Can Windows XP Pro 64 bit utilize over 4GB RAM???

[fastHID]

It is sometimes difficult to get the straight scoop on questions like this, some say you must have Win 7 to run more than 4GB ram, some say that's not the case you must have any Win OS that is 64 bit?

Can Win XP Pro 64 run over 8 GB or RAM?

 

[malch]

Can Win XP Pro 64 run over 8 GB or RAM?

Yes.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx#physical_memory_limits_windows_xp

Obviously, you have to consider the max limits imposed by your motherboard and BIOS too.

 

[Sean Nelson]

Malch is right.

The only real reason for any 64-bit OS to exist is its ability to use more than 4GB of RAM.

 

[AwkwardSwine]

Indeed it does handle more the 4GB, XP Pro will use up to about 128 GB if your motherboard can hold it. 8-16 is more typical.

BUT:

• You can not upgrade from XP 32bit to XP64. Clean install required.
• Lots of driver and some app compat issues on XP64, many key apps don't run at all (Photoshop, Lightroom, etc)
• You may as well upgrade to Win7 64 if you currently use XP32. You'll have a much better experience all around and not have to worry about compat and driver issues.
• Security of Win7 64 is VASTLY superior to XP32/64. (ASLR, IE9, etc)

It is sometimes difficult to get the straight scoop on questions like this, some say you must have Win 7 to run more than 4GB ram, some say that's not the case you must have any Win OS that is 64 bit?

Can Win XP Pro 64 run over 8 GB or RAM?

 

[herebefore]

It is sometimes difficult to get the straight scoop on questions like this, some say you must have Win 7 to run more than 4GB ram, some say that's not the case you must have any Win OS that is 64 bit?

Can Win XP Pro 64 run over 8 GB or RAM?

As some others have said, Windows 7 64bit would be a MUCH better move than XP 64bit.

I tried for MONTHS to get XP 64bit up and running and it just didnt happen... I would fix one problem only to have another problem pop up...

Vista 32/64 was pretty poor, and the only time I ran it was when it came pre-installed... I quickly up-graded to 7 when it was available and no real problems since.

--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Connecticut

I figured out why I cant lose weight! The only exercise Im good at is CHEWING

Don't take yourself so seriously. No one else does

In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane.
Oscar Wilde

 

[fastHID]

wow. enlightening! wow!

glad I didn't move too quickly to XP64.

now, I am considering ordering a new HP desktop with Win 7 64 installed.

thank you. saved me a lot of grief

 

[jralbert]

I think you will be surprised how easily your 32 bit pgms run under Win 7 Pro w/its 32 bit compatability mode.

Even Office/Word/Excel 2003 plays pretty well (not perfectly - there are occasional hiccups). Well enough, though that I don't plan to upgrade for a while.

I have other legacy (that means older) graphics pgms that I expect will run well.

As for hardware, you may run into driver issues where the hardware mfr has refused to write a 64 bit driver. That was the case, for example, with my Epson scanner, now about 5 or 6 yrs old. Epson wouldn't upgrade the driver but another firm did. So for the cost of the driver, about 40 dollars (yeah, I know drivers shouldn't cost that much), I can avoid buying a new scanner (about $150-$200) when this one works well.

Our new machine has 12 gb memory as opposed to 2gb in the old one and, indeed, things work faster and better. That includes PSE9. Here's an example. On the XP machine, PSE would not fill in the edges of a panorama (huge file) automatically. On the Win 7 machine, it auto fills the edges and does so quite snappily. That alone saves me a lot of work.

good luck as you mull over an upgrade
--
joel albert

 

[calson]

I would not upgrade a XP computer to Windows 7 for two key reasons. First is that Windows 7 is 40-50% slower than XP (though 15-20% faster than Vista). Second is that the XP computers seldom had more than two slots and are wired for 4GB of RAM. Only a very few XP machines shipped that supported 8GB and only the server boxes supported more than 8GB of RAM.

 

[Eric Carlson]

First is that Windows 7 is 40-50% slower than XP (though 15-20% faster than Vista).

As I said in the other thread to your similar comment: Almost totally untrue, unless your computer is very limited on RAM, like 1.Gig or less.

--

• Eric, http://www.InvisibleRobot.com/

 

[Sean Nelson]

As I said in the other thread to your similar comment: Almost totally untrue, unless your computer is very limited on RAM, like 1.Gig or less.

Actually, I have Windows 7 loaded on an old laptop with 1GB of memory and it works just as fast as XP did.

 

[jralbert]

My experience is not what you report. My Win 7 (which I migrated to reluctantly because XP did fairly well) has been positive and a performance is noticeably improved.

With the added memory capacity, I can do things in P'shop not possible in XP.

Also, the OP did not ask about upgrading a machine from XP to Win7. I would agree that, from what I've read, that is not adviseable. I don't want to spend anyone else's money but for a relatively modest outlay, a new machine with enough memory slots ould be the way to go. The "old" machine can be sold to make up some of the new machine cost.
--
joel albert

 

[Takahashi]

Windows 7 is 40-50% slower than XP (though 15-20% faster than Vista).

Wrong, and those percentage numbers have been pulled out of a dark, dank place.

Second is that the XP computers seldom had more than two slots and are wired for 4GB of RAM.

On which planet?

Only a very few XP machines shipped that supported 8GB and only the server boxes supported more than 8GB of RAM.

Oh look, more wrongness. Where are you getting this info?!?

 

[Eric Carlson]

Actually, I have Windows 7 loaded on an old laptop with 1GB of memory and it works just as fast as XP did.

Good to hear. As I've mentioned in the past, I upgraded an old Pentium 4 laptop that has 1.5Gig RAM from XP and got improved performance with Windows 7.

--

• Eric, http://www.InvisibleRobot.com/

 

[Takahashi]

Yep, when we first received pre-release versions of 7 from MS, I installed it on the first system in our workshop that didn't have any OS on it, and it ran exceptionally well. Considering it was an ageing Sempron 2800+ (1.6GHz) 512Mb ram, and an old, clunky Maxtor 40GB 5400rpm HD, this was indeed remarkable. I was astounded just how well it performed. Obviously this performance suffered as more and more software was added to the mix, but still... it was obvious even then that MS had a winner on their hands, at least when compared to the now horrendously obese Vista.

 

[Lyle Aldridge]

I would not upgrade a XP computer to Windows 7 for two key reasons. First is that Windows 7 is 40-50% slower than XP (though 15-20% faster than Vista).

At the risk of piling on, I must also disagree. I've replaced XP with Windows 7 on a couple of older computers. It's significantly faster, not slower.

I'm also running the Windows 8 beta on an older computer with only 2GB of plain old DDR RAM. It's faster still. It's got other issues, most notably the truly horrible Metro GUI, but speed isn't one of them.

 

[calson]

If you are running an application that was constrained by the memory space of XP then going to Windows 7 will help it run faster.

There are many published tests on performance of the same computers running XP versus Vista and Vista versus Windows 7 if you check the business information tech publications including Information Week, eWeek, and many many others. Microsoft itself came out and said that Windows 7 was 20% faster than Vista and check the Vista performance figures.

There is a very good reason why fewer than 15% of American corporations moved from XP to Vista and it was do to the dismal performance and the realization that to move desktops to Windows 7 the company was going to have to buy a new computer as well. During the entire time Vista was on the market it shipped on corporate purchases of laptops but companies continued to buy the desktops with XP installed. You can still buy a Lenovo or HP desktop or notebook computer with XP installed. Now if Windows 7 is so much better why do you suppose that would be?

If all you read are posts on forums like this it is not hard to understand why you would be ignorant of the vast amount of information on the internet that takes only seconds to find. I have been using Microsofts OS products since DOS 1.0 and supported every OS since in Fortune 500 companies while working for HP and IBM and supporting tens of thousands of users but then what do I know.

I use whatever tool works best for a given task and don't limit myself to what comes out of Redmond. All the iPhone and iPad owners, some 50 million plus users, or all the people buying Android devices cannot all be wrong.

 

[Takahashi]

If you are running an application that was constrained by the memory space of XP then going to Windows 7 will help it run faster.

"Memory space of XP"?!? What does that even mean? Using Win7 on any given system built in the last 5 years will very likely give better performance and stability over the same system running XP, provided it has full driver support for 7. The only time "memory space" comes into the equation is whether you're using a 32 bit or 64 bit OS, and it's a well known fact that XP64 was dire, in terms of stability and reliability.

Microsoft itself came out and said that Windows 7 was 20% faster than Vista and check the Vista performance figures.

Nobody is disputing that. What we are disputing is your woefully inaccurate assessment of 7's performance over that of XP. Vista is a hunk of bloated junk. This is not news.

There is a very good reason why fewer than 15% of American corporations moved from XP to Vista and it was do to the dismal performance...

...I'd agree with that, but your next part... :

...and the realization that to move desktops to Windows 7 the company was going to have to buy a new computer as well.

...applies more to Vista, for the same reason; woeful performance. If corporates were reluctant to shift from XP to 7, it would likely be more to do with lack of confidence due to the shambles that was Vista, and that many XP-based networks are still performing adequately, at least in the minds of those facing a huge transition to the new OS.

During the entire time Vista was on the market it shipped on corporate purchases of laptops but companies continued to buy the desktops with XP installed. You can still buy a Lenovo or HP desktop or notebook computer with XP installed. Now if Windows 7 is so much better why do you suppose that would be?

Eh? Laptops designed to run Vista were being shipped (retro-installed) with XP, because corporate purchasers weren't convinced of 7's performance?!? The reason was (as I stated above) that they had no confidence in Vista, and didn't want to face a potentially expensive re-training regime for their staff. Better the devil they know.

If all you read are posts on forums like this it is not hard to understand why you would be ignorant of the vast amount of information on the internet that takes only seconds to find. I have been using Microsofts OS products since DOS 1.0 and supported every OS since in Fortune 500 companies while working for HP and IBM and supporting tens of thousands of users but then what do I know.

..which proves what, exactly?

I use whatever tool works best for a given task and don't limit myself to what comes out of Redmond. All the iPhone and iPad owners, some 50 million plus users, or all the people buying Android devices cannot all be wrong.

No-one here is saying "BUY MS PRODUCTS ONLY!!!".

Honestly, your reasoning is decidedly odd, if not downright disingenuous.