«

You purchased an OEM or System Builder version. As such, you or your OEM are
responsible for support and due diligence. That's why it's not a retail
version.

No, I don't have cash flow to buy new hardware. But when I _do_ buy
hardware, I buy with interoperability in mind. I buy printers, for example,
that don't require special drivers - they're standard, network connected,
PCL5 and PS enabled, printers. They work with everything. And I keep them
for years. I've had my current HP printer for 5 or 6 years, and I can print
to it from any version of windows, from Linux, from UNIX, and from a Mac.
Without loading any special drivers. That's simply a matter of spending
money wisely. Yes, that printer cost me a bit more originally - probably an
extra $150 though I don't specifically remember. But it's still going
strong.

As for third parties? I have a long history of spending my money only with
companies who do the right thing. And I write about it and make
recommendations based on that.

I'd suggest that you should stop blaming everyone else and get on with it.
This forum is for helping users. That's why I come here, on my own time, and
my own dime - to help build this community and provide support for people
who want and need it. I've been doing that every day for over two years.
While running x64 XP and Vista on my main machines. And yes, I've certainly
had more than one strong discussion with a vendor who didn't provide the
support I thought they should. Including MS. But ultimately, I make my
point, make my decision, and move on.

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


"Denise" <> wrote in message
news:223E95FF-29DF-45B7-8B1F-...
> 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]" <> wrote in message
>> news:46a6a3a7$...
>> >> 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.
>> >
>>

Oh, and one thing. I am proud of being an MVP - it's a recognition that I
don't ask for but that is all about my contributions. However, it does
absolutely nothing to change what I say about MS, nor does it constrain me
in any way. My opinions are my own, they always have been, and always will
be. I've disagreed with MVPs, I've disagreed with MS, and I'm sure I will
again. Being an MVP doesn't mean I (or any other) has to support MS on any
specific point. My award as an MVP is annual, and only recognizes my
contributions LAST year. not anything I may say or do this year. We're
independent (and often VERY independent) of Microsoft. And will always be
so.

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


"Denise" <> wrote in message
news:223E95FF-29DF-45B7-8B1F-...
> 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]" <> wrote in message
>> news:46a6a3a7$...
>> >> 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.
>> >
>>

Denise <> wrote:

> 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.

I sympathize with you, I've been on that exact same road when I tried
to upgrade from Windows 98se to Windows 2000.

I had to bite (byte? <G>) the bullet and scrap a VERY expensive bit of
hardware because Windows 2000 and later wouldn't support it. However,
I realized the problem was NOT MICROSOFT! The problem was Epson's
refusal to write a driver for a scanner that had cost $1,200 only two
years previously.

I'm not angry with Microsoft, it's not their fault that Epson decided I
had to buy a new scanner and guess what brand I didn't consider when
choosing my new scanner?

There's a certain amount of preparation involved in changing to a new
OS and that involves the old standard RTFM* and as I often explain to
newbies, RTFM includes these newsgroups! Only then can you have enough
information to make an informed decision and, in my case, the decision
to install Vista 64 was to dual boot until I could be sure that
everything would work in the new OS.

Again, I'm very sorry you had to learn the hard way but you really
can't blame anyone but yourself and please take this from one who did
exactly the same thing you have done and also had to learn the hard
way...



*RTFM = "Read The Fine Manual" <-Luu Tran

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

All bases have been covered here. I don't think there's a point that hasn't
been brought up and posted.

I just formatted my computer two times two days ago. If I have a file that
I want to copy to another drive, when I attempt to change the name of it, I
receive a message that the file is in use, even though it's not in use. It
finished copying and it's not open. When I reboot, I still can't change the
name because I receive the message that the file is in use. X64 is bad news.
I wanted to give X64 another chance by formatting my pc with X64. I had to
do it two times in order to update the CPU driver. I also downloaded and
installed new drivers for the chipset, audio and video. The audio is fine
but the video has problems. I have automatic updates turned on and all of
them have been installed, including SP2. I don't have Excel or Access
installed in my pc but Microsoft uploads updates for them I'll be formatting
it to 32-bit Windows 2000 XP Pro in a few weeks when I have a couple of days
to format it and install my programs. I'll try X64 next year and see how
things go.

I don't know why you accused me of blaming anyone for the problems that I
have with X64 . . . I have never done that.

This forum may be for helping others but this thread requested opinions of
the two X64 operating system, not for help with it. Everyone seems to miss
that point or they choose to ignore it.

You've made your point, so move on, as you claim you do.
--
Denise

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





"Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote:

> You purchased an OEM or System Builder version. As such, you or your OEM are
> responsible for support and due diligence. That's why it's not a retail
> version.
>
> No, I don't have cash flow to buy new hardware. But when I _do_ buy
> hardware, I buy with interoperability in mind. I buy printers, for example,
> that don't require special drivers - they're standard, network connected,
> PCL5 and PS enabled, printers. They work with everything. And I keep them
> for years. I've had my current HP printer for 5 or 6 years, and I can print
> to it from any version of windows, from Linux, from UNIX, and from a Mac.
> Without loading any special drivers. That's simply a matter of spending
> money wisely. Yes, that printer cost me a bit more originally - probably an
> extra $150 though I don't specifically remember. But it's still going
> strong.
>
> As for third parties? I have a long history of spending my money only with
> companies who do the right thing. And I write about it and make
> recommendations based on that.
>
> I'd suggest that you should stop blaming everyone else and get on with it.
> This forum is for helping users. That's why I come here, on my own time, and
> my own dime - to help build this community and provide support for people
> who want and need it. I've been doing that every day for over two years.
> While running x64 XP and Vista on my main machines. And yes, I've certainly
> had more than one strong discussion with a vendor who didn't provide the
> support I thought they should. Including MS. But ultimately, I make my
> point, make my decision, and move on.
>
> --
> Charlie.
> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>
>
> "Denise" <> wrote in message
> news:223E95FF-29DF-45B7-8B1F-...
> > 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]" <> wrote in message
> >> news:46a6a3a7$...
> >> >> 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.
> >> >
> >>
>

I have never had to purchase new hardware or software when I updated from one
operating system to another, except for X64. I do blame Microsoft because it
gave no warning that it isn't compatible with hardware, software, drivers and
firmware. If these problems had not been hidden by Microsoft, then I would
accept the blame, but no such warnings were given. I learned that Microsoft
will not reveal all the facts regarding its software, so buyer beware.
--
Denise

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





"XS11E" wrote:

> Denise <> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> I sympathize with you, I've been on that exact same road when I tried
> to upgrade from Windows 98se to Windows 2000.
>
> I had to bite (byte? <G>) the bullet and scrap a VERY expensive bit of
> hardware because Windows 2000 and later wouldn't support it. However,
> I realized the problem was NOT MICROSOFT! The problem was Epson's
> refusal to write a driver for a scanner that had cost $1,200 only two
> years previously.
>
> I'm not angry with Microsoft, it's not their fault that Epson decided I
> had to buy a new scanner and guess what brand I didn't consider when
> choosing my new scanner?
>
> There's a certain amount of preparation involved in changing to a new
> OS and that involves the old standard RTFM* and as I often explain to
> newbies, RTFM includes these newsgroups! Only then can you have enough
> information to make an informed decision and, in my case, the decision
> to install Vista 64 was to dual boot until I could be sure that
> everything would work in the new OS.
>
> Again, I'm very sorry you had to learn the hard way but you really
> can't blame anyone but yourself and please take this from one who did
> exactly the same thing you have done and also had to learn the hard
> way...
>
>
>
> *RTFM = "Read The Fine Manual" <-Luu Tran
>
> --
> XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
> The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
>

Denise <> wrote:

> I have never had to purchase new hardware or software when I
> updated from one operating system to another, except for X64. I
> do blame Microsoft because it gave no warning that it isn't
> compatible with hardware, software, drivers and firmware. If
> these problems had not been hidden by Microsoft, then I would
> accept the blame, but no such warnings were given. I learned that
> Microsoft will not reveal all the facts regarding its software, so
> buyer beware.

Denise, that's really hogwash and you know it. Nothing is/was hidden,
it's up to you do do your homework.



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

Hear, hear.

"Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
news:C5072410-0638-4647-9E1D-...
> Oh, and one thing. I am proud of being an MVP - it's a recognition that I
> don't ask for but that is all about my contributions. However, it does
> absolutely nothing to change what I say about MS, nor does it constrain me
> in any way. My opinions are my own, they always have been, and always will
> be. I've disagreed with MVPs, I've disagreed with MS, and I'm sure I will
> again. Being an MVP doesn't mean I (or any other) has to support MS on any
> specific point. My award as an MVP is annual, and only recognizes my
> contributions LAST year. not anything I may say or do this year. We're
> independent (and often VERY independent) of Microsoft. And will always be
> so.
>
> --
> Charlie.
> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>
>
> "Denise" <> wrote in message
> news:223E95FF-29DF-45B7-8B1F-...
>> 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]" <> wrote in message
>>> news:46a6a3a7$...
>>> >> 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.
>>> >
>>>
>

If you never had to buy new ware's when you changed over, that has to be
because you were a late adopter. Everybody else (all the early adopters)
have consistently had problems with all the new OS's.

Can you remember Windows 3.0? It came on 13 Floppies - 5 of which were
printer drivers, if I'm not mistaken. That is why MS came up with the notion
of 'Device Independency'. This concept means that Microsoft takes care of
maintaining a 'Subsystem' for which everybody who wants to have their
hardware to function with the particular OS has to supply their own driver
that is now an integral part of the hardware. And MS wasn't even doing this
based on it's power to dictate. At that time Word Perfect was released on 9
Floppies 3 of which were pretty much the same printer drivers, but they were
not compatible because one worked from the OS's side, and the other worked
from the user's side. This was an unmentionable nuicance to everybody and
the whole industry drew a sigh of relief in view of the new order.

Unfortunately this also meant that the hardware manufacturers could now
decide how fast their products was aging, so if you have been hanging on to
some valuable hardware for some time you may unknowingly have sheilded
yourself from this impact. But it's not new. We are all frustrated about it
when it hits us, but it is far better than what it used to be like.

It's nice to have someone around that you can allways blame whenever
something goes wrong, but Microsoft cannot tell the hardware manufacturers
when one of their products are old enough to be scrapped. If you feel left
behind, learn to blame the guilty party, the one that sucks up your cash by
not supporting the OS that you invested in. There is nothing wrong with the
OS, you made a reasonable investment - the lacking support only starts after
the OS is released and MS cannot be blamed for that, even if the rest of
us - sitting around in the glow of our monitors, may sometimes think to
ourselves that they are in cahoots (which they are) but your trouble doesn't
start there. MS makes a wonderful product, if nobody buys it, it dies, and
you'll have saved your money. On the other hand, if everybody buys it but
all the printer manufacturers chose not to support it, it dies too and your
money is wasted. That is how it really works. Can you begin to imagine now,
the amount of defunct hardware that sits between all of us here.

Now I am really ****ed off with MS for having sold me a joystick that they
decided to discontinue. As with all other hardware the joystick needs a
driver - this driver MS wrote and supplied with the 'stick', but when they
discontinued the hardware, they also didn't write any updates for the driver
so now I am stranded with a joystick that doesn't have a driver for the OS
that I bought from Microsoft. As a revenge I promptly installed my legal
copy of XP Home on two different machines, so that I could put my valued
joystick, not just to good use - but to any use. That's how much of a MS fan
I am - but XP x64 really is a wonderful OS.


Tony. . .

Oh Blah blah!

Your status as MVP has nothing to do with this thread. Stay on topic.

I'm a mother who raised two children. One is an LPN and taking courses to
become an RN. She then plans to continue her education to become a
physician's assistant. She's married, works full time and has a 5 year old
son.

My son became of member of the National Honor Society in his Freshman year .
.. . the first Freshman to become a member of the NHS in six years. In his
Sophmore year, he was elected President of the National Honor Society and
remained President of the NHS in his Junior and Senior years. He was elected
as Student Body President in his Sophmore year and remained Study Body
President through his Senior year. He graduated with 75% of the honors
during graduation ceremony and received a full two year scholarship from our
local community college.

Me? I was just the mother who raised them with the character, morals,
drive, love and zest for life, to excel in all things and to do their best in
all that they do, nothing half-hearted, to become a credit to society and to
give back to it as much as they could.

I just figured if you could stray from the topic, so could I. At least I
accomplished something well worth mentioning, not something as paultry as
knowing a lot about computers.

Since you claim to know so much about computers, tell me why I can't change
the name of a file that's not in use. Tell me why my settings keep changing.
Tell me why I couldn't update the firmware for my CPU without reformatting
it two times. My hdd, CPU and mobo are compatible and they were made to be
compatible with X64, so why don't they work?

Tell the author of this thread which os is better . . . Vista or XP Pro!
--
Denise

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


"John Barnes" wrote:

> Hear, hear.
>
> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
> news:C5072410-0638-4647-9E1D-...
> > Oh, and one thing. I am proud of being an MVP - it's a recognition that I
> > don't ask for but that is all about my contributions. However, it does
> > absolutely nothing to change what I say about MS, nor does it constrain me
> > in any way. My opinions are my own, they always have been, and always will
> > be. I've disagreed with MVPs, I've disagreed with MS, and I'm sure I will
> > again. Being an MVP doesn't mean I (or any other) has to support MS on any
> > specific point. My award as an MVP is annual, and only recognizes my
> > contributions LAST year. not anything I may say or do this year. We're
> > independent (and often VERY independent) of Microsoft. And will always be
> > so.
> >
> > --
> > Charlie.
> > http://msmvps.com/xperts64
> > http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
> >
> >
> > "Denise" <> wrote in message
> > news:223E95FF-29DF-45B7-8B1F-...
> >> 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]" <> wrote in message
> >>> news:46a6a3a7$...
> >>> >> 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.
> >>> >
> >>>
> >
>
>

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


"John Barnes" <> wrote in message
news:%...
> Hear, hear.
>
> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
> news:C5072410-0638-4647-9E1D-...
>> Oh, and one thing. I am proud of being an MVP - it's a recognition that I
>> don't ask for but that is all about my contributions. However, it does
>> absolutely nothing to change what I say about MS, nor does it constrain
>> me in any way. My opinions are my own, they always have been, and always
>> will be. I've disagreed with MVPs, I've disagreed with MS, and I'm sure I
>> will again. Being an MVP doesn't mean I (or any other) has to support MS
>> on any specific point. My award as an MVP is annual, and only recognizes
>> my contributions LAST year. not anything I may say or do this year. We're
>> independent (and often VERY independent) of Microsoft. And will always be
>> so.
>>
>> --
>> Charlie.
>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>
>>
>> "Denise" <> wrote in message
>> news:223E95FF-29DF-45B7-8B1F-...
>>> 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]" <> wrote in message
>>>> news:46a6a3a7$...
>>>> >> 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.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>
>