Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Windows 64bit (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f46-windows-64bit.html)
-   -   Vista64 (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t493204-vista64.html)

John Barnes 11-10-2006 02:28 PM

Vista64
 
Had read here that software and hardware for Vista had to be both 32-bit and
64-bit compatible. I just received an add for Partition Commander 10 which
lists Vista as a compatible system, but seems to be only x86.
http://www.v-com.com/promo/Partition..._1106_112.html

Any comments?



Tony Sperling 11-10-2006 03:56 PM

Re: Vista64
 
Wasn't that a requirement for having drivers signed for Vista - and one that
was later 'watered', at that?

Tony. . .


"John Barnes" <jbarnes@email.net> wrote in message
news:u$8aDSNBHHA.3380@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Had read here that software and hardware for Vista had to be both 32-bit

and
> 64-bit compatible. I just received an add for Partition Commander 10

which
> lists Vista as a compatible system, but seems to be only x86.
> http://www.v-com.com/promo/Partition..._1106_112.html
>
> Any comments?
>
>




John Barnes 11-10-2006 04:55 PM

Re: Vista64
 
Just a little concerned that Vista64 is being allowed to atrophy like X64.
It has been disappointing enough the number of programs that work on X64
that won't work on Vista64.



"Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling@dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
news:uTC6ZFOBHHA.4060@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Wasn't that a requirement for having drivers signed for Vista - and one
> that
> was later 'watered', at that?
>
> Tony. . .
>
>
> "John Barnes" <jbarnes@email.net> wrote in message
> news:u$8aDSNBHHA.3380@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Had read here that software and hardware for Vista had to be both 32-bit

> and
>> 64-bit compatible. I just received an add for Partition Commander 10

> which
>> lists Vista as a compatible system, but seems to be only x86.
>> http://www.v-com.com/promo/Partition..._1106_112.html
>>
>> Any comments?
>>
>>

>
>




Charlie Russel - MVP 11-10-2006 05:22 PM

Re: Vista64
 
It won't atrophy. And it won't go away.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64


"John Barnes" <jbarnes@email.net> wrote in message
news:eDnVRkOBHHA.3396@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Just a little concerned that Vista64 is being allowed to atrophy like X64.
> It has been disappointing enough the number of programs that work on X64
> that won't work on Vista64.
>
>
>
> "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling@dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
> news:uTC6ZFOBHHA.4060@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Wasn't that a requirement for having drivers signed for Vista - and one
>> that
>> was later 'watered', at that?
>>
>> Tony. . .
>>
>>
>> "John Barnes" <jbarnes@email.net> wrote in message
>> news:u$8aDSNBHHA.3380@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> Had read here that software and hardware for Vista had to be both 32-bit

>> and
>>> 64-bit compatible. I just received an add for Partition Commander 10

>> which
>>> lists Vista as a compatible system, but seems to be only x86.
>>> http://www.v-com.com/promo/Partition..._1106_112.html
>>>
>>> Any comments?
>>>
>>>

>>
>>

>
>



DP 11-10-2006 06:11 PM

Re: Vista64
 

"John Barnes" <jbarnes@email.net> wrote in message
news:u$8aDSNBHHA.3380@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Had read here that software and hardware for Vista had to be both 32-bit
> and 64-bit compatible. I just received an add for Partition Commander 10
> which lists Vista as a compatible system, but seems to be only x86.
> http://www.v-com.com/promo/Partition..._1106_112.html
>
> Any comments?


Just a guess, but maybe the requirement won't kick in until Vista is
actually being sold?



John Barnes 11-10-2006 06:21 PM

Re: Vista64
 
I was thinking that products that work on Vista86 only, can say so on the
box, but just can't use the Vista logo. Properly sized and placed, most
consumers won't care about the logo.


"DP" <nospamxx@xyzddd.com> wrote in message
news:u5gYbOPBHHA.2304@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
> "John Barnes" <jbarnes@email.net> wrote in message
> news:u$8aDSNBHHA.3380@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Had read here that software and hardware for Vista had to be both 32-bit
>> and 64-bit compatible. I just received an add for Partition Commander 10
>> which lists Vista as a compatible system, but seems to be only x86.
>> http://www.v-com.com/promo/Partition..._1106_112.html
>>
>> Any comments?

>
> Just a guess, but maybe the requirement won't kick in until Vista is
> actually being sold?
>




Tony Sperling 11-10-2006 06:43 PM

Re: Vista64
 
You're right in a way I think. Who will be installing Vista64 when it
releases? Despite the efforts spent in this group, not enough information is
reaching the public about who should and shouldn't follow the trend. If I'm
allowed to take the critical stand for a moment, I think going 64bit was a
mistake, so long as the total commitment wasn't ever made. Just having
questions like "What should I be installing?", being asked is a
demonstration how the industry missed an opportunity to cut the costs. Just
as most desktops will not profit from 64bit, nobody profits from a 32bit
competition!

Good heavens, this is 2006, isn't it?

The whole idea behind the AMD processor sporting 32bit compatibility would
have been better realized as a 'compatibility' issue - not as a means to
have two concurrent systems being developed way into the future. Having
64bit means going 64bit. Nobody with any sense left buys a chest of larger
drawers without the drawers, keeping the old, small ones because they have
room enough.


Tony. . .


"John Barnes" <jbarnes@email.net> wrote in message
news:eDnVRkOBHHA.3396@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Just a little concerned that Vista64 is being allowed to atrophy like X64.
> It has been disappointing enough the number of programs that work on X64
> that won't work on Vista64.
>
>
>
> "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling@dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
> news:uTC6ZFOBHHA.4060@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> > Wasn't that a requirement for having drivers signed for Vista - and one
> > that
> > was later 'watered', at that?
> >
> > Tony. . .
> >
> >
> > "John Barnes" <jbarnes@email.net> wrote in message
> > news:u$8aDSNBHHA.3380@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> >> Had read here that software and hardware for Vista had to be both

32-bit
> > and
> >> 64-bit compatible. I just received an add for Partition Commander 10

> > which
> >> lists Vista as a compatible system, but seems to be only x86.
> >> http://www.v-com.com/promo/Partition..._1106_112.html
> >>
> >> Any comments?
> >>
> >>

> >
> >

>
>




John Barnes 11-10-2006 07:12 PM

Re: Vista64
 
Seems like anyone buying their first computer would be a fool not to go with
64-bit and make sure to buy only hardware and software (assuming it is
available to perform your desired functions) that is compatible. Anyone
with an investment in hardware and software would seem better off with
Vista86 if they are the usual consumer computer user. fwiw

I bought new hardware and software and have been using X64 for almost a year
now, full time. The only function I still go to X86 for is to run Ghost for
my system backups (or restores). I did have to sacrafice a number of
functions, or have 2-3 different programs to do the functions of one I used
to use. Very inconvenient at times.

"Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling@dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
news:%23T2HTiPBHHA.4992@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> You're right in a way I think. Who will be installing Vista64 when it
> releases? Despite the efforts spent in this group, not enough information
> is
> reaching the public about who should and shouldn't follow the trend. If
> I'm
> allowed to take the critical stand for a moment, I think going 64bit was a
> mistake, so long as the total commitment wasn't ever made. Just having
> questions like "What should I be installing?", being asked is a
> demonstration how the industry missed an opportunity to cut the costs.
> Just
> as most desktops will not profit from 64bit, nobody profits from a 32bit
> competition!
>
> Good heavens, this is 2006, isn't it?
>
> The whole idea behind the AMD processor sporting 32bit compatibility would
> have been better realized as a 'compatibility' issue - not as a means to
> have two concurrent systems being developed way into the future. Having
> 64bit means going 64bit. Nobody with any sense left buys a chest of larger
> drawers without the drawers, keeping the old, small ones because they have
> room enough.
>
>
> Tony. . .
>
>
> "John Barnes" <jbarnes@email.net> wrote in message
> news:eDnVRkOBHHA.3396@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> Just a little concerned that Vista64 is being allowed to atrophy like
>> X64.
>> It has been disappointing enough the number of programs that work on X64
>> that won't work on Vista64.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling@dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
>> news:uTC6ZFOBHHA.4060@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> > Wasn't that a requirement for having drivers signed for Vista - and one
>> > that
>> > was later 'watered', at that?
>> >
>> > Tony. . .
>> >
>> >
>> > "John Barnes" <jbarnes@email.net> wrote in message
>> > news:u$8aDSNBHHA.3380@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> >> Had read here that software and hardware for Vista had to be both

> 32-bit
>> > and
>> >> 64-bit compatible. I just received an add for Partition Commander 10
>> > which
>> >> lists Vista as a compatible system, but seems to be only x86.
>> >> http://www.v-com.com/promo/Partition..._1106_112.html
>> >>
>> >> Any comments?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >

>>
>>

>
>




Tony Sperling 11-10-2006 07:23 PM

Re: Vista64
 
Precisely!

And as long as the manufacturer and the consumer has a choice, our
inconveniencies are not about to lighten up?

Had Vista been 64bit only it wouldn't disturb the investments of any great
number of people because the compatibility alternatives were there for a
number of years ahead, and 32bit Vista helps nobody at all. I hardly think.


Tony. . .


"John Barnes" <jbarnes@email.net> wrote in message
news:%23fF%23xwPBHHA.3316@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Seems like anyone buying their first computer would be a fool not to go

with
> 64-bit and make sure to buy only hardware and software (assuming it is
> available to perform your desired functions) that is compatible. Anyone
> with an investment in hardware and software would seem better off with
> Vista86 if they are the usual consumer computer user. fwiw
>
> I bought new hardware and software and have been using X64 for almost a

year
> now, full time. The only function I still go to X86 for is to run Ghost

for
> my system backups (or restores). I did have to sacrafice a number of
> functions, or have 2-3 different programs to do the functions of one I

used
> to use. Very inconvenient at times.
>
> "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling@dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
> news:%23T2HTiPBHHA.4992@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> > You're right in a way I think. Who will be installing Vista64 when it
> > releases? Despite the efforts spent in this group, not enough

information
> > is
> > reaching the public about who should and shouldn't follow the trend. If
> > I'm
> > allowed to take the critical stand for a moment, I think going 64bit was

a
> > mistake, so long as the total commitment wasn't ever made. Just having
> > questions like "What should I be installing?", being asked is a
> > demonstration how the industry missed an opportunity to cut the costs.
> > Just
> > as most desktops will not profit from 64bit, nobody profits from a 32bit
> > competition!
> >
> > Good heavens, this is 2006, isn't it?
> >
> > The whole idea behind the AMD processor sporting 32bit compatibility

would
> > have been better realized as a 'compatibility' issue - not as a means to
> > have two concurrent systems being developed way into the future. Having
> > 64bit means going 64bit. Nobody with any sense left buys a chest of

larger
> > drawers without the drawers, keeping the old, small ones because they

have
> > room enough.
> >
> >
> > Tony. . .
> >
> >
> > "John Barnes" <jbarnes@email.net> wrote in message
> > news:eDnVRkOBHHA.3396@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> >> Just a little concerned that Vista64 is being allowed to atrophy like
> >> X64.
> >> It has been disappointing enough the number of programs that work on

X64
> >> that won't work on Vista64.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling@dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
> >> news:uTC6ZFOBHHA.4060@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> >> > Wasn't that a requirement for having drivers signed for Vista - and

one
> >> > that
> >> > was later 'watered', at that?
> >> >
> >> > Tony. . .
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "John Barnes" <jbarnes@email.net> wrote in message
> >> > news:u$8aDSNBHHA.3380@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> >> >> Had read here that software and hardware for Vista had to be both

> > 32-bit
> >> > and
> >> >> 64-bit compatible. I just received an add for Partition Commander

10
> >> > which
> >> >> lists Vista as a compatible system, but seems to be only x86.
> >> >> http://www.v-com.com/promo/Partition..._1106_112.html
> >> >>
> >> >> Any comments?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>

> >
> >

>
>




Jane C 11-10-2006 07:35 PM

Re: Vista64
 
I'm ready to leave 32 bit behind completely now :-) I rarely boot into x86
Vista, spending the vast majority of the time on x64 Vista, with forays into
XP x64.

--
Jane, not plain ;) 64 bit enabled :-)
Batteries not included. Braincell on vacation ;-)
"Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling@dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
news:u6Nq%234PBHHA.4428@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Precisely!
>
> And as long as the manufacturer and the consumer has a choice, our
> inconveniencies are not about to lighten up?
>
> Had Vista been 64bit only it wouldn't disturb the investments of any great
> number of people because the compatibility alternatives were there for a
> number of years ahead, and 32bit Vista helps nobody at all. I hardly
> think.
>
>
> Tony. . .
>
>
> "John Barnes" <jbarnes@email.net> wrote in message
> news:%23fF%23xwPBHHA.3316@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> Seems like anyone buying their first computer would be a fool not to go

> with
>> 64-bit and make sure to buy only hardware and software (assuming it is
>> available to perform your desired functions) that is compatible. Anyone
>> with an investment in hardware and software would seem better off with
>> Vista86 if they are the usual consumer computer user. fwiw
>>
>> I bought new hardware and software and have been using X64 for almost a

> year
>> now, full time. The only function I still go to X86 for is to run Ghost

> for
>> my system backups (or restores). I did have to sacrafice a number of
>> functions, or have 2-3 different programs to do the functions of one I

> used
>> to use. Very inconvenient at times.
>>
>> "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling@dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
>> news:%23T2HTiPBHHA.4992@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> > You're right in a way I think. Who will be installing Vista64 when it
>> > releases? Despite the efforts spent in this group, not enough

> information
>> > is
>> > reaching the public about who should and shouldn't follow the trend. If
>> > I'm
>> > allowed to take the critical stand for a moment, I think going 64bit
>> > was

> a
>> > mistake, so long as the total commitment wasn't ever made. Just having
>> > questions like "What should I be installing?", being asked is a
>> > demonstration how the industry missed an opportunity to cut the costs.
>> > Just
>> > as most desktops will not profit from 64bit, nobody profits from a
>> > 32bit
>> > competition!
>> >
>> > Good heavens, this is 2006, isn't it?
>> >
>> > The whole idea behind the AMD processor sporting 32bit compatibility

> would
>> > have been better realized as a 'compatibility' issue - not as a means
>> > to
>> > have two concurrent systems being developed way into the future. Having
>> > 64bit means going 64bit. Nobody with any sense left buys a chest of

> larger
>> > drawers without the drawers, keeping the old, small ones because they

> have
>> > room enough.
>> >
>> >
>> > Tony. . .
>> >
>> >
>> > "John Barnes" <jbarnes@email.net> wrote in message
>> > news:eDnVRkOBHHA.3396@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> >> Just a little concerned that Vista64 is being allowed to atrophy like
>> >> X64.
>> >> It has been disappointing enough the number of programs that work on

> X64
>> >> that won't work on Vista64.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling@dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
>> >> news:uTC6ZFOBHHA.4060@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> >> > Wasn't that a requirement for having drivers signed for Vista - and

> one
>> >> > that
>> >> > was later 'watered', at that?
>> >> >
>> >> > Tony. . .
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > "John Barnes" <jbarnes@email.net> wrote in message
>> >> > news:u$8aDSNBHHA.3380@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> >> >> Had read here that software and hardware for Vista had to be both
>> > 32-bit
>> >> > and
>> >> >> 64-bit compatible. I just received an add for Partition Commander

> 10
>> >> > which
>> >> >> lists Vista as a compatible system, but seems to be only x86.
>> >> >> http://www.v-com.com/promo/Partition..._1106_112.html
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Any comments?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >

>>
>>

>
>




All times are GMT. The time now is 06:59 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.