WinXp 64bit or Vista Ultimate 64bit ? for my m15x

hey ,this is my first thread here ,i am new here.
i almost gone throw all AW section here trying to find my answer.
i just got my m15x yesterday ,and since i hate vista ,i would like to have WinXP installed as my OS.
so ,since i can install 64bit OS would WinXP 64bit be a problem for hardware drivers (as i red somewhere)?
and my second question is ..since i can install 64bit OS ,would installing a 32bit OS decreases my system performance (or not giving it a full performace)?

thanks a lot.

 

A 32-bit OS would limit you to somewhere between 3 and 3.5 GB of accessable memory, but unless you have 4 GB, that's not a problem - even if you do it may or may not be. Otherwise, a 32-bit OS may be slightly slower for some applications, but the difference is usually marginal. 32 vs. 64-bit only really becomes an issue when you have applications that only run on one of them, or you have more than 4 GB of memory - both rare situations these days.

XP x64 is usually the least recommended of the 21st Century Windows OS'es, due to difficulty in finding drivers and compatibility issues. Unless you know for sure a 64-bit OS would benefit you, I'd recommend XP x86 (32-bit) if you're going XP (which I do recommend, especially if you hate Vista). But if you insist on a 64-bit OS, then, unless you know some of your programs have Vista issues, Vista 64-bit probably is the better choice.

Someone else will have to comment on Alienware's support for each OS - AW is one of the companies I'm not familiar with OS support for.

 

I would say give it some time and familiar yourself with it and you cant live without it. Some games can give you benefit of directx 10 if only you are on Vista. Crysis for eg. supports dx10 which is available only on vista

If you have to install x64 bit, then vista should be your first and only choice. Winxp x64 is nothing but a windows 2003 server x64 with services and applications trimmed to keep it light weight. both share the same kernal code and both have same driver database. being a server kernel who have less driver support and application support. many games won't run on xp x64

if the application/game you are running natively support x64 then you will see the performance boost even with 1gb ram. the reason behind is double the size of data bus available and the less time it takes for data to travel between ram, processor and hdd. if you are running a 32bit application on x64 then only difference you have is with RAM limit (any 32bit os will allow only 2.5-3.2gb ram to user applications)

hope that helps... if you are worried that you wont be able to run Command Center and other AW proprietary software then thats not a problem.

See my guide in the signature below.

 

thank you guys ,you are very helpful.
i will follow your guide "Running Vista x64 on m15x" to install the vista Ult. 64bit

 

All I can say is do NOT get Windows XP Professional X64.

I was forced to use it on a work computer in the past and it was nothing but treachery. Had to convince my boss to fork over another $200 due to productivity loss to upgrade to Vista Business.

 

I can vouche for XP x64 having the same core as W2k3 Server. in fact, with one application I had a problem installing it because it detected my XP x64 as Windows Server 2003 and refused to install.

I disagree with it having less driver and application support. It has the same compatibility modes as the standard versions of both XP and Vista. I've run it on my Core 2 Duo (E4300) Desktop, with 4GB of RAM and an nVidia GPU for a long time, and though I spend most of my time on my desktop in Linux, my XP x64 Edition install still works flawlessly.

There are some program incompatibilities due to the WOW64 Emulator, where the installer might not use dynamic linking to place files, and the application will, making it impossible for the app to find it's DLLs... this is more common with older programs and frankly, I've had as much difficulty with that, as I have with x64 versions of Vista.

My point is, with application compatibility, x64 is x64. it will always have problems running 32-bit apps that were programmed by people who were lazy and didn't know dynamic linking from a glory-hole in the wall of their cubicle.
(I could also rant about DPI changing issues but I'll hold myself back)

I'd disagree with this in every way. Vista is NO BETTER at handling x64 than XP. like I said before, x64 is x64. whether it's Vista, or XP, it's still x64. and you'll hit the same problems on Vista x64 as you will in XP. KEEP IN MIND that Vista x64 is a lot more common and you might have less difficulty finding drivers for it; on that note, I'd also like to say that IMHO, most, if not all, Vista x64 drivers (or W2k3 x64 Drivers) should work in XP x64. Vista's kernel is a little more secure and usually the vista-specific apps are programmed better and with UAC in mind, so I feel the differences in using a Vista Driver in XP is negligible. But if you hit a problem like I had, where it DETECTS the OS before installing (rather than just installing, like it's lazy), then you might hit problems.

just my $.02... if it's all the same, go with what you're used to. if you dislike Vista, go XP. if you're buying the OS, and don't want to risk hard-earned money on something that has the great potential to be a dud, get XP x86. can't go wrong. you'll lose access to a chunk of your memory (~1GB) but IMO, it's a small price to pay to have something that will work, pretty much guaranteed. if you want to make use of that extra GB of memory, grab XP x64. why not? especially since you can download the trial and use it for a month to see if you like it, and/or if you can find drivers for it... not to mention checking to see if your apps work.

IN MY EXPERIENCE, the biggest inconvenience of running x64 is that most context menus won't install correctly. EG: when I install WinRAR in x86, it also installs context menus to Explorer, so when I right click on, let's say, a folder, I can compress the contents of the folder. the option is right there saying "Add to archive..." in all x64 versions, I don't get that. unless the program was made to support the x64 systems, it won't be able to install those shortcuts... and since I get particularly high use of the "extract to" option on RARs, I find it rather inconvenient (and probably why I don't do a lot of archive work on my x64 systems)

finally, for power, you're not losing much. the x86_64 processors (AMD64 or EM64T enabled chips, EG, Core 2 and Athlon 64's), have hardware capabilities to handle 32-bit in real-time, on a thread-by-thread basis.
yes, in theory, 64-bit applications can run faster than 32-bit applications (just like how 16-bit ran slower than 32-bit)... however, nearly no programs (especially not any of the major ones) are programmed in this fashion. IF there is even a 64 bit version, it's usually just a ported version of the 32-bit version that's not really 64bit optimized, just 64bit compatible.

again, just my $.02

 

The finding drivers was my point -_-

XP Pro x64 is an obsecure OS that many, many products do not have proper drivers for, if any at all.

 

Ok let me summarize it. Vista x64 is different from XP x64 in one sense.

Vista x64 is a workstation OS. Application developers and device driver developers have to push from hardware vendors to write software for it as being a consumer product it has more consumer hardware available.

XP x64 is a server class software and many times software gets confused while checking for the OS version that they are running on Server 2003 rather than XP. You will always see slower adaption of consumer hardware makers to support server product.

You do not add any benefit if you install xp 64, its good if you plan to host your exchange server or sql server onto it. yes those can be installed on xp x64

 

those can also be installed in XP x86... or even vista. I know someone using Vista Business x64 running MySQL Server... I could go on about that, but I'll stop.

my point is: I've heard of people running Server OSes because they dislike all the fanciness of the non-server OSes. Most applications and drivers won't do an OS check and those that do, will likely have an XP x64 version (eg. HP Printer Drivers). So, while there's differences, they're negligible imho.

People play high-end games on server OSes, and people still use them for normal stuff. just because the kernel was built with "server" in mind, doesn't mean it won't do the same stuff just as well. I'd know. XP x64 was my primary OS for almost a year before I switched to Linux; and I still use it.