Re: XP and 64-bit technology
- From: "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2006 15:02:20 -0700
Tim.T wrote:
It's your decision of course, but that's a foolish point of view.
Well you are Microsoft, aren't you,
No. I'm not.
being an MVP or whatever that
means?
It's an honorary title, given to volunteers like me who have a record of
being helpful in places like these newsgroups. Read here:
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
Regardless of that, my opinions are my own. Sometimes I agree with
Microsoft's point of view, sometimes I don't.
I kinda expected that response ;). The only reason I feel that
way about SP2 is because of the anedotal evidence of it causing more
problems than it solves.
The problem is that you hear about the problems far more than the successes.
When someone has a problem with something, he is likely to come to a place
like this newsgroup, looking for a solution. All those many with no problems
at all don't typically come here to tell us how well it worked. As someone
once said, hang around a transmission shop for a while, and you'll come to
the conclusion that all cars have transmission problems.
I don't claim there is never a problem with it, but in my experience with
it, it has been remarkably problem-free. The few times I've seen problems
with it, it's always been because the person installed it on a
spyware-ridden machine. When you prepare for it properly, there is almost
never a problem.
Sure it might work fine for the average
desktop user, but for people like me who use specialised software
packages, it can be a different matter. I have to consider possible
conflicts and so on.
I have three points in answer to that:
1. There is clearly some risk in installing any software update. The larger
the update (and a Service Pack is a large update), the greater the risk. But
there is also risk in *not* installing the update. Updates fix things that
are wrong and protect you against possible problems, and if you don't
install it, you run unfixed and vulnerable to these problems. The question
is whether the risk is greater by installing it or by not installing it. The
answer is clear to me--it's greater if you don't install it.
2. SP2 is a required base for installing many later updates. If you don't
have it, you are unable to install some later fixes, and you get more and
more vulnerable to problems as time goes on.
3. Your statement above, "Sure it might work fine for the average desktop
user" is a *very* different one from the statement to which I responded, "I
aint bothering with SP2, 75mb of junk!"
Why do you want so much RAM? The vast majority of users will see no
benefit by going above 1GB, and often even 512MB Only if you run
very memory-hungry applications will so much RAM be of any benefit
to you.
I do a lot of rendering using complex 3D modelling applications and
render engines. They can require a lot of processor power and memory,
both virtual and physical; the more the better, in this case. Thus my
considering a dual-core pc, and so much ram.
OK, fine. Then you seem to be someone who will likely benefit from a lot of
RAM. I just wanted to make sure that you weren't someone who was misled by
the common misconception that the more RAM you have, the better. That's true
only up to a point, and where that point is depends on what apps you run.
--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup
"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:e9P97PEVGHA.5468@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Tim.T wrote:
I'm running XP Home SP1 (I aint bothering with SP2, 75mb of junk!
It's your decision of course, but that's a foolish point of view.
Besides SP1 works fine). I'm thinking of upgrading to a dual-core
AMD 64-bit PC, with at least 4Gb of DDR RAM.
Note that 4GB is the largest amount of RAM you can run on Windows XP.
There's no "at least" here.
Why do you want so much RAM? The vast majority of users will see no
benefit by going above 1GB, and often even 512MB Only if you run
very memory-hungry applications will so much RAM be of any benefit
to you.
Will XP Home SP1 work on
that?
Yes. You won't see any of the benefits of the 64-bit processor, but
it will work fine.
Or does it require an 64-bit-compatible edition such as "XP
64-bit"?
No. If you were to get a 64-bit version of Windows, you would likely
have problems getting appropriate drivers for all your hardware, and
you might not see any benefit anyway, since there are so few 64-bit
applications available.
--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup
I've been reading about the whole thing but it's confusing.
I'd rather stick with Home Edition if poss. I've checked out both my
Zone Alarm Pro 5 and Norton AV 2004 and they seem to be 64-bit-ok.
Tim
.
- References:
- Re: XP and 64-bit technology
- From: Tim.T
- Re: XP and 64-bit technology
- Prev by Date: Re: Welcome Screen No Longer Appears
- Next by Date: Hidden Files still not showing --- -Please Help.
- Previous by thread: Re: XP and 64-bit technology
- Next by thread: Re: XP and 64-bit technology
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
