I know it's old topic. but take a look at bellow. we all know xp x64 is based on windows 2003 server. today, when i try to download a hotfix from bellow link http://support.microsoft.com/hotfix/KBHotfix.aspx?kbnum=923231&kbln=en-us#step2 make sure to click Show hotfixes for all platforms and languages (57) i downloaded both two version. the results as bellow so it looks like the version for sp3 plus a -v2 (version 2?) if really no sp3 for win2003 and xp, how to explain?
XP 64-bit has lost Microsoft support several years ago (too much problems, 0.1% of market share). If you want a proper 64-bit OS look at Vista 64-bit or even better Win7 64-bit.
move to the higher 64-bit OS is not a problem. But some simulation tools in our major only perfectly work at 64-bit xp. I can't lost them. And why you say XP 64-bit has (too much problems)? what's you points? The OS looks is not important to me, I just want a stable and fast OS.
Vista and Win7 is not "XP with a new look". It's a new OS from SCRATCH (ok well 80% of it). Vista was originality designed 64-bit OS (hence why the 32-bit version is junk, while the 64-bit is very polished upon released... sadly a lot of people and reviewers jump to the 32-bit version as they thought that Vista 64-bit was like XP 64-bit.. while in reality it was the contrary, and even more so with Win7...the last 32-bit Windows - well Win7 32-bit got a nice polish to make close as good in bug fixes as the 64-bit brother). Windows XP has no security feature, a 8 year old kid can make a mass virus/trojan affecting millions within hours of his time. A firewall that ask you permission for a program to access the web AFTER it access the web.. well the list is VERY long. Plus you add, the fact that everyone runs as Admin as the account system is total junk... and you have a receipy of fail! "But but but.. XP is sooo popular!" you say. Yes, I remind you that XP was deeply criticizes on all these issues upon release, but got adapted as software and hardware after 6 year only supported XP so no one had a choice to get XP and live with the issues. And to top thing over all that... XP 64-bit was barely supported by software, and hardware companies. Many hardware companies provide equal support for their Linux drivers as XP 64-bit... so it shows you how bad the situation is. Why you ask? because only a very small nitch market uses XP 64-bit. They are more Linux users than XP 64-bit... I am sure of that (I have no source, but won't be surprised - I mean it's easier to get help for Linux problem than XP 64-bit) Even though XP 64-bit is BASED on Win Server 2003, it doesn't mean it's they are the same thing. Passing from XP to Vista or Win7.. is like switching completely OS, with one that has some similarities such as registry, services, and the locations of some but not all things. If you optimize Windows 7, for example, to XP.. you'll most likely end up with a broken system or BSOD.. many noticed that with Vista. Vista/Win7 are completely different than XP. Microsoft decided to make a new OS from scratch (with compatibility support to XP), because of the above that i mentioned.. and that was all confimred by Microsoft.. that is why they decided to do this. Microsoft admited themseves that XP and Win Server 2003 is all based down to NT 3.. (that was before the hole internet craze, and Microsoft didn't treat security as a critical thing. I mean before the idea of passing viruses, hack, malware over the internet, for example, was not even in peoples head.) and that both set of OS was a just a pile of patch applied to NT3.. so much that Microsoft developers have a VERY hard time to fix things on it. I really invite you to stop looking at screen shots, and really look into this whole Win7 features at the top but most importantly at the back (architecture of the Core and back level features offer to you and businesses). Fun facts: - On a "new" (2006 technology or newer), XP shows a worse performance as the latest Windows 64-bit. This is due that XP doesn't even remotely understand half the technology inside the computer, and has no optimization to it. - XP memory management is total junk... as it's designed for system under 1GB of RAM... if you ave more.. like 4GB.. it still treat your system as if you where low in memory... ie: dump everything on your HDD pagefile as soon as it can, no mater what; instead of leaving in your RAM for high performance, and once your RAM is full or near full NOW use the HDD pagefile. - UI of XP is all processed on the CPU, so when you get impatient with a process and you decide to move your mouse or even worse shake the window.. you actually slow down SIGNIFICANTLY your system, as CPU's are not designed to draw... that is why we have GPU's. In Vista, and Win7, with Aero, it uses your GPU.. so the UI can be as fancy as it can, and it doesn't affect your system performance, nor even require to leave anything cached when you play a full screen application or game. Here are some proof: -- - Drag a window.. notice how the mouse plays catch-up to the window. -- - Notice how your CPU (or one of the CPU spikes if you have a multi-core CPU) at 100% when you scale or move a window. -- - Notice how you exist a game, you see everything drawing and not just appear everything. -- - Notice how when you move a movie window in, let's say Windows Media Player the video plays catch-up with the window.. you can sometimes see this if the video is paused.. it does this due that the system creates a back layer (and a hole on the current layer), where that specific back layer uses the GPU to play the video, and not the CPU. You can get Windows 7 Enterprise (Ultimate) 64-bit trial version, to try it. Do a dual boot. Unlike XP over several hour install/updates/configure. Windows 7 takes 20-25min to install (depending on the speed of your optical drive and system), and require NO "optimization", no deep configuration (only UI.. to fit your own needs and preference), as everything is set to be automatic. Just make sure you have a minimum a dual core, 1.8GHz CPU, with at least 2GB of RAM with an Intel X4500HD or Geforce 6600GT or better). In other words, a 300-400$ system today without a monitor, speaker, etc...
Hi GoodBytes, much thanks for your detailed explanation and suggestion. learned more about vista and win7. if possible i will try win7 64 in this winter. i am using a HP notebook. all the drivers for win7 64-bit are already available for it from office website. GPU and designed for 64-bit are very attractive. I knew the security of xp, and i use the TC take the work of windows explorer, and firefox take that of the IE. as your said, memory management is really ugly in xp. i have to use the ramdisk, and run the cleanmen sometime. I hope the simulation tools can support win7 soon. thanks again.
Adding a bit of defence for XP x64bit because it seems to be seriously lacking here: In my personal experience, i've yet to see a single problem with XP x64. It may have suffered to start with, but i came across it later, but when i did it was rock-solid and completely indistinguishable from XP x32 In my experience, XP x64 was XP x32 with 64bit support, nothing less... anything 32bit XP could do x64bit XP could do. I'll admit vista and win7 vastly added to the benefit of 64bit and proper MP, but i'll also argue vista added almost more minus points than plusses, to the point where my final view is: XP32<vista32<XPx64~vistax64<win7(64bit over 32bit)
