Windows 64-bit is awful.
in [64 Bits Windows]
|
Prev: missing/lost files in office 2007 (64bit) after saving
Next: Special Rights needed for ODBC access in WIN 7-64?
From: cmd29 on 16 Mar 2010 13:21 im a musician and i have a gateway laptop that is 64bit and came with vista,and i use this pc mainly for music/audio recording,and i ended up downgrading to xp 64 bit,everything works fine,except the audio,i keep getting a choppy sound buffer problems,and alot of times i wont even hear any sound,but i'll see all the volume levels moving,i agree i think theres alot of bugs and glitches in 64 bit "Disgusted" wrote: > So I put together this rocking computer with a 64-bit AMD Athlon, etc. etc, > and I figured I should take advantage of the 64-bit architecture (like is > being pushed on the Microsoft Web Site) but I have to say Windows XP 64-bit > doesn't allow me to use many of my devices. > > Why oh why did Microsoft push this operating system on their web site? The > beta stuff they are making doesn't even work with xp 64-bit. I feel like a > chump and am being punished for trusting microsoft's advertising!
From: Zootal on 16 Mar 2010 15:51 =?Utf-8?B?RGlzZ3VzdGVk?= <Disgusted(a)discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in news:DEC79BC7-71FF-4527-A1DB-46308404A39A(a)microsoft.com: > So I put together this rocking computer with a 64-bit AMD Athlon, etc. > etc, and I figured I should take advantage of the 64-bit architecture > (like is being pushed on the Microsoft Web Site) but I have to say > Windows XP 64-bit doesn't allow me to use many of my devices. > > Why oh why did Microsoft push this operating system on their web site? > The beta stuff they are making doesn't even work with xp 64-bit. I > feel like a chump and am being punished for trusting microsoft's > advertising! > What devices can you not use? I, like many here, have used XP64 for a long time without any problems. The only hardware that I've found that doesn't work is the one-off stuff - cheap webcams, old TV tuners, cheap bluetooth dongles, odd stuff like that.
From: Zootal on 16 Mar 2010 15:53 It could be that the laptop hardware isn't efficient enough for what you are doing. Laptop hardware isn't made to be screaming machines, it is made to fit in a tiny box and use as little power as possible. As a result, you get anemic performance. You might try different software. It's also possible your software isn't efficient enough for what you are doing. You could always put XP32 bit on it and see how it works, but I'd be surprised if that fixed anything. > im a musician and i have a gateway laptop that is 64bit and came with > vista,and i use this pc mainly for music/audio recording,and i ended > up downgrading to xp 64 bit,everything works fine,except the audio,i > keep getting a choppy sound buffer problems,and alot of times i wont > even hear any sound,but i'll see all the volume levels moving,i agree > i think theres alot of bugs and glitches in 64 bit > > "Disgusted" wrote: > >> So I put together this rocking computer with a 64-bit AMD Athlon, >> etc. etc, and I figured I should take advantage of the 64-bit >> architecture (like is being pushed on the Microsoft Web Site) but I >> have to say Windows XP 64-bit doesn't allow me to use many of my >> devices. >> >> Why oh why did Microsoft push this operating system on their web >> site? The beta stuff they are making doesn't even work with xp >> 64-bit. I feel like a chump and am being punished for trusting >> microsoft's advertising! >
From: Wiley Post on 17 Mar 2010 13:15 The point about laptops reflects a lack of understanding of hardware. Better quality dual-core laptops have CPUs and memory that is the same speed as better quality dual-core desktops. Desktops have better graphics and much more flexibility for installing expansion equipment of your choice but the idea that a good laptop is too "anemic" to run audio software is ludicrous. Laptops can use power schemes that cut performance but when running on AC just set your scheme for maximum performance. A musician would however be much better served by using a high quality soundcard that can be installed in a desktop as opposed to using the sound system native to a laptop motherboard or whatever sound card might be available in PCMCIA format. As for the general compatibility of XP-64 I have found the greatest problem to be in finding drivers for existing graphics cards. Also note that since commercial apps running under XP-64 are likely to need WOW to actually run in 32 bit mode you shouldn't expect any performance improvement relative to XP-32. That should change in the future when commercial 64 bit apps become more available. WP "Zootal" <nospam(a)spam.zootal.nospam.com> wrote in message news:Xns9D3D8335A730nospamspamzootalnosp(a)216.196.97.131... > It could be that the laptop hardware isn't efficient enough for what you > are doing. Laptop hardware isn't made to be screaming machines, it is made > to fit in a tiny box and use as little power as possible. As a result, you > get anemic performance. > > You might try different software. It's also possible your software isn't > efficient enough for what you are doing. You could always put XP32 bit on > it and see how it works, but I'd be surprised if that fixed anything. > >> im a musician and i have a gateway laptop that is 64bit and came with >> vista,and i use this pc mainly for music/audio recording,and i ended >> up downgrading to xp 64 bit,everything works fine,except the audio,i >> keep getting a choppy sound buffer problems,and alot of times i wont >> even hear any sound,but i'll see all the volume levels moving,i agree >> i think theres alot of bugs and glitches in 64 bit >> >> "Disgusted" wrote: >> >>> So I put together this rocking computer with a 64-bit AMD Athlon, >>> etc. etc, and I figured I should take advantage of the 64-bit >>> architecture (like is being pushed on the Microsoft Web Site) but I >>> have to say Windows XP 64-bit doesn't allow me to use many of my >>> devices. >>> >>> Why oh why did Microsoft push this operating system on their web >>> site? The beta stuff they are making doesn't even work with xp >>> 64-bit. I feel like a chump and am being punished for trusting >>> microsoft's advertising! >> >
From: Zootal on 17 Mar 2010 14:22
My comments about laptops were based on a pretty good understanding of hardware and many years of experience. Even among desktops you will find a wide range of performance caused by, among other things, the motherboard itself. There is a reason that some motherboards cost $45 and others cost $245. Hint - there is a *lot* more to performance than cpu and memory speed. When it comes to laptops, you have the same issues. Some are much more efficient then others. Two laptops with the same memory and same cpu will not necessarily perform the same. Something as simple as different motherboards makes a big difference, and when it comes to laptops you are much more likely to find anemic motherboards. Even as there is a reason why some motherboards cost $45 and others cost $245, there is a reason some laptops cost $400 and others cost $4,000. You get what you pay for. > The point about laptops reflects a lack of understanding of hardware. > Better quality dual-core laptops have CPUs and memory that is the same > speed as better quality dual-core desktops. Desktops have better > graphics and much more flexibility for installing expansion equipment > of your choice but the idea that a good laptop is too "anemic" to run > audio software is ludicrous. Laptops can use power schemes that cut > performance but when running on AC just set your scheme for maximum > performance. A musician would however be much better served by using > a high quality soundcard that can be installed in a desktop as opposed > to using the sound system native to a laptop motherboard or whatever > sound card might be available in PCMCIA format. > > As for the general compatibility of XP-64 I have found the greatest > problem to be in finding drivers for existing graphics cards. > > Also note that since commercial apps running under XP-64 are likely to > need WOW to actually run in 32 bit mode you shouldn't expect any > performance improvement relative to XP-32. That should change in the > future when commercial 64 bit apps become more available. > > WP > > "Zootal" <nospam(a)spam.zootal.nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Xns9D3D8335A730nospamspamzootalnosp(a)216.196.97.131... >> It could be that the laptop hardware isn't efficient enough for what >> you are doing. Laptop hardware isn't made to be screaming machines, >> it is made to fit in a tiny box and use as little power as possible. >> As a result, you get anemic performance. >> >> You might try different software. It's also possible your software >> isn't efficient enough for what you are doing. You could always put >> XP32 bit on it and see how it works, but I'd be surprised if that >> fixed anything. >> >>> im a musician and i have a gateway laptop that is 64bit and came >>> with vista,and i use this pc mainly for music/audio recording,and i >>> ended up downgrading to xp 64 bit,everything works fine,except the >>> audio,i keep getting a choppy sound buffer problems,and alot of >>> times i wont even hear any sound,but i'll see all the volume levels >>> moving,i agree i think theres alot of bugs and glitches in 64 bit >>> >>> "Disgusted" wrote: >>> >>>> So I put together this rocking computer with a 64-bit AMD Athlon, >>>> etc. etc, and I figured I should take advantage of the 64-bit >>>> architecture (like is being pushed on the Microsoft Web Site) but I >>>> have to say Windows XP 64-bit doesn't allow me to use many of my >>>> devices. >>>> >>>> Why oh why did Microsoft push this operating system on their web >>>> site? The beta stuff they are making doesn't even work with xp >>>> 64-bit. I feel like a chump and am being punished for trusting >>>> microsoft's advertising! >>> >> > > > |