Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

[Guest Theo]

Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

 

The hardware list you posted does not state you have

dual-core CPU, so how would you be setting affinity with a

single-core CPU?

 

 

Denise wrote:

> "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!

[Guest Flatus Ohlfahrt]

Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

 

On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 02:32:03 GMT, =?Utf-8?B?RGVuaXNl?= wrote

in news:8630E3EA-6C57-49DF-A0B1-79B6F5E87AF8@microsoft.com:

> 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.

 

I've used x64 on a system pretty similar to yours and it worked

fine. I did look at the Biostar web site and they do have a bios

flash that may be worth trying as well as a couple of drivers:

 

http://tinyurl.com/2fcgqj

 

When unexpected things happen to one of my systems, clearing the

cmos by using the jumper on the motherboard sometimes allows

things to work. It's something like clearing the slate and

allowing the system to have a fresh start. While I'm inside the

box, I'll usually reseat the RAM by freeing the retainer clips

and then reinserting it.

 

My guess is doing the driver updates, and flashing the bios, and

clearing the cmos, and then reseating the RAM should take less

than 1/2 an hour if you're able to get to the inside of your

machine.

 

Flatus

[Guest John Hall]

Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

 

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

news:AD33812F-4670-403C-B5BD-E240D6A55E8A@microsoft.com...

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

> point is mute.

 

"moot"

[Guest Carol Steele]

RE: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

 

Well, you are being completely unrealistic (and slightly silly or

mischievous) there Denise, although MS does include a lot of drivers for the

OS (both XP x64 and Vista x64 come with a huge database of drivers, most of

these will have been provided by the manufacturers of the hardware. It is

NOT Microsoft's responsibility to write drivers for the thousands and

thousands of different devices which you can attach to your system - and

something like a hardware calibration puck is completely different than say a

USB driver.

 

"Denise" wrote:

> 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.

[Guest Nicolas]

RE: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

 

 

 

"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 ?

 

If you had read my very short post stating that I never had a dual-core CPU

nor that I had to set it to affinity, you would not have posted your

statement. Look at the quote marks around the sentence. The sentence was

written by someone else and I replied that I don't ever remember having to do

that with 32-bit Windows.

--

Denise

 

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

 

 

"Theo" wrote:

> The hardware list you posted does not state you have

> dual-core CPU, so how would you be setting affinity with a

> single-core CPU?

>

>

> Denise wrote:

> > "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!

>

[Guest Denise]

Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

 

My, my, how the insults fly when someone isn't expected to be around. I

built my machine so I think I know how to get inside it. BTW, I could use a

black case screw if anyone has one.

 

My motherboard has a BIOS flashing utility built in, so there's no problem

with that. Maybe you didn't read that when you were at the Biostar website.

 

I have moved my RAM around to see if there was a better configuration for

it, but you must have missed the post where I mentioned that.

 

I moved the jumper on the pins and then put it back to its original position

to clear CMOS.

 

I've updated the driver for Nvidia and chipset, the only updated drivers

available.

 

The BIOS will have to wait until I get a FDD cable because the instructions

were very clear to put the BIOS update on a floppy and install it from it.

 

I don't know much about computers but I know a bit. If you people would

stop looking down your noses, this forum would work.

--

Denise

 

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

 

 

"Flatus Ohlfahrt" wrote:

> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 02:32:03 GMT, =?Utf-8?B?RGVuaXNl?= wrote

> in news:8630E3EA-6C57-49DF-A0B1-79B6F5E87AF8@microsoft.com:

>

> > 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.

>

> I've used x64 on a system pretty similar to yours and it worked

> fine. I did look at the Biostar web site and they do have a bios

> flash that may be worth trying as well as a couple of drivers:

>

> http://tinyurl.com/2fcgqj

>

> When unexpected things happen to one of my systems, clearing the

> cmos by using the jumper on the motherboard sometimes allows

> things to work. It's something like clearing the slate and

> allowing the system to have a fresh start. While I'm inside the

> box, I'll usually reseat the RAM by freeing the retainer clips

> and then reinserting it.

>

> My guess is doing the driver updates, and flashing the bios, and

> clearing the cmos, and then reseating the RAM should take less

> than 1/2 an hour if you're able to get to the inside of your

> machine.

>

> Flatus

[Guest Denise]

RE: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

 

If there's one thing I'm not, it's naive. I'm practical and insightful. Did

you have to supply drivers when you progressed from 95 to 98 to 2000? I

didn't.

 

I have an update for my CPU but in order to install it, I have to uninstall

the present one. When I attempt to do so, I receive a message from Microsoft

which states, "Setup.exe has encountered a problem and needs to close. We

are sorry for the inconvenience." Inconvenience is a very mile term that I'd

use for this joke of an os. It's more like a pain in the a** every step of

the way. Nothing goes smoothly or as it should.

 

Microsoft may not have the responsibility to supply drivers for the X64 os,

but it did have the responsibility to inform potential buyers that it lacks

necessary drivers. Right there is one important instance where Microsoft

went wrong. I never would have bought it if the outside package contained a

warning to that affect.

 

Even updated drivers that are available don't work.

 

Here is another severe warning that I received after installing the updated

drivers for On-Board Audio and On-Board VGA. As I said, X64 will fight a

user every step of the way:

 

"A problem has been detected and Windows has been shut down to prevent

damage to your computer

 

Driver_IRQL_NOT_LESS_OR-EQUAL

 

If this is the first time you've seen this error screen, restart your

computer. If this screen appears again, follow these steps:

 

Check to ensure any new hardware or software is properly nstalled. If this

is a new installation, ask your hardware or software manufacturer for any

Windows updates you might need. If problems continue, disable or remove any

newly installed hardware or software. Disable BIOS memory options such as

caching or shadowing. If you need to use Safe Mode to remove or disable

components, restart your computer, press F8 to select Advanced Setup options,

and then select Safe Mode.

 

Technical Information:

*** STOP: 0X000000D1 (0X0000000000000015, 0X0000000000000002,

0X000000000000000, 0XFFFFFADFBC919C4B) ***

 

nv_mini,sys - Address FFFFFADFBC919C4B base at FFFFFADFBC8C0000, Date Stamp

46313285

 

Beginning dump of physical memory

Physical memory dump complete. "

 

--

Denise

 

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

 

 

"Carol Steele" wrote:

> Well, you are being completely unrealistic (and slightly silly or

> mischievous) there Denise, although MS does include a lot of drivers for the

> OS (both XP x64 and Vista x64 come with a huge database of drivers, most of

> these will have been provided by the manufacturers of the hardware. It is

> NOT Microsoft's responsibility to write drivers for the thousands and

> thousands of different devices which you can attach to your system - and

> something like a hardware calibration puck is completely different than say a

> USB driver.

>

> "Denise" wrote:

>

> > 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.

[Guest John Barnes]

Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

 

Works for most OP. If not for you, then why are you here. You said you

were leaving. 64-bit isn't for everyone and it would appear that you would

be better served and happier if you stayed with 32-bit. Do you even have a

real reason to run 64-bit. Since you don't have a need for RAM abilities

(you only have 2gig), do you have native 64-bit programs? If not, why are

you beating your head against the wall.

 

 

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

news:5CE600ED-DE91-40C2-9C66-FDF2C3F3CB2D@microsoft.com...

> My, my, how the insults fly when someone isn't expected to be around. I

> built my machine so I think I know how to get inside it. BTW, I could use

> a

> black case screw if anyone has one.

>

> My motherboard has a BIOS flashing utility built in, so there's no problem

> with that. Maybe you didn't read that when you were at the Biostar

> website.

>

> I have moved my RAM around to see if there was a better configuration for

> it, but you must have missed the post where I mentioned that.

>

> I moved the jumper on the pins and then put it back to its original

> position

> to clear CMOS.

>

> I've updated the driver for Nvidia and chipset, the only updated drivers

> available.

>

> The BIOS will have to wait until I get a FDD cable because the

> instructions

> were very clear to put the BIOS update on a floppy and install it from it.

>

> I don't know much about computers but I know a bit. If you people would

> stop looking down your noses, this forum would work.

> --

> Denise

>

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

> going.

>

>

> "Flatus Ohlfahrt" wrote:

>

>> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 02:32:03 GMT, =?Utf-8?B?RGVuaXNl?= wrote

>> in news:8630E3EA-6C57-49DF-A0B1-79B6F5E87AF8@microsoft.com:

>>

>> > 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.

>>

>> I've used x64 on a system pretty similar to yours and it worked

>> fine. I did look at the Biostar web site and they do have a bios

>> flash that may be worth trying as well as a couple of drivers:

>>

>> http://tinyurl.com/2fcgqj

>>

>> When unexpected things happen to one of my systems, clearing the

>> cmos by using the jumper on the motherboard sometimes allows

>> things to work. It's something like clearing the slate and

>> allowing the system to have a fresh start. While I'm inside the

>> box, I'll usually reseat the RAM by freeing the retainer clips

>> and then reinserting it.

>>

>> My guess is doing the driver updates, and flashing the bios, and

>> clearing the cmos, and then reseating the RAM should take less

>> than 1/2 an hour if you're able to get to the inside of your

>> machine.

>>

>> Flatus

>

[Guest Denise]

Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

 

If you're telling me that I don't have the right to be here, I believe this

is still America, not Gates. Whatever my reasons for having X64 are my own,

but the box that it came in didn't specify that it's for a certain useage.

Another fact held back from consumers. Thank you for making another point

for me.

--

Denise

 

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

 

 

"John Barnes" wrote:

> Works for most OP. If not for you, then why are you here. You said you

> were leaving. 64-bit isn't for everyone and it would appear that you would

> be better served and happier if you stayed with 32-bit. Do you even have a

> real reason to run 64-bit. Since you don't have a need for RAM abilities

> (you only have 2gig), do you have native 64-bit programs? If not, why are

> you beating your head against the wall.

>

>

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

> news:5CE600ED-DE91-40C2-9C66-FDF2C3F3CB2D@microsoft.com...

> > My, my, how the insults fly when someone isn't expected to be around. I

> > built my machine so I think I know how to get inside it. BTW, I could use

> > a

> > black case screw if anyone has one.

> >

> > My motherboard has a BIOS flashing utility built in, so there's no problem

> > with that. Maybe you didn't read that when you were at the Biostar

> > website.

> >

> > I have moved my RAM around to see if there was a better configuration for

> > it, but you must have missed the post where I mentioned that.

> >

> > I moved the jumper on the pins and then put it back to its original

> > position

> > to clear CMOS.

> >

> > I've updated the driver for Nvidia and chipset, the only updated drivers

> > available.

> >

> > The BIOS will have to wait until I get a FDD cable because the

> > instructions

> > were very clear to put the BIOS update on a floppy and install it from it.

> >

> > I don't know much about computers but I know a bit. If you people would

> > stop looking down your noses, this forum would work.

> > --

> > Denise

> >

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

> > going.

> >

> >

> > "Flatus Ohlfahrt" wrote:

> >

> >> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 02:32:03 GMT, =?Utf-8?B?RGVuaXNl?= wrote

> >> in news:8630E3EA-6C57-49DF-A0B1-79B6F5E87AF8@microsoft.com:

> >>

> >> > 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.

> >>

> >> I've used x64 on a system pretty similar to yours and it worked

> >> fine. I did look at the Biostar web site and they do have a bios

> >> flash that may be worth trying as well as a couple of drivers:

> >>

> >> http://tinyurl.com/2fcgqj

> >>

> >> When unexpected things happen to one of my systems, clearing the

> >> cmos by using the jumper on the motherboard sometimes allows

> >> things to work. It's something like clearing the slate and

> >> allowing the system to have a fresh start. While I'm inside the

> >> box, I'll usually reseat the RAM by freeing the retainer clips

> >> and then reinserting it.

> >>

> >> My guess is doing the driver updates, and flashing the bios, and

> >> clearing the cmos, and then reseating the RAM should take less

> >> than 1/2 an hour if you're able to get to the inside of your

> >> machine.

> >>

> >> Flatus

> >

>

>

[Guest Theo]

Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

 

Have you figured where you came from and/or where you're

going yet?

 

You certainly sound confused and lost to me.

 

If you think Microsoft is withholding critical information,

then take the initiative to do some research. There are

numerous references about 64-bit Windows on the internet

that point out the good, the bad, and how to determine if

64-bit is appropriate for you.

 

If you want to come to this forum to honestly seek help with

64-bit Windows operating systems, then you're welcome.

However, most of your posts have been to complain about and

deride 64-bit Windows and Microsoft. That is not constructive!

 

You really sound like a neophyte trying to blame others for

your inexperience and ignorance.

 

 

 

Denise wrote:

> If you're telling me that I don't have the right to be here, I believe this

> is still America, not Gates. Whatever my reasons for having X64 are my own,

> but the box that it came in didn't specify that it's for a certain useage.

> Another fact held back from consumers. Thank you for making another point

> for me.

[Guest Denise]

Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

 

In this thread, the person asked:

 

"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."

 

 

You said:

 

"If you want to come to this forum to honestly seek help with 64-bit Windows

operating systems, then you're welcome. However, most of your posts have been

to complain about and deride 64-bit Windows and Microsoft. That is not

constructive!"

 

Given the request of the author of this thread, it's you who shouldn't post

in this thread because you don't know what it's about. It appears that it is

you who is confused and lost here, not I.

 

I very much think that voicing my opinion regarding X64 is constructive,

even if it wasn't the topic of conversation, but it is. People like you will

defend X64 to your deaths and you give the illusion, as you've done here,

that it's the user who is the cause of the problem when it's really X64.

I've been using machines for 30 years, starting with the Wang Word Processor,

graduating to DOS, and I then went on to Windows 95, 98, 2000 XP, so I know a

lot about how operating systems should work and X64 is poor.

 

 

You said:

 

"If you think Microsoft is withholding critical information, then take the

initiative to do some research."

 

Most of the information on the internet regarding X64 was written by people

like you who thinks that Micorsoft's s*** doesn't stink. The information

should have been on the package. I bought X64 more than a year ago when

there was little to no critiques about it. I don't watch television so my

choice to use X64 was based on the general consensus of opinion at the that

it was the next generation of Windows. It very well is but it turned out to

be a terrible one.

 

In addition, you have no right to tell me or anyone else not to post in

these forums. By doing so, it sounds like you also want to cover up

something about X64 and it angers you to the point when you can't discuss

this topic rationally, in a mature manner, without name-calling and insults.

Those are the types of comments that are inappropriate in all threads, not

opinions about Microsoft products.

--

Denise

 

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

 

 

 

"Theo" wrote:

> Have you figured where you came from and/or where you're

> going yet?

>

> You certainly sound confused and lost to me.

>

> If you think Microsoft is withholding critical information,

> then take the initiative to do some research. There are

> numerous references about 64-bit Windows on the internet

> that point out the good, the bad, and how to determine if

> 64-bit is appropriate for you.

>

> If you want to come to this forum to honestly seek help with

> 64-bit Windows operating systems, then you're welcome.

> However, most of your posts have been to complain about and

> deride 64-bit Windows and Microsoft. That is not constructive!

>

> You really sound like a neophyte trying to blame others for

> your inexperience and ignorance.

[Guest Denise]

RE: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

 

I have updated my drivers, but I hope the link given will help others, so I'm

glad you posted it.

 

It seems that you and Adobe Acrobat disagree about it's ability to run in an

X64 os.

 

http://kb.adobe.com/selfservice/viewContent.do?externalId=331732&sliceId=2

 

If you can't get X64 to open the url, let me know and I'll copy and paste

the very lengthy problems associated with using Adobe Acrobat on an X64

system.

 

My old computer, which was 5 years old, ran up to 13 ext hdds at a time. I

installed Windows 2000 XP Pro and it never blinked an eye. With X64, I have

to limit the number of running ext hdds to 4 because X64 will crash if I turn

on more.

 

Biostar's TFORCE 6100-939 mobo is rock solid, well known by gamers and for

overclocking. I don't do gaming nor have I overclocked the BIOS so that it's

in its original state, except for updated drivers. You should investigate pc

components more thoroughly before making an overall assumption that it's no

good because of it's age.

 

BTW, Avast is a better anti-virus program for an X64 os than AVG.

--

Denise

 

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

 

 

"Carol Steele" wrote:

> 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??

[Guest Theo]

Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

 

The major difference is that I know most of the limitations

of Win x64 and I utilize it for it's strengths. I did a lot

of research looking for drivers and peripheral hardware that

had x64 drivers. Yes, there are deficiencies in Win x64,

but I haven't found any operating system that is perfect.

 

Arguments are totally unnecessary. All anyone has to do is

do research and evaluate whether Win x64 is appropriate for

their situation. One of the best resources is Charlie

Russel's paper on Win x64.

 

It's like buying a vehicle. One researches the available

products and determines which vehicle he/she wants. One

doesn't buy a Ford and then complain because it isn't a Chevy.

 

I definitely am not lost. I know exactly where I have been

and I periodically evaluate my objects to determine if I am

proceeding in a reasonable and logical manner to where I

know I want to go.

 

I have been using, repairing, building, setting up networks,

and programming computers for long time. I have worked with

CP/M, MS-DOS, OS/2, Unix, Linux, Apple OS, Atari OS, PDP/11

OS, and many others.

 

And, I guess you're right. If you want to throw a temper

tantrum, scream and kick your feet, then you have every

right to do so. Hope you feel better when you stop!

 

 

Denise wrote:

> In this thread, the person asked:

>

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

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

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

>

>

> You said:

>

> "If you want to come to this forum to honestly seek help with 64-bit Windows

> operating systems, then you're welcome. However, most of your posts have been

> to complain about and deride 64-bit Windows and Microsoft. That is not

> constructive!"

>

> Given the request of the author of this thread, it's you who shouldn't post

> in this thread because you don't know what it's about. It appears that it is

> you who is confused and lost here, not I.

>

> I very much think that voicing my opinion regarding X64 is constructive,

> even if it wasn't the topic of conversation, but it is. People like you will

> defend X64 to your deaths and you give the illusion, as you've done here,

> that it's the user who is the cause of the problem when it's really X64.

> I've been using machines for 30 years, starting with the Wang Word Processor,

> graduating to DOS, and I then went on to Windows 95, 98, 2000 XP, so I know a

> lot about how operating systems should work and X64 is poor.

>

>

> You said:

>

> "If you think Microsoft is withholding critical information, then take the

> initiative to do some research."

>

> Most of the information on the internet regarding X64 was written by people

> like you who thinks that Microsoft's s*** doesn't stink. The information

> should have been on the package. I bought X64 more than a year ago when

> there was little to no critiques about it. I don't watch television so my

> choice to use X64 was based on the general consensus of opinion at the that

> it was the next generation of Windows. It very well is but it turned out to

> be a terrible one.

>

> In addition, you have no right to tell me or anyone else not to post in

> these forums. By doing so, it sounds like you also want to cover up

> something about X64 and it angers you to the point when you can't discuss

> this topic rationally, in a mature manner, without name-calling and insults.

> Those are the types of comments that are inappropriate in all threads, not

> opinions about Microsoft products.

[Guest Denise]

Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

 

I don't want to argue. I replied to Royston H's request for opinions of X64.

I gave mine and, since then, people have been arguing with me.

 

Can't you write a post without insulting people?

--

Denise

 

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

 

 

 

 

"Theo" wrote:

> The major difference is that I know most of the limitations

> of Win x64 and I utilize it for it's strengths. I did a lot

> of research looking for drivers and peripheral hardware that

> had x64 drivers. Yes, there are deficiencies in Win x64,

> but I haven't found any operating system that is perfect.

>

> Arguments are totally unnecessary. All anyone has to do is

> do research and evaluate whether Win x64 is appropriate for

> their situation. One of the best resources is Charlie

> Russel's paper on Win x64.

>

> It's like buying a vehicle. One researches the available

> products and determines which vehicle he/she wants. One

> doesn't buy a Ford and then complain because it isn't a Chevy.

>

> I definitely am not lost. I know exactly where I have been

> and I periodically evaluate my objects to determine if I am

> proceeding in a reasonable and logical manner to where I

> know I want to go.

>

> I have been using, repairing, building, setting up networks,

> and programming computers for long time. I have worked with

> CP/M, MS-DOS, OS/2, Unix, Linux, Apple OS, Atari OS, PDP/11

> OS, and many others.

>

> And, I guess you're right. If you want to throw a temper

> tantrum, scream and kick your feet, then you have every

> right to do so. Hope you feel better when you stop!

>

>

> Denise wrote:

> > In this thread, the person asked:

> >

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

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

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

> >

> >

> > You said:

> >

> > "If you want to come to this forum to honestly seek help with 64-bit Windows

> > operating systems, then you're welcome. However, most of your posts have been

> > to complain about and deride 64-bit Windows and Microsoft. That is not

> > constructive!"

> >

> > Given the request of the author of this thread, it's you who shouldn't post

> > in this thread because you don't know what it's about. It appears that it is

> > you who is confused and lost here, not I.

> >

> > I very much think that voicing my opinion regarding X64 is constructive,

> > even if it wasn't the topic of conversation, but it is. People like you will

> > defend X64 to your deaths and you give the illusion, as you've done here,

> > that it's the user who is the cause of the problem when it's really X64.

> > I've been using machines for 30 years, starting with the Wang Word Processor,

> > graduating to DOS, and I then went on to Windows 95, 98, 2000 XP, so I know a

> > lot about how operating systems should work and X64 is poor.

> >

> >

> > You said:

> >

> > "If you think Microsoft is withholding critical information, then take the

> > initiative to do some research."

> >

> > Most of the information on the internet regarding X64 was written by people

> > like you who thinks that Microsoft's s*** doesn't stink. The information

> > should have been on the package. I bought X64 more than a year ago when

> > there was little to no critiques about it. I don't watch television so my

> > choice to use X64 was based on the general consensus of opinion at the that

> > it was the next generation of Windows. It very well is but it turned out to

> > be a terrible one.

> >

> > In addition, you have no right to tell me or anyone else not to post in

> > these forums. By doing so, it sounds like you also want to cover up

> > something about X64 and it angers you to the point when you can't discuss

> > this topic rationally, in a mature manner, without name-calling and insults.

> > Those are the types of comments that are inappropriate in all threads, not

> > opinions about Microsoft products.

>

[Guest John Barnes]

Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

 

Can you write a post that doesn't blame everyone else for your mistakes?

Asking for specific help and providing help is the purpose of these groups,

not trolling for sympathy and ad hominem attacks.

 

'Whatever my reasons for having X64 are my own'

 

True, but obviously not based on reason.(the power of being able to think in

a logical and rational manner)

 

 

 

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

news:2F1B3693-B07C-4E22-BA27-D3A8105553B9@microsoft.com...

>I don't want to argue. I replied to Royston H's request for opinions of

>X64.

> I gave mine and, since then, people have been arguing with me.

>

> Can't you write a post without insulting people?

> --

> Denise

>

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

> going.

>

>

>

>

> "Theo" wrote:

>

>> The major difference is that I know most of the limitations

>> of Win x64 and I utilize it for it's strengths. I did a lot

>> of research looking for drivers and peripheral hardware that

>> had x64 drivers. Yes, there are deficiencies in Win x64,

>> but I haven't found any operating system that is perfect.

>>

>> Arguments are totally unnecessary. All anyone has to do is

>> do research and evaluate whether Win x64 is appropriate for

>> their situation. One of the best resources is Charlie

>> Russel's paper on Win x64.

>>

>> It's like buying a vehicle. One researches the available

>> products and determines which vehicle he/she wants. One

>> doesn't buy a Ford and then complain because it isn't a Chevy.

>>

>> I definitely am not lost. I know exactly where I have been

>> and I periodically evaluate my objects to determine if I am

>> proceeding in a reasonable and logical manner to where I

>> know I want to go.

>>

>> I have been using, repairing, building, setting up networks,

>> and programming computers for long time. I have worked with

>> CP/M, MS-DOS, OS/2, Unix, Linux, Apple OS, Atari OS, PDP/11

>> OS, and many others.

>>

>> And, I guess you're right. If you want to throw a temper

>> tantrum, scream and kick your feet, then you have every

>> right to do so. Hope you feel better when you stop!

>>

>>

>> Denise wrote:

>> > In this thread, the person asked:

>> >

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

>> > any

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

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

>> >

>> >

>> > You said:

>> >

>> > "If you want to come to this forum to honestly seek help with 64-bit

>> > Windows

>> > operating systems, then you're welcome. However, most of your posts

>> > have been

>> > to complain about and deride 64-bit Windows and Microsoft. That is not

>> > constructive!"

>> >

>> > Given the request of the author of this thread, it's you who shouldn't

>> > post

>> > in this thread because you don't know what it's about. It appears that

>> > it is

>> > you who is confused and lost here, not I.

>> >

>> > I very much think that voicing my opinion regarding X64 is

>> > constructive,

>> > even if it wasn't the topic of conversation, but it is. People like

>> > you will

>> > defend X64 to your deaths and you give the illusion, as you've done

>> > here,

>> > that it's the user who is the cause of the problem when it's really

>> > X64.

>> > I've been using machines for 30 years, starting with the Wang Word

>> > Processor,

>> > graduating to DOS, and I then went on to Windows 95, 98, 2000 XP, so I

>> > know a

>> > lot about how operating systems should work and X64 is poor.

>> >

>> >

>> > You said:

>> >

>> > "If you think Microsoft is withholding critical information, then take

>> > the

>> > initiative to do some research."

>> >

>> > Most of the information on the internet regarding X64 was written by

>> > people

>> > like you who thinks that Microsoft's s*** doesn't stink. The

>> > information

>> > should have been on the package. I bought X64 more than a year ago

>> > when

>> > there was little to no critiques about it. I don't watch television so

>> > my

>> > choice to use X64 was based on the general consensus of opinion at the

>> > that

>> > it was the next generation of Windows. It very well is but it turned

>> > out to

>> > be a terrible one.

>> >

>> > In addition, you have no right to tell me or anyone else not to post in

>> > these forums. By doing so, it sounds like you also want to cover up

>> > something about X64 and it angers you to the point when you can't

>> > discuss

>> > this topic rationally, in a mature manner, without name-calling and

>> > insults.

>> > Those are the types of comments that are inappropriate in all threads,

>> > not

>> > opinions about Microsoft products.

>>

[Guest Theo]

Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

 

I got tired of you carrying on about how screwed up .NET

Framework was when you were trying to run a 32-bit program

that had .DLLs that are not compatible with Win x64. You

were totally obsessed with Microsoft being responsible for

your mistake and appeared to have no concept of what was

really going on.

 

 

Denise wrote:

> Can't you write a post without insulting people?

[Guest Denise]

Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

 

You're missing the point of this thread. The author asked for opinions. He

did not ask for help. Also, I don't understand why you think that I'm

blaming anyone, let alone for my non-existent mistakes, except for purchasing

X64.

 

Your last post did nothing to help anyone, teach anyone or provide

assistance in any manner. Your entire post contains insults aimed at me.

You're contradicting yourself there, John. Is that the only manner in which

you and other defenders of X64 can use for the os that Microsoft dumped onto

the market in order to recoup its expenses when there are so many problems

with it?

--

Denise

 

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

 

 

"John Barnes" wrote:

> Can you write a post that doesn't blame everyone else for your mistakes?

> Asking for specific help and providing help is the purpose of these groups,

> not trolling for sympathy and ad hominem attacks.

>

> 'Whatever my reasons for having X64 are my own'

>

> True, but obviously not based on reason.(the power of being able to think in

> a logical and rational manner)

>

>

>

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

> news:2F1B3693-B07C-4E22-BA27-D3A8105553B9@microsoft.com...

> >I don't want to argue. I replied to Royston H's request for opinions of

> >X64.

> > I gave mine and, since then, people have been arguing with me.

> >

> > Can't you write a post without insulting people?

> > --

> > Denise

> >

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

> > going.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > "Theo" wrote:

> >

> >> The major difference is that I know most of the limitations

> >> of Win x64 and I utilize it for it's strengths. I did a lot

> >> of research looking for drivers and peripheral hardware that

> >> had x64 drivers. Yes, there are deficiencies in Win x64,

> >> but I haven't found any operating system that is perfect.

> >>

> >> Arguments are totally unnecessary. All anyone has to do is

> >> do research and evaluate whether Win x64 is appropriate for

> >> their situation. One of the best resources is Charlie

> >> Russel's paper on Win x64.

> >>

> >> It's like buying a vehicle. One researches the available

> >> products and determines which vehicle he/she wants. One

> >> doesn't buy a Ford and then complain because it isn't a Chevy.

> >>

> >> I definitely am not lost. I know exactly where I have been

> >> and I periodically evaluate my objects to determine if I am

> >> proceeding in a reasonable and logical manner to where I

> >> know I want to go.

> >>

> >> I have been using, repairing, building, setting up networks,

> >> and programming computers for long time. I have worked with

> >> CP/M, MS-DOS, OS/2, Unix, Linux, Apple OS, Atari OS, PDP/11

> >> OS, and many others.

> >>

> >> And, I guess you're right. If you want to throw a temper

> >> tantrum, scream and kick your feet, then you have every

> >> right to do so. Hope you feel better when you stop!

> >>

> >>

> >> Denise wrote:

> >> > In this thread, the person asked:

> >> >

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

> >> > any

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

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

> >> >

> >> >

> >> > You said:

> >> >

> >> > "If you want to come to this forum to honestly seek help with 64-bit

> >> > Windows

> >> > operating systems, then you're welcome. However, most of your posts

> >> > have been

> >> > to complain about and deride 64-bit Windows and Microsoft. That is not

> >> > constructive!"

> >> >

> >> > Given the request of the author of this thread, it's you who shouldn't

> >> > post

> >> > in this thread because you don't know what it's about. It appears that

> >> > it is

> >> > you who is confused and lost here, not I.

> >> >

> >> > I very much think that voicing my opinion regarding X64 is

> >> > constructive,

> >> > even if it wasn't the topic of conversation, but it is. People like

> >> > you will

> >> > defend X64 to your deaths and you give the illusion, as you've done

> >> > here,

> >> > that it's the user who is the cause of the problem when it's really

> >> > X64.

> >> > I've been using machines for 30 years, starting with the Wang Word

> >> > Processor,

> >> > graduating to DOS, and I then went on to Windows 95, 98, 2000 XP, so I

> >> > know a

> >> > lot about how operating systems should work and X64 is poor.

> >> >

> >> >

> >> > You said:

> >> >

> >> > "If you think Microsoft is withholding critical information, then take

> >> > the

> >> > initiative to do some research."

> >> >

> >> > Most of the information on the internet regarding X64 was written by

> >> > people

> >> > like you who thinks that Microsoft's s*** doesn't stink. The

> >> > information

> >> > should have been on the package. I bought X64 more than a year ago

> >> > when

> >> > there was little to no critiques about it. I don't watch television so

> >> > my

> >> > choice to use X64 was based on the general consensus of opinion at the

> >> > that

> >> > it was the next generation of Windows. It very well is but it turned

> >> > out to

> >> > be a terrible one.

> >> >

> >> > In addition, you have no right to tell me or anyone else not to post in

> >> > these forums. By doing so, it sounds like you also want to cover up

> >> > something about X64 and it angers you to the point when you can't

> >> > discuss

> >> > this topic rationally, in a mature manner, without name-calling and

> >> > insults.

> >> > Those are the types of comments that are inappropriate in all threads,

> >> > not

> >> > opinions about Microsoft products.

> >>

>

>

[Guest Denise]

Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

 

You're grasping at straws there, Theo. We've moved on from there and, again,

that's not the point of this thread. When asked what one thinks of an os, to

mention .NET Framework is an example of a problem with the os. To state that

I'm "totally obsessed" with Microsoft being responsible for your mistake and

appeared to have no concept of what was really going on" makes no sense nor

does it address the topic of this thread. Again, your post was written

solely to insult me. Stay on track here, Theo. Royston wants to know what

we thing of X64 Pro and Vista X64, not about what you and others think about

me.

 

Again, I repeat, stay on topic.

--

Denise

 

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

 

 

"Theo" wrote:

> I got tired of you carrying on about how screwed up .NET

> Framework was when you were trying to run a 32-bit program

> that had .DLLs that are not compatible with Win x64. You

> were totally obsessed with Microsoft being responsible for

> your mistake and appeared to have no concept of what was

> really going on.

>

>

> Denise wrote:

> > Can't you write a post without insulting people?

>

[Guest John Barnes]

Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

 

You are one of the few having problems with XP64. The large majority of

problems are due to incompatible hardware or software, which is NOT the

operating systems problem. Most of us had to replace hardware and software

that was not, and would never be made compatible. Microsoft may have

released XP64 to gauge their success in developing a 64-bit system, to help

with the Vista64 release later on, but as to recovering their expenses, you

must think they are complete business incompetents. The sales of the niche

system could hardly have been expected to make a dent in the associated

expenses. It was an investment in the future of computing. Good luck. I

am going back to my policy of not responding to trolls, so bye, bye and I

hope your next software purchase is a better experience.

 

Incidentally, it is easy to know where you are going without knowing where

you came from, what you need to know is where you are now.

 

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

news:A585865B-3F67-425E-88FA-FABDDC294B7F@microsoft.com...

> You're missing the point of this thread. The author asked for opinions.

> He

> did not ask for help. Also, I don't understand why you think that I'm

> blaming anyone, let alone for my non-existent mistakes, except for

> purchasing

> X64.

>

> Your last post did nothing to help anyone, teach anyone or provide

> assistance in any manner. Your entire post contains insults aimed at me.

> You're contradicting yourself there, John. Is that the only manner in

> which

> you and other defenders of X64 can use for the os that Microsoft dumped

> onto

> the market in order to recoup its expenses when there are so many problems

> with it?

> --

> Denise

>

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

> going.

>

>

> "John Barnes" wrote:

>

>> Can you write a post that doesn't blame everyone else for your mistakes?

>> Asking for specific help and providing help is the purpose of these

>> groups,

>> not trolling for sympathy and ad hominem attacks.

>>

>> 'Whatever my reasons for having X64 are my own'

>>

>> True, but obviously not based on reason.(the power of being able to think

>> in

>> a logical and rational manner)

>>

>>

>>

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

>> news:2F1B3693-B07C-4E22-BA27-D3A8105553B9@microsoft.com...

>> >I don't want to argue. I replied to Royston H's request for opinions of

>> >X64.

>> > I gave mine and, since then, people have been arguing with me.

>> >

>> > Can't you write a post without insulting people?

>> > --

>> > Denise

>> >

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

>> > going.

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> > "Theo" wrote:

>> >

>> >> The major difference is that I know most of the limitations

>> >> of Win x64 and I utilize it for it's strengths. I did a lot

>> >> of research looking for drivers and peripheral hardware that

>> >> had x64 drivers. Yes, there are deficiencies in Win x64,

>> >> but I haven't found any operating system that is perfect.

>> >>

>> >> Arguments are totally unnecessary. All anyone has to do is

>> >> do research and evaluate whether Win x64 is appropriate for

>> >> their situation. One of the best resources is Charlie

>> >> Russel's paper on Win x64.

>> >>

>> >> It's like buying a vehicle. One researches the available

>> >> products and determines which vehicle he/she wants. One

>> >> doesn't buy a Ford and then complain because it isn't a Chevy.

>> >>

>> >> I definitely am not lost. I know exactly where I have been

>> >> and I periodically evaluate my objects to determine if I am

>> >> proceeding in a reasonable and logical manner to where I

>> >> know I want to go.

>> >>

>> >> I have been using, repairing, building, setting up networks,

>> >> and programming computers for long time. I have worked with

>> >> CP/M, MS-DOS, OS/2, Unix, Linux, Apple OS, Atari OS, PDP/11

>> >> OS, and many others.

>> >>

>> >> And, I guess you're right. If you want to throw a temper

>> >> tantrum, scream and kick your feet, then you have every

>> >> right to do so. Hope you feel better when you stop!

>> >>

>> >>

>> >> Denise wrote:

>> >> > In this thread, the person asked:

>> >> >

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

>> >> > any

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

>> >> > more

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

>> >> >

>> >> >

>> >> > You said:

>> >> >

>> >> > "If you want to come to this forum to honestly seek help with 64-bit

>> >> > Windows

>> >> > operating systems, then you're welcome. However, most of your posts

>> >> > have been

>> >> > to complain about and deride 64-bit Windows and Microsoft. That is

>> >> > not

>> >> > constructive!"

>> >> >

>> >> > Given the request of the author of this thread, it's you who

>> >> > shouldn't

>> >> > post

>> >> > in this thread because you don't know what it's about. It appears

>> >> > that

>> >> > it is

>> >> > you who is confused and lost here, not I.

>> >> >

>> >> > I very much think that voicing my opinion regarding X64 is

>> >> > constructive,

>> >> > even if it wasn't the topic of conversation, but it is. People like

>> >> > you will

>> >> > defend X64 to your deaths and you give the illusion, as you've done

>> >> > here,

>> >> > that it's the user who is the cause of the problem when it's really

>> >> > X64.

>> >> > I've been using machines for 30 years, starting with the Wang Word

>> >> > Processor,

>> >> > graduating to DOS, and I then went on to Windows 95, 98, 2000 XP, so

>> >> > I

>> >> > know a

>> >> > lot about how operating systems should work and X64 is poor.

>> >> >

>> >> >

>> >> > You said:

>> >> >

>> >> > "If you think Microsoft is withholding critical information, then

>> >> > take

>> >> > the

>> >> > initiative to do some research."

>> >> >

>> >> > Most of the information on the internet regarding X64 was written by

>> >> > people

>> >> > like you who thinks that Microsoft's s*** doesn't stink. The

>> >> > information

>> >> > should have been on the package. I bought X64 more than a year ago

>> >> > when

>> >> > there was little to no critiques about it. I don't watch television

>> >> > so

>> >> > my

>> >> > choice to use X64 was based on the general consensus of opinion at

>> >> > the

>> >> > that

>> >> > it was the next generation of Windows. It very well is but it

>> >> > turned

>> >> > out to

>> >> > be a terrible one.

>> >> >

>> >> > In addition, you have no right to tell me or anyone else not to post

>> >> > in

>> >> > these forums. By doing so, it sounds like you also want to cover up

>> >> > something about X64 and it angers you to the point when you can't

>> >> > discuss

>> >> > this topic rationally, in a mature manner, without name-calling and

>> >> > insults.

>> >> > Those are the types of comments that are inappropriate in all

>> >> > threads,

>> >> > not

>> >> > opinions about Microsoft products.

>> >>

>>

>>

[Guest Denise]

Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

 

Well, somebody finally admits that XP Pro X64 is a beta version of Vista X64!

Thank you!

 

You said:

 

"Most of us had to replace hardware and software

that was not, and would never be made compatible. "

 

This was never mentioned at the website where I purchased X64 or on the

package. This fact is major and it should have been stated up-front, the

fact that it's the beta version for Vista X64.

 

 

I didn't purchase X64 to make "an investment in the future of computing,"

but for my os." I'm not a guinea pig and I don't like to be treated as such.

Microsoft didn't mention this fact either.

 

 

I won't respond to your insults in your post. It seems that you and others

just can't help being rude, immature and blind.

 

 

I wish everyone good luck with X64 and I hope it doesn't sap your pockets

dry in order to convert your hardware and software to be compatible with X64.

--

Denise

 

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

 

 

"John Barnes" wrote:

> You are one of the few having problems with XP64. The large majority of

> problems are due to incompatible hardware or software, which is NOT the

> operating systems problem. Most of us had to replace hardware and software

> that was not, and would never be made compatible. Microsoft may have

> released XP64 to gauge their success in developing a 64-bit system, to help

> with the Vista64 release later on, but as to recovering their expenses, you

> must think they are complete business incompetents. The sales of the niche

> system could hardly have been expected to make a dent in the associated

> expenses. It was an investment in the future of computing. Good luck. I

> am going back to my policy of not responding to trolls, so bye, bye and I

> hope your next software purchase is a better experience.

>

> Incidentally, it is easy to know where you are going without knowing where

> you came from, what you need to know is where you are now.

>

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

> news:A585865B-3F67-425E-88FA-FABDDC294B7F@microsoft.com...

> > You're missing the point of this thread. The author asked for opinions.

> > He

> > did not ask for help. Also, I don't understand why you think that I'm

> > blaming anyone, let alone for my non-existent mistakes, except for

> > purchasing

> > X64.

> >

> > Your last post did nothing to help anyone, teach anyone or provide

> > assistance in any manner. Your entire post contains insults aimed at me.

> > You're contradicting yourself there, John. Is that the only manner in

> > which

> > you and other defenders of X64 can use for the os that Microsoft dumped

> > onto

> > the market in order to recoup its expenses when there are so many problems

> > with it?

> > --

> > Denise

> >

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

> > going.

> >

> >

> > "John Barnes" wrote:

> >

> >> Can you write a post that doesn't blame everyone else for your mistakes?

> >> Asking for specific help and providing help is the purpose of these

> >> groups,

> >> not trolling for sympathy and ad hominem attacks.

> >>

> >> 'Whatever my reasons for having X64 are my own'

> >>

> >> True, but obviously not based on reason.(the power of being able to think

> >> in

> >> a logical and rational manner)

> >>

> >>

> >>

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

> >> news:2F1B3693-B07C-4E22-BA27-D3A8105553B9@microsoft.com...

> >> >I don't want to argue. I replied to Royston H's request for opinions of

> >> >X64.

> >> > I gave mine and, since then, people have been arguing with me.

> >> >

> >> > Can't you write a post without insulting people?

> >> > --

> >> > Denise

> >> >

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

> >> > going.

> >> >

> >> >

> >> >

> >> >

> >> > "Theo" wrote:

> >> >

> >> >> The major difference is that I know most of the limitations

> >> >> of Win x64 and I utilize it for it's strengths. I did a lot

> >> >> of research looking for drivers and peripheral hardware that

> >> >> had x64 drivers. Yes, there are deficiencies in Win x64,

> >> >> but I haven't found any operating system that is perfect.

> >> >>

> >> >> Arguments are totally unnecessary. All anyone has to do is

> >> >> do research and evaluate whether Win x64 is appropriate for

> >> >> their situation. One of the best resources is Charlie

> >> >> Russel's paper on Win x64.

> >> >>

> >> >> It's like buying a vehicle. One researches the available

> >> >> products and determines which vehicle he/she wants. One

> >> >> doesn't buy a Ford and then complain because it isn't a Chevy.

> >> >>

> >> >> I definitely am not lost. I know exactly where I have been

> >> >> and I periodically evaluate my objects to determine if I am

> >> >> proceeding in a reasonable and logical manner to where I

> >> >> know I want to go.

> >> >>

> >> >> I have been using, repairing, building, setting up networks,

> >> >> and programming computers for long time. I have worked with

> >> >> CP/M, MS-DOS, OS/2, Unix, Linux, Apple OS, Atari OS, PDP/11

> >> >> OS, and many others.

> >> >>

> >> >> And, I guess you're right. If you want to throw a temper

> >> >> tantrum, scream and kick your feet, then you have every

> >> >> right to do so. Hope you feel better when you stop!

> >> >>

> >> >>

> >> >> Denise wrote:

> >> >> > In this thread, the person asked:

> >> >> >

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

> >> >> > any

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

> >> >> > more

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

> >> >> >

> >> >> >

> >> >> > You said:

> >> >> >

> >> >> > "If you want to come to this forum to honestly seek help with 64-bit

> >> >> > Windows

> >> >> > operating systems, then you're welcome. However, most of your posts

> >> >> > have been

> >> >> > to complain about and deride 64-bit Windows and Microsoft. That is

> >> >> > not

> >> >> > constructive!"

> >> >> >

> >> >> > Given the request of the author of this thread, it's you who

> >> >> > shouldn't

> >> >> > post

> >> >> > in this thread because you don't know what it's about. It appears

> >> >> > that

> >> >> > it is

> >> >> > you who is confused and lost here, not I.

> >> >> >

> >> >> > I very much think that voicing my opinion regarding X64 is

> >> >> > constructive,

> >> >> > even if it wasn't the topic of conversation, but it is. People like

> >> >> > you will

> >> >> > defend X64 to your deaths and you give the illusion, as you've done

> >> >> > here,

> >> >> > that it's the user who is the cause of the problem when it's really

> >> >> > X64.

> >> >> > I've been using machines for 30 years, starting with the Wang Word

> >> >> > Processor,

> >> >> > graduating to DOS, and I then went on to Windows 95, 98, 2000 XP, so

> >> >> > I

> >> >> > know a

> >> >> > lot about how operating systems should work and X64 is poor.

> >> >> >

> >> >> >

> >> >> > You said:

> >> >> >

> >> >> > "If you think Microsoft is withholding critical information, then

> >> >> > take

> >> >> > the

> >> >> > initiative to do some research."

> >> >> >

> >> >> > Most of the information on the internet regarding X64 was written by

> >> >> > people

> >> >> > like you who thinks that Microsoft's s*** doesn't stink. The

> >> >> > information

> >> >> > should have been on the package. I bought X64 more than a year ago

> >> >> > when

> >> >> > there was little to no critiques about it. I don't watch television

> >> >> > so

> >> >> > my

> >> >> > choice to use X64 was based on the general consensus of opinion at

> >> >> > the

> >> >> > that

> >> >> > it was the next generation of Windows. It very well is but it

> >> >> > turned

> >> >> > out to

> >> >> > be a terrible one.

> >> >> >

> >> >> > In addition, you have no right to tell me or anyone else not to post

> >> >> > in

> >> >> > these forums. By doing so, it sounds like you also want to cover up

> >> >> > something about X64 and it angers you to the point when you can't

> >> >> > discuss

> >> >> > this topic rationally, in a mature manner, without name-calling and

> >> >> > insults.

> >> >> > Those are the types of comments that are inappropriate in all

> >> >> > threads,

> >> >> > not

> >> >> > opinions about Microsoft products.

> >> >>

> >>

> >>

>

>

[Guest Chuck Walbourn [MSFT]]

Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

 

> Well, somebody finally admits that XP Pro X64 is a beta version of Vista

> X64!

> Thank you!

 

Until there was a Windows x64 Edition, there was no way driver writers or

software developers could actually support x64. The investments in Windows

XP Pro x64 Edition and Windows Server 2003 SP1 x64 Edition were made to help

get the whole ecosystem going for Windows 64-bit. We had a very extended

Beta for Windows XP Pro x64 Edition trying to give third parties as much

time as possible to get their support in place, but by in large most of them

ignored it. That's their decision and choice, not Microsoft. Windows XP Pro

x64 Edition was never released as a retail product and was only available

through the OEM channel to help minimize the potential end-user problems

from having limited driver support from third parties. Again, there's not

much Microsoft can do about people choosing to buy it and install it without

having done the necessary research.

 

I've been running Windows XP Pro x64 Edition at work for nearly three years

and it works perfectly fine as long as I recognize that most third parties

are completely ignoring it. The CPU vendors have done their part selling x64

CPUs for years. Microsoft has done their part releasing an OS that supports

x64 in early 2005, putting out software development tools for 64-bit native

development, and pushing x64 compataiblity through logo programs and its own

software development efforts. After that, it's up to customer demand and

third parties to make x64 a success. Without a version of Windows 64-bit and

customers using it, no third party was going to do anything to support it.

It's a classic technology problem, and the transition will be with us for

many years to come.

 

> It seems that you and Adobe Acrobat disagree about it's ability to run in

> an

> X64 os.

>

> http://kb.adobe.com/selfservice/viewContent.do?externalId=331732&sliceId=2

 

Basically Adobe is saying "we didn't bother to write 64-bit native printer

drivers or a 64-bit ActiveX control for Acrobat 7.0.x". They were prefectly

capable of doing so, they just chose not to as they probably felt there

wasn't enough customer demand. This is not a problem with Microsoft or

Windows 64-bit, but a general approach businesses take towards new

technology: We'll do the minimum until we have to do something else.

 

Please let Adobe (or any other third party supplier of software/hardware

device) know that you feel their lack of full support of Windows 64-bit is a

problem. Until they have enough customers telling them to do it, they won't

bother to put in the extra effort. Venting here or at Microsoft is blaming

the wrong party for the lack of support.

 

--

Chuck Walbourn

SDE, XNA Developer Connection

 

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

[Guest Denise]

Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

 

I understand your logic and it makes sense to a certain point, but as you

said, "We had a very extended Beta for Windows XP Pro x64 Edition trying to

give third parties as much time as possible to get their support in place,

but by in large most of them

ignored it." So it stopped making sense at that point. There was a

specific reason(s) why third parties didn't get support in place. They are

out to make money themselves. If X64 would have given them the opportunity

to make money, they wouldn't have chosen to ignore getting their support in

place. I consistently feel that "something is rotten in the state of

Denmark," but I won't pursue it any longer. For now, I have what I need. If

X64 doesn't work out, I'll reformat to 2000 XP Pro.

 

Your post afforded the opportunity for exchanging thoughts and facts, and I

appreciate that.

 

The reason I mentioned Adobe Acrobat is because someone posted that Adobe

Acrobat works with her X64 os. Whether or not Adobe writes 64-bit native

printer

drivers or a 64-bit ActiveX control for Acrobat 7.0.x doesn't matter to me.

I use FoxIt and it works well with a X64 os.

 

AMD has a 64-bit firmware update for my CPU. When I attempted to install it

several times, I always received messages that "Setup.exe has failed . . ."

Today, I reformatted my computer two times to get the CPU firmware updated

and it finally worked the second time. These types of problems never

occurred with the other versions of Windows, or at least I never had such

problems. Since it was a Microsoft error message, the reason the CPU

firmware update couldn't be installed was the fault of Microsoft's X64 os.

Since I was able to install the updated 64-bit CPU firmware after I

reformatted the second time tells me that X64 isn't working properly.

Something is missing in X64.

--

Denise

 

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

 

 

"Chuck Walbourn [MSFT]" wrote:

> > Well, somebody finally admits that XP Pro X64 is a beta version of Vista

> > X64!

> > Thank you!

>

> Until there was a Windows x64 Edition, there was no way driver writers or

> software developers could actually support x64. The investments in Windows

> XP Pro x64 Edition and Windows Server 2003 SP1 x64 Edition were made to help

> get the whole ecosystem going for Windows 64-bit. We had a very extended

> Beta for Windows XP Pro x64 Edition trying to give third parties as much

> time as possible to get their support in place, but by in large most of them

> ignored it. That's their decision and choice, not Microsoft. Windows XP Pro

> x64 Edition was never released as a retail product and was only available

> through the OEM channel to help minimize the potential end-user problems

> from having limited driver support from third parties. Again, there's not

> much Microsoft can do about people choosing to buy it and install it without

> having done the necessary research.

>

> I've been running Windows XP Pro x64 Edition at work for nearly three years

> and it works perfectly fine as long as I recognize that most third parties

> are completely ignoring it. The CPU vendors have done their part selling x64

> CPUs for years. Microsoft has done their part releasing an OS that supports

> x64 in early 2005, putting out software development tools for 64-bit native

> development, and pushing x64 compataiblity through logo programs and its own

> software development efforts. After that, it's up to customer demand and

> third parties to make x64 a success. Without a version of Windows 64-bit and

> customers using it, no third party was going to do anything to support it.

> It's a classic technology problem, and the transition will be with us for

> many years to come.

>

>

> > It seems that you and Adobe Acrobat disagree about it's ability to run in

> > an

> > X64 os.

> >

> > http://kb.adobe.com/selfservice/viewContent.do?externalId=331732&sliceId=2

>

> Basically Adobe is saying "we didn't bother to write 64-bit native printer

> drivers or a 64-bit ActiveX control for Acrobat 7.0.x". They were prefectly

> capable of doing so, they just chose not to as they probably felt there

> wasn't enough customer demand. This is not a problem with Microsoft or

> Windows 64-bit, but a general approach businesses take towards new

> technology: We'll do the minimum until we have to do something else.

>

> Please let Adobe (or any other third party supplier of software/hardware

> device) know that you feel their lack of full support of Windows 64-bit is a

> problem. Until they have enough customers telling them to do it, they won't

> bother to put in the extra effort. Venting here or at Microsoft is blaming

> the wrong party for the lack of support.

>

> --

> Chuck Walbourn

> SDE, XNA Developer Connection

>

> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

>

>

>

[Guest Charlie Russel - MVP]

Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

 

Chuck, I couldn't agree more. Like you, I've been running XP x64 full time

for quite a while - got my first x64 capable box in January of 2005, and

haven't looked back since. I've had a remarkably stable and well performing

system. That box is still running XP x64 (now in a dual boot with LH 64),

and has only had one re-install. When I went from the RC code to the RTM

version, I did a clean, fresh install. Of course, I buy hardware with betas

and new OSs in mind, and do my homework on drivers, etc.

 

--

Charlie.

http://msmvps.com/xperts64

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

 

 

"Chuck Walbourn [MSFT]" <chuckw@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message

news:46a6a3a7$1@news.microsoft.com...

>> Well, somebody finally admits that XP Pro X64 is a beta version of Vista

>> X64!

>> Thank you!

>

> Until there was a Windows x64 Edition, there was no way driver writers or

> software developers could actually support x64. The investments in Windows

> XP Pro x64 Edition and Windows Server 2003 SP1 x64 Edition were made to

> help get the whole ecosystem going for Windows 64-bit. We had a very

> extended Beta for Windows XP Pro x64 Edition trying to give third parties

> as much time as possible to get their support in place, but by in large

> most of them ignored it. That's their decision and choice, not Microsoft.

> Windows XP Pro x64 Edition was never released as a retail product and was

> only available through the OEM channel to help minimize the potential

> end-user problems from having limited driver support from third parties.

> Again, there's not much Microsoft can do about people choosing to buy it

> and install it without having done the necessary research.

>

> I've been running Windows XP Pro x64 Edition at work for nearly three

> years and it works perfectly fine as long as I recognize that most third

> parties are completely ignoring it. The CPU vendors have done their part

> selling x64 CPUs for years. Microsoft has done their part releasing an OS

> that supports x64 in early 2005, putting out software development tools

> for 64-bit native development, and pushing x64 compataiblity through logo

> programs and its own software development efforts. After that, it's up to

> customer demand and third parties to make x64 a success. Without a version

> of Windows 64-bit and customers using it, no third party was going to do

> anything to support it. It's a classic technology problem, and the

> transition will be with us for many years to come.

>

>

>> It seems that you and Adobe Acrobat disagree about it's ability to run in

>> an

>> X64 os.

>>

>> http://kb.adobe.com/selfservice/viewContent.do?externalId=331732&sliceId=2

>

> Basically Adobe is saying "we didn't bother to write 64-bit native printer

> drivers or a 64-bit ActiveX control for Acrobat 7.0.x". They were

> prefectly capable of doing so, they just chose not to as they probably

> felt there wasn't enough customer demand. This is not a problem with

> Microsoft or Windows 64-bit, but a general approach businesses take

> towards new technology: We'll do the minimum until we have to do something

> else.

>

> Please let Adobe (or any other third party supplier of software/hardware

> device) know that you feel their lack of full support of Windows 64-bit is

> a problem. Until they have enough customers telling them to do it, they

> won't bother to put in the extra effort. Venting here or at Microsoft is

> blaming the wrong party for the lack of support.

>

> --

> Chuck Walbourn

> SDE, XNA Developer Connection

>

> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no

> rights.

>

[Guest Denise]

Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

 

It's too bad that Microsoft didn't state on the package or in its advertising

13 months ago, when I purchased it, that X64 wasn't compatible with existing

hardware and software. Considering whether existing hardware would be

compatible when upgrading from Windows 95, to 98, to XP Home, and to 2000 XP

Pro wasn't an issue. Not everyone has the money to buy new hardware and

software when they upgrade their os. Since it appears that you have pretty

good cash flow to continuously purchase new hardware and software with betas

and new operating systems in mind, maybe you can put some of it to use by

giving third parties the initiative to get their support in place. As the

author of this thread has had sufficient time to see how Vista X64 and Pro

X64 work, he was smart to inquire about the others' opinions of the two

64-bit programs. It is the way I would have done it 13 months ago when I

purchased XP Pro X64 but the opinion of all people, such as yourself, made be

feel secure that X64 was compatible with hardware and software that I

purchased to build my computer.

 

So for all those who don't have a lot of money to continuously purchase new

hardware and software that is needed for a 64-bit system, stick with your

32-bit system until you can afford it because it can get expensive. Updated

drivers sometimes aren't sufficient for 32-bit hardware and software, such as

my new all-in-one printer that no longer has the scanning and faxing

capabilities that it had with my 32-bit system. The updated 64-bit driver

"fixes" the scanning function but, ironically, it won't scan to a Microsoft

Word document.

 

I wonder how many people, other than MVP's and "computer gurus", understand

most of Charlie's statement:

 

"That box is still running XP x64 (now in a dual boot with LH 64),

and has only had one re-install. When I went from the RC code to the RTM

version, I did a clean, fresh install."

 

This past week, I formatted my computer two times because X64 could not

install the new CPU firmware that I had.

 

http://forums.majorgeeks.com/showthread.php?t=130536

 

It's no surprise that you would agree with other Microsoft MVP's in this

matter Charlie. It's your responsibility to do so.

--

Denise

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

"Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote:

> Chuck, I couldn't agree more. Like you, I've been running XP x64 full time

> for quite a while - got my first x64 capable box in January of 2005, and

> haven't looked back since. I've had a remarkably stable and well performing

> system. That box is still running XP x64 (now in a dual boot with LH 64),

> and has only had one re-install. When I went from the RC code to the RTM

> version, I did a clean, fresh install. Of course, I buy hardware with betas

> and new OSs in mind, and do my homework on drivers, etc.

>

> --

> Charlie.

> http://msmvps.com/xperts64

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

>

>

> "Chuck Walbourn [MSFT]" <chuckw@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message

> news:46a6a3a7$1@news.microsoft.com...

> >> Well, somebody finally admits that XP Pro X64 is a beta version of Vista

> >> X64!

> >> Thank you!

> >

> > Until there was a Windows x64 Edition, there was no way driver writers or

> > software developers could actually support x64. The investments in Windows

> > XP Pro x64 Edition and Windows Server 2003 SP1 x64 Edition were made to

> > help get the whole ecosystem going for Windows 64-bit. We had a very

> > extended Beta for Windows XP Pro x64 Edition trying to give third parties

> > as much time as possible to get their support in place, but by in large

> > most of them ignored it. That's their decision and choice, not Microsoft.

> > Windows XP Pro x64 Edition was never released as a retail product and was

> > only available through the OEM channel to help minimize the potential

> > end-user problems from having limited driver support from third parties.

> > Again, there's not much Microsoft can do about people choosing to buy it

> > and install it without having done the necessary research.

> >

> > I've been running Windows XP Pro x64 Edition at work for nearly three

> > years and it works perfectly fine as long as I recognize that most third

> > parties are completely ignoring it. The CPU vendors have done their part

> > selling x64 CPUs for years. Microsoft has done their part releasing an OS

> > that supports x64 in early 2005, putting out software development tools

> > for 64-bit native development, and pushing x64 compataiblity through logo

> > programs and its own software development efforts. After that, it's up to

> > customer demand and third parties to make x64 a success. Without a version

> > of Windows 64-bit and customers using it, no third party was going to do

> > anything to support it. It's a classic technology problem, and the

> > transition will be with us for many years to come.

> >

> >

> >> It seems that you and Adobe Acrobat disagree about it's ability to run in

> >> an

> >> X64 os.

> >>

> >> http://kb.adobe.com/selfservice/viewContent.do?externalId=331732&sliceId=2

> >

> > Basically Adobe is saying "we didn't bother to write 64-bit native printer

> > drivers or a 64-bit ActiveX control for Acrobat 7.0.x". They were

> > prefectly capable of doing so, they just chose not to as they probably

> > felt there wasn't enough customer demand. This is not a problem with

> > Microsoft or Windows 64-bit, but a general approach businesses take

> > towards new technology: We'll do the minimum until we have to do something

> > else.

> >

> > Please let Adobe (or any other third party supplier of software/hardware

> > device) know that you feel their lack of full support of Windows 64-bit is

> > a problem. Until they have enough customers telling them to do it, they

> > won't bother to put in the extra effort. Venting here or at Microsoft is

> > blaming the wrong party for the lack of support.

> >

> > --

> > Chuck Walbourn

> > SDE, XNA Developer Connection

> >

> > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no

> > rights.

> >

>