«

I have upgraded my main PC on the weekend, it now has a new M/Board, Video
card and an AMD Athlon 64 Processor.

So I connected a spare 40GB HDD and installed Windows XP Pro 64-bit
version.

My findings on 64 bit Windows:
Seems quite good, installed easily and worked well once I had loaded the
drivers for my hardware.
Could not install Alcohol 120%, tried Daemon Tools - but that would not
load either.
Could not install Kaspersky AV, tried AVG - also would not install, loaded
a trial version of NOD32 for WinXP 64 - this worked fine.
I could not find much info on availability of any 64 bit apps, without
these is there any advantage to using the 64 bit version of Windows?

I think that I will format that 40GB drive and use it for something else,
maybe later when I can get some 64 bit apps I will reload the WinXP64.

Has anyone else tried WinXP64? Is there anyone using it currently?

I now have WinXP SP2 running happily and will try to get SUSE 9.3 64bit
running this week.

--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 16-August-05)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"

MarkH wrote:
> I could not find much info on availability of any 64 bit apps, without
> these is there any advantage to using the 64 bit version of Windows?

There are a few advantages... normal users wont run into them yet...
Apps get access to a full 4GB of ram, rather than having to share with
other apps(assuming you have a heap of ram).

There are a few others, not too sure of them though sorry.

> Has anyone else tried WinXP64? Is there anyone using it currently?

yes, and yes... but not me.

--
http://dave.net.nz <- My personal site.
http://synaptic.net.nz <- Dunedin Based IT and ISP services

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 20:34:23 GMT, MarkH <> wrote:

>I have upgraded my main PC on the weekend, it now has a new M/Board, Video
>card and an AMD Athlon 64 Processor.
>
>So I connected a spare 40GB HDD and installed Windows XP Pro 64-bit
>version.
>
>My findings on 64 bit Windows:
>Seems quite good, installed easily and worked well once I had loaded the
>drivers for my hardware.
>Could not install Alcohol 120%, tried Daemon Tools - but that would not
>load either.
>Could not install Kaspersky AV, tried AVG - also would not install, loaded
>a trial version of NOD32 for WinXP 64 - this worked fine.
>I could not find much info on availability of any 64 bit apps, without
>these is there any advantage to using the 64 bit version of Windows?
>
>I think that I will format that 40GB drive and use it for something else,
>maybe later when I can get some 64 bit apps I will reload the WinXP64.
>
>Has anyone else tried WinXP64? Is there anyone using it currently?
>
>I now have WinXP SP2 running happily and will try to get SUSE 9.3 64bit
>running this week.

Some 32-bit applications that have 16-bit installers won't install.

GraB wrote:
>>Has anyone else tried WinXP64? Is there anyone using it currently?

>>I now have WinXP SP2 running happily and will try to get SUSE 9.3 64bit
>>running this week.

> Some 32-bit applications that have 16-bit installers won't install.

Some smart cookie in IT decided that the new CAD machines would use it,
even though they only have 2GB ram, so pretty much all features are not
used.

Nothing would work, none of our "standard applications suite", the
funniest one was that the MS mice that the CAD guys used didn't have
drivers, so I downloaded the latest software for it, and it said that
the OS wasn't supported... at that point I turned it off and installed
XP-pro.

--
http://dave.net.nz <- My personal site.
http://synaptic.net.nz <- Dunedin Based IT and ISP services

MarkH wrote:
> Could not install Alcohol 120%, tried Daemon Tools - but that would not
> load either.

These require the installation of 32-bit drivers to operate. Wait until
the vendors release 64-bit versions.

Cheers,
Nicholas Sherlock

If the 16 bit installer does not work, look for a 32bit installer and try
that..
If its a 16 bit app, you are hosed - 16 bit is no longer supported.
As far as Alcohol etc not working, that is 100% predictable as these 'apps'
need 64 bit drivers (they install 32bit drivers which won't work because its
a 64 bit platform) and unless you go out looking for a 64bit driver and
succeed you will be hosed.

A good news group for 64 bit related things is
microsoft.public.64bit.general (also covers non beta testers for Vista). You
will find references there to web sites and many FAQ's.

64bit is OEM only at this point (although you can buy an OEM disc) precisely
because there is somewhat limited app and driver support. IE as OEM, you are
supposed to be buying a complete working tested system or acknowledging that
this is a new OS with limited driver support. The key thing is, if you can
get past the drivers issues and the apps you use run (all 32bit apps that
don't need custom device drivers should) then it is the way forward. Proceed
with caution, research the drivers before making commitment.

Most user world apps don't need custom drivers, but anything to do with
defragging (might), 'system', or that rips or tears may. There is apparently
minimal support for scanners.

It is up to the device manifacturers to re-write their drivers for 64bit, so
for each Device and App you wish to convert across, research... Printer
support has predictably been not too good - some manfacturers prefer to
bring out new versions of products with 64 bit drivers rather than support
that reliable printer in the corner that cost an arm and a leg.

About the only real show stopper motherboards are those based on K8T880 (?)
chipset I believe - none will work, but the NForce4 with AMD or Intel is
fine. There are other options. Dual core chips require bios updates & in
some cases you have to use an Old chip to update the BIOS before a Dual Core
will work. IE check your mobo and its resident bios before you buy too. If
buying Intel, you have to be very careful of the model number in some
situations. 'D' does not mean dual on Intel always.

- Tim




"GraB" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 20:34:23 GMT, MarkH <> wrote:
>
>>I have upgraded my main PC on the weekend, it now has a new M/Board, Video
>>card and an AMD Athlon 64 Processor.
>>
>>So I connected a spare 40GB HDD and installed Windows XP Pro 64-bit
>>version.
>>
>>My findings on 64 bit Windows:
>>Seems quite good, installed easily and worked well once I had loaded the
>>drivers for my hardware.
>>Could not install Alcohol 120%, tried Daemon Tools - but that would not
>>load either.
>>Could not install Kaspersky AV, tried AVG - also would not install, loaded
>>a trial version of NOD32 for WinXP 64 - this worked fine.
>>I could not find much info on availability of any 64 bit apps, without
>>these is there any advantage to using the 64 bit version of Windows?
>>
>>I think that I will format that 40GB drive and use it for something else,
>>maybe later when I can get some 64 bit apps I will reload the WinXP64.
>>
>>Has anyone else tried WinXP64? Is there anyone using it currently?
>>
>>I now have WinXP SP2 running happily and will try to get SUSE 9.3 64bit
>>running this week.
>
> Some 32-bit applications that have 16-bit installers won't install.

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 20:34:23 GMT, MarkH <> wrote:

>Has anyone else tried WinXP64? Is there anyone using it currently?

I tried it on a machine, but it eventually got dropped for normal
32-bit Windows XP Professional.

As 32-bit applications couldn't attach to the 64-bit Explorer shell,
shell extensions like WinZIP and "Scan for Viruses.." from McAfee etc
wouldn't work, programs would fail to install after they launched
their 16-bit stub, etc. Drivers for the Adobe PDF printer were only
32-bit so the printer didn't appear. Quite a problem at present.

--
Kristofer Clayton (KJClayton)
Gisborne, New Zealand

In article <jz5Oe.72146$>,
MarkH <> wrote:

>I could not find much info on availability of any 64 bit apps, without
>these is there any advantage to using the 64 bit version of Windows?

You're basically stuck in a chicken-and-egg situation here. Without
availability of 64-bit apps, precious few users will bother to install
64-bit Windows. And without a large installed base of 64-bit Windows
users, precious few developers are going to bother to release 64-bit
apps.

Think how many years it took to transition Windows from 16-bit to
32-bit. Now multiply that by the greater inertia caused by the greater
size of the installed base, and it's going to take a decade or more
before 64-bit Windows becomes really useful.

But then, that's closed-source for you...

MarkH wrote:
> I have upgraded my main PC on the weekend, it now has a new M/Board, Video
> card and an AMD Athlon 64 Processor.
>
> So I connected a spare 40GB HDD and installed Windows XP Pro 64-bit
> version.
>
> My findings on 64 bit Windows:
> Seems quite good, installed easily and worked well once I had loaded the
> drivers for my hardware.

Driver support is the #1 adoption barrier. Today. All kernel-mode
device drivers must be 64-bit as you have found.

> Could not install Alcohol 120%, tried Daemon Tools - but that would not
> load either.

There's a program called FantomDVD that with Windows x64. However, you
need to install the drivers for the program by going to the Add New
Hardware control panel and selecting the inf files manually.

You can get the program at the downloads section at www.planetamd64.com

> Could not install Kaspersky AV, tried AVG - also would not install, loaded
> a trial version of NOD32 for WinXP 64 - this worked fine.

Personally I use CA eTrust on x64, corporate standard (for now) not
because I would like to

> I could not find much info on availability of any 64 bit apps, without
> these is there any advantage to using the 64 bit version of Windows?

Yes(!) :
Windows x64 exploits the power of 64-bit addressing to allow up to 16
terabytes of virtual memory space as well as dramatically increased
physical memory support -128 GB.

Also greater performance due to architectural enhancements such as:
benefits from additional registers provided by the x64 processors
provides up to 4GB per 32-bit process; x86 provides at most 3GB
(ignoring AWE/PAE techniques)
on par performance with 32-bit applications

Greater physical memory support eliminates 32-bit bottlenecks, page
faults and also gives developers greater headroom to create more
efficient algorithms
today a good percentage of 32-bit application code dedicated to managing
memory constraints

The benefits are more obvious on the server side with database servers,
directories, terminal servers and the like where you may need much
greater system capacity and scalability, ie
1MM TCPIP connections tax only ~2.5 GB of non-paged pool
Servers can host vastly more applications and users
2GB user and system virtual address limitation has been a major
bottleneck for server workloads
Server applications benefit from 4 GB of user, unlimited system virtual
address and more registers

For instance the Windows build team: reduced daily build (compile) times
by 66% simply by moving to Windows on x64 hardware

> I think that I will format that 40GB drive and use it for something else,
> maybe later when I can get some 64 bit apps I will reload the WinXP64.

net net, you have to have a reason for going 64 bit. Not just because
its cool and the latest and greatest thing

> Has anyone else tried WinXP64? Is there anyone using it currently?

Yes!

> I now have WinXP SP2 running happily and will try to get SUSE 9.3 64bit
> running this week.

We are on the brink of a major generational shift to pervasive 64-bit
computing. The transition will not happen overnight...but it will happen.

By 2006 we predict that there will be broad availability of x64 hardware
and in fact X64 will be the standard on new PCs. There will also be a
wide variety and availability of applications both business and consumer
and X64 will become the default OS

Regards
Nathan

Lawrence D¹Oliveiro wrote:
>>I could not find much info on availability of any 64 bit apps, without
>>these is there any advantage to using the 64 bit version of Windows?
>
>
> You're basically stuck in a chicken-and-egg situation here. Without
> availability of 64-bit apps, precious few users will bother to install
> 64-bit Windows. And without a large installed base of 64-bit Windows
> users, precious few developers are going to bother to release 64-bit
> apps.

Rubbish. But you will be burned if you don't have realistic
expectations. As with anything in IT. There has to be a reason to go
64, not just because its cool and exciting and the latest and greatest
thing!
Your paragraph reads true if you remove the word Windows as well.

> Think how many years it took to transition Windows from 16-bit to
> 32-bit. Now multiply that by the greater inertia caused by the greater
> size of the installed base, and it's going to take a decade or more
> before 64-bit Windows becomes really useful.

This is rubbish. Its really useful today. It just not really useful to
everyone. There are people successfully running many implementations of
64bit on Windows today very successfully. 64bit WILL be mainstream in
the next year or 2.

If you can be bothered read my previous reply from a few mins ago for
some of the useful 64bit scenarios available today.

> But then, that's closed-source for you...

lol. And things are miracuously better in the open source world?

Pass me some of what ever you are smoking because I want some

Cheers
Nathan