Re: Seeking answers about 64-bit Windows XP vs 64-bit Vista.

Your assumption is incorrect. All editions of Windows XP, including MCE,
can leverage a multicore processor. XP Home and XP MCE can only use one
physical cpu (socket) but that cpu can have multiple cores (logical
processors). The same is true of Vista Home Basic and Premium.

The bitness of the OS does not matter. x86 and x64 are the same.

XP Pro SP2 and XP Pro x64 can support two sockets and those cpu's can be
multicore. The same is true of Vista Business, Enterprise, and Ultimate.

"RMZ" <> wrote in message
news: oups.com...
>I recently purchased a AMD 64 Turion x2 based notebook PC with Windows
> XP Media Center Edition installed. My assumption is since Windows XP
> MCE is not 64-bit that I'm not able to tap into the power of the
> processors. I'm looking at Windows XP 64-bit edition and I don't want
> to install it because I'm hearing conflicting information about
> performance of 32-bit apps on 64-bit Windows, and at this point there
> are only a handful of 64-bit apps.
>
> I'm wondering if Windows Vista will support 64-bit processors on all
> versions and if Windows Vista will have better support for 32-bit
> Windows applications. Is it too early to ask these questions?
>

Each core is a LOGICAL processor as viewed from the OS. Think sockets, not
processors. The Home editions support one socket regardless of what cpu is
in it. If it is a multicore cpu the Home editions can use all the cores.
If you had a quad-core cpu you would have one physical processor and four
logical processors. If you had a quad-core that supported hyperthreading
you would have one physical cpu with eight logical processors when viewed
from Task Manager. There is no difference between XP and Vista in this
respect and it has nothing to do with bitness.

The Business editions support two sockets, so in the above examples you
would have as many as 16 logical processors with the two physical
processors.

The number of cores and bitness of the cpu do not affect how much memory you
can address. That is OS specific.

"RMZ" <> wrote in message
news: ps.com...
> I'm not sure I follow.... My understanding is the AMD 64 Turion x2 is
> dual core, but each core has a 64-bit processor. If I understand
> correctly you're saying that 64-bit Windows XP Pro can take advantage
> the 64-bit CPUs 64-bit registers, but it doesn't utilize the second
> core in dual core CPUs... and that Windows 32-bit (Pro, MCE, etc..) can
> take advantage of dual core processors, but does not take advantage of
> all things 64-bit has to offer (terrabytes of virtual paging, 64-bit
> registers, etc...).
>
> Why can't we have both? Unless I'm misunderstanding AMD's dual core 64
> technology, it seems like Microsoft doesn't have an OS capable of
> truely utilizing all the power of the latest AMD 64 dual core chips, is
> that true? How will Vista be different? Depending on the type of
> application you're creating, code that's written to target a 64-bit
> processor can have significant advantages performance wise over a
> 32-bit. Especially when you need to access indexed access to Gigabytes
> of data in memory, dual core technology offers benefits in other areas.
> What's the point of a dual core 64-bit chip if you can't utilize both.
>
>
>
>>Colin Barnhorst wrote:
>> Your assumption is incorrect. All editions of Windows XP, including MCE,
>> can leverage a multicore processor. XP Home and XP MCE can only use one
>> physical cpu (socket) but that cpu can have multiple cores (logical
>> processors). The same is true of Vista Home Basic and Premium.
>>
>> The bitness of the OS does not matter. x86 and x64 are the same.
>>
>> XP Pro SP2 and XP Pro x64 can support two sockets and those cpu's can be
>> multicore. The same is true of Vista Business, Enterprise, and Ultimate.
>>
>> "RMZ" <> wrote in message
>> news: oups.com...
>> >I recently purchased a AMD 64 Turion x2 based notebook PC with Windows
>> > XP Media Center Edition installed. My assumption is since Windows XP
>> > MCE is not 64-bit that I'm not able to tap into the power of the
>> > processors. I'm looking at Windows XP 64-bit edition and I don't want
>> > to install it because I'm hearing conflicting information about
>> > performance of 32-bit apps on 64-bit Windows, and at this point there
>> > are only a handful of 64-bit apps.
>> >
>> > I'm wondering if Windows Vista will support 64-bit processors on all
>> > versions and if Windows Vista will have better support for 32-bit
>> > Windows applications. Is it too early to ask these questions?
>> >
>

Just so you know, you cannot upgrade from 32-bit Windows XP to 64-bit Vista.
Cross-platform upgrades are not possible.

If you buy Vista, you can get the 64-bit version, but you'll have to do a
clean install of Windows.

It is presently not clear if you will be able to use an "upgrade" version to
install Vista 64. Previously, you could use upgrade media, boot from it and
do a clean install, and during the install it would ask you for your old
media to verify that you qualified for the upgrade. In Vista, you have to
start the upgrade from within the running OS so you won't be able to run the
64-bit installer. (Someone please correct me if we've heard more about
this.)

- Aaron

"RMZ" <> wrote in message
news: oups.com...
>I feel like we're going in circles and that's mostly my fault.
>
> According to many sources (Charles Russel's Windows XP 64 white paper,
> Wikipedia's article on 64-bit and the AMD website to name a few), the
> "bitness" of an OS has a lot to do with how much memory you can access.
>
>>From Charle's whitepaper: 64-bit (x64) can support up to 128 GB of
> physical memory and 16 Terra bytes (single process) of virtual memory,
> while 32-bit can support only 4 GB of physical memory and 4 GB (per
> process) of virtual memory. So let's talk specifically about the memory
> addressing aspect of 64-bit in Vista.
>
> If I go buy Windows XP Pro off the shelve, the 64-bit support isn't
> there I have to request the 64-bit Pro.
>
> Upon release, if I go and buy Windows Vista and upgrade from Windows
> XP MCE will my OS be able to run 64-bit applications that take
> advantage of > 4 GB virtual memory, 64-bit registers, etc...
>
>
>
>
>
> Colin Barnhorst wrote:
>> Each core is a LOGICAL processor as viewed from the OS. Think sockets,
>> not
>> processors. The Home editions support one socket regardless of what cpu
>> is
>> in it. If it is a multicore cpu the Home editions can use all the cores.
>> If you had a quad-core cpu you would have one physical processor and four
>> logical processors. If you had a quad-core that supported hyperthreading
>> you would have one physical cpu with eight logical processors when viewed
>> from Task Manager. There is no difference between XP and Vista in this
>> respect and it has nothing to do with bitness.
>>
>> The Business editions support two sockets, so in the above examples you
>> would have as many as 16 logical processors with the two physical
>> processors.
>>
>> The number of cores and bitness of the cpu do not affect how much memory
>> you
>> can address. That is OS specific.
>>
>> "RMZ" <> wrote in message
>> news: ps.com...
>> > I'm not sure I follow.... My understanding is the AMD 64 Turion x2 is
>> > dual core, but each core has a 64-bit processor. If I understand
>> > correctly you're saying that 64-bit Windows XP Pro can take advantage
>> > the 64-bit CPUs 64-bit registers, but it doesn't utilize the second
>> > core in dual core CPUs... and that Windows 32-bit (Pro, MCE, etc..) can
>> > take advantage of dual core processors, but does not take advantage of
>> > all things 64-bit has to offer (terrabytes of virtual paging, 64-bit
>> > registers, etc...).
>> >
>> > Why can't we have both? Unless I'm misunderstanding AMD's dual core 64
>> > technology, it seems like Microsoft doesn't have an OS capable of
>> > truely utilizing all the power of the latest AMD 64 dual core chips, is
>> > that true? How will Vista be different? Depending on the type of
>> > application you're creating, code that's written to target a 64-bit
>> > processor can have significant advantages performance wise over a
>> > 32-bit. Especially when you need to access indexed access to Gigabytes
>> > of data in memory, dual core technology offers benefits in other areas.
>> > What's the point of a dual core 64-bit chip if you can't utilize both.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>Colin Barnhorst wrote:
>> >> Your assumption is incorrect. All editions of Windows XP, including
>> >> MCE,
>> >> can leverage a multicore processor. XP Home and XP MCE can only use
>> >> one
>> >> physical cpu (socket) but that cpu can have multiple cores (logical
>> >> processors). The same is true of Vista Home Basic and Premium.
>> >>
>> >> The bitness of the OS does not matter. x86 and x64 are the same.
>> >>
>> >> XP Pro SP2 and XP Pro x64 can support two sockets and those cpu's can
>> >> be
>> >> multicore. The same is true of Vista Business, Enterprise, and
>> >> Ultimate.
>> >>
>> >> "RMZ" <> wrote in message
>> >> news: oups.com...
>> >> >I recently purchased a AMD 64 Turion x2 based notebook PC with
>> >> >Windows
>> >> > XP Media Center Edition installed. My assumption is since Windows XP
>> >> > MCE is not 64-bit that I'm not able to tap into the power of the
>> >> > processors. I'm looking at Windows XP 64-bit edition and I don't
>> >> > want
>> >> > to install it because I'm hearing conflicting information about
>> >> > performance of 32-bit apps on 64-bit Windows, and at this point
>> >> > there
>> >> > are only a handful of 64-bit apps.
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm wondering if Windows Vista will support 64-bit processors on all
>> >> > versions and if Windows Vista will have better support for 32-bit
>> >> > Windows applications. Is it too early to ask these questions?
>> >> >
>> >
>

Aaron:
My understanding is that with Vista 32-bit upgrade the installer
will only start from within the running operating system. Vista x64 upgrade
boots from the DVD then verifies that an activated copy of Windows 2000, XP
or XP x64 are present for the installation to start.

--
Dennis Pack
XP x64, Vista Enterprise x64
Office2007
"Aaron Kelley" <> wrote in message
news:%...
> Just so you know, you cannot upgrade from 32-bit Windows XP to 64-bit
> Vista. Cross-platform upgrades are not possible.
>
> If you buy Vista, you can get the 64-bit version, but you'll have to do a
> clean install of Windows.
>
> It is presently not clear if you will be able to use an "upgrade" version
> to install Vista 64. Previously, you could use upgrade media, boot from
> it and do a clean install, and during the install it would ask you for
> your old media to verify that you qualified for the upgrade. In Vista,
> you have to start the upgrade from within the running OS so you won't be
> able to run the 64-bit installer. (Someone please correct me if we've
> heard more about this.)
>
> - Aaron
>
> "RMZ" <> wrote in message
> news: oups.com...
>>I feel like we're going in circles and that's mostly my fault.
>>
>> According to many sources (Charles Russel's Windows XP 64 white paper,
>> Wikipedia's article on 64-bit and the AMD website to name a few), the
>> "bitness" of an OS has a lot to do with how much memory you can access.
>>
>>>From Charle's whitepaper: 64-bit (x64) can support up to 128 GB of
>> physical memory and 16 Terra bytes (single process) of virtual memory,
>> while 32-bit can support only 4 GB of physical memory and 4 GB (per
>> process) of virtual memory. So let's talk specifically about the memory
>> addressing aspect of 64-bit in Vista.
>>
>> If I go buy Windows XP Pro off the shelve, the 64-bit support isn't
>> there I have to request the 64-bit Pro.
>>
>> Upon release, if I go and buy Windows Vista and upgrade from Windows
>> XP MCE will my OS be able to run 64-bit applications that take
>> advantage of > 4 GB virtual memory, 64-bit registers, etc...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Colin Barnhorst wrote:
>>> Each core is a LOGICAL processor as viewed from the OS. Think sockets,
>>> not
>>> processors. The Home editions support one socket regardless of what cpu
>>> is
>>> in it. If it is a multicore cpu the Home editions can use all the
>>> cores.
>>> If you had a quad-core cpu you would have one physical processor and
>>> four
>>> logical processors. If you had a quad-core that supported
>>> hyperthreading
>>> you would have one physical cpu with eight logical processors when
>>> viewed
>>> from Task Manager. There is no difference between XP and Vista in this
>>> respect and it has nothing to do with bitness.
>>>
>>> The Business editions support two sockets, so in the above examples you
>>> would have as many as 16 logical processors with the two physical
>>> processors.
>>>
>>> The number of cores and bitness of the cpu do not affect how much memory
>>> you
>>> can address. That is OS specific.
>>>
>>> "RMZ" <> wrote in message
>>> news: ps.com...
>>> > I'm not sure I follow.... My understanding is the AMD 64 Turion x2 is
>>> > dual core, but each core has a 64-bit processor. If I understand
>>> > correctly you're saying that 64-bit Windows XP Pro can take advantage
>>> > the 64-bit CPUs 64-bit registers, but it doesn't utilize the second
>>> > core in dual core CPUs... and that Windows 32-bit (Pro, MCE, etc..)
>>> > can
>>> > take advantage of dual core processors, but does not take advantage of
>>> > all things 64-bit has to offer (terrabytes of virtual paging, 64-bit
>>> > registers, etc...).
>>> >
>>> > Why can't we have both? Unless I'm misunderstanding AMD's dual core 64
>>> > technology, it seems like Microsoft doesn't have an OS capable of
>>> > truely utilizing all the power of the latest AMD 64 dual core chips,
>>> > is
>>> > that true? How will Vista be different? Depending on the type of
>>> > application you're creating, code that's written to target a 64-bit
>>> > processor can have significant advantages performance wise over a
>>> > 32-bit. Especially when you need to access indexed access to Gigabytes
>>> > of data in memory, dual core technology offers benefits in other
>>> > areas.
>>> > What's the point of a dual core 64-bit chip if you can't utilize both.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >>Colin Barnhorst wrote:
>>> >> Your assumption is incorrect. All editions of Windows XP, including
>>> >> MCE,
>>> >> can leverage a multicore processor. XP Home and XP MCE can only use
>>> >> one
>>> >> physical cpu (socket) but that cpu can have multiple cores (logical
>>> >> processors). The same is true of Vista Home Basic and Premium.
>>> >>
>>> >> The bitness of the OS does not matter. x86 and x64 are the same.
>>> >>
>>> >> XP Pro SP2 and XP Pro x64 can support two sockets and those cpu's can
>>> >> be
>>> >> multicore. The same is true of Vista Business, Enterprise, and
>>> >> Ultimate.
>>> >>
>>> >> "RMZ" <> wrote in message
>>> >> news: oups.com...
>>> >> >I recently purchased a AMD 64 Turion x2 based notebook PC with
>>> >> >Windows
>>> >> > XP Media Center Edition installed. My assumption is since Windows
>>> >> > XP
>>> >> > MCE is not 64-bit that I'm not able to tap into the power of the
>>> >> > processors. I'm looking at Windows XP 64-bit edition and I don't
>>> >> > want
>>> >> > to install it because I'm hearing conflicting information about
>>> >> > performance of 32-bit apps on 64-bit Windows, and at this point
>>> >> > there
>>> >> > are only a handful of 64-bit apps.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > I'm wondering if Windows Vista will support 64-bit processors on
>>> >> > all
>>> >> > versions and if Windows Vista will have better support for 32-bit
>>> >> > Windows applications. Is it too early to ask these questions?
>>> >> >
>>> >
>>
>

It has been clarified. You CAN use an upgrade edition product key to
migrate from x86 Windows to x64 Vista after all. However, Setup does NOT
ask for your old Windows media. There are no shiny media checks at all with
Vista upgrade editions.

What happens is that when you boot with an x64 dvd and enter an upgrade
edition product key Setup scans your computer for a qualifying Windows
installation and if it finds one then Setup continues WITHOUT requiring you
to reboot and run from a desktop the way x86 Setup does. Some of us got
Darrel Gorter at MS to do an installation of x64 with an upgrade edition
product key to check out exactly what does happen.

"Aaron Kelley" <> wrote in message
news:%...
> Just so you know, you cannot upgrade from 32-bit Windows XP to 64-bit
> Vista. Cross-platform upgrades are not possible.
>
> If you buy Vista, you can get the 64-bit version, but you'll have to do a
> clean install of Windows.
>
> It is presently not clear if you will be able to use an "upgrade" version
> to install Vista 64. Previously, you could use upgrade media, boot from
> it and do a clean install, and during the install it would ask you for
> your old media to verify that you qualified for the upgrade. In Vista,
> you have to start the upgrade from within the running OS so you won't be
> able to run the 64-bit installer. (Someone please correct me if we've
> heard more about this.)
>
> - Aaron
>
> "RMZ" <> wrote in message
> news: oups.com...
>>I feel like we're going in circles and that's mostly my fault.
>>
>> According to many sources (Charles Russel's Windows XP 64 white paper,
>> Wikipedia's article on 64-bit and the AMD website to name a few), the
>> "bitness" of an OS has a lot to do with how much memory you can access.
>>
>>>From Charle's whitepaper: 64-bit (x64) can support up to 128 GB of
>> physical memory and 16 Terra bytes (single process) of virtual memory,
>> while 32-bit can support only 4 GB of physical memory and 4 GB (per
>> process) of virtual memory. So let's talk specifically about the memory
>> addressing aspect of 64-bit in Vista.
>>
>> If I go buy Windows XP Pro off the shelve, the 64-bit support isn't
>> there I have to request the 64-bit Pro.
>>
>> Upon release, if I go and buy Windows Vista and upgrade from Windows
>> XP MCE will my OS be able to run 64-bit applications that take
>> advantage of > 4 GB virtual memory, 64-bit registers, etc...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Colin Barnhorst wrote:
>>> Each core is a LOGICAL processor as viewed from the OS. Think sockets,
>>> not
>>> processors. The Home editions support one socket regardless of what cpu
>>> is
>>> in it. If it is a multicore cpu the Home editions can use all the
>>> cores.
>>> If you had a quad-core cpu you would have one physical processor and
>>> four
>>> logical processors. If you had a quad-core that supported
>>> hyperthreading
>>> you would have one physical cpu with eight logical processors when
>>> viewed
>>> from Task Manager. There is no difference between XP and Vista in this
>>> respect and it has nothing to do with bitness.
>>>
>>> The Business editions support two sockets, so in the above examples you
>>> would have as many as 16 logical processors with the two physical
>>> processors.
>>>
>>> The number of cores and bitness of the cpu do not affect how much memory
>>> you
>>> can address. That is OS specific.
>>>
>>> "RMZ" <> wrote in message
>>> news: ps.com...
>>> > I'm not sure I follow.... My understanding is the AMD 64 Turion x2 is
>>> > dual core, but each core has a 64-bit processor. If I understand
>>> > correctly you're saying that 64-bit Windows XP Pro can take advantage
>>> > the 64-bit CPUs 64-bit registers, but it doesn't utilize the second
>>> > core in dual core CPUs... and that Windows 32-bit (Pro, MCE, etc..)
>>> > can
>>> > take advantage of dual core processors, but does not take advantage of
>>> > all things 64-bit has to offer (terrabytes of virtual paging, 64-bit
>>> > registers, etc...).
>>> >
>>> > Why can't we have both? Unless I'm misunderstanding AMD's dual core 64
>>> > technology, it seems like Microsoft doesn't have an OS capable of
>>> > truely utilizing all the power of the latest AMD 64 dual core chips,
>>> > is
>>> > that true? How will Vista be different? Depending on the type of
>>> > application you're creating, code that's written to target a 64-bit
>>> > processor can have significant advantages performance wise over a
>>> > 32-bit. Especially when you need to access indexed access to Gigabytes
>>> > of data in memory, dual core technology offers benefits in other
>>> > areas.
>>> > What's the point of a dual core 64-bit chip if you can't utilize both.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >>Colin Barnhorst wrote:
>>> >> Your assumption is incorrect. All editions of Windows XP, including
>>> >> MCE,
>>> >> can leverage a multicore processor. XP Home and XP MCE can only use
>>> >> one
>>> >> physical cpu (socket) but that cpu can have multiple cores (logical
>>> >> processors). The same is true of Vista Home Basic and Premium.
>>> >>
>>> >> The bitness of the OS does not matter. x86 and x64 are the same.
>>> >>
>>> >> XP Pro SP2 and XP Pro x64 can support two sockets and those cpu's can
>>> >> be
>>> >> multicore. The same is true of Vista Business, Enterprise, and
>>> >> Ultimate.
>>> >>
>>> >> "RMZ" <> wrote in message
>>> >> news: oups.com...
>>> >> >I recently purchased a AMD 64 Turion x2 based notebook PC with
>>> >> >Windows
>>> >> > XP Media Center Edition installed. My assumption is since Windows
>>> >> > XP
>>> >> > MCE is not 64-bit that I'm not able to tap into the power of the
>>> >> > processors. I'm looking at Windows XP 64-bit edition and I don't
>>> >> > want
>>> >> > to install it because I'm hearing conflicting information about
>>> >> > performance of 32-bit apps on 64-bit Windows, and at this point
>>> >> > there
>>> >> > are only a handful of 64-bit apps.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > I'm wondering if Windows Vista will support 64-bit processors on
>>> >> > all
>>> >> > versions and if Windows Vista will have better support for 32-bit
>>> >> > Windows applications. Is it too early to ask these questions?
>>> >> >
>>> >
>>
>

Ah thank you!

- Aaron

"Colin Barnhorst" <> wrote in message
news:6831F794-0956-4D1B-973F-...
> It has been clarified. You CAN use an upgrade edition product key to
> migrate from x86 Windows to x64 Vista after all. However, Setup does NOT
> ask for your old Windows media. There are no shiny media checks at all
> with Vista upgrade editions.
>
> What happens is that when you boot with an x64 dvd and enter an upgrade
> edition product key Setup scans your computer for a qualifying Windows
> installation and if it finds one then Setup continues WITHOUT requiring
> you to reboot and run from a desktop the way x86 Setup does. Some of us
> got Darrel Gorter at MS to do an installation of x64 with an upgrade
> edition product key to check out exactly what does happen.
>
> "Aaron Kelley" <> wrote in message
> news:%...
>> Just so you know, you cannot upgrade from 32-bit Windows XP to 64-bit
>> Vista. Cross-platform upgrades are not possible.
>>
>> If you buy Vista, you can get the 64-bit version, but you'll have to do a
>> clean install of Windows.
>>
>> It is presently not clear if you will be able to use an "upgrade" version
>> to install Vista 64. Previously, you could use upgrade media, boot from
>> it and do a clean install, and during the install it would ask you for
>> your old media to verify that you qualified for the upgrade. In Vista,
>> you have to start the upgrade from within the running OS so you won't be
>> able to run the 64-bit installer. (Someone please correct me if we've
>> heard more about this.)
>>
>> - Aaron
>>
>> "RMZ" <> wrote in message
>> news: oups.com...
>>>I feel like we're going in circles and that's mostly my fault.
>>>
>>> According to many sources (Charles Russel's Windows XP 64 white paper,
>>> Wikipedia's article on 64-bit and the AMD website to name a few), the
>>> "bitness" of an OS has a lot to do with how much memory you can access.
>>>
>>>>From Charle's whitepaper: 64-bit (x64) can support up to 128 GB of
>>> physical memory and 16 Terra bytes (single process) of virtual memory,
>>> while 32-bit can support only 4 GB of physical memory and 4 GB (per
>>> process) of virtual memory. So let's talk specifically about the memory
>>> addressing aspect of 64-bit in Vista.
>>>
>>> If I go buy Windows XP Pro off the shelve, the 64-bit support isn't
>>> there I have to request the 64-bit Pro.
>>>
>>> Upon release, if I go and buy Windows Vista and upgrade from Windows
>>> XP MCE will my OS be able to run 64-bit applications that take
>>> advantage of > 4 GB virtual memory, 64-bit registers, etc...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Colin Barnhorst wrote:
>>>> Each core is a LOGICAL processor as viewed from the OS. Think sockets,
>>>> not
>>>> processors. The Home editions support one socket regardless of what
>>>> cpu is
>>>> in it. If it is a multicore cpu the Home editions can use all the
>>>> cores.
>>>> If you had a quad-core cpu you would have one physical processor and
>>>> four
>>>> logical processors. If you had a quad-core that supported
>>>> hyperthreading
>>>> you would have one physical cpu with eight logical processors when
>>>> viewed
>>>> from Task Manager. There is no difference between XP and Vista in this
>>>> respect and it has nothing to do with bitness.
>>>>
>>>> The Business editions support two sockets, so in the above examples you
>>>> would have as many as 16 logical processors with the two physical
>>>> processors.
>>>>
>>>> The number of cores and bitness of the cpu do not affect how much
>>>> memory you
>>>> can address. That is OS specific.
>>>>
>>>> "RMZ" <> wrote in message
>>>> news: ps.com...
>>>> > I'm not sure I follow.... My understanding is the AMD 64 Turion x2 is
>>>> > dual core, but each core has a 64-bit processor. If I understand
>>>> > correctly you're saying that 64-bit Windows XP Pro can take advantage
>>>> > the 64-bit CPUs 64-bit registers, but it doesn't utilize the second
>>>> > core in dual core CPUs... and that Windows 32-bit (Pro, MCE, etc..)
>>>> > can
>>>> > take advantage of dual core processors, but does not take advantage
>>>> > of
>>>> > all things 64-bit has to offer (terrabytes of virtual paging, 64-bit
>>>> > registers, etc...).
>>>> >
>>>> > Why can't we have both? Unless I'm misunderstanding AMD's dual core
>>>> > 64
>>>> > technology, it seems like Microsoft doesn't have an OS capable of
>>>> > truely utilizing all the power of the latest AMD 64 dual core chips,
>>>> > is
>>>> > that true? How will Vista be different? Depending on the type of
>>>> > application you're creating, code that's written to target a 64-bit
>>>> > processor can have significant advantages performance wise over a
>>>> > 32-bit. Especially when you need to access indexed access to
>>>> > Gigabytes
>>>> > of data in memory, dual core technology offers benefits in other
>>>> > areas.
>>>> > What's the point of a dual core 64-bit chip if you can't utilize
>>>> > both.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >>Colin Barnhorst wrote:
>>>> >> Your assumption is incorrect. All editions of Windows XP, including
>>>> >> MCE,
>>>> >> can leverage a multicore processor. XP Home and XP MCE can only use
>>>> >> one
>>>> >> physical cpu (socket) but that cpu can have multiple cores (logical
>>>> >> processors). The same is true of Vista Home Basic and Premium.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> The bitness of the OS does not matter. x86 and x64 are the same.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> XP Pro SP2 and XP Pro x64 can support two sockets and those cpu's
>>>> >> can be
>>>> >> multicore. The same is true of Vista Business, Enterprise, and
>>>> >> Ultimate.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> "RMZ" <> wrote in message
>>>> >> news: oups.com...
>>>> >> >I recently purchased a AMD 64 Turion x2 based notebook PC with
>>>> >> >Windows
>>>> >> > XP Media Center Edition installed. My assumption is since Windows
>>>> >> > XP
>>>> >> > MCE is not 64-bit that I'm not able to tap into the power of the
>>>> >> > processors. I'm looking at Windows XP 64-bit edition and I don't
>>>> >> > want
>>>> >> > to install it because I'm hearing conflicting information about
>>>> >> > performance of 32-bit apps on 64-bit Windows, and at this point
>>>> >> > there
>>>> >> > are only a handful of 64-bit apps.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > I'm wondering if Windows Vista will support 64-bit processors on
>>>> >> > all
>>>> >> > versions and if Windows Vista will have better support for 32-bit
>>>> >> > Windows applications. Is it too early to ask these questions?
>>>> >> >
>>>> >
>>>
>>
>

In article <. com>,
RMZ <> wrote:
>I seriously hope this isn't the case.... Consumers running 64-bit
>hardware are crippled from upgrading to 64-bit Windows Vista because
>their system didn't ship with a 64-bit version of Windows. If Microsoft
>really cared about pushing 64-bit technology forward (and they should
>care, it gives them a strategic advantage.... last time I checked all
>the current MacBook Pro's are running Intel Core 2 Duo chips).
>
>Don't mention the memory, I realize a good number of notebooks are
>limited to 2-Gig of psychical memory, but 64-bit virtual address space
>advantage and use of 64-bit registers can make a difference... It
>appears the jump from 32-bit to 64 is down played out side the server
>world. The attitude (not necessarily from this group, although in some
>of these post there is a hint of it) seems to be "you just don't need
>that much power". That seems really narrow minded to me.
>
>

Re 64 bit servers, it depends. Application servers need it. big
datbases need memory. If you can make your data fit into vitrual
memory array and let the pageing handle the messy disk IO details you
can cut out an entire IO and buffer management part of the
application. There is even a special class of "in memory" DB servers
that are even faster.

Exchange Server has apparently been hurting for memory for a few
years. I've read a whitepaper by the guys that run Microsoft's own
Exchange server farm. Under 32bit Server they had stability and
scaling problems. They switched to 64bit windows while still in
beta. The article said it made a huge difference. FWIW.



--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Harrison for Congress in NY 13CD www.harrison06.com
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001

RMZ:
I'll try to clear-up some confusion. When you buy an Apple MacBook
you are getting all hardware and software from Apple. Just because it now
has a 64-bit processor doesn't mean that it's automatically a 64-bit
operating system. When you purchase Vista, it installs on the hardware that
you choose. If you choose a 32-bit processor you are limited to a 32-bit
version of Vista. If the processor is 64-bit you have the choice of
installing Vista 32-bit or 64-bit. The statement "Consumers running 64-bit
hardware are crippled from upgrading to 64-bit Windows Vista because their
system didn't ship with a 64-bit version of Windows." is invalid because you
can install the full version of Vista x64 or the upgrade version of Vista
x64 (except the starter edition) as long as you have a 64-bit processor. The
amount of ram being used is based on user desire, user requirements or
mother board limitations. I currently have 4 x64 capable systems and 1 x86
system. The x86 system has a mother board limitation of 3GB (running 1GB),
the x64 laptop has a mother board limitation of 2GB (running 1.5GB), 2 x64
systems with a motherboard limitation of 4GB (running 2GB) and 1 x64 system
with a motherboard limitation of 8GB (running 2GB), all run Vista without
problems. Just because a 64-bit operating system can run up to 128GB ram
doesn't mean that it won't function properly with less. Have a great day.

--
Dennis Pack
XP x64, Vista Enterprise x64
Office2007
"RMZ" <> wrote in message
news: ups.com...
>I seriously hope this isn't the case.... Consumers running 64-bit
> hardware are crippled from upgrading to 64-bit Windows Vista because
> their system didn't ship with a 64-bit version of Windows. If Microsoft
> really cared about pushing 64-bit technology forward (and they should
> care, it gives them a strategic advantage.... last time I checked all
> the current MacBook Pro's are running Intel Core 2 Duo chips).
>
> Don't mention the memory, I realize a good number of notebooks are
> limited to 2-Gig of psychical memory, but 64-bit virtual address space
> advantage and use of 64-bit registers can make a difference... It
> appears the jump from 32-bit to 64 is down played out side the server
> world. The attitude (not necessarily from this group, although in some
> of these post there is a hint of it) seems to be "you just don't need
> that much power". That seems really narrow minded to me.
>
>
>
> Dennis Pack wrote:
>> Aaron:
>> My understanding is that with Vista 32-bit upgrade the installer
>> will only start from within the running operating system. Vista x64
>> upgrade
>> boots from the DVD then verifies that an activated copy of Windows 2000,
>> XP
>> or XP x64 are present for the installation to start.
>>
>> --
>> Dennis Pack
>> XP x64, Vista Enterprise x64
>> Office2007
>> "Aaron Kelley" <> wrote in message
>> news:%...
>> > Just so you know, you cannot upgrade from 32-bit Windows XP to 64-bit
>> > Vista. Cross-platform upgrades are not possible.
>> >
>> > If you buy Vista, you can get the 64-bit version, but you'll have to do
>> > a
>> > clean install of Windows.
>> >
>> > It is presently not clear if you will be able to use an "upgrade"
>> > version
>> > to install Vista 64. Previously, you could use upgrade media, boot
>> > from
>> > it and do a clean install, and during the install it would ask you for
>> > your old media to verify that you qualified for the upgrade. In Vista,
>> > you have to start the upgrade from within the running OS so you won't
>> > be
>> > able to run the 64-bit installer. (Someone please correct me if we've
>> > heard more about this.)
>> >
>> > - Aaron
>> >
>> > "RMZ" <> wrote in message
>> > news: oups.com...
>> >>I feel like we're going in circles and that's mostly my fault.
>> >>
>> >> According to many sources (Charles Russel's Windows XP 64 white paper,
>> >> Wikipedia's article on 64-bit and the AMD website to name a few), the
>> >> "bitness" of an OS has a lot to do with how much memory you can
>> >> access.
>> >>
>> >>>From Charle's whitepaper: 64-bit (x64) can support up to 128 GB of
>> >> physical memory and 16 Terra bytes (single process) of virtual memory,
>> >> while 32-bit can support only 4 GB of physical memory and 4 GB (per
>> >> process) of virtual memory. So let's talk specifically about the
>> >> memory
>> >> addressing aspect of 64-bit in Vista.
>> >>
>> >> If I go buy Windows XP Pro off the shelve, the 64-bit support isn't
>> >> there I have to request the 64-bit Pro.
>> >>
>> >> Upon release, if I go and buy Windows Vista and upgrade from Windows
>> >> XP MCE will my OS be able to run 64-bit applications that take
>> >> advantage of > 4 GB virtual memory, 64-bit registers, etc...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Colin Barnhorst wrote:
>> >>> Each core is a LOGICAL processor as viewed from the OS. Think
>> >>> sockets,
>> >>> not
>> >>> processors. The Home editions support one socket regardless of what
>> >>> cpu
>> >>> is
>> >>> in it. If it is a multicore cpu the Home editions can use all the
>> >>> cores.
>> >>> If you had a quad-core cpu you would have one physical processor and
>> >>> four
>> >>> logical processors. If you had a quad-core that supported
>> >>> hyperthreading
>> >>> you would have one physical cpu with eight logical processors when
>> >>> viewed
>> >>> from Task Manager. There is no difference between XP and Vista in
>> >>> this
>> >>> respect and it has nothing to do with bitness.
>> >>>
>> >>> The Business editions support two sockets, so in the above examples
>> >>> you
>> >>> would have as many as 16 logical processors with the two physical
>> >>> processors.
>> >>>
>> >>> The number of cores and bitness of the cpu do not affect how much
>> >>> memory
>> >>> you
>> >>> can address. That is OS specific.
>> >>>
>> >>> "RMZ" <> wrote in message
>> >>> news: ps.com...
>> >>> > I'm not sure I follow.... My understanding is the AMD 64 Turion x2
>> >>> > is
>> >>> > dual core, but each core has a 64-bit processor. If I understand
>> >>> > correctly you're saying that 64-bit Windows XP Pro can take
>> >>> > advantage
>> >>> > the 64-bit CPUs 64-bit registers, but it doesn't utilize the second
>> >>> > core in dual core CPUs... and that Windows 32-bit (Pro, MCE, etc..)
>> >>> > can
>> >>> > take advantage of dual core processors, but does not take advantage
>> >>> > of
>> >>> > all things 64-bit has to offer (terrabytes of virtual paging,
>> >>> > 64-bit
>> >>> > registers, etc...).
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Why can't we have both? Unless I'm misunderstanding AMD's dual core
>> >>> > 64
>> >>> > technology, it seems like Microsoft doesn't have an OS capable of
>> >>> > truely utilizing all the power of the latest AMD 64 dual core
>> >>> > chips,
>> >>> > is
>> >>> > that true? How will Vista be different? Depending on the type of
>> >>> > application you're creating, code that's written to target a 64-bit
>> >>> > processor can have significant advantages performance wise over a
>> >>> > 32-bit. Especially when you need to access indexed access to
>> >>> > Gigabytes
>> >>> > of data in memory, dual core technology offers benefits in other
>> >>> > areas.
>> >>> > What's the point of a dual core 64-bit chip if you can't utilize
>> >>> > both.
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> >>Colin Barnhorst wrote:
>> >>> >> Your assumption is incorrect. All editions of Windows XP,
>> >>> >> including
>> >>> >> MCE,
>> >>> >> can leverage a multicore processor. XP Home and XP MCE can only
>> >>> >> use
>> >>> >> one
>> >>> >> physical cpu (socket) but that cpu can have multiple cores
>> >>> >> (logical
>> >>> >> processors). The same is true of Vista Home Basic and Premium.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> The bitness of the OS does not matter. x86 and x64 are the same.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> XP Pro SP2 and XP Pro x64 can support two sockets and those cpu's
>> >>> >> can
>> >>> >> be
>> >>> >> multicore. The same is true of Vista Business, Enterprise, and
>> >>> >> Ultimate.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> "RMZ" <> wrote in message
>> >>> >> news: oups.com...
>> >>> >> >I recently purchased a AMD 64 Turion x2 based notebook PC with
>> >>> >> >Windows
>> >>> >> > XP Media Center Edition installed. My assumption is since
>> >>> >> > Windows
>> >>> >> > XP
>> >>> >> > MCE is not 64-bit that I'm not able to tap into the power of the
>> >>> >> > processors. I'm looking at Windows XP 64-bit edition and I don't
>> >>> >> > want
>> >>> >> > to install it because I'm hearing conflicting information about
>> >>> >> > performance of 32-bit apps on 64-bit Windows, and at this point
>> >>> >> > there
>> >>> >> > are only a handful of 64-bit apps.
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > I'm wondering if Windows Vista will support 64-bit processors on
>> >>> >> > all
>> >>> >> > versions and if Windows Vista will have better support for
>> >>> >> > 32-bit
>> >>> >> > Windows applications. Is it too early to ask these questions?
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >
>> >>
>> >
>

So, win2k pro qualifies for updating to Vista x64??? That's interesting!


Tony. . .


"Dennis Pack" <> wrote in message
news:9A0DD6E4-BD04-4AAC-B206-...
> Aaron:
> My understanding is that with Vista 32-bit upgrade the installer
> will only start from within the running operating system. Vista x64
upgrade
> boots from the DVD then verifies that an activated copy of Windows 2000,
XP
> or XP x64 are present for the installation to start.
>
> --
> Dennis Pack
> XP x64, Vista Enterprise x64
> Office2007
> "Aaron Kelley" <> wrote in message
> news:%...
> > Just so you know, you cannot upgrade from 32-bit Windows XP to 64-bit
> > Vista. Cross-platform upgrades are not possible.
> >
> > If you buy Vista, you can get the 64-bit version, but you'll have to do
a
> > clean install of Windows.
> >
> > It is presently not clear if you will be able to use an "upgrade"
version
> > to install Vista 64. Previously, you could use upgrade media, boot from
> > it and do a clean install, and during the install it would ask you for
> > your old media to verify that you qualified for the upgrade. In Vista,
> > you have to start the upgrade from within the running OS so you won't be
> > able to run the 64-bit installer. (Someone please correct me if we've
> > heard more about this.)
> >
> > - Aaron
> >
> > "RMZ" <> wrote in message
> > news: oups.com...
> >>I feel like we're going in circles and that's mostly my fault.
> >>
> >> According to many sources (Charles Russel's Windows XP 64 white paper,
> >> Wikipedia's article on 64-bit and the AMD website to name a few), the
> >> "bitness" of an OS has a lot to do with how much memory you can access.
> >>
> >>>From Charle's whitepaper: 64-bit (x64) can support up to 128 GB of
> >> physical memory and 16 Terra bytes (single process) of virtual memory,
> >> while 32-bit can support only 4 GB of physical memory and 4 GB (per
> >> process) of virtual memory. So let's talk specifically about the memory
> >> addressing aspect of 64-bit in Vista.
> >>
> >> If I go buy Windows XP Pro off the shelve, the 64-bit support isn't
> >> there I have to request the 64-bit Pro.
> >>
> >> Upon release, if I go and buy Windows Vista and upgrade from Windows
> >> XP MCE will my OS be able to run 64-bit applications that take
> >> advantage of > 4 GB virtual memory, 64-bit registers, etc...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Colin Barnhorst wrote:
> >>> Each core is a LOGICAL processor as viewed from the OS. Think
sockets,
> >>> not
> >>> processors. The Home editions support one socket regardless of what
cpu
> >>> is
> >>> in it. If it is a multicore cpu the Home editions can use all the
> >>> cores.
> >>> If you had a quad-core cpu you would have one physical processor and
> >>> four
> >>> logical processors. If you had a quad-core that supported
> >>> hyperthreading
> >>> you would have one physical cpu with eight logical processors when
> >>> viewed
> >>> from Task Manager. There is no difference between XP and Vista in
this
> >>> respect and it has nothing to do with bitness.
> >>>
> >>> The Business editions support two sockets, so in the above examples
you
> >>> would have as many as 16 logical processors with the two physical
> >>> processors.
> >>>
> >>> The number of cores and bitness of the cpu do not affect how much
memory
> >>> you
> >>> can address. That is OS specific.
> >>>
> >>> "RMZ" <> wrote in message
> >>> news: ps.com...
> >>> > I'm not sure I follow.... My understanding is the AMD 64 Turion x2
is
> >>> > dual core, but each core has a 64-bit processor. If I understand
> >>> > correctly you're saying that 64-bit Windows XP Pro can take
advantage
> >>> > the 64-bit CPUs 64-bit registers, but it doesn't utilize the second
> >>> > core in dual core CPUs... and that Windows 32-bit (Pro, MCE, etc..)
> >>> > can
> >>> > take advantage of dual core processors, but does not take advantage
of
> >>> > all things 64-bit has to offer (terrabytes of virtual paging, 64-bit
> >>> > registers, etc...).
> >>> >
> >>> > Why can't we have both? Unless I'm misunderstanding AMD's dual core
64
> >>> > technology, it seems like Microsoft doesn't have an OS capable of
> >>> > truely utilizing all the power of the latest AMD 64 dual core chips,
> >>> > is
> >>> > that true? How will Vista be different? Depending on the type of
> >>> > application you're creating, code that's written to target a 64-bit
> >>> > processor can have significant advantages performance wise over a
> >>> > 32-bit. Especially when you need to access indexed access to
Gigabytes
> >>> > of data in memory, dual core technology offers benefits in other
> >>> > areas.
> >>> > What's the point of a dual core 64-bit chip if you can't utilize
both.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >>Colin Barnhorst wrote:
> >>> >> Your assumption is incorrect. All editions of Windows XP,
including
> >>> >> MCE,
> >>> >> can leverage a multicore processor. XP Home and XP MCE can only
use
> >>> >> one
> >>> >> physical cpu (socket) but that cpu can have multiple cores (logical
> >>> >> processors). The same is true of Vista Home Basic and Premium.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> The bitness of the OS does not matter. x86 and x64 are the same.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> XP Pro SP2 and XP Pro x64 can support two sockets and those cpu's
can
> >>> >> be
> >>> >> multicore. The same is true of Vista Business, Enterprise, and
> >>> >> Ultimate.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> "RMZ" <> wrote in message
> >>> >> news: oups.com...
> >>> >> >I recently purchased a AMD 64 Turion x2 based notebook PC with
> >>> >> >Windows
> >>> >> > XP Media Center Edition installed. My assumption is since Windows
> >>> >> > XP
> >>> >> > MCE is not 64-bit that I'm not able to tap into the power of the
> >>> >> > processors. I'm looking at Windows XP 64-bit edition and I don't
> >>> >> > want
> >>> >> > to install it because I'm hearing conflicting information about
> >>> >> > performance of 32-bit apps on 64-bit Windows, and at this point
> >>> >> > there
> >>> >> > are only a handful of 64-bit apps.
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > I'm wondering if Windows Vista will support 64-bit processors on
> >>> >> > all
> >>> >> > versions and if Windows Vista will have better support for 32-bit
> >>> >> > Windows applications. Is it too early to ask these questions?
> >>> >> >
> >>> >
> >>
> >
>

Users with 64bit capable PC's will be OK. They can use an upgrade edition
to move from 32bit Windows to 64bit Vista. They won't be able to do an
upgrade but they can still do a migration. Installing 64bit Vista with an
upgrade edition product key requires booting with the x64 dvd and doing a
custom install. Since the x64 dvd's do not require running Setup from the
legacy OS desktop like the x86 dvd's do, it is just a matter of using the
Windows Easy Transfer wizard to transfer files and settings and
reinstallation of the apps that are 64bit compatible to complete the
migration.

Although the Macs run 64bit cpu's, OS/X isn't as far along as Windows.
64bit editions of OS/X are not available yet.

"RMZ" <> wrote in message
news: ups.com...
>I seriously hope this isn't the case.... Consumers running 64-bit
> hardware are crippled from upgrading to 64-bit Windows Vista because
> their system didn't ship with a 64-bit version of Windows. If Microsoft
> really cared about pushing 64-bit technology forward (and they should
> care, it gives them a strategic advantage.... last time I checked all
> the current MacBook Pro's are running Intel Core 2 Duo chips).
>
> Don't mention the memory, I realize a good number of notebooks are
> limited to 2-Gig of psychical memory, but 64-bit virtual address space
> advantage and use of 64-bit registers can make a difference... It
> appears the jump from 32-bit to 64 is down played out side the server
> world. The attitude (not necessarily from this group, although in some
> of these post there is a hint of it) seems to be "you just don't need
> that much power". That seems really narrow minded to me.
>
>
>
> Dennis Pack wrote:
>> Aaron:
>> My understanding is that with Vista 32-bit upgrade the installer
>> will only start from within the running operating system. Vista x64
>> upgrade
>> boots from the DVD then verifies that an activated copy of Windows 2000,
>> XP
>> or XP x64 are present for the installation to start.
>>
>> --
>> Dennis Pack
>> XP x64, Vista Enterprise x64
>> Office2007
>> "Aaron Kelley" <> wrote in message
>> news:%...
>> > Just so you know, you cannot upgrade from 32-bit Windows XP to 64-bit
>> > Vista. Cross-platform upgrades are not possible.
>> >
>> > If you buy Vista, you can get the 64-bit version, but you'll have to do
>> > a
>> > clean install of Windows.
>> >
>> > It is presently not clear if you will be able to use an "upgrade"
>> > version
>> > to install Vista 64. Previously, you could use upgrade media, boot
>> > from
>> > it and do a clean install, and during the install it would ask you for
>> > your old media to verify that you qualified for the upgrade. In Vista,
>> > you have to start the upgrade from within the running OS so you won't
>> > be
>> > able to run the 64-bit installer. (Someone please correct me if we've
>> > heard more about this.)
>> >
>> > - Aaron
>> >
>> > "RMZ" <> wrote in message
>> > news: oups.com...
>> >>I feel like we're going in circles and that's mostly my fault.
>> >>
>> >> According to many sources (Charles Russel's Windows XP 64 white paper,
>> >> Wikipedia's article on 64-bit and the AMD website to name a few), the
>> >> "bitness" of an OS has a lot to do with how much memory you can
>> >> access.
>> >>
>> >>>From Charle's whitepaper: 64-bit (x64) can support up to 128 GB of
>> >> physical memory and 16 Terra bytes (single process) of virtual memory,
>> >> while 32-bit can support only 4 GB of physical memory and 4 GB (per
>> >> process) of virtual memory. So let's talk specifically about the
>> >> memory
>> >> addressing aspect of 64-bit in Vista.
>> >>
>> >> If I go buy Windows XP Pro off the shelve, the 64-bit support isn't
>> >> there I have to request the 64-bit Pro.
>> >>
>> >> Upon release, if I go and buy Windows Vista and upgrade from Windows
>> >> XP MCE will my OS be able to run 64-bit applications that take
>> >> advantage of > 4 GB virtual memory, 64-bit registers, etc...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Colin Barnhorst wrote:
>> >>> Each core is a LOGICAL processor as viewed from the OS. Think
>> >>> sockets,
>> >>> not
>> >>> processors. The Home editions support one socket regardless of what
>> >>> cpu
>> >>> is
>> >>> in it. If it is a multicore cpu the Home editions can use all the
>> >>> cores.
>> >>> If you had a quad-core cpu you would have one physical processor and
>> >>> four
>> >>> logical processors. If you had a quad-core that supported
>> >>> hyperthreading
>> >>> you would have one physical cpu with eight logical processors when
>> >>> viewed
>> >>> from Task Manager. There is no difference between XP and Vista in
>> >>> this
>> >>> respect and it has nothing to do with bitness.
>> >>>
>> >>> The Business editions support two sockets, so in the above examples
>> >>> you
>> >>> would have as many as 16 logical processors with the two physical
>> >>> processors.
>> >>>
>> >>> The number of cores and bitness of the cpu do not affect how much
>> >>> memory
>> >>> you
>> >>> can address. That is OS specific.
>> >>>
>> >>> "RMZ" <> wrote in message
>> >>> news: ps.com...
>> >>> > I'm not sure I follow.... My understanding is the AMD 64 Turion x2
>> >>> > is
>> >>> > dual core, but each core has a 64-bit processor. If I understand
>> >>> > correctly you're saying that 64-bit Windows XP Pro can take
>> >>> > advantage
>> >>> > the 64-bit CPUs 64-bit registers, but it doesn't utilize the second
>> >>> > core in dual core CPUs... and that Windows 32-bit (Pro, MCE, etc..)
>> >>> > can
>> >>> > take advantage of dual core processors, but does not take advantage
>> >>> > of
>> >>> > all things 64-bit has to offer (terrabytes of virtual paging,
>> >>> > 64-bit
>> >>> > registers, etc...).
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Why can't we have both? Unless I'm misunderstanding AMD's dual core
>> >>> > 64
>> >>> > technology, it seems like Microsoft doesn't have an OS capable of
>> >>> > truely utilizing all the power of the latest AMD 64 dual core
>> >>> > chips,
>> >>> > is
>> >>> > that true? How will Vista be different? Depending on the type of
>> >>> > application you're creating, code that's written to target a 64-bit
>> >>> > processor can have significant advantages performance wise over a
>> >>> > 32-bit. Especially when you need to access indexed access to
>> >>> > Gigabytes
>> >>> > of data in memory, dual core technology offers benefits in other
>> >>> > areas.
>> >>> > What's the point of a dual core 64-bit chip if you can't utilize
>> >>> > both.
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> >>Colin Barnhorst wrote:
>> >>> >> Your assumption is incorrect. All editions of Windows XP,
>> >>> >> including
>> >>> >> MCE,
>> >>> >> can leverage a multicore processor. XP Home and XP MCE can only
>> >>> >> use
>> >>> >> one
>> >>> >> physical cpu (socket) but that cpu can have multiple cores
>> >>> >> (logical
>> >>> >> processors). The same is true of Vista Home Basic and Premium.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> The bitness of the OS does not matter. x86 and x64 are the same.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> XP Pro SP2 and XP Pro x64 can support two sockets and those cpu's
>> >>> >> can
>> >>> >> be
>> >>> >> multicore. The same is true of Vista Business, Enterprise, and
>> >>> >> Ultimate.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> "RMZ" <> wrote in message
>> >>> >> news: oups.com...
>> >>> >> >I recently purchased a AMD 64 Turion x2 based notebook PC with
>> >>> >> >Windows
>> >>> >> > XP Media Center Edition installed. My assumption is since
>> >>> >> > Windows
>> >>> >> > XP
>> >>> >> > MCE is not 64-bit that I'm not able to tap into the power of the
>> >>> >> > processors. I'm looking at Windows XP 64-bit edition and I don't
>> >>> >> > want
>> >>> >> > to install it because I'm hearing conflicting information about
>> >>> >> > performance of 32-bit apps on 64-bit Windows, and at this point
>> >>> >> > there
>> >>> >> > are only a handful of 64-bit apps.
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > I'm wondering if Windows Vista will support 64-bit processors on
>> >>> >> > all
>> >>> >> > versions and if Windows Vista will have better support for
>> >>> >> > 32-bit
>> >>> >> > Windows applications. Is it too early to ask these questions?
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >
>> >>
>> >
>