OT: Pouring Napalm on the 64-bit Vista Discussion

Brian Livingston's well-regarded Windows Secrets newsletter has some discussion
about the issues with 64-bit Vista.

http://WindowsSecrets.com/comp/081009

.... Ben Myers

On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 11:16:39 -0400, Ben Myers
<> wrote:

>Brian Livingston's well-regarded Windows Secrets newsletter has some discussion
>about the issues with 64-bit Vista.
>
> http://WindowsSecrets.com/comp/081009
>
>... Ben Myers
Running Vista 64 on a XPS420
Q9300 Quad Core,6 Gig ram HD3870 X2 Video
No real issues, only major gripe is no 64 flash

Hardest part of the 64 bit upgrade was getting the disk from Dell

Vista was released too soon and installed on less then optimum
hardware for the initial release
On proper hardware post SP1 it really works quite well

John

As counterpoint to my original posting, the paper edition of the NY Times had an
article about things to do to get Vista to run better.

Here is the URL:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/te...se&oref=slogin

Seems to be worth keeping for anybody who encounters the beast in the future.

.... Ben Myers

On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 11:16:39 -0400, Ben Myers
<> wrote:

>Brian Livingston's well-regarded Windows Secrets newsletter has some discussion
>about the issues with 64-bit Vista.
>
> http://WindowsSecrets.com/comp/081009
>
>... Ben Myers

RnR wrote:

> If I recall either this article or another, it wasn't that it didn't
> work well but rather a lack of software for the 64 bit OS. Do you
> find this to be true or not ? I don't see a lot but I do see some
> which might be adequate, dunno ??

The first MAJOR piece of 64 bit software will be shipping very
shortly--Photoshop CS4. I'm seriously looking forward to getting my
hands on that.

As far as that article goes, all I can say is that I've been running
Vista Ultimate 64 for almost a year now. I've had no problem getting
drivers for any of my hardware except an eight year old scanner that I
had no issue replacing for about $80.00.

I run the CS3 versions Photoshop, InDesign, Illustrator, Acrobat,
Dreamweaver as well as Office 2007 all at the same time. The system is
rock solid and screaming fast.

All of the above are 32 bit applications. Would I try to run anything
older than that? No, that would certainly be tempting fate. But I would
be more worried about Vista compatibility than 64 bit compatibility.

While I don't doubt many of the complaints I've read about I do doubt
some of them. I know quite a few people running Vista 64 and none of
them have any issues. Quite the opposite, they're very pleased with it.

That said, it does require the proper hardware. I'm running a Q6600
processor with eight gigs or RAM, a TB RAID(0) with an additional 320
gig drive for Photoshop scratch.

Just my $0.02 worth.

Bob

Ben Myers wrote:
> As counterpoint to my original posting, the paper edition of the NY Times had an
> article about things to do to get Vista to run better.
>
> Here is the URL:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/te...se&oref=slogin
>
> Seems to be worth keeping for anybody who encounters the beast in the future.

With all the diddling one has to do to improve Vista, seems as though it
would be easier to stick with XP and think of it as "Vista Light".

Is XP still readily available in retail channels?

I can still get OEM XPs from my distributor at the usual high price, a few bucks
below the old street price for retail XP. But, for all practical purposes, XP
has dried up in the retail channel. Exceptions are that you can still get XP on
a Dell if you work really hard, and Lenovo ships laptops with XP. I'll bet that
if you were to buy an HP BUSINESS computer, you could get it with XP, but the HP
junk, er, consumer, computers sold in big box stores are all Vista... Ben Myers

On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 10:05:36 -0400, Tony Harding
<> wrote:

>Ben Myers wrote:
>> As counterpoint to my original posting, the paper edition of the NY Times had an
>> article about things to do to get Vista to run better.
>>
>> Here is the URL:
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/te...se&oref=slogin
>>
>> Seems to be worth keeping for anybody who encounters the beast in the future.
>
>With all the diddling one has to do to improve Vista, seems as though it
>would be easier to stick with XP and think of it as "Vista Light".
>
>Is XP still readily available in retail channels?

In summary, a satisfactory 64-bit Vista experience (Micro$oft buzzword!)
requires expen$ive hardware, and possible updating of software, too... Ben Myers

On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 08:13:55 -0400, Bob Levine <> wrote:

>RnR wrote:
>
>> If I recall either this article or another, it wasn't that it didn't
>> work well but rather a lack of software for the 64 bit OS. Do you
>> find this to be true or not ? I don't see a lot but I do see some
>> which might be adequate, dunno ??
>
>The first MAJOR piece of 64 bit software will be shipping very
>shortly--Photoshop CS4. I'm seriously looking forward to getting my
>hands on that.
>
>As far as that article goes, all I can say is that I've been running
>Vista Ultimate 64 for almost a year now. I've had no problem getting
>drivers for any of my hardware except an eight year old scanner that I
>had no issue replacing for about $80.00.
>
>I run the CS3 versions Photoshop, InDesign, Illustrator, Acrobat,
>Dreamweaver as well as Office 2007 all at the same time. The system is
>rock solid and screaming fast.
>
>All of the above are 32 bit applications. Would I try to run anything
>older than that? No, that would certainly be tempting fate. But I would
>be more worried about Vista compatibility than 64 bit compatibility.
>
>While I don't doubt many of the complaints I've read about I do doubt
>some of them. I know quite a few people running Vista 64 and none of
>them have any issues. Quite the opposite, they're very pleased with it.
>
>That said, it does require the proper hardware. I'm running a Q6600
>processor with eight gigs or RAM, a TB RAID(0) with an additional 320
>gig drive for Photoshop scratch.
>
>Just my $0.02 worth.
>
>Bob
>
>
>
>
>

Ben Myers wrote:
> In summary, a satisfactory 64-bit Vista experience (Micro$oft buzzword!)
> requires expen$ive hardware, and possible updating of software, too... Ben Myers
>

You'll get no argument from me. Of course, you'll need to define expensive.

Bob

RnR wrote:

> My laptop and pc are both using 2gig ram with capacity of 4gig each.
> I know more ram is better but wonder how Vista64 will behave with just
> 4gigs ram, if you know?

I loaded it on my Dimension 9100. Pentium D with 3 gigs and it runs
okay. Not screaming fast but pretty good.

Keep in mind that I use that machine for beta testing and so there's no
final release software on there.

Bob

Let's start with you telling us how much you spent.

Are we talking I build it or I buy it?

Let me guess you paid somewhat north of $1500, which is expensive by the
standards of most people and expensive in a sinking economy... Ben Myers

On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:37:31 -0400, Bob Levine <> wrote:

>Ben Myers wrote:
>> In summary, a satisfactory 64-bit Vista experience (Micro$oft buzzword!)
>> requires expen$ive hardware, and possible updating of software, too... Ben Myers
>>
>
>You'll get no argument from me. Of course, you'll need to define expensive.
>
>Bob