Subject:windows xp...64 bit vs. 32 bit

Posted by: astral_supreme

Date:10/16/2002 3:31:17 AM

Hello all, any body know anything about the 64 bit version of windows xp?

For making music and movies in vegas and acid is 64 bit the way to go?

They mention in this clip below from there web page that you can have 96 gb of ddr sdram:


"$Combine this with the scalability allowed by being 64-bits, and the largest data sets can be held in memory, for high speed access. Our workstations and servers offer between 4GB to 48GB of DDR SDRAM today (double these amounts when 2GB DIMMs become available)".

They also claim: excellent memory bandwidth and low-latency system architecture

The 64-bit parallelism of the processor is best enabled by the HP zx1, which is designed to offer a balanced low-latency and high bandwidth environment to ensure that the processor has a steady broad flow of fast data. The chipset ensures that our Itanium 2-based systems can sustain the fastest parallel throughput.

From what it sounds like I would have to upgrade to a new computer to get the 64 bit operating system on it...but the new computer would be designed to fully take advantage of 64 bit, and they do mention dual processors is available.

Does vegas and acid work better in 64 bit...or does it only work faster?

Is it realy worth getting?.......thanks.

Subject:RE: windows xp...64 bit vs. 32 bit

Reply by: groovewerx

Date:10/16/2002 6:32:07 AM

so you want to spend $10k in parts to run a $300+ program?

and they thought i was crazy...

fyi: (for now) xp64 requires at least 1 intel itanium cpu ($5k). itanium requires intel itanium sever motherboard ($3k). add the required gig of memory and you've spent $10k.

Subject:RE: windows xp...64 bit vs. 32 bit

Reply by: Jacose

Date:10/16/2002 1:17:21 PM

fyi: (for now) xp64 requires at least 1 intel itanium cpu ($5k). itanium requires intel itanium sever motherboard ($3k). add the required gig of memory and you've spent $10k.
fyi: (for now) xp64 requires at least 1 intel itanium cpu ($5k). itanium requires intel itanium sever motherboard ($3k). add the required gig of memory and you've spent $10k.


lol

Subject:RE: windows xp...64 bit vs. 32 bit

Reply by: vanblah

Date:10/16/2002 2:20:29 PM

The question though is:

would programs like these take advantage of 64bit?

My guess is that they would not benefit much ... the OS may take advantage of it, and perhaps things like rendering would be faster ...

Maybe this guy is a lonely millionaire with nothing but money to spend on things like this ... or maybe he has access to software and hardware that others don't have, such as through school. For instance, I am going to try setting up an audio workstation in a SAN environment and see what kind of performance I can get. Probably not much better than a regular high-end desktop, but you never know ...

Subject:RE: windows xp...64 bit vs. 32 bit

Reply by: pwppch

Date:10/16/2002 3:07:54 PM

No. You have to bascially rebuild with a 64 bit compilier to take advantage of the 64 bit CPU.

We are aware of 64 bit Windows and are looking at the issues of being ready when the time comes.

Peter

Subject:RE: windows xp...64 bit vs. 32 bit

Reply by: Neil_Palfreyman

Date:10/16/2002 4:17:47 PM

...forget it! (for a few years at least) Its all marketing "hype" aimed at getting large corporates to back 64 bit WIntel technology that offers absolutely no benefit to home users, and preciouse little (to date) to anyone else.

Subject:RE: windows xp...64 bit vs. 32 bit

Reply by: astral_supreme

Date:10/17/2002 3:02:07 AM

Thanks for all the advice guys.

Subject:RE: windows xp...64 bit vs. 32 bit

Reply by: groovewerx

Date:10/17/2002 5:54:21 AM

and to answer the original q:

i think 64 would be better as in more stable than 32. simply because 64 would manage system resources more effeciently.

i'm sure once the prices drop i'll upgrade to 64.