Is x64 Worth It?

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by =?Utf-8?B?U29hcmluZ0VtdQ==?=, Jul 10, 2007.

  1. I've tried the 64-bit version before when Vista was in its beta stages and
    i'm wondering if it's improved any in compatability, performance, and whatnot.

    Are there any users here that can comment on their experiences with x64?
     
    =?Utf-8?B?U29hcmluZ0VtdQ==?=, Jul 10, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. =?Utf-8?B?U29hcmluZ0VtdQ==?=

    roman modic Guest

    Hello!

    "SoaringEmu" <> wrote in message news:...
    > I've tried the 64-bit version before when Vista was in its beta stages and
    > i'm wondering if it's improved any in compatability, performance, and whatnot.
    >
    > Are there any users here that can comment on their experiences with x64?


    http://www.apcmag.com/6506/tales_of_vista
    BTW:
    http://blog.getpaint.net/2007/06/30/iphone-64-bit-nope/
    Regards, Roman
     
    roman modic, Jul 10, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. =?Utf-8?B?U29hcmluZ0VtdQ==?=

    Tinica Guest

    SoaringEmu wrote:
    > I've tried the 64-bit version before when Vista was in its beta stages and
    > i'm wondering if it's improved any in compatability, performance, and whatnot.
    >
    > Are there any users here that can comment on their experiences with x64?


    The answer to your question "Is x64 Worth It? No! No! N0!
     
    Tinica, Jul 27, 2007
    #3
  4. =?Utf-8?B?U29hcmluZ0VtdQ==?=

    XS11E Guest

    SoaringEmu <> wrote:

    > I've tried the 64-bit version before when Vista was in its beta
    > stages and i'm wondering if it's improved any in compatability,
    > performance, and whatnot.
    >
    > Are there any users here that can comment on their experiences
    > with x64?


    I'm using Vista Ultimate 64 in a dual boot setup with Windows XP. I've
    had to solve a few compatibility issues with hardware, I've been unable
    to solve a few compatibility issues with software and have found
    workarounds or other software to do the job.

    Is it worth it? Maybe. Nothing really works any better, speed is
    about the same but the big advantage to me is I'm learning the OS and
    getting software and hardware ready for a time when 64 bit OSs will be
    the norm and the day (far off I know) when 32 bit software will no
    longer be available.

    BTW, Emus don't soar unless thrown off a cliff, do they?



    --
    XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
     
    XS11E, Jul 27, 2007
    #4
  5. =?Utf-8?B?U29hcmluZ0VtdQ==?=

    Konan Guest

    NO! NO! NO!
     
    Konan, Jul 29, 2007
    #5
  6. =?Utf-8?B?U29hcmluZ0VtdQ==?=

    John Barnes Guest

    Maybe, maybe, maybe.

    "Konan" <> wrote in message
    news:46ad098e$0$3187$...
    > NO! NO! NO!
     
    John Barnes, Jul 30, 2007
    #6
  7. =?Utf-8?B?U29hcmluZ0VtdQ==?=

    Konan Guest

    John Barnes wrote:
    > Maybe, maybe, maybe.
    >
    > "Konan" <> wrote in message
    > news:46ad098e$0$3187$...
    >> NO! NO! NO!

    >


    I have just removed XP64 with its partition for the third (hopefully)
    the last time due to its inability to run several 32 bit photo editing
    software. So I'd say: "NoNoNo!
     
    Konan, Jul 30, 2007
    #7
  8. On 2007-07-30, Konan <> wrote:
    > John Barnes wrote:
    >> Maybe, maybe, maybe.
    >>
    >> "Konan" <> wrote in message
    >> news:46ad098e$0$3187$...
    >>> NO! NO! NO!

    >>

    >
    > I have just removed XP64 with its partition for the third (hopefully)
    > the last time due to its inability to run several 32 bit photo editing
    > software. So I'd say: "NoNoNo!


    Some application need more than 3GB address space and some todays PCs
    have more than 3.5GB main memory. Than you need a 64-bit OS. There
    are some applications that benefit from the more modern X64
    instruction set. If none of these applies, all you get is less tested
    and less mainstream software, and therefore more trouble. I'd estimate
    99% of todays users are better of running a 32-bit OS. But ....
    64 > 32 can't be denied :)

    .... (running 64-bit Linux and both XP32 and XP64 in a virtual machines)

    Cheers --- Jan
     
    Jan Wielemaker, Jul 30, 2007
    #8
  9. =?Utf-8?B?U29hcmluZ0VtdQ==?=

    John Barnes Guest

    If I were running intensive photo editing (not play photo editing), I would
    buy one of the programs that run native 64-bit and are Vista64 compatible.
    At this point, XP64 is probably a waste of time IF you have programs or
    hardware that is incompatible. It will probably never be specifically
    targeted either for drivers or program compatibility.

    "Konan" <> wrote in message
    news:46ade9b3$0$20589$...
    > John Barnes wrote:
    >> Maybe, maybe, maybe.
    >>
    >> "Konan" <> wrote in message
    >> news:46ad098e$0$3187$...
    >>> NO! NO! NO!

    >>

    >
    > I have just removed XP64 with its partition for the third (hopefully)
    > the last time due to its inability to run several 32 bit photo editing
    > software. So I'd say: "NoNoNo!
     
    John Barnes, Jul 30, 2007
    #9
  10. =?Utf-8?B?U29hcmluZ0VtdQ==?=

    John Barnes Guest

    I would agree that for more than 90% of Windows users, 32-bit is a better
    choice. For those who need 64-bit or just want to be ready for the future
    of computing, Vista64 is the best choice.

    "Jan Wielemaker" <4all.nl> wrote in message
    news:46adef09$0$241$4all.nl...
    > On 2007-07-30, Konan <> wrote:
    >> John Barnes wrote:
    >>> Maybe, maybe, maybe.
    >>>
    >>> "Konan" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:46ad098e$0$3187$...
    >>>> NO! NO! NO!
    >>>

    >>
    >> I have just removed XP64 with its partition for the third (hopefully)
    >> the last time due to its inability to run several 32 bit photo editing
    >> software. So I'd say: "NoNoNo!

    >
    > Some application need more than 3GB address space and some todays PCs
    > have more than 3.5GB main memory. Than you need a 64-bit OS. There
    > are some applications that benefit from the more modern X64
    > instruction set. If none of these applies, all you get is less tested
    > and less mainstream software, and therefore more trouble. I'd estimate
    > 99% of todays users are better of running a 32-bit OS. But ....
    > 64 > 32 can't be denied :)
    >
    > ... (running 64-bit Linux and both XP32 and XP64 in a virtual machines)
    >
    > Cheers --- Jan
     
    John Barnes, Jul 30, 2007
    #10
  11. =?Utf-8?B?U29hcmluZ0VtdQ==?=

    John Barnes Guest

    Depending on when you used the beta, there are many more drivers available,
    and more than ever were available for XP64. Vista32 and Vista64 both have
    many programs which are incompatible, with Vista64 having a few more,
    especially any free programs that have drivers involved as they aren't
    anxious to spend the money needed to have their drivers signed.

    "SoaringEmu" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I've tried the 64-bit version before when Vista was in its beta stages and
    > i'm wondering if it's improved any in compatability, performance, and
    > whatnot.
    >
    > Are there any users here that can comment on their experiences with x64?
     
    John Barnes, Jul 30, 2007
    #11
  12. =?Utf-8?B?U29hcmluZ0VtdQ==?=

    Graystar Guest

    I tend to disagree with that assessment.
    I've been using XP pro x64 on an Athlon 64 3K+ 1.8GHz since Win x64 came out
    and it's been extremely stable.
    It's ATI 9600 drivers that keep changing and they are not bloody stable.
    Their latest drivers were not fully tested.

    Common programs like Quicktime, e-Frontier Poser, DAZ Bryce & DAZ|Studio
    should have no problems...
    but they do.
    They have a VERY selective failure using the OpenGL driver. It fails to
    render shaded previews in their modeling windows.
    Rather hard to setup things that way.
    Fortunately Poser has an alternative SreeD renderer that takes care of that
    program.
    Quicktime and D|S 1.7 do not have that option.

    After modelling large 3D models in x64, I'll never go back to 32 bit. It
    took forever to manipulate stuff and the latency was awful.
    It's great response now.

    As with everything it depends on what you do.
    YMMV
    Graystar



    "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I would agree that for more than 90% of Windows users, 32-bit is a better
    >choice. For those who need 64-bit or just want to be ready for the future
    >of computing, Vista64 is the best choice.
    >
    > "Jan Wielemaker" <4all.nl> wrote in message
    > news:46adef09$0$241$4all.nl...
    >> On 2007-07-30, Konan <> wrote:
    >>> John Barnes wrote:
    >>>> Maybe, maybe, maybe.
    >>>>
    >>>> "Konan" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:46ad098e$0$3187$...
    >>>>> NO! NO! NO!
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> I have just removed XP64 with its partition for the third (hopefully)
    >>> the last time due to its inability to run several 32 bit photo editing
    >>> software. So I'd say: "NoNoNo!

    >>
    >> Some application need more than 3GB address space and some todays PCs
    >> have more than 3.5GB main memory. Than you need a 64-bit OS. There
    >> are some applications that benefit from the more modern X64
    >> instruction set. If none of these applies, all you get is less tested
    >> and less mainstream software, and therefore more trouble. I'd estimate
    >> 99% of todays users are better of running a 32-bit OS. But ....
    >> 64 > 32 can't be denied :)
    >>
    >> ... (running 64-bit Linux and both XP32 and XP64 in a virtual machines)
    >>
    >> Cheers --- Jan

    >
     
    Graystar, Aug 6, 2007
    #12
  13. =?Utf-8?B?U29hcmluZ0VtdQ==?=

    Graystar Guest

    Problem is, the wisdom of that advice changes every friggin' week for almost
    all of the operating systems.
    It all stinks IMO.
    YMMV

    "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > If I were running intensive photo editing (not play photo editing), I
    > would buy one of the programs that run native 64-bit and are Vista64
    > compatible. At this point, XP64 is probably a waste of time IF you have
    > programs or hardware that is incompatible. It will probably never be
    > specifically targeted either for drivers or program compatibility.
    >
    > "Konan" <> wrote in message
    > news:46ade9b3$0$20589$...
    >> John Barnes wrote:
    >>> Maybe, maybe, maybe.
    >>>
    >>> "Konan" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:46ad098e$0$3187$...
    >>>> NO! NO! NO!
    >>>

    >>
    >> I have just removed XP64 with its partition for the third (hopefully)
    >> the last time due to its inability to run several 32 bit photo editing
    >> software. So I'd say: "NoNoNo!

    >
     
    Graystar, Aug 6, 2007
    #13
  14. =?Utf-8?B?U29hcmluZ0VtdQ==?=

    John Barnes Guest

    In my case I had abandoned and replaced several pieces of equipment that
    never got X64 drivers, that now have Vista64 drivers. With its wider
    distribution through retail channels, some vendors are making the 64-bit
    effort, that never did with the oem only XP64.

    "Graystar" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Problem is, the wisdom of that advice changes every friggin' week for
    > almost all of the operating systems.
    > It all stinks IMO.
    > YMMV
    >
    > "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> If I were running intensive photo editing (not play photo editing), I
    >> would buy one of the programs that run native 64-bit and are Vista64
    >> compatible. At this point, XP64 is probably a waste of time IF you have
    >> programs or hardware that is incompatible. It will probably never be
    >> specifically targeted either for drivers or program compatibility.
    >>
    >> "Konan" <> wrote in message
    >> news:46ade9b3$0$20589$...
    >>> John Barnes wrote:
    >>>> Maybe, maybe, maybe.
    >>>>
    >>>> "Konan" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:46ad098e$0$3187$...
    >>>>> NO! NO! NO!
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> I have just removed XP64 with its partition for the third (hopefully)
    >>> the last time due to its inability to run several 32 bit photo editing
    >>> software. So I'd say: "NoNoNo!

    >>

    >
    >
     
    John Barnes, Aug 6, 2007
    #14
  15. =?Utf-8?B?U29hcmluZ0VtdQ==?=

    Graystar Guest

    Yep. and while doing so for Vista, many are spinning off the x64 drivers as
    well.
    Then again some still have their heads in that dark place.
    <g.>

    "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
    news:%...
    > In my case I had abandoned and replaced several pieces of equipment that
    > never got X64 drivers, that now have Vista64 drivers. With its wider
    > distribution through retail channels, some vendors are making the 64-bit
    > effort, that never did with the oem only XP64.


    > "Graystar" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Problem is, the wisdom of that advice changes every friggin' week for
    >> almost all of the operating systems.
    >> It all stinks IMO.
    >> YMMV
    >>
    >> "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> If I were running intensive photo editing (not play photo editing), I
    >>> would buy one of the programs that run native 64-bit and are Vista64
    >>> compatible. At this point, XP64 is probably a waste of time IF you have
    >>> programs or hardware that is incompatible. It will probably never be
    >>> specifically targeted either for drivers or program compatibility.
    >>>
    >>> "Konan" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:46ade9b3$0$20589$...
    >>>> John Barnes wrote:
    >>>>> Maybe, maybe, maybe.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "Konan" <> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:46ad098e$0$3187$...
    >>>>>> NO! NO! NO!
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> I have just removed XP64 with its partition for the third (hopefully)
    >>>> the last time due to its inability to run several 32 bit photo editing
    >>>> software. So I'd say: "NoNoNo!
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
     
    Graystar, Aug 7, 2007
    #15
    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. Daniel Herrmann

    Upgrading x64 evaluation with full version of x64 prof?

    Daniel Herrmann, Jun 21, 2005, in forum: Microsoft Certification
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    535
    Daniel Herrmann
    Jun 21, 2005
  2. =?Utf-8?B?TWFsY29sbQ==?=

    X64 trial to x64 full verion OEM

    =?Utf-8?B?TWFsY29sbQ==?=, May 24, 2005, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    538
    Joseph Conway [MSFT]
    May 25, 2005
  3. =?Utf-8?B?U21lYWdvbA==?=

    Ethereal for x64 -- or Network Monitor for x64

    =?Utf-8?B?U21lYWdvbA==?=, Jun 17, 2005, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,100
    =?Utf-8?B?U21lYWdvbA==?=
    Jun 17, 2005
  4. Dennis Pack

    X64 is worth the effort.

    Dennis Pack, Jan 21, 2006, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    597
    Jud Hendrix
    Jan 23, 2006
  5. Gera

    Is it worth to plan x64 Vista at home?

    Gera, Nov 10, 2006, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    563
    Aaron Kelley
    Nov 10, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page