Where is the software support for 64 bit Windows?

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by Joe Pasternak, Dec 24, 2007.

  1. It's been a little over one year that I've been using XP64.

    It is apparent to me by now that hardware drivers are hard to find for
    this 64bit OS furthermore, I have NOT seen any software boxes in the
    retail stores that claim to support Windows XP 64 bit. After Windows
    2000, XP, comes Vista (the 32 bit version) so there is no mention
    whatsoever about XP 64 bit or Vista 64 bit.

    Photoshop CS runs on XP but WILL NOT run on XP 64

    It seems that Photoshop CS2 will run on XP 64 but the retail box doesn't
    say so. Some people do have luck running these types of high-priced
    software on xp64 bit and Vista ultimate but why won't the manufacturers
    admit one way or the other?

    Personally, I like the 64 bit version of Windows XP64 - even though it
    seems to me that even Microsoft doesn't fully support it (no 64 bit
    flash, and no 64bit IE software update, it reverts to the 32 bit version
    for that to which I say horse manure).

    My question is: what the hell is going on with this 64bit nonsense? By
    the time everyone wakes up and supports this 64 bit hot air, we'll be
    ready for 128 and maybe 256 bit.

    Microsoft, whasssup??
     
    Joe Pasternak, Dec 24, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Joe Pasternak

    Gary Mount Guest

    Applications written for 32 bit are compatible with 64 bit. That is, a 32
    bit application will run on the 64 bit O/S. As long as the application
    doesn't require 32 bit drivers. Usually an application doesn't require
    drivers, only hardware does.


    "Joe Pasternak" <> wrote in message
    news:477019fd$0$11059$...
    > It's been a little over one year that I've been using XP64.
    >
    > It is apparent to me by now that hardware drivers are hard to find for
    > this 64bit OS furthermore, I have NOT seen any software boxes in the
    > retail stores that claim to support Windows XP 64 bit. After Windows 2000,
    > XP, comes Vista (the 32 bit version) so there is no mention whatsoever
    > about XP 64 bit or Vista 64 bit.
    >
    > Photoshop CS runs on XP but WILL NOT run on XP 64
    >
    > It seems that Photoshop CS2 will run on XP 64 but the retail box doesn't
    > say so. Some people do have luck running these types of high-priced
    > software on xp64 bit and Vista ultimate but why won't the manufacturers
    > admit one way or the other?
    >
    > Personally, I like the 64 bit version of Windows XP64 - even though it
    > seems to me that even Microsoft doesn't fully support it (no 64 bit flash,
    > and no 64bit IE software update, it reverts to the 32 bit version for that
    > to which I say horse manure).
    >
    > My question is: what the hell is going on with this 64bit nonsense? By the
    > time everyone wakes up and supports this 64 bit hot air, we'll be ready
    > for 128 and maybe 256 bit.
    >
    > Microsoft, whasssup??
     
    Gary Mount, Dec 24, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. You are essentially correct, but you are not being entirely fair - Flash and
    Java isn't developed by MS and MS have no way of dictating who should
    develop what. Were these items supplied by their manufaturers, the OS would
    support them. It is true, and equally sad that the outside world to a large
    extent have bypassed XP x64 and concentrated on Vista (although a fair bit
    of the Vista x64 software that has been released, is said to be working).

    Tony. . .


    "Joe Pasternak" <> wrote in message
    news:477019fd$0$11059$...
    > It's been a little over one year that I've been using XP64.
    >
    > It is apparent to me by now that hardware drivers are hard to find for
    > this 64bit OS furthermore, I have NOT seen any software boxes in the
    > retail stores that claim to support Windows XP 64 bit. After Windows 2000,
    > XP, comes Vista (the 32 bit version) so there is no mention whatsoever
    > about XP 64 bit or Vista 64 bit.
    >
    > Photoshop CS runs on XP but WILL NOT run on XP 64
    >
    > It seems that Photoshop CS2 will run on XP 64 but the retail box doesn't
    > say so. Some people do have luck running these types of high-priced
    > software on xp64 bit and Vista ultimate but why won't the manufacturers
    > admit one way or the other?
    >
    > Personally, I like the 64 bit version of Windows XP64 - even though it
    > seems to me that even Microsoft doesn't fully support it (no 64 bit flash,
    > and no 64bit IE software update, it reverts to the 32 bit version for that
    > to which I say horse manure).
    >
    > My question is: what the hell is going on with this 64bit nonsense? By the
    > time everyone wakes up and supports this 64 bit hot air, we'll be ready
    > for 128 and maybe 256 bit.
    >
    > Microsoft, whasssup??
     
    Tony Sperling, Dec 24, 2007
    #3
  4. Joe Pasternak

    S.SubZero Guest

    On Dec 24, 12:43 pm, Joe Pasternak <> wrote:
    > Personally, I like the 64 bit version of Windows XP64 - even though it
    > seems to me that even Microsoft doesn't fully support it (no 64 bit
    > flash, and no 64bit IE software update, it reverts to the 32 bit version
    > for that to which I say horse manure).


    As said, Flash was not invented, nor is it developed, by Microsoft.
    It is an Adobe product, acquired when they bought Macromedia last
    year. You should not feel that Windows 64-bit users are somehow
    alone, Adobe currently does not have Flash for *any* 64-bit platform.
    Adobe's support for 64-bit in general has been pretty lethargic.
    XP64's been around for three years or so (part of that in beta), and
    Vista X64 has been out about a year. The fact that there isn't even a
    BETA of Flash for 64-bit is pretty depressing, especially since it's
    just Flash.. Unless Flash is some super-duper complicated thing that
    is harder to port to 64-bit than an entire operating system.

    >
    > My question is: what the hell is going on with this 64bit nonsense? By
    > the time everyone wakes up and supports this 64 bit hot air, we'll be
    > ready for 128 and maybe 256 bit.
    >
    > Microsoft, whasssup??


    Microsoft's 64-bit support has actually been pretty strong. They have
    64-bit versions of several of their mainstream products. A few holes
    here and there, but they are at least trying. There was a 64-bit
    Office being talked about a while back but nothing ever came of it.
    That would definitely be the killer desktop app.

    I run XP64 on my Dell Inspiron E1705 laptop. I have drivers for every
    device in it. I have a 64-bit version of Firefox, 64-bit newsreader,
    64-bit IRC client (why?!), and 64-bit bittorrent client, along with
    other apps here and there. There's no real purpose to a 64-bit IRC
    client but it's cute nonetheless.
     
    S.SubZero, Dec 24, 2007
    #4
  5. Joe Pasternak

    Gary Mount Guest

    I have been developing software for about a decade now. Only last month did
    I acquire my first 64 bit computer.
    I have had a 32 bit computer ever since I bought a 30 MHz 80386 two decades
    ago.
    I don't know why the big shops are taking so long to come out with 64 bit
    versions.

    "Joe Pasternak" <> wrote in message
    news:477019fd$0$11059$...
    > It's been a little over one year that I've been using XP64.
    >
    > It is apparent to me by now that hardware drivers are hard to find for
    > this 64bit OS furthermore, I have NOT seen any software boxes in the
    > retail stores that claim to support Windows XP 64 bit. After Windows 2000,
    > XP, comes Vista (the 32 bit version) so there is no mention whatsoever
    > about XP 64 bit or Vista 64 bit.
    >
    > Photoshop CS runs on XP but WILL NOT run on XP 64
    >
    > It seems that Photoshop CS2 will run on XP 64 but the retail box doesn't
    > say so. Some people do have luck running these types of high-priced
    > software on xp64 bit and Vista ultimate but why won't the manufacturers
    > admit one way or the other?
    >
    > Personally, I like the 64 bit version of Windows XP64 - even though it
    > seems to me that even Microsoft doesn't fully support it (no 64 bit flash,
    > and no 64bit IE software update, it reverts to the 32 bit version for that
    > to which I say horse manure).
    >
    > My question is: what the hell is going on with this 64bit nonsense? By the
    > time everyone wakes up and supports this 64 bit hot air, we'll be ready
    > for 128 and maybe 256 bit.
    >
    > Microsoft, whasssup??
     
    Gary Mount, Dec 25, 2007
    #5
  6. Joe Pasternak

    XS11E Guest

    "Gary Mount" <> wrote:

    > I don't know why the big shops are taking so long to come out with
    > 64 bit versions.


    Most software shops have, with others it's a matter of insufficient
    demand and with hardware it's mostly greed, by not supplying 64 bit
    drivers for existing devices they can get you to buy a new one with the
    64 bit drivers.


    --
    XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project:
    http://improve-usenet.org
     
    XS11E, Dec 25, 2007
    #6
  7. Gary Mount wrote:
    > Applications written for 32 bit are compatible with 64 bit. That is, a
    > 32 bit application will run on the 64 bit O/S. As long as the
    > application doesn't require 32 bit drivers. Usually an application
    > doesn't require drivers, only hardware does.


    I know what applications require but I am not sure what your logic
    requires though... If your logic is true then Photoshop CS (software, to
    name a few), which DOES NOT REQUIRE 32 BIT DRIVERS, would be very much
    compaatible and, according to you, should run under 64 bit WIndows XP
    but it DOES NOT. So now what?
     
    Joe Pasternak, Dec 25, 2007
    #7
  8. Tony Sperling wrote:
    > You are essentially correct, but you are not being entirely fair - Flash and
    > Java isn't developed by MS and MS have no way of dictating who should
    > develop what. Were these items supplied by their manufaturers, the OS would
    > support them. It is true, and equally sad that the outside world to a large
    > extent have bypassed XP x64 and concentrated on Vista (although a fair bit
    > of the Vista x64 software that has been released, is said to be working).


    .... Well, as a customer on a budget, should I spend hundreds of dollars
    on software because hearsay indicates that it "is said to be working"
    with Windows XP 64? No. No. No.

    When I browse with the 64bit version of IE because I like its speed, and
    suddenly I have to close it and open the 32bit version of IE because
    Flash is not supported in 64, you know what comes to my mind right away?
    WHAT THE ****!?

    What we need to do here is convince Microsoft that their marketing
    skills begin to suck so Ballmer needs to get off his rich ass and do a
    better job convincing developers that the 64bit Windows is really a good
    and fast product. Are you listening, Ballmer?
     
    Joe Pasternak, Dec 25, 2007
    #8
  9. Joe Pasternak

    S.SubZero Guest

    On Dec 24, 5:09 pm, Joe Pasternak <> wrote:
    > What we need to do here is convince Microsoft that their marketing
    > skills begin to suck so Ballmer needs to get off his rich ass and do a
    > better job convincing developers that the 64bit Windows is really a good
    > and fast product. Are you listening, Ballmer?


    Did you even read my post? Flash does not exist for 64-bit *nix
    browsers either. It's not about marketing. Adobe simply has no Flash
    for 64-bit browsers and that's it.

    A big reason for this I'm sure is that 32-bit browsers work just fine
    under Windows and *nix. In fact on Windows 64-bit, the 32-bit IE is
    the default browser, and there isn't even a facility for changing it.
    (32-bit media player 11 is the default player in Vista x64 as well,
    and MS didn't bother making a 64-bit MP11 for XP64)

    Right now it's the best of both worlds; 32-bit apps work for the tasks
    they need to work for. Any apps that are pushing the edge with 32-bit
    are either already ported to 64-bit or are on their way. Did you know
    in XP64 and Vista64 that *notepad.exe* is a 64-bit app? For all the
    times you need to open 2GB+ text files.
     
    S.SubZero, Dec 25, 2007
    #9
  10. If you are running the 64 bit browser and go to a site that requires Flash,
    there is often a link that takes you to their website. There is a note on
    there that 64 bit version (For which OSs?) of Flash is now in the works. No
    date yet of course.

    David Manvell

    "S.SubZero" wrote:

    > On Dec 24, 5:09 pm, Joe Pasternak <> wrote:
    > > What we need to do here is convince Microsoft that their marketing
    > > skills begin to suck so Ballmer needs to get off his rich ass and do a
    > > better job convincing developers that the 64bit Windows is really a good
    > > and fast product. Are you listening, Ballmer?

    >
    > Did you even read my post? Flash does not exist for 64-bit *nix
    > browsers either. It's not about marketing. Adobe simply has no Flash
    > for 64-bit browsers and that's it.
    >
    > A big reason for this I'm sure is that 32-bit browsers work just fine
    > under Windows and *nix. In fact on Windows 64-bit, the 32-bit IE is
    > the default browser, and there isn't even a facility for changing it.
    > (32-bit media player 11 is the default player in Vista x64 as well,
    > and MS didn't bother making a 64-bit MP11 for XP64)
    >
    > Right now it's the best of both worlds; 32-bit apps work for the tasks
    > they need to work for. Any apps that are pushing the edge with 32-bit
    > are either already ported to 64-bit or are on their way. Did you know
    > in XP64 and Vista64 that *notepad.exe* is a 64-bit app? For all the
    > times you need to open 2GB+ text files.
    >
     
    David Manvell, Dec 25, 2007
    #10
  11. Joe Pasternak

    Brian Smith Guest

    64-bit is years ahead of itself. I purchased a Dual Core 64-bit and find
    myself in the same pit you're in.
    If I only used IE 64-bit I'd be doing fine, but Office 64-bit, any year,
    forget it. Any other software 64-bit, forget it. M$ dropped the ball on this
    one. I plan on switching to Linux Ubuntu 64-bit in 2008. It's free. There
    are drivers and software for it.
    M$, Gawd I dunno I worked for them through a partner company, but I can't
    walk the walk a talk the talk on XP64bit.

    "Joe Pasternak" <> wrote in message
    news:477019fd$0$11059$...
    > It's been a little over one year that I've been using XP64.
    >
    > It is apparent to me by now that hardware drivers are hard to find for
    > this 64bit OS furthermore, I have NOT seen any software boxes in the
    > retail stores that claim to support Windows XP 64 bit. After Windows 2000,
    > XP, comes Vista (the 32 bit version) so there is no mention whatsoever
    > about XP 64 bit or Vista 64 bit.
    >
    > Photoshop CS runs on XP but WILL NOT run on XP 64
    >
    > It seems that Photoshop CS2 will run on XP 64 but the retail box doesn't
    > say so. Some people do have luck running these types of high-priced
    > software on xp64 bit and Vista ultimate but why won't the manufacturers
    > admit one way or the other?
    >
    > Personally, I like the 64 bit version of Windows XP64 - even though it
    > seems to me that even Microsoft doesn't fully support it (no 64 bit flash,
    > and no 64bit IE software update, it reverts to the 32 bit version for that
    > to which I say horse manure).
    >
    > My question is: what the hell is going on with this 64bit nonsense? By the
    > time everyone wakes up and supports this 64 bit hot air, we'll be ready
    > for 128 and maybe 256 bit.
    >
    > Microsoft, whasssup??
     
    Brian Smith, Dec 25, 2007
    #11
  12. There are many reports of Photoshop CS working well under x64 XP. If it
    doesn't work for you there must be something unusual about your system which
    is stopping it running.



    #
    "Joe Pasternak" <> wrote in message
    news:477054a5$0$10957$...
    > Gary Mount wrote:
    >> Applications written for 32 bit are compatible with 64 bit. That is, a 32
    >> bit application will run on the 64 bit O/S. As long as the application
    >> doesn't require 32 bit drivers. Usually an application doesn't require
    >> drivers, only hardware does.

    >
    > I know what applications require but I am not sure what your logic
    > requires though... If your logic is true then Photoshop CS (software, to
    > name a few), which DOES NOT REQUIRE 32 BIT DRIVERS, would be very much
    > compaatible and, according to you, should run under 64 bit WIndows XP but
    > it DOES NOT. So now what?
     
    Dominic Payer, Dec 25, 2007
    #12
  13. Joe Pasternak

    Bo Persson Guest

    Gary Mount wrote:
    :: I have been developing software for about a decade now. Only last
    :: month did I acquire my first 64 bit computer.
    :: I have had a 32 bit computer ever since I bought a 30 MHz 80386
    :: two decades ago.
    :: I don't know why the big shops are taking so long to come out with
    :: 64 bit versions.
    ::

    They are waiting for you (and everyone else) to get a 64 bit machine.
    What took you so long?!


    Bo Persson
     
    Bo Persson, Dec 25, 2007
    #13
  14. Why do you want a 64-bit version of Office? It doesn't do anything that
    needs it.

    "Brian Smith" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 64-bit is years ahead of itself. I purchased a Dual Core 64-bit and find
    > myself in the same pit you're in.
    > If I only used IE 64-bit I'd be doing fine, but Office 64-bit, any year,
    > forget it. Any other software 64-bit, forget it. M$ dropped the ball on
    > this one. I plan on switching to Linux Ubuntu 64-bit in 2008. It's free.
    > There are drivers and software for it.
    > M$, Gawd I dunno I worked for them through a partner company, but I can't
    > walk the walk a talk the talk on XP64bit.
    >
    > "Joe Pasternak" <> wrote in message
    > news:477019fd$0$11059$...
    >> It's been a little over one year that I've been using XP64.
    >>
    >> It is apparent to me by now that hardware drivers are hard to find for
    >> this 64bit OS furthermore, I have NOT seen any software boxes in the
    >> retail stores that claim to support Windows XP 64 bit. After Windows
    >> 2000, XP, comes Vista (the 32 bit version) so there is no mention
    >> whatsoever about XP 64 bit or Vista 64 bit.
    >>
    >> Photoshop CS runs on XP but WILL NOT run on XP 64
    >>
    >> It seems that Photoshop CS2 will run on XP 64 but the retail box doesn't
    >> say so. Some people do have luck running these types of high-priced
    >> software on xp64 bit and Vista ultimate but why won't the manufacturers
    >> admit one way or the other?
    >>
    >> Personally, I like the 64 bit version of Windows XP64 - even though it
    >> seems to me that even Microsoft doesn't fully support it (no 64 bit
    >> flash, and no 64bit IE software update, it reverts to the 32 bit version
    >> for that to which I say horse manure).
    >>
    >> My question is: what the hell is going on with this 64bit nonsense? By
    >> the time everyone wakes up and supports this 64 bit hot air, we'll be
    >> ready for 128 and maybe 256 bit.
    >>
    >> Microsoft, whasssup??

    >
    >
     
    Colin Barnhorst, Dec 25, 2007
    #14
  15. Joe Pasternak

    Greg Lamonte Guest

    I don't particularly care for for Office 64 bit but all other 64 bit
    software is essential to go together with XP 64. If there is no support by
    other than Microsoft for this product, those of us who bought XP-64 bought a
    dud. I thought that Microsoft is going to top XP 64 with Vista 64 but going
    back again to 32 bit vista is like stepping backwords and, if you install
    the 64 bit version of Vista, I guess you're shit-out-of-luck, too..........

    "Colin Barnhorst" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Why do you want a 64-bit version of Office? It doesn't do anything that
    > needs it.
    >
    > "Brian Smith" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> 64-bit is years ahead of itself. I purchased a Dual Core 64-bit and find
    >> myself in the same pit you're in.
    >> If I only used IE 64-bit I'd be doing fine, but Office 64-bit, any year,
    >> forget it. Any other software 64-bit, forget it. M$ dropped the ball on
    >> this one. I plan on switching to Linux Ubuntu 64-bit in 2008. It's free.
    >> There are drivers and software for it.
    >> M$, Gawd I dunno I worked for them through a partner company, but I can't
    >> walk the walk a talk the talk on XP64bit.
    >>
    >> "Joe Pasternak" <> wrote in message
    >> news:477019fd$0$11059$...
    >>> It's been a little over one year that I've been using XP64.
    >>>
    >>> It is apparent to me by now that hardware drivers are hard to find for
    >>> this 64bit OS furthermore, I have NOT seen any software boxes in the
    >>> retail stores that claim to support Windows XP 64 bit. After Windows
    >>> 2000, XP, comes Vista (the 32 bit version) so there is no mention
    >>> whatsoever about XP 64 bit or Vista 64 bit.
    >>>
    >>> Photoshop CS runs on XP but WILL NOT run on XP 64
    >>>
    >>> It seems that Photoshop CS2 will run on XP 64 but the retail box doesn't
    >>> say so. Some people do have luck running these types of high-priced
    >>> software on xp64 bit and Vista ultimate but why won't the manufacturers
    >>> admit one way or the other?
    >>>
    >>> Personally, I like the 64 bit version of Windows XP64 - even though it
    >>> seems to me that even Microsoft doesn't fully support it (no 64 bit
    >>> flash, and no 64bit IE software update, it reverts to the 32 bit version
    >>> for that to which I say horse manure).
    >>>
    >>> My question is: what the hell is going on with this 64bit nonsense? By
    >>> the time everyone wakes up and supports this 64 bit hot air, we'll be
    >>> ready for 128 and maybe 256 bit.
    >>>
    >>> Microsoft, whasssup??

    >>
    >>

    >
     
    Greg Lamonte, Dec 25, 2007
    #15
  16. Why? You can reinstall using Vista x86. It has to be a clean install
    though. I tried it once and it appears that installing x86 over x64 does
    not roll everything up into windows.old like it is supposed to so I would
    format the drive first.

    "Greg Lamonte" <> wrote in message
    news:4771954e$0$11164$...
    >I don't particularly care for for Office 64 bit but all other 64 bit
    >software is essential to go together with XP 64. If there is no support by
    >other than Microsoft for this product, those of us who bought XP-64 bought
    >a dud. I thought that Microsoft is going to top XP 64 with Vista 64 but
    >going back again to 32 bit vista is like stepping backwords and, if you
    >install the 64 bit version of Vista, I guess you're shit-out-of-luck,
    >too..........
    >
    > "Colin Barnhorst" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Why do you want a 64-bit version of Office? It doesn't do anything that
    >> needs it.
    >>
    >> "Brian Smith" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> 64-bit is years ahead of itself. I purchased a Dual Core 64-bit and find
    >>> myself in the same pit you're in.
    >>> If I only used IE 64-bit I'd be doing fine, but Office 64-bit, any year,
    >>> forget it. Any other software 64-bit, forget it. M$ dropped the ball on
    >>> this one. I plan on switching to Linux Ubuntu 64-bit in 2008. It's free.
    >>> There are drivers and software for it.
    >>> M$, Gawd I dunno I worked for them through a partner company, but I
    >>> can't walk the walk a talk the talk on XP64bit.
    >>>
    >>> "Joe Pasternak" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:477019fd$0$11059$...
    >>>> It's been a little over one year that I've been using XP64.
    >>>>
    >>>> It is apparent to me by now that hardware drivers are hard to find for
    >>>> this 64bit OS furthermore, I have NOT seen any software boxes in the
    >>>> retail stores that claim to support Windows XP 64 bit. After Windows
    >>>> 2000, XP, comes Vista (the 32 bit version) so there is no mention
    >>>> whatsoever about XP 64 bit or Vista 64 bit.
    >>>>
    >>>> Photoshop CS runs on XP but WILL NOT run on XP 64
    >>>>
    >>>> It seems that Photoshop CS2 will run on XP 64 but the retail box
    >>>> doesn't say so. Some people do have luck running these types of
    >>>> high-priced software on xp64 bit and Vista ultimate but why won't the
    >>>> manufacturers admit one way or the other?
    >>>>
    >>>> Personally, I like the 64 bit version of Windows XP64 - even though it
    >>>> seems to me that even Microsoft doesn't fully support it (no 64 bit
    >>>> flash, and no 64bit IE software update, it reverts to the 32 bit
    >>>> version for that to which I say horse manure).
    >>>>
    >>>> My question is: what the hell is going on with this 64bit nonsense? By
    >>>> the time everyone wakes up and supports this 64 bit hot air, we'll be
    >>>> ready for 128 and maybe 256 bit.
    >>>>
    >>>> Microsoft, whasssup??
    >>>
    >>>

    >>

    >
    >
     
    Colin Barnhorst, Dec 26, 2007
    #16
  17. Joe Pasternak

    Greg Lamonte Guest

    Colin, I think you missed the point by a mile.


    "Colin Barnhorst" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Why? You can reinstall using Vista x86. It has to be a clean install
    > though. I tried it once and it appears that installing x86 over x64 does
    > not roll everything up into windows.old like it is supposed to so I would
    > format the drive first.
    >
    > "Greg Lamonte" <> wrote in message
    > news:4771954e$0$11164$...
    >>I don't particularly care for for Office 64 bit but all other 64 bit
    >>software is essential to go together with XP 64. If there is no support by
    >>other than Microsoft for this product, those of us who bought XP-64 bought
    >>a dud. I thought that Microsoft is going to top XP 64 with Vista 64 but
    >>going back again to 32 bit vista is like stepping backwords and, if you
    >>install the 64 bit version of Vista, I guess you're shit-out-of-luck,
    >>too..........
    >>
    >> "Colin Barnhorst" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> Why do you want a 64-bit version of Office? It doesn't do anything that
    >>> needs it.
    >>>
    >>> "Brian Smith" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> 64-bit is years ahead of itself. I purchased a Dual Core 64-bit and
    >>>> find myself in the same pit you're in.
    >>>> If I only used IE 64-bit I'd be doing fine, but Office 64-bit, any
    >>>> year, forget it. Any other software 64-bit, forget it. M$ dropped the
    >>>> ball on this one. I plan on switching to Linux Ubuntu 64-bit in 2008.
    >>>> It's free. There are drivers and software for it.
    >>>> M$, Gawd I dunno I worked for them through a partner company, but I
    >>>> can't walk the walk a talk the talk on XP64bit.
    >>>>
    >>>> "Joe Pasternak" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:477019fd$0$11059$...
    >>>>> It's been a little over one year that I've been using XP64.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> It is apparent to me by now that hardware drivers are hard to find for
    >>>>> this 64bit OS furthermore, I have NOT seen any software boxes in the
    >>>>> retail stores that claim to support Windows XP 64 bit. After Windows
    >>>>> 2000, XP, comes Vista (the 32 bit version) so there is no mention
    >>>>> whatsoever about XP 64 bit or Vista 64 bit.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Photoshop CS runs on XP but WILL NOT run on XP 64
    >>>>>
    >>>>> It seems that Photoshop CS2 will run on XP 64 but the retail box
    >>>>> doesn't say so. Some people do have luck running these types of
    >>>>> high-priced software on xp64 bit and Vista ultimate but why won't the
    >>>>> manufacturers admit one way or the other?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Personally, I like the 64 bit version of Windows XP64 - even though it
    >>>>> seems to me that even Microsoft doesn't fully support it (no 64 bit
    >>>>> flash, and no 64bit IE software update, it reverts to the 32 bit
    >>>>> version for that to which I say horse manure).
    >>>>>
    >>>>> My question is: what the hell is going on with this 64bit nonsense? By
    >>>>> the time everyone wakes up and supports this 64 bit hot air, we'll be
    >>>>> ready for 128 and maybe 256 bit.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Microsoft, whasssup??
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
     
    Greg Lamonte, Dec 26, 2007
    #17
  18. Joe Pasternak

    Mel Acme Guest

    S.SubZero wrote:
    > On Dec 24, 5:09 pm, Joe Pasternak <> wrote:
    >> What we need to do here is convince Microsoft that their marketing
    >> skills begin to suck so Ballmer needs to get off his rich ass and do a
    >> better job convincing developers that the 64bit Windows is really a good
    >> and fast product. Are you listening, Ballmer?

    >
    > Did you even read my post? ------------clip----


    Is your name Ballmer???
     
    Mel Acme, Dec 27, 2007
    #18
  19. Joe Pasternak

    John Barnes Guest

    Microsoft has provided two stable 64-bit consumer operating systems. That
    very few other manufacturers have seen fit to provide 64-bit product
    probably relates to the lack of need within most consumer products for
    greater that 32-bit support.


    "Greg Lamonte" <> wrote in message
    news:47724d40$0$5005$...
    > Colin, I think you missed the point by a mile.
    >
    >
    > "Colin Barnhorst" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Why? You can reinstall using Vista x86. It has to be a clean install
    >> though. I tried it once and it appears that installing x86 over x64 does
    >> not roll everything up into windows.old like it is supposed to so I would
    >> format the drive first.
    >>
    >> "Greg Lamonte" <> wrote in message
    >> news:4771954e$0$11164$...
    >>>I don't particularly care for for Office 64 bit but all other 64 bit
    >>>software is essential to go together with XP 64. If there is no support
    >>>by other than Microsoft for this product, those of us who bought XP-64
    >>>bought a dud. I thought that Microsoft is going to top XP 64 with Vista
    >>>64 but going back again to 32 bit vista is like stepping backwords and,
    >>>if you install the 64 bit version of Vista, I guess you're
    >>>shit-out-of-luck, too..........
    >>>
    >>> "Colin Barnhorst" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> Why do you want a 64-bit version of Office? It doesn't do anything
    >>>> that needs it.
    >>>>
    >>>> "Brian Smith" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>> 64-bit is years ahead of itself. I purchased a Dual Core 64-bit and
    >>>>> find myself in the same pit you're in.
    >>>>> If I only used IE 64-bit I'd be doing fine, but Office 64-bit, any
    >>>>> year, forget it. Any other software 64-bit, forget it. M$ dropped the
    >>>>> ball on this one. I plan on switching to Linux Ubuntu 64-bit in 2008.
    >>>>> It's free. There are drivers and software for it.
    >>>>> M$, Gawd I dunno I worked for them through a partner company, but I
    >>>>> can't walk the walk a talk the talk on XP64bit.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "Joe Pasternak" <> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:477019fd$0$11059$...
    >>>>>> It's been a little over one year that I've been using XP64.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> It is apparent to me by now that hardware drivers are hard to find
    >>>>>> for this 64bit OS furthermore, I have NOT seen any software boxes in
    >>>>>> the retail stores that claim to support Windows XP 64 bit. After
    >>>>>> Windows 2000, XP, comes Vista (the 32 bit version) so there is no
    >>>>>> mention whatsoever about XP 64 bit or Vista 64 bit.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Photoshop CS runs on XP but WILL NOT run on XP 64
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> It seems that Photoshop CS2 will run on XP 64 but the retail box
    >>>>>> doesn't say so. Some people do have luck running these types of
    >>>>>> high-priced software on xp64 bit and Vista ultimate but why won't the
    >>>>>> manufacturers admit one way or the other?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Personally, I like the 64 bit version of Windows XP64 - even though
    >>>>>> it seems to me that even Microsoft doesn't fully support it (no 64
    >>>>>> bit flash, and no 64bit IE software update, it reverts to the 32 bit
    >>>>>> version for that to which I say horse manure).
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> My question is: what the hell is going on with this 64bit nonsense?
    >>>>>> By the time everyone wakes up and supports this 64 bit hot air, we'll
    >>>>>> be ready for 128 and maybe 256 bit.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Microsoft, whasssup??
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>

    >
    >
     
    John Barnes, Dec 27, 2007
    #19
  20. Joe Pasternak

    Zootal Guest

    Manufacturers make 64 bit products if they think it will be profitable. If
    not, then they don't bother. Maximizing the shareholders wealth is the main
    driving force between the availability (or lack thereof) of 64 bit drivers
    and applications. None of the software products I'm working on will likely
    be released in a 64 bit version soon, nor are we likely to support 64 bit OS
    soon. Why should we? Our stuff runs just fine as is, none of our clients
    require 64 bit compability, why waste money making a 64 bit version? This is
    how most manufacturers see it. And this is not likely to change until
    Microsoft starts to seriously push 64 bit OS's.

    I would push the blame for the lackluster support of 64 bit OS back into
    Microsoft's lap. It's their OS, but they don't seem to care if anyone uses
    it or not. Why? Because it's not *yet* profitable.


    "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Microsoft has provided two stable 64-bit consumer operating systems. That
    > very few other manufacturers have seen fit to provide 64-bit product
    > probably relates to the lack of need within most consumer products for
    > greater that 32-bit support.
    >
     
    Zootal, Dec 27, 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. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    997
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
  2. BP
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,120
    PhilSweet
    Dec 19, 2008
  3. Homer J. Simpson
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    763
    Jim Barry
    Jan 19, 2009
  4. David B.
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    487
    David B.
    Jan 20, 2009
  5. Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    432
    Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]
    Jan 21, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page