xp 64 vs vista 64?

I know this is a topic that's been beaten to death, and I've read a lot
of the discussions comparing these two. What's interesting (and
confusing) is the lack of consensus - some like xp64 better (because
it's faster and uses less resources) and others prefer vista (almost as
fast, greater driver availability, and future support).

I was at first leaning towards xp64, but am now rethinking this (due
mainly to future support issues - if I buy a new printer or camera, it
will more likely have Vista 64 drivers available). But there are a
couple of things I'm still not clear on:

1. Will Vista 64 run older 32-bit software, like MS Office XP and MS
Project 2002 (or any other XP software for that matter)? I'd like to
run these, and I'm pretty sure XP64 can (via WOW) - but I'm not so sure
about Vista. I've read conflicting reports on that.

2. My computer has dual processors with dual-core cpus (4 cores in
all). I've read that xp64 is better at load balancing among multiple
cores (since it uses the Windows 2003 server kernel) compared to Vista.
Does anyone know if that is true? Given that multi-core cpus are now
mainstream, I'd be surprised if MS hadn't paid attention to this in the
design of Vista.

3. Is XP64 actually available for install on an existing PC? I ask
because the only copies I've been able to find for sale are the "systems
builder" version. Since I'll be replacing an existing OS (Linux) and a
computer I purchased two years ago, I'm not sure I qualify (at least per
the letter of the licensing agreement). Any thoughts on this?

Thanks for the feedback.

Pat

 

#1: Vista uses the same WOW64 layer as XP x64. Well, sort of. For the
purposes of this discussion, however, it's the same. As a general rule,
32-bit software should run fine, so long as it doesn't use a system level
driver and can handle UAC and various other Vista differences.

#2: Not true. Both OS's will balance well, within some limitations. (And the
code base for Vista SP1 is the same as for Server 2k8. )

#3: Yes, you have to buy a "System Builder" (aka, OEM) version. There has
never been a retail version of XP x64, nor will there be. (covered at length
over the years since this newsgroup was created, and on my blog back when we
started.)

 

Thanks for the feedback. Happy to hear about point #3 - that could have
been a show stopper.

I've never heard of Vuescan, but will look into it if the need arises.
Having been on Linux for the past year, I'm well aware of driver issues.
But I was hoping to escape a lot of that by going back to Windows (and
for the most part I think I will).

 

The EULA online at
http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/useterms/default.aspx (choose XP and
then 64bit).

Contains the following:

"4. TRANSFER-Internal. You may move the Product to a different Workstation
Computer. After the transfer, you
must completely remove the Product from the former Workstation Computer.
Transfer to Third Party. The initial
user of the Product may make a one-time transfer of the Product to another
end user. The transfer has to include
all component parts, media, printed materials, this EULA, and if applicable,
the Certificate of Authenticity. The
transfer may not be an indirect transfer, such as a consignment. Prior to
the transfer, the end user receiving the
transferred Product must agree to all the EULA terms. No Rental. You may not
rent, lease, lend or provide
commercial hosting services to third parties with the Product."

This agrees with the EULA in the AMD64 folder on my XP Pro x64 cd and on my
hard drive.

 

If you read the EULA you will find that it IS transferrable (system builder
editions).

 

#1: Vista uses the same WOW64 layer as XP x64. Well, sort of. For the
purposes of this discussion, however, it's the same. As a general rule,
32-bit software should run fine, so long as it doesn't use a system level
driver and can handle UAC and various other Vista differences.

#2: Not true. Both OS's will balance well, within some limitations. (And the
code base for Vista SP1 is the same as for Server 2k8. )

#3: Yes, you have to buy a "System Builder" (aka, OEM) version. There has
never been a retail version of XP x64, nor will there be. (covered at length
over the years since this newsgroup was created, and on my blog back when we
started.)

 

Hi, Pat.

If Vista x64 wouldn't run 32-bit software, it would be dead in the water,
because there is almost NO 64-bit software on the market yet!

Nearly 100% of the software on the market today is 32-bit and just about all
of it will run without complaint on Vista x64. Personally, I'm running
Office 2007, Quicken, Photoshop Elements 6.0, PerfectDisk...and too many
others to list. Plus, of course, the full gamut of Vista built-ins and
add-ons, like Windows Media Player and Media Center, Virtual Earth, Windows
Live Mail, etc.

You gave us no clue as to what you use your computer for, so there's
certainly a chance that some applications that you need won't run, but you
should have no problem with any of the mainstream stuff.

I should stay out of your #2 and #3, since I'm just one guy with one
computer and no net but the Internet. My one computer uses the AMD Athlon
x64 X2 CPU and 4 GB of PC6400 RAM and 4 SATA II HDs. No quad-core - yet.

My understanding of the OEM OS is that it was intended for your local
computer shop to install when they put together a new computer for you and
add the OS, thus the requirement that it be sold only with the hardware.
But that requirement was perverted a bit for customers who wanted to buy the
OS to install on their own computer; they didn't want the mobo, hard drives,
computer case, etc. The local shop complied with the literal language of
the license by selling the OEM OS with the cheapest piece of hardware (like
that USB cable) in the store. In this scenario, the end-user is the "system
builder", even if he builds just his one system using a 2-year-old case that
he already owns.

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX

Microsoft Windows MVP
(Running Windows Live Mail 2008 in Vista Ultimate x64 SP1)

 

Thanks Colin. That's good to know (especially since I had already
bought XP64! ;^). I was just trying to decide whether to exchange it
for Vista instead. But I've just about decided to keep it at this
point. One of the things that's driving this is some technical software
(FEA code) I need to run for my work. I've been conducting trials of
several different packages, and when discussing system requirements, ALL
of the reps have advised (some quite strongly) going with XP64, even
though their most recent releases support Vista. Apparently their Vista
releases are still a little shaky at this point (although they blame it
on Vista). But I think that's tipped the scales for me.

 

Just be sure to read the EULA on YOUR copy of XP Pro x64. At least one user
here reported a couple of weeks ago that his copy was an OEM (no transfers)
EULA, so it may depend on whether you bought a system builder copy or it
came preinstalled. Just check yours.

 

It's definitely a systems builder copy. I bought it from Newegg last
week, and it's clearly marked on the packaging (which I haven't yet
opened). So I think I'm ok.

Thanks. -Pat

 

Read the EULA anyway.

 

???

 

Thanks for the additional clarification on my questions. It's pretty
clear either OS would work. Since I already have XP64 (and would have
to buy Vista) I think I'll stick with my original plan and go with it.
Maybe in year or so, when Vista support for my technical apps is a
little more solid, I'll revisit this.

Thanks, -Pat

 

Thanks for explanation. Oddly, when I bought XP64 (Systems Builder
version) from Newegg there was no requirement to buy other hardware
(even a cable). Perhaps they've relaxed this requirement. There are
stickers on the packaging though stating that the license may only be
distributed with a fully assembled computer system, and that it must be
"preinstalled on the hard drive" (not sure how you do that!).

It's pretty clear they really don't want people installing this on older
PC (or to be more precise, replacing the OS on their existing PC). That
really doesn't make sense to me though. Why is installing this on an
older PC worse than installing it on a new one? From what I've read,
XP64 is probably a better choice for an older PC due to the higher
system requirements for Vista. Go figure.

Thanks again for the feedback. -Pat

 

It is no longer required.