Upgrading to 64-Bit

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by Clayton, Aug 23, 2007.

  1. Clayton

    Clayton Guest

    My system now supports 64-Bit OS including all Drivers and additional
    hardware, Webcam, Scanner, Printer and Digital Camera.
    I also have software that supports 64-Bit, Antivirus etc

    Is it worth the move?
     
    Clayton, Aug 23, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. XP x64 is a wonder of stabillity. Some rather ordinary things do show off
    better performance - even 32bit stuff, like the FlightSimulator. With most
    things you probably won't notice any difference beyond the way that it's
    chugging along without ever complaining.

    If it really is worth the cost and effort depends on if you want to be able
    to benchmark a speed benefit - something to show off - in this case, NO!


    Tony. . .


    "Clayton" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > My system now supports 64-Bit OS including all Drivers and additional
    > hardware, Webcam, Scanner, Printer and Digital Camera.
    > I also have software that supports 64-Bit, Antivirus etc
    >
    > Is it worth the move?
    >
    >
     
    Tony Sperling, Aug 23, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Clayton

    John Barnes Guest

    I agree, but would add that I have found Vista64 more trouble than Vista32.
    Signed driver requirement is one problem, but my wife's Vista32 just works,
    while my Vista64 has periodic problems. XP64 is based on the server code,
    and that may be why it is so stable.

    "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > XP x64 is a wonder of stabillity. Some rather ordinary things do show off
    > better performance - even 32bit stuff, like the FlightSimulator. With most
    > things you probably won't notice any difference beyond the way that it's
    > chugging along without ever complaining.
    >
    > If it really is worth the cost and effort depends on if you want to be
    > able
    > to benchmark a speed benefit - something to show off - in this case, NO!
    >
    >
    > Tony. . .
    >
    >
    > "Clayton" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> My system now supports 64-Bit OS including all Drivers and additional
    >> hardware, Webcam, Scanner, Printer and Digital Camera.
    >> I also have software that supports 64-Bit, Antivirus etc
    >>
    >> Is it worth the move?
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
    John Barnes, Aug 23, 2007
    #3
  4. Now see, I have the exact opposite experience here. My Ferrari just works,
    running Vista 64. My wife's Vista 32 is a source of pain and annoyance.

    But neither is as rock solid as XP x64, frankly. Ah, well, the price of
    progress, I guess.

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


    "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I agree, but would add that I have found Vista64 more trouble than Vista32.
    >Signed driver requirement is one problem, but my wife's Vista32 just works,
    >while my Vista64 has periodic problems. XP64 is based on the server code,
    >and that may be why it is so stable.
    >
    > "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> XP x64 is a wonder of stabillity. Some rather ordinary things do show off
    >> better performance - even 32bit stuff, like the FlightSimulator. With
    >> most
    >> things you probably won't notice any difference beyond the way that it's
    >> chugging along without ever complaining.
    >>
    >> If it really is worth the cost and effort depends on if you want to be
    >> able
    >> to benchmark a speed benefit - something to show off - in this case, NO!
    >>
    >>
    >> Tony. . .
    >>
    >>
    >> "Clayton" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> My system now supports 64-Bit OS including all Drivers and additional
    >>> hardware, Webcam, Scanner, Printer and Digital Camera.
    >>> I also have software that supports 64-Bit, Antivirus etc
    >>>
    >>> Is it worth the move?
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
     
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Aug 23, 2007
    #4
  5. Clayton

    XS11E Guest

    "John Barnes" <> wrote:

    > but would add that I have found Vista64 more trouble than
    > Vista32.


    I have to disagree, I had Vista64 running perfectly and now I have a
    new computer with Vista32 installed and nothing but grief. Hardware
    that was trouble free in Vista64 won't install in Vista32, go figure?


    --
    XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
     
    XS11E, Aug 23, 2007
    #5
  6. I run both 32 and 64 bit vista. Neither has been 100% trouble free. x32 bit
    seems to be network probs and x64 has had internet/network/DVD probs BUT all
    in all to be honest i has more probs when i first installed XP Pro!!! In
    fairness both installs have gone into brand new custom built PCs. The one x64
    prob that cause a headache was the screen saver coming on during a defrag and
    locking up the PC, after trying to restart several times, last good config,
    etc, etc it did eventually start.

    "XS11E" wrote:

    > "John Barnes" <> wrote:
    >
    > > but would add that I have found Vista64 more trouble than
    > > Vista32.

    >
    > I have to disagree, I had Vista64 running perfectly and now I have a
    > new computer with Vista32 installed and nothing but grief. Hardware
    > that was trouble free in Vista64 won't install in Vista32, go figure?
    >
    >
    > --
    > XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
    > The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
    >
     
    =?Utf-8?B?cGhhdDI4dnI2?=, Aug 24, 2007
    #6
  7. Clayton

    Clayton Guest

    So you think X64 is better than Vista64?


    "phat28vr6" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I run both 32 and 64 bit vista. Neither has been 100% trouble free. x32 bit
    > seems to be network probs and x64 has had internet/network/DVD probs BUT
    > all
    > in all to be honest i has more probs when i first installed XP Pro!!! In
    > fairness both installs have gone into brand new custom built PCs. The one
    > x64
    > prob that cause a headache was the screen saver coming on during a defrag
    > and
    > locking up the PC, after trying to restart several times, last good
    > config,
    > etc, etc it did eventually start.
    >
    > "XS11E" wrote:
    >
    >> "John Barnes" <> wrote:
    >>
    >> > but would add that I have found Vista64 more trouble than
    >> > Vista32.

    >>
    >> I have to disagree, I had Vista64 running perfectly and now I have a
    >> new computer with Vista32 installed and nothing but grief. Hardware
    >> that was trouble free in Vista64 won't install in Vista32, go figure?
    >>
    >>
    >> --
    >> XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
    >> The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
    >>
     
    Clayton, Aug 26, 2007
    #7
  8. Different. Better? Well, I'm running Vista 64bit on 4 out of five of my
    64bit machines in preference to XP x64. But some of that is just because of
    what I do, not really a reflection of merit. There are things I like about
    each.

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


    "Clayton" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > So you think X64 is better than Vista64?
    >
    >
    > "phat28vr6" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>I run both 32 and 64 bit vista. Neither has been 100% trouble free. x32
    >>bit
    >> seems to be network probs and x64 has had internet/network/DVD probs BUT
    >> all
    >> in all to be honest i has more probs when i first installed XP Pro!!! In
    >> fairness both installs have gone into brand new custom built PCs. The one
    >> x64
    >> prob that cause a headache was the screen saver coming on during a defrag
    >> and
    >> locking up the PC, after trying to restart several times, last good
    >> config,
    >> etc, etc it did eventually start.
    >>
    >> "XS11E" wrote:
    >>
    >>> "John Barnes" <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> > but would add that I have found Vista64 more trouble than
    >>> > Vista32.
    >>>
    >>> I have to disagree, I had Vista64 running perfectly and now I have a
    >>> new computer with Vista32 installed and nothing but grief. Hardware
    >>> that was trouble free in Vista64 won't install in Vista32, go figure?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
    >>> The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
    >>>

    >
     
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Aug 26, 2007
    #8
  9. Misunderstanding lol, x64 IS vista 64 i was talking about. Vista 64 is faster
    than the 32 bit version, BUT both are fast IMO. If fast is better for you
    then yes.
    At the moment both are trouble free and more importantly stable. However, of
    the 2 i would say the 32 version has had the least probs, maybe i just sorted
    the problems out quicker, like i said b4 these were mostly network probs. Bit
    of advice, do your fresh installs with NO UPDATES, do them later otherwise
    you will never know if the updates are causing a problem!
    All in all both have had probs, only a few, usually niggling ones that
    havent been obvious and have took a while to sort. Of the 2 versions I prefer
    x64.

    My advice would be go for it.



    "Clayton" wrote:

    > So you think X64 is better than Vista64?
    >
    >
    > "phat28vr6" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > >I run both 32 and 64 bit vista. Neither has been 100% trouble free. x32 bit
    > > seems to be network probs and x64 has had internet/network/DVD probs BUT
    > > all
    > > in all to be honest i has more probs when i first installed XP Pro!!! In
    > > fairness both installs have gone into brand new custom built PCs. The one
    > > x64
    > > prob that cause a headache was the screen saver coming on during a defrag
    > > and
    > > locking up the PC, after trying to restart several times, last good
    > > config,
    > > etc, etc it did eventually start.
    > >
    > > "XS11E" wrote:
    > >
    > >> "John Barnes" <> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> > but would add that I have found Vista64 more trouble than
    > >> > Vista32.
    > >>
    > >> I have to disagree, I had Vista64 running perfectly and now I have a
    > >> new computer with Vista32 installed and nothing but grief. Hardware
    > >> that was trouble free in Vista64 won't install in Vista32, go figure?
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> --
    > >> XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
    > >> The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
    > >>

    >
    >
     
    =?Utf-8?B?cGhhdDI4dnI2?=, Aug 26, 2007
    #9
  10. Clayton

    Mark Guest

    I run specialized software optimized for x64.
    XP or Vista itself have proven no better for it.
    Comparing x64 to x86, it's clearly night and day. But, this is specialized
    software and hardware that is extremely math intensive for simulating
    nuclear power plant thermohydraulics.

    At home, I can't tell the difference.
    Vista32 and 64 have a lot of annoyance factors, but once things are as you
    want, they kind of disappear.
    I was strongly surprised that Vista64 was so well supported in drivers.
    (Compared to XP64 early days.) But, as far as applications, they are still
    all 32 bit and, if clocked, probably run slightly slower. Not very good
    anti-virus support (although there is some: NOD32.) Firewall support is a
    joke unless you're a techie: Sphinx. Beyond that I would have to say I've
    had the same experience with both. I only run with it to support my work.


    "Clayton" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > So you think X64 is better than Vista64?
    >
    >
    > "phat28vr6" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>I run both 32 and 64 bit vista. Neither has been 100% trouble free. x32
    >>bit
    >> seems to be network probs and x64 has had internet/network/DVD probs BUT
    >> all
    >> in all to be honest i has more probs when i first installed XP Pro!!! In
    >> fairness both installs have gone into brand new custom built PCs. The one
    >> x64
    >> prob that cause a headache was the screen saver coming on during a defrag
    >> and
    >> locking up the PC, after trying to restart several times, last good
    >> config,
    >> etc, etc it did eventually start.
    >>
    >> "XS11E" wrote:
    >>
    >>> "John Barnes" <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> > but would add that I have found Vista64 more trouble than
    >>> > Vista32.
    >>>
    >>> I have to disagree, I had Vista64 running perfectly and now I have a
    >>> new computer with Vista32 installed and nothing but grief. Hardware
    >>> that was trouble free in Vista64 won't install in Vista32, go figure?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
    >>> The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
    >>>

    >
     
    Mark, Aug 26, 2007
    #10
  11. Clayton

    John Barnes Guest

    My Vista64 requires booting from 'last known good' about once a month. I
    have had to boot and do a restore from the DVD, 2 times, but one of those
    was a driver installed from Windows update and I don't remember the reason
    for the other, just a problem at first startup in the morning if I recall.
    So far I have had no problems with Vista32 (used less and relatively light
    duty). I also agree that the amount of driver support for Vista64. Some
    pieces of equipment I retired during XP64 now have Vista64 drivers. Still
    is a problem with signed driver support though.

    "Clayton" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > So you think X64 is better than Vista64?
    >
    >
    > "phat28vr6" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>I run both 32 and 64 bit vista. Neither has been 100% trouble free. x32
    >>bit
    >> seems to be network probs and x64 has had internet/network/DVD probs BUT
    >> all
    >> in all to be honest i has more probs when i first installed XP Pro!!! In
    >> fairness both installs have gone into brand new custom built PCs. The one
    >> x64
    >> prob that cause a headache was the screen saver coming on during a defrag
    >> and
    >> locking up the PC, after trying to restart several times, last good
    >> config,
    >> etc, etc it did eventually start.
    >>
    >> "XS11E" wrote:
    >>
    >>> "John Barnes" <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> > but would add that I have found Vista64 more trouble than
    >>> > Vista32.
    >>>
    >>> I have to disagree, I had Vista64 running perfectly and now I have a
    >>> new computer with Vista32 installed and nothing but grief. Hardware
    >>> that was trouble free in Vista64 won't install in Vista32, go figure?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
    >>> The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
    >>>

    >
     
    John Barnes, Aug 27, 2007
    #11
  12. Clayton

    XS11E Guest

    FIXED IT! was Upgrading to 64-Bit

    XS11E <> wrote:

    > I have to disagree, I had Vista64 running perfectly and now I have a
    > new computer with Vista32 installed and nothing but grief. Hardware
    > that was trouble free in Vista64 won't install in Vista32, go figure?


    FIXED IT!

    Of all the miserable hidden settings.... my new computer is a HP Media
    Center PC with a keyboard with all the weird buttons for various
    things. When setting up the keyboard you configure what the buttons
    do, for example I've set the "Search" button to http://www.google.com.

    At the bottom of the configuration window there's a "Global
    Preferences" button and on that screen is a check box "Disable support
    for USB devices that require high power" which is checked by default.

    I unchecked it, my scanner now installs and works but it sure took a
    while to find that check box!






    --
    XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
     
    XS11E, Aug 27, 2007
    #12
  13. John, ive had the same probs. Only this am the PC took 2 attempts to re-start
    for no apparent reason! Only did a disc clean and re-booted? Mines more of a
    weekly "last known good..." restart. Thort it was running ok but obviously
    not 100%.

    This may help you in the driver signing prob.
    Open run command and type in "gpedit.msc", > administrive templates folder >
    system > device installation. In the main window look for 'treat all
    digitally signed drivers equally in the driver ranking and selection process'
    and enable it.
    Windows will not choose only digitally signed drivers over non microsoft
    signed ones.
    I have to agree with the support for drivers in vista x64 and 32.

    So far ive never had to 'retire' anything due to lack of driver support,
    fingers X'd.




    "John Barnes" wrote:

    > My Vista64 requires booting from 'last known good' about once a month. I
    > have had to boot and do a restore from the DVD, 2 times, but one of those
    > was a driver installed from Windows update and I don't remember the reason
    > for the other, just a problem at first startup in the morning if I recall.
    > So far I have had no problems with Vista32 (used less and relatively light
    > duty). I also agree that the amount of driver support for Vista64. Some
    > pieces of equipment I retired during XP64 now have Vista64 drivers. Still
    > is a problem with signed driver support though.
    >
    > "Clayton" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > So you think X64 is better than Vista64?
    > >
    > >
    > > "phat28vr6" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > >>I run both 32 and 64 bit vista. Neither has been 100% trouble free. x32
    > >>bit
    > >> seems to be network probs and x64 has had internet/network/DVD probs BUT
    > >> all
    > >> in all to be honest i has more probs when i first installed XP Pro!!! In
    > >> fairness both installs have gone into brand new custom built PCs. The one
    > >> x64
    > >> prob that cause a headache was the screen saver coming on during a defrag
    > >> and
    > >> locking up the PC, after trying to restart several times, last good
    > >> config,
    > >> etc, etc it did eventually start.
    > >>
    > >> "XS11E" wrote:
    > >>
    > >>> "John Barnes" <> wrote:
    > >>>
    > >>> > but would add that I have found Vista64 more trouble than
    > >>> > Vista32.
    > >>>
    > >>> I have to disagree, I had Vista64 running perfectly and now I have a
    > >>> new computer with Vista32 installed and nothing but grief. Hardware
    > >>> that was trouble free in Vista64 won't install in Vista32, go figure?
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>> --
    > >>> XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
    > >>> The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
    > >>>

    > >

    >
    >
     
    =?Utf-8?B?cGhhdDI4dnI2?=, Aug 27, 2007
    #13
  14. Clayton

    Clayton Guest

    Huh?


    "XS11E" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns99996C4BF3F7Axs11eyahoocom@127.0.0.1...
    > XS11E <> wrote:
    >
    >> I have to disagree, I had Vista64 running perfectly and now I have a
    >> new computer with Vista32 installed and nothing but grief. Hardware
    >> that was trouble free in Vista64 won't install in Vista32, go figure?

    >
    > FIXED IT!
    >
    > Of all the miserable hidden settings.... my new computer is a HP Media
    > Center PC with a keyboard with all the weird buttons for various
    > things. When setting up the keyboard you configure what the buttons
    > do, for example I've set the "Search" button to http://www.google.com.
    >
    > At the bottom of the configuration window there's a "Global
    > Preferences" button and on that screen is a check box "Disable support
    > for USB devices that require high power" which is checked by default.
    >
    > I unchecked it, my scanner now installs and works but it sure took a
    > while to find that check box!
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    > XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
    > The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
     
    Clayton, Sep 2, 2007
    #14
    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. =?Utf-8?B?TXVwcGV0Qm95?=

    Upgrading from 32-bit to 64-bit XP

    =?Utf-8?B?TXVwcGV0Qm95?=, Jul 23, 2005, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    590
    Colin Barnhorst
    Jul 23, 2005
  2. Seidell23231
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    656
    Seidell23231
    Mar 5, 2008
  3. Bullybear

    Upgrading to 64-bit from 32-bit

    Bullybear, Jul 14, 2008, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    628
    Bullybear
    Jul 15, 2008
  4. BP
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,161
    PhilSweet
    Dec 19, 2008
  5. Homer J. Simpson
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    790
    Jim Barry
    Jan 19, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page