Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by =?Utf-8?B?Um95c3RvbiBI?=, Jul 13, 2007.

  1. My 120 days of eval are nearly up.

    I have found the XP 64 bit version of windows the most stable and reliable
    version of Windows I've ever used and have had only one BSOD when I was
    overclocking my graphics card, so not really a microsoft o/s issue.

    I mainly use the computer for office applications, photoshop, video editing
    and playing FSX.

    Given that I can get an OEM copy of Vista 64 bit for less than the OEM 64bit
    XP pro, I am likely to run with Vista.

    I'd like to hear from people who have used both in anger and see if any
    valid arguements exist for sticking with XP, say it's considerably more
    stable etc, given that long term the future is with vista anyway.

    Thanks

    Royston H
     
    =?Utf-8?B?Um95c3RvbiBI?=, Jul 13, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. =?Utf-8?B?Um95c3RvbiBI?=

    Sam Crawford Guest

    On 13-Jul-2007, =?Utf-8?B?Um95c3RvbiBI?=
    <> wrote:

    > I'd like to hear from people who have used both in anger and see if any
    > valid arguements exist for sticking with XP, say it's considerably more
    > stable etc, given that long term the future is with vista anyway.


    How's this for waffleing. You will be happy with either. I've used both
    and last night, finally wiped all my drives and installed Vista.

    I'm going to miss XP x64 though.
     
    Sam Crawford, Jul 13, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. OK I take your point :)

    I did stick with Windows 2000 till SP2 came out for XP on the grounds of
    stability

    Thanks

    "Sam Crawford" wrote:

    >
    > On 13-Jul-2007, =?Utf-8?B?Um95c3RvbiBI?=
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > > I'd like to hear from people who have used both in anger and see if any
    > > valid arguements exist for sticking with XP, say it's considerably more
    > > stable etc, given that long term the future is with vista anyway.

    >
    > How's this for waffleing. You will be happy with either. I've used both
    > and last night, finally wiped all my drives and installed Vista.
    >
    > I'm going to miss XP x64 though.
    >
     
    =?Utf-8?B?Um95c3RvbiBI?=, Jul 14, 2007
    #3
  4. I'm considering reformatting my hard drive to get rid of XP Pro X64 and going
    back to a 32-bit system. Too many programs aren't compatible with X64.
    iexplore 64-bit is installed but Microsoft makes iexplore 32-bit the default
    because 64-bit doesn't work. Moving and copying files is very slow and, when
    I Googled this problem, it seems a number of people have the same problem.
    To me, it looks like X64 was introduced to the market in order to recoup the
    research money put into it but with full knowledge that it has a lot of kinks
    that need to be worked out.

    I don't know anything about Vista, but I'm going to wait a few years in
    order to see what Microsoft does with it, or if Microsoft moves on to
    something else.
    --
    Denise

    ~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're going.
     
    =?Utf-8?B?RGVuaXNl?=, Jul 14, 2007
    #4
  5. Perhaps a good decision - on the other hand your work should make good use
    of the memory resources provided by XP x64. One alternative might be to have
    someone you trust build you a machine to your spec's and using first rate
    components all around, you seem to have too many issues - usually, an
    indication of bad management or bad hardware. I tend to believe it's the
    latter. The basic stability most of us find in XP x64, will not carry over
    onto every other piece of hardware you buy over the counter. The system is
    built from the Server base and employing it means to give it some Server
    quality hardware to run on. Then it should reward you in a proper manner -
    if not, you may just be unlucky to have found the precise mix of soft &
    hardware that triggers this misbehavior.

    Have you tried flashing your BIOS, (if an upgrade exists)?


    Tony. . .


    "Denise" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I'm considering reformatting my hard drive to get rid of XP Pro X64 and

    going
    > back to a 32-bit system. Too many programs aren't compatible with X64.
    > iexplore 64-bit is installed but Microsoft makes iexplore 32-bit the

    default
    > because 64-bit doesn't work. Moving and copying files is very slow and,

    when
    > I Googled this problem, it seems a number of people have the same problem.
    > To me, it looks like X64 was introduced to the market in order to recoup

    the
    > research money put into it but with full knowledge that it has a lot of

    kinks
    > that need to be worked out.
    >
    > I don't know anything about Vista, but I'm going to wait a few years in
    > order to see what Microsoft does with it, or if Microsoft moves on to
    > something else.
    > --
    > Denise
    >
    > ~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're

    going.
    >
     
    Tony Sperling, Jul 14, 2007
    #5
  6. You're very quick to insult and jab, aren't you? Rude, too.

    I have

    - Biostar TFORCE 6100-939 mobo which supports dual channel ddr
    - AMD Athlon 64 3200+ 2.0GHz / 512KB Cache / 1000MHz FSB / Venice /
    Hyper-Transport / OEM / Socket 939 / Processor
    - 2 twin sticks of 1G RAM
    - Corsair 620W PSU
    - Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 SATA 3.0Gb/s 320-GB hard drive

    Which piece of hardware do you think is bad, or a combination?

    Are they the best of everything? More than likely not, but they're very
    good and run well together. If I decide to install Windows XP Pro 32-bit,
    I'm sure I'll find out that X64 has caused the problems that I have.

    BTW, are you employed by Microsoft to try to discredit anyone who speaks
    against its products? I can't think of any other reason for your poor
    attitude and manners.

    Regarding programs/files that aren't compatible with an 64-bit os, off the
    top of my head, I can think of . . .

    - Adobe Acrobat
    - Winword (Microsoft's very own!)
    - iexpolorer 64-bit (again, Microsoft's very own!)
    - Avast
    - Soundman
    - ctfmon (a Microsoft Office XP program that runs in the background, even
    after you quit all Office programs!)
    - Sun Microsystem's Java2 suite
    - Webshots
    - Maxtor One Touch

    Which programs in my pc are causing problems with my 64-bit os? Well,
    Microsoft didn't and/or won't say, but it's strange that some of them are
    Microsoft programs. The problems with my computer started as soon as I
    installed Windows XP Pro X64. Maybe that's the one that's clashing with
    everything else in my computer. The rest of them all get along fine.

    --
    Denise

    ~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're going.
     
    =?Utf-8?B?RGVuaXNl?=, Jul 14, 2007
    #6
  7. =?Utf-8?B?Um95c3RvbiBI?=

    Dennis Pack Guest

    Denise:
    I've read the different problems you've had with XP x64, most of
    them haven't been common. As to whether it's a hardware, software or other
    conflict I don't have an answer. I've been running XP x64 since the beta
    releases and Vista X64 since beta 2, I haven't had near the problems or
    conflicts that you have. XP x64 has been very stable for me and Vista x64
    has been stable so far even with weak drivers. At work the group that I work
    with has about 200 computers that are the same, almost every system responds
    differently. These differences are more distinct since we migrated from
    Windows 2000 to Windows XP. Have a great day.

    --
    Dennis Pack
    XP x64 SP2, Vista Enterprise x64
    Office Professional Plus 2007

    "Denise" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > You're very quick to insult and jab, aren't you? Rude, too.
    >
    > I have
    >
    > - Biostar TFORCE 6100-939 mobo which supports dual channel ddr
    > - AMD Athlon 64 3200+ 2.0GHz / 512KB Cache / 1000MHz FSB / Venice /
    > Hyper-Transport / OEM / Socket 939 / Processor
    > - 2 twin sticks of 1G RAM
    > - Corsair 620W PSU
    > - Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 SATA 3.0Gb/s 320-GB hard drive
    >
    > Which piece of hardware do you think is bad, or a combination?
    >
    > Are they the best of everything? More than likely not, but they're very
    > good and run well together. If I decide to install Windows XP Pro 32-bit,
    > I'm sure I'll find out that X64 has caused the problems that I have.
    >
    > BTW, are you employed by Microsoft to try to discredit anyone who speaks
    > against its products? I can't think of any other reason for your poor
    > attitude and manners.
    >
    > Regarding programs/files that aren't compatible with an 64-bit os, off the
    > top of my head, I can think of . . .
    >
    > - Adobe Acrobat
    > - Winword (Microsoft's very own!)
    > - iexpolorer 64-bit (again, Microsoft's very own!)
    > - Avast
    > - Soundman
    > - ctfmon (a Microsoft Office XP program that runs in the background, even
    > after you quit all Office programs!)
    > - Sun Microsystem's Java2 suite
    > - Webshots
    > - Maxtor One Touch
    >
    > Which programs in my pc are causing problems with my 64-bit os? Well,
    > Microsoft didn't and/or won't say, but it's strange that some of them are
    > Microsoft programs. The problems with my computer started as soon as I
    > installed Windows XP Pro X64. Maybe that's the one that's clashing with
    > everything else in my computer. The rest of them all get along fine.
    >
    > --
    > Denise
    >
    > ~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're
    > going.
     
    Dennis Pack, Jul 14, 2007
    #7
  8. To say that the problems I have with X64 is like saying the Titanic had a
    boating accident. I've been using Windows as soon as Windows 95 came out and
    X64 is by very, very far the worst version of them all. It was easier
    working with the DOS Shell. Computers, as you said, respond differently, and
    this computer is begging me for the 32-bit system. I won't even get into the
    problems I've had with SATA. I eliminated all of my SATA connections and
    everything is connected using USB 2.0 cables except for the hdd cable. I
    think that the technological world is pushing too fast to come out with
    something different because there's no profit to be made if people don't have
    a new product to buy. Why would Microsoft release X64 if iexplore X64
    doesn't work and other Microsoft programs aren't compatible with X64? Why
    didn't Microsoft make things such as these common knowledge so that people
    would know that there are compatibility issues within Microsoft prior to
    their buying X64? I very much believe that the public was hoodwinked and I'm
    very angry that I was taken, and there are no other words that I can think of
    that would fit what Microsoft did, or my language wouldn't be proper.
    --
    Denise

    ~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're going.


    "Dennis Pack" wrote:

    > Denise:
    > I've read the different problems you've had with XP x64, most of
    > them haven't been common. As to whether it's a hardware, software or other
    > conflict I don't have an answer. I've been running XP x64 since the beta
    > releases and Vista X64 since beta 2, I haven't had near the problems or
    > conflicts that you have. XP x64 has been very stable for me and Vista x64
    > has been stable so far even with weak drivers. At work the group that I work
    > with has about 200 computers that are the same, almost every system responds
    > differently. These differences are more distinct since we migrated from
    > Windows 2000 to Windows XP. Have a great day.
    >
    > --
    > Dennis Pack
    > XP x64 SP2, Vista Enterprise x64
    > Office Professional Plus 2007
    >
    > "Denise" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > You're very quick to insult and jab, aren't you? Rude, too.
    > >
    > > I have
    > >
    > > - Biostar TFORCE 6100-939 mobo which supports dual channel ddr
    > > - AMD Athlon 64 3200+ 2.0GHz / 512KB Cache / 1000MHz FSB / Venice /
    > > Hyper-Transport / OEM / Socket 939 / Processor
    > > - 2 twin sticks of 1G RAM
    > > - Corsair 620W PSU
    > > - Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 SATA 3.0Gb/s 320-GB hard drive
    > >
    > > Which piece of hardware do you think is bad, or a combination?
    > >
    > > Are they the best of everything? More than likely not, but they're very
    > > good and run well together. If I decide to install Windows XP Pro 32-bit,
    > > I'm sure I'll find out that X64 has caused the problems that I have.
    > >
    > > BTW, are you employed by Microsoft to try to discredit anyone who speaks
    > > against its products? I can't think of any other reason for your poor
    > > attitude and manners.
    > >
    > > Regarding programs/files that aren't compatible with an 64-bit os, off the
    > > top of my head, I can think of . . .
    > >
    > > - Adobe Acrobat
    > > - Winword (Microsoft's very own!)
    > > - iexpolorer 64-bit (again, Microsoft's very own!)
    > > - Avast
    > > - Soundman
    > > - ctfmon (a Microsoft Office XP program that runs in the background, even
    > > after you quit all Office programs!)
    > > - Sun Microsystem's Java2 suite
    > > - Webshots
    > > - Maxtor One Touch
    > >
    > > Which programs in my pc are causing problems with my 64-bit os? Well,
    > > Microsoft didn't and/or won't say, but it's strange that some of them are
    > > Microsoft programs. The problems with my computer started as soon as I
    > > installed Windows XP Pro X64. Maybe that's the one that's clashing with
    > > everything else in my computer. The rest of them all get along fine.
    > >
    > > --
    > > Denise
    > >
    > > ~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're
    > > going.

    >
     
    =?Utf-8?B?RGVuaXNl?=, Jul 14, 2007
    #8
  9. The reality is that XP x64 is solid, stable, and basically done with. Though
    you'll certainly see at least one more service pack for it, I suspect. Vista
    64bit is new, requires more resources, and has a whole new set of
    compatibility issues. The interface will certainly drive you nuts initially.
    All that being said, I run Vista 64bit. I have the hardware to handle it,
    and I've learned to adjust to not whinge too much about some of the UI
    idiocies. Moving forward, drivers for new hardware will be preferentially
    for Vista, and tending to abandon XP. But there's no real hurry - it's up to
    you and your comfort level.

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


    "Royston H" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > My 120 days of eval are nearly up.
    >
    > I have found the XP 64 bit version of windows the most stable and reliable
    > version of Windows I've ever used and have had only one BSOD when I was
    > overclocking my graphics card, so not really a microsoft o/s issue.
    >
    > I mainly use the computer for office applications, photoshop, video
    > editing
    > and playing FSX.
    >
    > Given that I can get an OEM copy of Vista 64 bit for less than the OEM
    > 64bit
    > XP pro, I am likely to run with Vista.
    >
    > I'd like to hear from people who have used both in anger and see if any
    > valid arguements exist for sticking with XP, say it's considerably more
    > stable etc, given that long term the future is with vista anyway.
    >
    > Thanks
    >
    > Royston H
    >
     
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Jul 14, 2007
    #9
  10. =?Utf-8?B?Um95c3RvbiBI?=

    Sam Crawford Guest

    On 13-Jul-2007, "Charlie Russel - MVP" <>
    wrote:

    > he reality is that XP x64 is solid, stable, and basically done with.
    > Though
    > you'll certainly see at least one more service pack for it, I suspect.
    > Vista
    > 64bit is new, requires more resources, and has a whole new set of
    > compatibility issues. The interface will certainly drive you nuts
    > initially.
    > All that being said, I run Vista 64bit. I have the hardware to handle it,
    > and I've learned to adjust to not whinge too much about some of the UI
    > idiocies


    Well said Charlie. I just dumped XP x64 and Vista Ultimate x64 because
    32bit Vista works so smoothly. XP x64 was probably the best windows I've
    used todate. Rock solid and very few issues of software not being
    compatible.

    Vista x64 workes well but it still has a small annoyance with my AC97 driver
    not being signed and I got tired of being asked if it was ok to use the
    driver every time my computer booted.

    If anything, XP x64 seems like the snappiest and quickest of the three.

    That said, I left two additional partitions free on one of my disks to
    reinstall XP x-64 and Vista Ultimate x64. Just need one or two more device
    drivers. Or I could try one of the Linuxs. Who knows. I've got OSX on 2
    computers and Kubuntu on another but still find myself attracted to Windows.

    The good thing about the x64 forum is one can post questions similar to what
    is posted here, get honest answers, and usually not get burned in a flame
    war.

    This is a great group.
     
    Sam Crawford, Jul 14, 2007
    #10
  11. Well Royston, you now have varying opinions of X64. The self-proclaimed
    computer gurus love it, probably because they know all the ins and outs of
    computers and programs and can change the multitude of settings for desired
    results without coming to forums for advice from their peers. On the other
    hand, people who don't know the ins and outs of computers and operating
    systems come here with all the problems they're having with X64, whether
    Vista 64-bit or XP X64. In one of the threads in this forum, one man is
    talking about starting a class action suit against Microsoft due to financial
    losses because X64 didn't work properly. Time will tell whether or not
    either X64 version is a gem in the making or a flop thrown out on the market
    by Microsoft to recoup whatever losses it would have sustained if it didn't.
    As for me, Windows XP Pro 2000, 32-bit, is heads above X64 and I know that I
    will be going back to it. When or if Microsoft gets X64 straightened out
    sometime in the future, I might try it again. But I wouldn't be surprised if
    both versions turn out to be bombs that can't be fixed and another Windows
    operating system is introduced to the market.
    --
    Denise

    ~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're going.


    "Royston H" wrote:

    > My 120 days of eval are nearly up.
    >
    > I have found the XP 64 bit version of windows the most stable and reliable
    > version of Windows I've ever used and have had only one BSOD when I was
    > overclocking my graphics card, so not really a microsoft o/s issue.
    >
    > I mainly use the computer for office applications, photoshop, video editing
    > and playing FSX.
    >
    > Given that I can get an OEM copy of Vista 64 bit for less than the OEM 64bit
    > XP pro, I am likely to run with Vista.
    >
    > I'd like to hear from people who have used both in anger and see if any
    > valid arguements exist for sticking with XP, say it's considerably more
    > stable etc, given that long term the future is with vista anyway.
    >
    > Thanks
    >
    > Royston H
    >
     
    =?Utf-8?B?RGVuaXNl?=, Jul 14, 2007
    #11
  12. I knew, of course, that commenting on anybody's choice of purchase would be
    stepping onto thin ice - it's just that being nice about it, will rarely be
    helpful at all. We are faced with enough facts - the handling of which may
    all be hurtful in the process, but I think I was being careful not to sound
    insulting, I apparently lost it somewhere, and I'm not getting any kicks out
    of it. Moreover, doing that wouldn't be helping anybody. Most of all,
    critisism in this group is very rarely personal, but if you are used to
    tip-toeing your way through life, you'll have trouble finding decency
    anywhere.

    What you list of your components, sounds O.K. to me, at a glance, but like
    Dennis says,"every system is different". There is no way to tell - the
    eternal 'usual suspects' are temperature, electrical frequencies (together
    with resulting physical vibration), electrical contact (cabling) and the
    BIOS. In a jungle of compatible BIOS's, there is hardly a single one that is
    well built from every aspect, most seem to be well behaving since most
    people don't push their systems in a way that triggers misbehavior, XP x64
    is pushing the hardware considerably more than the 32bit editions and is
    more likely to expose any weakness anywhere in your system. Without being
    rude at all, I'm suggesting that you have been unlucky in the mix of
    components that make up your system.

    Since you rely on your machine for heavy duty jobs, dumping XP x64 for a
    32bit system makes some sense - on the other hand you have invested a great
    deal of time, money and effort to have it do it's job. Putting it onto a
    different machine that is custom built for your needs would be a good way of
    preserving a bit of this investment eeven if it is not the most economical
    way out.

    Having trouble with Acrobat and Avast? This is rediculous, you shouldn't
    have to put up with this - considering the effort you have put into it all I
    would instantly relegate this machine (whatever it's components) to running
    a 32bit screensaver and get something else to do your job. The only insult
    conveyed through this remark is that you didn't come to this conclusion much
    sooner. You are way too patient!

    I suggest you contact a system-builder. Don't buy anything over the counter
    from someone who doesn't care if they sell tooth-paste or wall-to-wall
    carpeting. Buy from someone who knows how to be frank, even if you think you
    are faced with someone who sounds like a few of us here.


    ("The words of Mercury sounds harsh after the song of Apollo" - Sean
    Connery, in some film.)


    Tony. . .



    "Denise" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > You're very quick to insult and jab, aren't you? Rude, too.
    >
    > I have
    >
    > - Biostar TFORCE 6100-939 mobo which supports dual channel ddr
    > - AMD Athlon 64 3200+ 2.0GHz / 512KB Cache / 1000MHz FSB / Venice /
    > Hyper-Transport / OEM / Socket 939 / Processor
    > - 2 twin sticks of 1G RAM
    > - Corsair 620W PSU
    > - Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 SATA 3.0Gb/s 320-GB hard drive
    >
    > Which piece of hardware do you think is bad, or a combination?
    >
    > Are they the best of everything? More than likely not, but they're very
    > good and run well together. If I decide to install Windows XP Pro 32-bit,
    > I'm sure I'll find out that X64 has caused the problems that I have.
    >
    > BTW, are you employed by Microsoft to try to discredit anyone who speaks
    > against its products? I can't think of any other reason for your poor
    > attitude and manners.
    >
    > Regarding programs/files that aren't compatible with an 64-bit os, off the
    > top of my head, I can think of . . .
    >
    > - Adobe Acrobat
    > - Winword (Microsoft's very own!)
    > - iexpolorer 64-bit (again, Microsoft's very own!)
    > - Avast
    > - Soundman
    > - ctfmon (a Microsoft Office XP program that runs in the background, even
    > after you quit all Office programs!)
    > - Sun Microsystem's Java2 suite
    > - Webshots
    > - Maxtor One Touch
    >
    > Which programs in my pc are causing problems with my 64-bit os? Well,
    > Microsoft didn't and/or won't say, but it's strange that some of them are
    > Microsoft programs. The problems with my computer started as soon as I
    > installed Windows XP Pro X64. Maybe that's the one that's clashing with
    > everything else in my computer. The rest of them all get along fine.
    >
    > --
    > Denise
    >
    > ~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're

    going.
     
    Tony Sperling, Jul 14, 2007
    #12
  13. =?Utf-8?B?Um95c3RvbiBI?=

    John Barnes Guest

    Windows X64 was the most stable hard working OS I have ever used. Even more
    stable than Vista64. If you are using compatible hardware and software it
    just works, period.

    "Denise" <> wrote in message
    news:D...
    > To say that the problems I have with X64 is like saying the Titanic had a
    > boating accident. I've been using Windows as soon as Windows 95 came out
    > and
    > X64 is by very, very far the worst version of them all. It was easier
    > working with the DOS Shell. Computers, as you said, respond differently,
    > and
    > this computer is begging me for the 32-bit system. I won't even get into
    > the
    > problems I've had with SATA. I eliminated all of my SATA connections and
    > everything is connected using USB 2.0 cables except for the hdd cable. I
    > think that the technological world is pushing too fast to come out with
    > something different because there's no profit to be made if people don't
    > have
    > a new product to buy. Why would Microsoft release X64 if iexplore X64
    > doesn't work and other Microsoft programs aren't compatible with X64? Why
    > didn't Microsoft make things such as these common knowledge so that people
    > would know that there are compatibility issues within Microsoft prior to
    > their buying X64? I very much believe that the public was hoodwinked and
    > I'm
    > very angry that I was taken, and there are no other words that I can think
    > of
    > that would fit what Microsoft did, or my language wouldn't be proper.
    > --
    > Denise
    >
    > ~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're
    > going.
    >
    >
    > "Dennis Pack" wrote:
    >
    >> Denise:
    >> I've read the different problems you've had with XP x64, most of
    >> them haven't been common. As to whether it's a hardware, software or
    >> other
    >> conflict I don't have an answer. I've been running XP x64 since the beta
    >> releases and Vista X64 since beta 2, I haven't had near the problems or
    >> conflicts that you have. XP x64 has been very stable for me and Vista x64
    >> has been stable so far even with weak drivers. At work the group that I
    >> work
    >> with has about 200 computers that are the same, almost every system
    >> responds
    >> differently. These differences are more distinct since we migrated from
    >> Windows 2000 to Windows XP. Have a great day.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Dennis Pack
    >> XP x64 SP2, Vista Enterprise x64
    >> Office Professional Plus 2007
    >>
    >> "Denise" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >> > You're very quick to insult and jab, aren't you? Rude, too.
    >> >
    >> > I have
    >> >
    >> > - Biostar TFORCE 6100-939 mobo which supports dual channel ddr
    >> > - AMD Athlon 64 3200+ 2.0GHz / 512KB Cache / 1000MHz FSB / Venice /
    >> > Hyper-Transport / OEM / Socket 939 / Processor
    >> > - 2 twin sticks of 1G RAM
    >> > - Corsair 620W PSU
    >> > - Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 SATA 3.0Gb/s 320-GB hard drive
    >> >
    >> > Which piece of hardware do you think is bad, or a combination?
    >> >
    >> > Are they the best of everything? More than likely not, but they're
    >> > very
    >> > good and run well together. If I decide to install Windows XP Pro
    >> > 32-bit,
    >> > I'm sure I'll find out that X64 has caused the problems that I have.
    >> >
    >> > BTW, are you employed by Microsoft to try to discredit anyone who
    >> > speaks
    >> > against its products? I can't think of any other reason for your poor
    >> > attitude and manners.
    >> >
    >> > Regarding programs/files that aren't compatible with an 64-bit os, off
    >> > the
    >> > top of my head, I can think of . . .
    >> >
    >> > - Adobe Acrobat
    >> > - Winword (Microsoft's very own!)
    >> > - iexpolorer 64-bit (again, Microsoft's very own!)
    >> > - Avast
    >> > - Soundman
    >> > - ctfmon (a Microsoft Office XP program that runs in the background,
    >> > even
    >> > after you quit all Office programs!)
    >> > - Sun Microsystem's Java2 suite
    >> > - Webshots
    >> > - Maxtor One Touch
    >> >
    >> > Which programs in my pc are causing problems with my 64-bit os? Well,
    >> > Microsoft didn't and/or won't say, but it's strange that some of them
    >> > are
    >> > Microsoft programs. The problems with my computer started as soon as I
    >> > installed Windows XP Pro X64. Maybe that's the one that's clashing
    >> > with
    >> > everything else in my computer. The rest of them all get along fine.
    >> >
    >> > --
    >> > Denise
    >> >
    >> > ~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're
    >> > going.

    >>
     
    John Barnes, Jul 14, 2007
    #13
  14. =?Utf-8?B?Um95c3RvbiBI?=

    S.SubZero Guest

    I run XP64 on my gaming rig and it runs perfectly. Not much in the
    way of 64-bit games, but Unreal Tournament 2004 64-bit Edition runs
    fine. All the 32-bit games I have tried so far work and work well.

    I run Vista 64 on my laptop and it runs perfectly too. The resources
    it uses are a little annoying, especially the 15GB+ of hard disk
    space. For my little 100GB laptop drive this is quite a bit. I have
    been debating re-doing my laptop with XP64 also, but I want to get
    very used to using Vista and learn some of it's inner workings. I'm
    using it mainly for resume fodder.
     
    S.SubZero, Jul 14, 2007
    #14
  15. =?Utf-8?B?Um95c3RvbiBI?=

    John Barnes Guest

    I had performance problems with Vista64 until I upgraded my system from a
    3500+ processor to a 5200+ x2. I still have to set the affinity for many
    processes manually to get a really smooth running machine, very annoying,
    but only have to do it once a day. I have it on a 72 gig partition with 25
    still free.

    "S.SubZero" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I run XP64 on my gaming rig and it runs perfectly. Not much in the
    > way of 64-bit games, but Unreal Tournament 2004 64-bit Edition runs
    > fine. All the 32-bit games I have tried so far work and work well.
    >
    > I run Vista 64 on my laptop and it runs perfectly too. The resources
    > it uses are a little annoying, especially the 15GB+ of hard disk
    > space. For my little 100GB laptop drive this is quite a bit. I have
    > been debating re-doing my laptop with XP64 also, but I want to get
    > very used to using Vista and learn some of it's inner workings. I'm
    > using it mainly for resume fodder.
    >
     
    John Barnes, Jul 14, 2007
    #15
  16. It's a pity that my 120 days is likely to be before the SP1 for Vista comes
    out, temptation is to revert to 32 bit for a while then go Vista 64 bit when
    the wider community gives the thumbs up to SP1.

    "Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote:

    > The reality is that XP x64 is solid, stable, and basically done with. Though
    > you'll certainly see at least one more service pack for it, I suspect. Vista
    > 64bit is new, requires more resources, and has a whole new set of
    > compatibility issues. The interface will certainly drive you nuts initially.
    > All that being said, I run Vista 64bit. I have the hardware to handle it,
    > and I've learned to adjust to not whinge too much about some of the UI
    > idiocies. Moving forward, drivers for new hardware will be preferentially
    > for Vista, and tending to abandon XP. But there's no real hurry - it's up to
    > you and your comfort level.
    >
    > --
    > Charlie.
    > http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    > http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
    >
    >
    > "Royston H" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > My 120 days of eval are nearly up.
    > >
    > > I have found the XP 64 bit version of windows the most stable and reliable
    > > version of Windows I've ever used and have had only one BSOD when I was
    > > overclocking my graphics card, so not really a microsoft o/s issue.
    > >
    > > I mainly use the computer for office applications, photoshop, video
    > > editing
    > > and playing FSX.
    > >
    > > Given that I can get an OEM copy of Vista 64 bit for less than the OEM
    > > 64bit
    > > XP pro, I am likely to run with Vista.
    > >
    > > I'd like to hear from people who have used both in anger and see if any
    > > valid arguements exist for sticking with XP, say it's considerably more
    > > stable etc, given that long term the future is with vista anyway.
    > >
    > > Thanks
    > >
    > > Royston H
    > >

    >
     
    =?Utf-8?B?Um95c3RvbiBI?=, Jul 14, 2007
    #16
  17. I certainly have Denise. My involvement in computing dates back to Windows
    3.1, I used to enjoy tweaking and solving technical issues, however these
    days I begrudge Microsoft or any vendor who wants to charge me, then waste my
    time, when I could be pursuing my interests outside computing. I just want
    the applications to work. Luckly for me the onces I have work fine with XP
    64bit, FSX appears to work very well infact compared running it under 32 bit.

    Your comments about SATA worry me, since my IDE drive is about to be swapped
    out as it's crammed full.

    I have more or less decided to revert to 32 bit XP, wait till Vista has at
    least SP1, see how that's received by the market, then revisit 64 bit
    computing.

    "Denise" wrote:

    > Well Royston, you now have varying opinions of X64. The self-proclaimed
    > computer gurus love it, probably because they know all the ins and outs of
    > computers and programs and can change the multitude of settings for desired
    > results without coming to forums for advice from their peers. On the other
    > hand, people who don't know the ins and outs of computers and operating
    > systems come here with all the problems they're having with X64, whether
    > Vista 64-bit or XP X64. In one of the threads in this forum, one man is
    > talking about starting a class action suit against Microsoft due to financial
    > losses because X64 didn't work properly. Time will tell whether or not
    > either X64 version is a gem in the making or a flop thrown out on the market
    > by Microsoft to recoup whatever losses it would have sustained if it didn't.
    > As for me, Windows XP Pro 2000, 32-bit, is heads above X64 and I know that I
    > will be going back to it. When or if Microsoft gets X64 straightened out
    > sometime in the future, I might try it again. But I wouldn't be surprised if
    > both versions turn out to be bombs that can't be fixed and another Windows
    > operating system is introduced to the market.
    > --
    > Denise
    >
    > ~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're going.
    >
    >
    > "Royston H" wrote:
    >
    > > My 120 days of eval are nearly up.
    > >
    > > I have found the XP 64 bit version of windows the most stable and reliable
    > > version of Windows I've ever used and have had only one BSOD when I was
    > > overclocking my graphics card, so not really a microsoft o/s issue.
    > >
    > > I mainly use the computer for office applications, photoshop, video editing
    > > and playing FSX.
    > >
    > > Given that I can get an OEM copy of Vista 64 bit for less than the OEM 64bit
    > > XP pro, I am likely to run with Vista.
    > >
    > > I'd like to hear from people who have used both in anger and see if any
    > > valid arguements exist for sticking with XP, say it's considerably more
    > > stable etc, given that long term the future is with vista anyway.
    > >
    > > Thanks
    > >
    > > Royston H
    > >
     
    =?Utf-8?B?Um95c3RvbiBI?=, Jul 14, 2007
    #17
  18. Hi Royston,

    I am using XP x64 on my home built system and it is rock steady. I have a
    copy of Vista x64 sat on my shelf waiting for Gretag-Macbeth to release
    drivers/updated software for my EyeOne Display 2 puck so that I can have a
    properly profiled monitor to work with using Photoshop.

    Having said that, I simply don't have the problems which Denise has outlined
    in XP x64 and I use Acrobat (CS3 version), Winword, used to use Avast (until
    AVG recently released their 64-bit compatible version of their software),
    Sun's Java. I cannot comment on the other programs which she mentioned.

    I'm also running 5 HD's which are all connected via SATA (2 x 74Gb Raptors
    running as a RAID 0 Array) and 3 x 320Gb Seagate Barracudas running in SATA2
    3Gb/s mode.

    From what I can gather the BioStar motherboard in question is an older board
    (from around 2 years ago) and there appear to be some updated drivers for Win
    XP x64 on their web site -
    http://www.biostar-usa.com/mbdownloads.asp?model=TFORCE 6100-939

    I wonder if you have downloaded and applied these??

    "Royston H" wrote:

    > My 120 days of eval are nearly up.
    >
    > I have found the XP 64 bit version of windows the most stable and reliable
    > version of Windows I've ever used and have had only one BSOD when I was
    > overclocking my graphics card, so not really a microsoft o/s issue.
    >
    > I mainly use the computer for office applications, photoshop, video editing
    > and playing FSX.
    >
    > Given that I can get an OEM copy of Vista 64 bit for less than the OEM 64bit
    > XP pro, I am likely to run with Vista.
    >
    > I'd like to hear from people who have used both in anger and see if any
    > valid arguements exist for sticking with XP, say it's considerably more
    > stable etc, given that long term the future is with vista anyway.
    >
    > Thanks
    >
    > Royston H
    >
     
    =?Utf-8?B?Q2Fyb2wgU3RlZWxl?=, Jul 15, 2007
    #18
  19. Well, I listed my hardware and no one suggested that it was junk, and my
    software is the type of software that most people have. Adobe Acrobat won't
    work with X64 so I use FoxIt, but other than that, I have Micosoft Office,
    email accounts, some picutre programs, such as MGI Photo Suite and Kodak
    Picture Premium, Avast Anti-Virus, Nero 7.0, and other usual programs. If
    X64 isn't compatible with my hardware or this type of software, it has a
    problem, not my computer. I'm glad it's working for you though. Good luck!
    --
    Denise

    ~ If you don''t know where you came from, you won''t know where you''re going.


    "John Barnes" wrote:

    > Windows X64 was the most stable hard working OS I have ever used. Even more
    > stable than Vista64. If you are using compatible hardware and software it
    > just works, period.
    >
    > "Denise" <> wrote in message
    > news:D...
    > > To say that the problems I have with X64 is like saying the Titanic had a
    > > boating accident. I've been using Windows as soon as Windows 95 came out
    > > and
    > > X64 is by very, very far the worst version of them all. It was easier
    > > working with the DOS Shell. Computers, as you said, respond differently,
    > > and
    > > this computer is begging me for the 32-bit system. I won't even get into
    > > the
    > > problems I've had with SATA. I eliminated all of my SATA connections and
    > > everything is connected using USB 2.0 cables except for the hdd cable. I
    > > think that the technological world is pushing too fast to come out with
    > > something different because there's no profit to be made if people don't
    > > have
    > > a new product to buy. Why would Microsoft release X64 if iexplore X64
    > > doesn't work and other Microsoft programs aren't compatible with X64? Why
    > > didn't Microsoft make things such as these common knowledge so that people
    > > would know that there are compatibility issues within Microsoft prior to
    > > their buying X64? I very much believe that the public was hoodwinked and
    > > I'm
    > > very angry that I was taken, and there are no other words that I can think
    > > of
    > > that would fit what Microsoft did, or my language wouldn't be proper.
    > > --
    > > Denise
    > >
    > > ~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're
    > > going.
    > >
    > >
    > > "Dennis Pack" wrote:
    > >
    > >> Denise:
    > >> I've read the different problems you've had with XP x64, most of
    > >> them haven't been common. As to whether it's a hardware, software or
    > >> other
    > >> conflict I don't have an answer. I've been running XP x64 since the beta
    > >> releases and Vista X64 since beta 2, I haven't had near the problems or
    > >> conflicts that you have. XP x64 has been very stable for me and Vista x64
    > >> has been stable so far even with weak drivers. At work the group that I
    > >> work
    > >> with has about 200 computers that are the same, almost every system
    > >> responds
    > >> differently. These differences are more distinct since we migrated from
    > >> Windows 2000 to Windows XP. Have a great day.
    > >>
    > >> --
    > >> Dennis Pack
    > >> XP x64 SP2, Vista Enterprise x64
    > >> Office Professional Plus 2007
    > >>
    > >> "Denise" <> wrote in message
    > >> news:...
    > >> > You're very quick to insult and jab, aren't you? Rude, too.
    > >> >
    > >> > I have
    > >> >
    > >> > - Biostar TFORCE 6100-939 mobo which supports dual channel ddr
    > >> > - AMD Athlon 64 3200+ 2.0GHz / 512KB Cache / 1000MHz FSB / Venice /
    > >> > Hyper-Transport / OEM / Socket 939 / Processor
    > >> > - 2 twin sticks of 1G RAM
    > >> > - Corsair 620W PSU
    > >> > - Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 SATA 3.0Gb/s 320-GB hard drive
    > >> >
    > >> > Which piece of hardware do you think is bad, or a combination?
    > >> >
    > >> > Are they the best of everything? More than likely not, but they're
    > >> > very
    > >> > good and run well together. If I decide to install Windows XP Pro
    > >> > 32-bit,
    > >> > I'm sure I'll find out that X64 has caused the problems that I have.
    > >> >
    > >> > BTW, are you employed by Microsoft to try to discredit anyone who
    > >> > speaks
    > >> > against its products? I can't think of any other reason for your poor
    > >> > attitude and manners.
    > >> >
    > >> > Regarding programs/files that aren't compatible with an 64-bit os, off
    > >> > the
    > >> > top of my head, I can think of . . .
    > >> >
    > >> > - Adobe Acrobat
    > >> > - Winword (Microsoft's very own!)
    > >> > - iexpolorer 64-bit (again, Microsoft's very own!)
    > >> > - Avast
    > >> > - Soundman
    > >> > - ctfmon (a Microsoft Office XP program that runs in the background,
    > >> > even
    > >> > after you quit all Office programs!)
    > >> > - Sun Microsystem's Java2 suite
    > >> > - Webshots
    > >> > - Maxtor One Touch
    > >> >
    > >> > Which programs in my pc are causing problems with my 64-bit os? Well,
    > >> > Microsoft didn't and/or won't say, but it's strange that some of them
    > >> > are
    > >> > Microsoft programs. The problems with my computer started as soon as I
    > >> > installed Windows XP Pro X64. Maybe that's the one that's clashing
    > >> > with
    > >> > everything else in my computer. The rest of them all get along fine.
    > >> >
    > >> > --
    > >> > Denise
    > >> >
    > >> > ~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're
    > >> > going.
    > >>

    >
    >
     
    =?Utf-8?B?RGVuaXNl?=, Jul 15, 2007
    #19
  20. Yeah, I'd say that X64 is good for fodder.
    --
    Denise

    ~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're going.


    "S.SubZero" wrote:

    > I run XP64 on my gaming rig and it runs perfectly. Not much in the
    > way of 64-bit games, but Unreal Tournament 2004 64-bit Edition runs
    > fine. All the 32-bit games I have tried so far work and work well.
    >
    > I run Vista 64 on my laptop and it runs perfectly too. The resources
    > it uses are a little annoying, especially the 15GB+ of hard disk
    > space. For my little 100GB laptop drive this is quite a bit. I have
    > been debating re-doing my laptop with XP64 also, but I want to get
    > very used to using Vista and learn some of it's inner workings. I'm
    > using it mainly for resume fodder.
    >
    >
     
    =?Utf-8?B?RGVuaXNl?=, Jul 15, 2007
    #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. Ionizer
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,579
  2. vvcd
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,988
  3. Colin Barnhorst

    Re: Vista Ultimate 32-Bit or 64-Bit edition

    Colin Barnhorst, Jan 22, 2007, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    559
    Colin Barnhorst
    Jan 22, 2007
  4. Charlie Russel - MVP

    Re: Vista Ultimate 32-Bit or 64-Bit edition

    Charlie Russel - MVP, Jan 22, 2007, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    586
    Charlie Russel - MVP
    Jan 22, 2007
  5. TEL
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    711
Loading...

Share This Page