Vista 64bit really that bad?

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by Dennis Gordon, Sep 10, 2006.

  1. Sorry for putting this here... but as everyone seems to be doing it...

    I downloaded that massive RC1 of the 64 bit Vista the other day with the
    intention of installing it on a test box when the CPP program presumably
    expands in a few weeks. Since I'm fond of XP 64 bit, I figured it's got to
    be a step up. Then I read this thread at Hardforum:

    http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1097002

    Some nasty words regarding both 64 bit Vista and our sometimes beloved XP 64
    bit.

    Is this just the usual flap of no-nothings, or should I really be sticking
    with the 32-bit Vista if I intend to actually use the computer?

    I haven't paid much attention to Vista development until now, since I
    haven't seen much need for what appears to be a resource hog. OTOH, I'm
    itchin' to try something new on a machine that I can cheerfully screw up w/o
    any consequences...
    Dennis Gordon, Sep 10, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Dennis Gordon

    Jane C Guest

    FWIW, I have absolutely no problems with either XP x64, or Vista RC1 x64.

    --
    Jane, not plain ;) 64 bit enabled :)
    Batteries not included. Braincell on vacation :)
    "Dennis Gordon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Sorry for putting this here... but as everyone seems to be doing it...
    >
    > I downloaded that massive RC1 of the 64 bit Vista the other day with the
    > intention of installing it on a test box when the CPP program presumably
    > expands in a few weeks. Since I'm fond of XP 64 bit, I figured it's got to
    > be a step up. Then I read this thread at Hardforum:
    >
    > http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1097002
    >
    > Some nasty words regarding both 64 bit Vista and our sometimes beloved XP
    > 64 bit.
    >
    > Is this just the usual flap of no-nothings, or should I really be sticking
    > with the 32-bit Vista if I intend to actually use the computer?
    >
    > I haven't paid much attention to Vista development until now, since I
    > haven't seen much need for what appears to be a resource hog. OTOH, I'm
    > itchin' to try something new on a machine that I can cheerfully screw up
    > w/o any consequences...
    >
    >
    Jane C, Sep 10, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Performance is not so pleasing on my system with RC1 x64. Office 2007 is
    like molasses on it. Switching between Word and Media Player 11 causes
    lenghthy repainting of windows, the Start menu takes some time to pop up. I
    would recommend no more than a dual core 64 bit processor, 2 GBs of RAM and
    a 256 MB video card or better to run this efficiently.

    I suspect some persons are not gonna be happy with it on systems purchased a
    year or two ago. I wouldn't be surprised if setup permits installation on
    first generation AMD 64 systems.
    --
    http://adacosta.live.spaces.com
    "Jane C" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > FWIW, I have absolutely no problems with either XP x64, or Vista RC1 x64.
    >
    > --
    > Jane, not plain ;) 64 bit enabled :)
    > Batteries not included. Braincell on vacation :)
    > "Dennis Gordon" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Sorry for putting this here... but as everyone seems to be doing it...
    >>
    >> I downloaded that massive RC1 of the 64 bit Vista the other day with the
    >> intention of installing it on a test box when the CPP program presumably
    >> expands in a few weeks. Since I'm fond of XP 64 bit, I figured it's got
    >> to be a step up. Then I read this thread at Hardforum:
    >>
    >> http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1097002
    >>
    >> Some nasty words regarding both 64 bit Vista and our sometimes beloved XP
    >> 64 bit.
    >>
    >> Is this just the usual flap of no-nothings, or should I really be
    >> sticking with the 32-bit Vista if I intend to actually use the computer?
    >>
    >> I haven't paid much attention to Vista development until now, since I
    >> haven't seen much need for what appears to be a resource hog. OTOH, I'm
    >> itchin' to try something new on a machine that I can cheerfully screw up
    >> w/o any consequences...
    >>
    >>

    >
    Andre Da Costa, Sep 10, 2006
    #3
  4. Ouch. I may have to reconsider my experiment...;-)

    Jane, are you using the same hardware for both X64 and Vista 64?


    "Andre Da Costa" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Performance is not so pleasing on my system with RC1 x64. Office 2007 is
    > like molasses on it. Switching between Word and Media Player 11 causes
    > lenghthy repainting of windows, the Start menu takes some time to pop up.
    > I would recommend no more than a dual core 64 bit processor, 2 GBs of RAM
    > and a 256 MB video card or better to run this efficiently.
    >
    > I suspect some persons are not gonna be happy with it on systems purchased
    > a year or two ago. I wouldn't be surprised if setup permits installation
    > on first generation AMD 64 systems.
    > --
    > http://adacosta.live.spaces.com
    > "Jane C" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> FWIW, I have absolutely no problems with either XP x64, or Vista RC1 x64.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Jane, not plain ;) 64 bit enabled :)
    >> Batteries not included. Braincell on vacation :)
    >> "Dennis Gordon" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> Sorry for putting this here... but as everyone seems to be doing it...
    >>>
    >>> I downloaded that massive RC1 of the 64 bit Vista the other day with the
    >>> intention of installing it on a test box when the CPP program presumably
    >>> expands in a few weeks. Since I'm fond of XP 64 bit, I figured it's got
    >>> to be a step up. Then I read this thread at Hardforum:
    >>>
    >>> http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1097002
    >>>
    >>> Some nasty words regarding both 64 bit Vista and our sometimes beloved
    >>> XP 64 bit.
    >>>
    >>> Is this just the usual flap of no-nothings, or should I really be
    >>> sticking with the 32-bit Vista if I intend to actually use the computer?
    >>>
    >>> I haven't paid much attention to Vista development until now, since I
    >>> haven't seen much need for what appears to be a resource hog. OTOH, I'm
    >>> itchin' to try something new on a machine that I can cheerfully screw up
    >>> w/o any consequences...
    >>>
    >>>

    >>

    >
    Dennis Gordon, Sep 10, 2006
    #4
  5. Dennis Gordon

    DP Guest

    "Andre Da Costa" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I would recommend no more than a dual core 64 bit processor, 2 GBs of RAM
    > and a 256 MB video card or better to run this efficiently.


    Andre, I assume you meant "no LESS than."
    DP, Sep 10, 2006
    #5
  6. Dennis Gordon

    Jane C Guest

    Yep, triple booting here between XP x64, Vista RC1 x64 and Vista RC1 x86.

    --
    Jane, not plain ;) 64 bit enabled :)
    Batteries not included. Braincell on vacation :)
    "Dennis Gordon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Ouch. I may have to reconsider my experiment...;-)
    >
    > Jane, are you using the same hardware for both X64 and Vista 64?
    >
    >
    > "Andre Da Costa" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Performance is not so pleasing on my system with RC1 x64. Office 2007 is
    >> like molasses on it. Switching between Word and Media Player 11 causes
    >> lenghthy repainting of windows, the Start menu takes some time to pop up.
    >> I would recommend no more than a dual core 64 bit processor, 2 GBs of RAM
    >> and a 256 MB video card or better to run this efficiently.
    >>
    >> I suspect some persons are not gonna be happy with it on systems
    >> purchased a year or two ago. I wouldn't be surprised if setup permits
    >> installation on first generation AMD 64 systems.
    >> --
    >> http://adacosta.live.spaces.com
    >> "Jane C" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> FWIW, I have absolutely no problems with either XP x64, or Vista RC1
    >>> x64.
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> Jane, not plain ;) 64 bit enabled :)
    >>> Batteries not included. Braincell on vacation :)
    >>> "Dennis Gordon" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> Sorry for putting this here... but as everyone seems to be doing it...
    >>>>
    >>>> I downloaded that massive RC1 of the 64 bit Vista the other day with
    >>>> the intention of installing it on a test box when the CPP program
    >>>> presumably expands in a few weeks. Since I'm fond of XP 64 bit, I
    >>>> figured it's got to be a step up. Then I read this thread at Hardforum:
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1097002
    >>>>
    >>>> Some nasty words regarding both 64 bit Vista and our sometimes beloved
    >>>> XP 64 bit.
    >>>>
    >>>> Is this just the usual flap of no-nothings, or should I really be
    >>>> sticking with the 32-bit Vista if I intend to actually use the
    >>>> computer?
    >>>>
    >>>> I haven't paid much attention to Vista development until now, since I
    >>>> haven't seen much need for what appears to be a resource hog. OTOH, I'm
    >>>> itchin' to try something new on a machine that I can cheerfully screw
    >>>> up w/o any consequences...
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>

    >>

    >
    >
    Jane C, Sep 10, 2006
    #6
  7. Dennis Gordon

    Jane C Guest

    System specs: Intel EM64T 3 gig cpu, 1Gig DDR PC3200 RAM (Corsair
    ValueSelect), Gigabyte GA-8IPE775/G motherboard, Intel 865PE chipset,
    3x80Gig Seagate Barracuda IDEs, ATI Radeon 9600 series 256MB. 450watt psu.

    --
    Jane, not plain ;) 64 bit enabled :)
    Batteries not included. Braincell on vacation :)
    "Dennis Gordon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Ouch. I may have to reconsider my experiment...;-)
    >
    > Jane, are you using the same hardware for both X64 and Vista 64?
    >
    >
    > "Andre Da Costa" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Performance is not so pleasing on my system with RC1 x64. Office 2007 is
    >> like molasses on it. Switching between Word and Media Player 11 causes
    >> lenghthy repainting of windows, the Start menu takes some time to pop up.
    >> I would recommend no more than a dual core 64 bit processor, 2 GBs of RAM
    >> and a 256 MB video card or better to run this efficiently.
    >>
    >> I suspect some persons are not gonna be happy with it on systems
    >> purchased a year or two ago. I wouldn't be surprised if setup permits
    >> installation on first generation AMD 64 systems.
    >> --
    >> http://adacosta.live.spaces.com
    >> "Jane C" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> FWIW, I have absolutely no problems with either XP x64, or Vista RC1
    >>> x64.
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> Jane, not plain ;) 64 bit enabled :)
    >>> Batteries not included. Braincell on vacation :)
    >>> "Dennis Gordon" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> Sorry for putting this here... but as everyone seems to be doing it...
    >>>>
    >>>> I downloaded that massive RC1 of the 64 bit Vista the other day with
    >>>> the intention of installing it on a test box when the CPP program
    >>>> presumably expands in a few weeks. Since I'm fond of XP 64 bit, I
    >>>> figured it's got to be a step up. Then I read this thread at Hardforum:
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1097002
    >>>>
    >>>> Some nasty words regarding both 64 bit Vista and our sometimes beloved
    >>>> XP 64 bit.
    >>>>
    >>>> Is this just the usual flap of no-nothings, or should I really be
    >>>> sticking with the 32-bit Vista if I intend to actually use the
    >>>> computer?
    >>>>
    >>>> I haven't paid much attention to Vista development until now, since I
    >>>> haven't seen much need for what appears to be a resource hog. OTOH, I'm
    >>>> itchin' to try something new on a machine that I can cheerfully screw
    >>>> up w/o any consequences...
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>

    >>

    >
    >
    Jane C, Sep 10, 2006
    #7
  8. Dennis Gordon

    Aaron Kelley Guest

    If you've been using XP x64 for a while, then you probably have a pretty
    good idea of what to expect from Vista x64. There are compatibility issues
    with some programs (plus extra compatibility issues with programs that
    aren't happy to run under *Vista*, whether it be 32-bit or 64-bit) and you
    need 64-bit drivers for your hardware. A difference here is that 64-bit
    drivers need to be signed (unless you want to disable signature checking
    every time you boot). XP x64 drivers work for some devices but it's better
    if you can find ones for Vista, so we'll be back in the same boat we were in
    when x64 first launched.

    That being said, I've installed Vista x64 on a test machine and haven't had
    any real issues with it. RC1 seems very nice. Granted, there is some
    software that I wish I could use (like Daemon Tools and Nero 7) but that is
    also an issue with the 32-bit version. Hardware device driver support is
    surprisingly good.

    I haven't installed it on my main machine yet, and I'm worried about a few
    devices... My SoundBlaster Live! 24-bit, my TV tuner (Leadtek) and my PCI
    modem. The latter two devices can just be replaced if no drivers are
    available, and Creative is supposed to be working on a new driver for the
    former...

    - Aaron

    "Dennis Gordon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Sorry for putting this here... but as everyone seems to be doing it...
    >
    > I downloaded that massive RC1 of the 64 bit Vista the other day with the
    > intention of installing it on a test box when the CPP program presumably
    > expands in a few weeks. Since I'm fond of XP 64 bit, I figured it's got to
    > be a step up. Then I read this thread at Hardforum:
    >
    > http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1097002
    >
    > Some nasty words regarding both 64 bit Vista and our sometimes beloved XP
    > 64 bit.
    >
    > Is this just the usual flap of no-nothings, or should I really be sticking
    > with the 32-bit Vista if I intend to actually use the computer?
    >
    > I haven't paid much attention to Vista development until now, since I
    > haven't seen much need for what appears to be a resource hog. OTOH, I'm
    > itchin' to try something new on a machine that I can cheerfully screw up
    > w/o any consequences...
    >
    >
    Aaron Kelley, Sep 10, 2006
    #8
  9. Yeah, thanks for the grammar correction.
    --
    http://adacosta.live.spaces.com
    "DP" <> wrote in message
    news:%23L$...
    >
    > "Andre Da Costa" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> I would recommend no more than a dual core 64 bit processor, 2 GBs of
    >> RAM and a 256 MB video card or better to run this efficiently.

    >
    > Andre, I assume you meant "no LESS than."
    >
    >
    >
    Andre Da Costa, Sep 10, 2006
    #9
  10. I am using an AMD64 x2 4400+ on an ASUS A8N-SLI Deluxe with a GeForce 6800GT
    PCI express video card and would describe my experience with both XP64 and
    Vista64 as the same as Jane's. Other than a few window repaint issues which
    I think are due to the video driver I don't find Vista64 to be anything like
    what Andre describes. It's pretty snappy. As for XP64, I find it to be the
    solidest and fastest edition of Windows that I have ever used. I haven't
    had a blue screen on either of my XPx64 boxes in 15 months.

    "Dennis Gordon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Ouch. I may have to reconsider my experiment...;-)
    >
    > Jane, are you using the same hardware for both X64 and Vista 64?
    >
    >
    > "Andre Da Costa" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Performance is not so pleasing on my system with RC1 x64. Office 2007 is
    >> like molasses on it. Switching between Word and Media Player 11 causes
    >> lenghthy repainting of windows, the Start menu takes some time to pop up.
    >> I would recommend no more than a dual core 64 bit processor, 2 GBs of RAM
    >> and a 256 MB video card or better to run this efficiently.
    >>
    >> I suspect some persons are not gonna be happy with it on systems
    >> purchased a year or two ago. I wouldn't be surprised if setup permits
    >> installation on first generation AMD 64 systems.
    >> --
    >> http://adacosta.live.spaces.com
    >> "Jane C" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> FWIW, I have absolutely no problems with either XP x64, or Vista RC1
    >>> x64.
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> Jane, not plain ;) 64 bit enabled :)
    >>> Batteries not included. Braincell on vacation :)
    >>> "Dennis Gordon" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> Sorry for putting this here... but as everyone seems to be doing it...
    >>>>
    >>>> I downloaded that massive RC1 of the 64 bit Vista the other day with
    >>>> the intention of installing it on a test box when the CPP program
    >>>> presumably expands in a few weeks. Since I'm fond of XP 64 bit, I
    >>>> figured it's got to be a step up. Then I read this thread at Hardforum:
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1097002
    >>>>
    >>>> Some nasty words regarding both 64 bit Vista and our sometimes beloved
    >>>> XP 64 bit.
    >>>>
    >>>> Is this just the usual flap of no-nothings, or should I really be
    >>>> sticking with the 32-bit Vista if I intend to actually use the
    >>>> computer?
    >>>>
    >>>> I haven't paid much attention to Vista development until now, since I
    >>>> haven't seen much need for what appears to be a resource hog. OTOH, I'm
    >>>> itchin' to try something new on a machine that I can cheerfully screw
    >>>> up w/o any consequences...
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>

    >>

    >
    >
    Colin Barnhorst, Sep 10, 2006
    #10
  11. Still my system is nowhere on the same level as yours, probably the only
    thing in common is the name brands, AMD and nVidia:

    Sempron 1.6 GHz
    Geforce FX 5200

    I won't be purchasing a new system until January or Spring next year.
    --
    http://adacosta.live.spaces.com
    "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
    news:%23%...
    >I am using an AMD64 x2 4400+ on an ASUS A8N-SLI Deluxe with a GeForce
    >6800GT PCI express video card and would describe my experience with both
    >XP64 and Vista64 as the same as Jane's. Other than a few window repaint
    >issues which I think are due to the video driver I don't find Vista64 to be
    >anything like what Andre describes. It's pretty snappy. As for XP64, I
    >find it to be the solidest and fastest edition of Windows that I have ever
    >used. I haven't had a blue screen on either of my XPx64 boxes in 15
    >months.
    >
    > "Dennis Gordon" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Ouch. I may have to reconsider my experiment...;-)
    >>
    >> Jane, are you using the same hardware for both X64 and Vista 64?
    >>
    >>
    >> "Andre Da Costa" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> Performance is not so pleasing on my system with RC1 x64. Office 2007 is
    >>> like molasses on it. Switching between Word and Media Player 11 causes
    >>> lenghthy repainting of windows, the Start menu takes some time to pop
    >>> up. I would recommend no more than a dual core 64 bit processor, 2 GBs
    >>> of RAM and a 256 MB video card or better to run this efficiently.
    >>>
    >>> I suspect some persons are not gonna be happy with it on systems
    >>> purchased a year or two ago. I wouldn't be surprised if setup permits
    >>> installation on first generation AMD 64 systems.
    >>> --
    >>> http://adacosta.live.spaces.com
    >>> "Jane C" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> FWIW, I have absolutely no problems with either XP x64, or Vista RC1
    >>>> x64.
    >>>>
    >>>> --
    >>>> Jane, not plain ;) 64 bit enabled :)
    >>>> Batteries not included. Braincell on vacation :)
    >>>> "Dennis Gordon" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>> Sorry for putting this here... but as everyone seems to be doing it...
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I downloaded that massive RC1 of the 64 bit Vista the other day with
    >>>>> the intention of installing it on a test box when the CPP program
    >>>>> presumably expands in a few weeks. Since I'm fond of XP 64 bit, I
    >>>>> figured it's got to be a step up. Then I read this thread at
    >>>>> Hardforum:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1097002
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Some nasty words regarding both 64 bit Vista and our sometimes beloved
    >>>>> XP 64 bit.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Is this just the usual flap of no-nothings, or should I really be
    >>>>> sticking with the 32-bit Vista if I intend to actually use the
    >>>>> computer?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I haven't paid much attention to Vista development until now, since I
    >>>>> haven't seen much need for what appears to be a resource hog. OTOH,
    >>>>> I'm itchin' to try something new on a machine that I can cheerfully
    >>>>> screw up w/o any consequences...
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    Andre Da Costa, Sep 10, 2006
    #11
  12. Honestly, Dennis, if you'd asked us this 3 weeks ago, I'd have had to say I
    agreed with them. But I've been running Vista x64 on my Ferrari laptop for
    10 days now. It has been fine. Oh, there are still some bugs, and I've filed
    several myself. But it is useable as my every day machine, without issue. I
    haven't rebooted over to XP x64 in 3 days now. And this is the first build I
    can say that about. As for XP x64? I haven't run anything but XP x64 in 11
    months. Until I started running Vista x64. It has been rock solid. But
    overall? I think that article is frankly full of it.

    --
    Charlie.
    http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
    "Dennis Gordon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Sorry for putting this here... but as everyone seems to be doing it...
    >
    > I downloaded that massive RC1 of the 64 bit Vista the other day with the
    > intention of installing it on a test box when the CPP program presumably
    > expands in a few weeks. Since I'm fond of XP 64 bit, I figured it's got to
    > be a step up. Then I read this thread at Hardforum:
    >
    > http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1097002
    >
    > Some nasty words regarding both 64 bit Vista and our sometimes beloved XP
    > 64 bit.
    >
    > Is this just the usual flap of no-nothings, or should I really be sticking
    > with the 32-bit Vista if I intend to actually use the computer?
    >
    > I haven't paid much attention to Vista development until now, since I
    > haven't seen much need for what appears to be a resource hog. OTOH, I'm
    > itchin' to try something new on a machine that I can cheerfully screw up
    > w/o any consequences...
    >
    >
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Sep 10, 2006
    #12
  13. I am dual-booting XP x64 and Vista x64.
    The Vista inbox drivers for sound, NIC, video, RAID works fine, but there
    are lots of apps that don´t install. Temp/fan, system info programs like
    AiBooster, PC Probe, SpeedFan, CPU-Z, Crystal CPUID, Processor ID and so on.

    Overall Vista x64 is really nice and runs very stable.

    --
    Asus P5WDG2 WS Pro (i975X Express)
    Core 2 Extreme X6800
    RAPTOR 2x150 GB RAID 0 (ICH7R)
    4GB DDR2 800MHz
    GeForce 7800GTX (91.47)
    Samsung 24"
    Enermax 660W 35A@+12V
    LAN 100/100


    "Dennis Gordon" wrote:

    > Sorry for putting this here... but as everyone seems to be doing it...
    >
    > I downloaded that massive RC1 of the 64 bit Vista the other day with the
    > intention of installing it on a test box when the CPP program presumably
    > expands in a few weeks. Since I'm fond of XP 64 bit, I figured it's got to
    > be a step up. Then I read this thread at Hardforum:
    >
    > http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1097002
    >
    > Some nasty words regarding both 64 bit Vista and our sometimes beloved XP 64
    > bit.
    >
    > Is this just the usual flap of no-nothings, or should I really be sticking
    > with the 32-bit Vista if I intend to actually use the computer?
    >
    > I haven't paid much attention to Vista development until now, since I
    > haven't seen much need for what appears to be a resource hog. OTOH, I'm
    > itchin' to try something new on a machine that I can cheerfully screw up w/o
    > any consequences...
    >
    >
    >
    =?Utf-8?B?TWFyYXRvbm1hbm5lbg==?=, Sep 10, 2006
    #13
  14. Andre Da Costa wrote:

    >Performance is not so pleasing on my system with RC1 x64. Office 2007 is
    >like molasses on it. Switching between Word and Media Player 11 causes
    >lenghthy repainting of windows, the Start menu takes some time to pop up.
    >I would recommend no more than a dual core 64 bit processor, 2 GBs of RAM
    >and a 256 MB video card or better to run this efficiently.
    >
    >I suspect some persons are not gonna be happy with it on systems purchased
    >a year or two ago. I wouldn't be surprised if setup permits installation
    >on first generation AMD 64 systems.


    Well, various builds of Vista64 have been installed (sometimes with
    difficulty) on my ageing AMD Athlon64 3000+ Shuttle machine (SN85G4 w/ 2Gb
    RAM, 256Mb Radeon 9600, 160Gb IDE).

    Other than install hiccups, and occasional BSODs in some builds, it's been
    ok. It has run Civ4 perfectly well every time, and I've not noticed any
    performance issues, even though this is all alpha/beta code.

    --
    Steve Foster [SBS MVP]
    ---------------------------------------
    MVPs do not work for Microsoft. Please reply only to the newsgroups.
    Steve Foster [SBS MVP], Sep 10, 2006
    #14
  15. I must say that there the difference between this release (RC1) and beta2 is
    like chalk and cheese. This build is quite good, just as good as the current
    XP 64 in my opinion.
    I am still having problems getting sound, but this is a vista thing, not a
    64 thing.
    So, when I need to listen to a mulimedia lesson (passed 70-290 and preparing
    for 70-291) then it's back to XP 32 I go for my lessons.
    Anyone have any experience at setting up Virtual PC on a 64 bit OS? It will
    not install on Vista 64, so is that a Vista thing, or a 64 bit thing?
    Forgive me for straying off topic, but what great exam preparation virtual
    machines provide. It is so easy to set up a small network and just blaze
    away, seeing how it all works. At present I have 3 servers and 1 client, how
    else would one get the experience required, even in the workplace it would be
    difficult to "play" with set ups etc.
    I tried doing it on Linux and VMWare, but I was always having problems
    accessing hardware resources, cd drives etc. It seems VMWare does not like to
    share these things.
    One more thing, this forum is great. No nonsense, just informative answers
    (well, except for the bit about installing 32 bit drivers twice!) but hey you
    gotta laugh.
    Thanks to all the regulars on this forum, your willingness to share
    knowledge is just terrific.
    Cheers and thanks from Peter.
    =?Utf-8?B?cG1jY3JhY2thbg==?=, Sep 10, 2006
    #15
  16. Dennis Gordon

    Barb Bowman Guest

    I have RC1 x64 on the Ferrari, an Intel x64 desktop and an AMD x64
    desktop. The desktops have a gig of memory. I'm pretty happy with
    the performance.

    On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 21:45:24 -0700, "Charlie Russel - MVP"
    <> wrote:

    >Honestly, Dennis, if you'd asked us this 3 weeks ago, I'd have had to say I
    >agreed with them. But I've been running Vista x64 on my Ferrari laptop for
    >10 days now. It has been fine. Oh, there are still some bugs, and I've filed
    >several myself. But it is useable as my every day machine, without issue. I
    >haven't rebooted over to XP x64 in 3 days now. And this is the first build I
    >can say that about. As for XP x64? I haven't run anything but XP x64 in 11
    >months. Until I started running Vista x64. It has been rock solid. But
    >overall? I think that article is frankly full of it.

    --

    Barb Bowman
    MS Windows-MVP
    Expert Zone & Vista Community Columnist
    http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/meetexperts/bowman.mspx
    http://blogs.digitalmediaphile.com/barb/
    Barb Bowman, Sep 10, 2006
    #16
  17. Dennis Gordon

    Aaron Kelley Guest

    Virtual PC 2004 will not run on *any* 64-bit OS.
    Virtual PC 2007 (to be released as a free download, who knows when) will
    work, though.

    I don't know about running VMware on Linux, but I use it on Windows (instead
    of Virtual PC) and I love it. I actually switched because you can run it on
    a 64-bit host, but since I did I have come to like some of the other
    features as well (64-bit guest, USB, SMP, better Linux support, ...).

    - Aaron

    "pmccrackan" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I must say that there the difference between this release (RC1) and beta2
    >is
    > like chalk and cheese. This build is quite good, just as good as the
    > current
    > XP 64 in my opinion.
    > I am still having problems getting sound, but this is a vista thing, not a
    > 64 thing.
    > So, when I need to listen to a mulimedia lesson (passed 70-290 and
    > preparing
    > for 70-291) then it's back to XP 32 I go for my lessons.
    > Anyone have any experience at setting up Virtual PC on a 64 bit OS? It
    > will
    > not install on Vista 64, so is that a Vista thing, or a 64 bit thing?
    > Forgive me for straying off topic, but what great exam preparation virtual
    > machines provide. It is so easy to set up a small network and just blaze
    > away, seeing how it all works. At present I have 3 servers and 1 client,
    > how
    > else would one get the experience required, even in the workplace it would
    > be
    > difficult to "play" with set ups etc.
    > I tried doing it on Linux and VMWare, but I was always having problems
    > accessing hardware resources, cd drives etc. It seems VMWare does not like
    > to
    > share these things.
    > One more thing, this forum is great. No nonsense, just informative answers
    > (well, except for the bit about installing 32 bit drivers twice!) but hey
    > you
    > gotta laugh.
    > Thanks to all the regulars on this forum, your willingness to share
    > knowledge is just terrific.
    > Cheers and thanks from Peter.
    Aaron Kelley, Sep 10, 2006
    #17
  18. Virtual Server 2005 R2 will run on x64 Edition

    --
    Charlie.
    http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
    "Aaron Kelley" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Virtual PC 2004 will not run on *any* 64-bit OS.
    > Virtual PC 2007 (to be released as a free download, who knows when) will
    > work, though.
    >
    > I don't know about running VMware on Linux, but I use it on Windows
    > (instead of Virtual PC) and I love it. I actually switched because you
    > can run it on a 64-bit host, but since I did I have come to like some of
    > the other features as well (64-bit guest, USB, SMP, better Linux support,
    > ...).
    >
    > - Aaron
    >
    > "pmccrackan" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>I must say that there the difference between this release (RC1) and beta2
    >>is
    >> like chalk and cheese. This build is quite good, just as good as the
    >> current
    >> XP 64 in my opinion.
    >> I am still having problems getting sound, but this is a vista thing, not
    >> a
    >> 64 thing.
    >> So, when I need to listen to a mulimedia lesson (passed 70-290 and
    >> preparing
    >> for 70-291) then it's back to XP 32 I go for my lessons.
    >> Anyone have any experience at setting up Virtual PC on a 64 bit OS? It
    >> will
    >> not install on Vista 64, so is that a Vista thing, or a 64 bit thing?
    >> Forgive me for straying off topic, but what great exam preparation
    >> virtual
    >> machines provide. It is so easy to set up a small network and just blaze
    >> away, seeing how it all works. At present I have 3 servers and 1 client,
    >> how
    >> else would one get the experience required, even in the workplace it
    >> would be
    >> difficult to "play" with set ups etc.
    >> I tried doing it on Linux and VMWare, but I was always having problems
    >> accessing hardware resources, cd drives etc. It seems VMWare does not
    >> like to
    >> share these things.
    >> One more thing, this forum is great. No nonsense, just informative
    >> answers
    >> (well, except for the bit about installing 32 bit drivers twice!) but hey
    >> you
    >> gotta laugh.
    >> Thanks to all the regulars on this forum, your willingness to share
    >> knowledge is just terrific.
    >> Cheers and thanks from Peter.

    >
    >
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Sep 10, 2006
    #18
  19. I like XP64, has been quite stable. So far have not had glowing praise for
    RC1x64 vista. Maybe its me, maybe not. See that some kind of "tune up"
    is coming to help office 2007 run nice with vista, had outlook restart a few
    times so far. Have some IE7 slow load probs. as well.
    --
    ken


    "Dennis Gordon" wrote:

    > Sorry for putting this here... but as everyone seems to be doing it...
    >
    > I downloaded that massive RC1 of the 64 bit Vista the other day with the
    > intention of installing it on a test box when the CPP program presumably
    > expands in a few weeks. Since I'm fond of XP 64 bit, I figured it's got to
    > be a step up. Then I read this thread at Hardforum:
    >
    > http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1097002
    >
    > Some nasty words regarding both 64 bit Vista and our sometimes beloved XP 64
    > bit.
    >
    > Is this just the usual flap of no-nothings, or should I really be sticking
    > with the 32-bit Vista if I intend to actually use the computer?
    >
    > I haven't paid much attention to Vista development until now, since I
    > haven't seen much need for what appears to be a resource hog. OTOH, I'm
    > itchin' to try something new on a machine that I can cheerfully screw up w/o
    > any consequences...
    >
    >
    >
    =?Utf-8?B?a2VuIEQ=?=, Sep 10, 2006
    #19
  20. Dennis Gordon

    Carl Rash Guest

    One word describes my experience with XP x64 and Vista x64 ... sweet

    Athlon64 3800+ (single core), 1GB DDR400, Asus A8R-MVP, ATI X1600XT w/256MB
    DDR3


    "DP" <> wrote in message
    news:%23L$...
    >
    > "Andre Da Costa" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> I would recommend no more than a dual core 64 bit processor, 2 GBs of
    >> RAM and a 256 MB video card or better to run this efficiently.

    >
    > Andre, I assume you meant "no LESS than."
    >
    >
    >
    Carl Rash, Sep 11, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

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

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    12
    Views:
    2,946
    Michael Alan Chary
    Feb 23, 2005
  2. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    488
  3. Charles Chambers

    XP 64bit and Vista 64bit questions

    Charles Chambers, Feb 19, 2007, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    461
    S.SubZero
    Feb 20, 2007
  4. John

    Bad media, bad files or bad Nero?

    John, Dec 31, 2007, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    1,217
    Keith
    Jan 8, 2008
  5. null
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    442
    Charlie Russel - MVP
    Apr 2, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page