Windows 64-bit is awful.

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by =?Utf-8?B?RGlzZ3VzdGVk?=, Feb 13, 2006.

  1. So I put together this rocking computer with a 64-bit AMD Athlon, etc. etc,
    and I figured I should take advantage of the 64-bit architecture (like is
    being pushed on the Microsoft Web Site) but I have to say Windows XP 64-bit
    doesn't allow me to use many of my devices.

    Why oh why did Microsoft push this operating system on their web site? The
    beta stuff they are making doesn't even work with xp 64-bit. I feel like a
    chump and am being punished for trusting microsoft's advertising!
     
    =?Utf-8?B?RGlzZ3VzdGVk?=, Feb 13, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. They maybe pushing it, but they didn't force you to install it. Moving to 64
    bit Windows does have its advantages I believe primarily in the Server space
    where larger memory address space is important and processing power is more
    convenient for handlying more job loads. We have addressed it many times in
    here, if you plan on investing in 64-bit Windows, necessary research is
    recommended to ensure that existing applications and hardware devices are
    fully supported on the operating system.

    Charlie Russels website, and other great websites such as PlanetAMD64.com,
    the advice of many here and Google have been indispensible tools in helping
    to shape persons opinions, decisions and understanding of whether Windows
    x64 is right for them. I personally say its focus really on the client side
    is being a technical workstation operating system, if you want true consumer
    64-bit computing, Windows Vista is a better wait.
    --
    Andre
    Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
    Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
    http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
    FAQ for MS AntiSpy http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm

    "Disgusted" <> wrote in message
    news:D...
    > So I put together this rocking computer with a 64-bit AMD Athlon, etc.
    > etc,
    > and I figured I should take advantage of the 64-bit architecture (like is
    > being pushed on the Microsoft Web Site) but I have to say Windows XP
    > 64-bit
    > doesn't allow me to use many of my devices.
    >
    > Why oh why did Microsoft push this operating system on their web site? The
    > beta stuff they are making doesn't even work with xp 64-bit. I feel like a
    > chump and am being punished for trusting microsoft's advertising!
     
    Andre Da Costa [Extended64], Feb 13, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. =?Utf-8?B?RGlzZ3VzdGVk?=

    psychosmurf Guest

    I'm having a completely different experience with my Windows x64
    environment. Not only did it take all of my old hardware, the old
    software is working to and MUCH better and MUCH faster. My games are
    playing a hundred times better in the x64 environment with server apps,
    background tasks and hard drive maintenance going than they did in the
    32-bit system with nothing but the operating system running.

    Sorry you're having such difficulties.

    My Rig:

    ASUS A8N-SLI motherboard with an AMD Athlon 64 3700+ processor
    4 GB of PC 3300 RAM
    8 Hard Drives totalling 1.5 TB of Storage
    nVidia GeForce FX 6600 PCI-E Graphics Card With 256 MB of Memory
    Windows Server 2003 OS Tailored For Workstation Use

    Might be the server vs. professional difference that's causing the
    problem. Have you tried running the S2003 install?


    --
    psychosmurf
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    psychosmurf's Profile: http://www.64bit-world.com/forums/member.php?u=1843
    View this thread: http://www.64bit-world.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15271
     
    psychosmurf, Feb 13, 2006
    #3
  4. First,

    I was wrong about the Buffulo external hard drive not working. It is working.

    Also, I use a lot of applications that need a lot of processor power, such
    as the Macromedia suite and the Adobe suite, including 3d stuff with erain's
    apps. Wouldn't you think this would be something that 64-bit processing would
    be beneficial? The lack of support has been mind blowing, and I have checked
    out planetamd64, etc and while they help, many applications (basic ones) have
    no plan to convert over to 64-bit. This wouldn't be a big deal if the
    applications worked even in its native bit mode but for whatever reason, many
    things (including all the mircrosoft new toys) don't work at all in windows
    xp 64-bit pro. They should give more warnings -- or at least the other side
    -- as in top 10 reasons not to upgrade.
    cg
     
    =?Utf-8?B?RGlzZ3VzdGVk?=, Feb 13, 2006
    #4
  5. "Have you tried running the S2003 install?"

    Hmm, where would I go to get that?

    It does sound like your hardward is just not screwing around!

    So when you say:

    Windows Server 2003 OS Tailored For Workstation Use

    are you saying that you are using windows server 2003?

    If so, maybe it is just xp pro 64-bit that is problematic?

    cg


    "psychosmurf" wrote:

    >
    > I'm having a completely different experience with my Windows x64
    > environment. Not only did it take all of my old hardware, the old
    > software is working to and MUCH better and MUCH faster. My games are
    > playing a hundred times better in the x64 environment with server apps,
    > background tasks and hard drive maintenance going than they did in the
    > 32-bit system with nothing but the operating system running.
    >
    > Sorry you're having such difficulties.
    >
    > My Rig:
    >
    > ASUS A8N-SLI motherboard with an AMD Athlon 64 3700+ processor
    > 4 GB of PC 3300 RAM
    > 8 Hard Drives totalling 1.5 TB of Storage
    > nVidia GeForce FX 6600 PCI-E Graphics Card With 256 MB of Memory
    > Windows Server 2003 OS Tailored For Workstation Use
    >
    > Might be the server vs. professional difference that's causing the
    > problem. Have you tried running the S2003 install?
    >
    >
    > --
    > psychosmurf
    > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > psychosmurf's Profile: http://www.64bit-world.com/forums/member.php?u=1843
    > View this thread: http://www.64bit-world.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15271
    >
    >
     
    =?Utf-8?B?RGlzZ3VzdGVk?=, Feb 13, 2006
    #5
  6. Oh, you mean server 2003! I have had great experiences with Windows 2003
    server. I just don't want to dish out that much money for my workstation ?

    cg
     
    =?Utf-8?B?RGlzZ3VzdGVk?=, Feb 13, 2006
    #6
  7. or truthfully, here is what Microsoft should do:
    they should include a 32 bit version of windows xp pro on the same disk as
    the 64-bit, until they get their acts together on the 64-bit. Otherwise, one
    is screwed.

    cg

    "Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" wrote:

    > They maybe pushing it, but they didn't force you to install it. Moving to 64
    > bit Windows does have its advantages I believe primarily in the Server space
    > where larger memory address space is important and processing power is more
    > convenient for handlying more job loads. We have addressed it many times in
    > here, if you plan on investing in 64-bit Windows, necessary research is
    > recommended to ensure that existing applications and hardware devices are
    > fully supported on the operating system.
    >
    > Charlie Russels website, and other great websites such as PlanetAMD64.com,
    > the advice of many here and Google have been indispensible tools in helping
    > to shape persons opinions, decisions and understanding of whether Windows
    > x64 is right for them. I personally say its focus really on the client side
    > is being a technical workstation operating system, if you want true consumer
    > 64-bit computing, Windows Vista is a better wait.
    > --
    > Andre
    > Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
    > Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
    > http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
    > FAQ for MS AntiSpy http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm
    >
    > "Disgusted" <> wrote in message
    > news:D...
    > > So I put together this rocking computer with a 64-bit AMD Athlon, etc.
    > > etc,
    > > and I figured I should take advantage of the 64-bit architecture (like is
    > > being pushed on the Microsoft Web Site) but I have to say Windows XP
    > > 64-bit
    > > doesn't allow me to use many of my devices.
    > >
    > > Why oh why did Microsoft push this operating system on their web site? The
    > > beta stuff they are making doesn't even work with xp 64-bit. I feel like a
    > > chump and am being punished for trusting microsoft's advertising!

    >
    >
    >
     
    =?Utf-8?B?RGlzZ3VzdGVk?=, Feb 13, 2006
    #7
  8. It was probably before your time, but the move from 16-bit to 32-bit had a
    similar level of challenge for early adopters. The reality is that until
    there is enough demand for x64 support, many suppliers of third party
    devices will not provide the required 64-bit drivers -and- until there are
    enough 64-bit drivers, customers won't move to x64 in large enough numbers
    to drive the demand.

    Applications developers don't have much to do to make their software work on
    x64 if it doesn't just work as is. Likely issues would be using ancient
    16-bit installer programs, installing custom software drivers (for copy
    protection or some other unusually deep functionality), or reliance on
    obsolete NT 4.0-era technologies like the POSIX personality. For the most
    part, there is excellent compatibility for 32-bit applications.

    There is no performance penalty for using 32-bit applications on x64, so
    there is no need for native 64-bit applications just for the sake of
    removing the "*32" from the task manager. The primary benefit of x64 is
    better support for > 2 GBs of RAM. Using x64 Editions means
    /LARGEADDRESSWARE 32-bit applications can make use of up to 4 GB of RAM
    rather than being limited to 2 GBs or 3 GBs in potentially unstable /3gr
    boot modes. Using x64 Editions means memory intensive applications can be
    written as 64-bit native applications.

    The problems people are encountering all revolve around needing a new
    generation of drivers for all devices written for 64-bit. This is precisely
    why the Windows XP x64 Edition is not sold at retail. It is only sold
    through the OEM channel where the system supplier can make sure that the
    devices in use have the required 64-bit drivers. If you built your own
    computer, then you are taking on the responsibility for ensuring you have
    drivers for the components you require.

    The release of Windows Vista will not remove the need for third parties to
    create 64-bit drivers to support the x64 SKUs. Until supplies hear from
    customers that they must support 64-bit or they will lose sales, they won't
    do the work needed to support it.

    --
    Chuck Walbourn
    SDE, Game Technology Group


    This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
     
    Chuck Walbourn [MSFT], Feb 13, 2006
    #8
  9. > If so, maybe it is just xp pro 64-bit that is problematic?
    For the record, Windows XP Professional x64 Edition is built from exactly
    the same codebase as Windows Server 2003 SP 1. What's likely problematic is
    that you obtained an OEM-only 64-bit edition of Windows XP without verifying
    that the hardware devices you are wanting to use have 64-bit drivers
    available. The Windows Server 2003 x64 Edition requires the same 64-bit
    drivers for all your devices.

    --
    Chuck Walbourn
    SDE, Game Technology Group

    This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
     
    Chuck Walbourn [MSFT], Feb 13, 2006
    #9
  10. Then that means customers would have to incur additional licensing cost.
    --
    Andre
    Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
    Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
    http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
    FAQ for MS AntiSpy http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm

    "Disgusted" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > or truthfully, here is what Microsoft should do:
    > they should include a 32 bit version of windows xp pro on the same disk as
    > the 64-bit, until they get their acts together on the 64-bit. Otherwise,
    > one
    > is screwed.
    >
    > cg
    >
    > "Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" wrote:
    >
    >> They maybe pushing it, but they didn't force you to install it. Moving to
    >> 64
    >> bit Windows does have its advantages I believe primarily in the Server
    >> space
    >> where larger memory address space is important and processing power is
    >> more
    >> convenient for handlying more job loads. We have addressed it many times
    >> in
    >> here, if you plan on investing in 64-bit Windows, necessary research is
    >> recommended to ensure that existing applications and hardware devices are
    >> fully supported on the operating system.
    >>
    >> Charlie Russels website, and other great websites such as
    >> PlanetAMD64.com,
    >> the advice of many here and Google have been indispensible tools in
    >> helping
    >> to shape persons opinions, decisions and understanding of whether Windows
    >> x64 is right for them. I personally say its focus really on the client
    >> side
    >> is being a technical workstation operating system, if you want true
    >> consumer
    >> 64-bit computing, Windows Vista is a better wait.
    >> --
    >> Andre
    >> Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
    >> Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
    >> http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
    >> FAQ for MS AntiSpy http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm
    >>
    >> "Disgusted" <> wrote in message
    >> news:D...
    >> > So I put together this rocking computer with a 64-bit AMD Athlon, etc.
    >> > etc,
    >> > and I figured I should take advantage of the 64-bit architecture (like
    >> > is
    >> > being pushed on the Microsoft Web Site) but I have to say Windows XP
    >> > 64-bit
    >> > doesn't allow me to use many of my devices.
    >> >
    >> > Why oh why did Microsoft push this operating system on their web site?
    >> > The
    >> > beta stuff they are making doesn't even work with xp 64-bit. I feel
    >> > like a
    >> > chump and am being punished for trusting microsoft's advertising!

    >>
    >>
    >>
     
    Andre Da Costa [Extended64], Feb 13, 2006
    #10
  11. We all went through this before, moving from 16 bit. And amazingly, if you
    do your homework before you spend your $$ you don't have problems. So, I'm
    in the market for a mobile printer. Did I run out and buy the HP? Or do my
    research and buy a Canon? I'll let you guess, but here's a clue - one works
    with both 32-bit and 64-bit XP. One doesn't.

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

    Chuck Walbourn [MSFT] wrote:
    > It was probably before your time, but the move from 16-bit to 32-bit had a
    > similar level of challenge for early adopters. The reality is that until
    > there is enough demand for x64 support, many suppliers of third party
    > devices will not provide the required 64-bit drivers -and- until there are
    > enough 64-bit drivers, customers won't move to x64 in large enough numbers
    > to drive the demand.
    >
    > Applications developers don't have much to do to make their software work
    > on x64 if it doesn't just work as is. Likely issues would be using ancient
    > 16-bit installer programs, installing custom software drivers (for copy
    > protection or some other unusually deep functionality), or reliance on
    > obsolete NT 4.0-era technologies like the POSIX personality. For the most
    > part, there is excellent compatibility for 32-bit applications.
    >
    > There is no performance penalty for using 32-bit applications on x64, so
    > there is no need for native 64-bit applications just for the sake of
    > removing the "*32" from the task manager. The primary benefit of x64 is
    > better support for > 2 GBs of RAM. Using x64 Editions means
    > /LARGEADDRESSWARE 32-bit applications can make use of up to 4 GB of RAM
    > rather than being limited to 2 GBs or 3 GBs in potentially unstable /3gr
    > boot modes. Using x64 Editions means memory intensive applications can be
    > written as 64-bit native applications.
    >
    > The problems people are encountering all revolve around needing a new
    > generation of drivers for all devices written for 64-bit. This is
    > precisely why the Windows XP x64 Edition is not sold at retail. It is
    > only sold through the OEM channel where the system supplier can make sure
    > that the devices in use have the required 64-bit drivers. If you built
    > your own computer, then you are taking on the responsibility for ensuring
    > you have drivers for the components you require.
    >
    > The release of Windows Vista will not remove the need for third parties to
    > create 64-bit drivers to support the x64 SKUs. Until supplies hear from
    > customers that they must support 64-bit or they will lose sales, they
    > won't do the work needed to support it.
     
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Feb 13, 2006
    #11
  12. Canon, are there any prizes? :)
    --
    Andre
    Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
    Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
    http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
    FAQ for MS AntiSpy http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm

    "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > We all went through this before, moving from 16 bit. And amazingly, if you
    > do your homework before you spend your $$ you don't have problems. So, I'm
    > in the market for a mobile printer. Did I run out and buy the HP? Or do my
    > research and buy a Canon? I'll let you guess, but here's a clue - one
    > works with both 32-bit and 64-bit XP. One doesn't.
    >
    > --
    > Charlie.
    > http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    >
    > Chuck Walbourn [MSFT] wrote:
    >> It was probably before your time, but the move from 16-bit to 32-bit had
    >> a
    >> similar level of challenge for early adopters. The reality is that until
    >> there is enough demand for x64 support, many suppliers of third party
    >> devices will not provide the required 64-bit drivers -and- until there
    >> are
    >> enough 64-bit drivers, customers won't move to x64 in large enough
    >> numbers
    >> to drive the demand.
    >>
    >> Applications developers don't have much to do to make their software work
    >> on x64 if it doesn't just work as is. Likely issues would be using
    >> ancient
    >> 16-bit installer programs, installing custom software drivers (for copy
    >> protection or some other unusually deep functionality), or reliance on
    >> obsolete NT 4.0-era technologies like the POSIX personality. For the most
    >> part, there is excellent compatibility for 32-bit applications.
    >>
    >> There is no performance penalty for using 32-bit applications on x64, so
    >> there is no need for native 64-bit applications just for the sake of
    >> removing the "*32" from the task manager. The primary benefit of x64 is
    >> better support for > 2 GBs of RAM. Using x64 Editions means
    >> /LARGEADDRESSWARE 32-bit applications can make use of up to 4 GB of RAM
    >> rather than being limited to 2 GBs or 3 GBs in potentially unstable /3gr
    >> boot modes. Using x64 Editions means memory intensive applications can be
    >> written as 64-bit native applications.
    >>
    >> The problems people are encountering all revolve around needing a new
    >> generation of drivers for all devices written for 64-bit. This is
    >> precisely why the Windows XP x64 Edition is not sold at retail. It is
    >> only sold through the OEM channel where the system supplier can make sure
    >> that the devices in use have the required 64-bit drivers. If you built
    >> your own computer, then you are taking on the responsibility for ensuring
    >> you have drivers for the components you require.
    >>
    >> The release of Windows Vista will not remove the need for third parties
    >> to
    >> create 64-bit drivers to support the x64 SKUs. Until supplies hear from
    >> customers that they must support 64-bit or they will lose sales, they
    >> won't do the work needed to support it.

    >
    >
     
    Andre Da Costa [Extended64], Feb 14, 2006
    #12
  13. Andre Da Costa [Extended64], Feb 14, 2006
    #13
  14. =?Utf-8?B?RGlzZ3VzdGVk?=

    Rick Guest

    I guess you have to be a bit smarter than the computer. I have had Win
    x64 running for over 2 years now and I am very happy with it. I knew
    that there would be problems., just like when Win 95 first came out, but
    I was patient and waited for the software to catch up with the hardware!

    Win x64 is not for the impatient nor those that don't jump into it
    without do appropriate research and preparation.

    Disgusted wrote:
    > So I put together this rocking computer with a 64-bit AMD Athlon, etc. etc,
    > and I figured I should take advantage of the 64-bit architecture (like is
    > being pushed on the Microsoft Web Site) but I have to say Windows XP 64-bit
    > doesn't allow me to use many of my devices.
    >
    > Why oh why did Microsoft push this operating system on their web site? The
    > beta stuff they are making doesn't even work with xp 64-bit. I feel like a
    > chump and am being punished for trusting microsoft's advertising!
     
    Rick, Feb 14, 2006
    #14
  15. Bingo! Gee, got it in one, Andre. Amazing.

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

    Andre Da Costa [Extended64] wrote:
    > Canon, are there any prizes? :)
    >
    > "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> We all went through this before, moving from 16 bit. And amazingly, if
    >> you do your homework before you spend your $$ you don't have problems.
    >> So, I'm in the market for a mobile printer. Did I run out and buy the
    >> HP? Or do my research and buy a Canon? I'll let you guess, but here's a
    >> clue - one works with both 32-bit and 64-bit XP. One doesn't.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Charlie.
    >> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    >>
    >> Chuck Walbourn [MSFT] wrote:
    >>> It was probably before your time, but the move from 16-bit to 32-bit had
    >>> a
    >>> similar level of challenge for early adopters. The reality is that until
    >>> there is enough demand for x64 support, many suppliers of third party
    >>> devices will not provide the required 64-bit drivers -and- until there
    >>> are
    >>> enough 64-bit drivers, customers won't move to x64 in large enough
    >>> numbers
    >>> to drive the demand.
    >>>
    >>> Applications developers don't have much to do to make their software
    >>> work on x64 if it doesn't just work as is. Likely issues would be using
    >>> ancient
    >>> 16-bit installer programs, installing custom software drivers (for copy
    >>> protection or some other unusually deep functionality), or reliance on
    >>> obsolete NT 4.0-era technologies like the POSIX personality. For the
    >>> most part, there is excellent compatibility for 32-bit applications.
    >>>
    >>> There is no performance penalty for using 32-bit applications on x64, so
    >>> there is no need for native 64-bit applications just for the sake of
    >>> removing the "*32" from the task manager. The primary benefit of x64 is
    >>> better support for > 2 GBs of RAM. Using x64 Editions means
    >>> /LARGEADDRESSWARE 32-bit applications can make use of up to 4 GB of RAM
    >>> rather than being limited to 2 GBs or 3 GBs in potentially unstable /3gr
    >>> boot modes. Using x64 Editions means memory intensive applications can
    >>> be written as 64-bit native applications.
    >>>
    >>> The problems people are encountering all revolve around needing a new
    >>> generation of drivers for all devices written for 64-bit. This is
    >>> precisely why the Windows XP x64 Edition is not sold at retail. It is
    >>> only sold through the OEM channel where the system supplier can make
    >>> sure that the devices in use have the required 64-bit drivers. If you
    >>> built your own computer, then you are taking on the responsibility for
    >>> ensuring you have drivers for the components you require.
    >>>
    >>> The release of Windows Vista will not remove the need for third parties
    >>> to
    >>> create 64-bit drivers to support the x64 SKUs. Until supplies hear from
    >>> customers that they must support 64-bit or they will lose sales, they
    >>> won't do the work needed to support it.
     
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Feb 14, 2006
    #15
  16. =?Utf-8?B?RGlzZ3VzdGVk?=

    Larry Hodges Guest

    I'm still waiting for my Canon multi-function Pixma MP500 drivers... :(

    Great printer however. I'm happy with it.

    "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Bingo! Gee, got it in one, Andre. Amazing.
    >
    > --
    > Charlie.
    > http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    >
    > Andre Da Costa [Extended64] wrote:
    >> Canon, are there any prizes? :)
    >>
    >> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> We all went through this before, moving from 16 bit. And amazingly, if
    >>> you do your homework before you spend your $$ you don't have problems.
    >>> So, I'm in the market for a mobile printer. Did I run out and buy the
    >>> HP? Or do my research and buy a Canon? I'll let you guess, but here's a
    >>> clue - one works with both 32-bit and 64-bit XP. One doesn't.
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> Charlie.
    >>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    >>>
    >>> Chuck Walbourn [MSFT] wrote:
    >>>> It was probably before your time, but the move from 16-bit to 32-bit
    >>>> had
    >>>> a
    >>>> similar level of challenge for early adopters. The reality is that
    >>>> until
    >>>> there is enough demand for x64 support, many suppliers of third party
    >>>> devices will not provide the required 64-bit drivers -and- until there
    >>>> are
    >>>> enough 64-bit drivers, customers won't move to x64 in large enough
    >>>> numbers
    >>>> to drive the demand.
    >>>>
    >>>> Applications developers don't have much to do to make their software
    >>>> work on x64 if it doesn't just work as is. Likely issues would be using
    >>>> ancient
    >>>> 16-bit installer programs, installing custom software drivers (for copy
    >>>> protection or some other unusually deep functionality), or reliance on
    >>>> obsolete NT 4.0-era technologies like the POSIX personality. For the
    >>>> most part, there is excellent compatibility for 32-bit applications.
    >>>>
    >>>> There is no performance penalty for using 32-bit applications on x64,
    >>>> so
    >>>> there is no need for native 64-bit applications just for the sake of
    >>>> removing the "*32" from the task manager. The primary benefit of x64 is
    >>>> better support for > 2 GBs of RAM. Using x64 Editions means
    >>>> /LARGEADDRESSWARE 32-bit applications can make use of up to 4 GB of RAM
    >>>> rather than being limited to 2 GBs or 3 GBs in potentially unstable
    >>>> /3gr
    >>>> boot modes. Using x64 Editions means memory intensive applications can
    >>>> be written as 64-bit native applications.
    >>>>
    >>>> The problems people are encountering all revolve around needing a new
    >>>> generation of drivers for all devices written for 64-bit. This is
    >>>> precisely why the Windows XP x64 Edition is not sold at retail. It is
    >>>> only sold through the OEM channel where the system supplier can make
    >>>> sure that the devices in use have the required 64-bit drivers. If you
    >>>> built your own computer, then you are taking on the responsibility for
    >>>> ensuring you have drivers for the components you require.
    >>>>
    >>>> The release of Windows Vista will not remove the need for third parties
    >>>> to
    >>>> create 64-bit drivers to support the x64 SKUs. Until supplies hear
    >>>> from
    >>>> customers that they must support 64-bit or they will lose sales, they
    >>>> won't do the work needed to support it.

    >
    >
     
    Larry Hodges, Feb 14, 2006
    #16
  17. It's the multi-function that gets you, I suspect. I checked on the iP90 and
    there are the drivers, right there. :)

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

    Larry Hodges wrote:
    > I'm still waiting for my Canon multi-function Pixma MP500 drivers... :(
    >
    > Great printer however. I'm happy with it.
    >
    > "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Bingo! Gee, got it in one, Andre. Amazing.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Charlie.
    >> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    >>
    >> Andre Da Costa [Extended64] wrote:
    >>> Canon, are there any prizes? :)
    >>>
    >>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in
    >>> message news:...
    >>>> We all went through this before, moving from 16 bit. And amazingly, if
    >>>> you do your homework before you spend your $$ you don't have problems.
    >>>> So, I'm in the market for a mobile printer. Did I run out and buy the
    >>>> HP? Or do my research and buy a Canon? I'll let you guess, but here's a
    >>>> clue - one works with both 32-bit and 64-bit XP. One doesn't.
    >>>>
    >>>> --
    >>>> Charlie.
    >>>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    >>>>
    >>>> Chuck Walbourn [MSFT] wrote:
    >>>>> It was probably before your time, but the move from 16-bit to 32-bit
    >>>>> had
    >>>>> a
    >>>>> similar level of challenge for early adopters. The reality is that
    >>>>> until
    >>>>> there is enough demand for x64 support, many suppliers of third party
    >>>>> devices will not provide the required 64-bit drivers -and- until there
    >>>>> are
    >>>>> enough 64-bit drivers, customers won't move to x64 in large enough
    >>>>> numbers
    >>>>> to drive the demand.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Applications developers don't have much to do to make their software
    >>>>> work on x64 if it doesn't just work as is. Likely issues would be
    >>>>> using ancient
    >>>>> 16-bit installer programs, installing custom software drivers (for
    >>>>> copy protection or some other unusually deep functionality), or
    >>>>> reliance on obsolete NT 4.0-era technologies like the POSIX
    >>>>> personality. For the most part, there is excellent compatibility for
    >>>>> 32-bit applications. There is no performance penalty for using 32-bit
    >>>>> applications on x64,
    >>>>> so
    >>>>> there is no need for native 64-bit applications just for the sake of
    >>>>> removing the "*32" from the task manager. The primary benefit of x64
    >>>>> is better support for > 2 GBs of RAM. Using x64 Editions means
    >>>>> /LARGEADDRESSWARE 32-bit applications can make use of up to 4 GB of
    >>>>> RAM rather than being limited to 2 GBs or 3 GBs in potentially
    >>>>> unstable /3gr
    >>>>> boot modes. Using x64 Editions means memory intensive applications can
    >>>>> be written as 64-bit native applications.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The problems people are encountering all revolve around needing a new
    >>>>> generation of drivers for all devices written for 64-bit. This is
    >>>>> precisely why the Windows XP x64 Edition is not sold at retail. It is
    >>>>> only sold through the OEM channel where the system supplier can make
    >>>>> sure that the devices in use have the required 64-bit drivers. If you
    >>>>> built your own computer, then you are taking on the responsibility for
    >>>>> ensuring you have drivers for the components you require.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The release of Windows Vista will not remove the need for third
    >>>>> parties to
    >>>>> create 64-bit drivers to support the x64 SKUs. Until supplies hear
    >>>>> from
    >>>>> customers that they must support 64-bit or they will lose sales, they
    >>>>> won't do the work needed to support it.
     
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Feb 14, 2006
    #17
  18. =?Utf-8?B?RGlzZ3VzdGVk?=

    Larry Hodges Guest

    :p. Gloating is not fair.

    Actually, I installed the Pixma iP4200 x64 printer drivers, and they work
    great...for the printing. So at least I have use of it as a printer. But
    when I scan, I have to lug it over to my other workstation running XP.
    That's not that often. I can wait. They should be out within a month or so
    according to the Canon tech I talked to.

    -Larry


    "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > It's the multi-function that gets you, I suspect. I checked on the iP90
    > and there are the drivers, right there. :)
    >
    > --
    > Charlie.
    > http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    >
    > Larry Hodges wrote:
    >> I'm still waiting for my Canon multi-function Pixma MP500 drivers... :(
    >>
    >> Great printer however. I'm happy with it.
    >>
    >> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> Bingo! Gee, got it in one, Andre. Amazing.
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> Charlie.
    >>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    >>>
    >>> Andre Da Costa [Extended64] wrote:
    >>>> Canon, are there any prizes? :)
    >>>>
    >>>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in
    >>>> message news:...
    >>>>> We all went through this before, moving from 16 bit. And amazingly, if
    >>>>> you do your homework before you spend your $$ you don't have problems.
    >>>>> So, I'm in the market for a mobile printer. Did I run out and buy the
    >>>>> HP? Or do my research and buy a Canon? I'll let you guess, but here's
    >>>>> a
    >>>>> clue - one works with both 32-bit and 64-bit XP. One doesn't.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> --
    >>>>> Charlie.
    >>>>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Chuck Walbourn [MSFT] wrote:
    >>>>>> It was probably before your time, but the move from 16-bit to 32-bit
    >>>>>> had
    >>>>>> a
    >>>>>> similar level of challenge for early adopters. The reality is that
    >>>>>> until
    >>>>>> there is enough demand for x64 support, many suppliers of third party
    >>>>>> devices will not provide the required 64-bit drivers -and- until
    >>>>>> there
    >>>>>> are
    >>>>>> enough 64-bit drivers, customers won't move to x64 in large enough
    >>>>>> numbers
    >>>>>> to drive the demand.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Applications developers don't have much to do to make their software
    >>>>>> work on x64 if it doesn't just work as is. Likely issues would be
    >>>>>> using ancient
    >>>>>> 16-bit installer programs, installing custom software drivers (for
    >>>>>> copy protection or some other unusually deep functionality), or
    >>>>>> reliance on obsolete NT 4.0-era technologies like the POSIX
    >>>>>> personality. For the most part, there is excellent compatibility for
    >>>>>> 32-bit applications. There is no performance penalty for using 32-bit
    >>>>>> applications on x64,
    >>>>>> so
    >>>>>> there is no need for native 64-bit applications just for the sake of
    >>>>>> removing the "*32" from the task manager. The primary benefit of x64
    >>>>>> is better support for > 2 GBs of RAM. Using x64 Editions means
    >>>>>> /LARGEADDRESSWARE 32-bit applications can make use of up to 4 GB of
    >>>>>> RAM rather than being limited to 2 GBs or 3 GBs in potentially
    >>>>>> unstable /3gr
    >>>>>> boot modes. Using x64 Editions means memory intensive applications
    >>>>>> can
    >>>>>> be written as 64-bit native applications.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> The problems people are encountering all revolve around needing a new
    >>>>>> generation of drivers for all devices written for 64-bit. This is
    >>>>>> precisely why the Windows XP x64 Edition is not sold at retail. It is
    >>>>>> only sold through the OEM channel where the system supplier can make
    >>>>>> sure that the devices in use have the required 64-bit drivers. If you
    >>>>>> built your own computer, then you are taking on the responsibility
    >>>>>> for
    >>>>>> ensuring you have drivers for the components you require.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> The release of Windows Vista will not remove the need for third
    >>>>>> parties to
    >>>>>> create 64-bit drivers to support the x64 SKUs. Until supplies hear
    >>>>>> from
    >>>>>> customers that they must support 64-bit or they will lose sales, they
    >>>>>> won't do the work needed to support it.

    >
    >
     
    Larry Hodges, Feb 14, 2006
    #18
  19. =?Utf-8?B?RGlzZ3VzdGVk?=

    Torrey Lauer Guest

    Okay, since no one directly stated this, and obviously "CG" thinks it's
    Micrsoft's fault, it's NOT. THIS IS NOT A MICROSOFT PROBLEM!!!!!

    The problem is with the SOFTWARE VENDORS! Call them and complain that THEIR
    software doesn't work on Windows x64. The reason Macromedia and Flash don't
    work in 64 bit Internet Explorer isn't a Microsoft problem. It's the vendor
    that puts out Macromedia and Flash Player. That company needs to write a 64
    bit version of Macromedia and Flash Player to work. I suspect that they
    will have it ready by the end of the year as Windows Vista x64 will be
    pre-installed on a lot or PCs directly from the computer manufacturers.

    The only problem that I've had with Windows x64 is a printer driver for my
    HP printer. I am NOT mad at Microsoft about it since it's not their fault.
    I am, however, p**sed off at HP for not getting a 64 bit driver ready in
    time for the Windows x64 OS release!

    Torrey Lauer


    "Disgusted" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > or truthfully, here is what Microsoft should do:
    > they should include a 32 bit version of windows xp pro on the same disk as
    > the 64-bit, until they get their acts together on the 64-bit. Otherwise,
    > one
    > is screwed.
    >
    > cg
    >
    > "Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" wrote:
    >
    >> They maybe pushing it, but they didn't force you to install it. Moving to
    >> 64
    >> bit Windows does have its advantages I believe primarily in the Server
    >> space
    >> where larger memory address space is important and processing power is
    >> more
    >> convenient for handlying more job loads. We have addressed it many times
    >> in
    >> here, if you plan on investing in 64-bit Windows, necessary research is
    >> recommended to ensure that existing applications and hardware devices are
    >> fully supported on the operating system.
    >>
    >> Charlie Russels website, and other great websites such as
    >> PlanetAMD64.com,
    >> the advice of many here and Google have been indispensible tools in
    >> helping
    >> to shape persons opinions, decisions and understanding of whether Windows
    >> x64 is right for them. I personally say its focus really on the client
    >> side
    >> is being a technical workstation operating system, if you want true
    >> consumer
    >> 64-bit computing, Windows Vista is a better wait.
    >> --
    >> Andre
    >> Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
    >> Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
    >> http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
    >> FAQ for MS AntiSpy http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm
    >>
    >> "Disgusted" <> wrote in message
    >> news:D...
    >> > So I put together this rocking computer with a 64-bit AMD Athlon, etc.
    >> > etc,
    >> > and I figured I should take advantage of the 64-bit architecture (like
    >> > is
    >> > being pushed on the Microsoft Web Site) but I have to say Windows XP
    >> > 64-bit
    >> > doesn't allow me to use many of my devices.
    >> >
    >> > Why oh why did Microsoft push this operating system on their web site?
    >> > The
    >> > beta stuff they are making doesn't even work with xp 64-bit. I feel
    >> > like a
    >> > chump and am being punished for trusting microsoft's advertising!

    >>
    >>
    >>
     
    Torrey Lauer, Feb 14, 2006
    #19
  20. =?Utf-8?B?RGlzZ3VzdGVk?=

    Rob Perkins Guest

    Charlie Russel - MVP wrote:
    > Bingo! Gee, got it in one, Andre. Amazing.
    >


    My HP PSC 750 works without flaws when connected to my new x64 machine.
    And this is a device which is notorious (along with most HP PSC's) for
    never working properly on a Mac.

    Rob
     
    Rob Perkins, Feb 14, 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. Stickems.
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    908
  2. ArtKramr

    Canon BIC 2100 printer awful?

    ArtKramr, Jul 19, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    854
    JunkMonkey
    Jul 19, 2003
  3. why does my LCD monitor show awful color ?

    , Feb 26, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,078
    Blink
    Feb 28, 2006
  4. =?Utf-8?B?RGlzZ3VzdGVk?=

    RE: Windows 64-bit is awful.

    =?Utf-8?B?RGlzZ3VzdGVk?=, Feb 13, 2006, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    374
    =?Utf-8?B?RGlzZ3VzdGVk?=
    Feb 13, 2006
  5. Harry

    Awful Problem w/ADT/Tyco

    Harry, Sep 18, 2007, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    791
    Harry
    Sep 18, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page