Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Windows 64bit > Vista64

Reply
Thread Tools

Vista64

 
 
Charlie Russel - MVP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-10-2006
I run 32-bit for two things: Windows Small Business Server (32-bit only this
version) and my Tablet PC's (32-bit processors only). ALL other machines are
running x64 of one sort or another.

The next round of Tablets should take care of the 32-bit requirement (and
Vista supports tablet functionality in x64 Vista), and the next version of
SBS will ONLY be 64bit.

Yes, I've been on this bandwagon for a while now. I adopted XP x64 in
January of 2005, after all, months before it shipped. For ages I had 32bit
XP as a dual boot, but by this summer I no longer had any dual boots into
32bit on any of my x64 machines.

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


"Jane C" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> 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" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:u6Nq%(E-Mail Removed)...
>> 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" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:%23fF%(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> 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" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> > 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" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> > news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> >> 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" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> >> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> >> > Wasn't that a requirement for having drivers signed for Vista - and

>> one
>>> >> > that
>>> >> > was later 'watered', at that?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Tony. . .
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > "John Barnes" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> >> > news:u$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> >> >> 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?
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>

>>
>>

>


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Tony Sperling
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-10-2006
Yeah, well - that is the natural outcome I'd think. At least , as John says,
you aren't hindered by earlier investments and Hardware/Driver availability.
I never regreted going the 64bit way, but I would be perfectly happy with
32bit had the option not been there, in particular since there is hardly any
64bit software available, just a load of compatibles.

Eighteen months from now no-one (ourselves included?) will remember there
ever was any software that wasn't 64bit. :0o


Tony. . .

"Jane C" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> 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" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:u6Nq%(E-Mail Removed)...
> > 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" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:%23fF%(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> 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" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >> news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> > 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" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >> > news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> >> 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" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >> >> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> >> > Wasn't that a requirement for having drivers signed for Vista -

and
> > one
> >> >> > that
> >> >> > was later 'watered', at that?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Tony. . .
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "John Barnes" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:u$(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> >> >> 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?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>

> >
> >

>



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Colin Barnhorst
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-17-2006
It's a requirement for the Vista logo. 64bit signed driver is required.
(32bit driver is not required.)

"Tony Sperling" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Wasn't that a requirement for having drivers signed for Vista - and one
> that
> was later 'watered', at that?
>
> Tony. . .
>
>
> "John Barnes" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:u$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> 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?
>>
>>

>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Colin Barnhorst
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-17-2006
64bits is already reaching the consumer market in that XP Pro x64 is now an
option in the configurators on websites like HP. Vista will move 64bits
into places like Best Buy during 2007. One of the major system builders is
abandoning 32bit processors entirely after this Christmas season. By 2008
we will all be wondering if anybody is still buying those old 32bit machines
and OS's.

"John Barnes" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%23fF%(E-Mail Removed)...
> 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" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
>> 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" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> 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" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> > Wasn't that a requirement for having drivers signed for Vista - and
>>> > one
>>> > that
>>> > was later 'watered', at that?
>>> >
>>> > Tony. . .
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > "John Barnes" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> > news:u$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> >> 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?
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>

>>
>>

>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Colin Barnhorst
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-17-2006
The move to 64 is further along than most people think. Once you buy a
64bit system your perception seems frozen to how things were when you got
it. Six months later you are caught off guard by how much things have
progressed. I bet that by this time next year it won't even be worth
discussing.

"Charlie Russel - MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>I run 32-bit for two things: Windows Small Business Server (32-bit only
>this version) and my Tablet PC's (32-bit processors only). ALL other
>machines are running x64 of one sort or another.
>
> The next round of Tablets should take care of the 32-bit requirement (and
> Vista supports tablet functionality in x64 Vista), and the next version of
> SBS will ONLY be 64bit.
>
> Yes, I've been on this bandwagon for a while now. I adopted XP x64 in
> January of 2005, after all, months before it shipped. For ages I had 32bit
> XP as a dual boot, but by this summer I no longer had any dual boots into
> 32bit on any of my x64 machines.
>
> --
> Charlie.
> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>
>
> "Jane C" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> 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" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:u6Nq%(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> 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" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:%23fF%(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> 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" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>> news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> > 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" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>> > news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> >> 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" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>> >> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> >> > Wasn't that a requirement for having drivers signed for Vista -
>>>> >> > and
>>> one
>>>> >> > that
>>>> >> > was later 'watered', at that?
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Tony. . .
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > "John Barnes" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>> >> > news:u$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> >> >> 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?
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>

>>

>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Charlie Russel - MVP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-18-2006
I tend to think you're right. I initially over predicted how quickly XP x64
would catch on, but we're on the cusp of a shift, I think. But what will
finally kick everything over will be the next wave of RAM chips.

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


"Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> The move to 64 is further along than most people think. Once you buy a
> 64bit system your perception seems frozen to how things were when you got
> it. Six months later you are caught off guard by how much things have
> progressed. I bet that by this time next year it won't even be worth
> discussing.
>
> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>I run 32-bit for two things: Windows Small Business Server (32-bit only
>>this version) and my Tablet PC's (32-bit processors only). ALL other
>>machines are running x64 of one sort or another.
>>
>> The next round of Tablets should take care of the 32-bit requirement (and
>> Vista supports tablet functionality in x64 Vista), and the next version
>> of SBS will ONLY be 64bit.
>>
>> Yes, I've been on this bandwagon for a while now. I adopted XP x64 in
>> January of 2005, after all, months before it shipped. For ages I had
>> 32bit XP as a dual boot, but by this summer I no longer had any dual
>> boots into 32bit on any of my x64 machines.
>>
>> --
>> Charlie.
>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>>
>>
>> "Jane C" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> 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" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:u6Nq%(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> 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" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>> news:%23fF%(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>> 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" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>> news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>> > 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" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>> > news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>> >> 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" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>> >> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>> >> > Wasn't that a requirement for having drivers signed for Vista -
>>>>> >> > and
>>>> one
>>>>> >> > that
>>>>> >> > was later 'watered', at that?
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > Tony. . .
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > "John Barnes" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>> >> > news:u$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>> >> >> 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?
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>

>>

>
>


 
Reply With Quote
 
John Barnes
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-18-2006
Until it is no more hassle for the box makers to install the 64-bit versions
than the 32-bit versions. It would have been helpful if Microsoft allowed
upgraders to switch to 64-bit, but that didn't happen. Would have been a
nice boost, if only small in number.
Based on the installation of my programs, I'm not sure which version I will
opt for, if either.

"Charlie Russel - MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>I tend to think you're right. I initially over predicted how quickly XP x64
>would catch on, but we're on the cusp of a shift, I think. But what will
>finally kick everything over will be the next wave of RAM chips.
>
> --
> Charlie.
> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>
>
> "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> The move to 64 is further along than most people think. Once you buy a
>> 64bit system your perception seems frozen to how things were when you got
>> it. Six months later you are caught off guard by how much things have
>> progressed. I bet that by this time next year it won't even be worth
>> discussing.
>>
>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>I run 32-bit for two things: Windows Small Business Server (32-bit only
>>>this version) and my Tablet PC's (32-bit processors only). ALL other
>>>machines are running x64 of one sort or another.
>>>
>>> The next round of Tablets should take care of the 32-bit requirement
>>> (and Vista supports tablet functionality in x64 Vista), and the next
>>> version of SBS will ONLY be 64bit.
>>>
>>> Yes, I've been on this bandwagon for a while now. I adopted XP x64 in
>>> January of 2005, after all, months before it shipped. For ages I had
>>> 32bit XP as a dual boot, but by this summer I no longer had any dual
>>> boots into 32bit on any of my x64 machines.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Charlie.
>>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>>>
>>>
>>> "Jane C" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> 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" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>> news:u6Nq%(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>> 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" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>> news:%23fF%(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>> 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" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>> > 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" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>>> > news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>> >> 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" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>>> >> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>> >> > Wasn't that a requirement for having drivers signed for Vista -
>>>>>> >> > and
>>>>> one
>>>>>> >> > that
>>>>>> >> > was later 'watered', at that?
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > Tony. . .
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > "John Barnes" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>>> >> > news:u$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>> >> >> 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?
>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>

>>
>>

>



 
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
Vista64 Locks Up New Dell (!!) =?Utf-8?B?S2V2aW4gSw==?= Windows 64bit 4 02-21-2007 09:01 AM
Vista64: Premium vs Ultimate DP Windows 64bit 4 01-26-2007 12:50 AM
About paint under vista64 Kenen Windows 64bit 0 11-17-2006 05:45 AM
XP64 installs but not Vista64 - Help =?Utf-8?B?QnJhZCBELg==?= Windows 64bit 4 09-09-2006 05:48 PM
is Vista64 going to support Dos16 programs ? Lynn McGuire Windows 64bit 5 05-26-2006 01:25 AM



Advertisments