from 32-bit xp pro

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by =?Utf-8?B?Z29kbWFkZXF1YXJrc0Bob3RtYWlsLmNvbQ==?=, Jan 16, 2006.

  1. I participated in this exchange program:
    http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/upgrade/default.mspx but none of my
    essential peripherals (printer/audio interface/scanner/etc) have 64-bit
    drivers - and I am unable to install many essential software programs.
    forgive me for not knowing that or researching this in advance - I'm
    technically challenged - mentally as well. to be clear, I want my old xp pro
    32-bit version back, but when I try to activate my copy with my previously
    valid product key, obviously the process fails. is there a way to forfeit my
    new license and revert to my old one? any guidance would be greatly
    appreciated - especially if you could offer a phone number where I could
    reach a MS customer service rep. I have 30 days to reactivate this new
    installation. feel free to insult me if you can also offer solid help!
     
    =?Utf-8?B?Z29kbWFkZXF1YXJrc0Bob3RtYWlsLmNvbQ==?=, Jan 16, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Only answer for you is to purchase new license for Windows XP x86 (32-Bit).
    Once you handed in the x86 license for Windows XP Professional x64, your x86
    license became extinct.

    You could give x64 a try by actually doing some research, great places for
    drivers include the manufacturer of the devices in you PC or external ones
    such as Printers, next is http://www.planetamd64.com . You should also check
    out Charlie Russels: An Overview of x64 Edition to get started with the
    operating system:
    http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64/archive/2005/11/29/77166.aspx
    --
    --
    Andre
    Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
    Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
    http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
    FAQ for MS AntiSpy http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm


    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I participated in this exchange program:
    > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/upgrade/default.mspx but none of
    > my
    > essential peripherals (printer/audio interface/scanner/etc) have 64-bit
    > drivers - and I am unable to install many essential software programs.
    > forgive me for not knowing that or researching this in advance - I'm
    > technically challenged - mentally as well. to be clear, I want my old xp
    > pro
    > 32-bit version back, but when I try to activate my copy with my previously
    > valid product key, obviously the process fails. is there a way to forfeit
    > my
    > new license and revert to my old one? any guidance would be greatly
    > appreciated - especially if you could offer a phone number where I could
    > reach a MS customer service rep. I have 30 days to reactivate this new
    > installation. feel free to insult me if you can also offer solid help!
     
    Andre Da Costa, Jan 16, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In addition to what Andre's says, let's not forget that you do have the
    option to renew some of that Hardware. There certainly are good quality
    printers and scanners out there at no hair-raising cost - my HP PSC 2355 do
    both with excellence at roughly the cost of a new license.

    If you have unsupported Hardware, I bet it's on your Motherboard. You can
    exchange that, at lower cost compared to getting a new license. Unsupported
    cards, like sound, or network are becoming rarer. Your situation is not
    ideal - but all is not lost either.

    You probably know someone as well, who would be happy to 'inherit' some of
    the things that you will be discarding.

    Tony. . .



    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I participated in this exchange program:
    > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/upgrade/default.mspx but none of
    > my
    > essential peripherals (printer/audio interface/scanner/etc) have 64-bit
    > drivers - and I am unable to install many essential software programs.
    > forgive me for not knowing that or researching this in advance - I'm
    > technically challenged - mentally as well. to be clear, I want my old xp
    > pro
    > 32-bit version back, but when I try to activate my copy with my previously
    > valid product key, obviously the process fails. is there a way to forfeit
    > my
    > new license and revert to my old one? any guidance would be greatly
    > appreciated - especially if you could offer a phone number where I could
    > reach a MS customer service rep. I have 30 days to reactivate this new
    > installation. feel free to insult me if you can also offer solid help!
     
    Tony Sperling, Jan 16, 2006
    #3
  4. =?Utf-8?B?Z29kbWFkZXF1YXJrc0Bob3RtYWlsLmNvbQ==?=

    John Barnes Guest

    Andre is correct, that you have to buy a new 32-bit license. I understand
    being unable to install essential software. That is why I dual boot. Over
    the last year I have replaced most of my hardware with x64 compatible, but
    many software programs are just not replaceable yet. At this point, as
    pointed out in Charlie's material, it is at best inefficient to spend
    hundreds of dollars buying new hardware and software (even if you could find
    it) when there is no benefit for the vast majority of computer users at this
    time.

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I participated in this exchange program:
    > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/upgrade/default.mspx but none of
    > my
    > essential peripherals (printer/audio interface/scanner/etc) have 64-bit
    > drivers - and I am unable to install many essential software programs.
    > forgive me for not knowing that or researching this in advance - I'm
    > technically challenged - mentally as well. to be clear, I want my old xp
    > pro
    > 32-bit version back, but when I try to activate my copy with my previously
    > valid product key, obviously the process fails. is there a way to forfeit
    > my
    > new license and revert to my old one? any guidance would be greatly
    > appreciated - especially if you could offer a phone number where I could
    > reach a MS customer service rep. I have 30 days to reactivate this new
    > installation. feel free to insult me if you can also offer solid help!
     
    John Barnes, Jan 16, 2006
    #4
  5. what is most disheartening about this experience, is that I have switched
    from the Apple platform (I used Apple computers for 15 years) and I finally
    had enough of Steve Jobs relentless babble about how Apple hardware was
    superior to that of the PC market (I built my own shuttle xpc with an AMD 64
    3500+ processor/2GB Corsair Platinum DDR RAM/dual serial ata drives) so for
    the upgrade fee of $12 (to cover shipping the Windows x64 software to me) I
    have lost a $150 OEM license for 32-bit software that I could have actually
    used - but have instead acquired an OS that is not yet supported by the vital
    software companies who would make it worth owning. this is my first negative
    microsoft experience. if I opted to upgrade my Apple software, I'd have been
    entitled to own 10.3 as well as 10.4 (all things being equal). I only own one
    PC, I don't know why microsoft is this strict with their software. I'm sorry,
    but surfing in 64-bit with IE isn't really that appealing. tony - I know you
    were forced to assume that I didn't have current peripherals, but the fact
    is, all of my internal components are supported. none of my external
    peripherals are. I have just spent $500 for a new canon printer, $200 for a
    canon scanner and another $1000 for a personus audio interface, so I'm not
    about to seek out x64 compatible peripherals. purchasing a new OS seems to be
    the most reasonable course of action. thank you all for sharing the
    depressing news. I appreciate your assistance sincerely. stay well.

    broken wallet,

    barry

    "John Barnes" wrote:

    > Andre is correct, that you have to buy a new 32-bit license. I understand
    > being unable to install essential software. That is why I dual boot. Over
    > the last year I have replaced most of my hardware with x64 compatible, but
    > many software programs are just not replaceable yet. At this point, as
    > pointed out in Charlie's material, it is at best inefficient to spend
    > hundreds of dollars buying new hardware and software (even if you could find
    > it) when there is no benefit for the vast majority of computer users at this
    > time.
    >
    > <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > >I participated in this exchange program:
    > > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/upgrade/default.mspx but none of
    > > my
    > > essential peripherals (printer/audio interface/scanner/etc) have 64-bit
    > > drivers - and I am unable to install many essential software programs.
    > > forgive me for not knowing that or researching this in advance - I'm
    > > technically challenged - mentally as well. to be clear, I want my old xp
    > > pro
    > > 32-bit version back, but when I try to activate my copy with my previously
    > > valid product key, obviously the process fails. is there a way to forfeit
    > > my
    > > new license and revert to my old one? any guidance would be greatly
    > > appreciated - especially if you could offer a phone number where I could
    > > reach a MS customer service rep. I have 30 days to reactivate this new
    > > installation. feel free to insult me if you can also offer solid help!

    >
    >
    >
     
    =?Utf-8?B?Z29kbWFkZXF1YXJrc0Bob3RtYWlsLmNvbQ==?=, Jan 16, 2006
    #5
  6. From the sound of things, you didn't do any research at all. Anybody moving
    to Windows x64 should at least have a basic idea of what they are getting
    into or they wouldn't rush out and get a copy in the first place. If you
    upgraded your Mac, you would not have been entitled to upgrades of the Mac
    OS 10.3 and 4, you still would have to shell out $258 over time to purchase
    both, XP Pro x64 cost $150 and is more compatible than OS X if you take into
    account the cost of migrating from Mac OS to Windows or Windows to Windows
    x64. If 64 Bit IE is not working for you, why not use 32 bit IE instead? It
    all goes back to research again and I will repeat myself:

    You could give x64 a try by actually doing some research, great places for
    drivers include the manufacturer of the devices in you PC or external ones
    such as Printers, next is http://www.planetamd64.com . You should also check
    out Charlie Russels: An Overview of x64 Edition to get started with the
    operating system:
    http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64/archive/2005/11/29/77166.aspx
    --
    --
    Andre
    Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
    Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
    http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
    FAQ for MS AntiSpy http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm


    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > what is most disheartening about this experience, is that I have switched
    > from the Apple platform (I used Apple computers for 15 years) and I
    > finally
    > had enough of Steve Jobs relentless babble about how Apple hardware was
    > superior to that of the PC market (I built my own shuttle xpc with an AMD
    > 64
    > 3500+ processor/2GB Corsair Platinum DDR RAM/dual serial ata drives) so
    > for
    > the upgrade fee of $12 (to cover shipping the Windows x64 software to me)
    > I
    > have lost a $150 OEM license for 32-bit software that I could have
    > actually
    > used - but have instead acquired an OS that is not yet supported by the
    > vital
    > software companies who would make it worth owning. this is my first
    > negative
    > microsoft experience. if I opted to upgrade my Apple software, I'd have
    > been
    > entitled to own 10.3 as well as 10.4 (all things being equal). I only own
    > one
    > PC, I don't know why microsoft is this strict with their software. I'm
    > sorry,
    > but surfing in 64-bit with IE isn't really that appealing. tony - I know
    > you
    > were forced to assume that I didn't have current peripherals, but the fact
    > is, all of my internal components are supported. none of my external
    > peripherals are. I have just spent $500 for a new canon printer, $200 for
    > a
    > canon scanner and another $1000 for a personus audio interface, so I'm not
    > about to seek out x64 compatible peripherals. purchasing a new OS seems to
    > be
    > the most reasonable course of action. thank you all for sharing the
    > depressing news. I appreciate your assistance sincerely. stay well.
    >
    > broken wallet,
    >
    > barry
    >
    > "John Barnes" wrote:
    >
    >> Andre is correct, that you have to buy a new 32-bit license. I
    >> understand
    >> being unable to install essential software. That is why I dual boot.
    >> Over
    >> the last year I have replaced most of my hardware with x64 compatible,
    >> but
    >> many software programs are just not replaceable yet. At this point, as
    >> pointed out in Charlie's material, it is at best inefficient to spend
    >> hundreds of dollars buying new hardware and software (even if you could
    >> find
    >> it) when there is no benefit for the vast majority of computer users at
    >> this
    >> time.
    >>
    >> <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >> >I participated in this exchange program:
    >> > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/upgrade/default.mspx but none
    >> > of
    >> > my
    >> > essential peripherals (printer/audio interface/scanner/etc) have 64-bit
    >> > drivers - and I am unable to install many essential software programs.
    >> > forgive me for not knowing that or researching this in advance - I'm
    >> > technically challenged - mentally as well. to be clear, I want my old
    >> > xp
    >> > pro
    >> > 32-bit version back, but when I try to activate my copy with my
    >> > previously
    >> > valid product key, obviously the process fails. is there a way to
    >> > forfeit
    >> > my
    >> > new license and revert to my old one? any guidance would be greatly
    >> > appreciated - especially if you could offer a phone number where I
    >> > could
    >> > reach a MS customer service rep. I have 30 days to reactivate this new
    >> > installation. feel free to insult me if you can also offer solid help!

    >>
    >>
    >>
     
    Andre Da Costa [Extended64], Jan 16, 2006
    #6
  7. Here's what Linksys told me about their wireless adapter:"Musheer (50086):
    Hi, my name is Musheer (50086). How may I help you?
    Clifford: I need
    Clifford: windows xp 64bit drivers
    Musheer (50086): Hi Clifford.
    Clifford: XP 64bit does not recognise the wireless network adapter nor it's
    setup program
    Clifford: hi
    Clifford: WMP54G Card
    Musheer (50086): Clifford, we do not have drivers which will support 64 bit
    OS.
    Clifford: wow
    Clifford: can you suggest something?
    Musheer (50086): You can try with third party drivers, but I am not sure
    whether it will work with the card or not.
    Clifford: Where do I get third party?
    Musheer (50086): You can search in google web site.
    Clifford: ok
    Clifford: thanks
    Musheer (50086): Do you have any other questions that I can help you with
    today?
    Clifford: no."
    --
    Daddio


    "Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" wrote:

    > From the sound of things, you didn't do any research at all. Anybody moving
    > to Windows x64 should at least have a basic idea of what they are getting
    > into or they wouldn't rush out and get a copy in the first place. If you
    > upgraded your Mac, you would not have been entitled to upgrades of the Mac
    > OS 10.3 and 4, you still would have to shell out $258 over time to purchase
    > both, XP Pro x64 cost $150 and is more compatible than OS X if you take into
    > account the cost of migrating from Mac OS to Windows or Windows to Windows
    > x64. If 64 Bit IE is not working for you, why not use 32 bit IE instead? It
    > all goes back to research again and I will repeat myself:
    >
    > You could give x64 a try by actually doing some research, great places for
    > drivers include the manufacturer of the devices in you PC or external ones
    > such as Printers, next is http://www.planetamd64.com . You should also check
    > out Charlie Russels: An Overview of x64 Edition to get started with the
    > operating system:
    > http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64/archive/2005/11/29/77166.aspx
    > --
    > --
    > Andre
    > Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
    > Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
    > http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
    > FAQ for MS AntiSpy http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm
    >
    >
    > <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > what is most disheartening about this experience, is that I have switched
    > > from the Apple platform (I used Apple computers for 15 years) and I
    > > finally
    > > had enough of Steve Jobs relentless babble about how Apple hardware was
    > > superior to that of the PC market (I built my own shuttle xpc with an AMD
    > > 64
    > > 3500+ processor/2GB Corsair Platinum DDR RAM/dual serial ata drives) so
    > > for
    > > the upgrade fee of $12 (to cover shipping the Windows x64 software to me)
    > > I
    > > have lost a $150 OEM license for 32-bit software that I could have
    > > actually
    > > used - but have instead acquired an OS that is not yet supported by the
    > > vital
    > > software companies who would make it worth owning. this is my first
    > > negative
    > > microsoft experience. if I opted to upgrade my Apple software, I'd have
    > > been
    > > entitled to own 10.3 as well as 10.4 (all things being equal). I only own
    > > one
    > > PC, I don't know why microsoft is this strict with their software. I'm
    > > sorry,
    > > but surfing in 64-bit with IE isn't really that appealing. tony - I know
    > > you
    > > were forced to assume that I didn't have current peripherals, but the fact
    > > is, all of my internal components are supported. none of my external
    > > peripherals are. I have just spent $500 for a new canon printer, $200 for
    > > a
    > > canon scanner and another $1000 for a personus audio interface, so I'm not
    > > about to seek out x64 compatible peripherals. purchasing a new OS seems to
    > > be
    > > the most reasonable course of action. thank you all for sharing the
    > > depressing news. I appreciate your assistance sincerely. stay well.
    > >
    > > broken wallet,
    > >
    > > barry
    > >
    > > "John Barnes" wrote:
    > >
    > >> Andre is correct, that you have to buy a new 32-bit license. I
    > >> understand
    > >> being unable to install essential software. That is why I dual boot.
    > >> Over
    > >> the last year I have replaced most of my hardware with x64 compatible,
    > >> but
    > >> many software programs are just not replaceable yet. At this point, as
    > >> pointed out in Charlie's material, it is at best inefficient to spend
    > >> hundreds of dollars buying new hardware and software (even if you could
    > >> find
    > >> it) when there is no benefit for the vast majority of computer users at
    > >> this
    > >> time.
    > >>
    > >> <> wrote in message
    > >> news:...
    > >> >I participated in this exchange program:
    > >> > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/upgrade/default.mspx but none
    > >> > of
    > >> > my
    > >> > essential peripherals (printer/audio interface/scanner/etc) have 64-bit
    > >> > drivers - and I am unable to install many essential software programs.
    > >> > forgive me for not knowing that or researching this in advance - I'm
    > >> > technically challenged - mentally as well. to be clear, I want my old
    > >> > xp
    > >> > pro
    > >> > 32-bit version back, but when I try to activate my copy with my
    > >> > previously
    > >> > valid product key, obviously the process fails. is there a way to
    > >> > forfeit
    > >> > my
    > >> > new license and revert to my old one? any guidance would be greatly
    > >> > appreciated - especially if you could offer a phone number where I
    > >> > could
    > >> > reach a MS customer service rep. I have 30 days to reactivate this new
    > >> > installation. feel free to insult me if you can also offer solid help!
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>

    >
    >
    >
     
    =?Utf-8?B?ZGFkZGlv?=, Jan 16, 2006
    #7
  8. =?Utf-8?B?Z29kbWFkZXF1YXJrc0Bob3RtYWlsLmNvbQ==?=

    Rick Guest

    Register at www.PlanetAMD.com so you can access the download section and
    then do a search on WMP54G. You will find others that have addressed
    the problems of drivers for this card and some suggestions on how to go
    about trying to resolve your problem.


    daddio wrote:
    > Here's what Linksys told me about their wireless adapter:"Musheer (50086):
    > Hi, my name is Musheer (50086). How may I help you?
    > Clifford: I need
    > Clifford: windows xp 64bit drivers
    > Musheer (50086): Hi Clifford.
    > Clifford: XP 64bit does not recognise the wireless network adapter nor it's
    > setup program
    > Clifford: hi
    > Clifford: WMP54G Card
    > Musheer (50086): Clifford, we do not have drivers which will support 64 bit
    > OS.
    > Clifford: wow
    > Clifford: can you suggest something?
    > Musheer (50086): You can try with third party drivers, but I am not sure
    > whether it will work with the card or not.
    > Clifford: Where do I get third party?
    > Musheer (50086): You can search in google web site.
    > Clifford: ok
    > Clifford: thanks
    > Musheer (50086): Do you have any other questions that I can help you with
    > today?
    > Clifford: no."
     
    Rick, Jan 16, 2006
    #8
  9. =?Utf-8?B?Z29kbWFkZXF1YXJrc0Bob3RtYWlsLmNvbQ==?=

    Rick Guest

    According to the .INF file for the drivers this card has a BroadCom
    chip. If it is not recognized in Win x64, then you should be able to
    find a driver that will work. You just need to do a little leg work,
    just like a detective solving a crime.


    daddio wrote:
    > Here's what Linksys told me about their wireless adapter:"Musheer (50086):
    > Hi, my name is Musheer (50086). How may I help you?
    > Clifford: I need
    > Clifford: windows xp 64bit drivers
    > Musheer (50086): Hi Clifford.
    > Clifford: XP 64bit does not recognise the wireless network adapter nor it's
    > setup program
    > Clifford: hi
    > Clifford: WMP54G Card
    > Musheer (50086): Clifford, we do not have drivers which will support 64 bit
    > OS.
    > Clifford: wow
    > Clifford: can you suggest something?
    > Musheer (50086): You can try with third party drivers, but I am not sure
    > whether it will work with the card or not.
    > Clifford: Where do I get third party?
    > Musheer (50086): You can search in google web site.
    > Clifford: ok
    > Clifford: thanks
    > Musheer (50086): Do you have any other questions that I can help you with
    > today?
    > Clifford: no."
     
    Rick, Jan 16, 2006
    #9
  10. =?Utf-8?B?Z29kbWFkZXF1YXJrc0Bob3RtYWlsLmNvbQ==?=

    Rick Guest

    Here's a link to some x64 Broadcom drivers:
    http://www.planetamd64.com/index.php?download=746

    daddio wrote:
    > Here's what Linksys told me about their wireless adapter:"Musheer (50086):
    > Hi, my name is Musheer (50086). How may I help you?
    > Clifford: I need
    > Clifford: windows xp 64bit drivers
    > Musheer (50086): Hi Clifford.
    > Clifford: XP 64bit does not recognise the wireless network adapter nor it's
    > setup program
    > Clifford: hi
    > Clifford: WMP54G Card
    > Musheer (50086): Clifford, we do not have drivers which will support 64 bit
    > OS.
    > Clifford: wow
    > Clifford: can you suggest something?
    > Musheer (50086): You can try with third party drivers, but I am not sure
    > whether it will work with the card or not.
    > Clifford: Where do I get third party?
    > Musheer (50086): You can search in google web site.
    > Clifford: ok
    > Clifford: thanks
    > Musheer (50086): Do you have any other questions that I can help you with
    > today?
    > Clifford: no."
     
    Rick, Jan 16, 2006
    #10
  11. Andre, you're correct. There was an utter and complete lack of research put
    into this upgrade and I'm accepting full responsibility for my actions. I
    rushed out and upgraded assuming Windows x64 was as flexible as Apple's 10.3
    or 10.4 - but it's not as I've learned.

    But let me clarify something, I didn't say that if I had upgraded my Mac
    that I would be entitled to a software upgrade. I explained that I built a PC
    and purchased the OEM version of Windows XP Pro (OEM), which entitled me to
    the latest available version of Windows XP Pro, according to the x64 exchange
    program - due to the timing of my WinXP Pro OS purchase. The same would be
    true with a Mac purchase (even though one would have had to have purchased a
    Mac fully assembled). If one purchases a Mac which is for instance,
    prepackaged with 10.3 just as 10.4 was announced or just being released,
    Apple would to send out the 10.4 discs at no charge to the owner of that new
    Mac. The owner of the said Mac would then be licensed for both 10.3 and 10.4
    on that single computer. I've purchased over 20 different Apple computers in
    the last 15 years. I have the experience to back up what I claim is the
    protocol at Apple. Your licensing cost figure of $258 assumes that one
    already owns a mac with an OS of 10.2 or earlier. Your comments regarding
    Apple's two latest OSes make me believe that you have very little experience
    working with 10.3 or 10.4, otherwise you wouldn't be

    Now that I am the proud new owner of x64, I will follow your research tips
    and learn more about the OS and what is available for it. But please tell me,
    do you really feel that without compatible software Windows x64 is a
    reasonable upgrade to Win XP Pro (32-bit)?? I'm sorry, maybe I'm crazy here,
    but I don't. I've found that only ONE of the applications I use to be x64
    compatible, however, that application (Ableton's LIVE 5) requires use of a
    stable, x64 compatible audio driver (which I have not located).

    By the way, I checked out the planetamd64.com link. In the audio section of
    the forums, I noticed little more than people begging for help to locate
    drivers they needed or help in fixing the problems they were experiencing
    with drivers that do exist. Drivers for 10.4 are far more abundant and far
    more reliable ...that's a fact.

    The Russel link you provided is far more informative. Clearly I should not
    have upgraded as all of the software I require is 32-bit only. If I had only
    sought out that information before paying for my upgrade and thereby
    converting my license.

    Andre, thank you for being the first one to post a reply and for setting me
    straight about my shortcomings regarding my pre-purchase research. Anyone
    want to buy my copy of x64???

    Barry
     
    =?Utf-8?B?Z29kbWFkZXF1YXJrc0Bob3RtYWlsLmNvbQ==?=, Jan 17, 2006
    #11
  12. correction: Your comments regarding
    Apple's two latest OSes make me believe that you have very little experience
    working with 10.3 or 10.4, otherwise you wouldn't be claiming that x64 is a
    more compatible than OS X, regardless of the costs involved in purchasing the
    software. OS X.4 currently has FAR more compatible software titles than x64
    does.
     
    =?Utf-8?B?Z29kbWFkZXF1YXJrc0Bob3RtYWlsLmNvbQ==?=, Jan 17, 2006
    #12
  13. Not strictly true. There are over 10k software titles that are compatible
    with x64 Edition. Most of them are still 32-bit, and not taking advantage of
    x64, but they work just fine. As for the ones that aren't? Most fall into
    some clearly defined groups and I can almost always predict whether a
    particular program I want to use will work. Only one, so far, have I not
    been able to resolve, either with an alternative, or a new version, or a
    reasonable workaround. And that is Microsoft Services for UNIX. I miss it.
    But I'm learning to live without.

    --
    Charlie.
    http://msmvps.com/xperts64

    wrote:
    > correction: Your comments regarding
    > Apple's two latest OSes make me believe that you have very little
    > experience working with 10.3 or 10.4, otherwise you wouldn't be claiming
    > that x64 is a more compatible than OS X, regardless of the costs involved
    > in purchasing the software. OS X.4 currently has FAR more compatible
    > software titles than x64 does.
     
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Jan 17, 2006
    #13
  14. I might agree with you about device compatibilty, but not software. Most
    software does work on x64.

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > correction: Your comments regarding
    > Apple's two latest OSes make me believe that you have very little
    > experience
    > working with 10.3 or 10.4, otherwise you wouldn't be claiming that x64 is
    > a
    > more compatible than OS X, regardless of the costs involved in purchasing
    > the
    > software. OS X.4 currently has FAR more compatible software titles than
    > x64
    > does.
    >
     
    Colin Barnhorst, Jan 17, 2006
    #14
  15. I would say Device Driver issues tend to be the biggest problem for most
    users migrating to Windows x64, especially for individuals who purchased
    64-bit systems in 2003 when AMD came out with the AMD64 Processor. Most
    users just assumed that it was a pop the disk in upgrade thing and you were
    good to go, but it turned out to not be so. On the other side of things
    concerning Software compatibility, I would say, its good and not a headache
    as many would have imagined, the majority of most 32 bit applications work
    just fine, some might require updating, the issues around compatibility are
    mostly associated with apps utilizing 16-bit installers, but with emulation
    software such as Virtual Server and VMWare that can be easily solved.

    I just think people who are interested in the x64 platform should at least
    take necessary steps (research) before jumping head in. Stop looking at more
    power and start looking at value. I believe there is lack of education
    though about the who Windows XP Professional x64 is meant for, Microsoft
    should put a bit banner on their page with the following question, "Is
    64-Bit Windows Right for me?"
    --
    Andre
    Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
    Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
    http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
    FAQ for MS AntiSpy http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm

    "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Not strictly true. There are over 10k software titles that are compatible
    > with x64 Edition. Most of them are still 32-bit, and not taking advantage
    > of x64, but they work just fine. As for the ones that aren't? Most fall
    > into some clearly defined groups and I can almost always predict whether a
    > particular program I want to use will work. Only one, so far, have I not
    > been able to resolve, either with an alternative, or a new version, or a
    > reasonable workaround. And that is Microsoft Services for UNIX. I miss it.
    > But I'm learning to live without.
    >
    > --
    > Charlie.
    > http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    >
    > wrote:
    >> correction: Your comments regarding
    >> Apple's two latest OSes make me believe that you have very little
    >> experience working with 10.3 or 10.4, otherwise you wouldn't be claiming
    >> that x64 is a more compatible than OS X, regardless of the costs involved
    >> in purchasing the software. OS X.4 currently has FAR more compatible
    >> software titles than x64 does.

    >
    >
     
    Andre Da Costa [Extended64], Jan 17, 2006
    #15
  16. Yes, as I made clear in my web cast, it's NOT for everyone yet. And when I
    was interviewed at CES on it, I basically said the same thing. It's a great
    OS and it gets my job done every day. But I'm not everyone.

    --
    Charlie.
    http://msmvps.com/xperts64

    Andre Da Costa [Extended64] wrote:
    > I would say Device Driver issues tend to be the biggest problem for most
    > users migrating to Windows x64, especially for individuals who purchased
    > 64-bit systems in 2003 when AMD came out with the AMD64 Processor. Most
    > users just assumed that it was a pop the disk in upgrade thing and you
    > were good to go, but it turned out to not be so. On the other side of
    > things concerning Software compatibility, I would say, its good and not a
    > headache as many would have imagined, the majority of most 32 bit
    > applications work just fine, some might require updating, the issues
    > around compatibility are mostly associated with apps utilizing 16-bit
    > installers, but with emulation software such as Virtual Server and VMWare
    > that can be easily solved.
    > I just think people who are interested in the x64 platform should at least
    > take necessary steps (research) before jumping head in. Stop looking at
    > more power and start looking at value. I believe there is lack of
    > education though about the who Windows XP Professional x64 is meant for,
    > Microsoft should put a bit banner on their page with the following
    > question, "Is 64-Bit Windows Right for me?"
    >
    > "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Not strictly true. There are over 10k software titles that are compatible
    >> with x64 Edition. Most of them are still 32-bit, and not taking advantage
    >> of x64, but they work just fine. As for the ones that aren't? Most fall
    >> into some clearly defined groups and I can almost always predict whether
    >> a particular program I want to use will work. Only one, so far, have I
    >> not been able to resolve, either with an alternative, or a new version,
    >> or a reasonable workaround. And that is Microsoft Services for UNIX. I
    >> miss it. But I'm learning to live without.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Charlie.
    >> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    >>
    >> wrote:
    >>> correction: Your comments regarding
    >>> Apple's two latest OSes make me believe that you have very little
    >>> experience working with 10.3 or 10.4, otherwise you wouldn't be claiming
    >>> that x64 is a more compatible than OS X, regardless of the costs
    >>> involved in purchasing the software. OS X.4 currently has FAR more
    >>> compatible software titles than x64 does.
     
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Jan 17, 2006
    #16
  17. Of the software titles I own and intend to use only one installed without a
    hitch under x64 - that is until I tried to use it. That single software title
    was, 'Live 5', and it requires an audio driver that doesn't currently exist,
    so I am unable to use it. I had some installers fail the installation process
    altogether. Other apps required installation work arounds (adobe creative
    suite) and more than a little 'tweaking' to get those same applications
    functioning (although not all functions work). That doesn't sound like
    advancement in the 'ease of use' or 'improved functionality' categories.

    x64 leaves me scratching my head ... thinking why would this be an upgrade
    to XP Pro? As a novice Windows user, I honestly thought changing my license
    to x64 was more like a CD which included new Sevice Packs - it doesn't make
    sense (to me) that Microsoft offered the x64 upgrade path because in reality,
    the new OS is more like moving from OS 9 to OS X (in Apple terms). I'm voting
    for that big banner that says "Is x64 right for you?" - GREAT IDEA!

    Thanks again for everyone's input and assistance.

    "Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote:

    > Not strictly true. There are over 10k software titles that are compatible
    > with x64 Edition. Most of them are still 32-bit, and not taking advantage of
    > x64, but they work just fine. As for the ones that aren't? Most fall into
    > some clearly defined groups and I can almost always predict whether a
    > particular program I want to use will work. Only one, so far, have I not
    > been able to resolve, either with an alternative, or a new version, or a
    > reasonable workaround. And that is Microsoft Services for UNIX. I miss it.
    > But I'm learning to live without.
    >
    > --
    > Charlie.
    > http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    >
    > wrote:
    > > correction: Your comments regarding
    > > Apple's two latest OSes make me believe that you have very little
    > > experience working with 10.3 or 10.4, otherwise you wouldn't be claiming
    > > that x64 is a more compatible than OS X, regardless of the costs involved
    > > in purchasing the software. OS X.4 currently has FAR more compatible
    > > software titles than x64 does.

    >
    >
    >
     
    =?Utf-8?B?Z29kbWFkZXF1YXJrc0Bob3RtYWlsLmNvbQ==?=, Jan 17, 2006
    #17
  18. =?Utf-8?B?Z29kbWFkZXF1YXJrc0Bob3RtYWlsLmNvbQ==?=

    John Barnes Guest

    I have a lot of programs which don't work, partially work or don't install
    also. As Charlie has pointed out, the system is not for all, actually
    fairly limited. The site that shows programs which work has quite a few
    listed that don't work, and none of the programs I use that won't work are
    even listed.


    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Of the software titles I own and intend to use only one installed without
    > a
    > hitch under x64 - that is until I tried to use it. That single software
    > title
    > was, 'Live 5', and it requires an audio driver that doesn't currently
    > exist,
    > so I am unable to use it. I had some installers fail the installation
    > process
    > altogether. Other apps required installation work arounds (adobe creative
    > suite) and more than a little 'tweaking' to get those same applications
    > functioning (although not all functions work). That doesn't sound like
    > advancement in the 'ease of use' or 'improved functionality' categories.
    >
    > x64 leaves me scratching my head ... thinking why would this be an upgrade
    > to XP Pro? As a novice Windows user, I honestly thought changing my
    > license
    > to x64 was more like a CD which included new Sevice Packs - it doesn't
    > make
    > sense (to me) that Microsoft offered the x64 upgrade path because in
    > reality,
    > the new OS is more like moving from OS 9 to OS X (in Apple terms). I'm
    > voting
    > for that big banner that says "Is x64 right for you?" - GREAT IDEA!
    >
    > Thanks again for everyone's input and assistance.
    >
    > "Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote:
    >
    >> Not strictly true. There are over 10k software titles that are compatible
    >> with x64 Edition. Most of them are still 32-bit, and not taking advantage
    >> of
    >> x64, but they work just fine. As for the ones that aren't? Most fall into
    >> some clearly defined groups and I can almost always predict whether a
    >> particular program I want to use will work. Only one, so far, have I not
    >> been able to resolve, either with an alternative, or a new version, or a
    >> reasonable workaround. And that is Microsoft Services for UNIX. I miss
    >> it.
    >> But I'm learning to live without.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Charlie.
    >> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    >>
    >> wrote:
    >> > correction: Your comments regarding
    >> > Apple's two latest OSes make me believe that you have very little
    >> > experience working with 10.3 or 10.4, otherwise you wouldn't be
    >> > claiming
    >> > that x64 is a more compatible than OS X, regardless of the costs
    >> > involved
    >> > in purchasing the software. OS X.4 currently has FAR more compatible
    >> > software titles than x64 does.

    >>
    >>
    >>
     
    John Barnes, Jan 17, 2006
    #18
  19. Thanks for your input, John.

    Someone please point me to the web site that lists all fully compatible x64
    applications so I can see this list of 10,000 applications that run on x64.
    Thanks in advance.

    Barry

    "John Barnes" wrote:

    > I have a lot of programs which don't work, partially work or don't install
    > also. As Charlie has pointed out, the system is not for all, actually
    > fairly limited. The site that shows programs which work has quite a few
    > listed that don't work, and none of the programs I use that won't work are
    > even listed.
    >
    >
    > <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > Of the software titles I own and intend to use only one installed without
    > > a
    > > hitch under x64 - that is until I tried to use it. That single software
    > > title
    > > was, 'Live 5', and it requires an audio driver that doesn't currently
    > > exist,
    > > so I am unable to use it. I had some installers fail the installation
    > > process
    > > altogether. Other apps required installation work arounds (adobe creative
    > > suite) and more than a little 'tweaking' to get those same applications
    > > functioning (although not all functions work). That doesn't sound like
    > > advancement in the 'ease of use' or 'improved functionality' categories.
    > >
    > > x64 leaves me scratching my head ... thinking why would this be an upgrade
    > > to XP Pro? As a novice Windows user, I honestly thought changing my
    > > license
    > > to x64 was more like a CD which included new Sevice Packs - it doesn't
    > > make
    > > sense (to me) that Microsoft offered the x64 upgrade path because in
    > > reality,
    > > the new OS is more like moving from OS 9 to OS X (in Apple terms). I'm
    > > voting
    > > for that big banner that says "Is x64 right for you?" - GREAT IDEA!
    > >
    > > Thanks again for everyone's input and assistance.
    > >
    > > "Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote:
    > >
    > >> Not strictly true. There are over 10k software titles that are compatible
    > >> with x64 Edition. Most of them are still 32-bit, and not taking advantage
    > >> of
    > >> x64, but they work just fine. As for the ones that aren't? Most fall into
    > >> some clearly defined groups and I can almost always predict whether a
    > >> particular program I want to use will work. Only one, so far, have I not
    > >> been able to resolve, either with an alternative, or a new version, or a
    > >> reasonable workaround. And that is Microsoft Services for UNIX. I miss
    > >> it.
    > >> But I'm learning to live without.
    > >>
    > >> --
    > >> Charlie.
    > >> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    > >>
    > >> wrote:
    > >> > correction: Your comments regarding
    > >> > Apple's two latest OSes make me believe that you have very little
    > >> > experience working with 10.3 or 10.4, otherwise you wouldn't be
    > >> > claiming
    > >> > that x64 is a more compatible than OS X, regardless of the costs
    > >> > involved
    > >> > in purchasing the software. OS X.4 currently has FAR more compatible
    > >> > software titles than x64 does.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>

    >
    >
    >
     
    =?Utf-8?B?Z29kbWFkZXF1YXJrc0Bob3RtYWlsLmNvbQ==?=, Jan 17, 2006
    #19
  20. =?Utf-8?B?Z29kbWFkZXF1YXJrc0Bob3RtYWlsLmNvbQ==?=

    John Barnes Guest

    They are probably talking about this site. You can find native 64-bit and
    32-bit from here

    http://www.3dvelocity.com/articles/win64compatibility/win64softlist.htm


    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Thanks for your input, John.
    >
    > Someone please point me to the web site that lists all fully compatible
    > x64
    > applications so I can see this list of 10,000 applications that run on
    > x64.
    > Thanks in advance.
    >
    > Barry
    >
    > "John Barnes" wrote:
    >
    >> I have a lot of programs which don't work, partially work or don't
    >> install
    >> also. As Charlie has pointed out, the system is not for all, actually
    >> fairly limited. The site that shows programs which work has quite a few
    >> listed that don't work, and none of the programs I use that won't work
    >> are
    >> even listed.
    >>
    >>
    >> <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >> > Of the software titles I own and intend to use only one installed
    >> > without
    >> > a
    >> > hitch under x64 - that is until I tried to use it. That single software
    >> > title
    >> > was, 'Live 5', and it requires an audio driver that doesn't currently
    >> > exist,
    >> > so I am unable to use it. I had some installers fail the installation
    >> > process
    >> > altogether. Other apps required installation work arounds (adobe
    >> > creative
    >> > suite) and more than a little 'tweaking' to get those same applications
    >> > functioning (although not all functions work). That doesn't sound like
    >> > advancement in the 'ease of use' or 'improved functionality'
    >> > categories.
    >> >
    >> > x64 leaves me scratching my head ... thinking why would this be an
    >> > upgrade
    >> > to XP Pro? As a novice Windows user, I honestly thought changing my
    >> > license
    >> > to x64 was more like a CD which included new Sevice Packs - it doesn't
    >> > make
    >> > sense (to me) that Microsoft offered the x64 upgrade path because in
    >> > reality,
    >> > the new OS is more like moving from OS 9 to OS X (in Apple terms). I'm
    >> > voting
    >> > for that big banner that says "Is x64 right for you?" - GREAT IDEA!
    >> >
    >> > Thanks again for everyone's input and assistance.
    >> >
    >> > "Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> Not strictly true. There are over 10k software titles that are
    >> >> compatible
    >> >> with x64 Edition. Most of them are still 32-bit, and not taking
    >> >> advantage
    >> >> of
    >> >> x64, but they work just fine. As for the ones that aren't? Most fall
    >> >> into
    >> >> some clearly defined groups and I can almost always predict whether a
    >> >> particular program I want to use will work. Only one, so far, have I
    >> >> not
    >> >> been able to resolve, either with an alternative, or a new version, or
    >> >> a
    >> >> reasonable workaround. And that is Microsoft Services for UNIX. I miss
    >> >> it.
    >> >> But I'm learning to live without.
    >> >>
    >> >> --
    >> >> Charlie.
    >> >> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    >> >>
    >> >> wrote:
    >> >> > correction: Your comments regarding
    >> >> > Apple's two latest OSes make me believe that you have very little
    >> >> > experience working with 10.3 or 10.4, otherwise you wouldn't be
    >> >> > claiming
    >> >> > that x64 is a more compatible than OS X, regardless of the costs
    >> >> > involved
    >> >> > in purchasing the software. OS X.4 currently has FAR more compatible
    >> >> > software titles than x64 does.
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >>

    >>
    >>
    >>
     
    John Barnes, Jan 17, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. BP
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,160
    PhilSweet
    Dec 19, 2008
  2. Homer J. Simpson
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    787
    Jim Barry
    Jan 19, 2009
  3. David B.
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    518
    David B.
    Jan 20, 2009
  4. Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    454
    Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]
    Jan 21, 2009
  5. sandi_ro
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    562
    sandi_ro
    Jan 28, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page