Vista64

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by John Barnes, Nov 10, 2006.

  1. John Barnes

    John Barnes Guest

    John Barnes, Nov 10, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Wasn't that a requirement for having drivers signed for Vista - and one that
    was later 'watered', at that?

    Tony. . .


    "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
    news:u$...
    > Had read here that software and hardware for Vista had to be both 32-bit

    and
    > 64-bit compatible. I just received an add for Partition Commander 10

    which
    > lists Vista as a compatible system, but seems to be only x86.
    > http://www.v-com.com/promo/PartitionCommander10_1106_112.html
    >
    > Any comments?
    >
    >
     
    Tony Sperling, Nov 10, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. John Barnes

    John Barnes Guest

    Just a little concerned that Vista64 is being allowed to atrophy like X64.
    It has been disappointing enough the number of programs that work on X64
    that won't work on Vista64.



    "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Wasn't that a requirement for having drivers signed for Vista - and one
    > that
    > was later 'watered', at that?
    >
    > Tony. . .
    >
    >
    > "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
    > news:u$...
    >> Had read here that software and hardware for Vista had to be both 32-bit

    > and
    >> 64-bit compatible. I just received an add for Partition Commander 10

    > which
    >> lists Vista as a compatible system, but seems to be only x86.
    >> http://www.v-com.com/promo/PartitionCommander10_1106_112.html
    >>
    >> Any comments?
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
    John Barnes, Nov 10, 2006
    #3
  4. It won't atrophy. And it won't go away.

    --
    Charlie.
    http://msmvps.com/xperts64


    "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Just a little concerned that Vista64 is being allowed to atrophy like X64.
    > It has been disappointing enough the number of programs that work on X64
    > that won't work on Vista64.
    >
    >
    >
    > "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Wasn't that a requirement for having drivers signed for Vista - and one
    >> that
    >> was later 'watered', at that?
    >>
    >> Tony. . .
    >>
    >>
    >> "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
    >> news:u$...
    >>> Had read here that software and hardware for Vista had to be both 32-bit

    >> and
    >>> 64-bit compatible. I just received an add for Partition Commander 10

    >> which
    >>> lists Vista as a compatible system, but seems to be only x86.
    >>> http://www.v-com.com/promo/PartitionCommander10_1106_112.html
    >>>
    >>> Any comments?
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Nov 10, 2006
    #4
  5. John Barnes

    DP Guest

    "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
    news:u$...
    > Had read here that software and hardware for Vista had to be both 32-bit
    > and 64-bit compatible. I just received an add for Partition Commander 10
    > which lists Vista as a compatible system, but seems to be only x86.
    > http://www.v-com.com/promo/PartitionCommander10_1106_112.html
    >
    > Any comments?


    Just a guess, but maybe the requirement won't kick in until Vista is
    actually being sold?
     
    DP, Nov 10, 2006
    #5
  6. John Barnes

    John Barnes Guest

    I was thinking that products that work on Vista86 only, can say so on the
    box, but just can't use the Vista logo. Properly sized and placed, most
    consumers won't care about the logo.


    "DP" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
    > news:u$...
    >> Had read here that software and hardware for Vista had to be both 32-bit
    >> and 64-bit compatible. I just received an add for Partition Commander 10
    >> which lists Vista as a compatible system, but seems to be only x86.
    >> http://www.v-com.com/promo/PartitionCommander10_1106_112.html
    >>
    >> Any comments?

    >
    > Just a guess, but maybe the requirement won't kick in until Vista is
    > actually being sold?
    >
     
    John Barnes, Nov 10, 2006
    #6
  7. You're right in a way I think. Who will be installing Vista64 when it
    releases? Despite the efforts spent in this group, not enough information is
    reaching the public about who should and shouldn't follow the trend. If I'm
    allowed to take the critical stand for a moment, I think going 64bit was a
    mistake, so long as the total commitment wasn't ever made. Just having
    questions like "What should I be installing?", being asked is a
    demonstration how the industry missed an opportunity to cut the costs. Just
    as most desktops will not profit from 64bit, nobody profits from a 32bit
    competition!

    Good heavens, this is 2006, isn't it?

    The whole idea behind the AMD processor sporting 32bit compatibility would
    have been better realized as a 'compatibility' issue - not as a means to
    have two concurrent systems being developed way into the future. Having
    64bit means going 64bit. Nobody with any sense left buys a chest of larger
    drawers without the drawers, keeping the old, small ones because they have
    room enough.


    Tony. . .


    "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Just a little concerned that Vista64 is being allowed to atrophy like X64.
    > It has been disappointing enough the number of programs that work on X64
    > that won't work on Vista64.
    >
    >
    >
    > "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > Wasn't that a requirement for having drivers signed for Vista - and one
    > > that
    > > was later 'watered', at that?
    > >
    > > Tony. . .
    > >
    > >
    > > "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
    > > news:u$...
    > >> Had read here that software and hardware for Vista had to be both

    32-bit
    > > and
    > >> 64-bit compatible. I just received an add for Partition Commander 10

    > > which
    > >> lists Vista as a compatible system, but seems to be only x86.
    > >> http://www.v-com.com/promo/PartitionCommander10_1106_112.html
    > >>
    > >> Any comments?
    > >>
    > >>

    > >
    > >

    >
    >
     
    Tony Sperling, Nov 10, 2006
    #7
  8. John Barnes

    John Barnes Guest

    Seems like anyone buying their first computer would be a fool not to go with
    64-bit and make sure to buy only hardware and software (assuming it is
    available to perform your desired functions) that is compatible. Anyone
    with an investment in hardware and software would seem better off with
    Vista86 if they are the usual consumer computer user. fwiw

    I bought new hardware and software and have been using X64 for almost a year
    now, full time. The only function I still go to X86 for is to run Ghost for
    my system backups (or restores). I did have to sacrafice a number of
    functions, or have 2-3 different programs to do the functions of one I used
    to use. Very inconvenient at times.

    "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    news:%...
    > You're right in a way I think. Who will be installing Vista64 when it
    > releases? Despite the efforts spent in this group, not enough information
    > is
    > reaching the public about who should and shouldn't follow the trend. If
    > I'm
    > allowed to take the critical stand for a moment, I think going 64bit was a
    > mistake, so long as the total commitment wasn't ever made. Just having
    > questions like "What should I be installing?", being asked is a
    > demonstration how the industry missed an opportunity to cut the costs.
    > Just
    > as most desktops will not profit from 64bit, nobody profits from a 32bit
    > competition!
    >
    > Good heavens, this is 2006, isn't it?
    >
    > The whole idea behind the AMD processor sporting 32bit compatibility would
    > have been better realized as a 'compatibility' issue - not as a means to
    > have two concurrent systems being developed way into the future. Having
    > 64bit means going 64bit. Nobody with any sense left buys a chest of larger
    > drawers without the drawers, keeping the old, small ones because they have
    > room enough.
    >
    >
    > Tony. . .
    >
    >
    > "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Just a little concerned that Vista64 is being allowed to atrophy like
    >> X64.
    >> It has been disappointing enough the number of programs that work on X64
    >> that won't work on Vista64.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >> > Wasn't that a requirement for having drivers signed for Vista - and one
    >> > that
    >> > was later 'watered', at that?
    >> >
    >> > Tony. . .
    >> >
    >> >
    >> > "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
    >> > news:u$...
    >> >> Had read here that software and hardware for Vista had to be both

    > 32-bit
    >> > and
    >> >> 64-bit compatible. I just received an add for Partition Commander 10
    >> > which
    >> >> lists Vista as a compatible system, but seems to be only x86.
    >> >> http://www.v-com.com/promo/PartitionCommander10_1106_112.html
    >> >>
    >> >> Any comments?
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >
    >> >

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
    John Barnes, Nov 10, 2006
    #8
  9. Precisely!

    And as long as the manufacturer and the consumer has a choice, our
    inconveniencies are not about to lighten up?

    Had Vista been 64bit only it wouldn't disturb the investments of any great
    number of people because the compatibility alternatives were there for a
    number of years ahead, and 32bit Vista helps nobody at all. I hardly think.


    Tony. . .


    "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
    news:%23fF%...
    > Seems like anyone buying their first computer would be a fool not to go

    with
    > 64-bit and make sure to buy only hardware and software (assuming it is
    > available to perform your desired functions) that is compatible. Anyone
    > with an investment in hardware and software would seem better off with
    > Vista86 if they are the usual consumer computer user. fwiw
    >
    > I bought new hardware and software and have been using X64 for almost a

    year
    > now, full time. The only function I still go to X86 for is to run Ghost

    for
    > my system backups (or restores). I did have to sacrafice a number of
    > functions, or have 2-3 different programs to do the functions of one I

    used
    > to use. Very inconvenient at times.
    >
    > "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    > news:%...
    > > You're right in a way I think. Who will be installing Vista64 when it
    > > releases? Despite the efforts spent in this group, not enough

    information
    > > is
    > > reaching the public about who should and shouldn't follow the trend. If
    > > I'm
    > > allowed to take the critical stand for a moment, I think going 64bit was

    a
    > > mistake, so long as the total commitment wasn't ever made. Just having
    > > questions like "What should I be installing?", being asked is a
    > > demonstration how the industry missed an opportunity to cut the costs.
    > > Just
    > > as most desktops will not profit from 64bit, nobody profits from a 32bit
    > > competition!
    > >
    > > Good heavens, this is 2006, isn't it?
    > >
    > > The whole idea behind the AMD processor sporting 32bit compatibility

    would
    > > have been better realized as a 'compatibility' issue - not as a means to
    > > have two concurrent systems being developed way into the future. Having
    > > 64bit means going 64bit. Nobody with any sense left buys a chest of

    larger
    > > drawers without the drawers, keeping the old, small ones because they

    have
    > > room enough.
    > >
    > >
    > > Tony. . .
    > >
    > >
    > > "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > >> Just a little concerned that Vista64 is being allowed to atrophy like
    > >> X64.
    > >> It has been disappointing enough the number of programs that work on

    X64
    > >> that won't work on Vista64.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    > >> news:...
    > >> > Wasn't that a requirement for having drivers signed for Vista - and

    one
    > >> > that
    > >> > was later 'watered', at that?
    > >> >
    > >> > Tony. . .
    > >> >
    > >> >
    > >> > "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
    > >> > news:u$...
    > >> >> Had read here that software and hardware for Vista had to be both

    > > 32-bit
    > >> > and
    > >> >> 64-bit compatible. I just received an add for Partition Commander

    10
    > >> > which
    > >> >> lists Vista as a compatible system, but seems to be only x86.
    > >> >> http://www.v-com.com/promo/PartitionCommander10_1106_112.html
    > >> >>
    > >> >> Any comments?
    > >> >>
    > >> >>
    > >> >
    > >> >
    > >>
    > >>

    > >
    > >

    >
    >
     
    Tony Sperling, Nov 10, 2006
    #9
  10. John Barnes

    Jane C Guest

    I'm ready to leave 32 bit behind completely now :) I rarely boot into x86
    Vista, spending the vast majority of the time on x64 Vista, with forays into
    XP x64.

    --
    Jane, not plain ;) 64 bit enabled :)
    Batteries not included. Braincell on vacation ;-)
    "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    news:u6Nq%...
    > Precisely!
    >
    > And as long as the manufacturer and the consumer has a choice, our
    > inconveniencies are not about to lighten up?
    >
    > Had Vista been 64bit only it wouldn't disturb the investments of any great
    > number of people because the compatibility alternatives were there for a
    > number of years ahead, and 32bit Vista helps nobody at all. I hardly
    > think.
    >
    >
    > Tony. . .
    >
    >
    > "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
    > news:%23fF%...
    >> Seems like anyone buying their first computer would be a fool not to go

    > with
    >> 64-bit and make sure to buy only hardware and software (assuming it is
    >> available to perform your desired functions) that is compatible. Anyone
    >> with an investment in hardware and software would seem better off with
    >> Vista86 if they are the usual consumer computer user. fwiw
    >>
    >> I bought new hardware and software and have been using X64 for almost a

    > year
    >> now, full time. The only function I still go to X86 for is to run Ghost

    > for
    >> my system backups (or restores). I did have to sacrafice a number of
    >> functions, or have 2-3 different programs to do the functions of one I

    > used
    >> to use. Very inconvenient at times.
    >>
    >> "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    >> news:%...
    >> > You're right in a way I think. Who will be installing Vista64 when it
    >> > releases? Despite the efforts spent in this group, not enough

    > information
    >> > is
    >> > reaching the public about who should and shouldn't follow the trend. If
    >> > I'm
    >> > allowed to take the critical stand for a moment, I think going 64bit
    >> > was

    > a
    >> > mistake, so long as the total commitment wasn't ever made. Just having
    >> > questions like "What should I be installing?", being asked is a
    >> > demonstration how the industry missed an opportunity to cut the costs.
    >> > Just
    >> > as most desktops will not profit from 64bit, nobody profits from a
    >> > 32bit
    >> > competition!
    >> >
    >> > Good heavens, this is 2006, isn't it?
    >> >
    >> > The whole idea behind the AMD processor sporting 32bit compatibility

    > would
    >> > have been better realized as a 'compatibility' issue - not as a means
    >> > to
    >> > have two concurrent systems being developed way into the future. Having
    >> > 64bit means going 64bit. Nobody with any sense left buys a chest of

    > larger
    >> > drawers without the drawers, keeping the old, small ones because they

    > have
    >> > room enough.
    >> >
    >> >
    >> > Tony. . .
    >> >
    >> >
    >> > "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
    >> > news:...
    >> >> Just a little concerned that Vista64 is being allowed to atrophy like
    >> >> X64.
    >> >> It has been disappointing enough the number of programs that work on

    > X64
    >> >> that won't work on Vista64.
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >> "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    >> >> news:...
    >> >> > Wasn't that a requirement for having drivers signed for Vista - and

    > one
    >> >> > that
    >> >> > was later 'watered', at that?
    >> >> >
    >> >> > Tony. . .
    >> >> >
    >> >> >
    >> >> > "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
    >> >> > news:u$...
    >> >> >> Had read here that software and hardware for Vista had to be both
    >> > 32-bit
    >> >> > and
    >> >> >> 64-bit compatible. I just received an add for Partition Commander

    > 10
    >> >> > which
    >> >> >> lists Vista as a compatible system, but seems to be only x86.
    >> >> >> http://www.v-com.com/promo/PartitionCommander10_1106_112.html
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> Any comments?
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >
    >> >> >
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >
    >> >

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
    Jane C, Nov 10, 2006
    #10
  11. I run 32-bit for two things: Windows Small Business Server (32-bit only this
    version) and my Tablet PC's (32-bit processors only). ALL other machines are
    running x64 of one sort or another.

    The next round of Tablets should take care of the 32-bit requirement (and
    Vista supports tablet functionality in x64 Vista), and the next version of
    SBS will ONLY be 64bit.

    Yes, I've been on this bandwagon for a while now. I adopted XP x64 in
    January of 2005, after all, months before it shipped. For ages I had 32bit
    XP as a dual boot, but by this summer I no longer had any dual boots into
    32bit on any of my x64 machines.

    --
    Charlie.
    http://msmvps.com/xperts64


    "Jane C" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I'm ready to leave 32 bit behind completely now :) I rarely boot into
    > x86 Vista, spending the vast majority of the time on x64 Vista, with
    > forays into XP x64.
    >
    > --
    > Jane, not plain ;) 64 bit enabled :)
    > Batteries not included. Braincell on vacation ;-)
    > "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    > news:u6Nq%...
    >> Precisely!
    >>
    >> And as long as the manufacturer and the consumer has a choice, our
    >> inconveniencies are not about to lighten up?
    >>
    >> Had Vista been 64bit only it wouldn't disturb the investments of any
    >> great
    >> number of people because the compatibility alternatives were there for a
    >> number of years ahead, and 32bit Vista helps nobody at all. I hardly
    >> think.
    >>
    >>
    >> Tony. . .
    >>
    >>
    >> "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
    >> news:%23fF%...
    >>> Seems like anyone buying their first computer would be a fool not to go

    >> with
    >>> 64-bit and make sure to buy only hardware and software (assuming it is
    >>> available to perform your desired functions) that is compatible. Anyone
    >>> with an investment in hardware and software would seem better off with
    >>> Vista86 if they are the usual consumer computer user. fwiw
    >>>
    >>> I bought new hardware and software and have been using X64 for almost a

    >> year
    >>> now, full time. The only function I still go to X86 for is to run Ghost

    >> for
    >>> my system backups (or restores). I did have to sacrafice a number of
    >>> functions, or have 2-3 different programs to do the functions of one I

    >> used
    >>> to use. Very inconvenient at times.
    >>>
    >>> "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:%...
    >>> > You're right in a way I think. Who will be installing Vista64 when it
    >>> > releases? Despite the efforts spent in this group, not enough

    >> information
    >>> > is
    >>> > reaching the public about who should and shouldn't follow the trend.
    >>> > If
    >>> > I'm
    >>> > allowed to take the critical stand for a moment, I think going 64bit
    >>> > was

    >> a
    >>> > mistake, so long as the total commitment wasn't ever made. Just having
    >>> > questions like "What should I be installing?", being asked is a
    >>> > demonstration how the industry missed an opportunity to cut the costs.
    >>> > Just
    >>> > as most desktops will not profit from 64bit, nobody profits from a
    >>> > 32bit
    >>> > competition!
    >>> >
    >>> > Good heavens, this is 2006, isn't it?
    >>> >
    >>> > The whole idea behind the AMD processor sporting 32bit compatibility

    >> would
    >>> > have been better realized as a 'compatibility' issue - not as a means
    >>> > to
    >>> > have two concurrent systems being developed way into the future.
    >>> > Having
    >>> > 64bit means going 64bit. Nobody with any sense left buys a chest of

    >> larger
    >>> > drawers without the drawers, keeping the old, small ones because they

    >> have
    >>> > room enough.
    >>> >
    >>> >
    >>> > Tony. . .
    >>> >
    >>> >
    >>> > "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
    >>> > news:...
    >>> >> Just a little concerned that Vista64 is being allowed to atrophy like
    >>> >> X64.
    >>> >> It has been disappointing enough the number of programs that work on

    >> X64
    >>> >> that won't work on Vista64.
    >>> >>
    >>> >>
    >>> >>
    >>> >> "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    >>> >> news:...
    >>> >> > Wasn't that a requirement for having drivers signed for Vista - and

    >> one
    >>> >> > that
    >>> >> > was later 'watered', at that?
    >>> >> >
    >>> >> > Tony. . .
    >>> >> >
    >>> >> >
    >>> >> > "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
    >>> >> > news:u$...
    >>> >> >> Had read here that software and hardware for Vista had to be both
    >>> > 32-bit
    >>> >> > and
    >>> >> >> 64-bit compatible. I just received an add for Partition Commander

    >> 10
    >>> >> > which
    >>> >> >> lists Vista as a compatible system, but seems to be only x86.
    >>> >> >> http://www.v-com.com/promo/PartitionCommander10_1106_112.html
    >>> >> >>
    >>> >> >> Any comments?
    >>> >> >>
    >>> >> >>
    >>> >> >
    >>> >> >
    >>> >>
    >>> >>
    >>> >
    >>> >
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
     
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Nov 10, 2006
    #11
  12. Yeah, well - that is the natural outcome I'd think. At least , as John says,
    you aren't hindered by earlier investments and Hardware/Driver availability.
    I never regreted going the 64bit way, but I would be perfectly happy with
    32bit had the option not been there, in particular since there is hardly any
    64bit software available, just a load of compatibles.

    Eighteen months from now no-one (ourselves included?) will remember there
    ever was any software that wasn't 64bit. :0o


    Tony. . .

    "Jane C" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I'm ready to leave 32 bit behind completely now :) I rarely boot into

    x86
    > Vista, spending the vast majority of the time on x64 Vista, with forays

    into
    > XP x64.
    >
    > --
    > Jane, not plain ;) 64 bit enabled :)
    > Batteries not included. Braincell on vacation ;-)
    > "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    > news:u6Nq%...
    > > Precisely!
    > >
    > > And as long as the manufacturer and the consumer has a choice, our
    > > inconveniencies are not about to lighten up?
    > >
    > > Had Vista been 64bit only it wouldn't disturb the investments of any

    great
    > > number of people because the compatibility alternatives were there for a
    > > number of years ahead, and 32bit Vista helps nobody at all. I hardly
    > > think.
    > >
    > >
    > > Tony. . .
    > >
    > >
    > > "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
    > > news:%23fF%...
    > >> Seems like anyone buying their first computer would be a fool not to go

    > > with
    > >> 64-bit and make sure to buy only hardware and software (assuming it is
    > >> available to perform your desired functions) that is compatible.

    Anyone
    > >> with an investment in hardware and software would seem better off with
    > >> Vista86 if they are the usual consumer computer user. fwiw
    > >>
    > >> I bought new hardware and software and have been using X64 for almost a

    > > year
    > >> now, full time. The only function I still go to X86 for is to run

    Ghost
    > > for
    > >> my system backups (or restores). I did have to sacrafice a number of
    > >> functions, or have 2-3 different programs to do the functions of one I

    > > used
    > >> to use. Very inconvenient at times.
    > >>
    > >> "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    > >> news:%...
    > >> > You're right in a way I think. Who will be installing Vista64 when it
    > >> > releases? Despite the efforts spent in this group, not enough

    > > information
    > >> > is
    > >> > reaching the public about who should and shouldn't follow the trend.

    If
    > >> > I'm
    > >> > allowed to take the critical stand for a moment, I think going 64bit
    > >> > was

    > > a
    > >> > mistake, so long as the total commitment wasn't ever made. Just

    having
    > >> > questions like "What should I be installing?", being asked is a
    > >> > demonstration how the industry missed an opportunity to cut the

    costs.
    > >> > Just
    > >> > as most desktops will not profit from 64bit, nobody profits from a
    > >> > 32bit
    > >> > competition!
    > >> >
    > >> > Good heavens, this is 2006, isn't it?
    > >> >
    > >> > The whole idea behind the AMD processor sporting 32bit compatibility

    > > would
    > >> > have been better realized as a 'compatibility' issue - not as a means
    > >> > to
    > >> > have two concurrent systems being developed way into the future.

    Having
    > >> > 64bit means going 64bit. Nobody with any sense left buys a chest of

    > > larger
    > >> > drawers without the drawers, keeping the old, small ones because they

    > > have
    > >> > room enough.
    > >> >
    > >> >
    > >> > Tony. . .
    > >> >
    > >> >
    > >> > "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
    > >> > news:...
    > >> >> Just a little concerned that Vista64 is being allowed to atrophy

    like
    > >> >> X64.
    > >> >> It has been disappointing enough the number of programs that work on

    > > X64
    > >> >> that won't work on Vista64.
    > >> >>
    > >> >>
    > >> >>
    > >> >> "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    > >> >> news:...
    > >> >> > Wasn't that a requirement for having drivers signed for Vista -

    and
    > > one
    > >> >> > that
    > >> >> > was later 'watered', at that?
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> > Tony. . .
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> > "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
    > >> >> > news:u$...
    > >> >> >> Had read here that software and hardware for Vista had to be both
    > >> > 32-bit
    > >> >> > and
    > >> >> >> 64-bit compatible. I just received an add for Partition

    Commander
    > > 10
    > >> >> > which
    > >> >> >> lists Vista as a compatible system, but seems to be only x86.
    > >> >> >> http://www.v-com.com/promo/PartitionCommander10_1106_112.html
    > >> >> >>
    > >> >> >> Any comments?
    > >> >> >>
    > >> >> >>
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> >
    > >> >>
    > >> >>
    > >> >
    > >> >
    > >>
    > >>

    > >
    > >

    >
     
    Tony Sperling, Nov 10, 2006
    #12
  13. It's a requirement for the Vista logo. 64bit signed driver is required.
    (32bit driver is not required.)

    "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Wasn't that a requirement for having drivers signed for Vista - and one
    > that
    > was later 'watered', at that?
    >
    > Tony. . .
    >
    >
    > "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
    > news:u$...
    >> Had read here that software and hardware for Vista had to be both 32-bit

    > and
    >> 64-bit compatible. I just received an add for Partition Commander 10

    > which
    >> lists Vista as a compatible system, but seems to be only x86.
    >> http://www.v-com.com/promo/PartitionCommander10_1106_112.html
    >>
    >> Any comments?
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
    Colin Barnhorst, Nov 17, 2006
    #13
  14. 64bits is already reaching the consumer market in that XP Pro x64 is now an
    option in the configurators on websites like HP. Vista will move 64bits
    into places like Best Buy during 2007. One of the major system builders is
    abandoning 32bit processors entirely after this Christmas season. By 2008
    we will all be wondering if anybody is still buying those old 32bit machines
    and OS's.

    "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
    news:%23fF%...
    > Seems like anyone buying their first computer would be a fool not to go
    > with 64-bit and make sure to buy only hardware and software (assuming it
    > is available to perform your desired functions) that is compatible.
    > Anyone with an investment in hardware and software would seem better off
    > with Vista86 if they are the usual consumer computer user. fwiw
    >
    > I bought new hardware and software and have been using X64 for almost a
    > year now, full time. The only function I still go to X86 for is to run
    > Ghost for my system backups (or restores). I did have to sacrafice a
    > number of functions, or have 2-3 different programs to do the functions of
    > one I used to use. Very inconvenient at times.
    >
    > "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    > news:%...
    >> You're right in a way I think. Who will be installing Vista64 when it
    >> releases? Despite the efforts spent in this group, not enough information
    >> is
    >> reaching the public about who should and shouldn't follow the trend. If
    >> I'm
    >> allowed to take the critical stand for a moment, I think going 64bit was
    >> a
    >> mistake, so long as the total commitment wasn't ever made. Just having
    >> questions like "What should I be installing?", being asked is a
    >> demonstration how the industry missed an opportunity to cut the costs.
    >> Just
    >> as most desktops will not profit from 64bit, nobody profits from a 32bit
    >> competition!
    >>
    >> Good heavens, this is 2006, isn't it?
    >>
    >> The whole idea behind the AMD processor sporting 32bit compatibility
    >> would
    >> have been better realized as a 'compatibility' issue - not as a means to
    >> have two concurrent systems being developed way into the future. Having
    >> 64bit means going 64bit. Nobody with any sense left buys a chest of
    >> larger
    >> drawers without the drawers, keeping the old, small ones because they
    >> have
    >> room enough.
    >>
    >>
    >> Tony. . .
    >>
    >>
    >> "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> Just a little concerned that Vista64 is being allowed to atrophy like
    >>> X64.
    >>> It has been disappointing enough the number of programs that work on X64
    >>> that won't work on Vista64.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>> > Wasn't that a requirement for having drivers signed for Vista - and
    >>> > one
    >>> > that
    >>> > was later 'watered', at that?
    >>> >
    >>> > Tony. . .
    >>> >
    >>> >
    >>> > "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
    >>> > news:u$...
    >>> >> Had read here that software and hardware for Vista had to be both

    >> 32-bit
    >>> > and
    >>> >> 64-bit compatible. I just received an add for Partition Commander 10
    >>> > which
    >>> >> lists Vista as a compatible system, but seems to be only x86.
    >>> >> http://www.v-com.com/promo/PartitionCommander10_1106_112.html
    >>> >>
    >>> >> Any comments?
    >>> >>
    >>> >>
    >>> >
    >>> >
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
    Colin Barnhorst, Nov 17, 2006
    #14
  15. The move to 64 is further along than most people think. Once you buy a
    64bit system your perception seems frozen to how things were when you got
    it. Six months later you are caught off guard by how much things have
    progressed. I bet that by this time next year it won't even be worth
    discussing.

    "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I run 32-bit for two things: Windows Small Business Server (32-bit only
    >this version) and my Tablet PC's (32-bit processors only). ALL other
    >machines are running x64 of one sort or another.
    >
    > The next round of Tablets should take care of the 32-bit requirement (and
    > Vista supports tablet functionality in x64 Vista), and the next version of
    > SBS will ONLY be 64bit.
    >
    > Yes, I've been on this bandwagon for a while now. I adopted XP x64 in
    > January of 2005, after all, months before it shipped. For ages I had 32bit
    > XP as a dual boot, but by this summer I no longer had any dual boots into
    > 32bit on any of my x64 machines.
    >
    > --
    > Charlie.
    > http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    >
    >
    > "Jane C" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> I'm ready to leave 32 bit behind completely now :) I rarely boot into
    >> x86 Vista, spending the vast majority of the time on x64 Vista, with
    >> forays into XP x64.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Jane, not plain ;) 64 bit enabled :)
    >> Batteries not included. Braincell on vacation ;-)
    >> "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    >> news:u6Nq%...
    >>> Precisely!
    >>>
    >>> And as long as the manufacturer and the consumer has a choice, our
    >>> inconveniencies are not about to lighten up?
    >>>
    >>> Had Vista been 64bit only it wouldn't disturb the investments of any
    >>> great
    >>> number of people because the compatibility alternatives were there for a
    >>> number of years ahead, and 32bit Vista helps nobody at all. I hardly
    >>> think.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Tony. . .
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:%23fF%...
    >>>> Seems like anyone buying their first computer would be a fool not to go
    >>> with
    >>>> 64-bit and make sure to buy only hardware and software (assuming it is
    >>>> available to perform your desired functions) that is compatible.
    >>>> Anyone
    >>>> with an investment in hardware and software would seem better off with
    >>>> Vista86 if they are the usual consumer computer user. fwiw
    >>>>
    >>>> I bought new hardware and software and have been using X64 for almost a
    >>> year
    >>>> now, full time. The only function I still go to X86 for is to run
    >>>> Ghost
    >>> for
    >>>> my system backups (or restores). I did have to sacrafice a number of
    >>>> functions, or have 2-3 different programs to do the functions of one I
    >>> used
    >>>> to use. Very inconvenient at times.
    >>>>
    >>>> "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:%...
    >>>> > You're right in a way I think. Who will be installing Vista64 when it
    >>>> > releases? Despite the efforts spent in this group, not enough
    >>> information
    >>>> > is
    >>>> > reaching the public about who should and shouldn't follow the trend.
    >>>> > If
    >>>> > I'm
    >>>> > allowed to take the critical stand for a moment, I think going 64bit
    >>>> > was
    >>> a
    >>>> > mistake, so long as the total commitment wasn't ever made. Just
    >>>> > having
    >>>> > questions like "What should I be installing?", being asked is a
    >>>> > demonstration how the industry missed an opportunity to cut the
    >>>> > costs.
    >>>> > Just
    >>>> > as most desktops will not profit from 64bit, nobody profits from a
    >>>> > 32bit
    >>>> > competition!
    >>>> >
    >>>> > Good heavens, this is 2006, isn't it?
    >>>> >
    >>>> > The whole idea behind the AMD processor sporting 32bit compatibility
    >>> would
    >>>> > have been better realized as a 'compatibility' issue - not as a means
    >>>> > to
    >>>> > have two concurrent systems being developed way into the future.
    >>>> > Having
    >>>> > 64bit means going 64bit. Nobody with any sense left buys a chest of
    >>> larger
    >>>> > drawers without the drawers, keeping the old, small ones because they
    >>> have
    >>>> > room enough.
    >>>> >
    >>>> >
    >>>> > Tony. . .
    >>>> >
    >>>> >
    >>>> > "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
    >>>> > news:...
    >>>> >> Just a little concerned that Vista64 is being allowed to atrophy
    >>>> >> like
    >>>> >> X64.
    >>>> >> It has been disappointing enough the number of programs that work on
    >>> X64
    >>>> >> that won't work on Vista64.
    >>>> >>
    >>>> >>
    >>>> >>
    >>>> >> "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    >>>> >> news:...
    >>>> >> > Wasn't that a requirement for having drivers signed for Vista -
    >>>> >> > and
    >>> one
    >>>> >> > that
    >>>> >> > was later 'watered', at that?
    >>>> >> >
    >>>> >> > Tony. . .
    >>>> >> >
    >>>> >> >
    >>>> >> > "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
    >>>> >> > news:u$...
    >>>> >> >> Had read here that software and hardware for Vista had to be both
    >>>> > 32-bit
    >>>> >> > and
    >>>> >> >> 64-bit compatible. I just received an add for Partition
    >>>> >> >> Commander
    >>> 10
    >>>> >> > which
    >>>> >> >> lists Vista as a compatible system, but seems to be only x86.
    >>>> >> >> http://www.v-com.com/promo/PartitionCommander10_1106_112.html
    >>>> >> >>
    >>>> >> >> Any comments?
    >>>> >> >>
    >>>> >> >>
    >>>> >> >
    >>>> >> >
    >>>> >>
    >>>> >>
    >>>> >
    >>>> >
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>

    >
     
    Colin Barnhorst, Nov 17, 2006
    #15
  16. I tend to think you're right. I initially over predicted how quickly XP x64
    would catch on, but we're on the cusp of a shift, I think. But what will
    finally kick everything over will be the next wave of RAM chips.

    --
    Charlie.
    http://msmvps.com/xperts64


    "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
    news:...
    > The move to 64 is further along than most people think. Once you buy a
    > 64bit system your perception seems frozen to how things were when you got
    > it. Six months later you are caught off guard by how much things have
    > progressed. I bet that by this time next year it won't even be worth
    > discussing.
    >
    > "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>I run 32-bit for two things: Windows Small Business Server (32-bit only
    >>this version) and my Tablet PC's (32-bit processors only). ALL other
    >>machines are running x64 of one sort or another.
    >>
    >> The next round of Tablets should take care of the 32-bit requirement (and
    >> Vista supports tablet functionality in x64 Vista), and the next version
    >> of SBS will ONLY be 64bit.
    >>
    >> Yes, I've been on this bandwagon for a while now. I adopted XP x64 in
    >> January of 2005, after all, months before it shipped. For ages I had
    >> 32bit XP as a dual boot, but by this summer I no longer had any dual
    >> boots into 32bit on any of my x64 machines.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Charlie.
    >> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    >>
    >>
    >> "Jane C" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> I'm ready to leave 32 bit behind completely now :) I rarely boot into
    >>> x86 Vista, spending the vast majority of the time on x64 Vista, with
    >>> forays into XP x64.
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> Jane, not plain ;) 64 bit enabled :)
    >>> Batteries not included. Braincell on vacation ;-)
    >>> "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:u6Nq%...
    >>>> Precisely!
    >>>>
    >>>> And as long as the manufacturer and the consumer has a choice, our
    >>>> inconveniencies are not about to lighten up?
    >>>>
    >>>> Had Vista been 64bit only it wouldn't disturb the investments of any
    >>>> great
    >>>> number of people because the compatibility alternatives were there for
    >>>> a
    >>>> number of years ahead, and 32bit Vista helps nobody at all. I hardly
    >>>> think.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Tony. . .
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:%23fF%...
    >>>>> Seems like anyone buying their first computer would be a fool not to
    >>>>> go
    >>>> with
    >>>>> 64-bit and make sure to buy only hardware and software (assuming it is
    >>>>> available to perform your desired functions) that is compatible.
    >>>>> Anyone
    >>>>> with an investment in hardware and software would seem better off with
    >>>>> Vista86 if they are the usual consumer computer user. fwiw
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I bought new hardware and software and have been using X64 for almost
    >>>>> a
    >>>> year
    >>>>> now, full time. The only function I still go to X86 for is to run
    >>>>> Ghost
    >>>> for
    >>>>> my system backups (or restores). I did have to sacrafice a number of
    >>>>> functions, or have 2-3 different programs to do the functions of one I
    >>>> used
    >>>>> to use. Very inconvenient at times.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:%...
    >>>>> > You're right in a way I think. Who will be installing Vista64 when
    >>>>> > it
    >>>>> > releases? Despite the efforts spent in this group, not enough
    >>>> information
    >>>>> > is
    >>>>> > reaching the public about who should and shouldn't follow the trend.
    >>>>> > If
    >>>>> > I'm
    >>>>> > allowed to take the critical stand for a moment, I think going 64bit
    >>>>> > was
    >>>> a
    >>>>> > mistake, so long as the total commitment wasn't ever made. Just
    >>>>> > having
    >>>>> > questions like "What should I be installing?", being asked is a
    >>>>> > demonstration how the industry missed an opportunity to cut the
    >>>>> > costs.
    >>>>> > Just
    >>>>> > as most desktops will not profit from 64bit, nobody profits from a
    >>>>> > 32bit
    >>>>> > competition!
    >>>>> >
    >>>>> > Good heavens, this is 2006, isn't it?
    >>>>> >
    >>>>> > The whole idea behind the AMD processor sporting 32bit compatibility
    >>>> would
    >>>>> > have been better realized as a 'compatibility' issue - not as a
    >>>>> > means to
    >>>>> > have two concurrent systems being developed way into the future.
    >>>>> > Having
    >>>>> > 64bit means going 64bit. Nobody with any sense left buys a chest of
    >>>> larger
    >>>>> > drawers without the drawers, keeping the old, small ones because
    >>>>> > they
    >>>> have
    >>>>> > room enough.
    >>>>> >
    >>>>> >
    >>>>> > Tony. . .
    >>>>> >
    >>>>> >
    >>>>> > "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
    >>>>> > news:...
    >>>>> >> Just a little concerned that Vista64 is being allowed to atrophy
    >>>>> >> like
    >>>>> >> X64.
    >>>>> >> It has been disappointing enough the number of programs that work
    >>>>> >> on
    >>>> X64
    >>>>> >> that won't work on Vista64.
    >>>>> >>
    >>>>> >>
    >>>>> >>
    >>>>> >> "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    >>>>> >> news:...
    >>>>> >> > Wasn't that a requirement for having drivers signed for Vista -
    >>>>> >> > and
    >>>> one
    >>>>> >> > that
    >>>>> >> > was later 'watered', at that?
    >>>>> >> >
    >>>>> >> > Tony. . .
    >>>>> >> >
    >>>>> >> >
    >>>>> >> > "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
    >>>>> >> > news:u$...
    >>>>> >> >> Had read here that software and hardware for Vista had to be
    >>>>> >> >> both
    >>>>> > 32-bit
    >>>>> >> > and
    >>>>> >> >> 64-bit compatible. I just received an add for Partition
    >>>>> >> >> Commander
    >>>> 10
    >>>>> >> > which
    >>>>> >> >> lists Vista as a compatible system, but seems to be only x86.
    >>>>> >> >> http://www.v-com.com/promo/PartitionCommander10_1106_112.html
    >>>>> >> >>
    >>>>> >> >> Any comments?
    >>>>> >> >>
    >>>>> >> >>
    >>>>> >> >
    >>>>> >> >
    >>>>> >>
    >>>>> >>
    >>>>> >
    >>>>> >
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>

    >>

    >
    >
     
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Nov 18, 2006
    #16
  17. John Barnes

    John Barnes Guest

    Until it is no more hassle for the box makers to install the 64-bit versions
    than the 32-bit versions. It would have been helpful if Microsoft allowed
    upgraders to switch to 64-bit, but that didn't happen. Would have been a
    nice boost, if only small in number.
    Based on the installation of my programs, I'm not sure which version I will
    opt for, if either.

    "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I tend to think you're right. I initially over predicted how quickly XP x64
    >would catch on, but we're on the cusp of a shift, I think. But what will
    >finally kick everything over will be the next wave of RAM chips.
    >
    > --
    > Charlie.
    > http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    >
    >
    > "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> The move to 64 is further along than most people think. Once you buy a
    >> 64bit system your perception seems frozen to how things were when you got
    >> it. Six months later you are caught off guard by how much things have
    >> progressed. I bet that by this time next year it won't even be worth
    >> discussing.
    >>
    >> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>>I run 32-bit for two things: Windows Small Business Server (32-bit only
    >>>this version) and my Tablet PC's (32-bit processors only). ALL other
    >>>machines are running x64 of one sort or another.
    >>>
    >>> The next round of Tablets should take care of the 32-bit requirement
    >>> (and Vista supports tablet functionality in x64 Vista), and the next
    >>> version of SBS will ONLY be 64bit.
    >>>
    >>> Yes, I've been on this bandwagon for a while now. I adopted XP x64 in
    >>> January of 2005, after all, months before it shipped. For ages I had
    >>> 32bit XP as a dual boot, but by this summer I no longer had any dual
    >>> boots into 32bit on any of my x64 machines.
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> Charlie.
    >>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> "Jane C" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> I'm ready to leave 32 bit behind completely now :) I rarely boot into
    >>>> x86 Vista, spending the vast majority of the time on x64 Vista, with
    >>>> forays into XP x64.
    >>>>
    >>>> --
    >>>> Jane, not plain ;) 64 bit enabled :)
    >>>> Batteries not included. Braincell on vacation ;-)
    >>>> "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:u6Nq%...
    >>>>> Precisely!
    >>>>>
    >>>>> And as long as the manufacturer and the consumer has a choice, our
    >>>>> inconveniencies are not about to lighten up?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Had Vista been 64bit only it wouldn't disturb the investments of any
    >>>>> great
    >>>>> number of people because the compatibility alternatives were there for
    >>>>> a
    >>>>> number of years ahead, and 32bit Vista helps nobody at all. I hardly
    >>>>> think.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Tony. . .
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:%23fF%...
    >>>>>> Seems like anyone buying their first computer would be a fool not to
    >>>>>> go
    >>>>> with
    >>>>>> 64-bit and make sure to buy only hardware and software (assuming it
    >>>>>> is
    >>>>>> available to perform your desired functions) that is compatible.
    >>>>>> Anyone
    >>>>>> with an investment in hardware and software would seem better off
    >>>>>> with
    >>>>>> Vista86 if they are the usual consumer computer user. fwiw
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I bought new hardware and software and have been using X64 for almost
    >>>>>> a
    >>>>> year
    >>>>>> now, full time. The only function I still go to X86 for is to run
    >>>>>> Ghost
    >>>>> for
    >>>>>> my system backups (or restores). I did have to sacrafice a number of
    >>>>>> functions, or have 2-3 different programs to do the functions of one
    >>>>>> I
    >>>>> used
    >>>>>> to use. Very inconvenient at times.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>> news:%...
    >>>>>> > You're right in a way I think. Who will be installing Vista64 when
    >>>>>> > it
    >>>>>> > releases? Despite the efforts spent in this group, not enough
    >>>>> information
    >>>>>> > is
    >>>>>> > reaching the public about who should and shouldn't follow the
    >>>>>> > trend. If
    >>>>>> > I'm
    >>>>>> > allowed to take the critical stand for a moment, I think going
    >>>>>> > 64bit was
    >>>>> a
    >>>>>> > mistake, so long as the total commitment wasn't ever made. Just
    >>>>>> > having
    >>>>>> > questions like "What should I be installing?", being asked is a
    >>>>>> > demonstration how the industry missed an opportunity to cut the
    >>>>>> > costs.
    >>>>>> > Just
    >>>>>> > as most desktops will not profit from 64bit, nobody profits from a
    >>>>>> > 32bit
    >>>>>> > competition!
    >>>>>> >
    >>>>>> > Good heavens, this is 2006, isn't it?
    >>>>>> >
    >>>>>> > The whole idea behind the AMD processor sporting 32bit
    >>>>>> > compatibility
    >>>>> would
    >>>>>> > have been better realized as a 'compatibility' issue - not as a
    >>>>>> > means to
    >>>>>> > have two concurrent systems being developed way into the future.
    >>>>>> > Having
    >>>>>> > 64bit means going 64bit. Nobody with any sense left buys a chest of
    >>>>> larger
    >>>>>> > drawers without the drawers, keeping the old, small ones because
    >>>>>> > they
    >>>>> have
    >>>>>> > room enough.
    >>>>>> >
    >>>>>> >
    >>>>>> > Tony. . .
    >>>>>> >
    >>>>>> >
    >>>>>> > "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>> > news:...
    >>>>>> >> Just a little concerned that Vista64 is being allowed to atrophy
    >>>>>> >> like
    >>>>>> >> X64.
    >>>>>> >> It has been disappointing enough the number of programs that work
    >>>>>> >> on
    >>>>> X64
    >>>>>> >> that won't work on Vista64.
    >>>>>> >>
    >>>>>> >>
    >>>>>> >>
    >>>>>> >> "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>> >> news:...
    >>>>>> >> > Wasn't that a requirement for having drivers signed for Vista -
    >>>>>> >> > and
    >>>>> one
    >>>>>> >> > that
    >>>>>> >> > was later 'watered', at that?
    >>>>>> >> >
    >>>>>> >> > Tony. . .
    >>>>>> >> >
    >>>>>> >> >
    >>>>>> >> > "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>> >> > news:u$...
    >>>>>> >> >> Had read here that software and hardware for Vista had to be
    >>>>>> >> >> both
    >>>>>> > 32-bit
    >>>>>> >> > and
    >>>>>> >> >> 64-bit compatible. I just received an add for Partition
    >>>>>> >> >> Commander
    >>>>> 10
    >>>>>> >> > which
    >>>>>> >> >> lists Vista as a compatible system, but seems to be only x86.
    >>>>>> >> >> http://www.v-com.com/promo/PartitionCommander10_1106_112.html
    >>>>>> >> >>
    >>>>>> >> >> Any comments?
    >>>>>> >> >>
    >>>>>> >> >>
    >>>>>> >> >
    >>>>>> >> >
    >>>>>> >>
    >>>>>> >>
    >>>>>> >
    >>>>>> >
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
     
    John Barnes, Nov 18, 2006
    #17
    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. Lynn McGuire

    is Vista64 going to support Dos16 programs ?

    Lynn McGuire, May 22, 2006, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    347
    Charlie Russel - MVP
    May 26, 2006
  2. =?Utf-8?B?QnJhZCBELg==?=

    XP64 installs but not Vista64 - Help

    =?Utf-8?B?QnJhZCBELg==?=, Sep 8, 2006, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    385
    Colin Barnhorst
    Sep 9, 2006
  3. Kenen

    About paint under vista64

    Kenen, Nov 17, 2006, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    348
    Kenen
    Nov 17, 2006
  4. =?Utf-8?B?S2V2aW4gSw==?=

    Vista64 Locks Up New Dell (!!)

    =?Utf-8?B?S2V2aW4gSw==?=, Nov 19, 2006, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    487
    =?Utf-8?B?amVycnliZQ==?=
    Feb 21, 2007
  5. DP

    Vista64: Premium vs Ultimate

    DP, Jan 25, 2007, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    406
Loading...

Share This Page