IS Windows XP 64 crippled?

[Guest vidmark]

Whoa! Just installed Windows XP 64 and right away I noticed that I cannot

display streaming videos such as from Youtube. I couldn't get Flash to work

either. Anybody?

[Guest Theo]

Re: IS Windows XP 64 crippled?

 

No Windows x64 is not crippled!

 

It's a matter of 3rd party support and something that is

pointed out to anyone taking the time to do some research

before installing the system.

 

I would have to boot up my x64, but I believe Flash is

installed. I personally don't recall any problems with

streaming video from the news site.

 

 

vidmark wrote:

> Whoa! Just installed Windows XP 64 and right away I noticed that I cannot

> display streaming videos such as from Youtube. I couldn't get Flash to work

> either. Anybody?

>

>

[Guest Colin Barnhorst]

Re: IS Windows XP 64 crippled?

 

Yes, Flash installs OK. For video, including Youtube, install codecs such

as with FDShow. I just got through watching some Youtube videos on x64.

 

"Theo" <theo@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

news:OuI2AgZbIHA.4344@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> No Windows x64 is not crippled!

>

> It's a matter of 3rd party support and something that is pointed out to

> anyone taking the time to do some research before installing the system.

>

> I would have to boot up my x64, but I believe Flash is installed. I

> personally don't recall any problems with streaming video from the news

> site.

>

>

> vidmark wrote:

>> Whoa! Just installed Windows XP 64 and right away I noticed that I cannot

>> display streaming videos such as from Youtube. I couldn't get Flash to

>> work either. Anybody?

[Guest Colin Barnhorst]

Re: IS Windows XP 64 crippled?

 

Sorry, the ffdshow link is

http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=173941&package_id=199416&release_id=569930

 

"Theo" <theo@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

news:OuI2AgZbIHA.4344@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> No Windows x64 is not crippled!

>

> It's a matter of 3rd party support and something that is pointed out to

> anyone taking the time to do some research before installing the system.

>

> I would have to boot up my x64, but I believe Flash is installed. I

> personally don't recall any problems with streaming video from the news

> site.

>

>

> vidmark wrote:

>> Whoa! Just installed Windows XP 64 and right away I noticed that I cannot

>> display streaming videos such as from Youtube. I couldn't get Flash to

>> work either. Anybody?

[Guest vidmark]

Re: IS Windows XP 64 crippled?

 

Thanks for the link.

 

Theo, are you paying attention? This is how you help people.

 

 

"Colin Barnhorst" <c.barnhorst@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:BB681A25-5B37-448C-BC3F-B592949EE94B@microsoft.com...

> Sorry, the ffdshow link is

> http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=173941&package_id=199416&release_id=569930

>

> "Theo" <theo@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

> news:OuI2AgZbIHA.4344@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>> No Windows x64 is not crippled!

>>

>> It's a matter of 3rd party support and something that is pointed out to

>> anyone taking the time to do some research before installing the system.

>>

>> I would have to boot up my x64, but I believe Flash is installed. I

>> personally don't recall any problems with streaming video from the news

>> site.

>>

>>

>> vidmark wrote:

>>> Whoa! Just installed Windows XP 64 and right away I noticed that I

>>> cannot display streaming videos such as from Youtube. I couldn't get

>>> Flash to work either. Anybody?

>

[Guest vidmark]

Re: IS Windows XP 64 crippled?

 

It doesn't work. I tried both IE's the 32 and 64 bit and neither shows

videos. All I get is a black screen in IE32 and nothing in IE64. Maybe THEO

can show me how to get it to run. Shoukd I hold my breath, Theo?

 

> "Colin Barnhorst" <c.barnhorst@comcast.net> wrote in message

> news:BB681A25-5B37-448C-BC3F-B592949EE94B@microsoft.com...

>> Sorry, the ffdshow link is

>> http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=173941&package_id=199416&release_id=569930

>>

>> "Theo" <theo@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

>> news:OuI2AgZbIHA.4344@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>>> No Windows x64 is not crippled!

>>>

>>> It's a matter of 3rd party support and something that is pointed out to

>>> anyone taking the time to do some research before installing the system.

>>>

>>> I would have to boot up my x64, but I believe Flash is installed. I

>>> personally don't recall any problems with streaming video from the news

>>> site.

>>>

>>>

>>> vidmark wrote:

>>>> Whoa! Just installed Windows XP 64 and right away I noticed that I

>>>> cannot display streaming videos such as from Youtube. I couldn't get

>>>> Flash to work either. Anybody?

>>

>

>

[Guest Tony Harding]

Re: IS Windows XP 64 crippled?

 

vidmark wrote:

> Thanks for the link.

>

> Theo, are you paying attention? This is how you help people.

 

You seem awfully snarky for someone asking for help in a public forum. I

believe most posters here are employed, so their time is valuable. Maybe

you could lighten up a bit?

[Guest Mike]

Re: IS Windows XP 64 crippled?

 

 

"Tony Harding" <ToHard@nowhere.org> wrote in message

news:47b1f41b$0$15161$607ed4bc@cv.net...

> vidmark wrote:

>> Thanks for the link.

>>

>> Theo, are you paying attention? This is how you help people.

>

> You seem awfully snarky for someone asking for help in a public forum. I

> believe most posters here are employed, so their time is valuable. Maybe

> you could lighten up a bit?

 

I can't see anyone asking you for any advice. Why did you post? You probably

have have no one else other than the computer to talk to, now that is

pitiful :(

[Guest Theo]

Re: IS Windows XP 64 crippled?

 

Perhaps it would be beneficial to know more about your

system. I am running Win x64 on an Asus A8V, I have Flash

installed, and I can watch streaming video from Yahoo, CNN,

Youtube, and who knows where else.

 

So, yes, you should hold your breath since I have no idea

what your particular setup is.

 

 

vidmark wrote:

> It doesn't work. I tried both IE's the 32 and 64 bit and neither shows

> videos. All I get is a black screen in IE32 and nothing in IE64. Maybe THEO

> can show me how to get it to run. Shoukd I hold my breath, Theo?

>

>

>> "Colin Barnhorst" <c.barnhorst@comcast.net> wrote in message

>> news:BB681A25-5B37-448C-BC3F-B592949EE94B@microsoft.com...

>>> Sorry, the ffdshow link is

>>> http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=173941&package_id=199416&release_id=569930

>>>

>>> "Theo" <theo@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

>>> news:OuI2AgZbIHA.4344@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>>>> No Windows x64 is not crippled!

>>>>

>>>> It's a matter of 3rd party support and something that is pointed out to

>>>> anyone taking the time to do some research before installing the system.

>>>>

>>>> I would have to boot up my x64, but I believe Flash is installed. I

>>>> personally don't recall any problems with streaming video from the news

>>>> site.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> vidmark wrote:

>>>>> Whoa! Just installed Windows XP 64 and right away I noticed that I

>>>>> cannot display streaming videos such as from Youtube. I couldn't get

>>>>> Flash to work either. Anybody?

>>

>

>

[Guest Skybuck Flying]

Re: IS Windows XP 64 crippled?

 

Use the 32 bit version of internet explorer.

 

Then flash 32 bit will install fine and you can view the video's.

 

Bye,

Skybuck.

[Guest Bull]

Re: IS Windows XP 64 crippled?

 

Even Microsoft doesn't support it. I want out. I'd thought that at some point

3rd party support would be forthcoming, but Norton doesn't provide a 64 bit

version of Norton 360 on XP 64.

 

I tried running Vista upgrade adviser and guess what? Not supported on XP

64. So not even Microsoft supports their 64 bit customers. My mistake for

thinking that I should be able to run a 64 bit OS on a 64 bit PC and still be

able to run 32 bit apps.

[Guest ralish]

Re: IS Windows XP 64 crippled?

 

Firstly, before you migrate to a new operating system running on a new

processor architecture, you should do your basic research.

 

Of course Norton for 32-bit systems isn't going to work on a 64-bit system.

It has components that plug into low-level system components (including the

kernel, through drivers). You can't plug 32-bit code into a 64-bit kernel.

Maybe, you should check with the suppliers of your software that it IS

64-bit compatible and IS supported on your new operating system? This should

help to avoid unpleasant surprises.

 

There are plenty of virus scanners out there that do work on 64-bit Windows,

and some are free. Personally, I'd argue all are better than Norton. I use

McAfee VirusScan Enterprise 8.5i on my work machine, and it works fine,

however, it is not free.

 

Your problem seems to be with vendors of computer software being slow to

support 64-bit Windows operating systems. Same goes for OEM's and hardware

support. I agree with you.

 

Rather than unnecessarily rude, maybe you could provide useful information,

and ask for useful advice in return, and just maybe, we all might be able to

do, and learn, something constructive.

 

Bull: AVG develops a free virus-scanner that is compatible with XP x64.

Available at: http://free.grisoft.com/

 

vidmark: I was able to install Flash straight from http://www.adobe.com on both IE

7 (32-bit) and FF 2 (2.0.0.12). Ensure you are not running IE 64-bit, as

Adobe has yet to publish a 64-bit compatible Flash for IE. If this bothers

you, write to Adobe and let them know you for one are eagerly anticipating

64-bit support; the more who do this, the more likely they are to invest the

time and money to get it done.

 

 

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

news:<D30B79DC-E67E-45DA-BFD2-31505F6B405F@microsoft.com>...

> Even Microsoft doesn't support it. I want out. I'd thought that at some

> point

> 3rd party support would be forthcoming, but Norton doesn't provide a 64

> bit

> version of Norton 360 on XP 64.

>

> I tried running Vista upgrade adviser and guess what? Not supported on XP

> 64. So not even Microsoft supports their 64 bit customers. My mistake for

> thinking that I should be able to run a 64 bit OS on a 64 bit PC and still

> be

> able to run 32 bit apps.

>

>

>

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

news:D30B79DC-E67E-45DA-BFD2-31505F6B405F@microsoft.com...

> Even Microsoft doesn't support it. I want out. I'd thought that at some

> point

> 3rd party support would be forthcoming, but Norton doesn't provide a 64

> bit

> version of Norton 360 on XP 64.

>

> I tried running Vista upgrade adviser and guess what? Not supported on XP

> 64. So not even Microsoft supports their 64 bit customers. My mistake for

> thinking that I should be able to run a 64 bit OS on a 64 bit PC and still

> be

> able to run 32 bit apps.

>

>

>

[Guest Charlie Russel - MVP]

Re: IS Windows XP 64 crippled?

 

The fact that Norton won't run on it is _good_ news. Nothing in a bright

yellow box is allowed near any of my machines.

 

The reason the "upgrade" advisor won't run on 64bit is that there is NO

upgrade from any prior version to Vista 64. Even if you're funning XP x64,

it's still a clean install. (There are many reasons for this, but the single

most telling one is the need for signed drivers in Vista 64.)

 

--

Charlie.

http://msmvps.com/xperts64

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

 

 

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

news:D30B79DC-E67E-45DA-BFD2-31505F6B405F@microsoft.com...

> Even Microsoft doesn't support it. I want out. I'd thought that at some

> point

> 3rd party support would be forthcoming, but Norton doesn't provide a 64

> bit

> version of Norton 360 on XP 64.

>

> I tried running Vista upgrade adviser and guess what? Not supported on XP

> 64. So not even Microsoft supports their 64 bit customers. My mistake for

> thinking that I should be able to run a 64 bit OS on a 64 bit PC and still

> be

> able to run 32 bit apps.

>

>

>

[Guest Bull]

Re: IS Windows XP 64 crippled?

 

Sorry I'm not as informed as you. I'm a reasonably well informed computer

user but while things like this might be obvious to you, they aren't to me. I

happened to have been involved in the design of 64 bit Intel processors, so I

know that by and large there isn't any hardware reason that 32 bit programs

can't run on 64 bit cores. This has more to do with the software architecture

which is outside my expertise. So, I really don't know which applications may

or may not run on 64 bit windows. I would have thought that windows 64 could

have been designed to detect 32 bit applications and run them in 32 bit

compatibility mode. I know that the hardware supports this even if the

software doesn't take advantage of it.

 

I understand that device drivers are different and I didn't have a problem

until I wanted to do wireless on this PC and discovered that Linksys still

doesn't support XP64.

 

Anyway, I'm simply stating that I made a mistake in buying Windows64. I

admit that. I didn't do my homework. I foolishly anticipated that the

industry would move in this direction. I also originally planned to run Linux

and only recently reinstalled Windows.

 

I could live without certain applications like Norton. But device driver

support is still very spotty, which is a surprise after this much time.

 

Finally, why the snarky comments about Norton? I've been a satisfied

customer and it regularly tops reviews and catches things that the free

products miss. I guess I could be equally snarky and make comments about the

OS that makes such products necessary, but I won't.

 

"ralish" wrote:

> Firstly, before you migrate to a new operating system running on a new

> processor architecture, you should do your basic research.

>

> Of course Norton for 32-bit systems isn't going to work on a 64-bit system.

> It has components that plug into low-level system components (including the

> kernel, through drivers). You can't plug 32-bit code into a 64-bit kernel.

> Maybe, you should check with the suppliers of your software that it IS

> 64-bit compatible and IS supported on your new operating system? This should

> help to avoid unpleasant surprises.

>

> There are plenty of virus scanners out there that do work on 64-bit Windows,

> and some are free. Personally, I'd argue all are better than Norton. I use

> McAfee VirusScan Enterprise 8.5i on my work machine, and it works fine,

> however, it is not free.

>

> Your problem seems to be with vendors of computer software being slow to

> support 64-bit Windows operating systems. Same goes for OEM's and hardware

> support. I agree with you.

>

> Rather than unnecessarily rude, maybe you could provide useful information,

> and ask for useful advice in return, and just maybe, we all might be able to

> do, and learn, something constructive.

>

> Bull: AVG develops a free virus-scanner that is compatible with XP x64.

> Available at: http://free.grisoft.com/

>

> vidmark: I was able to install Flash straight from http://www.adobe.com on both IE

> 7 (32-bit) and FF 2 (2.0.0.12). Ensure you are not running IE 64-bit, as

> Adobe has yet to publish a 64-bit compatible Flash for IE. If this bothers

> you, write to Adobe and let them know you for one are eagerly anticipating

> 64-bit support; the more who do this, the more likely they are to invest the

> time and money to get it done.

>

>

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

> news:<D30B79DC-E67E-45DA-BFD2-31505F6B405F@microsoft.com>...

> > Even Microsoft doesn't support it. I want out. I'd thought that at some

> > point

> > 3rd party support would be forthcoming, but Norton doesn't provide a 64

> > bit

> > version of Norton 360 on XP 64.

> >

> > I tried running Vista upgrade adviser and guess what? Not supported on XP

> > 64. So not even Microsoft supports their 64 bit customers. My mistake for

> > thinking that I should be able to run a 64 bit OS on a 64 bit PC and still

> > be

> > able to run 32 bit apps.

> >

> >

> >

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

> news:D30B79DC-E67E-45DA-BFD2-31505F6B405F@microsoft.com...

> > Even Microsoft doesn't support it. I want out. I'd thought that at some

> > point

> > 3rd party support would be forthcoming, but Norton doesn't provide a 64

> > bit

> > version of Norton 360 on XP 64.

> >

> > I tried running Vista upgrade adviser and guess what? Not supported on XP

> > 64. So not even Microsoft supports their 64 bit customers. My mistake for

> > thinking that I should be able to run a 64 bit OS on a 64 bit PC and still

> > be

> > able to run 32 bit apps.

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

[Guest Bull]

Re: IS Windows XP 64 crippled?

 

I guess I'm happier with Norton than I am with Windows :)

 

Thanks for explaining the advisor problem. I guess it would be nice if it

would have said that instead of just refusing to run.

 

"Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote:

> The fact that Norton won't run on it is _good_ news. Nothing in a bright

> yellow box is allowed near any of my machines.

>

> The reason the "upgrade" advisor won't run on 64bit is that there is NO

> upgrade from any prior version to Vista 64. Even if you're funning XP x64,

> it's still a clean install. (There are many reasons for this, but the single

> most telling one is the need for signed drivers in Vista 64.)

>

> --

> Charlie.

> http://msmvps.com/xperts64

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

>

>

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

> news:D30B79DC-E67E-45DA-BFD2-31505F6B405F@microsoft.com...

> > Even Microsoft doesn't support it. I want out. I'd thought that at some

> > point

> > 3rd party support would be forthcoming, but Norton doesn't provide a 64

> > bit

> > version of Norton 360 on XP 64.

> >

> > I tried running Vista upgrade adviser and guess what? Not supported on XP

> > 64. So not even Microsoft supports their 64 bit customers. My mistake for

> > thinking that I should be able to run a 64 bit OS on a 64 bit PC and still

> > be

> > able to run 32 bit apps.

> >

> >

> >

>

[Guest ralish]

Re: IS Windows XP 64 crippled?

 

Windows x64 (both XP (which is really a themed Windows Server 2003, it's

from the same codebase) and Vista) have backwards compatibility with 32-bit

applications. However, there are some caveats. The two that are very

important to know are that:

 

a) You can NOT plug 32-bit drivers into the 64-bit kernel (the core of the

Windows OS). I'm not a programmer, so I can't give you specific indepth

reasons; I suspect there are some legitimate technical reasons and maybe

some stability reasons (or both). This limitation is partly why driver

support is so lacking (new drivers must be developed for x64 versions of

Windows). Thus, the problem so many of us have when migrating, finding the

damn drivers for our hardware, assuming they exist at all.

b) You can NOT "mix-and-match" between 32-bit and 64-bit binaries. For

example, you can't plug a 64-bit DLL into a 32-bit application. This is why,

for instance, Windows x64 has a 32-bit version of Internet Explorer and a

separate 64-bit version. You can't plug a 32-bit Flash plugin into a 64-bit

version of Internet Explorer. Hence, you're stuck using IE 32-bit for most

tasks, until plug-in developers bother to port their code to 64-bit. (This

very much applies to you vidmark)

 

As far as hardware support goes, I highly recommend, for a desktop machine,

building the system yourself piece by piece, if you have the expertise.

Vendor support for x64 is woeful in my experience, with many, many

manufacturers selling 64-bit "capable" machines, but without the 64-bit

driver support that is required. By building your machine piece by piece,

you can ensure that 64-bit drivers are available for each and every piece of

hardware to be installed in your system. It takes time, but you'll end up

with a machine that is fully 64-bit compatible, with associated drivers,

which you can continually update as the respective OEM of each hardware

component provides updated drivers.

 

As for Norton, it used to be great, it went downhill from when it was bought

up by Symantec. I'm not saying it can't detect virus's, it does that very

well. My complaint is the performance hit, whenever I've used Norton

products in recent years, the performance hit has been huge, and the

software is very intrusive. I like to keep my computers very streamlined,

and Norton doesn't really satisfy that criteria ;)

 

Bottom Line: OEM's need to get their act together and start taking x64

support seriously. My view is that this isn't really a fault of Microsoft's.

They've developed the 64-bit OS, it's now up to developers to choose when

(if?) they are going to seriously support it.

 

 

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

news:73787436-49B6-4CD6-8367-B832C5D5ACCF@microsoft.com...

> Sorry I'm not as informed as you. I'm a reasonably well informed computer

> user but while things like this might be obvious to you, they aren't to

> me. I

> happened to have been involved in the design of 64 bit Intel processors,

> so I

> know that by and large there isn't any hardware reason that 32 bit

> programs

> can't run on 64 bit cores. This has more to do with the software

> architecture

> which is outside my expertise. So, I really don't know which applications

> may

> or may not run on 64 bit windows. I would have thought that windows 64

> could

> have been designed to detect 32 bit applications and run them in 32 bit

> compatibility mode. I know that the hardware supports this even if the

> software doesn't take advantage of it.

>

> I understand that device drivers are different and I didn't have a problem

> until I wanted to do wireless on this PC and discovered that Linksys still

> doesn't support XP64.

>

> Anyway, I'm simply stating that I made a mistake in buying Windows64. I

> admit that. I didn't do my homework. I foolishly anticipated that the

> industry would move in this direction. I also originally planned to run

> Linux

> and only recently reinstalled Windows.

>

> I could live without certain applications like Norton. But device driver

> support is still very spotty, which is a surprise after this much time.

>

> Finally, why the snarky comments about Norton? I've been a satisfied

> customer and it regularly tops reviews and catches things that the free

> products miss. I guess I could be equally snarky and make comments about

> the

> OS that makes such products necessary, but I won't.

>

> "ralish" wrote:

>

>> Firstly, before you migrate to a new operating system running on a new

>> processor architecture, you should do your basic research.

>>

>> Of course Norton for 32-bit systems isn't going to work on a 64-bit

>> system.

>> It has components that plug into low-level system components (including

>> the

>> kernel, through drivers). You can't plug 32-bit code into a 64-bit

>> kernel.

>> Maybe, you should check with the suppliers of your software that it IS

>> 64-bit compatible and IS supported on your new operating system? This

>> should

>> help to avoid unpleasant surprises.

>>

>> There are plenty of virus scanners out there that do work on 64-bit

>> Windows,

>> and some are free. Personally, I'd argue all are better than Norton. I

>> use

>> McAfee VirusScan Enterprise 8.5i on my work machine, and it works fine,

>> however, it is not free.

>>

>> Your problem seems to be with vendors of computer software being slow to

>> support 64-bit Windows operating systems. Same goes for OEM's and

>> hardware

>> support. I agree with you.

>>

>> Rather than unnecessarily rude, maybe you could provide useful

>> information,

>> and ask for useful advice in return, and just maybe, we all might be able

>> to

>> do, and learn, something constructive.

>>

>> Bull: AVG develops a free virus-scanner that is compatible with XP x64.

>> Available at: http://free.grisoft.com/

>>

>> vidmark: I was able to install Flash straight from http://www.adobe.com on both

>> IE

>> 7 (32-bit) and FF 2 (2.0.0.12). Ensure you are not running IE 64-bit, as

>> Adobe has yet to publish a 64-bit compatible Flash for IE. If this

>> bothers

>> you, write to Adobe and let them know you for one are eagerly

>> anticipating

>> 64-bit support; the more who do this, the more likely they are to invest

>> the

>> time and money to get it done.

>>

>>

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

>> news:<D30B79DC-E67E-45DA-BFD2-31505F6B405F@microsoft.com>...

>> > Even Microsoft doesn't support it. I want out. I'd thought that at some

>> > point

>> > 3rd party support would be forthcoming, but Norton doesn't provide a 64

>> > bit

>> > version of Norton 360 on XP 64.

>> >

>> > I tried running Vista upgrade adviser and guess what? Not supported on

>> > XP

>> > 64. So not even Microsoft supports their 64 bit customers. My mistake

>> > for

>> > thinking that I should be able to run a 64 bit OS on a 64 bit PC and

>> > still

>> > be

>> > able to run 32 bit apps.

>> >

>> >

>> >

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

>> news:D30B79DC-E67E-45DA-BFD2-31505F6B405F@microsoft.com...

>> > Even Microsoft doesn't support it. I want out. I'd thought that at some

>> > point

>> > 3rd party support would be forthcoming, but Norton doesn't provide a 64

>> > bit

>> > version of Norton 360 on XP 64.

>> >

>> > I tried running Vista upgrade adviser and guess what? Not supported on

>> > XP

>> > 64. So not even Microsoft supports their 64 bit customers. My mistake

>> > for

>> > thinking that I should be able to run a 64 bit OS on a 64 bit PC and

>> > still

>> > be

>> > able to run 32 bit apps.

>> >

>> >

>> >

>>

>>

>>

[Guest Tom Lake]

Re: IS Windows XP 64 crippled?

 

 

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

news:D30B79DC-E67E-45DA-BFD2-31505F6B405F@microsoft.com...

> Even Microsoft doesn't support it. I want out. I'd thought that at some point

> 3rd party support would be forthcoming, but Norton doesn't provide a 64 bit

> version of Norton 360 on XP 64.

 

Vista 64 has much more support than XP 64. The only problem I've had

has been with Hauppauge WinTV drivers on my system with 8 GB RAM.

Hauppauge is working on a fix. After the fix I won't have any problems

with Vista 64.

 

Tom Lake

[Guest Tony Harding]

Re: IS Windows XP 64 crippled?

 

Mike wrote:

> "Tony Harding" <ToHard@nowhere.org> wrote in message

> news:47b1f41b$0$15161$607ed4bc@cv.net...

>> vidmark wrote:

>>> Thanks for the link.

>>>

>>> Theo, are you paying attention? This is how you help people.

>> You seem awfully snarky for someone asking for help in a public forum. I

>> believe most posters here are employed, so their time is valuable. Maybe

>> you could lighten up a bit?

>

> I can't see anyone asking you for any advice. Why did you post? You probably

> have have no one else other than the computer to talk to, now that is

> pitiful :(

 

Somebody asked you for advice regarding my post? No, so who's the

greater fool?