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

[Philip Atchley]

Aaron et al,

Thank you very much.  So much has changed in the computer scene since I 
last did some serious computer shopping and it's easy to get 
"confused".  For me this is a MAJOR purchase, kind of like buying a new 
car for some folks, and I can't afford to make a mistake.

73 de Phil  KO6BB

Hsu, Aaron (NBC Universal) wrote:

>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
>
>  
>