BetaArchive Logo
Navigation Home Screenshots Image Uploader Server Info FTP Servers Wiki Forum RSS Feed Rules Please Donate
UP: 7d, 17h, 24m | CPU: 40% | MEM: 2250MB of 3525MB used
{The community for beta collectors}

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ] 
Author Message
 PostPost subject: X64 versions of Longhorn builds        Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 12:48 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Thu Feb 07, 2008 1:35 pm

Posts
571

Location
United Kingdom
Why is that the X64 versions of Longhorn, eg: Build 4051, 4083 are not as feature filled as the regular 32-bit versions?

_________________
Image


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 12:52 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Sun Jun 15, 2008 10:41 pm

Posts
224

Location
Essex, England

Favourite OS
7 Ultimate 64bit
im not sure, but maybe x64 was not that common in the longhorn era? :^)


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 1:44 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sat Jan 27, 2007 10:56 pm

Posts
599

Location
Vienna, Austria
Well XP x64 was still beta and not feature complete, so how could be lh


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 1:49 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Thu Feb 07, 2008 1:35 pm

Posts
571

Location
United Kingdom
What I want to know is for example, why the x86 version of Build 4051 had a lot of features, whereas the x64 version had many features stripped out?

_________________
Image


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 1:52 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Fri Oct 26, 2007 5:12 pm

Posts
2461
squidward_ wrote:
What I want to know is for example, why the x86 version of Build 4051 had a lot of features, whereas the x64 version had many features stripped out?


probably because x64 processors were rare back then and alot of programs and [censored] would have been x86 only


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:05 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Thu Feb 07, 2008 1:35 pm

Posts
571

Location
United Kingdom
You mean all of Longhorn's features, eg: WinFS, Sidebar, DWM would of got in the way of the performance of high-end applications or something?

_________________
Image


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:33 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Feb 24, 2007 4:14 pm

Posts
6612

Location
United Kingdom

Favourite OS
Server 2012 R2
Probably has something to do with the fact that they were still working on x64 windows, and had not at that point started work on an x64 version of .NET...

_________________
BuildFeed - the ultimate collaborative NT build list - Windows Longhorn - a look at a defining Microsoft project


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 4:36 pm 
Reply with quote
djdanster wrote:
im not sure, but maybe x64 was not that common in the longhorn era? :^)


Exactly the X64 Cpu's were really rare in back in the days.I've tested some of the 64 bit builds and got zero performance increase.Maybe couse its beta or lack of support i really don't know.


Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 4:55 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Thu Feb 07, 2008 1:35 pm

Posts
571

Location
United Kingdom
Well, as you can see in my signature, I have Windows XP X64 dual-booting with 32-bit Vista. I have noticed some increase in performance, eg: it doesn't take as long to move, copy and delete files in explorer, programs open faster, logon speed is slightly faster.

_________________
Image


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 6:49 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sun Jan 27, 2008 8:09 pm

Posts
3934

Favourite OS
OS X 10.8
squidward_ wrote:
Well, as you can see in my signature, I have Windows XP X64 dual-booting with 32-bit Vista. I have noticed some increase in performance, eg: it doesn't take as long to move, copy and delete files in explorer, programs open faster, logon speed is slightly faster.
Your comparing XP to Vista. If you were running Vista x64 and Vista x86, or XP x64 and XP x86, you'd notice almost no speed increase, given that you have only 2GB of RAM.


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 8:03 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri Sep 01, 2006 10:04 pm

Posts
1022

Location
The Ephemeral between existance and non-existance: AKA "being"

Favourite OS
Rhapsody, BeOS
Derf wrote:
Your comparing XP to Vista. If you were running Vista x64 and Vista x86, or XP x64 and XP x86, you'd notice almost no speed increase, given that you have only 2GB of RAM.


Nope, you do notice a speed increase and I only have 2GBs of RAM...
Besides a snapier system programs like x64 POV-RAY will give you 20% speed increases...

_________________
Image
Part Time Troll - HPC Enthusiast - Spelling Master - Old Fart


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 8:17 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sun Jan 27, 2008 8:09 pm

Posts
3934

Favourite OS
OS X 10.8
Frozenport wrote:
Derf wrote:
Your comparing XP to Vista. If you were running Vista x64 and Vista x86, or XP x64 and XP x86, you'd notice almost no speed increase, given that you have only 2GB of RAM.


Nope, you do notice a speed increase and I only have 2GBs of RAM...
Besides a snapier system programs like x64 POV-RAY will give you 20% speed increases...
Running both Windows XP 64-bit and Windows XP 32-bit on a 1.6 GHz Pentium Dual-Core Allendale processor, with 2GB of RAM, while doing things such as DVD authoring, movie conversion, and basic internet surfing, I don't notice any speed increase at all, although I haven't benchmarked it. Each operating system does the same task in about the same amount of time.


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 9:54 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Tue Sep 19, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
66
i see that x64 vista is much faster than x86 vista, though i dont run x86 vista that much anymore considering ive got a pc with 8gb of ram.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:18 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Thu Feb 07, 2008 1:35 pm

Posts
571

Location
United Kingdom
Well, when Windows 7 is released, considering that they are going to release it in both x86 & x64, (WTF did they consider only releasing it in x64!!!!????), I will get the X64 version. I am dual-booting the x64 version of XP with 32-bit Vista just to see what the experience is like before move entirely to 64-bit when Windows 7 is released.

_________________
Image


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 1:16 pm 
Reply with quote
Staff
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Apr 11, 2007 2:11 pm

Posts
2607

Location
Germany, Earth

Favourite OS
Windows 10
squidward_ wrote:
WTF did they consider only releasing it in x64!!!!????


I don't understand why they consider to release it as x86 version, I mean, Windows 7 wont
run on old hardware, and all the desktop CPUs made during the past five years support amd64,
don't they? Releasing another x86 version of Windows just slows down the development and
spreading of x64 software.....

_________________
MS vNext: Windows 10 ESD Database - Windows 10 Build Labs - Windows 10 Update Archive - Office 2016 Version Tracker - Office Downloader


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 11:12 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
Daniel wrote:
I don't understand why they consider to release it as x86 version, I mean, Windows 7 wont
run on old hardware, and all the desktop CPUs made during the past five years support amd64,
don't they? Releasing another x86 version of Windows just slows down the development and
spreading of x64 software.....

Good point, but there are still CPUs out there which lack x86_64 support, e.g. Core Solo/Duo, Atom N & Z series and probably others as well. The question if Windows 7 will run acceptably on these can arise but if it does, the presence of an x86 version is justified. Your main point – all recent desktop CPUs support x86_64 – is valid, but the market doesn't only include these.


Top  Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ] 




Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All views expressed in these forums are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the BetaArchive site owner.

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

Copyright © 2006-2018

 

Sitemap | XML | RSS