WinXP-64 better than WinXP-32?

[Jeff]

Just fired up the XP-64 partition and it seems to produce a little bit more than the XP-32 partition. Not much, maybe 100,000/cEMs/sec more per core. At any rate, guess I'll leave it running this way for a while and get some free production.

Merry Christmas!

[LAURENU2]

Are you talking about the 64 bit ver. of Winxp over norm WinXP ?

[IronBits]

64 bit version of Windows XP - over rated, not all drivers are available.
I have it running on one now, usually the performance is the same or slightly slower... depending on how many drinks one may have had

[Jeff]

Just the 64 bit version of WinXP. Yeah, drivers are horrible and imho hardware companies should be shot for not supporting it. I mean, how hard is it to support your products in a 64 bit environment when that is the future? Ah... at any rate, I am actually seeing a bit more under WinXP-64...
http://www.seventeenorbust.com/stats...ml?userID=5349

Like I said, I'll take it!

[Tallbill]

64 bit version of Windows XP - over rated, not all drivers are available.
I have it running on one now, usually the performance is the same or slightly slower... depending on how many drinks one may have had

Yup, I had a horrible experience with xp64 drivers. Nothing ever worked.

[Amaroque]

I don't use Vista or XP 64. Had bad experiences with both. Just XP Pro 32bit for me.

[Brucifer]

I don't use Vista or XP 64. Had bad experiences with both. Just XP Pro 32bit for me.

Have to agree. I am really sorry I spent the money for the XP-64 copies I have as they are basically a wasted O/S except for a few niche places. But for general use, it's useless compared to XP Pro 32bit. The only 64-bit O/S for me is linux.

[gopher_yarrowzoo]

Hmm it's a 64-bit patch of a 32-bit OS build on a 16-bit OS which was a patch on an 8-bit os that was meant to be 4-bit all supplied by a 2-bit OS company that doesn't care 1 bit about it's actual customers "they will buy this crap no matter what!"