Guest Charlie Russel - MVP Posted July 27, 2007 Posted July 27, 2007 Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ? You purchased an OEM or System Builder version. As such, you or your OEM are responsible for support and due diligence. That's why it's not a retail version. No, I don't have cash flow to buy new hardware. But when I _do_ buy hardware, I buy with interoperability in mind. I buy printers, for example, that don't require special drivers - they're standard, network connected, PCL5 and PS enabled, printers. They work with everything. And I keep them for years. I've had my current HP printer for 5 or 6 years, and I can print to it from any version of windows, from Linux, from UNIX, and from a Mac. Without loading any special drivers. That's simply a matter of spending money wisely. Yes, that printer cost me a bit more originally - probably an extra $150 though I don't specifically remember. But it's still going strong. As for third parties? I have a long history of spending my money only with companies who do the right thing. And I write about it and make recommendations based on that. I'd suggest that you should stop blaming everyone else and get on with it. This forum is for helping users. That's why I come here, on my own time, and my own dime - to help build this community and provide support for people who want and need it. I've been doing that every day for over two years. While running x64 XP and Vista on my main machines. And yes, I've certainly had more than one strong discussion with a vendor who didn't provide the support I thought they should. Including MS. But ultimately, I make my point, make my decision, and move on. -- Charlie. http://msmvps.com/xperts64 http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel "Denise" <Denise@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:223E95FF-29DF-45B7-8B1F-0EF5ED470D94@microsoft.com... > 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. >> > >>
Guest Charlie Russel - MVP Posted July 27, 2007 Posted July 27, 2007 Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ? Oh, and one thing. I am proud of being an MVP - it's a recognition that I don't ask for but that is all about my contributions. However, it does absolutely nothing to change what I say about MS, nor does it constrain me in any way. My opinions are my own, they always have been, and always will be. I've disagreed with MVPs, I've disagreed with MS, and I'm sure I will again. Being an MVP doesn't mean I (or any other) has to support MS on any specific point. My award as an MVP is annual, and only recognizes my contributions LAST year. not anything I may say or do this year. We're independent (and often VERY independent) of Microsoft. And will always be so. -- Charlie. http://msmvps.com/xperts64 http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel "Denise" <Denise@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:223E95FF-29DF-45B7-8B1F-0EF5ED470D94@microsoft.com... > 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. >> > >>
Guest XS11E Posted July 27, 2007 Posted July 27, 2007 Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ? Denise <Denise@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: > 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. I sympathize with you, I've been on that exact same road when I tried to upgrade from Windows 98se to Windows 2000. I had to bite (byte? <G>) the bullet and scrap a VERY expensive bit of hardware because Windows 2000 and later wouldn't support it. However, I realized the problem was NOT MICROSOFT! The problem was Epson's refusal to write a driver for a scanner that had cost $1,200 only two years previously. I'm not angry with Microsoft, it's not their fault that Epson decided I had to buy a new scanner and guess what brand I didn't consider when choosing my new scanner? There's a certain amount of preparation involved in changing to a new OS and that involves the old standard RTFM* and as I often explain to newbies, RTFM includes these newsgroups! Only then can you have enough information to make an informed decision and, in my case, the decision to install Vista 64 was to dual boot until I could be sure that everything would work in the new OS. Again, I'm very sorry you had to learn the hard way but you really can't blame anyone but yourself and please take this from one who did exactly the same thing you have done and also had to learn the hard way... *RTFM = "Read The Fine Manual" <-Luu Tran -- XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
Guest Denise Posted July 27, 2007 Posted July 27, 2007 Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ? All bases have been covered here. I don't think there's a point that hasn't been brought up and posted. I just formatted my computer two times two days ago. If I have a file that I want to copy to another drive, when I attempt to change the name of it, I receive a message that the file is in use, even though it's not in use. It finished copying and it's not open. When I reboot, I still can't change the name because I receive the message that the file is in use. X64 is bad news. I wanted to give X64 another chance by formatting my pc with X64. I had to do it two times in order to update the CPU driver. I also downloaded and installed new drivers for the chipset, audio and video. The audio is fine but the video has problems. I have automatic updates turned on and all of them have been installed, including SP2. I don't have Excel or Access installed in my pc but Microsoft uploads updates for them I'll be formatting it to 32-bit Windows 2000 XP Pro in a few weeks when I have a couple of days to format it and install my programs. I'll try X64 next year and see how things go. I don't know why you accused me of blaming anyone for the problems that I have with X64 . . . I have never done that. This forum may be for helping others but this thread requested opinions of the two X64 operating system, not for help with it. Everyone seems to miss that point or they choose to ignore it. You've made your point, so move on, as you claim you do. -- Denise ~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're going. "Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote: > You purchased an OEM or System Builder version. As such, you or your OEM are > responsible for support and due diligence. That's why it's not a retail > version. > > No, I don't have cash flow to buy new hardware. But when I _do_ buy > hardware, I buy with interoperability in mind. I buy printers, for example, > that don't require special drivers - they're standard, network connected, > PCL5 and PS enabled, printers. They work with everything. And I keep them > for years. I've had my current HP printer for 5 or 6 years, and I can print > to it from any version of windows, from Linux, from UNIX, and from a Mac. > Without loading any special drivers. That's simply a matter of spending > money wisely. Yes, that printer cost me a bit more originally - probably an > extra $150 though I don't specifically remember. But it's still going > strong. > > As for third parties? I have a long history of spending my money only with > companies who do the right thing. And I write about it and make > recommendations based on that. > > I'd suggest that you should stop blaming everyone else and get on with it. > This forum is for helping users. That's why I come here, on my own time, and > my own dime - to help build this community and provide support for people > who want and need it. I've been doing that every day for over two years. > While running x64 XP and Vista on my main machines. And yes, I've certainly > had more than one strong discussion with a vendor who didn't provide the > support I thought they should. Including MS. But ultimately, I make my > point, make my decision, and move on. > > -- > Charlie. > http://msmvps.com/xperts64 > http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel > > > "Denise" <Denise@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:223E95FF-29DF-45B7-8B1F-0EF5ED470D94@microsoft.com... > > 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. > >> > > >> >
Guest Denise Posted July 27, 2007 Posted July 27, 2007 Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ? I have never had to purchase new hardware or software when I updated from one operating system to another, except for X64. I do blame Microsoft because it gave no warning that it isn't compatible with hardware, software, drivers and firmware. If these problems had not been hidden by Microsoft, then I would accept the blame, but no such warnings were given. I learned that Microsoft will not reveal all the facts regarding its software, so buyer beware. -- Denise ~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're going. "XS11E" wrote: > Denise <Denise@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: > > > 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. > > I sympathize with you, I've been on that exact same road when I tried > to upgrade from Windows 98se to Windows 2000. > > I had to bite (byte? <G>) the bullet and scrap a VERY expensive bit of > hardware because Windows 2000 and later wouldn't support it. However, > I realized the problem was NOT MICROSOFT! The problem was Epson's > refusal to write a driver for a scanner that had cost $1,200 only two > years previously. > > I'm not angry with Microsoft, it's not their fault that Epson decided I > had to buy a new scanner and guess what brand I didn't consider when > choosing my new scanner? > > There's a certain amount of preparation involved in changing to a new > OS and that involves the old standard RTFM* and as I often explain to > newbies, RTFM includes these newsgroups! Only then can you have enough > information to make an informed decision and, in my case, the decision > to install Vista 64 was to dual boot until I could be sure that > everything would work in the new OS. > > Again, I'm very sorry you had to learn the hard way but you really > can't blame anyone but yourself and please take this from one who did > exactly the same thing you have done and also had to learn the hard > way... > > > > *RTFM = "Read The Fine Manual" <-Luu Tran > > -- > XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups > The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html >
Guest XS11E Posted July 27, 2007 Posted July 27, 2007 Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ? Denise <Denise@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: > I have never had to purchase new hardware or software when I > updated from one operating system to another, except for X64. I > do blame Microsoft because it gave no warning that it isn't > compatible with hardware, software, drivers and firmware. If > these problems had not been hidden by Microsoft, then I would > accept the blame, but no such warnings were given. I learned that > Microsoft will not reveal all the facts regarding its software, so > buyer beware. Denise, that's really hogwash and you know it. Nothing is/was hidden, it's up to you do do your homework. -- XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
Guest John Barnes Posted July 27, 2007 Posted July 27, 2007 Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ? Hear, hear. :-) "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in message news:C5072410-0638-4647-9E1D-AD2ECE9E5C88@microsoft.com... > Oh, and one thing. I am proud of being an MVP - it's a recognition that I > don't ask for but that is all about my contributions. However, it does > absolutely nothing to change what I say about MS, nor does it constrain me > in any way. My opinions are my own, they always have been, and always will > be. I've disagreed with MVPs, I've disagreed with MS, and I'm sure I will > again. Being an MVP doesn't mean I (or any other) has to support MS on any > specific point. My award as an MVP is annual, and only recognizes my > contributions LAST year. not anything I may say or do this year. We're > independent (and often VERY independent) of Microsoft. And will always be > so. > > -- > Charlie. > http://msmvps.com/xperts64 > http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel > > > "Denise" <Denise@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:223E95FF-29DF-45B7-8B1F-0EF5ED470D94@microsoft.com... >> 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. >>> > >>> >
Guest Tony Sperling Posted July 28, 2007 Posted July 28, 2007 Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ? If you never had to buy new ware's when you changed over, that has to be because you were a late adopter. Everybody else (all the early adopters) have consistently had problems with all the new OS's. Can you remember Windows 3.0? It came on 13 Floppies - 5 of which were printer drivers, if I'm not mistaken. That is why MS came up with the notion of 'Device Independency'. This concept means that Microsoft takes care of maintaining a 'Subsystem' for which everybody who wants to have their hardware to function with the particular OS has to supply their own driver that is now an integral part of the hardware. And MS wasn't even doing this based on it's power to dictate. At that time Word Perfect was released on 9 Floppies 3 of which were pretty much the same printer drivers, but they were not compatible because one worked from the OS's side, and the other worked from the user's side. This was an unmentionable nuicance to everybody and the whole industry drew a sigh of relief in view of the new order. Unfortunately this also meant that the hardware manufacturers could now decide how fast their products was aging, so if you have been hanging on to some valuable hardware for some time you may unknowingly have sheilded yourself from this impact. But it's not new. We are all frustrated about it when it hits us, but it is far better than what it used to be like. It's nice to have someone around that you can allways blame whenever something goes wrong, but Microsoft cannot tell the hardware manufacturers when one of their products are old enough to be scrapped. If you feel left behind, learn to blame the guilty party, the one that sucks up your cash by not supporting the OS that you invested in. There is nothing wrong with the OS, you made a reasonable investment - the lacking support only starts after the OS is released and MS cannot be blamed for that, even if the rest of us - sitting around in the glow of our monitors, may sometimes think to ourselves that they are in cahoots (which they are) but your trouble doesn't start there. MS makes a wonderful product, if nobody buys it, it dies, and you'll have saved your money. On the other hand, if everybody buys it but all the printer manufacturers chose not to support it, it dies too and your money is wasted. That is how it really works. Can you begin to imagine now, the amount of defunct hardware that sits between all of us here. Now I am really pissed off with MS for having sold me a joystick that they decided to discontinue. As with all other hardware the joystick needs a driver - this driver MS wrote and supplied with the 'stick', but when they discontinued the hardware, they also didn't write any updates for the driver so now I am stranded with a joystick that doesn't have a driver for the OS that I bought from Microsoft. As a revenge I promptly installed my legal copy of XP Home on two different machines, so that I could put my valued joystick, not just to good use - but to any use. That's how much of a MS fan I am - but XP x64 really is a wonderful OS. Tony. . .
Guest Denise Posted July 28, 2007 Posted July 28, 2007 Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ? Oh Blah blah! Your status as MVP has nothing to do with this thread. Stay on topic. I'm a mother who raised two children. One is an LPN and taking courses to become an RN. She then plans to continue her education to become a physician's assistant. She's married, works full time and has a 5 year old son. My son became of member of the National Honor Society in his Freshman year . .. . the first Freshman to become a member of the NHS in six years. In his Sophmore year, he was elected President of the National Honor Society and remained President of the NHS in his Junior and Senior years. He was elected as Student Body President in his Sophmore year and remained Study Body President through his Senior year. He graduated with 75% of the honors during graduation ceremony and received a full two year scholarship from our local community college. Me? I was just the mother who raised them with the character, morals, drive, love and zest for life, to excel in all things and to do their best in all that they do, nothing half-hearted, to become a credit to society and to give back to it as much as they could. I just figured if you could stray from the topic, so could I. At least I accomplished something well worth mentioning, not something as paultry as knowing a lot about computers. Since you claim to know so much about computers, tell me why I can't change the name of a file that's not in use. Tell me why my settings keep changing. Tell me why I couldn't update the firmware for my CPU without reformatting it two times. My hdd, CPU and mobo are compatible and they were made to be compatible with X64, so why don't they work? Tell the author of this thread which os is better . . . Vista or XP Pro! -- Denise ~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're going. "John Barnes" wrote: > Hear, hear. :-) > > "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in message > news:C5072410-0638-4647-9E1D-AD2ECE9E5C88@microsoft.com... > > Oh, and one thing. I am proud of being an MVP - it's a recognition that I > > don't ask for but that is all about my contributions. However, it does > > absolutely nothing to change what I say about MS, nor does it constrain me > > in any way. My opinions are my own, they always have been, and always will > > be. I've disagreed with MVPs, I've disagreed with MS, and I'm sure I will > > again. Being an MVP doesn't mean I (or any other) has to support MS on any > > specific point. My award as an MVP is annual, and only recognizes my > > contributions LAST year. not anything I may say or do this year. We're > > independent (and often VERY independent) of Microsoft. And will always be > > so. > > > > -- > > Charlie. > > http://msmvps.com/xperts64 > > http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel > > > > > > "Denise" <Denise@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > > news:223E95FF-29DF-45B7-8B1F-0EF5ED470D94@microsoft.com... > >> 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. > >>> > > >>> > > > >
Guest Charlie Russel - MVP Posted July 28, 2007 Posted July 28, 2007 Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ? :) -- Charlie. http://msmvps.com/xperts64 http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel "John Barnes" <jbarnes@email.net> wrote in message news:%23na8ucJ0HHA.1100@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > Hear, hear. :-) > > "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in message > news:C5072410-0638-4647-9E1D-AD2ECE9E5C88@microsoft.com... >> Oh, and one thing. I am proud of being an MVP - it's a recognition that I >> don't ask for but that is all about my contributions. However, it does >> absolutely nothing to change what I say about MS, nor does it constrain >> me in any way. My opinions are my own, they always have been, and always >> will be. I've disagreed with MVPs, I've disagreed with MS, and I'm sure I >> will again. Being an MVP doesn't mean I (or any other) has to support MS >> on any specific point. My award as an MVP is annual, and only recognizes >> my contributions LAST year. not anything I may say or do this year. We're >> independent (and often VERY independent) of Microsoft. And will always be >> so. >> >> -- >> Charlie. >> http://msmvps.com/xperts64 >> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel >> >> >> "Denise" <Denise@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message >> news:223E95FF-29DF-45B7-8B1F-0EF5ED470D94@microsoft.com... >>> 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. >>>> > >>>> >> >
Guest Denise Posted July 28, 2007 Posted July 28, 2007 Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ? My goodness. Do you know why the Lemon Law was enacted? Are you going to say that those tens of thousands (maybe plus) of people didn't do their homework? 13 months ago, when I bought X64, there was little to no information about it except that it was an upgrade and would run faster. NOBODY and NO WEBSITE mentioned the fact that it isn't compatible with hardware, software, drivers or firmware at that time. Give me a break. I'm tired of writing the same things over and over. Before you post, read the previous ones from the beginning, and then try to say something new. And stay on topic!!!!!!!!! Don't write to me, write to the author of this thread. He's wants to know if XP Pro X64 or Vista X64 is better. <--- the topic of this thread!!!!!!!!! -- Denise ~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're going. "XS11E" wrote: > Denise <Denise@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: > > > I have never had to purchase new hardware or software when I > > updated from one operating system to another, except for X64. I > > do blame Microsoft because it gave no warning that it isn't > > compatible with hardware, software, drivers and firmware. If > > these problems had not been hidden by Microsoft, then I would > > accept the blame, but no such warnings were given. I learned that > > Microsoft will not reveal all the facts regarding its software, so > > buyer beware. > > Denise, that's really hogwash and you know it. Nothing is/was hidden, > it's up to you do do your homework. > > > > -- > XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups > The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html >
Guest Denise Posted July 28, 2007 Posted July 28, 2007 Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ? I couldn't bother to read your book about me. STAY ON TOPIC !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -- Denise ~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're going. "Tony Sperling" wrote: > If you never had to buy new ware's when you changed over, that has to be > because you were a late adopter. Everybody else (all the early adopters) > have consistently had problems with all the new OS's. > > Can you remember Windows 3.0? It came on 13 Floppies - 5 of which were > printer drivers, if I'm not mistaken. That is why MS came up with the notion > of 'Device Independency'. This concept means that Microsoft takes care of > maintaining a 'Subsystem' for which everybody who wants to have their > hardware to function with the particular OS has to supply their own driver > that is now an integral part of the hardware. And MS wasn't even doing this > based on it's power to dictate. At that time Word Perfect was released on 9 > Floppies 3 of which were pretty much the same printer drivers, but they were > not compatible because one worked from the OS's side, and the other worked > from the user's side. This was an unmentionable nuicance to everybody and > the whole industry drew a sigh of relief in view of the new order. > > Unfortunately this also meant that the hardware manufacturers could now > decide how fast their products was aging, so if you have been hanging on to > some valuable hardware for some time you may unknowingly have sheilded > yourself from this impact. But it's not new. We are all frustrated about it > when it hits us, but it is far better than what it used to be like. > > It's nice to have someone around that you can allways blame whenever > something goes wrong, but Microsoft cannot tell the hardware manufacturers > when one of their products are old enough to be scrapped. If you feel left > behind, learn to blame the guilty party, the one that sucks up your cash by > not supporting the OS that you invested in. There is nothing wrong with the > OS, you made a reasonable investment - the lacking support only starts after > the OS is released and MS cannot be blamed for that, even if the rest of > us - sitting around in the glow of our monitors, may sometimes think to > ourselves that they are in cahoots (which they are) but your trouble doesn't > start there. MS makes a wonderful product, if nobody buys it, it dies, and > you'll have saved your money. On the other hand, if everybody buys it but > all the printer manufacturers chose not to support it, it dies too and your > money is wasted. That is how it really works. Can you begin to imagine now, > the amount of defunct hardware that sits between all of us here. > > Now I am really pissed off with MS for having sold me a joystick that they > decided to discontinue. As with all other hardware the joystick needs a > driver - this driver MS wrote and supplied with the 'stick', but when they > discontinued the hardware, they also didn't write any updates for the driver > so now I am stranded with a joystick that doesn't have a driver for the OS > that I bought from Microsoft. As a revenge I promptly installed my legal > copy of XP Home on two different machines, so that I could put my valued > joystick, not just to good use - but to any use. That's how much of a MS fan > I am - but XP x64 really is a wonderful OS. > > > Tony. . . > > > >
Guest XS11E Posted July 28, 2007 Posted July 28, 2007 Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ? Denise <Denise@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: > Before you post, read the previous> ones from the beginning, and then > try to say something new. I have read the thread, I've nothing new to say, just the same old "quit blaming others for your mistakes." > And stay on topic!!!!!!!!! Don't write to me, write to the author > of this thread. I'm replying to you because you're the one who rudely hijacked the thread with your whine, OK? Maybe you could stay on topic? -- XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
Guest Denise Posted July 29, 2007 Posted July 29, 2007 Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ? This thread has nothing to do with blaming others for anything. The author asked for an opinion and I gave my opinion. I guess you decided to play with words and called it something different but I on topic. I hijacked this topic . . . hmmmmm . . . that's an original point of view. I wonder if you'd say the same thing if I had writen rave reviews about both XP Pro and Vista. No, I don't have to wonder . . . I know you wouldn't. You're just another person who won't answer the author's quetion and finds it easier to insult me than face and tell the truth with facts to back up your statements. -- Denise ~ If you don''t know where you came from, you won''t know where you''re going. "XS11E" wrote: > Denise <Denise@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: > > > Before you post, read the previous> ones from the beginning, and then > > try to say something new. > > I have read the thread, I've nothing new to say, just the same old > "quit blaming others for your mistakes." > > > And stay on topic!!!!!!!!! Don't write to me, write to the author > > of this thread. > > I'm replying to you because you're the one who rudely hijacked the > thread with your whine, OK? Maybe you could stay on topic? > > > -- > XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups > The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html >
Guest llutta Posted August 2, 2007 Posted August 2, 2007 Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ? Man, you must be the most unlucky person I have ever heard of. Windows XP X64 is much more stable and much faster than Windows XP 32 bit. I have been running it for over 2 years and the only problem I had was the onboard realtek sound system never would work. I finally installed a Creative SB X-FI sound card and the drivers have been great. I have working wireless joy stick, working Maxtor 1-touch, IE 6 and IE 7 both 32 and 64 work perfectly. Netscape 7.2 works fine. All Office sweep both 2003 and 2007 work fine. the only games that don't work are the ones with 16 bit indtallers and most of them won't work on XP 32bit either. I use Avast works great I get updated definitions regularly. i can burn CDs and DVDs with both Roxio and Nero. Winzip, WinRAR, WinAmp all work just fine. ASUS A8N5X, AMD 4400+ X2 2GB ram ATI X600 allinwonder. Westerndigital 10,000 rpm hdd, Pioneer DVD-RW DVD109. I have had none of the compatability issues you seem to have and I never shut down my PC unless a software install or hardware install. I am sorry you have so much trouble. Maybe you should have someone build you a PC that will work right. Denise wrote: > 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.
Guest llutta Posted August 2, 2007 Posted August 2, 2007 Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ? Which version of Acrobat are you running both 7.08 and 8.0 work fine on X64 Denise wrote: > 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!
Guest llutta Posted August 3, 2007 Posted August 3, 2007 Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ? I don't mean to be nt-picky but what are you referring to when you continue to list "2000 XP Pro"? This isn't even a valid OS name it is either Windows 2000 Pro or Windows XP Pro Denise wrote: > 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.
Guest shiva d Posted September 3, 2007 Posted September 3, 2007 RE: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ? I'm in the same boat. However for the record, i find XP Pro 64-bot not only stable and fast, but runs jst about everything on my new Dell XPS 410 core2 Duo. so can we resurect this question especially from the MVP's (luvd much of ur answers Charlie). my queston, like Royston, is since thery're gonna 'discontinue' support for XP in Jan 2008 (although i don't know if that's gonna be the situation for the 64-bit version), might it be betta to jst buy Win Vista Business 64-bit or will we be able to use our XP Pro 64-bit for some time? thanks shiva d "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 Posted September 3, 2007 Posted September 3, 2007 Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ? Resurrecting the thread - O.K. but there's not much in the subject to resurrect. The question refers to the downloadable Trial version which has a lifetime of 120 days from Install. Once you actually buy and install a Release version, it will have support over a lifetime of at least until 2014, I think. The trouble with drivers will not go away however, for some the Vista drivers MAY be working, for other's I'm affraid it will remain forgotten. Tony. . . "shiva d" <shiva d@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:52306310-6EEB-4722-967D-DD42D717740C@microsoft.com... > I'm in the same boat. However for the record, i find XP Pro 64-bot not only > stable and fast, but runs jst about everything on my new Dell XPS 410 core2 > Duo. so can we resurect this question especially from the MVP's (luvd much of > ur answers Charlie). my queston, like Royston, is since thery're gonna > 'discontinue' support for XP in Jan 2008 (although i don't know if that's > gonna be the situation for the 64-bit version), might it be betta to jst buy > Win Vista Business 64-bit or will we be able to use our XP Pro 64-bit for > some time? > > thanks > shiva d > > "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 shiva d Posted September 3, 2007 Posted September 3, 2007 Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ? Thanks Tony, aye. i have bought the trial and i'm at the eval time. i'd like to go into WV Bux 64-bit jst to keep forward momentum. But it seems that idea would be to big a 'step backward' compared to keeping W XP Pro 64-bit. Works fine for me! even programs some manufacuterer's said wouldn't run it does! had a 'few' probs w/ the drivers, but mostly it was about getting used to 'explicit' instructions. well, looks like a new OEM sale of XP 64-bit's gonna be my path, thanks! shiva d "Tony Sperling" wrote: > Resurrecting the thread - O.K. but there's not much in the subject to > resurrect. The question refers to the downloadable Trial version which has a > lifetime of 120 days from Install. Once you actually buy and install a > Release version, it will have support over a lifetime of at least until > 2014, I think. The trouble with drivers will not go away however, for some > the Vista drivers MAY be working, for other's I'm affraid it will remain > forgotten. > > Tony. . . > > > "shiva d" <shiva d@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:52306310-6EEB-4722-967D-DD42D717740C@microsoft.com... > > I'm in the same boat. However for the record, i find XP Pro 64-bot not > only > > stable and fast, but runs jst about everything on my new Dell XPS 410 > core2 > > Duo. so can we resurect this question especially from the MVP's (luvd much > of > > ur answers Charlie). my queston, like Royston, is since thery're gonna > > 'discontinue' support for XP in Jan 2008 (although i don't know if that's > > gonna be the situation for the 64-bit version), might it be betta to jst > buy > > Win Vista Business 64-bit or will we be able to use our XP Pro 64-bit for > > some time? > > > > thanks > > shiva d > > > > "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 mitch Posted October 17, 2007 Posted October 17, 2007 Windows XP Pro x64 edition! Windows XP Pro x64 edition! Let me begin by saying that reading this thread has been very entertaining, and I think Denise may be my ex-wife. While I am by no means an expert, I have enjoyed building my own systems since the days of Windows 1.1 when I proclaimed, “What a piece of garbage, why would I buy stock in that company?” One hundred eighty-one days ago I built this system which hums quietly in its Antec Sonata II case: ASUS M2N-SLI Deluxe mobo Athlon 64 X2 5200+ Windsor 2.6GHz Socket AM2 4GB Corsair XMS2 DDR2 675 EVGA 256-P2-N615-TX GeForce 7600GT 256MB Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi Xtreme Audio 7.1 I have been running these programs, and several others, with absolutely no problem: Acrobat 7 Photoshop CS3 Adobe Premiere MS Office 2003 Avast! Firefox Safari for Windows Quicken XP Pro x64 has proven to be fast, stable and reliable. Last night I installed a purchased OEM version to replace the trial version. My only complaint is that MS could have made the adoption process easier, but then again it might have been easier if I had upgraded before the trial expired.
Guest haman Posted November 11, 2007 Posted November 11, 2007 Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ? I have acer cop caming with vista . Iwanet do format and instll win xp .but sad canot instlled win xp how can do it .thinks haman
Guest Theo Posted November 11, 2007 Posted November 11, 2007 Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ? Can you clarify what "acer cop caming" is, or means? haman wrote: > I have acer cop caming with vista . Iwanet do format and instll win xp .but > sad canot instlled win xp > how can do it .thinks > haman
Guest Pattypp Posted July 21, 2008 Posted July 21, 2008 RE: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ? I agree! I loaded XP Pro X64, and ran it for maybe half a day before i scrapped the whole thing, and went back to XP32. I read everyone elses post here, and please don't think i'm some sort of rockie here. I have been operating computers since the days of connecting to the internet was done with placing my phone in a cup LOL. I have had every OS there was in the past, and the pro64 is by far the worst i have ever used. With vista falling in second place of the worst. I have Xp pro 32 now, and one of the best OS so far. I'm not here to promote anything, i'm here to say Denise is right, the 64 is slow, and clumbersom. iexplore was a joke in 64, and coping files was boring to say the least. I was happy to be rid of the pro64, and it only took me half a day to realize it was scrap. I had to wonder why anyone would brag about having a OS that they had to run out and buy a bunch of hardware to make it work right. Seems sort of silly to me. Plus have to make setting everyday, even more silly. Vista for the price is one of Microsofts biggest rip offs. And in my opinion they should be ashamed for ripping off people. Denise if you are still thinking about vista please keep your XP. It doesn't matter to me what anyone says, i know xp64 is junk, and vista is right behind it. Just a small point proven about vista, if you load vista have fun setting up a router office or home network LOL. Denise take care, and stick to what works for you. Patty... "Denise" wrote: > 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 Colin Barnhorst Posted July 21, 2008 Posted July 21, 2008 Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ? "Pattypp" <Pattypp@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:285518D8-BF6F-42BF-9EA9-34BE705A5287@microsoft.com... >I agree! I loaded XP Pro X64, and ran it for maybe half a day before i > scrapped the whole thing, and went back to XP32. I read everyone elses > post > here, and please don't think i'm some sort of rockie here. I have been > operating computers since the days of connecting to the internet was done > with placing my phone in a cup LOL. I have had every OS there was in the > past, and the pro64 is by far the worst i have ever used. With vista > falling > in second place of the worst. > > I have Xp pro 32 now, and one of the best OS so far. I'm not here to > promote > anything, i'm here to say Denise is right, the 64 is slow, and clumbersom. > iexplore was a joke in 64, and coping files was boring to say the least. > I > was happy to be rid of the pro64, and it only took me half a day to > realize > it was scrap. > > I had to wonder why anyone would brag about having a OS that they had to > run > out and buy a bunch of hardware to make it work right. Seems sort of silly > to > me. Plus have to make setting everyday, even more silly. > > Vista for the price is one of Microsofts biggest rip offs. And in my > opinion > they should be ashamed for ripping off people. Denise if you are still > thinking about vista please keep your XP. It doesn't matter to me what > anyone > says, i know xp64 is junk, and vista is right behind it. Just a small > point > proven about vista, if you load vista have fun setting up a router office > or > home network LOL. Denise take care, and stick to what works for you. > Patty... > "Denise" wrote: > >> 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. >> XP Pro x64 was far and away the fastest and most responsive Windows I ever used so I'm not sure why it was slow for you unless perhaps the mobo drivers weren't right or you had unintentionally obtained mismatched ram add ons (it is easy to get the latencies wrong). I only had trouble in finding drivers the first year but I never had issues with software not running right. As with any new OS there were issues getting AV and content creation software for 64bits the first few months. XP Pro x64 was introduced as a workstation OS for users who needed more memory than 32bits can support. It was never an upgrade or improvement for anything. It was an alternative OS for users needing power for content creation, CAD, and such. XP Pro x64 never was a retail offering. It was intended to be preinstalled on a new computer so that the system builder would supply all 64bit devices and drivers. It has never been a consumer offering.
Recommended Posts