«

I've tried the 64-bit version before when Vista was in its beta stages and
i'm wondering if it's improved any in compatability, performance, and whatnot.

Are there any users here that can comment on their experiences with x64?

Hello!

"SoaringEmu" <> wrote in message news:3672EC4D-0C16-419B-8C42-...
> I've tried the 64-bit version before when Vista was in its beta stages and
> i'm wondering if it's improved any in compatability, performance, and whatnot.
>
> Are there any users here that can comment on their experiences with x64?

http://www.apcmag.com/6506/tales_of_vista

Why would I voluntarily enter the painful world
of 64-bit Windows on the desktop?

Because 32-bit versions of Windows can't
address more than 3GB of RAM at best,
meaning that anyone who wants to take
advantage of the cheap RAM prices will
soon be forced to start using 64-bit
Windows, with all its foibles.
..
.
.
I'm happy to say that everything went well in the
end, although I did encounter a few glitches.
As I've now migrated all my systems to Vista,
I thought I'd jot down a few things relating to
some of the problems I've encountered so far.

BTW:
http://blog.getpaint.net/2007/06/30/iphone-64-bit-nope/

I'm using the x64 version of Windows Vista
Ultimate. A small amount of digging online
highlights the fact that the iPhone doesn't
work on 64-bit Windows.

Regards, Roman

SoaringEmu wrote:
> I've tried the 64-bit version before when Vista was in its beta stages and
> i'm wondering if it's improved any in compatability, performance, and whatnot.
>
> Are there any users here that can comment on their experiences with x64?

The answer to your question "Is x64 Worth It? No! No! N0!

SoaringEmu <> wrote:

> I've tried the 64-bit version before when Vista was in its beta
> stages and i'm wondering if it's improved any in compatability,
> performance, and whatnot.
>
> Are there any users here that can comment on their experiences
> with x64?

I'm using Vista Ultimate 64 in a dual boot setup with Windows XP. I've
had to solve a few compatibility issues with hardware, I've been unable
to solve a few compatibility issues with software and have found
workarounds or other software to do the job.

Is it worth it? Maybe. Nothing really works any better, speed is
about the same but the big advantage to me is I'm learning the OS and
getting software and hardware ready for a time when 64 bit OSs will be
the norm and the day (far off I know) when 32 bit software will no
longer be available.

BTW, Emus don't soar unless thrown off a cliff, do they?



--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

NO! NO! NO!

Maybe, maybe, maybe.

"Konan" <> wrote in message
news:46ad098e$0$3187$...
> NO! NO! NO!

John Barnes wrote:
> Maybe, maybe, maybe.
>
> "Konan" <> wrote in message
> news:46ad098e$0$3187$...
>> NO! NO! NO!
>

I have just removed XP64 with its partition for the third (hopefully)
the last time due to its inability to run several 32 bit photo editing
software. So I'd say: "NoNoNo!

On 2007-07-30, Konan <> wrote:
> John Barnes wrote:
>> Maybe, maybe, maybe.
>>
>> "Konan" <> wrote in message
>> news:46ad098e$0$3187$...
>>> NO! NO! NO!
>>
>
> I have just removed XP64 with its partition for the third (hopefully)
> the last time due to its inability to run several 32 bit photo editing
> software. So I'd say: "NoNoNo!

Some application need more than 3GB address space and some todays PCs
have more than 3.5GB main memory. Than you need a 64-bit OS. There
are some applications that benefit from the more modern X64
instruction set. If none of these applies, all you get is less tested
and less mainstream software, and therefore more trouble. I'd estimate
99% of todays users are better of running a 32-bit OS. But ....
64 > 32 can't be denied

.... (running 64-bit Linux and both XP32 and XP64 in a virtual machines)

Cheers --- Jan

If I were running intensive photo editing (not play photo editing), I would
buy one of the programs that run native 64-bit and are Vista64 compatible.
At this point, XP64 is probably a waste of time IF you have programs or
hardware that is incompatible. It will probably never be specifically
targeted either for drivers or program compatibility.

"Konan" <> wrote in message
news:46ade9b3$0$20589$...
> John Barnes wrote:
>> Maybe, maybe, maybe.
>>
>> "Konan" <> wrote in message
>> news:46ad098e$0$3187$...
>>> NO! NO! NO!
>>
>
> I have just removed XP64 with its partition for the third (hopefully)
> the last time due to its inability to run several 32 bit photo editing
> software. So I'd say: "NoNoNo!

I would agree that for more than 90% of Windows users, 32-bit is a better
choice. For those who need 64-bit or just want to be ready for the future
of computing, Vista64 is the best choice.

"Jan Wielemaker" <> wrote in message
news:46adef09$0$241$...
> On 2007-07-30, Konan <> wrote:
>> John Barnes wrote:
>>> Maybe, maybe, maybe.
>>>
>>> "Konan" <> wrote in message
>>> news:46ad098e$0$3187$...
>>>> NO! NO! NO!
>>>
>>
>> I have just removed XP64 with its partition for the third (hopefully)
>> the last time due to its inability to run several 32 bit photo editing
>> software. So I'd say: "NoNoNo!
>
> Some application need more than 3GB address space and some todays PCs
> have more than 3.5GB main memory. Than you need a 64-bit OS. There
> are some applications that benefit from the more modern X64
> instruction set. If none of these applies, all you get is less tested
> and less mainstream software, and therefore more trouble. I'd estimate
> 99% of todays users are better of running a 32-bit OS. But ....
> 64 > 32 can't be denied
>
> ... (running 64-bit Linux and both XP32 and XP64 in a virtual machines)
>
> Cheers --- Jan