OT: Download Windows XP 64-bit NOW!

Hey Mike, I downloaded the trial for 64bit Server 2003 over the weekend and was disappointed 'cause it didn't have support for my server Raid array. Now I get to try XP on the workstations. I hope it supports my workstation Raid! We'll see! Thanks for the news...

- Eddy

I'd have to say "what".

why would you want to install a trojan on your computer?

And 64-bit linux (AMD) has been around for a while now. So much for M$ being a leading innovator.

btw, Mandrake10 comes out this month or next!! KDE3.2! woo-hoo!!

-nick "I have cygwin installed at work because my bash shell is just so much nicer and better than DOS and Windows" e.

I absolutely love the brain dead implementation of filename completion in the Windows XP DOS box. Consider a directory where I have two files, named 'A.sldprt' and 'A.doc'. On a Linux machine, at a command prompt, I can type

cp A.

and I am presented with a list of files that start with 'A.'. A can subsequently type more letters followed by the TAB key to narrow down the list until only one file remains, at which point the full filename will be completed. So, for the files above, I can type:

cp A.s

and Linux spits out:

cp A.sldprt

Now, with Windows XP, if I type

copy A.

the dumb thing always completes the entire filename with the first file it finds (alphabetically) that starts with 'A.'. So I get this:

copy A.doc

every time.

Another Windows 'innovation' swiped from elsewhere and completely botched in the process.

Jim (thank heavens for MSYS - a cygwin like environment with a Windows specific slant) S.

The next question is, Would you want to try running SW on a 64bit OS? My guess is not for production. Two reasons:

1. SW isn't compiled to take advantage of it.
2. MSoft may be feeling pressure from Linux and be releasing early without thorough testing. Wait, its a trial, aka Betaware.

And just curious, is this 64 bit OS for > Is this cool or what...

According to the MS web site it's for the AMD Opteron and Athlons only.

Dave H

kellnerp wrote:

Guys, guys, you're missing the point!

We've all been salivating over 64bit and on the Athlon64 the Solidworks performance numbers have been untouchable. Mike is merely pointing out that the beta for WinXP-64 is available for those who want to glimpse the future. I never read anything in his posting about how he wanted to start a debate. I, for one, am interested and will try it on a test machine. Curiosity, that's all.

- Eddy

WinXP64 will most likely be slower than WinXP(32) anyhoo, especially when running 32 bit apps.

The real benefit of WinXP64 will be seen when SWX releases a 64 bit version. THEN, and only then, will the 2-3GB memory barrier be broken, really helping those of us working with some large assemblies.

Bottom line, if you are not maxing out Window's memory limits now (in the 2GB range), you will not benefit much from WinXP64. The Athlon64 WILL benefit you ONLY due to its good 32 bit performance. Its good performance has nothing to do with the fact that it is 64 bit capable.

Summary:

***System #1 AthlonXP or P4 32 bit processor Windows XP 32 bit OS SolidWorks 32 bit application ***Nice system***

***System #2 Athlon64 64 bit processor Windows XP 32 bit OS SolidWorks 32 bit application

***Very good performer in SWX, best money can buy now***

***System #3 Athlon64 64 bit processor Windows XP 64 bit OS SolidWorks 32 bit application

***Probably decrease in performance over #2. Possible a slight increase. May see increase with multiple applications each taking LOTS of memory.

***System #4 Athlon64 64 bit processor Windows XP 64 bit OS SolidWorks 64 bit application

***Normally, a slight performance increase over #3. Larger performance increase with large (memory hogging) assemblies. Makes some impossible large assemblies possible.

SolidWorks 64 bit application

***Normally, a slight performance increase over #3. Larger performance increase with large (memory hogging) assemblies. Makes some impossible large assemblies possible.

Does this account for the increased number of registers available to 64-bit apps?

Well, yes and no. I think we will see an increase in performance with

64 bit SWX (partially for the reasons you stated). BUT, that performance increase will be much more substantial with large assemblies.

We will just have to wait and see...

Humph.

Win2k doesn't even do that.

do you have any idea how many times i've typed "h25{tab}", expecting to see a nice list of files? Sitting there wondering if my system locked up, when I realize: "Oh wait. This is DOS. Duh."

--nick e.

also, from some of the posts i read over on slashdot (BIG grain of salt), the one they're releasing is an older version.

i fully agree tho. They're quite likely feeling a LOT of heat over people asking for a 64-bit OS. After all, to borrow some of M$'s language, if a couple of unknown, untrusted coders over in china can release a stable, usable 64-bit OS, why the hell can't "the greatest software company in the world" do it?

there's also no drivers for anything.

Qt-64 comes out soon, too!!

--nick e.

That's exactly right. I'm half-way done putting together my Athlon-64 bit system now so it's kind of exciting to me. It's mainly the RAM access that I'm interested in. I've hit some limitations in WinXP already, so this gives me some hope.

Mike