Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Windows 64bit > Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

Reply
Thread Tools

Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

 
 
John Barnes
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-24-2007
Can you write a post that doesn't blame everyone else for your mistakes?
Asking for specific help and providing help is the purpose of these groups,
not trolling for sympathy and ad hominem attacks.

'Whatever my reasons for having X64 are my own'

True, but obviously not based on reason.(the power of being able to think in
a logical and rational manner)



"Denise" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>I don't want to argue. I replied to Royston H's request for opinions of
>X64.
> I gave mine and, since then, people have been arguing with me.
>
> Can't you write a post without insulting people?
> --
> Denise
>
> ~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're
> going.
>
>
>
>
> "Theo" wrote:
>
>> The major difference is that I know most of the limitations
>> of Win x64 and I utilize it for it's strengths. I did a lot
>> of research looking for drivers and peripheral hardware that
>> had x64 drivers. Yes, there are deficiencies in Win x64,
>> but I haven't found any operating system that is perfect.
>>
>> Arguments are totally unnecessary. All anyone has to do is
>> do research and evaluate whether Win x64 is appropriate for
>> their situation. One of the best resources is Charlie
>> Russel's paper on Win x64.
>>
>> It's like buying a vehicle. One researches the available
>> products and determines which vehicle he/she wants. One
>> doesn't buy a Ford and then complain because it isn't a Chevy.
>>
>> I definitely am not lost. I know exactly where I have been
>> and I periodically evaluate my objects to determine if I am
>> proceeding in a reasonable and logical manner to where I
>> know I want to go.
>>
>> I have been using, repairing, building, setting up networks,
>> and programming computers for long time. I have worked with
>> CP/M, MS-DOS, OS/2, Unix, Linux, Apple OS, Atari OS, PDP/11
>> OS, and many others.
>>
>> And, I guess you're right. If you want to throw a temper
>> tantrum, scream and kick your feet, then you have every
>> right to do so. Hope you feel better when you stop!
>>
>>
>> Denise wrote:
>> > In this thread, the person asked:
>> >
>> > "I'd like to hear from people who have used both in anger and see if
>> > any
>> > valid arguments exist for sticking with XP, say it's considerably more
>> > stable etc, given that long term the future is with vista anyway."
>> >
>> >
>> > You said:
>> >
>> > "If you want to come to this forum to honestly seek help with 64-bit
>> > Windows
>> > operating systems, then you're welcome. However, most of your posts
>> > have been
>> > to complain about and deride 64-bit Windows and Microsoft. That is not
>> > constructive!"
>> >
>> > Given the request of the author of this thread, it's you who shouldn't
>> > post
>> > in this thread because you don't know what it's about. It appears that
>> > it is
>> > you who is confused and lost here, not I.
>> >
>> > I very much think that voicing my opinion regarding X64 is
>> > constructive,
>> > even if it wasn't the topic of conversation, but it is. People like
>> > you will
>> > defend X64 to your deaths and you give the illusion, as you've done
>> > here,
>> > that it's the user who is the cause of the problem when it's really
>> > X64.
>> > I've been using machines for 30 years, starting with the Wang Word
>> > Processor,
>> > graduating to DOS, and I then went on to Windows 95, 98, 2000 XP, so I
>> > know a
>> > lot about how operating systems should work and X64 is poor.
>> >
>> >
>> > You said:
>> >
>> > "If you think Microsoft is withholding critical information, then take
>> > the
>> > initiative to do some research."
>> >
>> > Most of the information on the internet regarding X64 was written by
>> > people
>> > like you who thinks that Microsoft's s*** doesn't stink. The
>> > information
>> > should have been on the package. I bought X64 more than a year ago
>> > when
>> > there was little to no critiques about it. I don't watch television so
>> > my
>> > choice to use X64 was based on the general consensus of opinion at the
>> > that
>> > it was the next generation of Windows. It very well is but it turned
>> > out to
>> > be a terrible one.
>> >
>> > In addition, you have no right to tell me or anyone else not to post in
>> > these forums. By doing so, it sounds like you also want to cover up
>> > something about X64 and it angers you to the point when you can't
>> > discuss
>> > this topic rationally, in a mature manner, without name-calling and
>> > insults.
>> > Those are the types of comments that are inappropriate in all threads,
>> > not
>> > opinions about Microsoft products.

>>


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Theo
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-24-2007
I got tired of you carrying on about how screwed up .NET
Framework was when you were trying to run a 32-bit program
that had .DLLs that are not compatible with Win x64. You
were totally obsessed with Microsoft being responsible for
your mistake and appeared to have no concept of what was
really going on.


Denise wrote:
> Can't you write a post without insulting people?

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
=?Utf-8?B?RGVuaXNl?=
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-24-2007
You're missing the point of this thread. The author asked for opinions. He
did not ask for help. Also, I don't understand why you think that I'm
blaming anyone, let alone for my non-existent mistakes, except for purchasing
X64.

Your last post did nothing to help anyone, teach anyone or provide
assistance in any manner. Your entire post contains insults aimed at me.
You're contradicting yourself there, John. Is that the only manner in which
you and other defenders of X64 can use for the os that Microsoft dumped onto
the market in order to recoup its expenses when there are so many problems
with it?
--
Denise

~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're going.


"John Barnes" wrote:

> Can you write a post that doesn't blame everyone else for your mistakes?
> Asking for specific help and providing help is the purpose of these groups,
> not trolling for sympathy and ad hominem attacks.
>
> 'Whatever my reasons for having X64 are my own'
>
> True, but obviously not based on reason.(the power of being able to think in
> a logical and rational manner)
>
>
>
> "Denise" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >I don't want to argue. I replied to Royston H's request for opinions of
> >X64.
> > I gave mine and, since then, people have been arguing with me.
> >
> > Can't you write a post without insulting people?
> > --
> > Denise
> >
> > ~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're
> > going.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Theo" wrote:
> >
> >> The major difference is that I know most of the limitations
> >> of Win x64 and I utilize it for it's strengths. I did a lot
> >> of research looking for drivers and peripheral hardware that
> >> had x64 drivers. Yes, there are deficiencies in Win x64,
> >> but I haven't found any operating system that is perfect.
> >>
> >> Arguments are totally unnecessary. All anyone has to do is
> >> do research and evaluate whether Win x64 is appropriate for
> >> their situation. One of the best resources is Charlie
> >> Russel's paper on Win x64.
> >>
> >> It's like buying a vehicle. One researches the available
> >> products and determines which vehicle he/she wants. One
> >> doesn't buy a Ford and then complain because it isn't a Chevy.
> >>
> >> I definitely am not lost. I know exactly where I have been
> >> and I periodically evaluate my objects to determine if I am
> >> proceeding in a reasonable and logical manner to where I
> >> know I want to go.
> >>
> >> I have been using, repairing, building, setting up networks,
> >> and programming computers for long time. I have worked with
> >> CP/M, MS-DOS, OS/2, Unix, Linux, Apple OS, Atari OS, PDP/11
> >> OS, and many others.
> >>
> >> And, I guess you're right. If you want to throw a temper
> >> tantrum, scream and kick your feet, then you have every
> >> right to do so. Hope you feel better when you stop!
> >>
> >>
> >> Denise wrote:
> >> > In this thread, the person asked:
> >> >
> >> > "I'd like to hear from people who have used both in anger and see if
> >> > any
> >> > valid arguments exist for sticking with XP, say it's considerably more
> >> > stable etc, given that long term the future is with vista anyway."
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > You said:
> >> >
> >> > "If you want to come to this forum to honestly seek help with 64-bit
> >> > Windows
> >> > operating systems, then you're welcome. However, most of your posts
> >> > have been
> >> > to complain about and deride 64-bit Windows and Microsoft. That is not
> >> > constructive!"
> >> >
> >> > Given the request of the author of this thread, it's you who shouldn't
> >> > post
> >> > in this thread because you don't know what it's about. It appears that
> >> > it is
> >> > you who is confused and lost here, not I.
> >> >
> >> > I very much think that voicing my opinion regarding X64 is
> >> > constructive,
> >> > even if it wasn't the topic of conversation, but it is. People like
> >> > you will
> >> > defend X64 to your deaths and you give the illusion, as you've done
> >> > here,
> >> > that it's the user who is the cause of the problem when it's really
> >> > X64.
> >> > I've been using machines for 30 years, starting with the Wang Word
> >> > Processor,
> >> > graduating to DOS, and I then went on to Windows 95, 98, 2000 XP, so I
> >> > know a
> >> > lot about how operating systems should work and X64 is poor.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > You said:
> >> >
> >> > "If you think Microsoft is withholding critical information, then take
> >> > the
> >> > initiative to do some research."
> >> >
> >> > Most of the information on the internet regarding X64 was written by
> >> > people
> >> > like you who thinks that Microsoft's s*** doesn't stink. The
> >> > information
> >> > should have been on the package. I bought X64 more than a year ago
> >> > when
> >> > there was little to no critiques about it. I don't watch television so
> >> > my
> >> > choice to use X64 was based on the general consensus of opinion at the
> >> > that
> >> > it was the next generation of Windows. It very well is but it turned
> >> > out to
> >> > be a terrible one.
> >> >
> >> > In addition, you have no right to tell me or anyone else not to post in
> >> > these forums. By doing so, it sounds like you also want to cover up
> >> > something about X64 and it angers you to the point when you can't
> >> > discuss
> >> > this topic rationally, in a mature manner, without name-calling and
> >> > insults.
> >> > Those are the types of comments that are inappropriate in all threads,
> >> > not
> >> > opinions about Microsoft products.
> >>

>
>

 
Reply With Quote
 
=?Utf-8?B?RGVuaXNl?=
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-24-2007
You're grasping at straws there, Theo. We've moved on from there and, again,
that's not the point of this thread. When asked what one thinks of an os, to
mention .NET Framework is an example of a problem with the os. To state that
I'm "totally obsessed" with Microsoft being responsible for your mistake and
appeared to have no concept of what was really going on" makes no sense nor
does it address the topic of this thread. Again, your post was written
solely to insult me. Stay on track here, Theo. Royston wants to know what
we thing of X64 Pro and Vista X64, not about what you and others think about
me.

Again, I repeat, stay on topic.
--
Denise

~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're going.


"Theo" wrote:

> I got tired of you carrying on about how screwed up .NET
> Framework was when you were trying to run a 32-bit program
> that had .DLLs that are not compatible with Win x64. You
> were totally obsessed with Microsoft being responsible for
> your mistake and appeared to have no concept of what was
> really going on.
>
>
> Denise wrote:
> > Can't you write a post without insulting people?

>

 
Reply With Quote
 
John Barnes
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-24-2007
You are one of the few having problems with XP64. The large majority of
problems are due to incompatible hardware or software, which is NOT the
operating systems problem. Most of us had to replace hardware and software
that was not, and would never be made compatible. Microsoft may have
released XP64 to gauge their success in developing a 64-bit system, to help
with the Vista64 release later on, but as to recovering their expenses, you
must think they are complete business incompetents. The sales of the niche
system could hardly have been expected to make a dent in the associated
expenses. It was an investment in the future of computing. Good luck. I
am going back to my policy of not responding to trolls, so bye, bye and I
hope your next software purchase is a better experience.

Incidentally, it is easy to know where you are going without knowing where
you came from, what you need to know is where you are now.

"Denise" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> You're missing the point of this thread. The author asked for opinions.
> He
> did not ask for help. Also, I don't understand why you think that I'm
> blaming anyone, let alone for my non-existent mistakes, except for
> purchasing
> X64.
>
> Your last post did nothing to help anyone, teach anyone or provide
> assistance in any manner. Your entire post contains insults aimed at me.
> You're contradicting yourself there, John. Is that the only manner in
> which
> you and other defenders of X64 can use for the os that Microsoft dumped
> onto
> the market in order to recoup its expenses when there are so many problems
> with it?
> --
> Denise
>
> ~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're
> going.
>
>
> "John Barnes" wrote:
>
>> Can you write a post that doesn't blame everyone else for your mistakes?
>> Asking for specific help and providing help is the purpose of these
>> groups,
>> not trolling for sympathy and ad hominem attacks.
>>
>> 'Whatever my reasons for having X64 are my own'
>>
>> True, but obviously not based on reason.(the power of being able to think
>> in
>> a logical and rational manner)
>>
>>
>>
>> "Denise" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> >I don't want to argue. I replied to Royston H's request for opinions of
>> >X64.
>> > I gave mine and, since then, people have been arguing with me.
>> >
>> > Can't you write a post without insulting people?
>> > --
>> > Denise
>> >
>> > ~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're
>> > going.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > "Theo" wrote:
>> >
>> >> The major difference is that I know most of the limitations
>> >> of Win x64 and I utilize it for it's strengths. I did a lot
>> >> of research looking for drivers and peripheral hardware that
>> >> had x64 drivers. Yes, there are deficiencies in Win x64,
>> >> but I haven't found any operating system that is perfect.
>> >>
>> >> Arguments are totally unnecessary. All anyone has to do is
>> >> do research and evaluate whether Win x64 is appropriate for
>> >> their situation. One of the best resources is Charlie
>> >> Russel's paper on Win x64.
>> >>
>> >> It's like buying a vehicle. One researches the available
>> >> products and determines which vehicle he/she wants. One
>> >> doesn't buy a Ford and then complain because it isn't a Chevy.
>> >>
>> >> I definitely am not lost. I know exactly where I have been
>> >> and I periodically evaluate my objects to determine if I am
>> >> proceeding in a reasonable and logical manner to where I
>> >> know I want to go.
>> >>
>> >> I have been using, repairing, building, setting up networks,
>> >> and programming computers for long time. I have worked with
>> >> CP/M, MS-DOS, OS/2, Unix, Linux, Apple OS, Atari OS, PDP/11
>> >> OS, and many others.
>> >>
>> >> And, I guess you're right. If you want to throw a temper
>> >> tantrum, scream and kick your feet, then you have every
>> >> right to do so. Hope you feel better when you stop!
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Denise wrote:
>> >> > In this thread, the person asked:
>> >> >
>> >> > "I'd like to hear from people who have used both in anger and see if
>> >> > any
>> >> > valid arguments exist for sticking with XP, say it's considerably
>> >> > more
>> >> > stable etc, given that long term the future is with vista anyway."
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > You said:
>> >> >
>> >> > "If you want to come to this forum to honestly seek help with 64-bit
>> >> > Windows
>> >> > operating systems, then you're welcome. However, most of your posts
>> >> > have been
>> >> > to complain about and deride 64-bit Windows and Microsoft. That is
>> >> > not
>> >> > constructive!"
>> >> >
>> >> > Given the request of the author of this thread, it's you who
>> >> > shouldn't
>> >> > post
>> >> > in this thread because you don't know what it's about. It appears
>> >> > that
>> >> > it is
>> >> > you who is confused and lost here, not I.
>> >> >
>> >> > I very much think that voicing my opinion regarding X64 is
>> >> > constructive,
>> >> > even if it wasn't the topic of conversation, but it is. People like
>> >> > you will
>> >> > defend X64 to your deaths and you give the illusion, as you've done
>> >> > here,
>> >> > that it's the user who is the cause of the problem when it's really
>> >> > X64.
>> >> > I've been using machines for 30 years, starting with the Wang Word
>> >> > Processor,
>> >> > graduating to DOS, and I then went on to Windows 95, 98, 2000 XP, so
>> >> > I
>> >> > know a
>> >> > lot about how operating systems should work and X64 is poor.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > You said:
>> >> >
>> >> > "If you think Microsoft is withholding critical information, then
>> >> > take
>> >> > the
>> >> > initiative to do some research."
>> >> >
>> >> > Most of the information on the internet regarding X64 was written by
>> >> > people
>> >> > like you who thinks that Microsoft's s*** doesn't stink. The
>> >> > information
>> >> > should have been on the package. I bought X64 more than a year ago
>> >> > when
>> >> > there was little to no critiques about it. I don't watch television
>> >> > so
>> >> > my
>> >> > choice to use X64 was based on the general consensus of opinion at
>> >> > the
>> >> > that
>> >> > it was the next generation of Windows. It very well is but it
>> >> > turned
>> >> > out to
>> >> > be a terrible one.
>> >> >
>> >> > In addition, you have no right to tell me or anyone else not to post
>> >> > in
>> >> > these forums. By doing so, it sounds like you also want to cover up
>> >> > something about X64 and it angers you to the point when you can't
>> >> > discuss
>> >> > this topic rationally, in a mature manner, without name-calling and
>> >> > insults.
>> >> > Those are the types of comments that are inappropriate in all
>> >> > threads,
>> >> > not
>> >> > opinions about Microsoft products.
>> >>

>>
>>


 
Reply With Quote
 
=?Utf-8?B?RGVuaXNl?=
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-24-2007
Well, somebody finally admits that XP Pro X64 is a beta version of Vista X64!
Thank you!

You said:

"Most of us had to replace hardware and software
that was not, and would never be made compatible. "

This was never mentioned at the website where I purchased X64 or on the
package. This fact is major and it should have been stated up-front, the
fact that it's the beta version for Vista X64.


I didn't purchase X64 to make "an investment in the future of computing,"
but for my os." I'm not a guinea pig and I don't like to be treated as such.
Microsoft didn't mention this fact either.


I won't respond to your insults in your post. It seems that you and others
just can't help being rude, immature and blind.


I wish everyone good luck with X64 and I hope it doesn't sap your pockets
dry in order to convert your hardware and software to be compatible with X64.
--
Denise

~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're going.


"John Barnes" wrote:

> You are one of the few having problems with XP64. The large majority of
> problems are due to incompatible hardware or software, which is NOT the
> operating systems problem. Most of us had to replace hardware and software
> that was not, and would never be made compatible. Microsoft may have
> released XP64 to gauge their success in developing a 64-bit system, to help
> with the Vista64 release later on, but as to recovering their expenses, you
> must think they are complete business incompetents. The sales of the niche
> system could hardly have been expected to make a dent in the associated
> expenses. It was an investment in the future of computing. Good luck. I
> am going back to my policy of not responding to trolls, so bye, bye and I
> hope your next software purchase is a better experience.
>
> Incidentally, it is easy to know where you are going without knowing where
> you came from, what you need to know is where you are now.
>
> "Denise" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > You're missing the point of this thread. The author asked for opinions.
> > He
> > did not ask for help. Also, I don't understand why you think that I'm
> > blaming anyone, let alone for my non-existent mistakes, except for
> > purchasing
> > X64.
> >
> > Your last post did nothing to help anyone, teach anyone or provide
> > assistance in any manner. Your entire post contains insults aimed at me.
> > You're contradicting yourself there, John. Is that the only manner in
> > which
> > you and other defenders of X64 can use for the os that Microsoft dumped
> > onto
> > the market in order to recoup its expenses when there are so many problems
> > with it?
> > --
> > Denise
> >
> > ~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're
> > going.
> >
> >
> > "John Barnes" wrote:
> >
> >> Can you write a post that doesn't blame everyone else for your mistakes?
> >> Asking for specific help and providing help is the purpose of these
> >> groups,
> >> not trolling for sympathy and ad hominem attacks.
> >>
> >> 'Whatever my reasons for having X64 are my own'
> >>
> >> True, but obviously not based on reason.(the power of being able to think
> >> in
> >> a logical and rational manner)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "Denise" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> >I don't want to argue. I replied to Royston H's request for opinions of
> >> >X64.
> >> > I gave mine and, since then, people have been arguing with me.
> >> >
> >> > Can't you write a post without insulting people?
> >> > --
> >> > Denise
> >> >
> >> > ~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're
> >> > going.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "Theo" wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> The major difference is that I know most of the limitations
> >> >> of Win x64 and I utilize it for it's strengths. I did a lot
> >> >> of research looking for drivers and peripheral hardware that
> >> >> had x64 drivers. Yes, there are deficiencies in Win x64,
> >> >> but I haven't found any operating system that is perfect.
> >> >>
> >> >> Arguments are totally unnecessary. All anyone has to do is
> >> >> do research and evaluate whether Win x64 is appropriate for
> >> >> their situation. One of the best resources is Charlie
> >> >> Russel's paper on Win x64.
> >> >>
> >> >> It's like buying a vehicle. One researches the available
> >> >> products and determines which vehicle he/she wants. One
> >> >> doesn't buy a Ford and then complain because it isn't a Chevy.
> >> >>
> >> >> I definitely am not lost. I know exactly where I have been
> >> >> and I periodically evaluate my objects to determine if I am
> >> >> proceeding in a reasonable and logical manner to where I
> >> >> know I want to go.
> >> >>
> >> >> I have been using, repairing, building, setting up networks,
> >> >> and programming computers for long time. I have worked with
> >> >> CP/M, MS-DOS, OS/2, Unix, Linux, Apple OS, Atari OS, PDP/11
> >> >> OS, and many others.
> >> >>
> >> >> And, I guess you're right. If you want to throw a temper
> >> >> tantrum, scream and kick your feet, then you have every
> >> >> right to do so. Hope you feel better when you stop!
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Denise wrote:
> >> >> > In this thread, the person asked:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "I'd like to hear from people who have used both in anger and see if
> >> >> > any
> >> >> > valid arguments exist for sticking with XP, say it's considerably
> >> >> > more
> >> >> > stable etc, given that long term the future is with vista anyway."
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You said:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "If you want to come to this forum to honestly seek help with 64-bit
> >> >> > Windows
> >> >> > operating systems, then you're welcome. However, most of your posts
> >> >> > have been
> >> >> > to complain about and deride 64-bit Windows and Microsoft. That is
> >> >> > not
> >> >> > constructive!"
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Given the request of the author of this thread, it's you who
> >> >> > shouldn't
> >> >> > post
> >> >> > in this thread because you don't know what it's about. It appears
> >> >> > that
> >> >> > it is
> >> >> > you who is confused and lost here, not I.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I very much think that voicing my opinion regarding X64 is
> >> >> > constructive,
> >> >> > even if it wasn't the topic of conversation, but it is. People like
> >> >> > you will
> >> >> > defend X64 to your deaths and you give the illusion, as you've done
> >> >> > here,
> >> >> > that it's the user who is the cause of the problem when it's really
> >> >> > X64.
> >> >> > I've been using machines for 30 years, starting with the Wang Word
> >> >> > Processor,
> >> >> > graduating to DOS, and I then went on to Windows 95, 98, 2000 XP, so
> >> >> > I
> >> >> > know a
> >> >> > lot about how operating systems should work and X64 is poor.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You said:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "If you think Microsoft is withholding critical information, then
> >> >> > take
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > initiative to do some research."
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Most of the information on the internet regarding X64 was written by
> >> >> > people
> >> >> > like you who thinks that Microsoft's s*** doesn't stink. The
> >> >> > information
> >> >> > should have been on the package. I bought X64 more than a year ago
> >> >> > when
> >> >> > there was little to no critiques about it. I don't watch television
> >> >> > so
> >> >> > my
> >> >> > choice to use X64 was based on the general consensus of opinion at
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > that
> >> >> > it was the next generation of Windows. It very well is but it
> >> >> > turned
> >> >> > out to
> >> >> > be a terrible one.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > In addition, you have no right to tell me or anyone else not to post
> >> >> > in
> >> >> > these forums. By doing so, it sounds like you also want to cover up
> >> >> > something about X64 and it angers you to the point when you can't
> >> >> > discuss
> >> >> > this topic rationally, in a mature manner, without name-calling and
> >> >> > insults.
> >> >> > Those are the types of comments that are inappropriate in all
> >> >> > threads,
> >> >> > not
> >> >> > opinions about Microsoft products.
> >> >>
> >>
> >>

>
>

 
Reply With Quote
 
Chuck Walbourn [MSFT]
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-25-2007
> Well, somebody finally admits that XP Pro X64 is a beta version of Vista
> X64!
> Thank you!


Until there was a Windows x64 Edition, there was no way driver writers or
software developers could actually support x64. The investments in Windows
XP Pro x64 Edition and Windows Server 2003 SP1 x64 Edition were made to help
get the whole ecosystem going for Windows 64-bit. We had a very extended
Beta for Windows XP Pro x64 Edition trying to give third parties as much
time as possible to get their support in place, but by in large most of them
ignored it. That's their decision and choice, not Microsoft. Windows XP Pro
x64 Edition was never released as a retail product and was only available
through the OEM channel to help minimize the potential end-user problems
from having limited driver support from third parties. Again, there's not
much Microsoft can do about people choosing to buy it and install it without
having done the necessary research.

I've been running Windows XP Pro x64 Edition at work for nearly three years
and it works perfectly fine as long as I recognize that most third parties
are completely ignoring it. The CPU vendors have done their part selling x64
CPUs for years. Microsoft has done their part releasing an OS that supports
x64 in early 2005, putting out software development tools for 64-bit native
development, and pushing x64 compataiblity through logo programs and its own
software development efforts. After that, it's up to customer demand and
third parties to make x64 a success. Without a version of Windows 64-bit and
customers using it, no third party was going to do anything to support it.
It's a classic technology problem, and the transition will be with us for
many years to come.


> It seems that you and Adobe Acrobat disagree about it's ability to run in
> an
> X64 os.
>
> http://kb.adobe.com/selfservice/view...1732&sliceId=2


Basically Adobe is saying "we didn't bother to write 64-bit native printer
drivers or a 64-bit ActiveX control for Acrobat 7.0.x". They were prefectly
capable of doing so, they just chose not to as they probably felt there
wasn't enough customer demand. This is not a problem with Microsoft or
Windows 64-bit, but a general approach businesses take towards new
technology: We'll do the minimum until we have to do something else.

Please let Adobe (or any other third party supplier of software/hardware
device) know that you feel their lack of full support of Windows 64-bit is a
problem. Until they have enough customers telling them to do it, they won't
bother to put in the extra effort. Venting here or at Microsoft is blaming
the wrong party for the lack of support.

--
Chuck Walbourn
SDE, XNA Developer Connection

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.


 
Reply With Quote
 
=?Utf-8?B?RGVuaXNl?=
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-25-2007
I understand your logic and it makes sense to a certain point, but as you
said, "We had a very extended Beta for Windows XP Pro x64 Edition trying to
give third parties as much time as possible to get their support in place,
but by in large most of them
ignored it." So it stopped making sense at that point. There was a
specific reason(s) why third parties didn't get support in place. They are
out to make money themselves. If X64 would have given them the opportunity
to make money, they wouldn't have chosen to ignore getting their support in
place. I consistently feel that "something is rotten in the state of
Denmark," but I won't pursue it any longer. For now, I have what I need. If
X64 doesn't work out, I'll reformat to 2000 XP Pro.

Your post afforded the opportunity for exchanging thoughts and facts, and I
appreciate that.

The reason I mentioned Adobe Acrobat is because someone posted that Adobe
Acrobat works with her X64 os. Whether or not Adobe writes 64-bit native
printer
drivers or a 64-bit ActiveX control for Acrobat 7.0.x doesn't matter to me.
I use FoxIt and it works well with a X64 os.

AMD has a 64-bit firmware update for my CPU. When I attempted to install it
several times, I always received messages that "Setup.exe has failed . . ."
Today, I reformatted my computer two times to get the CPU firmware updated
and it finally worked the second time. These types of problems never
occurred with the other versions of Windows, or at least I never had such
problems. Since it was a Microsoft error message, the reason the CPU
firmware update couldn't be installed was the fault of Microsoft's X64 os.
Since I was able to install the updated 64-bit CPU firmware after I
reformatted the second time tells me that X64 isn't working properly.
Something is missing in X64.
--
Denise

~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're going.


"Chuck Walbourn [MSFT]" wrote:

> > Well, somebody finally admits that XP Pro X64 is a beta version of Vista
> > X64!
> > Thank you!

>
> Until there was a Windows x64 Edition, there was no way driver writers or
> software developers could actually support x64. The investments in Windows
> XP Pro x64 Edition and Windows Server 2003 SP1 x64 Edition were made to help
> get the whole ecosystem going for Windows 64-bit. We had a very extended
> Beta for Windows XP Pro x64 Edition trying to give third parties as much
> time as possible to get their support in place, but by in large most of them
> ignored it. That's their decision and choice, not Microsoft. Windows XP Pro
> x64 Edition was never released as a retail product and was only available
> through the OEM channel to help minimize the potential end-user problems
> from having limited driver support from third parties. Again, there's not
> much Microsoft can do about people choosing to buy it and install it without
> having done the necessary research.
>
> I've been running Windows XP Pro x64 Edition at work for nearly three years
> and it works perfectly fine as long as I recognize that most third parties
> are completely ignoring it. The CPU vendors have done their part selling x64
> CPUs for years. Microsoft has done their part releasing an OS that supports
> x64 in early 2005, putting out software development tools for 64-bit native
> development, and pushing x64 compataiblity through logo programs and its own
> software development efforts. After that, it's up to customer demand and
> third parties to make x64 a success. Without a version of Windows 64-bit and
> customers using it, no third party was going to do anything to support it.
> It's a classic technology problem, and the transition will be with us for
> many years to come.
>
>
> > It seems that you and Adobe Acrobat disagree about it's ability to run in
> > an
> > X64 os.
> >
> > http://kb.adobe.com/selfservice/view...1732&sliceId=2

>
> Basically Adobe is saying "we didn't bother to write 64-bit native printer
> drivers or a 64-bit ActiveX control for Acrobat 7.0.x". They were prefectly
> capable of doing so, they just chose not to as they probably felt there
> wasn't enough customer demand. This is not a problem with Microsoft or
> Windows 64-bit, but a general approach businesses take towards new
> technology: We'll do the minimum until we have to do something else.
>
> Please let Adobe (or any other third party supplier of software/hardware
> device) know that you feel their lack of full support of Windows 64-bit is a
> problem. Until they have enough customers telling them to do it, they won't
> bother to put in the extra effort. Venting here or at Microsoft is blaming
> the wrong party for the lack of support.
>
> --
> Chuck Walbourn
> SDE, XNA Developer Connection
>
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
>
>
>

 
Reply With Quote
 
Charlie Russel - MVP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-26-2007
Chuck, I couldn't agree more. Like you, I've been running XP x64 full time
for quite a while - got my first x64 capable box in January of 2005, and
haven't looked back since. I've had a remarkably stable and well performing
system. That box is still running XP x64 (now in a dual boot with LH 64),
and has only had one re-install. When I went from the RC code to the RTM
version, I did a clean, fresh install. Of course, I buy hardware with betas
and new OSs in mind, and do my homework on drivers, etc.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel


"Chuck Walbourn [MSFT]" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:46a6a3a7$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Well, somebody finally admits that XP Pro X64 is a beta version of Vista
>> X64!
>> Thank you!

>
> Until there was a Windows x64 Edition, there was no way driver writers or
> software developers could actually support x64. The investments in Windows
> XP Pro x64 Edition and Windows Server 2003 SP1 x64 Edition were made to
> help get the whole ecosystem going for Windows 64-bit. We had a very
> extended Beta for Windows XP Pro x64 Edition trying to give third parties
> as much time as possible to get their support in place, but by in large
> most of them ignored it. That's their decision and choice, not Microsoft.
> Windows XP Pro x64 Edition was never released as a retail product and was
> only available through the OEM channel to help minimize the potential
> end-user problems from having limited driver support from third parties.
> Again, there's not much Microsoft can do about people choosing to buy it
> and install it without having done the necessary research.
>
> I've been running Windows XP Pro x64 Edition at work for nearly three
> years and it works perfectly fine as long as I recognize that most third
> parties are completely ignoring it. The CPU vendors have done their part
> selling x64 CPUs for years. Microsoft has done their part releasing an OS
> that supports x64 in early 2005, putting out software development tools
> for 64-bit native development, and pushing x64 compataiblity through logo
> programs and its own software development efforts. After that, it's up to
> customer demand and third parties to make x64 a success. Without a version
> of Windows 64-bit and customers using it, no third party was going to do
> anything to support it. It's a classic technology problem, and the
> transition will be with us for many years to come.
>
>
>> It seems that you and Adobe Acrobat disagree about it's ability to run in
>> an
>> X64 os.
>>
>> http://kb.adobe.com/selfservice/view...1732&sliceId=2

>
> Basically Adobe is saying "we didn't bother to write 64-bit native printer
> drivers or a 64-bit ActiveX control for Acrobat 7.0.x". They were
> prefectly capable of doing so, they just chose not to as they probably
> felt there wasn't enough customer demand. This is not a problem with
> Microsoft or Windows 64-bit, but a general approach businesses take
> towards new technology: We'll do the minimum until we have to do something
> else.
>
> Please let Adobe (or any other third party supplier of software/hardware
> device) know that you feel their lack of full support of Windows 64-bit is
> a problem. Until they have enough customers telling them to do it, they
> won't bother to put in the extra effort. Venting here or at Microsoft is
> blaming the wrong party for the lack of support.
>
> --
> Chuck Walbourn
> SDE, XNA Developer Connection
>
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights.
>


 
Reply With Quote
 
=?Utf-8?B?RGVuaXNl?=
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-26-2007
It's too bad that Microsoft didn't state on the package or in its advertising
13 months ago, when I purchased it, that X64 wasn't compatible with existing
hardware and software. Considering whether existing hardware would be
compatible when upgrading from Windows 95, to 98, to XP Home, and to 2000 XP
Pro wasn't an issue. Not everyone has the money to buy new hardware and
software when they upgrade their os. Since it appears that you have pretty
good cash flow to continuously purchase new hardware and software with betas
and new operating systems in mind, maybe you can put some of it to use by
giving third parties the initiative to get their support in place. As the
author of this thread has had sufficient time to see how Vista X64 and Pro
X64 work, he was smart to inquire about the others' opinions of the two
64-bit programs. It is the way I would have done it 13 months ago when I
purchased XP Pro X64 but the opinion of all people, such as yourself, made be
feel secure that X64 was compatible with hardware and software that I
purchased to build my computer.

So for all those who don't have a lot of money to continuously purchase new
hardware and software that is needed for a 64-bit system, stick with your
32-bit system until you can afford it because it can get expensive. Updated
drivers sometimes aren't sufficient for 32-bit hardware and software, such as
my new all-in-one printer that no longer has the scanning and faxing
capabilities that it had with my 32-bit system. The updated 64-bit driver
"fixes" the scanning function but, ironically, it won't scan to a Microsoft
Word document.

I wonder how many people, other than MVP's and "computer gurus", understand
most of Charlie's statement:

"That box is still running XP x64 (now in a dual boot with LH 64),
and has only had one re-install. When I went from the RC code to the RTM
version, I did a clean, fresh install."

This past week, I formatted my computer two times because X64 could not
install the new CPU firmware that I had.

http://forums.majorgeeks.com/showthread.php?t=130536

It's no surprise that you would agree with other Microsoft MVP's in this
matter Charlie. It's your responsibility to do so.
--
Denise

~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're going.





"Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote:

> Chuck, I couldn't agree more. Like you, I've been running XP x64 full time
> for quite a while - got my first x64 capable box in January of 2005, and
> haven't looked back since. I've had a remarkably stable and well performing
> system. That box is still running XP x64 (now in a dual boot with LH 64),
> and has only had one re-install. When I went from the RC code to the RTM
> version, I did a clean, fresh install. Of course, I buy hardware with betas
> and new OSs in mind, and do my homework on drivers, etc.
>
> --
> Charlie.
> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>
>
> "Chuck Walbourn [MSFT]" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:46a6a3a7$(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> Well, somebody finally admits that XP Pro X64 is a beta version of Vista
> >> X64!
> >> Thank you!

> >
> > Until there was a Windows x64 Edition, there was no way driver writers or
> > software developers could actually support x64. The investments in Windows
> > XP Pro x64 Edition and Windows Server 2003 SP1 x64 Edition were made to
> > help get the whole ecosystem going for Windows 64-bit. We had a very
> > extended Beta for Windows XP Pro x64 Edition trying to give third parties
> > as much time as possible to get their support in place, but by in large
> > most of them ignored it. That's their decision and choice, not Microsoft.
> > Windows XP Pro x64 Edition was never released as a retail product and was
> > only available through the OEM channel to help minimize the potential
> > end-user problems from having limited driver support from third parties.
> > Again, there's not much Microsoft can do about people choosing to buy it
> > and install it without having done the necessary research.
> >
> > I've been running Windows XP Pro x64 Edition at work for nearly three
> > years and it works perfectly fine as long as I recognize that most third
> > parties are completely ignoring it. The CPU vendors have done their part
> > selling x64 CPUs for years. Microsoft has done their part releasing an OS
> > that supports x64 in early 2005, putting out software development tools
> > for 64-bit native development, and pushing x64 compataiblity through logo
> > programs and its own software development efforts. After that, it's up to
> > customer demand and third parties to make x64 a success. Without a version
> > of Windows 64-bit and customers using it, no third party was going to do
> > anything to support it. It's a classic technology problem, and the
> > transition will be with us for many years to come.
> >
> >
> >> It seems that you and Adobe Acrobat disagree about it's ability to run in
> >> an
> >> X64 os.
> >>
> >> http://kb.adobe.com/selfservice/view...1732&sliceId=2

> >
> > Basically Adobe is saying "we didn't bother to write 64-bit native printer
> > drivers or a 64-bit ActiveX control for Acrobat 7.0.x". They were
> > prefectly capable of doing so, they just chose not to as they probably
> > felt there wasn't enough customer demand. This is not a problem with
> > Microsoft or Windows 64-bit, but a general approach businesses take
> > towards new technology: We'll do the minimum until we have to do something
> > else.
> >
> > Please let Adobe (or any other third party supplier of software/hardware
> > device) know that you feel their lack of full support of Windows 64-bit is
> > a problem. Until they have enough customers telling them to do it, they
> > won't bother to put in the extra effort. Venting here or at Microsoft is
> > blaming the wrong party for the lack of support.
> >
> > --
> > Chuck Walbourn
> > SDE, XNA Developer Connection
> >
> > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> > rights.
> >

>

 
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
CrystalCPUID Pure x64 Edition 4.8.2.311 (Vista/XP x64) =?Utf-8?B?Q2FybG9z?= Windows 64bit 2 09-21-2006 07:05 PM
Newbies Please Read: This is NOT a Windows Vista Newsgroup, it is however a Windows XP X64 Edition Newsgroup. Windows 64bit 16 06-27-2006 03:17 PM
64 bit - Windows Liberty 64bit, Windows Limited Edition 64 Bit, Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Developer Edition 64 Bit, IBM DB2 64 bit - new ! vvcd Computer Support 0 09-17-2004 08:15 PM
64 bit - Windows Liberty 64bit, Windows Limited Edition 64 Bit,Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Developer Edition 64 Bit, IBM DB2 64 bit - new! Ionizer Computer Support 1 01-01-2004 07:27 PM
64 bit - Windows Liberty 64bit, Windows Limited Edition 64 Bit, Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Developer Edition 64 Bit - new ! TEL NZ Computing 0 12-31-2003 06:00 PM



Advertisments