Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

[Guest Royston H]

My 120 days of eval are nearly up.

 

I have found the XP 64 bit version of windows the most stable and reliable

version of Windows I've ever used and have had only one BSOD when I was

overclocking my graphics card, so not really a microsoft o/s issue.

 

I mainly use the computer for office applications, photoshop, video editing

and playing FSX.

 

Given that I can get an OEM copy of Vista 64 bit for less than the OEM 64bit

XP pro, I am likely to run with Vista.

 

I'd like to hear from people who have used both in anger and see if any

valid arguements exist for sticking with XP, say it's considerably more

stable etc, given that long term the future is with vista anyway.

 

Thanks

 

Royston H

[Guest Sam Crawford]

Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

 

 

On 13-Jul-2007, =?Utf-8?B?Um95c3RvbiBI?=

<RoystonH@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

> I'd like to hear from people who have used both in anger and see if any

> valid arguements exist for sticking with XP, say it's considerably more

> stable etc, given that long term the future is with vista anyway.

 

How's this for waffleing. You will be happy with either. I've used both

and last night, finally wiped all my drives and installed Vista.

 

I'm going to miss XP x64 though.

[Guest Royston H]

Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

 

OK I take your point :-)

 

I did stick with Windows 2000 till SP2 came out for XP on the grounds of

stability

 

Thanks

 

"Sam Crawford" wrote:

>

> On 13-Jul-2007, =?Utf-8?B?Um95c3RvbiBI?=

> <RoystonH@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>

> > I'd like to hear from people who have used both in anger and see if any

> > valid arguements exist for sticking with XP, say it's considerably more

> > stable etc, given that long term the future is with vista anyway.

>

> How's this for waffleing. You will be happy with either. I've used both

> and last night, finally wiped all my drives and installed Vista.

>

> I'm going to miss XP x64 though.

>

[Guest Denise]

RE: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

 

I'm considering reformatting my hard drive to get rid of XP Pro X64 and going

back to a 32-bit system. Too many programs aren't compatible with X64.

iexplore 64-bit is installed but Microsoft makes iexplore 32-bit the default

because 64-bit doesn't work. Moving and copying files is very slow and, when

I Googled this problem, it seems a number of people have the same problem.

To me, it looks like X64 was introduced to the market in order to recoup the

research money put into it but with full knowledge that it has a lot of kinks

that need to be worked out.

 

I don't know anything about Vista, but I'm going to wait a few years in

order to see what Microsoft does with it, or if Microsoft moves on to

something else.

--

Denise

 

~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're going.

[Guest Tony Sperling]

Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

 

Perhaps a good decision - on the other hand your work should make good use

of the memory resources provided by XP x64. One alternative might be to have

someone you trust build you a machine to your spec's and using first rate

components all around, you seem to have too many issues - usually, an

indication of bad management or bad hardware. I tend to believe it's the

latter. The basic stability most of us find in XP x64, will not carry over

onto every other piece of hardware you buy over the counter. The system is

built from the Server base and employing it means to give it some Server

quality hardware to run on. Then it should reward you in a proper manner -

if not, you may just be unlucky to have found the precise mix of soft &

hardware that triggers this misbehavior.

 

Have you tried flashing your BIOS, (if an upgrade exists)?

 

 

Tony. . .

 

 

"Denise" <Denise@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

news:ADCDAF30-B305-4762-BAA8-5902B7365365@microsoft.com...

> I'm considering reformatting my hard drive to get rid of XP Pro X64 and

going

> back to a 32-bit system. Too many programs aren't compatible with X64.

> iexplore 64-bit is installed but Microsoft makes iexplore 32-bit the

default

> because 64-bit doesn't work. Moving and copying files is very slow and,

when

> I Googled this problem, it seems a number of people have the same problem.

> To me, it looks like X64 was introduced to the market in order to recoup

the

> research money put into it but with full knowledge that it has a lot of

kinks

> that need to be worked out.

>

> I don't know anything about Vista, but I'm going to wait a few years in

> order to see what Microsoft does with it, or if Microsoft moves on to

> something else.

> --

> Denise

>

> ~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're

going.

>

[Guest Denise]

Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

 

You're very quick to insult and jab, aren't you? Rude, too.

 

I have

 

- Biostar TFORCE 6100-939 mobo which supports dual channel ddr

- AMD Athlon 64 3200+ 2.0GHz / 512KB Cache / 1000MHz FSB / Venice /

Hyper-Transport / OEM / Socket 939 / Processor

- 2 twin sticks of 1G RAM

- Corsair 620W PSU

- Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 SATA 3.0Gb/s 320-GB hard drive

 

Which piece of hardware do you think is bad, or a combination?

 

Are they the best of everything? More than likely not, but they're very

good and run well together. If I decide to install Windows XP Pro 32-bit,

I'm sure I'll find out that X64 has caused the problems that I have.

 

BTW, are you employed by Microsoft to try to discredit anyone who speaks

against its products? I can't think of any other reason for your poor

attitude and manners.

 

Regarding programs/files that aren't compatible with an 64-bit os, off the

top of my head, I can think of . . .

 

- Adobe Acrobat

- Winword (Microsoft's very own!)

- iexpolorer 64-bit (again, Microsoft's very own!)

- Avast

- Soundman

- ctfmon (a Microsoft Office XP program that runs in the background, even

after you quit all Office programs!)

- Sun Microsystem's Java2 suite

- Webshots

- Maxtor One Touch

 

Which programs in my pc are causing problems with my 64-bit os? Well,

Microsoft didn't and/or won't say, but it's strange that some of them are

Microsoft programs. The problems with my computer started as soon as I

installed Windows XP Pro X64. Maybe that's the one that's clashing with

everything else in my computer. The rest of them all get along fine.

 

--

Denise

 

~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're going.

[Guest Dennis Pack]

Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

 

Denise:

I've read the different problems you've had with XP x64, most of

them haven't been common. As to whether it's a hardware, software or other

conflict I don't have an answer. I've been running XP x64 since the beta

releases and Vista X64 since beta 2, I haven't had near the problems or

conflicts that you have. XP x64 has been very stable for me and Vista x64

has been stable so far even with weak drivers. At work the group that I work

with has about 200 computers that are the same, almost every system responds

differently. These differences are more distinct since we migrated from

Windows 2000 to Windows XP. Have a great day.

 

--

Dennis Pack

XP x64 SP2, Vista Enterprise x64

Office Professional Plus 2007

 

"Denise" <Denise@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

news:AA5B150A-5FF3-48D2-9141-C183C9390977@microsoft.com...

> You're very quick to insult and jab, aren't you? Rude, too.

>

> I have

>

> - Biostar TFORCE 6100-939 mobo which supports dual channel ddr

> - AMD Athlon 64 3200+ 2.0GHz / 512KB Cache / 1000MHz FSB / Venice /

> Hyper-Transport / OEM / Socket 939 / Processor

> - 2 twin sticks of 1G RAM

> - Corsair 620W PSU

> - Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 SATA 3.0Gb/s 320-GB hard drive

>

> Which piece of hardware do you think is bad, or a combination?

>

> Are they the best of everything? More than likely not, but they're very

> good and run well together. If I decide to install Windows XP Pro 32-bit,

> I'm sure I'll find out that X64 has caused the problems that I have.

>

> BTW, are you employed by Microsoft to try to discredit anyone who speaks

> against its products? I can't think of any other reason for your poor

> attitude and manners.

>

> Regarding programs/files that aren't compatible with an 64-bit os, off the

> top of my head, I can think of . . .

>

> - Adobe Acrobat

> - Winword (Microsoft's very own!)

> - iexpolorer 64-bit (again, Microsoft's very own!)

> - Avast

> - Soundman

> - ctfmon (a Microsoft Office XP program that runs in the background, even

> after you quit all Office programs!)

> - Sun Microsystem's Java2 suite

> - Webshots

> - Maxtor One Touch

>

> Which programs in my pc are causing problems with my 64-bit os? Well,

> Microsoft didn't and/or won't say, but it's strange that some of them are

> Microsoft programs. The problems with my computer started as soon as I

> installed Windows XP Pro X64. Maybe that's the one that's clashing with

> everything else in my computer. The rest of them all get along fine.

>

> --

> Denise

>

> ~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're

> going.

[Guest Denise]

Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

 

To say that the problems I have with X64 is like saying the Titanic had a

boating accident. I've been using Windows as soon as Windows 95 came out and

X64 is by very, very far the worst version of them all. It was easier

working with the DOS Shell. Computers, as you said, respond differently, and

this computer is begging me for the 32-bit system. I won't even get into the

problems I've had with SATA. I eliminated all of my SATA connections and

everything is connected using USB 2.0 cables except for the hdd cable. I

think that the technological world is pushing too fast to come out with

something different because there's no profit to be made if people don't have

a new product to buy. Why would Microsoft release X64 if iexplore X64

doesn't work and other Microsoft programs aren't compatible with X64? Why

didn't Microsoft make things such as these common knowledge so that people

would know that there are compatibility issues within Microsoft prior to

their buying X64? I very much believe that the public was hoodwinked and I'm

very angry that I was taken, and there are no other words that I can think of

that would fit what Microsoft did, or my language wouldn't be proper.

--

Denise

 

~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're going.

 

 

"Dennis Pack" wrote:

> Denise:

> I've read the different problems you've had with XP x64, most of

> them haven't been common. As to whether it's a hardware, software or other

> conflict I don't have an answer. I've been running XP x64 since the beta

> releases and Vista X64 since beta 2, I haven't had near the problems or

> conflicts that you have. XP x64 has been very stable for me and Vista x64

> has been stable so far even with weak drivers. At work the group that I work

> with has about 200 computers that are the same, almost every system responds

> differently. These differences are more distinct since we migrated from

> Windows 2000 to Windows XP. Have a great day.

>

> --

> Dennis Pack

> XP x64 SP2, Vista Enterprise x64

> Office Professional Plus 2007

>

> "Denise" <Denise@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

> news:AA5B150A-5FF3-48D2-9141-C183C9390977@microsoft.com...

> > You're very quick to insult and jab, aren't you? Rude, too.

> >

> > I have

> >

> > - Biostar TFORCE 6100-939 mobo which supports dual channel ddr

> > - AMD Athlon 64 3200+ 2.0GHz / 512KB Cache / 1000MHz FSB / Venice /

> > Hyper-Transport / OEM / Socket 939 / Processor

> > - 2 twin sticks of 1G RAM

> > - Corsair 620W PSU

> > - Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 SATA 3.0Gb/s 320-GB hard drive

> >

> > Which piece of hardware do you think is bad, or a combination?

> >

> > Are they the best of everything? More than likely not, but they're very

> > good and run well together. If I decide to install Windows XP Pro 32-bit,

> > I'm sure I'll find out that X64 has caused the problems that I have.

> >

> > BTW, are you employed by Microsoft to try to discredit anyone who speaks

> > against its products? I can't think of any other reason for your poor

> > attitude and manners.

> >

> > Regarding programs/files that aren't compatible with an 64-bit os, off the

> > top of my head, I can think of . . .

> >

> > - Adobe Acrobat

> > - Winword (Microsoft's very own!)

> > - iexpolorer 64-bit (again, Microsoft's very own!)

> > - Avast

> > - Soundman

> > - ctfmon (a Microsoft Office XP program that runs in the background, even

> > after you quit all Office programs!)

> > - Sun Microsystem's Java2 suite

> > - Webshots

> > - Maxtor One Touch

> >

> > Which programs in my pc are causing problems with my 64-bit os? Well,

> > Microsoft didn't and/or won't say, but it's strange that some of them are

> > Microsoft programs. The problems with my computer started as soon as I

> > installed Windows XP Pro X64. Maybe that's the one that's clashing with

> > everything else in my computer. The rest of them all get along fine.

> >

> > --

> > Denise

> >

> > ~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're

> > going.

>

[Guest Charlie Russel - MVP]

Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

 

The reality is that XP x64 is solid, stable, and basically done with. Though

you'll certainly see at least one more service pack for it, I suspect. Vista

64bit is new, requires more resources, and has a whole new set of

compatibility issues. The interface will certainly drive you nuts initially.

All that being said, I run Vista 64bit. I have the hardware to handle it,

and I've learned to adjust to not whinge too much about some of the UI

idiocies. Moving forward, drivers for new hardware will be preferentially

for Vista, and tending to abandon XP. But there's no real hurry - it's up to

you and your comfort level.

 

--

Charlie.

http://msmvps.com/xperts64

http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel

 

 

"Royston H" <RoystonH@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

news:39EF8CBD-0008-4FE0-A9CE-BCE94C207AB1@microsoft.com...

> My 120 days of eval are nearly up.

>

> I have found the XP 64 bit version of windows the most stable and reliable

> version of Windows I've ever used and have had only one BSOD when I was

> overclocking my graphics card, so not really a microsoft o/s issue.

>

> I mainly use the computer for office applications, photoshop, video

> editing

> and playing FSX.

>

> Given that I can get an OEM copy of Vista 64 bit for less than the OEM

> 64bit

> XP pro, I am likely to run with Vista.

>

> I'd like to hear from people who have used both in anger and see if any

> valid arguements exist for sticking with XP, say it's considerably more

> stable etc, given that long term the future is with vista anyway.

>

> Thanks

>

> Royston H

>

[Guest Sam Crawford]

Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

 

 

On 13-Jul-2007, "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org>

wrote:

> he reality is that XP x64 is solid, stable, and basically done with.

> Though

> you'll certainly see at least one more service pack for it, I suspect.

> Vista

> 64bit is new, requires more resources, and has a whole new set of

> compatibility issues. The interface will certainly drive you nuts

> initially.

> All that being said, I run Vista 64bit. I have the hardware to handle it,

> and I've learned to adjust to not whinge too much about some of the UI

> idiocies

 

Well said Charlie. I just dumped XP x64 and Vista Ultimate x64 because

32bit Vista works so smoothly. XP x64 was probably the best windows I've

used todate. Rock solid and very few issues of software not being

compatible.

 

Vista x64 workes well but it still has a small annoyance with my AC97 driver

not being signed and I got tired of being asked if it was ok to use the

driver every time my computer booted.

 

If anything, XP x64 seems like the snappiest and quickest of the three.

 

That said, I left two additional partitions free on one of my disks to

reinstall XP x-64 and Vista Ultimate x64. Just need one or two more device

drivers. Or I could try one of the Linuxs. Who knows. I've got OSX on 2

computers and Kubuntu on another but still find myself attracted to Windows.

 

The good thing about the x64 forum is one can post questions similar to what

is posted here, get honest answers, and usually not get burned in a flame

war.

 

This is a great group.

[Guest Denise]

RE: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

 

Well Royston, you now have varying opinions of X64. The self-proclaimed

computer gurus love it, probably because they know all the ins and outs of

computers and programs and can change the multitude of settings for desired

results without coming to forums for advice from their peers. On the other

hand, people who don't know the ins and outs of computers and operating

systems come here with all the problems they're having with X64, whether

Vista 64-bit or XP X64. In one of the threads in this forum, one man is

talking about starting a class action suit against Microsoft due to financial

losses because X64 didn't work properly. Time will tell whether or not

either X64 version is a gem in the making or a flop thrown out on the market

by Microsoft to recoup whatever losses it would have sustained if it didn't.

As for me, Windows XP Pro 2000, 32-bit, is heads above X64 and I know that I

will be going back to it. When or if Microsoft gets X64 straightened out

sometime in the future, I might try it again. But I wouldn't be surprised if

both versions turn out to be bombs that can't be fixed and another Windows

operating system is introduced to the market.

--

Denise

 

~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're going.

 

 

"Royston H" wrote:

> My 120 days of eval are nearly up.

>

> I have found the XP 64 bit version of windows the most stable and reliable

> version of Windows I've ever used and have had only one BSOD when I was

> overclocking my graphics card, so not really a microsoft o/s issue.

>

> I mainly use the computer for office applications, photoshop, video editing

> and playing FSX.

>

> Given that I can get an OEM copy of Vista 64 bit for less than the OEM 64bit

> XP pro, I am likely to run with Vista.

>

> I'd like to hear from people who have used both in anger and see if any

> valid arguements exist for sticking with XP, say it's considerably more

> stable etc, given that long term the future is with vista anyway.

>

> Thanks

>

> Royston H

>

[Guest Tony Sperling]

Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

 

I knew, of course, that commenting on anybody's choice of purchase would be

stepping onto thin ice - it's just that being nice about it, will rarely be

helpful at all. We are faced with enough facts - the handling of which may

all be hurtful in the process, but I think I was being careful not to sound

insulting, I apparently lost it somewhere, and I'm not getting any kicks out

of it. Moreover, doing that wouldn't be helping anybody. Most of all,

critisism in this group is very rarely personal, but if you are used to

tip-toeing your way through life, you'll have trouble finding decency

anywhere.

 

What you list of your components, sounds O.K. to me, at a glance, but like

Dennis says,"every system is different". There is no way to tell - the

eternal 'usual suspects' are temperature, electrical frequencies (together

with resulting physical vibration), electrical contact (cabling) and the

BIOS. In a jungle of compatible BIOS's, there is hardly a single one that is

well built from every aspect, most seem to be well behaving since most

people don't push their systems in a way that triggers misbehavior, XP x64

is pushing the hardware considerably more than the 32bit editions and is

more likely to expose any weakness anywhere in your system. Without being

rude at all, I'm suggesting that you have been unlucky in the mix of

components that make up your system.

 

Since you rely on your machine for heavy duty jobs, dumping XP x64 for a

32bit system makes some sense - on the other hand you have invested a great

deal of time, money and effort to have it do it's job. Putting it onto a

different machine that is custom built for your needs would be a good way of

preserving a bit of this investment eeven if it is not the most economical

way out.

 

Having trouble with Acrobat and Avast? This is rediculous, you shouldn't

have to put up with this - considering the effort you have put into it all I

would instantly relegate this machine (whatever it's components) to running

a 32bit screensaver and get something else to do your job. The only insult

conveyed through this remark is that you didn't come to this conclusion much

sooner. You are way too patient!

 

I suggest you contact a system-builder. Don't buy anything over the counter

from someone who doesn't care if they sell tooth-paste or wall-to-wall

carpeting. Buy from someone who knows how to be frank, even if you think you

are faced with someone who sounds like a few of us here.

 

 

("The words of Mercury sounds harsh after the song of Apollo" - Sean

Connery, in some film.)

 

 

Tony. . .

 

 

 

"Denise" <Denise@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

news:AA5B150A-5FF3-48D2-9141-C183C9390977@microsoft.com...

> You're very quick to insult and jab, aren't you? Rude, too.

>

> I have

>

> - Biostar TFORCE 6100-939 mobo which supports dual channel ddr

> - AMD Athlon 64 3200+ 2.0GHz / 512KB Cache / 1000MHz FSB / Venice /

> Hyper-Transport / OEM / Socket 939 / Processor

> - 2 twin sticks of 1G RAM

> - Corsair 620W PSU

> - Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 SATA 3.0Gb/s 320-GB hard drive

>

> Which piece of hardware do you think is bad, or a combination?

>

> Are they the best of everything? More than likely not, but they're very

> good and run well together. If I decide to install Windows XP Pro 32-bit,

> I'm sure I'll find out that X64 has caused the problems that I have.

>

> BTW, are you employed by Microsoft to try to discredit anyone who speaks

> against its products? I can't think of any other reason for your poor

> attitude and manners.

>

> Regarding programs/files that aren't compatible with an 64-bit os, off the

> top of my head, I can think of . . .

>

> - Adobe Acrobat

> - Winword (Microsoft's very own!)

> - iexpolorer 64-bit (again, Microsoft's very own!)

> - Avast

> - Soundman

> - ctfmon (a Microsoft Office XP program that runs in the background, even

> after you quit all Office programs!)

> - Sun Microsystem's Java2 suite

> - Webshots

> - Maxtor One Touch

>

> Which programs in my pc are causing problems with my 64-bit os? Well,

> Microsoft didn't and/or won't say, but it's strange that some of them are

> Microsoft programs. The problems with my computer started as soon as I

> installed Windows XP Pro X64. Maybe that's the one that's clashing with

> everything else in my computer. The rest of them all get along fine.

>

> --

> Denise

>

> ~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're

going.

[Guest John Barnes]

Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

 

Windows X64 was the most stable hard working OS I have ever used. Even more

stable than Vista64. If you are using compatible hardware and software it

just works, period.

 

"Denise" <Denise@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

news:DB5965D2-E966-48B0-9FE7-4C147D5F053C@microsoft.com...

> To say that the problems I have with X64 is like saying the Titanic had a

> boating accident. I've been using Windows as soon as Windows 95 came out

> and

> X64 is by very, very far the worst version of them all. It was easier

> working with the DOS Shell. Computers, as you said, respond differently,

> and

> this computer is begging me for the 32-bit system. I won't even get into

> the

> problems I've had with SATA. I eliminated all of my SATA connections and

> everything is connected using USB 2.0 cables except for the hdd cable. I

> think that the technological world is pushing too fast to come out with

> something different because there's no profit to be made if people don't

> have

> a new product to buy. Why would Microsoft release X64 if iexplore X64

> doesn't work and other Microsoft programs aren't compatible with X64? Why

> didn't Microsoft make things such as these common knowledge so that people

> would know that there are compatibility issues within Microsoft prior to

> their buying X64? I very much believe that the public was hoodwinked and

> I'm

> very angry that I was taken, and there are no other words that I can think

> of

> that would fit what Microsoft did, or my language wouldn't be proper.

> --

> Denise

>

> ~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're

> going.

>

>

> "Dennis Pack" wrote:

>

>> Denise:

>> I've read the different problems you've had with XP x64, most of

>> them haven't been common. As to whether it's a hardware, software or

>> other

>> conflict I don't have an answer. I've been running XP x64 since the beta

>> releases and Vista X64 since beta 2, I haven't had near the problems or

>> conflicts that you have. XP x64 has been very stable for me and Vista x64

>> has been stable so far even with weak drivers. At work the group that I

>> work

>> with has about 200 computers that are the same, almost every system

>> responds

>> differently. These differences are more distinct since we migrated from

>> Windows 2000 to Windows XP. Have a great day.

>>

>> --

>> Dennis Pack

>> XP x64 SP2, Vista Enterprise x64

>> Office Professional Plus 2007

>>

>> "Denise" <Denise@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

>> news:AA5B150A-5FF3-48D2-9141-C183C9390977@microsoft.com...

>> > You're very quick to insult and jab, aren't you? Rude, too.

>> >

>> > I have

>> >

>> > - Biostar TFORCE 6100-939 mobo which supports dual channel ddr

>> > - AMD Athlon 64 3200+ 2.0GHz / 512KB Cache / 1000MHz FSB / Venice /

>> > Hyper-Transport / OEM / Socket 939 / Processor

>> > - 2 twin sticks of 1G RAM

>> > - Corsair 620W PSU

>> > - Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 SATA 3.0Gb/s 320-GB hard drive

>> >

>> > Which piece of hardware do you think is bad, or a combination?

>> >

>> > Are they the best of everything? More than likely not, but they're

>> > very

>> > good and run well together. If I decide to install Windows XP Pro

>> > 32-bit,

>> > I'm sure I'll find out that X64 has caused the problems that I have.

>> >

>> > BTW, are you employed by Microsoft to try to discredit anyone who

>> > speaks

>> > against its products? I can't think of any other reason for your poor

>> > attitude and manners.

>> >

>> > Regarding programs/files that aren't compatible with an 64-bit os, off

>> > the

>> > top of my head, I can think of . . .

>> >

>> > - Adobe Acrobat

>> > - Winword (Microsoft's very own!)

>> > - iexpolorer 64-bit (again, Microsoft's very own!)

>> > - Avast

>> > - Soundman

>> > - ctfmon (a Microsoft Office XP program that runs in the background,

>> > even

>> > after you quit all Office programs!)

>> > - Sun Microsystem's Java2 suite

>> > - Webshots

>> > - Maxtor One Touch

>> >

>> > Which programs in my pc are causing problems with my 64-bit os? Well,

>> > Microsoft didn't and/or won't say, but it's strange that some of them

>> > are

>> > Microsoft programs. The problems with my computer started as soon as I

>> > installed Windows XP Pro X64. Maybe that's the one that's clashing

>> > with

>> > everything else in my computer. The rest of them all get along fine.

>> >

>> > --

>> > Denise

>> >

>> > ~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're

>> > going.

>>

[Guest S.SubZero]

Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

 

I run XP64 on my gaming rig and it runs perfectly. Not much in the

way of 64-bit games, but Unreal Tournament 2004 64-bit Edition runs

fine. All the 32-bit games I have tried so far work and work well.

 

I run Vista 64 on my laptop and it runs perfectly too. The resources

it uses are a little annoying, especially the 15GB+ of hard disk

space. For my little 100GB laptop drive this is quite a bit. I have

been debating re-doing my laptop with XP64 also, but I want to get

very used to using Vista and learn some of it's inner workings. I'm

using it mainly for resume fodder.

[Guest John Barnes]

Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

 

I had performance problems with Vista64 until I upgraded my system from a

3500+ processor to a 5200+ x2. I still have to set the affinity for many

processes manually to get a really smooth running machine, very annoying,

but only have to do it once a day. I have it on a 72 gig partition with 25

still free.

 

"S.SubZero" <ssubzero@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:1184415442.911977.12530@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...

>I run XP64 on my gaming rig and it runs perfectly. Not much in the

> way of 64-bit games, but Unreal Tournament 2004 64-bit Edition runs

> fine. All the 32-bit games I have tried so far work and work well.

>

> I run Vista 64 on my laptop and it runs perfectly too. The resources

> it uses are a little annoying, especially the 15GB+ of hard disk

> space. For my little 100GB laptop drive this is quite a bit. I have

> been debating re-doing my laptop with XP64 also, but I want to get

> very used to using Vista and learn some of it's inner workings. I'm

> using it mainly for resume fodder.

>

[Guest Royston H]

Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

 

It's a pity that my 120 days is likely to be before the SP1 for Vista comes

out, temptation is to revert to 32 bit for a while then go Vista 64 bit when

the wider community gives the thumbs up to SP1.

 

"Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote:

> The reality is that XP x64 is solid, stable, and basically done with. Though

> you'll certainly see at least one more service pack for it, I suspect. Vista

> 64bit is new, requires more resources, and has a whole new set of

> compatibility issues. The interface will certainly drive you nuts initially.

> All that being said, I run Vista 64bit. I have the hardware to handle it,

> and I've learned to adjust to not whinge too much about some of the UI

> idiocies. Moving forward, drivers for new hardware will be preferentially

> for Vista, and tending to abandon XP. But there's no real hurry - it's up to

> you and your comfort level.

>

> --

> Charlie.

> http://msmvps.com/xperts64

> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel

>

>

> "Royston H" <RoystonH@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

> news:39EF8CBD-0008-4FE0-A9CE-BCE94C207AB1@microsoft.com...

> > My 120 days of eval are nearly up.

> >

> > I have found the XP 64 bit version of windows the most stable and reliable

> > version of Windows I've ever used and have had only one BSOD when I was

> > overclocking my graphics card, so not really a microsoft o/s issue.

> >

> > I mainly use the computer for office applications, photoshop, video

> > editing

> > and playing FSX.

> >

> > Given that I can get an OEM copy of Vista 64 bit for less than the OEM

> > 64bit

> > XP pro, I am likely to run with Vista.

> >

> > I'd like to hear from people who have used both in anger and see if any

> > valid arguements exist for sticking with XP, say it's considerably more

> > stable etc, given that long term the future is with vista anyway.

> >

> > Thanks

> >

> > Royston H

> >

>

[Guest Royston H]

RE: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

 

I certainly have Denise. My involvement in computing dates back to Windows

3.1, I used to enjoy tweaking and solving technical issues, however these

days I begrudge Microsoft or any vendor who wants to charge me, then waste my

time, when I could be pursuing my interests outside computing. I just want

the applications to work. Luckly for me the onces I have work fine with XP

64bit, FSX appears to work very well infact compared running it under 32 bit.

 

Your comments about SATA worry me, since my IDE drive is about to be swapped

out as it's crammed full.

 

I have more or less decided to revert to 32 bit XP, wait till Vista has at

least SP1, see how that's received by the market, then revisit 64 bit

computing.

 

"Denise" wrote:

> Well Royston, you now have varying opinions of X64. The self-proclaimed

> computer gurus love it, probably because they know all the ins and outs of

> computers and programs and can change the multitude of settings for desired

> results without coming to forums for advice from their peers. On the other

> hand, people who don't know the ins and outs of computers and operating

> systems come here with all the problems they're having with X64, whether

> Vista 64-bit or XP X64. In one of the threads in this forum, one man is

> talking about starting a class action suit against Microsoft due to financial

> losses because X64 didn't work properly. Time will tell whether or not

> either X64 version is a gem in the making or a flop thrown out on the market

> by Microsoft to recoup whatever losses it would have sustained if it didn't.

> As for me, Windows XP Pro 2000, 32-bit, is heads above X64 and I know that I

> will be going back to it. When or if Microsoft gets X64 straightened out

> sometime in the future, I might try it again. But I wouldn't be surprised if

> both versions turn out to be bombs that can't be fixed and another Windows

> operating system is introduced to the market.

> --

> Denise

>

> ~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're going.

>

>

> "Royston H" wrote:

>

> > My 120 days of eval are nearly up.

> >

> > I have found the XP 64 bit version of windows the most stable and reliable

> > version of Windows I've ever used and have had only one BSOD when I was

> > overclocking my graphics card, so not really a microsoft o/s issue.

> >

> > I mainly use the computer for office applications, photoshop, video editing

> > and playing FSX.

> >

> > Given that I can get an OEM copy of Vista 64 bit for less than the OEM 64bit

> > XP pro, I am likely to run with Vista.

> >

> > I'd like to hear from people who have used both in anger and see if any

> > valid arguements exist for sticking with XP, say it's considerably more

> > stable etc, given that long term the future is with vista anyway.

> >

> > Thanks

> >

> > Royston H

> >

[Guest Carol Steele]

RE: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

 

Hi Royston,

 

I am using XP x64 on my home built system and it is rock steady. I have a

copy of Vista x64 sat on my shelf waiting for Gretag-Macbeth to release

drivers/updated software for my EyeOne Display 2 puck so that I can have a

properly profiled monitor to work with using Photoshop.

 

Having said that, I simply don't have the problems which Denise has outlined

in XP x64 and I use Acrobat (CS3 version), Winword, used to use Avast (until

AVG recently released their 64-bit compatible version of their software),

Sun's Java. I cannot comment on the other programs which she mentioned.

 

I'm also running 5 HD's which are all connected via SATA (2 x 74Gb Raptors

running as a RAID 0 Array) and 3 x 320Gb Seagate Barracudas running in SATA2

3Gb/s mode.

 

From what I can gather the BioStar motherboard in question is an older board

(from around 2 years ago) and there appear to be some updated drivers for Win

XP x64 on their web site -

http://www.biostar-usa.com/mbdownloads.asp?model=TFORCE%206100-939

 

I wonder if you have downloaded and applied these??

 

"Royston H" wrote:

> My 120 days of eval are nearly up.

>

> I have found the XP 64 bit version of windows the most stable and reliable

> version of Windows I've ever used and have had only one BSOD when I was

> overclocking my graphics card, so not really a microsoft o/s issue.

>

> I mainly use the computer for office applications, photoshop, video editing

> and playing FSX.

>

> Given that I can get an OEM copy of Vista 64 bit for less than the OEM 64bit

> XP pro, I am likely to run with Vista.

>

> I'd like to hear from people who have used both in anger and see if any

> valid arguements exist for sticking with XP, say it's considerably more

> stable etc, given that long term the future is with vista anyway.

>

> Thanks

>

> Royston H

>

[Guest Denise]

Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

 

Well, I listed my hardware and no one suggested that it was junk, and my

software is the type of software that most people have. Adobe Acrobat won't

work with X64 so I use FoxIt, but other than that, I have Micosoft Office,

email accounts, some picutre programs, such as MGI Photo Suite and Kodak

Picture Premium, Avast Anti-Virus, Nero 7.0, and other usual programs. If

X64 isn't compatible with my hardware or this type of software, it has a

problem, not my computer. I'm glad it's working for you though. Good luck!

--

Denise

 

~ If you don''t know where you came from, you won''t know where you''re going.

 

 

"John Barnes" wrote:

> Windows X64 was the most stable hard working OS I have ever used. Even more

> stable than Vista64. If you are using compatible hardware and software it

> just works, period.

>

> "Denise" <Denise@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

> news:DB5965D2-E966-48B0-9FE7-4C147D5F053C@microsoft.com...

> > To say that the problems I have with X64 is like saying the Titanic had a

> > boating accident. I've been using Windows as soon as Windows 95 came out

> > and

> > X64 is by very, very far the worst version of them all. It was easier

> > working with the DOS Shell. Computers, as you said, respond differently,

> > and

> > this computer is begging me for the 32-bit system. I won't even get into

> > the

> > problems I've had with SATA. I eliminated all of my SATA connections and

> > everything is connected using USB 2.0 cables except for the hdd cable. I

> > think that the technological world is pushing too fast to come out with

> > something different because there's no profit to be made if people don't

> > have

> > a new product to buy. Why would Microsoft release X64 if iexplore X64

> > doesn't work and other Microsoft programs aren't compatible with X64? Why

> > didn't Microsoft make things such as these common knowledge so that people

> > would know that there are compatibility issues within Microsoft prior to

> > their buying X64? I very much believe that the public was hoodwinked and

> > I'm

> > very angry that I was taken, and there are no other words that I can think

> > of

> > that would fit what Microsoft did, or my language wouldn't be proper.

> > --

> > Denise

> >

> > ~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're

> > going.

> >

> >

> > "Dennis Pack" wrote:

> >

> >> Denise:

> >> I've read the different problems you've had with XP x64, most of

> >> them haven't been common. As to whether it's a hardware, software or

> >> other

> >> conflict I don't have an answer. I've been running XP x64 since the beta

> >> releases and Vista X64 since beta 2, I haven't had near the problems or

> >> conflicts that you have. XP x64 has been very stable for me and Vista x64

> >> has been stable so far even with weak drivers. At work the group that I

> >> work

> >> with has about 200 computers that are the same, almost every system

> >> responds

> >> differently. These differences are more distinct since we migrated from

> >> Windows 2000 to Windows XP. Have a great day.

> >>

> >> --

> >> Dennis Pack

> >> XP x64 SP2, Vista Enterprise x64

> >> Office Professional Plus 2007

> >>

> >> "Denise" <Denise@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

> >> news:AA5B150A-5FF3-48D2-9141-C183C9390977@microsoft.com...

> >> > You're very quick to insult and jab, aren't you? Rude, too.

> >> >

> >> > I have

> >> >

> >> > - Biostar TFORCE 6100-939 mobo which supports dual channel ddr

> >> > - AMD Athlon 64 3200+ 2.0GHz / 512KB Cache / 1000MHz FSB / Venice /

> >> > Hyper-Transport / OEM / Socket 939 / Processor

> >> > - 2 twin sticks of 1G RAM

> >> > - Corsair 620W PSU

> >> > - Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 SATA 3.0Gb/s 320-GB hard drive

> >> >

> >> > Which piece of hardware do you think is bad, or a combination?

> >> >

> >> > Are they the best of everything? More than likely not, but they're

> >> > very

> >> > good and run well together. If I decide to install Windows XP Pro

> >> > 32-bit,

> >> > I'm sure I'll find out that X64 has caused the problems that I have.

> >> >

> >> > BTW, are you employed by Microsoft to try to discredit anyone who

> >> > speaks

> >> > against its products? I can't think of any other reason for your poor

> >> > attitude and manners.

> >> >

> >> > Regarding programs/files that aren't compatible with an 64-bit os, off

> >> > the

> >> > top of my head, I can think of . . .

> >> >

> >> > - Adobe Acrobat

> >> > - Winword (Microsoft's very own!)

> >> > - iexpolorer 64-bit (again, Microsoft's very own!)

> >> > - Avast

> >> > - Soundman

> >> > - ctfmon (a Microsoft Office XP program that runs in the background,

> >> > even

> >> > after you quit all Office programs!)

> >> > - Sun Microsystem's Java2 suite

> >> > - Webshots

> >> > - Maxtor One Touch

> >> >

> >> > Which programs in my pc are causing problems with my 64-bit os? Well,

> >> > Microsoft didn't and/or won't say, but it's strange that some of them

> >> > are

> >> > Microsoft programs. The problems with my computer started as soon as I

> >> > installed Windows XP Pro X64. Maybe that's the one that's clashing

> >> > with

> >> > everything else in my computer. The rest of them all get along fine.

> >> >

> >> > --

> >> > Denise

> >> >

> >> > ~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're

> >> > going.

> >>

>

>

[Guest Denise]

Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

 

Yeah, I'd say that X64 is good for fodder.

--

Denise

 

~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're going.

 

 

"S.SubZero" wrote:

> I run XP64 on my gaming rig and it runs perfectly. Not much in the

> way of 64-bit games, but Unreal Tournament 2004 64-bit Edition runs

> fine. All the 32-bit games I have tried so far work and work well.

>

> I run Vista 64 on my laptop and it runs perfectly too. The resources

> it uses are a little annoying, especially the 15GB+ of hard disk

> space. For my little 100GB laptop drive this is quite a bit. I have

> been debating re-doing my laptop with XP64 also, but I want to get

> very used to using Vista and learn some of it's inner workings. I'm

> using it mainly for resume fodder.

>

>

[Guest Denise]

Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

 

"I still have to set the affinity for many processes manually to get a really

smooth running machine, very annoying, but only have to do it once a day."

That's quite a statement John. I don't remember ever having to do all that

with 32-bit Windows. Good luck!

--

Denise

 

~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're going.

 

 

"John Barnes" wrote:

> I had performance problems with Vista64 until I upgraded my system from a

> 3500+ processor to a 5200+ x2. I still have to set the affinity for many

> processes manually to get a really smooth running machine, very annoying,

> but only have to do it once a day. I have it on a 72 gig partition with 25

> still free.

>

> "S.SubZero" <ssubzero@gmail.com> wrote in message

> news:1184415442.911977.12530@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...

> >I run XP64 on my gaming rig and it runs perfectly. Not much in the

> > way of 64-bit games, but Unreal Tournament 2004 64-bit Edition runs

> > fine. All the 32-bit games I have tried so far work and work well.

> >

> > I run Vista 64 on my laptop and it runs perfectly too. The resources

> > it uses are a little annoying, especially the 15GB+ of hard disk

> > space. For my little 100GB laptop drive this is quite a bit. I have

> > been debating re-doing my laptop with XP64 also, but I want to get

> > very used to using Vista and learn some of it's inner workings. I'm

> > using it mainly for resume fodder.

> >

>

>

[Guest Denise]

Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

 

Some components of my computer were hand picked with the help of people at

MajorGeeks forum. The parts were chosen to compliment one another and work

together well. If you can't see that by reviewing the list of parts that I

posted here, I don't think you know as much about computers as you think you

do.

 

Regarding the need to treat people offensively in order to get what you want

in life tells me that you have a problem. You should speak with someone

about it.

 

"I would instantly relegate this machine (whatever it's components) to running

a 32bit screensaver and get something else to do your job. The only insult

conveyed through this remark is that you didn't come to this conclusion much

sooner. You are way too patient!" You may need to rewrite this part of your

post. It makes no sense.

--

Denise

 

~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're going.

[Guest Denise]

RE: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

 

Well, Carol, if you have Vista X64 waiting on your shelf in order to use it,

it means that it is not good by itself, which is what I've been saying all

along. You made my point for me. Drivers should have been included with the

software. Without them, the os is no good so it's shelved.

 

I didn't say that Winword doesn't work. I said that it is a 32-bit system

version because Microsoft hasn't made it compatible with its own software,

nor has it made it compatible with other Microsoft software, such as

iexplore. You need to read an entire post and understand what was written

before you try to trash what was said.

 

Avast is a better anti-virus program for X64 than AVG.

 

I have 15 ext hdds, so 5 ext hdds means nothing to me. Before anyone says

that the problem lies with the fact that I have 15 hard drives, I've had no

problem with Disk Management. I don't have more than 3 or 4 turned on at a

time and, when they are on, they work well. My old 5-year old computer

handled up to 10 turned on at the same time. It might have handled more but

I only had 10 at the time.

 

My motherboard may be 2 years old but it's BIOS has been updated, so your

point is mute. No one but people with money can afford to replace their mobos

every couple of years so your point is ridiculous.

 

I have responded to many posts here and I think I made my stand very clear.

I have not checked the box for the forum to notify me of replies so that I

will not be posting here any longer. To do so would be to perpetuate this

disagreement and I have no desire to do so. The points made by those who

like X64 have too many holes in them simply because X64 was placed on the

market before it was ready/stable/complete and it has too many holes in it.

 

Good luck to everyone . . . I wish you happiness with your computers, 64-bit

or 32-bit.

--

Denise

 

~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're going.

[Guest Denise]

RE: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

 

One more thing . . . my mobo . . . not bad for a 2-year old

 

"Biostar TForce6100-939 NVIDIA Socket 939 MicroATX Motherboard

The TForce 6100-939 delivers great graphics and amazing multimedia

capability. This stellar motherboard supports dual-channel memory, DDR400 up

to 4GB, PCI Express 16x, PCI Express 1x, SATA, NVIDIA GeForce 6100 GPU video,

5.1-channel audio and fast Ethernet LAN.

- Chipset: NVIDIA GeForce 6100

- Front Side Bus: 2000MHz"

 

This is a piece of hardware that was made with foresight. not hindsight like

X64.

-------------------------------

 

"Chipset

The TForce6100-939 motherboard is based on the NVIDIA GeForce 6100

Northbridge chipset and the NVIDIA nForce 410 Southbridge chipset. It

supports AMD Athlon 64 X2, Athlon 64 FX, Athlon 64 and Sempron Processors,

with Hyper-Transport Technology and 2000MHz Front Side Bus support."

 

I have a compatible AMD Athlon 64 3200+ 2.0GHz processor

-------------------------------

 

"Memory Expansion

The TForce6100-939 provides 4 DIMM sockets using 184-pin DDR with a total

capacity of up to 4GB. You can install DDR 400MHz Memory. "

 

I have 2x1G twin sticks of RAM.

-------------------------------

 

"PCI Express Support

The TForce6100-939 fully supports PCI Express, the latest I/O interconnect

technology that speeds up the PCI bus. PCI Express features point-to-point

serial interconnections between devices and allows higher clockspeeds by

carrying data in packets. This high-speed interface is software compatible

with existing PCI specifications." (too bad X64 doesn't know how to use it)

[Guest John Barnes]

Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

 

And you still wouldn't have to as you don't have a dual core processor. I

used XP64 with no problems for over a year once I got all my hardware and

software compatible. The machine I was running on was a single core 3500+

and it ran beautifully. Vista64 is a resource hog, still has a few annoying

bugs and hasn't been the solid performer that XP64 was. I used XP86 for

about 5 years and it was a great system. I kept it in dual boot while using

XP64 for use with two programs that would not run on XP64 and which I did

not want to spend the money to replace. Hope all goes well for you. Sorry

your experience was so frustrating.

 

"Denise" <Denise@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

news:E48B8FFD-67F8-4E09-8577-0195E2504709@microsoft.com...

> "I still have to set the affinity for many processes manually to get a

> really

> smooth running machine, very annoying, but only have to do it once a day."

> That's quite a statement John. I don't remember ever having to do all

> that

> with 32-bit Windows. Good luck!

> --

> Denise

>

> ~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're

> going.

>

>

> "John Barnes" wrote:

>

>> I had performance problems with Vista64 until I upgraded my system from a

>> 3500+ processor to a 5200+ x2. I still have to set the affinity for many

>> processes manually to get a really smooth running machine, very annoying,

>> but only have to do it once a day. I have it on a 72 gig partition with

>> 25

>> still free.

>>

>> "S.SubZero" <ssubzero@gmail.com> wrote in message

>> news:1184415442.911977.12530@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...

>> >I run XP64 on my gaming rig and it runs perfectly. Not much in the

>> > way of 64-bit games, but Unreal Tournament 2004 64-bit Edition runs

>> > fine. All the 32-bit games I have tried so far work and work well.

>> >

>> > I run Vista 64 on my laptop and it runs perfectly too. The resources

>> > it uses are a little annoying, especially the 15GB+ of hard disk

>> > space. For my little 100GB laptop drive this is quite a bit. I have

>> > been debating re-doing my laptop with XP64 also, but I want to get

>> > very used to using Vista and learn some of it's inner workings. I'm

>> > using it mainly for resume fodder.

>> >

>>

>>