«

My 120 days of eval are nearly up.

I have found the XP 64 bit version of windows the most stable and reliable
version of Windows I've ever used and have had only one BSOD when I was
overclocking my graphics card, so not really a microsoft o/s issue.

I mainly use the computer for office applications, photoshop, video editing
and playing FSX.

Given that I can get an OEM copy of Vista 64 bit for less than the OEM 64bit
XP pro, I am likely to run with Vista.

I'd like to hear from people who have used both in anger and see if any
valid arguements exist for sticking with XP, say it's considerably more
stable etc, given that long term the future is with vista anyway.

Thanks

Royston H

On 13-Jul-2007, =?Utf-8?B?Um95c3RvbiBI?=
<> wrote:

> I'd like to hear from people who have used both in anger and see if any
> valid arguements exist for sticking with XP, say it's considerably more
> stable etc, given that long term the future is with vista anyway.

How's this for waffleing. You will be happy with either. I've used both
and last night, finally wiped all my drives and installed Vista.

I'm going to miss XP x64 though.

OK I take your point

I did stick with Windows 2000 till SP2 came out for XP on the grounds of
stability

Thanks

"Sam Crawford" wrote:

>
> On 13-Jul-2007, =?Utf-8?B?Um95c3RvbiBI?=
> <> wrote:
>
> > I'd like to hear from people who have used both in anger and see if any
> > valid arguements exist for sticking with XP, say it's considerably more
> > stable etc, given that long term the future is with vista anyway.
>
> How's this for waffleing. You will be happy with either. I've used both
> and last night, finally wiped all my drives and installed Vista.
>
> I'm going to miss XP x64 though.
>

I'm considering reformatting my hard drive to get rid of XP Pro X64 and going
back to a 32-bit system. Too many programs aren't compatible with X64.
iexplore 64-bit is installed but Microsoft makes iexplore 32-bit the default
because 64-bit doesn't work. Moving and copying files is very slow and, when
I Googled this problem, it seems a number of people have the same problem.
To me, it looks like X64 was introduced to the market in order to recoup the
research money put into it but with full knowledge that it has a lot of kinks
that need to be worked out.

I don't know anything about Vista, but I'm going to wait a few years in
order to see what Microsoft does with it, or if Microsoft moves on to
something else.
--
Denise

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

Perhaps a good decision - on the other hand your work should make good use
of the memory resources provided by XP x64. One alternative might be to have
someone you trust build you a machine to your spec's and using first rate
components all around, you seem to have too many issues - usually, an
indication of bad management or bad hardware. I tend to believe it's the
latter. The basic stability most of us find in XP x64, will not carry over
onto every other piece of hardware you buy over the counter. The system is
built from the Server base and employing it means to give it some Server
quality hardware to run on. Then it should reward you in a proper manner -
if not, you may just be unlucky to have found the precise mix of soft &
hardware that triggers this misbehavior.

Have you tried flashing your BIOS, (if an upgrade exists)?


Tony. . .


"Denise" <> wrote in message
news:ADCDAF30-B305-4762-BAA8-...
> I'm considering reformatting my hard drive to get rid of XP Pro X64 and
going
> back to a 32-bit system. Too many programs aren't compatible with X64.
> iexplore 64-bit is installed but Microsoft makes iexplore 32-bit the
default
> because 64-bit doesn't work. Moving and copying files is very slow and,
when
> I Googled this problem, it seems a number of people have the same problem.
> To me, it looks like X64 was introduced to the market in order to recoup
the
> research money put into it but with full knowledge that it has a lot of
kinks
> that need to be worked out.
>
> I don't know anything about Vista, but I'm going to wait a few years in
> order to see what Microsoft does with it, or if Microsoft moves on to
> something else.
> --
> Denise
>
> ~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're
going.
>

You're very quick to insult and jab, aren't you? Rude, too.

I have

- Biostar TFORCE 6100-939 mobo which supports dual channel ddr
- AMD Athlon 64 3200+ 2.0GHz / 512KB Cache / 1000MHz FSB / Venice /
Hyper-Transport / OEM / Socket 939 / Processor
- 2 twin sticks of 1G RAM
- Corsair 620W PSU
- Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 SATA 3.0Gb/s 320-GB hard drive

Which piece of hardware do you think is bad, or a combination?

Are they the best of everything? More than likely not, but they're very
good and run well together. If I decide to install Windows XP Pro 32-bit,
I'm sure I'll find out that X64 has caused the problems that I have.

BTW, are you employed by Microsoft to try to discredit anyone who speaks
against its products? I can't think of any other reason for your poor
attitude and manners.

Regarding programs/files that aren't compatible with an 64-bit os, off the
top of my head, I can think of . . .

- Adobe Acrobat
- Winword (Microsoft's very own!)
- iexpolorer 64-bit (again, Microsoft's very own!)
- Avast
- Soundman
- ctfmon (a Microsoft Office XP program that runs in the background, even
after you quit all Office programs!)
- Sun Microsystem's Java2 suite
- Webshots
- Maxtor One Touch

Which programs in my pc are causing problems with my 64-bit os? Well,
Microsoft didn't and/or won't say, but it's strange that some of them are
Microsoft programs. The problems with my computer started as soon as I
installed Windows XP Pro X64. Maybe that's the one that's clashing with
everything else in my computer. The rest of them all get along fine.

--
Denise

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

Denise:
I've read the different problems you've had with XP x64, most of
them haven't been common. As to whether it's a hardware, software or other
conflict I don't have an answer. I've been running XP x64 since the beta
releases and Vista X64 since beta 2, I haven't had near the problems or
conflicts that you have. XP x64 has been very stable for me and Vista x64
has been stable so far even with weak drivers. At work the group that I work
with has about 200 computers that are the same, almost every system responds
differently. These differences are more distinct since we migrated from
Windows 2000 to Windows XP. Have a great day.

--
Dennis Pack
XP x64 SP2, Vista Enterprise x64
Office Professional Plus 2007

"Denise" <> wrote in message
news:AA5B150A-5FF3-48D2-9141-...
> You're very quick to insult and jab, aren't you? Rude, too.
>
> I have
>
> - Biostar TFORCE 6100-939 mobo which supports dual channel ddr
> - AMD Athlon 64 3200+ 2.0GHz / 512KB Cache / 1000MHz FSB / Venice /
> Hyper-Transport / OEM / Socket 939 / Processor
> - 2 twin sticks of 1G RAM
> - Corsair 620W PSU
> - Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 SATA 3.0Gb/s 320-GB hard drive
>
> Which piece of hardware do you think is bad, or a combination?
>
> Are they the best of everything? More than likely not, but they're very
> good and run well together. If I decide to install Windows XP Pro 32-bit,
> I'm sure I'll find out that X64 has caused the problems that I have.
>
> BTW, are you employed by Microsoft to try to discredit anyone who speaks
> against its products? I can't think of any other reason for your poor
> attitude and manners.
>
> Regarding programs/files that aren't compatible with an 64-bit os, off the
> top of my head, I can think of . . .
>
> - Adobe Acrobat
> - Winword (Microsoft's very own!)
> - iexpolorer 64-bit (again, Microsoft's very own!)
> - Avast
> - Soundman
> - ctfmon (a Microsoft Office XP program that runs in the background, even
> after you quit all Office programs!)
> - Sun Microsystem's Java2 suite
> - Webshots
> - Maxtor One Touch
>
> Which programs in my pc are causing problems with my 64-bit os? Well,
> Microsoft didn't and/or won't say, but it's strange that some of them are
> Microsoft programs. The problems with my computer started as soon as I
> installed Windows XP Pro X64. Maybe that's the one that's clashing with
> everything else in my computer. The rest of them all get along fine.
>
> --
> Denise
>
> ~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're
> going.

To say that the problems I have with X64 is like saying the Titanic had a
boating accident. I've been using Windows as soon as Windows 95 came out and
X64 is by very, very far the worst version of them all. It was easier
working with the DOS Shell. Computers, as you said, respond differently, and
this computer is begging me for the 32-bit system. I won't even get into the
problems I've had with SATA. I eliminated all of my SATA connections and
everything is connected using USB 2.0 cables except for the hdd cable. I
think that the technological world is pushing too fast to come out with
something different because there's no profit to be made if people don't have
a new product to buy. Why would Microsoft release X64 if iexplore X64
doesn't work and other Microsoft programs aren't compatible with X64? Why
didn't Microsoft make things such as these common knowledge so that people
would know that there are compatibility issues within Microsoft prior to
their buying X64? I very much believe that the public was hoodwinked and I'm
very angry that I was taken, and there are no other words that I can think of
that would fit what Microsoft did, or my language wouldn't be proper.
--
Denise

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


"Dennis Pack" wrote:

> Denise:
> I've read the different problems you've had with XP x64, most of
> them haven't been common. As to whether it's a hardware, software or other
> conflict I don't have an answer. I've been running XP x64 since the beta
> releases and Vista X64 since beta 2, I haven't had near the problems or
> conflicts that you have. XP x64 has been very stable for me and Vista x64
> has been stable so far even with weak drivers. At work the group that I work
> with has about 200 computers that are the same, almost every system responds
> differently. These differences are more distinct since we migrated from
> Windows 2000 to Windows XP. Have a great day.
>
> --
> Dennis Pack
> XP x64 SP2, Vista Enterprise x64
> Office Professional Plus 2007
>
> "Denise" <> wrote in message
> news:AA5B150A-5FF3-48D2-9141-...
> > You're very quick to insult and jab, aren't you? Rude, too.
> >
> > I have
> >
> > - Biostar TFORCE 6100-939 mobo which supports dual channel ddr
> > - AMD Athlon 64 3200+ 2.0GHz / 512KB Cache / 1000MHz FSB / Venice /
> > Hyper-Transport / OEM / Socket 939 / Processor
> > - 2 twin sticks of 1G RAM
> > - Corsair 620W PSU
> > - Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 SATA 3.0Gb/s 320-GB hard drive
> >
> > Which piece of hardware do you think is bad, or a combination?
> >
> > Are they the best of everything? More than likely not, but they're very
> > good and run well together. If I decide to install Windows XP Pro 32-bit,
> > I'm sure I'll find out that X64 has caused the problems that I have.
> >
> > BTW, are you employed by Microsoft to try to discredit anyone who speaks
> > against its products? I can't think of any other reason for your poor
> > attitude and manners.
> >
> > Regarding programs/files that aren't compatible with an 64-bit os, off the
> > top of my head, I can think of . . .
> >
> > - Adobe Acrobat
> > - Winword (Microsoft's very own!)
> > - iexpolorer 64-bit (again, Microsoft's very own!)
> > - Avast
> > - Soundman
> > - ctfmon (a Microsoft Office XP program that runs in the background, even
> > after you quit all Office programs!)
> > - Sun Microsystem's Java2 suite
> > - Webshots
> > - Maxtor One Touch
> >
> > Which programs in my pc are causing problems with my 64-bit os? Well,
> > Microsoft didn't and/or won't say, but it's strange that some of them are
> > Microsoft programs. The problems with my computer started as soon as I
> > installed Windows XP Pro X64. Maybe that's the one that's clashing with
> > everything else in my computer. The rest of them all get along fine.
> >
> > --
> > Denise
> >
> > ~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're
> > going.
>

The reality is that XP x64 is solid, stable, and basically done with. Though
you'll certainly see at least one more service pack for it, I suspect. Vista
64bit is new, requires more resources, and has a whole new set of
compatibility issues. The interface will certainly drive you nuts initially.
All that being said, I run Vista 64bit. I have the hardware to handle it,
and I've learned to adjust to not whinge too much about some of the UI
idiocies. Moving forward, drivers for new hardware will be preferentially
for Vista, and tending to abandon XP. But there's no real hurry - it's up to
you and your comfort level.

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


"Royston H" <> wrote in message
news:39EF8CBD-0008-4FE0-A9CE-...
> My 120 days of eval are nearly up.
>
> I have found the XP 64 bit version of windows the most stable and reliable
> version of Windows I've ever used and have had only one BSOD when I was
> overclocking my graphics card, so not really a microsoft o/s issue.
>
> I mainly use the computer for office applications, photoshop, video
> editing
> and playing FSX.
>
> Given that I can get an OEM copy of Vista 64 bit for less than the OEM
> 64bit
> XP pro, I am likely to run with Vista.
>
> I'd like to hear from people who have used both in anger and see if any
> valid arguements exist for sticking with XP, say it's considerably more
> stable etc, given that long term the future is with vista anyway.
>
> Thanks
>
> Royston H
>

On 13-Jul-2007, "Charlie Russel - MVP" <>
wrote:

> he reality is that XP x64 is solid, stable, and basically done with.
> Though
> you'll certainly see at least one more service pack for it, I suspect.
> Vista
> 64bit is new, requires more resources, and has a whole new set of
> compatibility issues. The interface will certainly drive you nuts
> initially.
> All that being said, I run Vista 64bit. I have the hardware to handle it,
> and I've learned to adjust to not whinge too much about some of the UI
> idiocies

Well said Charlie. I just dumped XP x64 and Vista Ultimate x64 because
32bit Vista works so smoothly. XP x64 was probably the best windows I've
used todate. Rock solid and very few issues of software not being
compatible.

Vista x64 workes well but it still has a small annoyance with my AC97 driver
not being signed and I got tired of being asked if it was ok to use the
driver every time my computer booted.

If anything, XP x64 seems like the snappiest and quickest of the three.

That said, I left two additional partitions free on one of my disks to
reinstall XP x-64 and Vista Ultimate x64. Just need one or two more device
drivers. Or I could try one of the Linuxs. Who knows. I've got OSX on 2
computers and Kubuntu on another but still find myself attracted to Windows.

The good thing about the x64 forum is one can post questions similar to what
is posted here, get honest answers, and usually not get burned in a flame
war.

This is a great group.