Talk:Windows XP Professional x64 Edition

"Windows XP 64-bit Edition is designed to use 64-bit memory addresses" -- I think the maximum memory limit is set to 128 GB in current version, so the addesses probably don't use full 64-bits for memory adressing Helix84 21:57, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are right, updated the page to reflect this.[1] --Yamla 22:16, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

Definitely move. There isn't a reason not to at all. Shame that the redirect already exists. - Estel ^(talk). 13:14, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I got rid of the redirect from Windows XP 64-bit Edition, and AlistairMcMillan put it back. On 20 Oct, I'm getting rid of the redirect again. '64-bit Edition' is a completely separate product than 'Professional x64 Edition'. - Ehurtley 00:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

question

Is there any real point in 64? so far it would seem its designed around functionality that is not and will never happen in it's lifetime from the home and small business user's perspective, while larger businesses will have the resources for custom implementations of free or open licensed software that will accomplkish the same for much less heartache.

There absolutely is. Once people have more than 2 gigs of RAM and particularly, more than 3 or 4 gigs, the extra memory addressing is invaluable (though not fundamentally required). My home desktop and my laptop both have 2 gigs of RAM now and I know many people with more. --Yamla 15:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

--128.154.44.44 19:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

64 bit is definately a very good thing, however Windows XP 64bit edition is, I believe, a waste of time. If Vista wasnt coming out in 11 months then maybe it would be worth the investment, but as vista will be available relatively soon this version strikes me as a complete waste of time and money for virtually no benefit. Vista on the other hand will be amazing. Martin 15:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Windows XP 64bit edition is still a worthwhile investment for those that want to avoid the inevitable initial teething problems with Vista as well as the DRM crap.

And 640kb ought to be enough for anybody, right?

Oh, You're too cruel to Bill Gates... ;) m_gol 16:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It's important that the evolution of 64-bit happens before we need that extra addressing on a typical machine. In seven years, 3 GB of memory might be standard, if only so that doing searches across a lot of information can be really, really fast because it's all cached in memory. In the meantime, the quality of 64-bit drivers and software can ramp up, developers can get good at it, and in time, we can move to 64-bit being the "standard", just like we moved to from 16-bit to 32-bit some twelve years ago. Warrens 18:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

1.A. what this article needs is a link to tell users what OS they have - I don't know if I have 64 or not and how do you tell? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.248.68 (talk) 14:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Availability

Needs some info on that you can't buy the thing, only can get it pre-installed in a very small number of OEM machines.

MSTCrow 07:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

"Another solution is to use virtualization software like VMware or VirtualPC to run other versions of Windows or MS-DOS, but are considered "hellishly slow" to users compared to the aforementioned DOSBox." This statement sounds rather biased...--128.154.44.44 19:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Virtualisation software is generally fairly fast. Indeed, I'm somewhat surprised that DOSBox is faster then VMware or VirtualPC since DOSBox is an emulator although it does use dymanic translation for i386 processors according to wiki. In the past, I heard it was very slow although I guess it has significantly improved. Of course, any DOS or Windows 3.1 app is unlikely to be very taxing in any case. Nil Einne 19:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I happen to have been able to buy an x64 Professional CD in Germany in 2006 when the above complaint was written. Only problem was that I couldn't use it because BootCamp on my MacPro didn't recognize it as a genuine Windows system back then. Today, I'm using it in Virtual Box on top of Windows 10 in order to still use my old scanner and Corel PSP X2. --79.242.218.118 (talk) 14:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Licencing

I removed:

It is only available pre-installed on machines from a limited number of OEMs, or in licence packs of 5 or more.

as on this UK shop site it is availible seperate from hardware in a 1 pack: [2] Hamish (Talk) 22:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This link is actually a OEM version (which is says in the description), and not a retail version (which doesn't exist). Technically (in the US, anyways), OEM software must be sold with hardware, and cannot be sold unbundled. Some on-line retailers get around this by making you buy a cheap piece of hardware, such as a power cord. Others completely disregard the licensing restriction, and sell the OEM software alone. The point is, there is no true Retail version of XP Pro x64, and there is no legal way to acquire XP Pro x64 by itself. Thalter 16:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Lies, if you acquire it via MSDNAA then you have a legal copy of XP Pro x64 without the need to buy hardware, it blows anyway, the OS itself is excellent but hardware manufacturers are very slow on the 64-bit support 172.188.248.32 02:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Compatibility with other applications

Can some knowledgeable people review this, and then either make the pertinent changes, or else drop me a note and erase this comment?

"Unlike prior versions of the Windows NT line, 64-bit Windows versions do not include NTVDM so there is no support for the execution of [...] POSIX ..."

I should be thick, but I do not see any relationship between NTVDM (i.e. 16-bit support) and the POSIX subsystem. Furthermore, I "feel" the SUA subsystem can be lifted from 2003 server x64 R2 back to XP x64, since it is exactly the same base under the hood. Similarly, this very subsystem is included in Vista x64, in Ultimate or Enterprise versions. And of course the SUA (ex-SFU, ex-Interix) subsystem is just a piece-for-piece replacement (and vast improvement) for the original POSIX subsystem, as shipped with NT until v.5.0 (Windows 2000) and dropped with XP 32 bits (MS knowledge base). AntoineL 14:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

comptibility with Office 2010 is BY DESIGN - ie this was intentional by MS to try and force you to upgrade. The text implies that it is due to x64 incompatibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.30.14.119 (talk) 12:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

32-bit Windows memory constraints (Post-SP1)

The article refers to 32 bit Windows being constrained to 4 gb RAM - but, if memory serves, SP1 introduced a 3 gb limit. Am I wrong? 62.107.208.113 17:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

This is an answer without references and it's been awhile since I've cared about this kind of minutae, so go look it up. But: NTOS normally creates a 4gb virtual address space. This is mapped to whatever real memory+virtual memory you have. Within this space, 2gb is for kernel mode, and 2gb is for user mode. Since there is no direct mapping to real memory, this division is fine... until now when machines have 4gb of memory and for all intent, there is nearly a 1:1 relationship to real memory. Prioritizing 3gb for user mode/1gb for kernel mode is a performance trade-off. afaik, this option was present in Win2000, but maybe my memory is faulty. Go look it up, but I think that's the answer you want. This also doesn't get into things like 48 bit memory addressing (PAE) modes on 32 bit x86. SchmuckyTheCat 20:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Windows NT 5.2?

I believe I read that Windows XP x64 carries the identification Windows NT 5.2. However, Windows NT 5.2 redirrects to Windows Server 2003. Should there be a disambiguation page, or am I mistaken about this? --Tech Nerd 04:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Windows Server 2003 x64 and Windows XP x64 are the same OS, just branded differently, and both are Windows NT 5.2 internally. In fact, you can manually install Windows Server 2003 security updates from beyond the EOL date of XP x64 and they will install properly. I'm typing this on an XP x64 system updated in that manner right now. 174.109.20.153 (talk) 08:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi. The article does mention that Windows XP x64 is a version of Windows Server 2003. So, the redirect is correct. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Another confirmation on identity: In order to install Firefox on x64 today, you'll need SP2, and there were two different versions of SP2: One for most XP versions, and one for Windows Server 2003. The general XP one won't install, but the Server 2003 version works just fine. --79.242.218.118 (talk) 14:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

iPhone

Looking at this list for the first time, the "lack of iPhone support" part seems too specific to be included in the list. Every other entry has to do with general known issues. It just seems like it deserves a category of its own that would include other device-specific problems.--Eddie 01:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why this is considered a limitation of the OS, when it's Apple who does not release support for Windows XP Professional x64. I think this point of incompatibility is easily covered by one of the entries mentioning that some companies do not provide 64-bit drivers and that the OS does not support 32-bit drivers. Smeggysmeg 20:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

removed. SchmuckyTheCat

Zip Utilities

"An example of this is the inability to install the context-menu options for applications such as zip utilities." This isn't true. I'm running XP x64, have WinRAR installed, and I see the WinRAR context menu in explorer. Context menus aren't exes, they're registry items. I'm removing the line for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinghajj (talk • contribs) 22:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Statements confusing physical addressing limit and VIRTUAL address space

In regards to the following excerpt (from the article):

"The primary benefit of moving to 64-bit is the increase in the maximum allocatable system memory (RAM). Windows XP 32-bit is limited to a total of 4 GB, which is, by default, equally divided between Kernel and application usage. Using the /3GB switch in the boot.ini file forces Windows to limit the kernel to the upper 1GB and provides up to 3GB for applications."

If there is no objection, I propose this either be removed or at least re-stated because there is already a plethora of confusion about the /3GB switch somehow being related to RAM limitations of 32-bit operating systems (sans 36-bit PAE kernel). I have personally had to refute dozens of posts on forums implying or out-right stating the /3GB switch is somehow a work-around to the 32-bit physical address space limitation of 32-bit operating systems (i.e. 4GB). In reality, the /3GB switch impacts VIRTUAL ADDRESS SPACE, not physical address space or RAM addressing.

Refer to the following excerpt from Microsoft's MSDN Library on the 4GT RAM Tuning function:

On 32-bit editions of Windows, applications have 4 gigabyte (GB) of virtual address space available. The virtual address space is divided so that 2 GB is available to the application and the other 2 GB is available only to the system. The 4-gigabyte tuning (4GT) feature, formerly called 4GT RAM Tuning, increases the virtual address space that is available to the application up to 3 GB, and reduces the amount available to the system to between 1 and 2 GB.

Others have been compelled to blog or write in order to clear up the same myths and confusion:

Demystifying /3GB

Scenarios using /3GB and /PAE switch

Summary of the recent spate of /3GB articles -- Brewster1971 (talk) 03:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Bugs

Start 32-Bit File-Manager (i.e. Total Commander). Run "cmd" from there. Windows will run 32-bit Version of cmd.exe because it was started from 32-bit application. Now change settings for this window (click with right mouse button on statusbar of cmd.exe and select properties). For example change the side of the window. Now apply changed setings to all such windows (to start it next time with this configuration). Start the cmd.exe again from 32-bit File-manager. You see - your settings were not saved. But if you start a 64-bit version of cmd.exe - you see your settings were applied. It means Windows changes settings of 64-bit cmd.exe application instead changing settings of 32-bit application. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.109.190.88 (talk) 14:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't help the article and isn't the purpose of a Wikipedia talk page. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Windows Media Player

Hi. Following some unreferenced assertions by "User:Dogmaticeclectic" and persistent reverts, I investigated a little bit. According to Microsoft[3], Windows Media Player 10 comes with Service Pack 2 for Windows Server 2003. This service pack also services Windows XP x64.[4] because Windows XP x64 is in fact an edition of Windows Server 2003.[5]

Result: Without doubt, Windows XP x64 does not ship with Windows Media Player 10.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 11:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect; the very first source you quoted states that it was included in both Server 2003 SP1 and SP2. As XP x64 was based on Server 2003 SP1 (as already stated in this article), WMP 10 was in fact included in XP x64 RTM. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Wrong: There is no evidence that Windows XP x64 is based on Windows Server 2003 SP1. I obtained a copy of Windows XP x64 edition and checked: It contain Windows Media Player 9, version 9.00.00.2991. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

XP x64 is indeed based on S2k3 x64 SP1 codebase but it may not contain all add-on programs released with SP1.--Denniss (talk) 12:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I agree. I found a source that confirms the first part of your sentence and I already agree with the second part. So, what should I do? Dogmaticeclectic has brought this to the brink of edit warring while the burden of proof is on him. Any suggestions? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:50, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I've now added a source, directly from Microsoft, that confirms WMP 10 being included in XP x64 RTM. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: You may have installed Windows XP 64-bit edition instead of Pro x64 edition, or (although not likely) a pre-RTM version.

@Dogmaticeclectic: Thanks, edit warrior.

Fleet Command (talk) 14:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

On the 64-bit Memory Limit

I'm going to leave this here to explain the revision I made, so no one attempts to roll it back with the typical "vandalism" excuse.

I changed "16 exabytes" to "18 exabytes" because The SI standard specifies their prefixes to be powers of ten, not two. For powers of two, the IEEE standard specifies long-standing, well-established prefixes specially defined for this context. For example, 1024 bytes is a kibibyte, while 1000 bytes is a kilobyte.

So, to fact-check that part that said "16 exabytes", I calculated the maximum address that a 64-bit CPU would be able to access. To do that, I entered 2 ** 64 into a python interpreter, and got back 18,446,744,073,709,551,616, which would be exactly 18.45 exabytes of addressable RAM.

Something was definitely wrong, so to check if perhaps the author confused *exabytes* with *exbibytes*, I calculated the size of an exbibyte with 1024^6 (1024 (kibi) * 1024 (mebi) * 1024 (gibi) * 1024 (tebi) * 1024 (pebi) * 1024 (exbi)), which is 1,152,921,504,606,846,976 (there's where the 15% from the article on exabytes comes from), which when multiplied by 16 is exactly equal to 2^64.

The figure was accurate. The terminology, was not.

B1KWikis (talk) 03:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Upgrade Error

The upgrade section of the article needs a bit more work. It's making uncited claims, and at the same time states that Windows XP Professional x64 Edition simultaneously "can be upgraded to Windows Vista" and "is not upgradable to Windows Vista". Someone with a bit of knowledge, please help out here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Userjack6880 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Microsoft windows xp professional x64 edition

M 217.131.6.16 (talk) 12:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)