Re: Is it all worth it?
Charlie Russel - MVP
environment has printers that are supported, and no software stoppers, I
personally think it's a good move. None of the programs you list is likely
to be an issue. But what are the printers in your environment? Are there
native drivers for them? If not, are there reasonable substitutes for what
you need to do? Does your work require a scanner? (and if it does, do you
need to run it on your computer, or is there a dedicated scanning station?)
I personally find it somewhat faster, and somewhat more stable. OTOH,
wireless support is less solid, IMHO, even though it does generally work.
(But connecting to an Exchange server over wireless is annoying.)
--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
Steve wrote:
> Ive got to get a new PC built.
>
> Ive been reading about 64 bit, but im a little confused about whats good &
> whats not,
>
> all i need to get clear is that if for arguments sake say i had a AMD64
> processor etc, will it run normal 32bit XP with no problems with new
> drivers etc?, and say at a later date put windows xp 64 on it when maybe
> the drivers are widley available, or should i go straight to xp 64?
>
> Ive read a lot of articles on the pros and cons of the 64 but still not
> sure what to do, we will us the pc in a business enviroment, so only a
> handfull of programmes are used, namley AutoCad LT 2004, MIcrosoft Office
> 2003, Adobe PDF reader,and a few other programmes.
>
> Also im worried about drivers for printers connected & networked, im
> finding it hard to find a list of all the drivers which are available
> which will enable the hardware & software we use to work with XP 64, and
> the manufacturers websites dont give much away!!
>
> Any suggestions help etc will be much apreciated
>
> Steve
Steve
Ive been searching for drivers, two of the printers have 'workaround'
drivers, so these printers wont be a problem, im awaiting a reply from epson
for my stylus color 980 (they have drivers for the 900 but dont state the
980!)
The other printer i have to search for drivers for is a brother HL1260e
laser printer which quite old (about 5years )will be used via a network,
which is my other concern! ive posted a question in the network section
weather or not ill get problems using a wired network (through router) to the
other pc which is running win xp 32bit & of course using the laser printer.
I think once i can sort these minor difficulties ill go for the full 64 bit
system, as i think its the only way to go unless like you say i have major
software/hardware driver difficulties which i dont think i have.
Thanks for the advice, much apreciated
Steve
SupremeLaw
I think you have to answer that question for yourself
primarily, and allow the industry to go its own way.
For example, one real benefit is the ability to address
much larger amounts of RAM: but, if one is entirely
satisfied with 1GB of DDR400/PC3200, for example, there
is no real benefit to Win64.
As a former systems programmer, I can tell you that
the problems that arise from switching from 32- to 64-bit
logic are not trivial, and the bugs that result can be very
difficult to find.
I remember one parallel incident, when we were programming
a multi-key database system: a software library routine was not
correctly documented, and the CALL we were making to it
passed back an address for a vector that was too large
for calling program. Since we had trashed memory
at the upper end of that vector, we trashed the program
at run-time, BUT that bug was very difficult to diagnose.
Thus, if a 64-bit integer over-writes two 32-bit addresses,
the upper 32 bits are effectively "trashed", as far as
as the two consecutive 32-bit addresses are concerned.
write this:
0101010101010101010101010101010111111111111111111111111111111111
on top of this:
01010101010101010101010101010101
This kind of thing can happy very easily during
SUBROUTINE calls, and parameter passing.
The reverse can be equally problematic:
write this:
00000000000000000000000000000101
on top of this:
0000000000000000000000000000010100000000000000000000000000000000
5 (or 4 + 1, in binary) just got RATHER HUGE!! :)
I would like to see Microsoft engineer a single
version of XP/Pro, which works on both
32- and 64-bit CPUs. Since 32-bit machine code
will run on 64-bit CPUs, the obvious challenge is to get
a 64-bit version of XP/Pro to run on 32-bit machines
(do NOT forget the ENORMOUS INSTALLED BASE
of existing 32-bit hardware!)
However, correct me if I am wrong about this,
but the latter is not a current objective of
Microsoft Corporation.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Webmaster, Supreme Law Library
Tony Sperling
you get one, you would certainly want a 64bit OS, I cannot think of anyone
who would put 32bit XP on that, and be totally satisfied, even considering
that the chip is still brilliant. This chip begs for a supporting OS!
There have been almost total confusion in the press about this. Ask ten
people; read ten reports, and you sit with 12 disagreeing views at the very
least. A lot of knowledgeable people will bring forward the issues that are
most important to them, like memory - and say, that if this is not a 'big
one' for you, you might as well wait. I do not agree, even though they are
correct within the framework of their own computer related universe. That is
pure logic - if you must run terrabytes of memory, it is certainly nice to
have an OS that can handle it, it might even appear as the 'most important'
issue.
Quite as brilliant as the chip, is the OS. This is the beauty of it all -
they are such a handsom couple! Everything is visibly better, unless it
won't install or run at all. Those are the rules of the game.
Flightsimulator, as an example - I have set every option at a 100% and it
sports FPS at a rate of 45 inside clouds, over airports and cities with
detailed scenery. I mean, I am no FS freak, and I am no FPS freak either,
but just to see this, makes it worth it. I have 1gig of RAM installed, if I
stumble on a box full of money, I might get another, but I will not need it
and that side of the OS's capabilities I can totally ignore. But having seen
this, I could not have another computer without this - or something even
better. As I said, everything else is pretty much the same, save that which
will not do anything at all. I bet you can live with that, as I can. It's a
shame, but I can wait. Vista will be out before my devotion crumbles!
As a bonus, you have not built or bought your system yet, if I understand
you correctly. This, gives you the opportunity to tailor you system to the
hardware that is supported, in stead of the opposit, which makes it
difficult for so many, hence some of the warnings, I assume. I'd say, "Go
ahead!", but tread carefully.
Tony. . .
"Steve" <St...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:76736FCC-10A3-4F91...@microsoft.com...
Default User
programs and peripherals you plan to use, no one can say with any certainty
that you should buy the machine with XP Pro x64. You will need to review
manufacturers' websites and this newsgroup for that. Some multiboot XP and
XP64 in order to continue to access peripherals and programs not compatible
with XP64. I maintain two different computers. Keep in mind that you will
need to buy XP64 with the computer whether or not you are going to use it
now because XP64 is not available in retail outlets. There is no boxed
edition, only an OEM edition meant to be sold with new computers.
For a good list of drivers for XP64 and a lot of other compatibility info, I
suggest http://www.planetamd64.com/
R. C. White
When I needed a new mobo in July 2004, I bought a 64-bit EPoX 8KDA3+ with
AMD Athlon 64 3200+ CPU, even though 64-bit Windows was not yet available
for it. I ran 32-bit WinXP Pro on it then - and still do - that's what I'm
using right now. When WinXP x64 became available in June 2005, I installed
it to dual-boot. Then when Windows Vista Beta 1 became available, I added
both the 32-bit and 64-bit versions and I'm now quad-booting. Except for
the normal bugs in Beta and a couple of other gotchas in WinXP x64, I've
been very happy with my decision to choose 64-bit hardware. If I were to
need a new mobo today, the decision would be even more clear-cut: 64-bit
all the way! ;<)
Watch out for one little terminology nit. It's NOT XP64. That name was
used a couple of years ago when Microsoft wrote the first 64-bit Windows to
run on Intel's Itanium CPU. I never tried that version, so I can't say much
about it, although I have seen it discussed in the Windows XP Professional
Resource Kit and other places. When this new 64-bit version was written for
the AMD 64 chips, Microsoft dubbed it the x64 version. Yeah, I know XP64
sounds more natural, and in time that may become the common nickname, but
for now, you'll be inviting confusion with the Itanium version (which has
now been discontinued) if you use that moniker.
To distinguish x64 from the 32-bit version of WinXP, MS started calling the
older version "x86", referring to the long line of Intel chips, from the
8086 to 80486 (before they switched to Pentium, rather than 80586). Another
thing to watch out for is that WinXP x64 creates both a "\Program Files"
folder AND a "\Program Files (x86)" folder. The idea is that the new (x86)
folder will hold the old 32-bit programs during the transitional period
until we have all 64-bit versions of the programs.
ALL my 32-bit programs work fine in WinXP x64. The only program I lost was
my 1991-vintage WordPerfect Office Library Calendar, which is a 16-bit
MS-DOS program; it runs in x86's "DOS" window, but not in x64's. I miss it
a lot, but I guess it's time to move on. Office 2003, Adobe Reader,
Quicken, and a long list of other programs work as well or better in x64
than in WinXP x86. A few drivers are still not ready. My HP OfficeJet G55
works fine for my needs, including scanning, but it took HP two years to
produce the full-featured drivers for Win2K for it, so I don't expect them
anytime soon (if ever) for x64 or Vista. I watch TV on my computer in WinXP
x86; ATI has produced graphics drivers that work fine in x64 and Vista, but
their MMC (Multimedia Center) program does not yet work for TV for me in
those systems. (Other users report mixed success.) Microsoft has not yet
produced x64 drivers for some of their own branded hardware, including my
new Microsoft mouse; it works, but without some of the Intellimouse
features. And one of the most annoying problems is that the spell checker
does not work in Outlook Express 6, even with Microsoft Office installed.
All in all, it's a mixed bag, but there are enough plusses that I wouldn't
voluntarily go back to 32-bit.
RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
r...@corridor.net
Microsoft Windows MVP
SupremeLaw
I really do agree with the comments about the
superiority of the Athlon 64, even though I have
never owned or even operated one. If you trace
the history of its development, I am told that
it was conceived and engineered by the former gurus
who persuaded Microsoft to develop NT and NTFS.
And, those same personnel trace their experience
back to Digital Equipment's famous VAX 11/780
super minicomputer. That was SOME hardware
and an AMAZING operating system too (VMS, as I recall).
Embedding the memory controller on the CPU chip
also helps exploit low-latency RAM products,
like those now being offered by Corsair, OCZ,
Crucial, Kingston & such. Tom's Hardware reports
that low-latency DDR memory does not make
that much of a difference on Intel's CPU's,
because the Northbridge intervenes. We confirmed
this after we built a Prescott 3.2 GHz machine
with Corsair XMS DDR400 running 2-2-2-5.
GET THIS:
Our Corsair DDR400 "Value RAM" is just a hair slower
on another machine which runs a 2.8 GHz HT P4
with default SPD settings. Go figure!
MUST BE THE ON-CHIP MEMORY CONTROLLER!!
To save me having to look it up, can anyone answer
this question quickly?
I recall that Windows XP came with a program which
one could run on a Windows 98 system, to determine
which Win98 software & hardware would still work under XP,
and which ones would not. What was that program called,
please?
Is there a comparable program for the 64-bit version
of Windows XP/Pro?
It occurs to me that a LOT of questions could be
handled QUICKLY, if Microsoft would create a database
of drivers that currently support 64-bit mode:
Then, the plug-and-play subsystem could quickly determine
if any given peripheral device will operate with the driver
that is bundled with Windows x64.
THIS IS A PURR-FECT APPLICATION FOR PLUG-AND-PLAY,
EXTENDED LOGICALLY TO THE 64-BIT WORLD, WHICH HAS ARRIVED!!
To give a very current example, which came up this week,
if one is using a Promise PCI/RAID controller, this program could
check its database and tell you if a driver is bundled with
Windows x64 for that particular device. I wouldn't mind
one bit if the program required Internet access, in order
to confirm the VERY LATEST driver database records.
If such a program already exists, would someone please
point me to it, to save me the time required to search for it?
If you will recall, one could run this program under Windows 95 or 98,
without making ANY changes whatsoever: it was merely a
diagnostic which produced a detailed report of its findings,
with excellent recommendations.
WAY COOL, THAT!!
Many thanks, in advance.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Webmaster, Supreme Law Library
beanjammin
"Steve" wrote:
> Any suggestions help etc will be much apreciated
As others have suggested "it depends" is probably the best answer.
If you already have a 32bit Windows OS license then sure, go ahead and get
XP x64 and install it to dual boot with your existing 32bit Windows so that
you'll still have access any hardware that doesn't have 32bit drivers (and
there's plenty that doesn't).
If you want/need to be in 64bit all the time then chose your hardware
carefully to make sure there are 64bit drivers. Don't hold your breath
waiting for older hardware to have 64bit drivers created as most
manufacturers will only provider drivers for newer hardware that is still
being sold.
SupremeLaw
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/helpandsupport/compat/default.mspx
Here's what my original Windows XP Home Edition documentation
said about it:
[begin excerpt]
Will all of my software and hardware work on Windows XP?
You can check the compatibility of your hardware and software
before you install it:
* Click Start > Help and Support > Find compatible hardware and
software for Windows XP (under "Pick a task").
* Click Start > Help and Support and type "Program Compatibility Wizard"
in the Search box.
* Visit the Microsoft Compatibility Web site at:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/upgrade/compatible/
[end excerpt]
That's THE solution, imho: MS should update this Wizard and
make it a FREE DOWNLOAD at the Microsoft website,
for anyone who wants to begin planning their transition
to Windows x64.
Hey, folks! What are computers for? (What's a META for?? :)
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Webmaster, Supreme Law Library
mikijuq
required, things in the tech world are driven by advancement. Advance.
Consider your position and total cost of ownership for your enterprise. For
you timimg will be everything but if you must make a purchase now go for it.
do the dual boot to preserve your present structure migrate when you can at
the most efficent time, while you continue to learn and hardware & drivers
are produced / updated. Hardware my not be your only issue choose your OS for
the quickest and most reliable advances for your requirements. I am on
windows XP Pro 64bit and got the BSOD 3 times in the first three days (gee I
missed them) but here i am a week later
giving advise. I thought Win xp pro (x86) was going to make me a passive user!
I was watching a web cast on the WINFS that blew me away, what stuck in my
mind was one of the guys said " if i do my job right, when my three year old
son is a teenager he should not even be aware that winfs is there and thats
the way we are aproaching this...." That restored my faith in whats to come
so I got a dell precision 380 3.4ghz HT 64bit with an intel 955 chipset 1gig
ecc ram ATI fireGL v3100 video sound on mobo broadcom gigabit nic. Wal-mart
speaker set LG flatron L1751s monitor. But... now theres no printer, webcam,
scanner, fax,and Age of Empires 2 just will not function without DirectDraw
no longer utilized in 64bit ....but hey I've had AoE 3 on pre order for 6
weeks now the future is already brighter as the demo plays like toooo sweet
and this unit is now as solid as bed rock!! Have fun with your new 64bit unit
!!
The first sign of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and
expecting different results
rbd
It is important that you not only look for 64-bit drivers for your printers,
scanners, and other hardware devices - but also be sure that you can obtain
64-bit versions of "software" printers, such as the software used to
"print-to" .pdf files and .max (PaperPort) files.
While I can't prove it, it seems that a couple of my WINXP Pro X64
configurations exhibited intermitttent shutdown problems after the failed
installation of a couple of 32-bit drivers for .pdf and .max printing.
Also, some of the Epson photo printer drivers built into WINXP Pro X64 may
not be full-featured and don't appear to support all the paper options that
the 32-bit Epson OEM drivers support.
Unless you really need to run a 64-bit app it is probably not worth the
effort to run WINXP Pro X64 at this time.
rb
Some
"Steve" <St...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:76736FCC-10A3-4F91...@microsoft.com...
John Barnes
available on their site. This is one of the reasons that I don't switch to
x64 full time, since I do a lot of purchasing, paying and receiving bills
online, and it is so convenient with Paperport and such a hassle without it.
Hopefully when there are 'real' users of 64-bit systems and not just those
few in the business and early adopters, there will at least be an effort to
supply 64-bit compatible software. So far, for me, when I receive a reply
it is 'too few users to warrant the effort involved'
"rbd" <rb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23B%23Wi9F1...@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Steve
beginning of an acceptance speech!!)
Its been excellent information from everybody who posted, I think now my
mind is made up to go with the x64 o/s with dual boot as reccomended by most
of you, ive worked out all the drivers i need are compatible with only a
couple with 'workaround' drivers but i dont think this will ba a problem for
me.
Well, i thank you all so much for the invaluable information, and hope
someone else makes the decision from reading this post
Regards
Steve
DeniseNY
bit CPU and while everything will install fine the computer will not finish
the load into windows and instead just reboots. Here is my specs:
Gigabyte GA-K8U
AMD Sempron 64 2600
512mb RAM (PC2100 - yes it is supported by the board and did swap with 512mb
pc 3200)
nVidia GeForce 5700
I'm using 2 older Maxtor IDE HDs (both are ultra) for now with the intention
of getting a SATA drive for the O/S later on.
I was able to install both WinXP and Win2000. The problem occurs after the
install is complete. The computer goes to load Windows. When the loading
process is complete, it should boot into windows. Instead, the computer
reboots. On Win2000, there is a momentary flash of a blue screen but
dissappears as the computer reboots. So I have not had a chance to read what
it says. I've tried everything. Swapping hard drives, swapping video cards
(tried a Radeon 9600), swapping memory (512mb PC 3200). Same problems. I'm
hoping I can find someone with a similar problem so I can confirm that what I
need is a 64 bit O/S.
Charlie Russel - MVP
to NOT automatically reboot on failure, and then continue booting. This will
leave the blue screen up so you can read the error code and report it back
here and we can point you at the solution. (Start a new thread, please!)
--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
eejit
In addition to the obvious driver issues, you may run into other problems
with Win XP x64.
For instance - the antivirus software that came with my motherboard wouldn't
install on Win XP x64. Free AVG antivirus was also a no-go. The copy of Nero
that came with the DVD+/-RW also would not install on Win XP x64. "WinFlash"
(used to update the BIOS) wouldn't start. nVidia's nTune system optimizer
actually wrote incompatible settings to the BIOS under Win XP x64.
In general, standard "office" applications work well but anything else may
have trouble.
I've been dual booting my system between 32 and 64-bit Win XP for a while
and can feel the speed difference. However, I'm not sure if that's more to do
with the larger registry and the increased number of drivers that the 32-bit
version loads at start-up.
Jamie
I'm not sure we're finding it worth it. Just got a new Acer notebook with
Win XP Pro 64 on it.
It won't connect to the printers on our XP Pro (32 bit) / Win 2000 network -
the workarounds provided by the manufacturers don't work over the network
(need direct connection).
We also use USB--->Serial adaptors extensively - and there appear to be no
drivers available.
Also recently tried to install Win XP 64 on a desktop - worked after we
found (much searching in planetamd64 - great place) a 64 bit SATA driver.
Abandoned the attempt when we could find NO driver for the wireless network
card - so re-installed Windows XP Pro.
My main question about Windows XP Pro 64 is, if (as appears to be the case
on Microsofts web site) Microsoft KNEW that there would be considerable
driver problems they didn't design the system to use / convert etc. the
32-bit drivers?
I feel this operating system release is premature - it's throwing us back to
the dark ages of hunting around for drivers, abandoning most of our hardware,
a lot of our software etc.
I know that if I was just using the system with the provided software it'd
be fine. But at present it's like having a powerful car and someone's
forgotten to build the roads.
So, come on Microsoft - a driver conversion utility would be just great!
st...@pottsnet.ca
New MB, processor, video card
Gigabyte GA-K8U MB
BIOS updated to F6 (july 2005)
Sempron 64bit 2800+
512meg pc2100
chaintech video card (Volari v3)
WD 60gig HD
I cannot boot from hardrrive. It wants to boot from floppy or CD. I
have been able to install WinXP Home (it's just for the kids) and the
setup completed to the point where I can add new users etc. It was
installed onto fresh formatted drive.
Upon restart it will
1 - test memmory
2 - Detecting IDE Drives, takes a while but recognizes my HD and CDRW
3 - Does a second Detecting IDE Drives. This seems strange. also takes
a while (30secs)
4 - then it will list all of the internal info and PCI device listing
5 - Then it asks to boot from CD/DVD.
It takes about 80 seconds from reset key to get to the end of step 5.
Boot sequence is Floppy, Harrdrive, then CD
Power switch works, LEDs all work, reset switch works. Extra 4-pin plug
from power supply is plugged in.
The only way to get the system to run is to have the XP CD in during
boot
Any help please
Steve
Thomas Steffen
> I've been dual booting my system between 32 and 64-bit Win XP for a while
> and can feel the speed difference. However, I'm not sure if that's more to do
> with the larger registry and the increased number of drivers that the 32-bit
> version loads at start-up.
Any time I install a clean system, I am amazed how fast it is :-). So
there is a lot to support the later theory. That being said, on my (very
rare) pure amd64 Linux system, I also see a noticeable speed increase.
It must be close to 20%. But this is a first generation Athlon64 939,
and I think on most other CPUs the difference is less pronounces. I
heard that with an Intel CPU you gain nothing from going 64bit (unless
you have 8GB of memory, of course :-)).
So from my perspective, the answer is a clear no. I stay with amd64
Linux because I am an enthusiast, and I want to see how gcc works. On
the Windows side I am back to 32bit, though. From a desktop user's point
of view, 64bit is not ready yet (IMHO).
Thomas
R. C. White
It seems to me you don't have a Windows problem, 64-bit or otherwise. And
it is not at all similar to the problem DeniseNY reported. You have a
motherboard/BIOS problem, which we can't deal with in this newsgroup.
> 2 - Detecting IDE Drives, takes a while but recognizes my HD and CDRW
> 3 - Does a second Detecting IDE Drives. This seems strange. also takes
> a while (30secs)
The list of things you are seeing all take place when the computer starts
and long before it even gets to the point of trying to load Windows - or any
other operating system. Either you have your hardware configured wrong, or
your BIOS settings are wrong - or you have some defective hardware.
You would probably have better luck asking the Gigabyte gurus in the Usenet
newsgroup alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.gigabyte.
> The only way to get the system to run is to have the XP CD in during
> boot
Well, you may have problems on your hard drive's System Partition, too, but
you should deal with the hardware configuration questions first, then come
back here if you still need our help.
RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
r...@grandecom.net
Microsoft Windows MVP
<st...@pottsnet.ca> wrote in message
news:1130423861.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
John Barnes
boot files on the system drive. If xp is working, go into disk management
and find what your system drive is and make sure you have the ntdetect.com,
ntldr and boot.ini files on it. If not, find them where they were installed
(hidden, so include in search) and copy them to the system drive. Then you
can go on to finding out the problems as RC suggested.
<st...@pottsnet.ca> wrote in message
news:1130423861.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...