Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
20 of 21 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
64-bit computing not for the faint of heart., May 22, 2007
I recently bought an AMD dual-core processor that uses a 64-bit architecture, and wanted to enjoy the full benefits of that. In addition to loading Linux, I also purchased a copy of Windows XP Professional 64, the 64-bit version of the OS.
First impressions are that I have a slightly different default desktop wallpaper, but nothing else seems radically divergent from the 32-bit UI. It sees the 2Gb correctly, as expected, and I'm curious to see what it'll show when the other stick of RAM are installed to bring it to 6Gb.
I haven't loaded most of the usual bloat, restricting this machine's use to games and some development tasks I'll bring from work. I might run Office, I might not, but I want to offer some words of advice to potential buyers.
One, good luck finding a 64-bit firewall. As of 22-May-2007, only Ghost Wall works under XP64. Zone Labs (now Checkpoint) has no plans to build one in the near future, Sunbelt's Kerio product is not slated for a 64-bit release either (choosing, like ZoneLabs, to focus on Vista), and Tiny Software (now CA) didn't have a 64-bit version either. So, you can use the stock firewall or Ghost Wall, or roll up your sleeves and build a Linksys router with firewalling capabilities.
Better news from antivirus vendors, though: Alwil's Avast product does work fine under XP64. Since I'm long-removed from running Norton or McAfee at home, I strongly suggest doing your homework before adopting XP64 if you have current licenses of those products. You might be out of luck. Avast is very good, so you aren't losing anything by switching.
The OS runs well, I don't have any crashing or lockups but I haven't really attempted to blue-screen it yet either. I really like the fast boot times and quick response, and while I might be running Linux a bit more on this box for non-gaming purposes, I still like having an MS OS available for helping out friends and family with their MS problems.
Worth buying? Yes, but only if you have a 64-bit CPU and you don't mind searching for native 64-bit apps and utilities.
-Fred
|
|
|
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
much stable than vista, March 24, 2008
Many of us are surprised by Microsoft who ditched their stable and fast XP 64. Instead, they pushed unstable vista on the market before it was done. For programming purpose, XP 64 is a much better choice. I've heard lots of studios in special effects industry kept their old Win32 to avoid all the hassles brought by Vista in their render farms.
|
|
|
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
From XP 32 to XP 64, February 15, 2008
I'm reviwing this product in comparison with Windows XP 32-bit, the operating system I've been using for years and still do at work. I reject Vista, which seems practically unusable for an advanced technical user.
One of the things that bugs me about the x64 version is that the 64-bit version of Explorer doesn't support 32-bit extensions - some of which I used frequently. I understand this is a technical limitation, so I'll just have to hope that someday the creators of the software I use frequently will eventually develop 64-bit extensions. There's a way to force use of the 32-bit Explorer by default, but in doing so, the Control Panel becomes pretty much inaccessible except from the Start menu, which is still running the 64-bit Explorer (since most Control Panel items are only available in the 64-bit Explorer).
I like to organize my "Program Files" folder. However, Windows XP x64 wants all 32-bit programs to go into the new "Program Files (x86)" folder, meaning I'll have some programs in the "Program Files" folder and some in the "Program Files (x86)" folder, which disrupts my organization. For most programs, it can work to change the default install folder to "Program Files", but in some cases, Windows (or the installer) overrides your decision and installs to the "Program Files (x86)" folder anyway.
There are other anomalies here and there that I can't easily figure-out and were never a problem with the 32-bit version, but these are usually small annoyances if any.
Otherwise, it's pretty much what you'd expect from XP. It's a pretty solid and usable Microsoft operating system. Easy to install.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
