They lied, Windows Vista x64 had the same problem Windows XP Professional x64 Edition had.
>>107895828they are not ready for this truth nuke
>>107895828and that is...?
>>107896091No one wanted to make drivers for it, and the hardware of the time probably didn't even use full 64 bit addressing either.
>>107896281>and the hardware of the time probably didn't even use full 64 bit addressing either.*still
none of you used xp 64
>>107896470I did, and I couldn't get it to work on my Optiplex 760.
>>107896470Not sure why anyone would want to when no machines at the time hit the 4gb limit without major user intervention.
>>107896495well then no you didnt dude.
>>107896509Not unless you were using a 64-bit computer.
>>107896514Can you tell me how to get it working when I can't find drivers for it, and when the drivers I do find don't even work?
>>107896524Most then-x64 compatible machines still couldn't even use more than 4gb due to bios limitationseven ms said that the only reason to get the x64 version of xp was if you wanted to future-proof the drivers you were writing
>>107896509like this is why i say that. who even are you people? do you even computer? were you even conscious at the time? why would i buy an athlon 64 x2 6000+ (my first computer i builded myself btw) and not buy xp 64 along with it? i demand to know the context you post from.
>>107896470Nope, I did use vista 64 though with no issues.
>>107896546>even ms said that the only reason to get the x64 version of xp was if you wanted to future-proof the drivers you were writingWhat a shitty marketing approach, Apple did 64-bit better.
>>107896551Probably cause you bought it new like that, and only the distributors had to deal with the headache of getting the drivers together, lol.
>>107896576Nope, I built the PC and bought the distro from MC.
>>107896295What qualifies as using full 64 bit addressing? The ability to connect 16 EB RAM to it?
>>107896547Not him, but that's what I'm wondering. I probably just would've gotten a 32-bit computer instead if support was apparently this difficult to get. That, or I would've gotten a 64-bit PC anyway assuming that the companies were at any abstract definition of "competent", and being disappointed with it when finding out I can't just do what the fuck I want with it.
>>107896676Damn, that's annoying for me who tried to install XP Pro x64, Vista x64, and finally XP x86 SP3, except I got a bunch of drivers not installed still, so I guess I have to get shit off of Dell's website just to make it work.Hopefully it actually does this time, especially because this specific computer was shipped with XP SP3, and if Dell's drivers still don't even work with this, then it'll be extra annoying...
>>107896535Ive installed XP x64 on a thinkpad - xp220 might have been - with little issue fwiw. But it'll fall over on lack of drivers for most anything USB and the juice ain't really worth the squeeze beyond mild curiosity desu.
>>107896695I don't know, I'm just parroting the shit everyone else has said about XP Pro x64 and why 64-bit computers were shipped with 32-bit OSs back then, because it's not like I'm the dev here.
>>107896804I'm questioning the "*still". Back on XP x64 the kernel ran in proper 64 bit long mode the same as modern 64 bit kernels. But many of the user programs the OS shipped with were still 32 bit, as was almost all the software people installed on it. Today all the programs that come with the OS are 64 bit, as are most of the ones you install.
>>107896841The problem was apparently they had computers with x64 processors, but not all the hardware was actually 64-bit in said computers, so it made XP x64 even more useless because the only thing you could install on there was a 32-bit OS anyway. Talk about E-waste...
>>107896860Do you mean PCI and AGP? Both of those were 32 bits wide, so transferring 64 bits took 2 bus cycles. Most of what affects processing speed is the RAM interface and that hasn't been 32 bit since the early-mid 90s.There was very little reason to use a 64 bit OS back then though. It doesn't improve speed in many situations, the RAM size barriers it let you get around weren't very restrictive on XP, and it increased RAM use. It added compatibility with the vanishingly small selection of 64 bit software, in exchange for removing compatibility with the vast amount of 16 bit software (and complicated installing a lot of 32 bit programs that still used 16 bit installers because fuck InstallShield).The 64 bit transition was still way quicker than the 32 bit one. The 386 came out in 1986 and began appearing in higher end computers a couple years later. But it wouldn't be until 1993 that it got a proper 32 bit OS in NT 3.1, and it took until 1995 for a consumer oriented 32 bit OS. 32 bit 386s running 16 bit DOS and Windows software for so long was what inspired the creation of Linux too.
>>107896980I just wanted to make my x64 Optiplex 760 not waste it's potential.
>>107896980>>107897018Also, I dont really know what people were talking about when they were saying you couldn't use XP x64 because the hardware back then "didn't always use the full 64-bit address". Like I said, I'm not a dev.
>>107895828I think I did. On 1 single computer which, for whatever reason, had XP 64 edition with Program Files (x86) and Program Files.I do not know why. It was a kmart PC. kekI didn't understand anything about that though at the time. I was like... 13?
If only Dell had an option to select XP Pro x64 Edition drivers on their website as a category.
I never even used XP 64 or Vista 64, only the 32-bit versions. All in the past and not worth a damn.
>>107897159Y2038 disagrees.It's time we started thinking about that problem.
>>107897073The biggest reason it wasn't so usable is that most hardware makers didn't bother making 64 bit drivers because nobody used 64 bit. The hardware was perfectly capable of working with a 64 bit system even if it was in a 32 bit PCI slot, but without drivers it wasn't going to do anything interesting.Meanwhile there was a 32 bit XP driver for everything.
>>107896695A lot of hardware at the time could do more than 2GB.
>>107896547XP 64, as far as I know, wasnt widely available to the public, and released pretty late into XP's lifespan. If you were shopping at microcenter or best buy for PC parts, you may not even know XP x64 exists or may simply pass it up because its more expensive and has features you aren't going to use. The main appeal of the Athlon 64 was that it was faster and more efficient than the Pentium 4, not its address space.
>>107897240But 4 GB minus hardware reserved is the limit for 32 bit. Some chipsets topped out at 3 GB in 32 bit mode. Some, usually later ones from after 64 bit was more common (and some Intel Macs where 64 bit adoption was faster) couldn't do more than 2 GB in a 32 bit OS.2 GB was a lot of RAM in XP though.
>>107897159>All in the past and not worth a damn.>Guys, retro gaming is illegal, don't you know that!?
>>107897229>The hardware was perfectly capable of working with a 64 bit systemThen I guess those people were retarded for saying it wasn't.
>>107897073address space means the maximum amount of RAM a machine can recognize and work with. 32 bit processors are hard limited to 4gb because 4 billion is the largest number you can represent with a 32 digit long binary number. 64 bit's theoretical limit is much higher, 16 sextillion bytes. However, practical limits are usually much smaller. Even if hardware supports 64 bit wide numbers, it does not support the 16 sextillion that it could theoretically address with a 64 bit number. Most at the time were limited to 4 gb by the chipset or bios. Some even went as low as 2gb.
>>107897207Both Windows and Linux solved that problem decades ago.
>>107897240>>107897284meant to say "couldn't do more than 2 gb"Anyways, a lot of chipsets couldn't do more than 2gb period. Regardless of how many bits the OS was.
>>107897391No, the independent software devs are still perpetuating it.
>>107897415well software devs being retarded is nothing new. I'm sure they'll fix it at he last minute like they did for y2k.
>>107897439Probably, but it's lolworthy they aren't doing it now.
>>107896791>>107896788I still can't get drivers working with this piece of crap 760, even with 32-bit XP, which is literally what this was shipped with. It doesn't want to work with my GPU either.
>>1078972072038 kill switch had never affect Windows since W2000.
I never even had more than 4GB of RAM until Windows 7 so I just stuck with 32-bit.
>>107897266ok. so you weren't building your computers in the 2000's? or you were and it was of already old then stuff?
