Originally posted by: JustaGeek
Originally posted by: wordsworm
Vista 64 is not ready for prime time! It is actually pretty disappointing, with issues popping-up around every corner, and every time I open the "Event Viewer", I am waiting for some new "horror" messages.
Let me ask you to compare your initial experience with XP to Vista 64. I'll tell you that mine is similar as it was with drivers - some things aren't supported, but mostly there's no trouble.
And to Microsoft and the developers - get the security software ready! Get it to work on the 64-bit platform, or it will take another 5 years to fully implement it!
If you have a better test site, then please give it to me. Anyways, for years I've used
https://www.grc.com/x/ne.dll?rh1dkyd2">Shields Up</a>.
.....................................................have a feeling that IE 64 bit is immensely more secure than what came with XP back in ... what, 2001 or 2002?
I am just wondering... Why would anyone here say that the 64-bit Vista is the most stable operating system in history...?
I wouldn't go that far. Windows 2000 seems to have been pretty stable to me. I would have to say that Vista is probably more stable from the outset than XP was. (I haven't tried Vista 32)
However, my point from the outset is that if you test a 256 MB video card vs a 768 MB video card, you're going to lose 512 MB more with the 768 because of the limitations of 32 bit OS. Now, are you still arguing that 512 MB isn't going to make a difference when running video card comparisons? I hope you're willing to recognize this limitation. If you go this far, then it doesn't take much to say that the results of such testing is going to be influenced by the difference with the way the 32 bit OS balances the RAM. If you can keep up with that logic, then perhaps you can catch on to what I was getting at in the first place: 32 bit Vista cannot compare video cards properly, and therefore, the tests are invalid because of the OS.
Now, rather than arguing over whether or not 32 bit Vista is going to be valid as an OS, help me see the flaw in my logic that will counter my premise that the limitation of 32 bit is going to handicap the accuracy of the results.
Look, I do not intend to start another exchange of pointless arguments - we have 2 others in this thread for this purpose (no offense...)
When I migrate to the new, "better", "SUPERIOR" (uhumm...) Operating System, I expect the programs with my paid subscription to work.
They don't.
SpySweeper, Registry Mechanic, System Mechanic, all these programs that give me (however false) sense of security MUST work - but they don't...
And frankly, I don't care if there were implementation problems with XP back in 2001. How can YOU claim that Vista 64 is SUPERIOR, and then say "Oh, yes, the problems, well, it's expected."
No - not with the "Superior" system.
And everything that DOES work, WORKS in 32-bit mode.
How superior is that...?
And honestly, I don't understand your argument with the 256 and 768 Video Cards.
AFAIK, the Graphics Drivers are still written in 32-bit code, and that makes them address the same area from the 4GB Threshold down. It will not be automatically freed-up for your applications to use. The driver will still be addressing it between 3.25 to 4GB range, or 3.75to 4GB, plus all the PCI memory within the same range, even on the 64-bit platform.
Why...? Because all the drivers are (again) designed in 32-bit code, and implemented, or rather adapted, for the 64-bit system.
IMO, the area between the 3 - 4GB will be "dead" for the users forever - it just makes sense, for compatibility reasons.
This 1 page
article with a nice graph shows it best.
And please, with all due respect - please stop that "superiority" nonsense. If it doesn't work properly, it is not superior.
But I know it will be.
Let's call it
"experimental" for now.