XP 64-bit versus 32-bit

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ken
  • Start date Start date
K

Ken

Is there any advantage/disadvantage to using the 64-bit version of XP
even though I have no apps that would use it? I am wondering if there
is a pure speed advantage if the 64-bit version is used because of the
ability to address more than 3+GB of RAM. Also, which cpu's would be
best to use with the 64-bit version: quad core?

Thanks,

Ken K
 
Ken

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit

--



Hope this helps.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Ken wrote:
> Is there any advantage/disadvantage to using the 64-bit version of XP
> even though I have no apps that would use it? I am wondering if there
> is a pure speed advantage if the 64-bit version is used because of the
> ability to address more than 3+GB of RAM. Also, which cpu's would be
> best to use with the 64-bit version: quad core?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ken K
 
On Jun 10, 8:13 am, Ken <nore...@charter.net> wrote:
> Is there any advantage/disadvantage to using the 64-bit version of XP
> even though I have no apps that would use it?  I am wondering if there
> is a pure speed advantage if the 64-bit version is used because of the
> ability to address more than 3+GB of RAM.  Also, which cpu's would be
> best to use with the 64-bit version: quad core?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ken K

There is a speed increase, but what you must check is whether your
hardware has compatible drivers. They must say they are compatible
with XP 64bit.
 
Ken wrote:
> Is there any advantage/disadvantage to using the 64-bit version of XP
> even though I have no apps that would use it? I am wondering if there
> is a pure speed advantage if the 64-bit version is used because of the
> ability to address more than 3+GB of RAM. Also, which cpu's would be
> best to use with the 64-bit version: quad core?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ken K
XP 64-bit is certainly faster and more reliable (because it is Windows
Server 2003).
 
Back
Top