[Ham-Computers] RE: XP Pro SP2 vs XP Pro 64 bit?

[Hsu, Aaron (NBC Universal)]

Phil,

WinXP vs XP64 (what I call it) - don't do it unless you have a need for a
64-bit operating system.  To take advantage of XP64, you need apps that are
compiled/optimized to use the 64-bit extensions and some apps may not work
properly under XP64.  Special 64-bit drivers are needed for some hardware.
It's more of a headache if you don't have a need for the 64-bit extensions.

"Dual-core" vs "single core with HT" - Again, unless you see yourself
running applications that will take advantage of the 2nd CPU, you're better
off with a single-core CPU with HT(HyperThreading).  Server operating
systems make better use of multiple CPU by assigning specific tasks to
individual CPU's.  For example, one CPU will handle OS related duties while
another CPU handles I/O.  Photo and video editors take advantage of multiple
CPUs, especially rendering applications and video encoding/transcoding apps.
WinXP will take advantage of a dual-proc system by sharing some loads, but
it's really up to applications to make use of the 2nd CPU to do things.

Hyper Threading is Intel's technology that allows the CPU to process
additional "threads" during times when the CPU is not at 100% utilization.
To the operating system, HT processors look like two individual CPU's - but,
there's only one physical CPU.  Not all applications benefit from HT and
some HT can sometimes slow down the system.  But, when running multiple
tasks, the system "feels" faster as the CPU is being utilized better.  There
are intricacies between HT and a "true" dual processor system, but that's
beyond the scope of conversation here.  BTW, the 800 series dual-core
processors do not include HT.


So, the bottom line is...

For most people, I would recommend *not* getting the dual-core CPU and,
instead, investing the money on a faster single-core CPU.  The extra $100
you spend on the 820/830 can bump you up two clock speeds on a single-core
CPU.  With most applications, you'll notice that speed bump much more vs.
the dual-core CPU.  Again, the exception is if you're working a lot with
apps that take advantage of dual-proc systems.  Same recommendation for XP
vs XP64.  Go with XP unless you have 64-bit apps to run.

73,

  - Aaron, NN6O

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 8:19 PM
Subject: [Ham-Computers] XP Pro SP2 vs XP Pro 64 bit?


Hi All,

More stoopid questions.  In looking at computer hardware, ready built 
machines as well as "Build to order" machines I've noticed that many of 
the "Dual Core" machines are offering a choice of the Win XP Pro SP2 or 
XP Pro 64 bit, "retail version"  operating systems at the same price.  
One "build to order" machine that I'm seriously looking at is making 
such an offer.

I'm running Win XP Pro SP2 here and am happy with it.  I haven't been 
able to glean a lot about the newer OS, some things I've read indicates 
it won't run older 32 bit programs well, so can I assume it won't run 
the 16 bit at all?  And I could probably kiss ALL my DOS stuff "goodbye" 
completely, or run it on a separate machine (something I'm also 
considering).

It 'seems' that for my usual radio apps the older SP2 version would be 
better.  But this is a MAJOR purchase for me that I don't want to have 
to "upgrade" anytime soon.

So, here are the stoopid questions.  I have quite a bit of time yet 
before I make the actual purchase, it's not getting done tomorrow. 1.  Will
the 64 bit run 32 bit (and perhaps 16 bit) programs?

2.  Or should I just stick with the SP2 version of the program? 

3.  Am I wasting money getting a machine with a P4 "D"  820 dual core 
processor IF I stay with SP2?

73 de Phil  KO6BB