WinXP 64-bit SP2 Released (+64bit Win2K3 Srvr)

[Explorer]

Service Pack 2 for Windows XP 64-bit Professional (workstation) has been released. In fact, this service pack also upgrades any version of 64-bit Windows 2003 Server (Standard, Enterprise, etc.) as well.

The URL below is for the full-blown standalone re-distributable version that will upgrade the whole 64-bit Windows operating system product range based on the X86/64-bit.

You can also download SP2 via Windows Update, which does not incur as much of a download since it targets your particular installation.



http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...c0-6283-44c3-bb84-b2f0315b2ae6&DisplayLang=en

 

[Chewy509]

Thanks for the link, downloading now.

However has anyone read the release notes? (http://technet2.microsoft.com/Windo...e819-4d33-ace0-225d31b7ab751033.mspx?mfr=true)

This release note applies to you if you are upgrading to SP2 from a computer running SP1 or installing a different edition of Windows Server 2003 with SP2 on a computer already running SP2.

If you are installing SP2 on a computer running SP1, to ensure that certain applications and components (such as Internet Explorer® 7 and Windows .NET Framework 2.0) function properly, install SP2 by using Update.exe. You can obtain Update.exe from the Microsoft Download Center (http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=85446).

If you are installing a different edition of SP2 on a computer already running SP2 (for example, if you are installing Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition with SP2 on a computer running Windows Server 2003, Standard Edition with SP2), there is no workaround. If any applications or components stop functioning, you may need to reinstall them.

Internet Explorer

If you installed Internet Explorer 7 after installing Windows Server 2003 SP1, you must uninstall Internet Explorer 7 before you install Windows Server 2003 SP2.

Now if you follow the link to get the update.exe you get taken to the generic download center. And searching for the file results in 2500+ hits.

And IE7! Uninstall it??? WTF?

 

[Clocker]

What about x64 is making you guys want/need to use it? Just curious...

Thanks,

C

 

[Mercutio]

XP64 uses the same faster kernel as Server 2003. It really is subjectively faster than XP.
Unfortunately it also has driver issues, no 16-bit support and the same resource hog crap that XP has

 

[Clocker]

I thought 64-bit isn't any faster (based on our PMs from a week or two ago)?

 

[Mercutio]

64-bit isn't any faster, but the kernel used by XP64 is the same as the one in Server 2003, and that kernel *is* faster than the one that shipped with XP 32-bit version.

Subjectively, about 10% faster.

For Vista, 64-bit appears to do exactly zilch over 32-bit. Ditto for 32 vs 64 bit Server 2003.

 

[sechs]

Well, 32-bit versions of XP SP2 won't see more than 4GB of memory *addresses*.

 

[timwhit]

Will all 32 bit applications run on x64? (I'm guessing this is a yes)

Will they run as fast as native 64 bit applications?

What 64 bit applications are available right now?

 

[Clocker]

64-bit isn't any faster, but the kernel used by XP64 is the same as the one in Server 2003, and that kernel *is* faster than the one that shipped with XP 32-bit version.

Subjectively, about 10% faster.

For Vista, 64-bit appears to do exactly zilch over 32-bit. Ditto for 32 vs 64 bit Server 2003.

Thanks Merc. I figured I misunderstood something. When talking Vista, 32-bit and 64-bit are the same speed. Only need for x64 then is if you really need more than 3GB of ram to be seen by Windows..

Thanks,
C

 

[Chewy509]

What about x64 is making you guys want/need to use it? Just curious...

Don't know about the others, but in my case, it's for application development and testing... I program mainly in assembler, and now focus solely on 64bit development. Hence I use Windows XP x64 and FreeBSD v6.1 AMD64... (Waiting for FreeBSD 7.0 before upgrading my FreeBSD install).

As for faster, 64bit applications will be noticeably quicker if using a lot of integer math where your operands are greater than 32bits, and where the compiler can make use of the extra registers provided when in 64bit mode, (8 in 32bit mode vs 16 in 64bit mode). How often that occurs, is virtually nil in the COTS world, as most applications are still targeted towards the 32bit target (even though a 64bit native version may exist), as the greater populace is still running 32bit OSs.

Also 32bit apps will run at the same speed, irrespective of being on a 32bit OS or a 64bit OS.

 

[The JoJo]

I'm running WinXP SP2 now on a Athlon X2 4200+. What would be the benefits I'd get from installing the 64bit version? Can I simply upgrade to that one?

Do you recommend it or not? To stay with the current setup or not?

 

[ddrueding]

Don't bother JoJo; unless you are running >3.5GB of RAM or 64-bit native programs, you won't notice a bit of difference.

 

[The JoJo]

Roger, thanks!

 

[time]

Pradeep's much more across this, but I believe 3GB is the final cutoff for 32-bit Windows, with individual apps limited to 2GB.

Apart from that, XP64 just feels a bit snappier - at least, on Athlon rather than P4.

It's a funny old world. It's now two years since I first deployed a server with 64-bit Suse Linux, yet we're still debating whether or not to run 64-bit Windows.

Even today, that particular server is bloody fast, BTW.

 

[Pradeep]

I agree, the 64 bit version is just snappy. Provided you can deal with the sometimes patchy 64 bit driver support issues, there's no reason not to go for the 64 bit version. 2003 server would be the other Windows OS of choice right now.

I just installed some IBM x3650 servers at work, (2U rack mount with dual socket dual core Xeon 5160 cpus (1333 FSB). 12 DIMM slots. Currently populated with 4GB of FB-DIMMS. What's interesting with these boxes is that you can set them up with memory mirroring, and also set up a spare channel of memory to use as a hot spare. Sort of like RAID 1 for RAM.

 

[Buck]

I just installed some IBM x3650 servers at work, (2U rack mount with dual socket dual core Xeon 5160 cpus (1333 FSB). 12 DIMM slots. Currently populated with 4GB of FB-DIMMS. What's interesting with these boxes is that you can set them up with memory mirroring, and also set up a spare channel of memory to use as a hot spare. Sort of like RAID 1 for RAM.

What! No 5300 sequence chips?!

 

[Pradeep]

The loads on the boxes don't neccessitate such a thing. Pricing of the quad core cpus are quite attractive tho, in comparison to the 5160. These boxes each have two 73GB 10K SAS 3.5" drives in RAID 1. We have some other 1U servers that were put in recently, with the 2.5" 10K drives. They are so cute and tiny.

 

[ddrueding]

My system is detecting 3.53GB of my 4GB...

 

[Buck]

. . . Pricing of the quad core cpus are quite attractive tho, in comparison to the 5160. These boxes each have two 73GB 10K SAS 3.5" drives in RAID 1. We have some other 1U servers that were put in recently, with the 2.5" 10K drives. They are so cute and tiny.

As you know, if multi-threading is more important for the intended tasks than MHz, the 5160 is priced for me the same as the 5345.

Those 2.5" 10K SAS drives must be neat. How are they temperature-wise?

 

[Pradeep]

Yes the 5160 is very highly priced by IBM (especially the second CPU). We'll probably start speccing out the quad cores once they've been out a little while longer. We don't want to be beta testing, any problems with the server hardware could lead to an early retirement of some poor sys admin... of course that's why we have three identical machines, one is production, one is test, and then another production box at the backup datacenter.

Hard to gauge what the temps are like, but it certainly enables some interesting layouts (like 6 hot swap 2.5" bays on a 1U server) that are just not possible with 3.5" form factors.

 

[Fushigi]

It's a funny old world. It's now two years since I first deployed a server with 64-bit Suse Linux, yet we're still debating whether or not to run 64-bit Windows.

I think all of the current discussion on 64-bitness is hilarious as well. My midrange servers have been 64-bit since 1995. Our current production box isn't very big; just 2 POWER5 CPUs. But it's got 32GB RAM to handle some nasty Java workloads.

 

[Clocker]

That's great but how does that relate to a typical Desktop PC that is mostly used for office stuff and games? What's the benefit of 64-bit in that application?

 

[Mercutio]

I can distinctly recall an article, written in "PC Magazine" in about 1991, that suggested that the full computing ability of an 80486DX might never be fully utilized on a desktop PC.
And a couple years before that, another article that suggested we'd never need 32-bit applications on desktop machines, even though bleeding-edge 386 CPUs were capable of running them.

When the extra throughput is possible, developers will take advantage of it to do new things. Right now, it's not a given that people have it, because of the number of Pentium 4s and Celerons in the world, and the sheer installed base of not-64-bit Windows, so no one is really moving in that direction yet.

I imagine it'll be several more years before Windows moves fully to a 64-bit environment. It'll happen eventually.

It probably won't mean a whole lot to end users either way.

 

[Handruin]

Windows 95 made a big push into the 32-bit realm. If they had released vista as a 64-bit only with limited 32 bit support, we'd be moving along much faster. The jump from 16 bit to 32 bit was probably worth it, but the jump to 64-bit is still an extra hop away for most home users. We have some limited uses for special case users of large system process for things like image editing etc, but in general I don't need 4GB of ram or a single process consuming more than 2GB...at least not right now. Unlike you, I do close my firefox when I'm done.

 

[Mercutio]

Unlike you, I do close my firefox when I'm done.

"Done?"

Since Nits stops by once in a while I won't mention the fact that probably 50% of those hundreds of tabs I keep open are pictures of one or more naked women... and who can ever say they are DONE looking at naked women?

Oh, wait. I just did. Hm. Well, too late. I typed it. I'm not going to un-type it. Guess that secret is out.

;D

 

[Handruin]

How much RAM does it use with hundreds of tabs? I've noticed that more than 5-10 tabs with any type of content causes FF to bog down...especially when other pages are processing. I'd like to see FF spawn more threads or something. I hate having to wait for another tab to finish rendering before I can do something on another tab.

 

[sechs]

Apart from that, XP64 just feels a bit snappier - at least, on Athlon rather than P4.

Unfortunately, it's hard to tell what part of that snappiness is due to its 64-bitness and what part is due to its Win2k3 heritage.

 

[sechs]

My system is detecting 3.53GB of my 4GB...

Windows XP SP2 seems to like to vary what it sees on my machine between 3 to 3.5GB.

It's not as if there is a limit; the operating system simply won't recognise more than 4GB of memory addresses. So, whatever is in use by your system for components it unavailable for mapping actual RAM.

 

[Mercutio]

On the PC I'm using right now (Server 2003, about 75 open tabs, including 3 paused YouTube videos and 1 from Dailymotion) Firefox is using 302MB.

The SuSE 10 machine by my bed has about 210 open tabs and is using about 1.4GB of RAM for Firefox.

The biggest pig is on one my Linux fileservers, still running Firefox 1.5 'cause it hasn't been closed in a LOOOONNNGGG time, with over 300 tabs open, it's using 2.21GB. Surprisingly, it hasn't crashed from a memory leak or anything, either from Firefox or from AfterStep. Saving what's in all those tabs would probably take me most or all of a day, which is why I haven't done it. I'll be bummed out when I do "lose" the data (most of it will pop right back up since I have session manager and google's sync Addon installed on my PCs) but at this point it's as much a science project as the collection of content.

Yes, I can remember what is where on which machine, even as the tab UI itself becomes overcrowded and useless.

The JoJo once sent me a link to a web page that seemed to be dynamically adding new pictures of naked womens so as to make your browser munch all the RAM on your PC. I saw Firefox climb up over 3GB of RAM used and I was waiting for FF to barf, but eventually I got a "Connection Timed Out" instead. It was sad. I wanted Firefox to die happy.

 

[Mercutio]

You guys do know about the /3GB switch in Windows' boot.ini so that an app can use fantastic amounts of RAM, right?

 

[sechs]

Those 2.5" 10K SAS drives must be neat. How are they temperature-wise?

I've been using 2.5" 10k SAS drives for a while, and there isn't really a good answer to your question. In general, they seem to produce less heat, but have less surface area with which to get rid of it.

By their internal sensors, the drives run cooler than the 3.5" 15k drives that they replaced, but hotter (under use) than the 7200RPM SATA drive that is in the same case.

 

[sechs]

You guys do know about the /3GB switch in Windows' boot.ini so that an app can use fantastic amounts of RAM, right?

Well... 3GB, if so designed.

Photoshop (a 32-bit application), for example, is designed to take advantage of extra memory space if the /3gb switch is used.

 

[Mercutio]

3GB isn't a fantastic amount of RAM?

To address your other statement, sechs: I've had XP64 and 32-bit Server 2003 side-by-side on the same hardware and they really do have the same snappy feel. No more from one than the other.
But then, I don't do anything that needs the extra bits, either.

TinyXP is another good way to get some extra "snap" into XP; it doesn't do much on 1GB+ computers but with 512MB or less the differences it makes is huge.

 

[Pradeep]

You guys do know about the /3GB switch in Windows' boot.ini so that an app can use fantastic amounts of RAM, right?

That only helps when the application is compiled with support for the flag. Relatively easy when coding your own, otherwise it's in the hands of the developers.

When implemented properly, it allows a single process to access up to 3GB of virtual memory (as opposed to the normal 2GB). Still doesn't help with the issues of 4GB of RAM being seen as 3.3-3.5. More of a kludgy workaround.

 

[sechs]

3GB isn't a fantastic amount of RAM?

Well, no, but I'm also not one to have a single application use that much.

To address your other statement, sechs: I've had XP64 and 32-bit Server 2003 side-by-side on the same hardware and they really do have the same snappy feel.

This, however, does not explain to which source we should attribute that snappiness. Windows XP x64 isn't simply a recompile of Windows 2003 Server; they have differing features beyond their bitness.

 

[Bozo]

Just thought I'd pass this along. FWIW
I just install a Intel Pro/1000 NIC in my XP x64 computer. XP found it and installed drivers.
This might have only happened because I had previously install drivers for the Intel motherboard NIC.
But, Device Mangler says they use different drivers.

Bozo :joker:

 

[MaxBurn]

Hmm, I installed SP2 for Win X64 and it was rather uneventful. Nothing broken or even changed that I see really. I did notice that I can't turn off true type on IE7 now, what is up with that?

Ah well, I will put firefox on it anyway I guess.

 

[Pradeep]

Installed a Sun v490 into a rack today. Four Sparc processors, 32 * 1GB DIMMS. Quite a staggering dollar value, but I guess they want high density. Solaris being the OS of choice in this instance.