Vista - Vista "Wow"

Wow what??

Here's a good start--
http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/Win...y/default.mspx opens
with "The hunt for drivers" Why does this need to be a hunt?? x64 has been
out for over a year, and MS can't even support OneCare. I have no active
outgoing firewall and only 2 antivirus programs even work with Vista 64
without major issues. Further, MS fails to warn users that "Vista
Compatable" programs will most likely not work on x64 computers if the
software requires hardware interface. MS has failed miserably with x64
processing, and previously made claims that Vista and MS Office would work
under the future x64. The latter is still unfulfilled in late Q1 of 2007 of
a release origianally due for Q3 of 2006. The result is a bucnch of x64
processors with limited capability due to the claims of MS. I figure by the
time MS releases enough code for me to get the 3 security basic programs;
firewall, antivirus, and anti-spyware, that my current processor will be
out-dated as it's already one year old.

64 bit. It's for servers. So I think you'll find that server apps will be
written for it. And hardware for servers are more likely to have drivers.

Your program is for programmers and others to have a 64 bit environment so
they can write and test server stuff. The same way the Pro had some server
options built in to allow testing of server apps.

It's not for general use. Nor is it for game players. It's for large
companies. And 64 bit is hardly suitable for home use (nearly everything in
it is twice the size, so needs twice as much memory, twice as much hard
disk, twice as long to transfer binary files, and most data it deals with
will be 8 bit, 16 bit, and 32 bit negating the advantage of 64 bits). Should
be great for maths and programs based on maths if written for 64 bit.

Also as regard to the future, it is not a given thing that 64 bit will ever
be a desktop PC. The near future there is a fair chance multicore 32 bit
will rule. Maybe the next desktop jump will be from 32 bit multicore to 128
bit multicore. There are also really wierd things that may make the future
completely different.
"Steve" <Steve@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5611E4AD-445A-4617-90AD-E48F64E9286F@microsoft.com...
> Wow what??
>
> Here's a good start--
> http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/Win...y/default.mspx
> opens
> with "The hunt for drivers" Why does this need to be a hunt?? x64 has
> been
> out for over a year, and MS can't even support OneCare. I have no active
> outgoing firewall and only 2 antivirus programs even work with Vista 64
> without major issues. Further, MS fails to warn users that "Vista
> Compatable" programs will most likely not work on x64 computers if the
> software requires hardware interface. MS has failed miserably with x64
> processing, and previously made claims that Vista and MS Office would work
> under the future x64. The latter is still unfulfilled in late Q1 of 2007
> of
> a release origianally due for Q3 of 2006. The result is a bucnch of x64
> processors with limited capability due to the claims of MS. I figure by
> the
> time MS releases enough code for me to get the 3 security basic programs;
> firewall, antivirus, and anti-spyware, that my current processor will be
> out-dated as it's already one year old.

<.> wrote in message news:uA0KDCEdHHA.1508@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> 64 bit. It's for servers. So I think you'll find that server apps will be
> written for it. And hardware for servers are more likely to have drivers.
>
> Your program is for programmers and others to have a 64 bit environment so
> they can write and test server stuff. The same way the Pro had some server
> options built in to allow testing of server apps.
>
> It's not for general use. Nor is it for game players. It's for large
> companies. And 64 bit is hardly suitable for home use (nearly everything
in
> it is twice the size, so needs twice as much memory, twice as much hard
> disk, twice as long to transfer binary files, and most data it deals with
> will be 8 bit, 16 bit, and 32 bit negating the advantage of 64 bits).
Should
> be great for maths and programs based on maths if written for 64 bit.
>
> Also as regard to the future, it is not a given thing that 64 bit will
ever
> be a desktop PC. The near future there is a fair chance multicore 32 bit
> will rule. Maybe the next desktop jump will be from 32 bit multicore to
128
> bit multicore. There are also really wierd things that may make the future
> completely different.


<snip>

What are you talking about?...I built an XP_64 bit machine for my girlfriend
well over a year ago now.
She uses it for PhotoshopCS2 . The machine dual boots XP_32 and XP_64 and
for Photoshop at least...
the performance is better using the 64bit OS! Though not all devices
have 64 bit drivers...all of the hardware we have
is supported just fine and I'd say that XP_64 is one great working operating
system.

Vista on the other hand would not cut it. I did a few Vista test
installations and found that the 32bit version...
had (slightly) poor driver support and certainly no performance improvement
over XP . I'd expect the 64 bit version of
Vista to be an equal disappointment.

My suggestion would be to use XP either 32 bit or 64 bit depending on the
hardware...
and have another look at Vista next year to see how it's going

I did say maths based applications - that would inclide photoshop.
"philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:%23Bcmo0EdHHA.4720@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
> <.> wrote in message news:uA0KDCEdHHA.1508@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> 64 bit. It's for servers. So I think you'll find that server apps will be
>> written for it. And hardware for servers are more likely to have drivers.
>>
>> Your program is for programmers and others to have a 64 bit environment
>> so
>> they can write and test server stuff. The same way the Pro had some
>> server
>> options built in to allow testing of server apps.
>>
>> It's not for general use. Nor is it for game players. It's for large
>> companies. And 64 bit is hardly suitable for home use (nearly everything
> in
>> it is twice the size, so needs twice as much memory, twice as much hard
>> disk, twice as long to transfer binary files, and most data it deals with
>> will be 8 bit, 16 bit, and 32 bit negating the advantage of 64 bits).
> Should
>> be great for maths and programs based on maths if written for 64 bit.
>>
>> Also as regard to the future, it is not a given thing that 64 bit will
> ever
>> be a desktop PC. The near future there is a fair chance multicore 32 bit
>> will rule. Maybe the next desktop jump will be from 32 bit multicore to
> 128
>> bit multicore. There are also really wierd things that may make the
>> future
>> completely different.
>
>
> <snip>
>
> What are you talking about?...I built an XP_64 bit machine for my
> girlfriend
> well over a year ago now.
> She uses it for PhotoshopCS2 . The machine dual boots XP_32 and XP_64 and
> for Photoshop at least...
> the performance is better using the 64bit OS! Though not all devices
> have 64 bit drivers...all of the hardware we have
> is supported just fine and I'd say that XP_64 is one great working
> operating
> system.
>
> Vista on the other hand would not cut it. I did a few Vista test
> installations and found that the 32bit version...
> had (slightly) poor driver support and certainly no performance
> improvement
> over XP . I'd expect the 64 bit version of
> Vista to be an equal disappointment.
>
> My suggestion would be to use XP either 32 bit or 64 bit depending on the
> hardware...
> and have another look at Vista next year to see how it's going
>
>

<.> wrote in message news:%23IOEtBFdHHA.4656@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> I did say maths based applications - that would inclide photoshop.
> "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message



<snip>

and there are plenty of home users who use Photoshop.
I always figured that if you buy a 64bit mobo...why not use a 64bit OS as
well?

But the issue is in the buying. It is not efficient.
"philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:Ojn%239yGdHHA.4004@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
> <.> wrote in message news:%23IOEtBFdHHA.4656@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> I did say maths based applications - that would inclide photoshop.
>> "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message
>
>
>
> <snip>
>
> and there are plenty of home users who use Photoshop.
> I always figured that if you buy a 64bit mobo...why not use a 64bit OS as
> well?
>
>

<.> wrote in message news:%23ATOC5GdHHA.4888@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> But the issue is in the buying. It is not efficient.



<snip>


I though MS should have concentrated on XP_64 and not even bothered with
Vista...

Had XP_64 be the new OS...maybe throw in a few enhancements...

OTOH: Bill Gates seems to be making a little more money on his job than I am
on mine.

When I was a kid...I started out at $1.10 an hour...

heck I must make two or three times that much today <G>

As I said in an earlier post, I think they should have restricted Vista to
64-bit (with a few compatibility enhancements for XP (later).

"philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:u5xtH$GdHHA.5044@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
> <.> wrote in message news:%23ATOC5GdHHA.4888@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> But the issue is in the buying. It is not efficient.
>
>
>
> <snip>
>
>
> I though MS should have concentrated on XP_64 and not even bothered with
> Vista...
>
> Had XP_64 be the new OS...maybe throw in a few enhancements...
>
> OTOH: Bill Gates seems to be making a little more money on his job than I
> am
> on mine.
>
> When I was a kid...I started out at $1.10 an hour...
>
> heck I must make two or three times that much today <G>
>
>

There is no self evident arguement for that. So you do need to state
reasons.
"cvp" <goawayspammers@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:%23UIQdMHdHHA.4468@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> As I said in an earlier post, I think they should have restricted Vista to
> 64-bit (with a few compatibility enhancements for XP (later).
>
> "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:u5xtH$GdHHA.5044@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>
>> <.> wrote in message news:%23ATOC5GdHHA.4888@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>> But the issue is in the buying. It is not efficient.
>>
>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>> I though MS should have concentrated on XP_64 and not even bothered with
>> Vista...
>>
>> Had XP_64 be the new OS...maybe throw in a few enhancements...
>>
>> OTOH: Bill Gates seems to be making a little more money on his job than I
>> am
>> on mine.
>>
>> When I was a kid...I started out at $1.10 an hour...
>>
>> heck I must make two or three times that much today <G>
>>
>>
>

I believe the mindset is, force people to 64bit computing, even if there is
no real advantage, to help promote 64bit computing along.

I actually think the current approach is correct. There isn't a real need
for 64bit computing for 90% of home users and my *prediction* is that it
will be 4+ more years, before we need 4GB of ram in home users system and it
will be 8+ years, before we really need 8GB. I think some are trying to
apply Moore's law to memory "needed" and it doesn't work.

My prediction is 64bit computing will be more common place around 2010, if
Microsoft's release schedule holds, the people who switch over to Vienna,
will be opting for a pure 64bit environment. 64bit computing is a
enthusiasts' OS, not an everyday man's OS and most hardware and software
companies realize this.


<.> wrote in message news:uHOo96HdHHA.3408@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> There is no self evident arguement for that. So you do need to state
> reasons.


> "cvp" <goawayspammers@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:%23UIQdMHdHHA.4468@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> As I said in an earlier post, I think they should have restricted Vista
>> to 64-bit (with a few compatibility enhancements for XP (later).
>>
>> "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message
>> news:u5xtH$GdHHA.5044@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>> <.> wrote in message news:%23ATOC5GdHHA.4888@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>> But the issue is in the buying. It is not efficient.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>
>>> I though MS should have concentrated on XP_64 and not even bothered with
>>> Vista...
>>>
>>> Had XP_64 be the new OS...maybe throw in a few enhancements...
>>>
>>> OTOH: Bill Gates seems to be making a little more money on his job than
>>> I am
>>> on mine.
>>>
>>> When I was a kid...I started out at $1.10 an hour...
>>>
>>> heck I must make two or three times that much today <G>
>>>
>>>
>>
>