

 

Maybe XP has a performance edge on your systems, but that is definatly not the case on mine.

 

Also, useing PAE on a desktop system where performance was an issue would be idiotic. PAE really slows things down. So, unless you absolutly need more than 4 gigs of ram you should leave it off. Also, legend_jo is useing a 939pin A64 3500+ hes going to hit the emory limit on his motherbaord well before the limit on his OS anyway.

 

Product activation also gets old around the 50th time you have to call up and get a 40 something digit number so you can use the OS you paid 180 bucks for. it's even worse since MS outsourced to India. Now when I activate XP I have try to make out the 40 something digit number through a very thick accent. Six acctivations before having to call just isnt enough as I have installed XP nearly 150 times since I bought it.

Edited August 29, 2004 by oralpain