XP 64bit 17" Unibody MBP Drivers

Discussion in 'Windows, Linux & Others on the Mac' started by Pumba101, Mar 5, 2009.

  1. Pumba101 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2008
    #1
    First of all, I've decided against 64bit Vista as it still won't be as fast as 64bit XP and DX10 is a sham :rolleyes:
    I've installed xp 64bit through bootcamp. From what I have gathered not all the drivers on the OSX disc will work with xp64bit.
    It's easy to get hold of the drivers for the 9600m gt. This is where i'm stuck. I don't have a clue what hardware is in the laptop so i can't go hunt down the drivers.
    any help on what drivers for xp 64bit would be greatly greatly appreciated.

    I'm guessing i need drivers for:
    Audio
    Network Card
    Wireless Card
    Graphics Card (got it)

    is there anything else I have missed?

    Thanks a lot,

    Rick:)
     
  2. ayeying macrumors 601

    ayeying

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2007
    Location:
    Yay Area, CA
    #2
    At this point, you could install Windows Server 2003. It is a 36-bit PAE enabled OS, which means you can use 4GB of ram and still be able to access 100% of it.

    Windows XP 64-bit is a joke, literally.
     
  3. Pumba101 thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2008
    #3
    what do you think my best option for gaming is?
    at the moment i've got a 32bit XP on here. Do you think Windows Server 2003 will make much of a difference having that extra 1gig ram enabled?
    As it is Windows Server 2003 does this mean it is not intended for gaming and as such there will be a decrease in performance?

    thanks,
    Rick
     
  4. Stridder44 macrumors 68040

    Stridder44

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2003
    Location:
    California
    #4

    Indeed, XP64 is a joke. Your best option for gaming is Vista64.

    Why you have such a hitch against it is beyond me, but I can only assume you have some deep seeded grudge that you're not willing to give up.
     
  5. Jocelyn84 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
  6. ayeying macrumors 601

    ayeying

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2007
    Location:
    Yay Area, CA
    #6
    Windows Server 2003 is the same as Windows XP x64. They both have the same NT kernel (5.2). Infact, Windows XP x64 was built off of Windows Server 2003 x64. In terms of performance, its the same because you have the same OS just with a bit more applications for server side.

    36-bit PAE enabled means you can use up to 32GB ram on a 32-bit Operating System. Same as why Leopard can support 32GB ram on the Mac Pro while its still, itself, a 32-bit kernel.

    Might go with Vista x64 if he wants 64-bit because W7 beta ends in a few months and according to Microsoft, you cannot upgrade to the final, you gotta reinstall everything.
     
  7. Pumba101 thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2008
    #7
    Hi,
    thanks for the great response. I think I'm going to run benchmarks on XP and then install 64bit Vista and run the same benchmarks and see what the difference is. Hopefully Vista will be faster then.
    The reason I was staying away from Vista was because of all the bad press that it has been given about memory hogging etc, or is this just the case with 32bit Vista?
     
  8. steveza macrumors 68000

    steveza

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    #8
    Vista SP1 fixed many issues in the original RTM version. Both 32 and 64bit editions had problems before SP1 came out.
     
  9. Stridder44 macrumors 68040

    Stridder44

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2003
    Location:
    California
    #9

    Vista was a problem back before SP1 was released (which was around Feb. 2008) but since then it's been very fast and stable. Today is no different. It doesn't "hog" memory either; look up SuperFetch to understand why people think it "hogs" memory (which, again, it doesn't).
     

Share This Page