IS Windows XP 64 crippled?

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by vidmark, Feb 12, 2008.

  1. vidmark

    vidmark Guest

    Whoa! Just installed Windows XP 64 and right away I noticed that I cannot
    display streaming videos such as from Youtube. I couldn't get Flash to work
    either. Anybody?
    vidmark, Feb 12, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. vidmark

    Theo Guest

    No Windows x64 is not crippled!

    It's a matter of 3rd party support and something that is
    pointed out to anyone taking the time to do some research
    before installing the system.

    I would have to boot up my x64, but I believe Flash is
    installed. I personally don't recall any problems with
    streaming video from the news site.


    vidmark wrote:
    > Whoa! Just installed Windows XP 64 and right away I noticed that I cannot
    > display streaming videos such as from Youtube. I couldn't get Flash to work
    > either. Anybody?
    >
    >
    Theo, Feb 12, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. vidmark

    vidmark Guest

    Geez, dude, other than "No Windows x64 is not crippled!" you didn't provide
    any useful suggestions HOW to uncriple this shit. Mind trying again without
    wasting your time?

    "Theo" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > No Windows x64 is not crippled!
    >
    > It's a matter of 3rd party support and something that is pointed out to
    > anyone taking the time to do some research before installing the system.
    >
    > I would have to boot up my x64, but I believe Flash is installed. I
    > personally don't recall any problems with streaming video from the news
    > site.
    >
    >
    > vidmark wrote:
    >> Whoa! Just installed Windows XP 64 and right away I noticed that I cannot
    >> display streaming videos such as from Youtube. I couldn't get Flash to
    >> work either. Anybody?
    vidmark, Feb 12, 2008
    #3
  4. Yes, Flash installs OK. For video, including Youtube, install codecs such
    as with FDShow. I just got through watching some Youtube videos on x64.

    "Theo" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > No Windows x64 is not crippled!
    >
    > It's a matter of 3rd party support and something that is pointed out to
    > anyone taking the time to do some research before installing the system.
    >
    > I would have to boot up my x64, but I believe Flash is installed. I
    > personally don't recall any problems with streaming video from the news
    > site.
    >
    >
    > vidmark wrote:
    >> Whoa! Just installed Windows XP 64 and right away I noticed that I cannot
    >> display streaming videos such as from Youtube. I couldn't get Flash to
    >> work either. Anybody?
    Colin Barnhorst, Feb 12, 2008
    #4
  5. Sorry, the ffdshow link is
    http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=173941&package_id=199416&release_id=569930

    "Theo" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > No Windows x64 is not crippled!
    >
    > It's a matter of 3rd party support and something that is pointed out to
    > anyone taking the time to do some research before installing the system.
    >
    > I would have to boot up my x64, but I believe Flash is installed. I
    > personally don't recall any problems with streaming video from the news
    > site.
    >
    >
    > vidmark wrote:
    >> Whoa! Just installed Windows XP 64 and right away I noticed that I cannot
    >> display streaming videos such as from Youtube. I couldn't get Flash to
    >> work either. Anybody?
    Colin Barnhorst, Feb 12, 2008
    #5
  6. vidmark

    vidmark Guest

    Thanks for the link.

    Theo, are you paying attention? This is how you help people.


    "Colin Barnhorst" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Sorry, the ffdshow link is
    > http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=173941&package_id=199416&release_id=569930
    >
    > "Theo" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> No Windows x64 is not crippled!
    >>
    >> It's a matter of 3rd party support and something that is pointed out to
    >> anyone taking the time to do some research before installing the system.
    >>
    >> I would have to boot up my x64, but I believe Flash is installed. I
    >> personally don't recall any problems with streaming video from the news
    >> site.
    >>
    >>
    >> vidmark wrote:
    >>> Whoa! Just installed Windows XP 64 and right away I noticed that I
    >>> cannot display streaming videos such as from Youtube. I couldn't get
    >>> Flash to work either. Anybody?

    >
    vidmark, Feb 12, 2008
    #6
  7. vidmark

    vidmark Guest

    It doesn't work. I tried both IE's the 32 and 64 bit and neither shows
    videos. All I get is a black screen in IE32 and nothing in IE64. Maybe THEO
    can show me how to get it to run. Shoukd I hold my breath, Theo?


    > "Colin Barnhorst" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Sorry, the ffdshow link is
    >> http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=173941&package_id=199416&release_id=569930
    >>
    >> "Theo" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> No Windows x64 is not crippled!
    >>>
    >>> It's a matter of 3rd party support and something that is pointed out to
    >>> anyone taking the time to do some research before installing the system.
    >>>
    >>> I would have to boot up my x64, but I believe Flash is installed. I
    >>> personally don't recall any problems with streaming video from the news
    >>> site.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> vidmark wrote:
    >>>> Whoa! Just installed Windows XP 64 and right away I noticed that I
    >>>> cannot display streaming videos such as from Youtube. I couldn't get
    >>>> Flash to work either. Anybody?

    >>

    >
    >
    vidmark, Feb 12, 2008
    #7
  8. vidmark

    Tony Harding Guest

    vidmark wrote:
    > Thanks for the link.
    >
    > Theo, are you paying attention? This is how you help people.


    You seem awfully snarky for someone asking for help in a public forum. I
    believe most posters here are employed, so their time is valuable. Maybe
    you could lighten up a bit?
    Tony Harding, Feb 12, 2008
    #8
  9. vidmark

    Mike Guest

    "Tony Harding" <> wrote in message
    news:47b1f41b$0$15161$...
    > vidmark wrote:
    >> Thanks for the link.
    >>
    >> Theo, are you paying attention? This is how you help people.

    >
    > You seem awfully snarky for someone asking for help in a public forum. I
    > believe most posters here are employed, so their time is valuable. Maybe
    > you could lighten up a bit?


    I can't see anyone asking you for any advice. Why did you post? You probably
    have have no one else other than the computer to talk to, now that is
    pitiful :(
    Mike, Feb 12, 2008
    #9
  10. vidmark

    Theo Guest

    Perhaps it would be beneficial to know more about your
    system. I am running Win x64 on an Asus A8V, I have Flash
    installed, and I can watch streaming video from Yahoo, CNN,
    Youtube, and who knows where else.

    So, yes, you should hold your breath since I have no idea
    what your particular setup is.


    vidmark wrote:
    > It doesn't work. I tried both IE's the 32 and 64 bit and neither shows
    > videos. All I get is a black screen in IE32 and nothing in IE64. Maybe THEO
    > can show me how to get it to run. Shoukd I hold my breath, Theo?
    >
    >
    >> "Colin Barnhorst" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> Sorry, the ffdshow link is
    >>> http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=173941&package_id=199416&release_id=569930
    >>>
    >>> "Theo" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> No Windows x64 is not crippled!
    >>>>
    >>>> It's a matter of 3rd party support and something that is pointed out to
    >>>> anyone taking the time to do some research before installing the system.
    >>>>
    >>>> I would have to boot up my x64, but I believe Flash is installed. I
    >>>> personally don't recall any problems with streaming video from the news
    >>>> site.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> vidmark wrote:
    >>>>> Whoa! Just installed Windows XP 64 and right away I noticed that I
    >>>>> cannot display streaming videos such as from Youtube. I couldn't get
    >>>>> Flash to work either. Anybody?

    >>

    >
    >
    Theo, Feb 12, 2008
    #10
  11. Use the 32 bit version of internet explorer.

    Then flash 32 bit will install fine and you can view the video's.

    Bye,
    Skybuck.
    Skybuck Flying, Feb 12, 2008
    #11
  12. vidmark

    Bull Guest

    Even Microsoft doesn't support it. I want out. I'd thought that at some point
    3rd party support would be forthcoming, but Norton doesn't provide a 64 bit
    version of Norton 360 on XP 64.

    I tried running Vista upgrade adviser and guess what? Not supported on XP
    64. So not even Microsoft supports their 64 bit customers. My mistake for
    thinking that I should be able to run a 64 bit OS on a 64 bit PC and still be
    able to run 32 bit apps.
    Bull, Feb 14, 2008
    #12
  13. vidmark

    ralish Guest

    Firstly, before you migrate to a new operating system running on a new
    processor architecture, you should do your basic research.

    Of course Norton for 32-bit systems isn't going to work on a 64-bit system.
    It has components that plug into low-level system components (including the
    kernel, through drivers). You can't plug 32-bit code into a 64-bit kernel.
    Maybe, you should check with the suppliers of your software that it IS
    64-bit compatible and IS supported on your new operating system? This should
    help to avoid unpleasant surprises.

    There are plenty of virus scanners out there that do work on 64-bit Windows,
    and some are free. Personally, I'd argue all are better than Norton. I use
    McAfee VirusScan Enterprise 8.5i on my work machine, and it works fine,
    however, it is not free.

    Your problem seems to be with vendors of computer software being slow to
    support 64-bit Windows operating systems. Same goes for OEM's and hardware
    support. I agree with you.

    Rather than unnecessarily rude, maybe you could provide useful information,
    and ask for useful advice in return, and just maybe, we all might be able to
    do, and learn, something constructive.

    Bull: AVG develops a free virus-scanner that is compatible with XP x64.
    Available at: http://free.grisoft.com/

    vidmark: I was able to install Flash straight from www.adobe.com on both IE
    7 (32-bit) and FF 2 (2.0.0.12). Ensure you are not running IE 64-bit, as
    Adobe has yet to publish a 64-bit compatible Flash for IE. If this bothers
    you, write to Adobe and let them know you for one are eagerly anticipating
    64-bit support; the more who do this, the more likely they are to invest the
    time and money to get it done.


    "Bull" <> wrote in message
    news:<>...
    > Even Microsoft doesn't support it. I want out. I'd thought that at some
    > point
    > 3rd party support would be forthcoming, but Norton doesn't provide a 64
    > bit
    > version of Norton 360 on XP 64.
    >
    > I tried running Vista upgrade adviser and guess what? Not supported on XP
    > 64. So not even Microsoft supports their 64 bit customers. My mistake for
    > thinking that I should be able to run a 64 bit OS on a 64 bit PC and still
    > be
    > able to run 32 bit apps.
    >
    >
    >

    "Bull" <> wrote in message
    news:D...
    > Even Microsoft doesn't support it. I want out. I'd thought that at some
    > point
    > 3rd party support would be forthcoming, but Norton doesn't provide a 64
    > bit
    > version of Norton 360 on XP 64.
    >
    > I tried running Vista upgrade adviser and guess what? Not supported on XP
    > 64. So not even Microsoft supports their 64 bit customers. My mistake for
    > thinking that I should be able to run a 64 bit OS on a 64 bit PC and still
    > be
    > able to run 32 bit apps.
    >
    >
    >
    ralish, Feb 14, 2008
    #13
  14. The fact that Norton won't run on it is _good_ news. Nothing in a bright
    yellow box is allowed near any of my machines.

    The reason the "upgrade" advisor won't run on 64bit is that there is NO
    upgrade from any prior version to Vista 64. Even if you're funning XP x64,
    it's still a clean install. (There are many reasons for this, but the single
    most telling one is the need for signed drivers in Vista 64.)

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


    "Bull" <> wrote in message
    news:D...
    > Even Microsoft doesn't support it. I want out. I'd thought that at some
    > point
    > 3rd party support would be forthcoming, but Norton doesn't provide a 64
    > bit
    > version of Norton 360 on XP 64.
    >
    > I tried running Vista upgrade adviser and guess what? Not supported on XP
    > 64. So not even Microsoft supports their 64 bit customers. My mistake for
    > thinking that I should be able to run a 64 bit OS on a 64 bit PC and still
    > be
    > able to run 32 bit apps.
    >
    >
    >
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Feb 14, 2008
    #14
  15. vidmark

    Bull Guest

    Sorry I'm not as informed as you. I'm a reasonably well informed computer
    user but while things like this might be obvious to you, they aren't to me. I
    happened to have been involved in the design of 64 bit Intel processors, so I
    know that by and large there isn't any hardware reason that 32 bit programs
    can't run on 64 bit cores. This has more to do with the software architecture
    which is outside my expertise. So, I really don't know which applications may
    or may not run on 64 bit windows. I would have thought that windows 64 could
    have been designed to detect 32 bit applications and run them in 32 bit
    compatibility mode. I know that the hardware supports this even if the
    software doesn't take advantage of it.

    I understand that device drivers are different and I didn't have a problem
    until I wanted to do wireless on this PC and discovered that Linksys still
    doesn't support XP64.

    Anyway, I'm simply stating that I made a mistake in buying Windows64. I
    admit that. I didn't do my homework. I foolishly anticipated that the
    industry would move in this direction. I also originally planned to run Linux
    and only recently reinstalled Windows.

    I could live without certain applications like Norton. But device driver
    support is still very spotty, which is a surprise after this much time.

    Finally, why the snarky comments about Norton? I've been a satisfied
    customer and it regularly tops reviews and catches things that the free
    products miss. I guess I could be equally snarky and make comments about the
    OS that makes such products necessary, but I won't.

    "ralish" wrote:

    > Firstly, before you migrate to a new operating system running on a new
    > processor architecture, you should do your basic research.
    >
    > Of course Norton for 32-bit systems isn't going to work on a 64-bit system.
    > It has components that plug into low-level system components (including the
    > kernel, through drivers). You can't plug 32-bit code into a 64-bit kernel.
    > Maybe, you should check with the suppliers of your software that it IS
    > 64-bit compatible and IS supported on your new operating system? This should
    > help to avoid unpleasant surprises.
    >
    > There are plenty of virus scanners out there that do work on 64-bit Windows,
    > and some are free. Personally, I'd argue all are better than Norton. I use
    > McAfee VirusScan Enterprise 8.5i on my work machine, and it works fine,
    > however, it is not free.
    >
    > Your problem seems to be with vendors of computer software being slow to
    > support 64-bit Windows operating systems. Same goes for OEM's and hardware
    > support. I agree with you.
    >
    > Rather than unnecessarily rude, maybe you could provide useful information,
    > and ask for useful advice in return, and just maybe, we all might be able to
    > do, and learn, something constructive.
    >
    > Bull: AVG develops a free virus-scanner that is compatible with XP x64.
    > Available at: http://free.grisoft.com/
    >
    > vidmark: I was able to install Flash straight from www.adobe.com on both IE
    > 7 (32-bit) and FF 2 (2.0.0.12). Ensure you are not running IE 64-bit, as
    > Adobe has yet to publish a 64-bit compatible Flash for IE. If this bothers
    > you, write to Adobe and let them know you for one are eagerly anticipating
    > 64-bit support; the more who do this, the more likely they are to invest the
    > time and money to get it done.
    >
    >
    > "Bull" <> wrote in message
    > news:<>...
    > > Even Microsoft doesn't support it. I want out. I'd thought that at some
    > > point
    > > 3rd party support would be forthcoming, but Norton doesn't provide a 64
    > > bit
    > > version of Norton 360 on XP 64.
    > >
    > > I tried running Vista upgrade adviser and guess what? Not supported on XP
    > > 64. So not even Microsoft supports their 64 bit customers. My mistake for
    > > thinking that I should be able to run a 64 bit OS on a 64 bit PC and still
    > > be
    > > able to run 32 bit apps.
    > >
    > >
    > >

    > "Bull" <> wrote in message
    > news:D...
    > > Even Microsoft doesn't support it. I want out. I'd thought that at some
    > > point
    > > 3rd party support would be forthcoming, but Norton doesn't provide a 64
    > > bit
    > > version of Norton 360 on XP 64.
    > >
    > > I tried running Vista upgrade adviser and guess what? Not supported on XP
    > > 64. So not even Microsoft supports their 64 bit customers. My mistake for
    > > thinking that I should be able to run a 64 bit OS on a 64 bit PC and still
    > > be
    > > able to run 32 bit apps.
    > >
    > >
    > >

    >
    >
    >
    Bull, Feb 14, 2008
    #15
  16. vidmark

    Bull Guest

    I guess I'm happier with Norton than I am with Windows :)

    Thanks for explaining the advisor problem. I guess it would be nice if it
    would have said that instead of just refusing to run.

    "Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote:

    > The fact that Norton won't run on it is _good_ news. Nothing in a bright
    > yellow box is allowed near any of my machines.
    >
    > The reason the "upgrade" advisor won't run on 64bit is that there is NO
    > upgrade from any prior version to Vista 64. Even if you're funning XP x64,
    > it's still a clean install. (There are many reasons for this, but the single
    > most telling one is the need for signed drivers in Vista 64.)
    >
    > --
    > Charlie.
    > http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    > http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
    >
    >
    > "Bull" <> wrote in message
    > news:D...
    > > Even Microsoft doesn't support it. I want out. I'd thought that at some
    > > point
    > > 3rd party support would be forthcoming, but Norton doesn't provide a 64
    > > bit
    > > version of Norton 360 on XP 64.
    > >
    > > I tried running Vista upgrade adviser and guess what? Not supported on XP
    > > 64. So not even Microsoft supports their 64 bit customers. My mistake for
    > > thinking that I should be able to run a 64 bit OS on a 64 bit PC and still
    > > be
    > > able to run 32 bit apps.
    > >
    > >
    > >

    >
    Bull, Feb 14, 2008
    #16
  17. vidmark

    ralish Guest

    Windows x64 (both XP (which is really a themed Windows Server 2003, it's
    from the same codebase) and Vista) have backwards compatibility with 32-bit
    applications. However, there are some caveats. The two that are very
    important to know are that:

    a) You can NOT plug 32-bit drivers into the 64-bit kernel (the core of the
    Windows OS). I'm not a programmer, so I can't give you specific indepth
    reasons; I suspect there are some legitimate technical reasons and maybe
    some stability reasons (or both). This limitation is partly why driver
    support is so lacking (new drivers must be developed for x64 versions of
    Windows). Thus, the problem so many of us have when migrating, finding the
    damn drivers for our hardware, assuming they exist at all.
    b) You can NOT "mix-and-match" between 32-bit and 64-bit binaries. For
    example, you can't plug a 64-bit DLL into a 32-bit application. This is why,
    for instance, Windows x64 has a 32-bit version of Internet Explorer and a
    separate 64-bit version. You can't plug a 32-bit Flash plugin into a 64-bit
    version of Internet Explorer. Hence, you're stuck using IE 32-bit for most
    tasks, until plug-in developers bother to port their code to 64-bit. (This
    very much applies to you vidmark)

    As far as hardware support goes, I highly recommend, for a desktop machine,
    building the system yourself piece by piece, if you have the expertise.
    Vendor support for x64 is woeful in my experience, with many, many
    manufacturers selling 64-bit "capable" machines, but without the 64-bit
    driver support that is required. By building your machine piece by piece,
    you can ensure that 64-bit drivers are available for each and every piece of
    hardware to be installed in your system. It takes time, but you'll end up
    with a machine that is fully 64-bit compatible, with associated drivers,
    which you can continually update as the respective OEM of each hardware
    component provides updated drivers.

    As for Norton, it used to be great, it went downhill from when it was bought
    up by Symantec. I'm not saying it can't detect virus's, it does that very
    well. My complaint is the performance hit, whenever I've used Norton
    products in recent years, the performance hit has been huge, and the
    software is very intrusive. I like to keep my computers very streamlined,
    and Norton doesn't really satisfy that criteria ;)

    Bottom Line: OEM's need to get their act together and start taking x64
    support seriously. My view is that this isn't really a fault of Microsoft's.
    They've developed the 64-bit OS, it's now up to developers to choose when
    (if?) they are going to seriously support it.


    "Bull" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Sorry I'm not as informed as you. I'm a reasonably well informed computer
    > user but while things like this might be obvious to you, they aren't to
    > me. I
    > happened to have been involved in the design of 64 bit Intel processors,
    > so I
    > know that by and large there isn't any hardware reason that 32 bit
    > programs
    > can't run on 64 bit cores. This has more to do with the software
    > architecture
    > which is outside my expertise. So, I really don't know which applications
    > may
    > or may not run on 64 bit windows. I would have thought that windows 64
    > could
    > have been designed to detect 32 bit applications and run them in 32 bit
    > compatibility mode. I know that the hardware supports this even if the
    > software doesn't take advantage of it.
    >
    > I understand that device drivers are different and I didn't have a problem
    > until I wanted to do wireless on this PC and discovered that Linksys still
    > doesn't support XP64.
    >
    > Anyway, I'm simply stating that I made a mistake in buying Windows64. I
    > admit that. I didn't do my homework. I foolishly anticipated that the
    > industry would move in this direction. I also originally planned to run
    > Linux
    > and only recently reinstalled Windows.
    >
    > I could live without certain applications like Norton. But device driver
    > support is still very spotty, which is a surprise after this much time.
    >
    > Finally, why the snarky comments about Norton? I've been a satisfied
    > customer and it regularly tops reviews and catches things that the free
    > products miss. I guess I could be equally snarky and make comments about
    > the
    > OS that makes such products necessary, but I won't.
    >
    > "ralish" wrote:
    >
    >> Firstly, before you migrate to a new operating system running on a new
    >> processor architecture, you should do your basic research.
    >>
    >> Of course Norton for 32-bit systems isn't going to work on a 64-bit
    >> system.
    >> It has components that plug into low-level system components (including
    >> the
    >> kernel, through drivers). You can't plug 32-bit code into a 64-bit
    >> kernel.
    >> Maybe, you should check with the suppliers of your software that it IS
    >> 64-bit compatible and IS supported on your new operating system? This
    >> should
    >> help to avoid unpleasant surprises.
    >>
    >> There are plenty of virus scanners out there that do work on 64-bit
    >> Windows,
    >> and some are free. Personally, I'd argue all are better than Norton. I
    >> use
    >> McAfee VirusScan Enterprise 8.5i on my work machine, and it works fine,
    >> however, it is not free.
    >>
    >> Your problem seems to be with vendors of computer software being slow to
    >> support 64-bit Windows operating systems. Same goes for OEM's and
    >> hardware
    >> support. I agree with you.
    >>
    >> Rather than unnecessarily rude, maybe you could provide useful
    >> information,
    >> and ask for useful advice in return, and just maybe, we all might be able
    >> to
    >> do, and learn, something constructive.
    >>
    >> Bull: AVG develops a free virus-scanner that is compatible with XP x64.
    >> Available at: http://free.grisoft.com/
    >>
    >> vidmark: I was able to install Flash straight from www.adobe.com on both
    >> IE
    >> 7 (32-bit) and FF 2 (2.0.0.12). Ensure you are not running IE 64-bit, as
    >> Adobe has yet to publish a 64-bit compatible Flash for IE. If this
    >> bothers
    >> you, write to Adobe and let them know you for one are eagerly
    >> anticipating
    >> 64-bit support; the more who do this, the more likely they are to invest
    >> the
    >> time and money to get it done.
    >>
    >>
    >> "Bull" <> wrote in message
    >> news:<>...
    >> > Even Microsoft doesn't support it. I want out. I'd thought that at some
    >> > point
    >> > 3rd party support would be forthcoming, but Norton doesn't provide a 64
    >> > bit
    >> > version of Norton 360 on XP 64.
    >> >
    >> > I tried running Vista upgrade adviser and guess what? Not supported on
    >> > XP
    >> > 64. So not even Microsoft supports their 64 bit customers. My mistake
    >> > for
    >> > thinking that I should be able to run a 64 bit OS on a 64 bit PC and
    >> > still
    >> > be
    >> > able to run 32 bit apps.
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >

    >> "Bull" <> wrote in message
    >> news:D...
    >> > Even Microsoft doesn't support it. I want out. I'd thought that at some
    >> > point
    >> > 3rd party support would be forthcoming, but Norton doesn't provide a 64
    >> > bit
    >> > version of Norton 360 on XP 64.
    >> >
    >> > I tried running Vista upgrade adviser and guess what? Not supported on
    >> > XP
    >> > 64. So not even Microsoft supports their 64 bit customers. My mistake
    >> > for
    >> > thinking that I should be able to run a 64 bit OS on a 64 bit PC and
    >> > still
    >> > be
    >> > able to run 32 bit apps.
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >

    >>
    >>
    >>
    ralish, Feb 14, 2008
    #17
  18. vidmark

    Tom Lake Guest

    "Bull" <> wrote in message
    news:D...
    > Even Microsoft doesn't support it. I want out. I'd thought that at some point
    > 3rd party support would be forthcoming, but Norton doesn't provide a 64 bit
    > version of Norton 360 on XP 64.


    Vista 64 has much more support than XP 64. The only problem I've had
    has been with Hauppauge WinTV drivers on my system with 8 GB RAM.
    Hauppauge is working on a fix. After the fix I won't have any problems
    with Vista 64.

    Tom Lake
    Tom Lake, Feb 14, 2008
    #18
  19. vidmark

    Tony Harding Guest

    Mike wrote:
    > "Tony Harding" <> wrote in message
    > news:47b1f41b$0$15161$...
    >> vidmark wrote:
    >>> Thanks for the link.
    >>>
    >>> Theo, are you paying attention? This is how you help people.

    >> You seem awfully snarky for someone asking for help in a public forum. I
    >> believe most posters here are employed, so their time is valuable. Maybe
    >> you could lighten up a bit?

    >
    > I can't see anyone asking you for any advice. Why did you post? You probably
    > have have no one else other than the computer to talk to, now that is
    > pitiful :(


    Somebody asked you for advice regarding my post? No, so who's the
    greater fool?
    Tony Harding, Feb 14, 2008
    #19
    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. anthonyberet
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    729
    Plato
    Dec 21, 2004
  2. Alan Browne

    Photoshop Elements 2.0 --- crippled 8 bit?

    Alan Browne, Aug 1, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    401
    Steve Hoffmann
    Aug 3, 2003
  3. andy
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    449
    Brian A
    Apr 16, 2007
  4. Ron
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    830
  5. Pete D

    Re: DOF preview in OVFs of DSLRs is crippled

    Pete D, Jun 15, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    286
    Pete D
    Jun 16, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page