Simon
Wed Mar 21 23:47:12 CDT 2007
I wouldn't expect it to run so well, but I haven't got much experience with
virtualization. I know that it's not something I'd do. If you had XP and
Vista you'd probably be better off with a dual boot configuration. Then
again, I don't know what you use computers for. Maybe your computer has
amazing specs or maybe your needs aren't the same as mine. I personally
wouldn't run Adobe programs within a virtual system.
--
Simon Berube
http://sberube.net/
"TJD" <TJD@anon.net> wrote in message
news:u53DjlCbHHA.2552@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>I am thinking of using Vista Ultimate 64-bit for my main system and then
>using Microsoft's Virtual PC 2007 (or VMWare Workstation 6) to run Windows
>XP Pro. Would this allow me the best of both worlds?
>
> "Simon Berube" <sbberube@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:4601a608$0$16747$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>> I'm also upset for the same reasons you are. I ordered the 64 bit
>> edition, received it, installed it, and reverted to Vista32.
>> Incompatibilities are too much to deal with. Even worse, the stance that
>> companies are taking with Vista is upsetting, especially concerning x64
>> packages. I'm a graphic design student, and I hardly have the time and
>> patience to deal with Vista's problems, and to make it work as well as an
>> XP machine.
>>
>> It seems to me that Adobe, like other software publishers, aren't very
>> concerned about their customers wants and demands. Adobe and Microsoft
>> both get to sit there and blame their problems on each other so that they
>> have to take less steps to working out incompatibilities. Even the
>> smaller problems are annoying to me. I was willing to look beyond the
>> fact that the Aero glass feature doesn't bode too well with resource
>> stringent software, and I so I disabled it along with several other
>> features that decrease performance. The thing is, it still isn't as
>> smooth as XP. I'm not lacking experience when it comes to computers and
>> software. My computer's built to handle high-end gaming as well. It's
>> no low-end system. I even upgraded memory to 4gb and a 4gb Ready Boost
>> stick!
>>
>> Even though I'm upset that 32-bit is the way to go now, simply because
>> they aren't pushing it, I still have to say that I prefer my custom PC
>> with Vista than my school's (IADT, Orlando) Intel iMacs. Strangely
>> enough, those Macs and the CS2 suite have issues as bad as simple
>> pathfinding actions consistently causing an "illegal operation." I don't
>> mean to change the path of this conversation, nor do I claim that those
>> iMacs are built with stability in design in mind, but I do want to point
>> that fact out.
>>
>> Hopefully they'll realize pretty soon how important it is to us for them
>> to sort out their bugs, and to push themselves to make 64-bit computing
>> work better. I've been wanting to unlock the true potential of this
>> Athlon X2 processor quite some time now. Sure, it offers better
>> performance in multitasking in 32-bit OSes, but how they really do
>> something with 64-bit. I'd be happy with them if they stopped producing
>> 32-bit as well. Then they'd have reason to fix up their system and be
>> more competitive to OSX.
>>
>> Simon
>>
http://www.sberube.net/
>>
>>
>>
>> "LarryC" <LarryC@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:4E4F2F86-5B7E-461C-A1AA-EF0089431A43@microsoft.com...
>>> I'm really getting sick and tired of software makers ignoring x64
>>> coding. Why
>>> should they make them? They have no reason at all to. As long as
>>> Microsoft
>>> keeps putting out Vista x86, which supports cheap machines, there is no
>>> reason for them to venture into x64 computing. Makes me want to jump on
>>> the
>>> MAC bandwagon or pull my hair out. Such a waste for all these great new
>>> processors and still computing in the 90's.
>>>
>>> I just wish Microsoft would do something to promote the development of
>>> x64.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Larry
>>
>
>