WinXP on Intel E6600: 32bit or 64bit?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Evert
  • Start date Start date
E

Evert

Hi all!

Which of these would be best? I've heard that 64bit version is better
performance-wise, but that quite some hardware & software is not
supported (yet?)


Regards,
Evert
 
A lot of stuff doesn't work on 64. For example spell check on OE doesn't
work, HP 1020 no driver for xp and so on. Go with 32

boba Vankufer
 
Boba & Ilinka said:
A lot of stuff doesn't work on 64. For example spell check on OE doesn't
work,
Click to expand...

Do you have an Office app Installed? Cause that is what OE uses for
dictionary.


HP 1020 no driver for xp and so on. Go with 32
 
Running 64-bit windows is more of a question of you having a 64-bit
processor/mainboard, you cannot run 64-bit XP/Vista on a 32-bit
system, Yes it is true that 64-bit OS's/Systems are a lot better
because of the larger busses, and processing 2x32 bits in one clock
cycle....

As for compatibility issues, all current 32-bit software can be run on
the 64-bit platform through built in 32-bits architecture
emulation...Like the 16-bit NTVDM for dos crap on win NT/2000/XP.


Now as for Intel's line of 64-Bit processors; THEY ARE GARBAGE, i
would go with an asus a8n-e (Socket 939) mainboard as you only get
the 128-bit memory bus with the 939 model and possibly AM2, and an
AMD Athlon 64/64 X2/FX processor
whichever suits your needs/budget/obtainability although I would
suggest the Athlon64 X2 for it's dual core (true dual core) (not
hyperthreading)

Normally there are alot of "Flame wars" between hardcore
Intel lovers and AMD people, but know that going for the AMD here is
purely recommended out of logic, look up the performance of AMD's
64's to Intel's 64's and you'll see, this is no flame war issue
 
Back
Top