Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Windows 64bit > Is it all worth it?

Reply
Thread Tools

Is it all worth it?

 
 
=?Utf-8?B?U3RldmU=?=
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-18-2005
Ive got to get a new PC built.

Ive been reading about 64 bit, but im a little confused about whats good &
whats not,

all i need to get clear is that if for arguments sake say i had a AMD64
processor etc, will it run normal 32bit XP with no problems with new drivers
etc?, and say at a later date put windows xp 64 on it when maybe the drivers
are widley available, or should i go straight to xp 64?

Ive read a lot of articles on the pros and cons of the 64 but still not sure
what to do, we will us the pc in a business enviroment, so only a handfull of
programmes are used, namley AutoCad LT 2004, MIcrosoft Office 2003, Adobe PDF
reader,and a few other programmes.

Also im worried about drivers for printers connected & networked, im finding
it hard to find a list of all the drivers which are available which will
enable the hardware & software we use to work with XP 64, and the
manufacturers websites dont give much away!!

Any suggestions help etc will be much apreciated

Steve
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
=?Utf-8?B?T3dlbg==?=
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-18-2005
In my opinion windows xp 64 is much faster, even starting up and doing simple
taks such as copying files. Also almost every program I used before works.

The only problem is drivers, it took me some time but I have found all the
drivers except for my TV card (It seems there are no TV card drivers, but
apparently pinnacle are bringing them out in a few months).

My advice, look for drivers before you get windows 64, if you can find them
all (like printers), then its worth upgrading, otherwise wait till the
drivers come out.

Owen
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Charlie Russel - MVP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-18-2005
It's really about whether you have the drivers for your equipment. If your
environment has printers that are supported, and no software stoppers, I
personally think it's a good move. None of the programs you list is likely
to be an issue. But what are the printers in your environment? Are there
native drivers for them? If not, are there reasonable substitutes for what
you need to do? Does your work require a scanner? (and if it does, do you
need to run it on your computer, or is there a dedicated scanning station?)

I personally find it somewhat faster, and somewhat more stable. OTOH,
wireless support is less solid, IMHO, even though it does generally work.
(But connecting to an Exchange server over wireless is annoying.)


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

Steve wrote:
> Ive got to get a new PC built.
>
> Ive been reading about 64 bit, but im a little confused about whats good &
> whats not,
>
> all i need to get clear is that if for arguments sake say i had a AMD64
> processor etc, will it run normal 32bit XP with no problems with new
> drivers etc?, and say at a later date put windows xp 64 on it when maybe
> the drivers are widley available, or should i go straight to xp 64?
>
> Ive read a lot of articles on the pros and cons of the 64 but still not
> sure what to do, we will us the pc in a business enviroment, so only a
> handfull of programmes are used, namley AutoCad LT 2004, MIcrosoft Office
> 2003, Adobe PDF reader,and a few other programmes.
>
> Also im worried about drivers for printers connected & networked, im
> finding it hard to find a list of all the drivers which are available
> which will enable the hardware & software we use to work with XP 64, and
> the manufacturers websites dont give much away!!
>
> Any suggestions help etc will be much apreciated
>
> Steve



 
Reply With Quote
 
=?Utf-8?B?U3RldmU=?=
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-18-2005
Hi
Ive been searching for drivers, two of the printers have 'workaround'
drivers, so these printers wont be a problem, im awaiting a reply from epson
for my stylus color 980 (they have drivers for the 900 but dont state the
980!)

The other printer i have to search for drivers for is a brother HL1260e
laser printer which quite old (about 5years )will be used via a network,
which is my other concern! ive posted a question in the network section
weather or not ill get problems using a wired network (through router) to the
other pc which is running win xp 32bit & of course using the laser printer.

I think once i can sort these minor difficulties ill go for the full 64 bit
system, as i think its the only way to go unless like you say i have major
software/hardware driver difficulties which i dont think i have.

Thanks for the advice, much apreciated

Steve

"Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote:

> It's really about whether you have the drivers for your equipment. If your
> environment has printers that are supported, and no software stoppers, I
> personally think it's a good move. None of the programs you list is likely
> to be an issue. But what are the printers in your environment? Are there
> native drivers for them? If not, are there reasonable substitutes for what
> you need to do? Does your work require a scanner? (and if it does, do you
> need to run it on your computer, or is there a dedicated scanning station?)
>
> I personally find it somewhat faster, and somewhat more stable. OTOH,
> wireless support is less solid, IMHO, even though it does generally work.
> (But connecting to an Exchange server over wireless is annoying.)
>
>
> --
> Charlie.
> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>
> Steve wrote:
> > Ive got to get a new PC built.
> >
> > Ive been reading about 64 bit, but im a little confused about whats good &
> > whats not,
> >
> > all i need to get clear is that if for arguments sake say i had a AMD64
> > processor etc, will it run normal 32bit XP with no problems with new
> > drivers etc?, and say at a later date put windows xp 64 on it when maybe
> > the drivers are widley available, or should i go straight to xp 64?
> >
> > Ive read a lot of articles on the pros and cons of the 64 but still not
> > sure what to do, we will us the pc in a business enviroment, so only a
> > handfull of programmes are used, namley AutoCad LT 2004, MIcrosoft Office
> > 2003, Adobe PDF reader,and a few other programmes.
> >
> > Also im worried about drivers for printers connected & networked, im
> > finding it hard to find a list of all the drivers which are available
> > which will enable the hardware & software we use to work with XP 64, and
> > the manufacturers websites dont give much away!!
> >
> > Any suggestions help etc will be much apreciated
> >
> > Steve

>
>
>

 
Reply With Quote
 
=?Utf-8?B?U3VwcmVtZUxhdw==?=
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-18-2005
In answer to your question "Is it all worth it?"
I think you have to answer that question for yourself
primarily, and allow the industry to go its own way.

For example, one real benefit is the ability to address
much larger amounts of RAM: but, if one is entirely
satisfied with 1GB of DDR400/PC3200, for example, there
is no real benefit to Win64.

As a former systems programmer, I can tell you that
the problems that arise from switching from 32- to 64-bit
logic are not trivial, and the bugs that result can be very
difficult to find.

I remember one parallel incident, when we were programming
a multi-key database system: a software library routine was not
correctly documented, and the CALL we were making to it
passed back an address for a vector that was too large
for calling program. Since we had trashed memory
at the upper end of that vector, we trashed the program
at run-time, BUT that bug was very difficult to diagnose.

Thus, if a 64-bit integer over-writes two 32-bit addresses,
the upper 32 bits are effectively "trashed", as far as
as the two consecutive 32-bit addresses are concerned.

write this:
01010101010101010101010101010101111111111111111111 11111111111111
on top of this:
01010101010101010101010101010101

This kind of thing can happy very easily during
SUBROUTINE calls, and parameter passing.

The reverse can be equally problematic:

write this:
00000000000000000000000000000101
on top of this:
00000000000000000000000000000101000000000000000000 00000000000000

5 (or 4 + 1, in binary) just got RATHER HUGE!!

I would like to see Microsoft engineer a single
version of XP/Pro, which works on both
32- and 64-bit CPUs. Since 32-bit machine code
will run on 64-bit CPUs, the obvious challenge is to get
a 64-bit version of XP/Pro to run on 32-bit machines
(do NOT forget the ENORMOUS INSTALLED BASE
of existing 32-bit hardware!)

However, correct me if I am wrong about this,
but the latter is not a current objective of
Microsoft Corporation.


Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Webmaster, Supreme Law Library


"Steve" wrote:

> Ive got to get a new PC built.
>
> Ive been reading about 64 bit, but im a little confused about whats good &
> whats not,
>
> all i need to get clear is that if for arguments sake say i had a AMD64
> processor etc, will it run normal 32bit XP with no problems with new drivers
> etc?, and say at a later date put windows xp 64 on it when maybe the drivers
> are widley available, or should i go straight to xp 64?
>
> Ive read a lot of articles on the pros and cons of the 64 but still not sure
> what to do, we will us the pc in a business enviroment, so only a handfull of
> programmes are used, namley AutoCad LT 2004, MIcrosoft Office 2003, Adobe PDF
> reader,and a few other programmes.
>
> Also im worried about drivers for printers connected & networked, im finding
> it hard to find a list of all the drivers which are available which will
> enable the hardware & software we use to work with XP 64, and the
> manufacturers websites dont give much away!!
>
> Any suggestions help etc will be much apreciated
>
> Steve

 
Reply With Quote
 
Tony Sperling
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-18-2005
Let's face it, the AMD64 is a brilliant processor - pure genius, in fact! If
you get one, you would certainly want a 64bit OS, I cannot think of anyone
who would put 32bit XP on that, and be totally satisfied, even considering
that the chip is still brilliant. This chip begs for a supporting OS!

There have been almost total confusion in the press about this. Ask ten
people; read ten reports, and you sit with 12 disagreeing views at the very
least. A lot of knowledgeable people will bring forward the issues that are
most important to them, like memory - and say, that if this is not a 'big
one' for you, you might as well wait. I do not agree, even though they are
correct within the framework of their own computer related universe. That is
pure logic - if you must run terrabytes of memory, it is certainly nice to
have an OS that can handle it, it might even appear as the 'most important'
issue.

Quite as brilliant as the chip, is the OS. This is the beauty of it all -
they are such a handsom couple! Everything is visibly better, unless it
won't install or run at all. Those are the rules of the game.
Flightsimulator, as an example - I have set every option at a 100% and it
sports FPS at a rate of 45 inside clouds, over airports and cities with
detailed scenery. I mean, I am no FS freak, and I am no FPS freak either,
but just to see this, makes it worth it. I have 1gig of RAM installed, if I
stumble on a box full of money, I might get another, but I will not need it
and that side of the OS's capabilities I can totally ignore. But having seen
this, I could not have another computer without this - or something even
better. As I said, everything else is pretty much the same, save that which
will not do anything at all. I bet you can live with that, as I can. It's a
shame, but I can wait. Vista will be out before my devotion crumbles!

As a bonus, you have not built or bought your system yet, if I understand
you correctly. This, gives you the opportunity to tailor you system to the
hardware that is supported, in stead of the opposit, which makes it
difficult for so many, hence some of the warnings, I assume. I'd say, "Go
ahead!", but tread carefully.

Tony. . .


"Steve" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Ive got to get a new PC built.
>
> Ive been reading about 64 bit, but im a little confused about whats good &
> whats not,
>
> all i need to get clear is that if for arguments sake say i had a AMD64
> processor etc, will it run normal 32bit XP with no problems with new
> drivers
> etc?, and say at a later date put windows xp 64 on it when maybe the
> drivers
> are widley available, or should i go straight to xp 64?
>
> Ive read a lot of articles on the pros and cons of the 64 but still not
> sure
> what to do, we will us the pc in a business enviroment, so only a handfull
> of
> programmes are used, namley AutoCad LT 2004, MIcrosoft Office 2003, Adobe
> PDF
> reader,and a few other programmes.
>
> Also im worried about drivers for printers connected & networked, im
> finding
> it hard to find a list of all the drivers which are available which will
> enable the hardware & software we use to work with XP 64, and the
> manufacturers websites dont give much away!!
>
> Any suggestions help etc will be much apreciated
>
> Steve



 
Reply With Quote
 
Default User
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-18-2005
You can run XP x86 just fine on a 64-bit computer. Without knowing what
programs and peripherals you plan to use, no one can say with any certainty
that you should buy the machine with XP Pro x64. You will need to review
manufacturers' websites and this newsgroup for that. Some multiboot XP and
XP64 in order to continue to access peripherals and programs not compatible
with XP64. I maintain two different computers. Keep in mind that you will
need to buy XP64 with the computer whether or not you are going to use it
now because XP64 is not available in retail outlets. There is no boxed
edition, only an OEM edition meant to be sold with new computers.

For a good list of drivers for XP64 and a lot of other compatibility info, I
suggest http://www.planetamd64.com/

"Steve" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Ive got to get a new PC built.
>
> Ive been reading about 64 bit, but im a little confused about whats good &
> whats not,
>
> all i need to get clear is that if for arguments sake say i had a AMD64
> processor etc, will it run normal 32bit XP with no problems with new
> drivers
> etc?, and say at a later date put windows xp 64 on it when maybe the
> drivers
> are widley available, or should i go straight to xp 64?
>
> Ive read a lot of articles on the pros and cons of the 64 but still not
> sure
> what to do, we will us the pc in a business enviroment, so only a handfull
> of
> programmes are used, namley AutoCad LT 2004, MIcrosoft Office 2003, Adobe
> PDF
> reader,and a few other programmes.
>
> Also im worried about drivers for printers connected & networked, im
> finding
> it hard to find a list of all the drivers which are available which will
> enable the hardware & software we use to work with XP 64, and the
> manufacturers websites dont give much away!!
>
> Any suggestions help etc will be much apreciated
>
> Steve


 
Reply With Quote
 
R. C. White
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-18-2005
Hi, Steve.

When I needed a new mobo in July 2004, I bought a 64-bit EPoX 8KDA3+ with
AMD Athlon 64 3200+ CPU, even though 64-bit Windows was not yet available
for it. I ran 32-bit WinXP Pro on it then - and still do - that's what I'm
using right now. When WinXP x64 became available in June 2005, I installed
it to dual-boot. Then when Windows Vista Beta 1 became available, I added
both the 32-bit and 64-bit versions and I'm now quad-booting. Except for
the normal bugs in Beta and a couple of other gotchas in WinXP x64, I've
been very happy with my decision to choose 64-bit hardware. If I were to
need a new mobo today, the decision would be even more clear-cut: 64-bit
all the way! ;<)

Watch out for one little terminology nit. It's NOT XP64. That name was
used a couple of years ago when Microsoft wrote the first 64-bit Windows to
run on Intel's Itanium CPU. I never tried that version, so I can't say much
about it, although I have seen it discussed in the Windows XP Professional
Resource Kit and other places. When this new 64-bit version was written for
the AMD 64 chips, Microsoft dubbed it the x64 version. Yeah, I know XP64
sounds more natural, and in time that may become the common nickname, but
for now, you'll be inviting confusion with the Itanium version (which has
now been discontinued) if you use that moniker.

To distinguish x64 from the 32-bit version of WinXP, MS started calling the
older version "x86", referring to the long line of Intel chips, from the
8086 to 80486 (before they switched to Pentium, rather than 80586). Another
thing to watch out for is that WinXP x64 creates both a "\Program Files"
folder AND a "\Program Files (x86)" folder. The idea is that the new (x86)
folder will hold the old 32-bit programs during the transitional period
until we have all 64-bit versions of the programs.

ALL my 32-bit programs work fine in WinXP x64. The only program I lost was
my 1991-vintage WordPerfect Office Library Calendar, which is a 16-bit
MS-DOS program; it runs in x86's "DOS" window, but not in x64's. I miss it
a lot, but I guess it's time to move on. Office 2003, Adobe Reader,
Quicken, and a long list of other programs work as well or better in x64
than in WinXP x86. A few drivers are still not ready. My HP OfficeJet G55
works fine for my needs, including scanning, but it took HP two years to
produce the full-featured drivers for Win2K for it, so I don't expect them
anytime soon (if ever) for x64 or Vista. I watch TV on my computer in WinXP
x86; ATI has produced graphics drivers that work fine in x64 and Vista, but
their MMC (Multimedia Center) program does not yet work for TV for me in
those systems. (Other users report mixed success.) Microsoft has not yet
produced x64 drivers for some of their own branded hardware, including my
new Microsoft mouse; it works, but without some of the Intellimouse
features. And one of the most annoying problems is that the spell checker
does not work in Outlook Express 6, even with Microsoft Office installed.

All in all, it's a mixed bag, but there are enough plusses that I wouldn't
voluntarily go back to 32-bit.

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
Microsoft Windows MVP

"Steve" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Ive got to get a new PC built.
>
> Ive been reading about 64 bit, but im a little confused about whats good &
> whats not,
>
> all i need to get clear is that if for arguments sake say i had a AMD64
> processor etc, will it run normal 32bit XP with no problems with new
> drivers
> etc?, and say at a later date put windows xp 64 on it when maybe the
> drivers
> are widley available, or should i go straight to xp 64?
>
> Ive read a lot of articles on the pros and cons of the 64 but still not
> sure
> what to do, we will us the pc in a business enviroment, so only a handfull
> of
> programmes are used, namley AutoCad LT 2004, MIcrosoft Office 2003, Adobe
> PDF
> reader,and a few other programmes.
>
> Also im worried about drivers for printers connected & networked, im
> finding
> it hard to find a list of all the drivers which are available which will
> enable the hardware & software we use to work with XP 64, and the
> manufacturers websites dont give much away!!
>
> Any suggestions help etc will be much apreciated
>
> Steve


 
Reply With Quote
 
=?Utf-8?B?U3VwcmVtZUxhdw==?=
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-19-2005
Great discussion, folks!

I really do agree with the comments about the
superiority of the Athlon 64, even though I have
never owned or even operated one. If you trace
the history of its development, I am told that
it was conceived and engineered by the former gurus
who persuaded Microsoft to develop NT and NTFS.

And, those same personnel trace their experience
back to Digital Equipment's famous VAX 11/780
super minicomputer. That was SOME hardware
and an AMAZING operating system too (VMS, as I recall).

Embedding the memory controller on the CPU chip
also helps exploit low-latency RAM products,
like those now being offered by Corsair, OCZ,
Crucial, Kingston & such. Tom's Hardware reports
that low-latency DDR memory does not make
that much of a difference on Intel's CPU's,
because the Northbridge intervenes. We confirmed
this after we built a Prescott 3.2 GHz machine
with Corsair XMS DDR400 running 2-2-2-5.

GET THIS:
Our Corsair DDR400 "Value RAM" is just a hair slower
on another machine which runs a 2.8 GHz HT P4
with default SPD settings. Go figure!

MUST BE THE ON-CHIP MEMORY CONTROLLER!!


To save me having to look it up, can anyone answer
this question quickly?

I recall that Windows XP came with a program which
one could run on a Windows 98 system, to determine
which Win98 software & hardware would still work under XP,
and which ones would not. What was that program called,
please?

Is there a comparable program for the 64-bit version
of Windows XP/Pro?

It occurs to me that a LOT of questions could be
handled QUICKLY, if Microsoft would create a database
of drivers that currently support 64-bit mode:

Then, the plug-and-play subsystem could quickly determine
if any given peripheral device will operate with the driver
that is bundled with Windows x64.

THIS IS A PURR-FECT APPLICATION FOR PLUG-AND-PLAY,
EXTENDED LOGICALLY TO THE 64-BIT WORLD, WHICH HAS ARRIVED!!

To give a very current example, which came up this week,
if one is using a Promise PCI/RAID controller, this program could
check its database and tell you if a driver is bundled with
Windows x64 for that particular device. I wouldn't mind
one bit if the program required Internet access, in order
to confirm the VERY LATEST driver database records.

If such a program already exists, would someone please
point me to it, to save me the time required to search for it?

If you will recall, one could run this program under Windows 95 or 98,
without making ANY changes whatsoever: it was merely a
diagnostic which produced a detailed report of its findings,
with excellent recommendations.

WAY COOL, THAT!!

Many thanks, in advance.


Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Webmaster, Supreme Law Library


"R. C. White" wrote:

> Hi, Steve.
>
> When I needed a new mobo in July 2004, I bought a 64-bit EPoX 8KDA3+ with
> AMD Athlon 64 3200+ CPU, even though 64-bit Windows was not yet available
> for it. I ran 32-bit WinXP Pro on it then - and still do - that's what I'm
> using right now. When WinXP x64 became available in June 2005, I installed
> it to dual-boot. Then when Windows Vista Beta 1 became available, I added
> both the 32-bit and 64-bit versions and I'm now quad-booting. Except for
> the normal bugs in Beta and a couple of other gotchas in WinXP x64, I've
> been very happy with my decision to choose 64-bit hardware. If I were to
> need a new mobo today, the decision would be even more clear-cut: 64-bit
> all the way! ;<)
>
> Watch out for one little terminology nit. It's NOT XP64. That name was
> used a couple of years ago when Microsoft wrote the first 64-bit Windows to
> run on Intel's Itanium CPU. I never tried that version, so I can't say much
> about it, although I have seen it discussed in the Windows XP Professional
> Resource Kit and other places. When this new 64-bit version was written for
> the AMD 64 chips, Microsoft dubbed it the x64 version. Yeah, I know XP64
> sounds more natural, and in time that may become the common nickname, but
> for now, you'll be inviting confusion with the Itanium version (which has
> now been discontinued) if you use that moniker.
>
> To distinguish x64 from the 32-bit version of WinXP, MS started calling the
> older version "x86", referring to the long line of Intel chips, from the
> 8086 to 80486 (before they switched to Pentium, rather than 80586). Another
> thing to watch out for is that WinXP x64 creates both a "\Program Files"
> folder AND a "\Program Files (x86)" folder. The idea is that the new (x86)
> folder will hold the old 32-bit programs during the transitional period
> until we have all 64-bit versions of the programs.
>
> ALL my 32-bit programs work fine in WinXP x64. The only program I lost was
> my 1991-vintage WordPerfect Office Library Calendar, which is a 16-bit
> MS-DOS program; it runs in x86's "DOS" window, but not in x64's. I miss it
> a lot, but I guess it's time to move on. Office 2003, Adobe Reader,
> Quicken, and a long list of other programs work as well or better in x64
> than in WinXP x86. A few drivers are still not ready. My HP OfficeJet G55
> works fine for my needs, including scanning, but it took HP two years to
> produce the full-featured drivers for Win2K for it, so I don't expect them
> anytime soon (if ever) for x64 or Vista. I watch TV on my computer in WinXP
> x86; ATI has produced graphics drivers that work fine in x64 and Vista, but
> their MMC (Multimedia Center) program does not yet work for TV for me in
> those systems. (Other users report mixed success.) Microsoft has not yet
> produced x64 drivers for some of their own branded hardware, including my
> new Microsoft mouse; it works, but without some of the Intellimouse
> features. And one of the most annoying problems is that the spell checker
> does not work in Outlook Express 6, even with Microsoft Office installed.
>
> All in all, it's a mixed bag, but there are enough plusses that I wouldn't
> voluntarily go back to 32-bit.
>
> RC
> --
> R. C. White, CPA
> San Marcos, TX
> (E-Mail Removed)
> Microsoft Windows MVP
>
> "Steve" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Ive got to get a new PC built.
> >
> > Ive been reading about 64 bit, but im a little confused about whats good &
> > whats not,
> >
> > all i need to get clear is that if for arguments sake say i had a AMD64
> > processor etc, will it run normal 32bit XP with no problems with new
> > drivers
> > etc?, and say at a later date put windows xp 64 on it when maybe the
> > drivers
> > are widley available, or should i go straight to xp 64?
> >
> > Ive read a lot of articles on the pros and cons of the 64 but still not
> > sure
> > what to do, we will us the pc in a business enviroment, so only a handfull
> > of
> > programmes are used, namley AutoCad LT 2004, MIcrosoft Office 2003, Adobe
> > PDF
> > reader,and a few other programmes.
> >
> > Also im worried about drivers for printers connected & networked, im
> > finding
> > it hard to find a list of all the drivers which are available which will
> > enable the hardware & software we use to work with XP 64, and the
> > manufacturers websites dont give much away!!
> >
> > Any suggestions help etc will be much apreciated
> >
> > Steve

>
>

 
Reply With Quote
 
=?Utf-8?B?YmVhbmphbW1pbg==?=
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-19-2005


"Steve" wrote:

> Any suggestions help etc will be much apreciated


As others have suggested "it depends" is probably the best answer.

If you already have a 32bit Windows OS license then sure, go ahead and get
XP x64 and install it to dual boot with your existing 32bit Windows so that
you'll still have access any hardware that doesn't have 32bit drivers (and
there's plenty that doesn't).

If you want/need to be in 64bit all the time then chose your hardware
carefully to make sure there are 64bit drivers. Don't hold your breath
waiting for older hardware to have 64bit drivers created as most
manufacturers will only provider drivers for newer hardware that is still
being sold.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
![Oof Topix] All McCain, All Flip-Flop, All the Time Bucky Breeder Computer Support 7 09-27-2008 03:33 PM
OT: It is Worth it After All! TheITGirl MCDST 5 09-13-2007 08:05 PM
Worth buying modem router? =?Utf-8?B?QmFkQW5nbGVy?= Wireless Networking 2 07-05-2005 02:33 PM
Is it worth it? Russ McKenna ASP .Net 5 12-06-2003 06:47 PM



Advertisments