Vista - Re: Question for those running 64bit Vista ...

Bret Butcher wrote:
> I took the plunge and moved to the 64 bit version of vista.
> I've found drivers for all of my hardware but am running into
> errors while installing some other programs like 3dmark, pcmark
> etc. I even get the error when trying to install the MS office
> 2007 compatibility pack for the word/excell viewers. The pgms
> are trying to install the C++ 2005 redist (x86) which bombs out.
> I tried installing the redist for (x64/x86) but I'm getting errors
> on these as well? Anyway figure this out? Thanks in advance!

One thing I noticed while working with my install was that the
PROCESSOR_ARCHITECTURE variable is set to "amd64". I believe this
should be "x64" on an Intel Chip. Here's my specs:

Intel QX6700 Quad Core proc
Asus P5N32-E mainboard
4GB Crucial memory
2x MSI Geforce 8800's in SLI

This one's got me stumped ...

"Bret Butcher" <bretbb@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:OceNbirtHHA.1672@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>> I took the plunge and moved to the 64 bit version of vista.
>> I've found drivers for all of my hardware but am running into
>> errors while installing some other programs like 3dmark, pcmark
>> etc. I even get the error when trying to install the MS office
>> 2007 compatibility pack for the word/excell viewers. The pgms
>> are trying to install the C++ 2005 redist (x86) which bombs out.
>> I tried installing the redist for (x64/x86) but I'm getting errors
>> on these as well? Anyway figure this out? Thanks in advance!

I have installed Office 2007, 3DMark06 and PCMark05 and I didn't get any
errors like you describe. What errors are you getting exactly when you try
to install C++ 2005?

> One thing I noticed while working with my install was that the
> PROCESSOR_ARCHITECTURE variable is set to "amd64". I believe this
> should be "x64" on an Intel Chip. Here's my specs:

No, AMD64 is correct. AMD64 was originally used to only refer to AMD's
64-bit x86 architecture (because they got in before Intel) but has taken on
a more general context of 64-bit x86. Intel call it EMT64.

> Intel QX6700 Quad Core proc
> Asus P5N32-E mainboard
> 4GB Crucial memory
> 2x MSI Geforce 8800's in SLI

That's a pretty awesome machine. I am looking at getting a QX6700 too -
what sort of performance are you getting out of it? How does it run in
terms of heat?

--
And loving it,

-Q
_________________________________________________
Qu0llSixFour@gmail.com
(Replace the "SixFour" with numbers to email me)

I have a similar system except only one video card
(quad QX6700, 4Gb memory, 750Gb HD, 8800GTX, XiFi fatality champion, 24"
Dell widescreen, 64 bit Vista Ultimate)
64 bit drivers have been no problem at all (but then perhaps thats expected
as all the hardware is new) and with your setup it looks like a similar
story.

As far as programs are concerned I have had very few problems.
3DMark06 installed and ran OK (yes it did install C++ redist, but no problem
here)
However 3DMark03, and 05, wouldn't install at all (after that I don't think
I even tried to install PCMark04)
Office 2007, Money 2005, Autoroute 2007, Encarta 2007, Photoshop CS3 all no
problem.
(except that Adobe auto updates bomb out with a memory error, but manual
download and install is OK)
Java 1.6 win 32 installs and works quite happily with 32 bit IE (of course
Java, Flash, norton, etc don't work in IE64 by default)
On the subject of Flash (and Shockwave). They were a nightmare to install
but I did eventually get them working.
(if you need to know how its a new thread in itself)
Norton 360 works quite nicely. (Unlike 2007which hogs resources, the vista
compatible 360 is much leaner and meaner. It really does behave as it
should in the background. I hardly notice its there)
I have a few specialised programs that can genuinely use all 4 cores flat
out and they work fine (both from a software point of view, and I don't get
any overheating problems even though there is no special cooling)
The only games I have at the moment are Oblivion and Half Life 2 (episode
1).
No problem installing either.
Half Life 2 even loads at least part of itself as the 64 bit version.
The only problem with Oblivion is to load in the order Oblivion, Knights of
the Nine (etc) but NOT the 1.x patch (which has a problem with vista),
Shivering Isles (which then updates to the 1.2 patch which is vista
compatible) and then the final latest 1.2xx patch from Elder Scrolls
website.
I run both at 1920 x 1200 with all settings maxed out (and ini file altered
to up them even more)
With this setup they run fine and look absolutely gorgeous. No problems at
all.
DirectX 10 demos !
NVidias Cascades works fine. Technically its a good test of whether your
system is up to it but don't expect to be wowed.
Lost Planet is a better overall experience.
First, it installed fine but wouldn't run due to missing file.
After a bit of searching I found the solution.
Go to the Microsoft Directx 10 website and click on update.
You will be directed to upgrade to the June 07 update of directx 9 !!
Don't ask me !? Just do it and everything will be OK.
I ran Lost Planet directx 10 demo (performance test) at 1920 x 1200 at 4xAA
and 16xAF with High settings except for HDR (medium) and possibly shadows at
medium too (I can't remember now).
Snow 30fps and Cave 40fps. leaving everything else the same but reducing
resolution to 1280 x 800 (for widescreen aspect) makes these 50fps and 60fps
respectively (which is much more playable)
I have no doubt that the drivers have loads of room for improvement yet so
these numbers can only get better.
But thats with a 8800GTX and fast quad processor which is pretty much top of
the pile at the moment.
So it shows that most first generation Directx 10 hardware will struggle
badly unless settings are turned down (but then should we expect anything
else?)
Obviously not everything worked first time without a little tweaking , but I
can honestly say its no more than you would expect and overall was a
reasonably pleasant experience.
I appreciate that not everyone has been so lucky, but I have installed a
broad range of fairly demanding applications and had few problems so it is
possible.


Phypps



"Qu0ll" <Qu0llSixFour@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eP88f3rtHHA.5072@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> "Bret Butcher" <bretbb@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:OceNbirtHHA.1672@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
>>> I took the plunge and moved to the 64 bit version of vista.
>>> I've found drivers for all of my hardware but am running into
>>> errors while installing some other programs like 3dmark, pcmark
>>> etc. I even get the error when trying to install the MS office
>>> 2007 compatibility pack for the word/excell viewers. The pgms
>>> are trying to install the C++ 2005 redist (x86) which bombs out.
>>> I tried installing the redist for (x64/x86) but I'm getting errors
>>> on these as well? Anyway figure this out? Thanks in advance!
>
> I have installed Office 2007, 3DMark06 and PCMark05 and I didn't get any
> errors like you describe. What errors are you getting exactly when you
> try to install C++ 2005?
>
>> One thing I noticed while working with my install was that the
>> PROCESSOR_ARCHITECTURE variable is set to "amd64". I believe this
>> should be "x64" on an Intel Chip. Here's my specs:
>
> No, AMD64 is correct. AMD64 was originally used to only refer to AMD's
> 64-bit x86 architecture (because they got in before Intel) but has taken
> on a more general context of 64-bit x86. Intel call it EMT64.
>
>> Intel QX6700 Quad Core proc
>> Asus P5N32-E mainboard
>> 4GB Crucial memory
>> 2x MSI Geforce 8800's in SLI
>
> That's a pretty awesome machine. I am looking at getting a QX6700 too -
> what sort of performance are you getting out of it? How does it run in
> terms of heat?
>
> --
> And loving it,
>
> -Q
> _________________________________________________
> Qu0llSixFour@gmail.com
> (Replace the "SixFour" with numbers to email me)

Qu0ll wrote:
> "Bret Butcher" <bretbb@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:OceNbirtHHA.1672@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
>>> I took the plunge and moved to the 64 bit version of vista.
>>> I've found drivers for all of my hardware but am running into
>>> errors while installing some other programs like 3dmark, pcmark
>>> etc. I even get the error when trying to install the MS office
>>> 2007 compatibility pack for the word/excell viewers. The pgms
>>> are trying to install the C++ 2005 redist (x86) which bombs out.
>>> I tried installing the redist for (x64/x86) but I'm getting errors
>>> on these as well? Anyway figure this out? Thanks in advance!
>
> I have installed Office 2007, 3DMark06 and PCMark05 and I didn't get any
> errors like you describe. What errors are you getting exactly when you
> try to install C++ 2005?
>
>> One thing I noticed while working with my install was that the
>> PROCESSOR_ARCHITECTURE variable is set to "amd64". I believe this
>> should be "x64" on an Intel Chip. Here's my specs:
>
> No, AMD64 is correct. AMD64 was originally used to only refer to AMD's
> 64-bit x86 architecture (because they got in before Intel) but has taken
> on a more general context of 64-bit x86. Intel call it EMT64.
>
>> Intel QX6700 Quad Core proc
>> Asus P5N32-E mainboard
>> 4GB Crucial memory
>> 2x MSI Geforce 8800's in SLI
>
> That's a pretty awesome machine. I am looking at getting a QX6700 too -
> what sort of performance are you getting out of it? How does it run in
> terms of heat?
>
Let me take a look at my benchmarks. I was running a dual core AMD with
the 8800's and saved the 3dmarks etc. But off the top of my head the
scores are definately a lot higher on the new rig. Gaming is smooth
as silk and the extra cores really help in doing development with
multiple applications/db servers etc. For now I went back to my old
32bit image. I'm going to let the drivers flush out for a bit. Getting
the soundblaster static on 64bit (Nvidia sata drivers are the cause
I believe. I'll dig up my benchmarks

"phypps" <nobody@nospam.com> wrote in
news42dnb0o25GILeLbRVnyvgA@bt.com:


> I ran Lost Planet directx 10 demo (performance test) at 1920 x 1200 at
> 4xAA and 16xAF with High settings except for HDR (medium) and possibly
> shadows at medium too (I can't remember now).
> Snow 30fps and Cave 40fps. leaving everything else the same but
> reducing resolution to 1280 x 800 (for widescreen aspect) makes these
> 50fps and 60fps respectively (which is much more playable)
> I have no doubt that the drivers have loads of room for improvement
> yet so these numbers can only get better.

When I was playing with the Lost Planet demo, I discovered that the
biggest overall impact on performance was anti-aliasing. Disabling it
added about 50% to both scores. Surprisingly, playing with things like
HDR and shadow settings had very little effect, unlike with most other
games. (i've also got vista64 with a 8800GTX, 4gb, and E6700 duel core;
1600x1200 lcd.)

> So it shows that most first generation Directx 10 hardware will
> struggle badly unless settings are turned down (but then should we
> expect anything else?)

Well, sadly, the capcom developers have said that the only viewable
difference in the DX10 version of the game is a super-high Shadows
setting which just softens the edges. The intent of the DX10 version of
the game is to get the supposed performance advantage that DX10 is
supposed to have over DX9. They're hoping for about a %10-20%
performance improvement in the DX10 version over the DX9 version.
Ironically, the demo pretty much showed the opposite - DX10 was about 10-
20% *slower* than the DX9 version. Hopefully, buy the time the game is
released, either the game's developers will have been able to optimize
more, and/or nVidia's drivers will be better.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...emo_directx_10
_performance/