X64 is worth the effort.

Yes! X64 is worth the effort. Many thanks to "planetamd64.com", Andre,
Augie, Barb, Carlos, Charlie, Christian, Darryl, John, Mike and too many
others to name. I started with the CPP version that had the Windows 2000
look with very few drivers available. At that time it was a daily search for
drivers with very little support from manufacturers, except Nvidia, using
the excuse that the operating system wasn't a released version, now that x64
is released the excuse is that they're waiting for Vista to be released. I
have 2 desktops and 2 laptops that are using Windows XP Professional x64
Edition exclusively, all are currently dual boot with x86 but the only time
x86 is opened is to verify that everything is updated. The operating system
is very stable. The best advice is from Charlie to research first and
determine if x64 is for you. For me the only time x64 is an advantage is for
video capture and editing. Like John I have a few old programs that don't
work but when I want to use them I boot into x86. I use an USR 5610B modem
for faxing documents, Epson CX3800 works for printing and scanning,
Retrospect 7 works for backup or disk images, Leadtek TV2000 XP expert works
for TV and video capture, ShowShifter for watching TV (unless Media Encoder
9 64-bit is installed), Zenet ZEW1601 wireless LAN (Ralink chipset) works,
both laptops have Broadcom wireless that work.

Andre
Sat Jan 21 11:03:22 CST 2006

You are welcome Dennis, you have some valuable info in your post here that
could be used for recommendation. Glad x64 is running well for you, if you
really want it on your system, the thorough research is needed, and you have
proven that here. I suggest that users who have a 64-bit enabled processor,
just take the time to make an inventory of their hardware, software and do a
thorough research on driver, application compatibility and availablity or
similar hardware with support on Windows x64. The resources are also here to
get you started with many individuals participating in the 64 bit ngs on a
daily basis, great sites like http://msmvp.com/blogs/xperts,
http://www.extended64.com, http://www.planetamd64.com and the x64 Trouble
Shoot Center and many others popping up daily, you are never alone. :)
--
--
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
"Dennis Pack" <dennispack@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uW906aqHGHA.2896@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Yes! X64 is worth the effort. Many thanks to "planetamd64.com", Andre,
> Augie, Barb, Carlos, Charlie, Christian, Darryl, John, Mike and too many
> others to name. I started with the CPP version that had the Windows 2000
> look with very few drivers available. At that time it was a daily search
> for drivers with very little support from manufacturers, except Nvidia,
> using the excuse that the operating system wasn't a released version, now
> that x64 is released the excuse is that they're waiting for Vista to be
> released. I have 2 desktops and 2 laptops that are using Windows XP
> Professional x64 Edition exclusively, all are currently dual boot with x86
> but the only time x86 is opened is to verify that everything is updated.
> The operating system is very stable. The best advice is from Charlie to
> research first and determine if x64 is for you. For me the only time x64
> is an advantage is for video capture and editing. Like John I have a few
> old programs that don't work but when I want to use them I boot into x86.
> I use an USR 5610B modem for faxing documents, Epson CX3800 works for
> printing and scanning, Retrospect 7 works for backup or disk images,
> Leadtek TV2000 XP expert works for TV and video capture, ShowShifter for
> watching TV (unless Media Encoder 9 64-bit is installed), Zenet ZEW1601
> wireless LAN (Ralink chipset) works, both laptops have Broadcom wireless
> that work.
>
>

Charlie
Sat Jan 21 12:12:27 CST 2006

For those last, lingering programs that want 32-bit Windows, how about using
Virtual Server or VMWare? That way, you can get at them when you need to,
and not actually have to reboot. Much easier. The only thing I keep the x86
around for at this point is to flash the BIOS or repartition the HD - stuff
like that where we're still waiting on 64 bit solutions. (ASUS has resolved
the BIOS burning issue just fine, theirs works from x64. But haven't seen a
BIOS burner for my Acer Ferrari, yet, that's x64.)

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

Dennis Pack wrote:
> Yes! X64 is worth the effort. Many thanks to "planetamd64.com", Andre,
> Augie, Barb, Carlos, Charlie, Christian, Darryl, John, Mike and too many
> others to name. I started with the CPP version that had the Windows 2000
> look with very few drivers available. At that time it was a daily search
> for drivers with very little support from manufacturers, except Nvidia,
> using the excuse that the operating system wasn't a released version, now
> that x64 is released the excuse is that they're waiting for Vista to be
> released. I have 2 desktops and 2 laptops that are using Windows XP
> Professional x64 Edition exclusively, all are currently dual boot with
> x86 but the only time x86 is opened is to verify that everything is
> updated. The operating system is very stable. The best advice is from
> Charlie to research first and determine if x64 is for you. For me the
> only time x64 is an advantage is for video capture and editing. Like John
> I have a few old programs that don't work but when I want to use them I
> boot into x86. I use an USR 5610B modem for faxing documents, Epson
> CX3800 works for printing and scanning, Retrospect 7 works for backup or
> disk images, Leadtek TV2000 XP expert works for TV and video capture,
> ShowShifter for watching TV (unless Media Encoder 9 64-bit is installed),
> Zenet ZEW1601 wireless LAN (Ralink chipset) works, both laptops have
> Broadcom wireless that work.

Thomas
Sat Jan 21 14:17:32 CST 2006

Charlie Russel - MVP wrote:
> For those last, lingering programs that want 32-bit Windows, how about using
> Virtual Server or VMWare? That way, you can get at them when you need to,
> and not actually have to reboot. Much easier.

Absolutely. I never understand why people dual boot. I usually have
several applications open at the same time, some of them for days. Dual
booting just completely trashes my workflow. VMware on the other hand
boots faster than a real PC, and I can keep it in the background.

The problem is of course that this approach is rather pricy. You have to
spend another 130 on Windows 32bit, and a significant amount on VMware,
too. I think Microsoft could really do something on this front, like
including a free, legitimate VMplayer image of Windows 32bit with every
copy of x64. Apple did the same with Mac OS X: Mac OS 9 (classic) was
included in the bundle (but not in the upgrade).

This plus a driver certification program is what it takes for widespread
adoption, I think.

Thomas

Dennis
Sat Jan 21 14:29:40 CST 2006

Andre and Charlie:

Thank you for the positive replies. When I started with X64 I
knew that the challenge would be greater than when I gave up on Windows 2000
and went to Windows XP Professional and still had driver issues at first.
This time taking the challenge really paid off. Learning server and virtual
machines is on my agenda later this year. Running my old programs on a
virtual machine is the correct route, but I've found newer programs that do
the same thing, most times better and faster, so the older programs are
being used less and less.


"Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in message
news:%23JwsbZrHGHA.1132@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> For those last, lingering programs that want 32-bit Windows, how about
> using Virtual Server or VMWare? That way, you can get at them when you
> need to, and not actually have to reboot. Much easier. The only thing I
> keep the x86 around for at this point is to flash the BIOS or repartition
> the HD - stuff like that where we're still waiting on 64 bit solutions.
> (ASUS has resolved the BIOS burning issue just fine, theirs works from
> x64. But haven't seen a BIOS burner for my Acer Ferrari, yet, that's x64.)
>
> --
> Charlie.
> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>
> Dennis Pack wrote:
>> Yes! X64 is worth the effort. Many thanks to "planetamd64.com", Andre,
>> Augie, Barb, Carlos, Charlie, Christian, Darryl, John, Mike and too many
>> others to name. I started with the CPP version that had the Windows 2000
>> look with very few drivers available. At that time it was a daily search
>> for drivers with very little support from manufacturers, except Nvidia,
>> using the excuse that the operating system wasn't a released version, now
>> that x64 is released the excuse is that they're waiting for Vista to be
>> released. I have 2 desktops and 2 laptops that are using Windows XP
>> Professional x64 Edition exclusively, all are currently dual boot with
>> x86 but the only time x86 is opened is to verify that everything is
>> updated. The operating system is very stable. The best advice is from
>> Charlie to research first and determine if x64 is for you. For me the
>> only time x64 is an advantage is for video capture and editing. Like John
>> I have a few old programs that don't work but when I want to use them I
>> boot into x86. I use an USR 5610B modem for faxing documents, Epson
>> CX3800 works for printing and scanning, Retrospect 7 works for backup or
>> disk images, Leadtek TV2000 XP expert works for TV and video capture,
>> ShowShifter for watching TV (unless Media Encoder 9 64-bit is installed),
>> Zenet ZEW1601 wireless LAN (Ralink chipset) works, both laptops have
>> Broadcom wireless that work.
>
>

Andre
Sat Jan 21 16:09:43 CST 2006

Including a Virtual Copy of XP x86 with XP x64 would be an unwanted
additional cost, which means the user would have to pay extra for the
license. Like Charlie suggest, VM Ware or Virtual Server or good dual boot
will do just fine.
--
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

"Thomas Steffen" <steffen.list.account@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:OL8y3esHGHA.3056@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Charlie Russel - MVP wrote:
>> For those last, lingering programs that want 32-bit Windows, how about
>> using Virtual Server or VMWare? That way, you can get at them when you
>> need to, and not actually have to reboot. Much easier.
>
> Absolutely. I never understand why people dual boot. I usually have
> several applications open at the same time, some of them for days. Dual
> booting just completely trashes my workflow. VMware on the other hand
> boots faster than a real PC, and I can keep it in the background.
>
> The problem is of course that this approach is rather pricy. You have to
> spend another 130 on Windows 32bit, and a significant amount on VMware,
> too. I think Microsoft could really do something on this front, like
> including a free, legitimate VMplayer image of Windows 32bit with every
> copy of x64. Apple did the same with Mac OS X: Mac OS 9 (classic) was
> included in the bundle (but not in the upgrade).
>
> This plus a driver certification program is what it takes for widespread
> adoption, I think.
>
> Thomas

joeberle
Sun Jan 22 08:36:02 CST 2006



"Dennis Pack" wrote:

> Yes! X64 is worth the effort. Many thanks to "planetamd64.com", Andre,
> Augie, Barb, Carlos, Charlie, Christian, Darryl, John, Mike and too many
> others to name. I started with the CPP version that had the Windows 2000
> look with very few drivers available. At that time it was a daily search for
> drivers with very little support from manufacturers, except Nvidia, using
> the excuse that the operating system wasn't a released version, now that x64
> is released the excuse is that they're waiting for Vista to be released. I
> have 2 desktops and 2 laptops that are using Windows XP Professional x64
> Edition exclusively, all are currently dual boot with x86 but the only time
> x86 is opened is to verify that everything is updated. The operating system
> is very stable. The best advice is from Charlie to research first and
> determine if x64 is for you. For me the only time x64 is an advantage is for
> video capture and editing. Like John I have a few old programs that don't
> work but when I want to use them I boot into x86. I use an USR 5610B modem
> for faxing documents, Epson CX3800 works for printing and scanning,
> Retrospect 7 works for backup or disk images, Leadtek TV2000 XP expert works
> for TV and video capture, ShowShifter for watching TV (unless Media Encoder
> 9 64-bit is installed), Zenet ZEW1601 wireless LAN (Ralink chipset) works,
> both laptops have Broadcom wireless that work.
>
>
> NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO - just listen to the above comments; for some reason it is reasonable to have to boot to differnet operating systems to have to check on things or to run other programs. If x64 was any good, you would no longer need x86. Do not let these geeks convince you that it is no big deal. They spend ALL of their time on the computer. Unless you do too, then do not get this OS! You cannot use any attached equipment older than what is currently marketed by other companies. That means, No Palm, No Printer, No Scanner, NO Webcam. Do Not Let Charlie Russel or any of these people mimimize the problems that people are having. Just loook at the PlanetAMD site under x64 and driver-issues and you will get an idea. No consumer should be suckered into becoming a computer technician.

JackM
Sun Jan 22 08:39:02 CST 2006

Outstanding series of posts, and my thanks to all of you that have made x64 a
great learning experience. By the way, WinXp on a VM on my 64 bit computer
is very much faster than a normal installation 'ouside' the VM.

"Dennis Pack" wrote:

> Andre and Charlie:
>
> Thank you for the positive replies. When I started with X64 I
> knew that the challenge would be greater than when I gave up on Windows 2000
> and went to Windows XP Professional and still had driver issues at first.
> This time taking the challenge really paid off. Learning server and virtual
> machines is on my agenda later this year. Running my old programs on a
> virtual machine is the correct route, but I've found newer programs that do
> the same thing, most times better and faster, so the older programs are
> being used less and less.
>
>
> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in message
> news:%23JwsbZrHGHA.1132@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > For those last, lingering programs that want 32-bit Windows, how about
> > using Virtual Server or VMWare? That way, you can get at them when you
> > need to, and not actually have to reboot. Much easier. The only thing I
> > keep the x86 around for at this point is to flash the BIOS or repartition
> > the HD - stuff like that where we're still waiting on 64 bit solutions.
> > (ASUS has resolved the BIOS burning issue just fine, theirs works from
> > x64. But haven't seen a BIOS burner for my Acer Ferrari, yet, that's x64.)
> >
> > --
> > Charlie.
> > http://msmvps.com/xperts64
> >
> > Dennis Pack wrote:
> >> Yes! X64 is worth the effort. Many thanks to "planetamd64.com", Andre,
> >> Augie, Barb, Carlos, Charlie, Christian, Darryl, John, Mike and too many
> >> others to name. I started with the CPP version that had the Windows 2000
> >> look with very few drivers available. At that time it was a daily search
> >> for drivers with very little support from manufacturers, except Nvidia,
> >> using the excuse that the operating system wasn't a released version, now
> >> that x64 is released the excuse is that they're waiting for Vista to be
> >> released. I have 2 desktops and 2 laptops that are using Windows XP
> >> Professional x64 Edition exclusively, all are currently dual boot with
> >> x86 but the only time x86 is opened is to verify that everything is
> >> updated. The operating system is very stable. The best advice is from
> >> Charlie to research first and determine if x64 is for you. For me the
> >> only time x64 is an advantage is for video capture and editing. Like John
> >> I have a few old programs that don't work but when I want to use them I
> >> boot into x86. I use an USR 5610B modem for faxing documents, Epson
> >> CX3800 works for printing and scanning, Retrospect 7 works for backup or
> >> disk images, Leadtek TV2000 XP expert works for TV and video capture,
> >> ShowShifter for watching TV (unless Media Encoder 9 64-bit is installed),
> >> Zenet ZEW1601 wireless LAN (Ralink chipset) works, both laptops have
> >> Broadcom wireless that work.
> >
> >
>
>
>

Dennis
Sun Jan 22 10:48:21 CST 2006

Joeberle:

I see that you're having a great time with a new toy called cut
and paste. It's very obvious that either you haven't tried X64 or researched
the issue beyond not having everything needed on the installation CD. X64
isn't for everybody, most people could be still using a 286 or early Pentium
to handle most tasks that they're performing. When the 286 came to market a
selling point was that the 580MB hard drive could handle all data ever
needed. Going from Windows 3.1 to Windows 95 required new hardware and
programs. Going from Windows 98 or ME to Windows 2000 or XP required new
hardware or drivers. Even today using Windows XP home or professional your
hardware requires specific drivers to operate, that's why you must use an
installation CD to get the hardware to function. As stated many times by
many people that have a lot more knowledge on the subject than I have X64
isn't for everybody, research is necessary. For me it's been a challenge and
a great experience. Using your analysis of this operating system most people
should be driving Model A vehicles instead of the vehicles available today.





"joeberle" <joeberle@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0EC9472C-5CA9-4ED4-BF32-A791A88EE541@microsoft.com...
>
>
> "Dennis Pack" wrote:
>
>> Yes! X64 is worth the effort. Many thanks to "planetamd64.com", Andre,
>> Augie, Barb, Carlos, Charlie, Christian, Darryl, John, Mike and too many
>> others to name. I started with the CPP version that had the Windows 2000
>> look with very few drivers available. At that time it was a daily search
>> for
>> drivers with very little support from manufacturers, except Nvidia, using
>> the excuse that the operating system wasn't a released version, now that
>> x64
>> is released the excuse is that they're waiting for Vista to be released.
>> I
>> have 2 desktops and 2 laptops that are using Windows XP Professional x64
>> Edition exclusively, all are currently dual boot with x86 but the only
>> time
>> x86 is opened is to verify that everything is updated. The operating
>> system
>> is very stable. The best advice is from Charlie to research first and
>> determine if x64 is for you. For me the only time x64 is an advantage is
>> for
>> video capture and editing. Like John I have a few old programs that don't
>> work but when I want to use them I boot into x86. I use an USR 5610B
>> modem
>> for faxing documents, Epson CX3800 works for printing and scanning,
>> Retrospect 7 works for backup or disk images, Leadtek TV2000 XP expert
>> works
>> for TV and video capture, ShowShifter for watching TV (unless Media
>> Encoder
>> 9 64-bit is installed), Zenet ZEW1601 wireless LAN (Ralink chipset)
>> works,
>> both laptops have Broadcom wireless that work.
>>
>>
>> NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO - just listen to the
>> above comments; for some reason it is reasonable to have to boot to
>> differnet operating systems to have to check on things or to run other
>> programs. If x64 was any good, you would no longer need x86. Do not let
>> these geeks convince you that it is no big deal. They spend ALL of their
>> time on the computer. Unless you do too, then do not get this OS! You
>> cannot use any attached equipment older than what is currently marketed
>> by other companies. That means, No Palm, No Printer, No Scanner, NO
>> Webcam. Do Not Let Charlie Russel or any of these people mimimize the
>> problems that people are having. Just loook at the PlanetAMD site under
>> x64 and driver-issues and you will get an idea. No consumer should be
>> suckered into becoming a computer technician.

Charlie
Sun Jan 22 11:01:58 CST 2006

I have never minimized the problems, nor would I wish to. x64 is NOT for
everyone, as I've said from day 1. Clearly not for you.

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

joeberle wrote:
> "Dennis Pack" wrote:
>
>> Yes! X64 is worth the effort. Many thanks to "planetamd64.com", Andre,
>> Augie, Barb, Carlos, Charlie, Christian, Darryl, John, Mike and too many
>> others to name. I started with the CPP version that had the Windows 2000
>> look with very few drivers available. At that time it was a daily search
>> for
>> drivers with very little support from manufacturers, except Nvidia, using
>> the excuse that the operating system wasn't a released version, now that
>> x64
>> is released the excuse is that they're waiting for Vista to be released.
>> I
>> have 2 desktops and 2 laptops that are using Windows XP Professional x64
>> Edition exclusively, all are currently dual boot with x86 but the only
>> time
>> x86 is opened is to verify that everything is updated. The operating
>> system
>> is very stable. The best advice is from Charlie to research first and
>> determine if x64 is for you. For me the only time x64 is an advantage is
>> for
>> video capture and editing. Like John I have a few old programs that don't
>> work but when I want to use them I boot into x86. I use an USR 5610B
>> modem
>> for faxing documents, Epson CX3800 works for printing and scanning,
>> Retrospect 7 works for backup or disk images, Leadtek TV2000 XP expert
>> works
>> for TV and video capture, ShowShifter for watching TV (unless Media
>> Encoder 9 64-bit is installed), Zenet ZEW1601 wireless LAN (Ralink
>> chipset) works,
>> both laptops have Broadcom wireless that work.
>>
>>
>> NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO - just listen to the
>> above comments; for some reason it is reasonable to have to boot to
>> differnet operating systems to have to check on things or to run other
>> programs. If x64 was any good, you would no longer need x86. Do not
>> let these geeks convince you that it is no big deal. They spend ALL of
>> their time on the computer. Unless you do too, then do not get this OS!
>> You cannot use any attached equipment older than what is currently
>> marketed by other companies. That means, No Palm, No Printer, No
>> Scanner, NO Webcam. Do Not Let Charlie Russel or any of these people
>> mimimize the problems that people are having. Just loook at the
>> PlanetAMD site under x64 and driver-issues and you will get an idea. No
>> consumer should be suckered into becoming a computer technician.

John
Sun Jan 22 11:19:24 CST 2006

Clearly not for him, but no reason to slam it, as you have clearly pointed
out, it is highly advantageous for some, and will be increasingly so as more
64-bit programs are written for applications that benefit from the
advantages 64-bit processing provides.


"Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in message
news:OcSLuW3HGHA.516@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>I have never minimized the problems, nor would I wish to. x64 is NOT for
>everyone, as I've said from day 1. Clearly not for you.
>
> --
> Charlie.
> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>
> joeberle wrote:
>> "Dennis Pack" wrote:
>>
>>> Yes! X64 is worth the effort. Many thanks to "planetamd64.com", Andre,
>>> Augie, Barb, Carlos, Charlie, Christian, Darryl, John, Mike and too many
>>> others to name. I started with the CPP version that had the Windows 2000
>>> look with very few drivers available. At that time it was a daily search
>>> for
>>> drivers with very little support from manufacturers, except Nvidia,
>>> using
>>> the excuse that the operating system wasn't a released version, now that
>>> x64
>>> is released the excuse is that they're waiting for Vista to be released.
>>> I
>>> have 2 desktops and 2 laptops that are using Windows XP Professional x64
>>> Edition exclusively, all are currently dual boot with x86 but the only
>>> time
>>> x86 is opened is to verify that everything is updated. The operating
>>> system
>>> is very stable. The best advice is from Charlie to research first and
>>> determine if x64 is for you. For me the only time x64 is an advantage is
>>> for
>>> video capture and editing. Like John I have a few old programs that
>>> don't
>>> work but when I want to use them I boot into x86. I use an USR 5610B
>>> modem
>>> for faxing documents, Epson CX3800 works for printing and scanning,
>>> Retrospect 7 works for backup or disk images, Leadtek TV2000 XP expert
>>> works
>>> for TV and video capture, ShowShifter for watching TV (unless Media
>>> Encoder 9 64-bit is installed), Zenet ZEW1601 wireless LAN (Ralink
>>> chipset) works,
>>> both laptops have Broadcom wireless that work.
>>>
>>>
>>> NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO - just listen to the
>>> above comments; for some reason it is reasonable to have to boot to
>>> differnet operating systems to have to check on things or to run other
>>> programs. If x64 was any good, you would no longer need x86. Do not
>>> let these geeks convince you that it is no big deal. They spend ALL of
>>> their time on the computer. Unless you do too, then do not get this OS!
>>> You cannot use any attached equipment older than what is currently
>>> marketed by other companies. That means, No Palm, No Printer, No
>>> Scanner, NO Webcam. Do Not Let Charlie Russel or any of these people
>>> mimimize the problems that people are having. Just loook at the
>>> PlanetAMD site under x64 and driver-issues and you will get an idea. No
>>> consumer should be suckered into becoming a computer technician.
>
>

Andre
Sun Jan 22 12:41:55 CST 2006

Its a technical workstation operating system, what do you expect??? And its
so obvious why Microsoft even launched it at WinHEC 2005, its not a consumer
operating system. Nobody is forcing anybody to use it, if you feel need to
because you just want to be 64-bit enabled from every nuk and cranny, then
you would be considered a enthusiast. If you know about Windows x64 and want
to use it, you will do the appropriate research to ensure that all your
devices and applications are supported or have alternatives supported before
jumping in. You sound like someone who jumped head in, sorry for the
concussion.
--
--
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
"joeberle" <joeberle@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0EC9472C-5CA9-4ED4-BF32-A791A88EE541@microsoft.com...
>
>
> "Dennis Pack" wrote:
>
>> Yes! X64 is worth the effort. Many thanks to "planetamd64.com", Andre,
>> Augie, Barb, Carlos, Charlie, Christian, Darryl, John, Mike and too many
>> others to name. I started with the CPP version that had the Windows 2000
>> look with very few drivers available. At that time it was a daily search
>> for
>> drivers with very little support from manufacturers, except Nvidia, using
>> the excuse that the operating system wasn't a released version, now that
>> x64
>> is released the excuse is that they're waiting for Vista to be released.
>> I
>> have 2 desktops and 2 laptops that are using Windows XP Professional x64
>> Edition exclusively, all are currently dual boot with x86 but the only
>> time
>> x86 is opened is to verify that everything is updated. The operating
>> system
>> is very stable. The best advice is from Charlie to research first and
>> determine if x64 is for you. For me the only time x64 is an advantage is
>> for
>> video capture and editing. Like John I have a few old programs that don't
>> work but when I want to use them I boot into x86. I use an USR 5610B
>> modem
>> for faxing documents, Epson CX3800 works for printing and scanning,
>> Retrospect 7 works for backup or disk images, Leadtek TV2000 XP expert
>> works
>> for TV and video capture, ShowShifter for watching TV (unless Media
>> Encoder
>> 9 64-bit is installed), Zenet ZEW1601 wireless LAN (Ralink chipset)
>> works,
>> both laptops have Broadcom wireless that work.
>>
>>
>> NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO - just listen to the
>> above comments; for some reason it is reasonable to have to boot to
>> differnet operating systems to have to check on things or to run other
>> programs. If x64 was any good, you would no longer need x86. Do not let
>> these geeks convince you that it is no big deal. They spend ALL of their
>> time on the computer. Unless you do too, then do not get this OS! You
>> cannot use any attached equipment older than what is currently marketed
>> by other companies. That means, No Palm, No Printer, No Scanner, NO
>> Webcam. Do Not Let Charlie Russel or any of these people mimimize the
>> problems that people are having. Just loook at the PlanetAMD site under
>> x64 and driver-issues and you will get an idea. No consumer should be
>> suckered into becoming a computer technician.

Jud
Sun Jan 22 18:19:39 CST 2006

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 06:36:02 -0800, "joeberle"
<joeberle@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>Do not let these geeks convince you that it is no big deal.

On ya! Then don't buy it. It's as simple as that.
I am sure that the OP can figure that one out for himself,
after all, why should we trust you, instead of Andre or Charlie?

jud