Windows 64-bit is awful.

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by Guest, Feb 13, 2006.

  1. Guest

    Jud Hendrix Guest

    WTH? I run almost all of my multi-media apps on x64, and they run much
    smoother than on x32.
    x64 is a waste of time and money, if you think it's cool to have x64 on
    your 64-bit computer, but only know what the power-button does....
    It is _not_ Microsoft's fault that there are no drivers,
    I repreat: It is _not_ Microsoft's fault that there are no drivers,
    I repreat: It is _not_ Microsoft's fault that there are no drivers,
    I repreat: It is _not_ Microsoft's fault that there are no drivers,
    I repreat: It is _not_ Microsoft's fault that there are no drivers,
    I repreat: It is _not_ Microsoft's fault that there are no drivers,
    I repreat: It is _not_ Microsoft's fault that there are no drivers,

    This is solely the fault of the hardware manufacturers.

    jud --- x64-powered and loving it :-D
     
    Jud Hendrix, Dec 23, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. Guest

    RR Guest


    Do you have the correct drivers installed for these devices?
     
    RR, Dec 24, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. Guest

    RR Guest


    Money !!! It's all about the money....

    Consumer satisfaction is the least of their worrys.

    Also you can't expect perfection in computers. Computers have been
    around for quite some time now, but technology changes so rapidly. It's
    here then POOF it's gone like a fart in the wind.
     
    RR, Dec 24, 2006
  4. I've been using X64 for the past couple of months, albeit in a
    much more passive environment. I use it mainly to provide
    internal services to my 5-node home network.

    For my use, it has the same rock solid reliability as did NT4--
    the reliability that W2K never really had.

    Flatus
     
    Flatus Ohlfahrt, Dec 24, 2006
  5. Guest

    Guest Guest

    That's funny as I am using that very product most successfully.
     
    Guest, Jan 21, 2007
  6. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Hi everyone,

    Below, "Jud Hendrix" wrote:

    "I repreat: It is _not_ Microsoft's fault that there are no drivers," (full
    post reproduced at the bottom).

    Maybe not, but whose fault is it that Microsoft Producer for PowerPoint does
    not install on x64 systems? Producer is a non-linear editor that synchronizes
    PowerPoint presentations with audio and video to create a Windows Media
    presentation. One might think that an application like this would communicate
    to the OS through an API, so 32-bit or 64-bit would not be an issue. Not! One
    might also think that a company interested in promoting the new 64-bit
    standard would come up with coding standards and a compiler capable of
    creating 64-bit versions of an application requiring little more than
    changing the flag on the compilation command. Not! One would also think the
    latest and greatest version of the OS would have the most complete repertoire
    of features and tools for using the OS to its full potential. Not!

    Apparently the difficulty in porting an app to the x64 system is so
    difficult that Microsoft's own programmers don't do it unless they are forced
    to do so. Ever wonder why there's no 64-bit version of Office 2007?

    With the exception of a few niche markets where 64bits sells, it's going to
    be a long, lonely wait for software manufacturers to start turning out
    products that make x64 worth dealing with the headaches associated with it.

    Marsh Feldman
     
    Guest, Feb 2, 2007
  7. Guest

    Jud Hendrix Guest

    Yes, granted, Microsoft does not seem to push very hard for 64-bit. But I
    also assume that everybody had a look whether it's really benificial to
    port their software to 64-bit, in terms of giving increased performance.
    Only a few products are really benefiting from that, like 3D
    animation-software and high-performance games, and they have been ported to
    64-bit. Would an office-application really benefit from a 64-bit version? I
    don't think so, unless you are crunching complex numbers and push a lot of
    data again.
    Maybe 64-bit is seen as a holy grail by many, but it isn't really that for
    most.

    jud
     
    Jud Hendrix, Feb 2, 2007
  8. Guest

    Jane C Guest

    There may be light at the end of the tunnel. I heard/read that the next
    Windows OS may well be 64 bit only. Perhaps Vista is the 'staging post' to
    full 64 bit takeup.
     
    Jane C, Feb 2, 2007
  9. Guest

    BSchnur Guest

    There may be light at the end of the tunnel. I heard/read that the next
    Could be, but then again, might be a long tunnel -- after all, when did
    XP arrive? Next version of Windows -- I'd guess we're talking 5 years
    or more.

    In any event, I'd echo the comment about Microsoft not making a big
    push regarding 64 bit. In fact, MAPS for 2007 actually has less 64 bit
    content than in the past. As a long time MAPS subscriber, I remember
    getting XP Pro 64 (along with XP Pro and XP Media Center). The January
    release this year was *32 bit only*, *business only*, and *upgrade
    only*. Strikes me as a fairly lame combination. I guess I can
    understand the 32 bit only position if Microsoft feels that Vista 64 is
    simply an extension of the Proof of Concept that XP 64 mostly was.

    Then again, for a large portion of the current marketplace, about the
    only home for 64 bit is for situations where extra memory handling is
    really needed (say for developer systems and servers).
     
    BSchnur, Feb 2, 2007
  10. Guest

    DP Guest

    You mean, like Windows XP Professional x64 ??
     
    DP, Feb 3, 2007
  11. Guest

    BSchnur Guest

    You mean, like Windows XP Professional x64 ??

    No, XP 64 was more of a proof of concept offering -- and after a while
    it seemed to have been rejected by major OEM's as an option.

    I'm talking about a scenario where the only option provided is 64 bit.
    No 32 bit offering of the OS (or one not made available in the
    developed world -- sort of like the very entry level Vista SKU -- not
    available in the US).
     
    BSchnur, Feb 3, 2007
  12. Guest

    John Barnes Guest

    Until they have a large % of their users on 64-bit, I seriously doubt they
    would risk doing that. Then again it may be their 'jump the shark' moment.
    They seem to be moving the other way if anything. Many of their recent
    utilities won't run on 64-bit and they sure are moving away from Vista logo
    being 64-bit compatible.
     
    John Barnes, Feb 3, 2007
  13. Guest

    DP Guest

    Barry, I was trying to be sarcastic, but I guess I failed. It just seems to
    me that MS has already been down the 64-bit-only mode and that was with x64.
    Since it isn't REALLY part of the XP product line, it seemed to me to
    qualify as an OS that comes in 64-bit versions only.
     
    DP, Feb 3, 2007
  14. Guest

    BSchnur Guest

    Well, if it had been me writing the message, I would have KNOWN it was
    sarcastic <smile>.

    The only part of the 'XP 64' product that got any traction (or frankly
    any real value) was the Server 2003 64 bit iteration. Since it
    supported >4G of RAM and since Microsoft Server products often would
    love the extra memory to work with, that offering made some real sense.
     
    BSchnur, Feb 3, 2007
  15. Guest

    Theo Guest

    Your probably in the ballpark! Win 95 to Win XP was about
    6-1/2 years, so Vista to a 64-bit only OS should probably
    occur sometime in the 2nd half of 2013 or 1st half of 2014.
     
    Theo, Feb 3, 2007
  16. Guest

    BSchnur Guest

    Your probably in the ballpark! Win 95 to Win XP was about
    The thing is, the hardware for this is pretty much 'normal' today.
     
    BSchnur, Feb 3, 2007
  17. Guest

    Guest Guest

    I think Microsoft has a DUTY OF CARE to customers.

    I fell into the same trap of reading the 10 reasons to buy XP64 and, seeing
    no commensurate list of reasons not ot, I bought it. I wish I hadn't, its
    been a nightmare for me.

    Althought the pdf whitepaper is useful, I still don't think this provides
    adequate communication to novices. On the main page, next to the 10 benefits,
    there should be a 10 problems ordinary users may face and what these problems
    mean in practice. As it was when I bought it a year ago and still is, IMO, a
    very misleading site.

    I wouldn't mind so much being told how ignorant and research-deficient I may
    be, but I feel misled. I finally decided to throw in the towel and I
    contacted MS waiving a white flag. I humbly requested a swap of my XP64 for
    XP32 and offered to pay handling & postage and to return my XP64 disk to
    them, and MS flatly refused to do so. Can you believe that?

    I feel frustrated, misled and that Microsoft has shown no duty of care to me.

    The last thing I will do is buy Vista 64.
     
    Guest, Feb 3, 2007
  18. Guest

    Theo Guest

    Just as it was in 1995. The 80486 had been on the market
    for several years, so the 32-bit CPU was pretty much
    'normal' in 1995. The 80486 processor was released by Intel
     
    Theo, Feb 4, 2007
  19. Guest

    John Barnes Guest

    How many consumer applications will benefit from 64-bit? With all the
    things I have open for working, I am not even close to stressed with 2gb
    memory. My 2yr old 3500+ is stressed in Vista64, not on XP X64 or X86
    (which runs even more programs in background, that won't install on X64)
     
    John Barnes, Feb 4, 2007
  20. Guest

    BSchnur Guest

    Just as it was in 1995. The 80486 had been on the market
    Right, what is relatively new now is true dual core CPU's (different
    from the hyperthreading marketing version at the end of the Intel 478
    development cycle).

    The two advantages I see in running a 64 bit OS are the extra memory
    handling and the additional capability to cordon off bad boy programs
    from the rest of the system.

    The thing is, most folks simply don't have the need to go that route --
    at least not for now (or for the next year or more I'd suspect), so
    that the current trade offs (driver support, cost of memory, lack of
    programs to take advantage of 64 bit, inability to in place upgrade,
    etc.) tend to make Vista 64 something of a 'leading edge' option. For
    those that have the needs now, it can be the best choice. For those
    who want to dabble in the 64 bit environment on a 'test bed' system,
    Vista 64 is attractive as well. But would I recommend it to my small
    business and home user clients today -- nope. Heck, a lot of those
    users are running Intuit products -- so at the moment from what I've
    seen in the newsgroup, Vista 32 is problematic (not Microsoft's fault).
     
    BSchnur, Feb 4, 2007
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.