Windows 64-bit is awful.

Discussion in 'Windows 64 Bit' started by Disgusted, Feb 13, 2006.

  1. Disgusted

    BSchnur Guest

    You mean, like Windows XP Professional x64 ??

    No, XP 64 was more of a proof of concept offering -- and after a while
    it seemed to have been rejected by major OEM's as an option.

    I'm talking about a scenario where the only option provided is 64 bit.
    No 32 bit offering of the OS (or one not made available in the
    developed world -- sort of like the very entry level Vista SKU -- not
    available in the US).
     
    BSchnur, Feb 3, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. Disgusted

    John Barnes Guest

    Until they have a large % of their users on 64-bit, I seriously doubt they
    would risk doing that. Then again it may be their 'jump the shark' moment.
    They seem to be moving the other way if anything. Many of their recent
    utilities won't run on 64-bit and they sure are moving away from Vista logo
    being 64-bit compatible.
     
    John Barnes, Feb 3, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. Disgusted

    DP Guest

    Barry, I was trying to be sarcastic, but I guess I failed. It just seems to
    me that MS has already been down the 64-bit-only mode and that was with x64.
    Since it isn't REALLY part of the XP product line, it seemed to me to
    qualify as an OS that comes in 64-bit versions only.
     
    DP, Feb 3, 2007
  4. Disgusted

    BSchnur Guest

    Well, if it had been me writing the message, I would have KNOWN it was
    sarcastic <smile>.

    The only part of the 'XP 64' product that got any traction (or frankly
    any real value) was the Server 2003 64 bit iteration. Since it
    supported >4G of RAM and since Microsoft Server products often would
    love the extra memory to work with, that offering made some real sense.
     
    BSchnur, Feb 3, 2007
  5. Disgusted

    Theo Guest

    Your probably in the ballpark! Win 95 to Win XP was about
    6-1/2 years, so Vista to a 64-bit only OS should probably
    occur sometime in the 2nd half of 2013 or 1st half of 2014.
     
    Theo, Feb 3, 2007
  6. Disgusted

    BSchnur Guest

    Your probably in the ballpark! Win 95 to Win XP was about
    The thing is, the hardware for this is pretty much 'normal' today.
     
    BSchnur, Feb 3, 2007
  7. Disgusted

    bam Guest

    I think Microsoft has a DUTY OF CARE to customers.

    I fell into the same trap of reading the 10 reasons to buy XP64 and, seeing
    no commensurate list of reasons not ot, I bought it. I wish I hadn't, its
    been a nightmare for me.

    Althought the pdf whitepaper is useful, I still don't think this provides
    adequate communication to novices. On the main page, next to the 10 benefits,
    there should be a 10 problems ordinary users may face and what these problems
    mean in practice. As it was when I bought it a year ago and still is, IMO, a
    very misleading site.

    I wouldn't mind so much being told how ignorant and research-deficient I may
    be, but I feel misled. I finally decided to throw in the towel and I
    contacted MS waiving a white flag. I humbly requested a swap of my XP64 for
    XP32 and offered to pay handling & postage and to return my XP64 disk to
    them, and MS flatly refused to do so. Can you believe that?

    I feel frustrated, misled and that Microsoft has shown no duty of care to me.

    The last thing I will do is buy Vista 64.
     
    bam, Feb 3, 2007
  8. Disgusted

    Theo Guest

    Just as it was in 1995. The 80486 had been on the market
    for several years, so the 32-bit CPU was pretty much
    'normal' in 1995. The 80486 processor was released by Intel
     
    Theo, Feb 4, 2007
  9. Disgusted

    John Barnes Guest

    How many consumer applications will benefit from 64-bit? With all the
    things I have open for working, I am not even close to stressed with 2gb
    memory. My 2yr old 3500+ is stressed in Vista64, not on XP X64 or X86
    (which runs even more programs in background, that won't install on X64)
     
    John Barnes, Feb 4, 2007
  10. Disgusted

    BSchnur Guest

    Just as it was in 1995. The 80486 had been on the market
    Right, what is relatively new now is true dual core CPU's (different
    from the hyperthreading marketing version at the end of the Intel 478
    development cycle).

    The two advantages I see in running a 64 bit OS are the extra memory
    handling and the additional capability to cordon off bad boy programs
    from the rest of the system.

    The thing is, most folks simply don't have the need to go that route --
    at least not for now (or for the next year or more I'd suspect), so
    that the current trade offs (driver support, cost of memory, lack of
    programs to take advantage of 64 bit, inability to in place upgrade,
    etc.) tend to make Vista 64 something of a 'leading edge' option. For
    those that have the needs now, it can be the best choice. For those
    who want to dabble in the 64 bit environment on a 'test bed' system,
    Vista 64 is attractive as well. But would I recommend it to my small
    business and home user clients today -- nope. Heck, a lot of those
    users are running Intuit products -- so at the moment from what I've
    seen in the newsgroup, Vista 32 is problematic (not Microsoft's fault).
     
    BSchnur, Feb 4, 2007
  11. Disgusted

    BSchnur Guest

    How many consumer applications will benefit from 64-bit? With all the
    Yeah, I can see that -- heck, this is my office computer and IT is
    running Windows 2K on an AMD XP2700 with 768M of RAM. I'll be swapping
    out with one of my existing bench setup workstations sometime this year
    for sure, but moving all the applications and customizations is
    something that I need to clear some time for (the data isn't a problem,
    its on my server).

    Then again, the data is on an old reliable NW 4.2 server, so Vista is
    not likely to be what I deploy for now (the new Novell Client for Vista
    will NOT support NW 4.x).
     
    BSchnur, Feb 4, 2007
  12. Disgusted

    steve Guest

    You can SO use IE7, you just need to not be a chump and look for the 64bit
    version. :)
     
    steve, Feb 10, 2007
  13. Disgusted, I agree with you 110%.
    As a matter of fact, the previous posters replying with the "read the fine
    prinit before buying" bs, probably work for microsoft. I brought this piece
    of crap OS to run on a Quad Opteron. This crap is worst then having DOS. I
    then brought Vista the crappy OS-X look alike. That piece of crap OS doesn't
    see 75% of the features of my $250 All In Wonder. Won't install or support my
    version of Cakewalk, and a number of other major apps.
    I'm totally disgusted with the poor and near useless quality of these
    products. No corporations are installing either of these products because
    they are so crappy. I don't want to hear about it's new, blah, blah, blah. If
    it's not ready, it should not be released. Especially for more money then the
    previous version and more restrictions.
    Anyone wishing to join me in a well jusified group refund procedure please
    write me at,



    Help send a message
     
    GiveMeBackMyMoney, May 24, 2007
  14. Disgusted

    John Barnes Guest

    Based on your grammar, it is no wonder you are unable to comprehend the
    money-back offer already available from Microsoft. That you didn't research
    the availability of drivers for your hardware is YOUR stupidity, and not the
    fault of the OS. Same with your software. Check to see if it has a Vista
    version, then decide to move to Vista without your software or stay with
    your current system. 64-bit products are niche products, and for now not
    for most.
     
    John Barnes, May 24, 2007
  15. Based on your poor grammar and lack of logic, you must be psychologically
    disadvantged, so I won't bother belittling you for being an idiot. Now, go
    back to your D&D game.
     
    GiveMeBackMyMoney, May 24, 2007
  16. You sure know how to make strangers easily.

     
    Colin Barnhorst, May 24, 2007
  17. Disgusted

    Test Man Guest

    Based on your complete ignorance, you sound like you like blaming your own
    mistakes on someone else. Fact is it's the manufacturer's fault for not
    providing Vista-compatible drivers and software. So if you upgraded without
    doing research, it's simply your fault.
     
    Test Man, May 24, 2007
  18. In all fairness, the upgrade was on Microsoft Updates. I took it in good
    faith too.
     
    Colin Barnhorst, May 24, 2007
  19. Disgusted

    Tom Ferguson Guest

    This would appear to be a reply to a different message than the one
    quoted. {?????}

    Tom
    MSMVP
    Windows Shell/User
     
    Tom Ferguson, May 24, 2007
  20. Disgusted

    Platypus Guest

    Microsoft issues a 64 bit system that is dependent on software drivers from
    other manufacturers who may or may not support the system, and you insist it
    is not Microsoft's fault? It is clearly their fault or they would have
    canvassed the mfg's, insisted on stable drivers then loaded them into the OS.
     
    Platypus, Jun 19, 2007
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.