PDA

View Full Version : Windows XP 64bit 1218 is ready to download at Microsoft


Ugly Mugly
August 18th 04, 08:50 PM
https://microsoft.order-9.com/winxp64/product.asp?catalog%5Fname=MSTrialandEval&category%5Fname=winxp64&product%5Fid=winxp64&id=dl

And use the same serial you used with 1069

Carlo Razzeto
August 19th 04, 01:59 AM
"Ugly Mugly" > wrote in message
...
> https://microsoft.order-9.com/winxp64/product.asp?catalog%5Fname=MSTrialandEval&category%5Fname=winxp64&product%5Fid=winxp64&id=dl
>
> And use the same serial you used with 1069
>

Any idea what enhancments have been made since the last version? I just
ordered the download version.

Carlo

Jason Cothran
August 19th 04, 02:36 AM
"Carlo Razzeto" > wrote in message
...
| "Ugly Mugly" > wrote in message
| ...
| >
https://microsoft.order-9.com/winxp64/product.asp?catalog%5Fname=MSTrialandEval&category%5Fname=winxp64&product%5Fid=winxp64&id=dl
| >
| > And use the same serial you used with 1069
| >
|
| Any idea what enhancments have been made since the last version? I just
| ordered the download version.
|
| Carlo
|

If I get a chance, I will report back before I head to work. I just finished
preparing my partitions for install and will be rebooting and installing
directly after posting this ;).

Carlo Razzeto
August 19th 04, 03:40 AM
"Jason Cothran" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> If I get a chance, I will report back before I head to work. I just
> finished
> preparing my partitions for install and will be rebooting and installing
> directly after posting this ;).
>
>

I guess I'll get to find out soon enough. I have it downloading right now.
Assuming the DSL doesn't crap out I'll be burning it when it's done and
installing it late tomorrow night. I'm assuming I'll just have to kill my
old Win64 Partition and install everything over again fresh? At least that's
my plan for now. Let me know how your install goes if you have a chance :-)
I'm so glad that MS finally finished SP2 and has started working on their
other Opertating System Projects again... I'm just itching to have WinXP 64
go gold.

Carlo

Steve Midgley
August 19th 04, 04:13 AM
"Carlo Razzeto" > wrote in message
...
> "Jason Cothran" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >

> I guess I'll get to find out soon enough. I have it downloading right now.
> Assuming the DSL doesn't crap out I'll be burning it when it's done and
> installing it late tomorrow night. I'm assuming I'll just have to kill my
> old Win64 Partition and install everything over again fresh? At least
that's
> my plan for now. Let me know how your install goes if you have a chance
:-)
> I'm so glad that MS finally finished SP2 and has started working on their
> other Opertating System Projects again... I'm just itching to have WinXP
64
> go gold.
>
> Carlo

I booted from the 1218 disk, did a repair install over 1069 and was able to
keep my old configuration. It worked perfectly.

Steve Midgley

malcolm
August 19th 04, 07:36 AM
"Steve Midgley" > wrote in message
...
> "Carlo Razzeto" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Jason Cothran" > wrote in message
> > .. .
> > >
>
> > I guess I'll get to find out soon enough. I have it downloading right
now.
> > Assuming the DSL doesn't crap out I'll be burning it when it's done and
> > installing it late tomorrow night. I'm assuming I'll just have to kill
my
> > old Win64 Partition and install everything over again fresh? At least
> that's
> > my plan for now. Let me know how your install goes if you have a chance
> :-)
> > I'm so glad that MS finally finished SP2 and has started working on
their
> > other Opertating System Projects again... I'm just itching to have WinXP
> 64
> > go gold.
> >
> > Carlo
>
> I booted from the 1218 disk, did a repair install over 1069 and was able
to
> keep my old configuration. It worked perfectly.
>
> Steve Midgley
>
>

and how is it different ?
do they have network working now on it?
I coundnt get my network running when I tried the last version of win64,
regards malcolm

Steve Midgley
August 19th 04, 07:57 AM
> and how is it different ?
> do they have network working now on it?
> I coundnt get my network running when I tried the last version of win64,
> regards malcolm
>

For starters, it looks much more like a finished operating system. The
log-on and log-off are like XP, themes are enabled, sytem restore is
available, the parallel port works but my printer still isn't supported and
a lot of other little things. There is a firewall similar to the one in XP
SP2.

I wish I could tell you that your networking is going to work but that I do
not know. I do know that my Linksys wireless adapter still isn't going to
work but my onboard nVidia always has worked. What network card or onboard
network device do you have?

Steve Midgley

Joćo Manuel Moura Paredes
August 19th 04, 09:32 AM
malcolm wrote:

> and how is it different ?
> do they have network working now on it?
> I coundnt get my network running when I tried the last version of win64,
> regards malcolm

The reason why networking wasn't working on your install it's because there
aren't 64bit drivers for your card yet.

I was using the previous release and I could neither use my onboard Intel
Gigabit, nor the capture feature of my graphics card. I couldn't also install
Visual Studio.NET 2003.

For the networking, I installed a D-Link 538 (Realtek 8139 chip) and it worked
perfectly. But that was the only thing I could get around.

quasar
August 19th 04, 11:11 AM
How does it compare to the 32 bit version of XP (running on the same 64 bit
architecture that is) i.e. how does xp64-on-654/939 compare to
xp32-on-754/939? Is it faster in any respect?

cheers
quasar


"Ugly Mugly" > wrote in message
...
> https://microsoft.order-9.com/winxp64/product.asp?catalog%5Fname=MSTrialandEval&category%5Fname=winxp64&product%5Fid=winxp64&id=dl
>
> And use the same serial you used with 1069
>

Jason Cothran
August 19th 04, 01:23 PM
"quasar" > wrote in message
...
| How does it compare to the 32 bit version of XP (running on the same 64
bit
| architecture that is) i.e. how does xp64-on-654/939 compare to
| xp32-on-754/939? Is it faster in any respect?
|

For now, yes. It is considerably faster. A lot of that has to do with how
"raw" it is though. Once they add all there bloatware in there, it will
likely slow down some, but the early releases look promising. On the flip
side, it is already considerably faster "feeling", and that's without good
drver optimization. From that viewpoint, it also stands to get better even
as they add the "bloatware" into it. I have a good feeling about things to
come in the future. They won't catch Linux on 64-bit any time soon, but at
least they are putting forth an effort to put out a product even if it is
way overdue.

John Hollingsworth
August 19th 04, 02:31 PM
In article >,
(Jason Cothran) wrote:

>
> "quasar" > wrote in message
> ...
> | How does it compare to the 32 bit version of XP (running on the same
> 64 bit
> | architecture that is) i.e. how does xp64-on-654/939 compare to
> | xp32-on-754/939? Is it faster in any respect?
> |
>
> For now, yes. It is considerably faster. A lot of that has to do with
> how "raw" it is though. Once they add all there bloatware in there, it
> will likely slow down some, but the early releases look promising. On
> the flip side, it is already considerably faster "feeling", and that's
> without good drver optimization. From that viewpoint, it also stands to
> get better even as they add the "bloatware" into it. I have a good
> feeling about things to come in the future. They won't catch Linux on
> 64-bit any time soon, but at least they are putting forth an effort to
> put out a product even if it is way overdue.
>
>
>
That's an very interesting answer. AAMOI, do 32bit programs run OK, eg
Microsoft Office?

I ask because I've just built an A8V 3500+ system but gone for the XP Pro
32 bit, although I've got the original 64bit beta. I'm just wondering if
with the latest beta, its worth changing over. There seem to be quite a
lot of 64 bit drivers about now.

Thanks.

John

Please remove "NO-SPAM" if sending email.

Ugly Mugly
August 19th 04, 04:19 PM
Jason Cothran wrote:
> "quasar" > wrote in message
> ...
>> How does it compare to the 32 bit version of XP (running on the same
>> 64 bit architecture that is) i.e. how does xp64-on-654/939 compare to
>> xp32-on-754/939? Is it faster in any respect?
>>
>
> For now, yes. It is considerably faster. A lot of that has to do with
> how "raw" it is though. Once they add all there bloatware in there,
> it will likely slow down some, but the early releases look promising.
> On the flip side, it is already considerably faster "feeling", and
> that's without good drver optimization. From that viewpoint, it also
> stands to get better even as they add the "bloatware" into it. I have
> a good feeling about things to come in the future. They won't catch
> Linux on 64-bit any time soon, but at least they are putting forth an
> effort to put out a product even if it is way overdue.

I guess you have been away from Windows for awhile. There is a program out
that will let you remove many of the xtras that you misname "bloatware"
Heck, most versions of Linux come on 3 or more CD's nowdays. Windows still
comes on 1 cd. So, who has the more xtras? :o)

quasar
August 19th 04, 05:12 PM
> For now, yes. It is considerably faster. A lot of that has to do with how
> "raw" it is though. Once they add all there bloatware in there, it will
> likely slow down some, but the early releases look promising. On the flip
> side, it is already considerably faster "feeling", and that's without good
> drver optimization. From that viewpoint, it also stands to get better even
> as they add the "bloatware" into it. I have a good feeling about things to
> come in the future. They won't catch Linux on 64-bit any time soon, but at
> least they are putting forth an effort to put out a product even if it is
> way overdue.
>

Thanks for the response. Much appreciated! I am definitely excited about
getting into some 939 H/W. I am just trying to evaluate the time of best
entry. I will step with caution, with no rush, as I know I will soon have my
new 64bit neon glitter magic machine.

Carlo Razzeto
August 19th 04, 11:44 PM
"Steve Midgley" > wrote in message
...
> "Carlo Razzeto" > wrote in message
>
> I booted from the 1218 disk, did a repair install over 1069 and was able
> to
> keep my old configuration. It worked perfectly.
>
> Steve Midgley
>
>

Excellent, I'm glad to hear I don't have to lose the few programs I
installed etc... Unfortunetly my DSL descided to take a dive late last night
and I was due into work early, but hopefully I'll get it installed yet. I'm
really hopeing that with the new public beta MS maybe getting ready to gear
up for some RC's...

Carlo

Jason Cothran
August 20th 04, 12:59 AM
"Ugly Mugly" > wrote in message
...
| Jason Cothran wrote:
| > "quasar" > wrote in message
| > ...
| >> How does it compare to the 32 bit version of XP (running on the same
| >> 64 bit architecture that is) i.e. how does xp64-on-654/939 compare to
| >> xp32-on-754/939? Is it faster in any respect?
| >>
| >
| > For now, yes. It is considerably faster. A lot of that has to do with
| > how "raw" it is though. Once they add all there bloatware in there,
| > it will likely slow down some, but the early releases look promising.
| > On the flip side, it is already considerably faster "feeling", and
| > that's without good drver optimization. From that viewpoint, it also
| > stands to get better even as they add the "bloatware" into it. I have
| > a good feeling about things to come in the future. They won't catch
| > Linux on 64-bit any time soon, but at least they are putting forth an
| > effort to put out a product even if it is way overdue.
|
| I guess you have been away from Windows for awhile. There is a program out
| that will let you remove many of the xtras that you misname "bloatware"
| Heck, most versions of Linux come on 3 or more CD's nowdays. Windows still
| comes on 1 cd. So, who has the more xtras? :o)
|


Sorry if I riled you, but Windows is my primary OS. I didn't mean to ****
off any fanboy by calling bloatware bloatware. This was not meant as a slam
on windows, but a statement of the current condition of the OS. I am sorry
you woke up on the wrong side of the bed and welcome to kill-file for your
unconstructive, militant "input".

Ugly Mugly
August 20th 04, 01:15 AM
Jason Cothran wrote:
> "Ugly Mugly" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Jason Cothran wrote:
>>> "quasar" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> How does it compare to the 32 bit version of XP (running on the
>>>> same 64 bit architecture that is) i.e. how does xp64-on-654/939
>>>> compare to xp32-on-754/939? Is it faster in any respect?
>>>>
>>>
>>> For now, yes. It is considerably faster. A lot of that has to do
>>> with how "raw" it is though. Once they add all there bloatware in
>>> there,
>>> it will likely slow down some, but the early releases look
>>> promising. On the flip side, it is already considerably faster
>>> "feeling", and that's without good drver optimization. From that
>>> viewpoint, it also stands to get better even as they add the
>>> "bloatware" into it. I have
>>> a good feeling about things to come in the future. They won't catch
>>> Linux on 64-bit any time soon, but at least they are putting forth
>>> an effort to put out a product even if it is way overdue.
>>
>> I guess you have been away from Windows for awhile. There is a
>> program out that will let you remove many of the xtras that you
>> misname "bloatware" Heck, most versions of Linux come on 3 or more
>> CD's nowdays. Windows still comes on 1 cd. So, who has the more
>> xtras? :o)
>>
>
>
> Sorry if I riled you, but Windows is my primary OS. I didn't mean to
> **** off any fanboy by calling bloatware bloatware. This was not
> meant as a slam on windows, but a statement of the current condition
> of the OS. I am sorry you woke up on the wrong side of the bed and
> welcome to kill-file for your unconstructive, militant "input".

It seems as it is you that woke up on the wrong side of the bed. I only
wrote what is true. I love Mandrake btw, and am a paying member. But I also
am aware that it takes 4 CD's to install Mandrake 10 AMD64 Final. I doubt
it will go over 1 cd for Windows XP 64bit. That was my point. If I offended
you by my candor, then you need to stay away from newsgroups.

Joćo Manuel Moura Paredes
August 20th 04, 09:11 AM
Ugly Mugly wrote:

> I guess you have been away from Windows for awhile. There is a program out
> that will let you remove many of the xtras that you misname "bloatware"
> Heck, most versions of Linux come on 3 or more CD's nowdays. Windows still
> comes on 1 cd. So, who has the more xtras? :o)


Yes, but while with Windows' 1 CD you get about 1.1G of stuff installed on your
harddrive and nothing more than the operating system, you need only 500M of a
Linux distro installed in your harddrive to get the operating system, graphics
environment and 2 or 3 desktop managers, compiler for C, C++, and Objc, 3 or 4
assemblers, the devels of all libraries, an office suite, an imaging program,
cd recording utilites, web server and php interpreter, one or two database
servers, multimedia utilities and a complete development environment.

Post Replies Here Please
August 20th 04, 01:20 PM
>>>>> "Joćo" == Joćo Manuel Moura Paredes > writes:

>> I guess you have been away from Windows for awhile. There is a
>> program out that will let you remove many of the xtras that you
>> misname "bloatware" Heck, most versions of Linux come on 3 or more
>> CD's nowdays. Windows still comes on 1 cd. So, who has the more
>> xtras? :o)

What is the name of that program? Is it free?

Thanks!


Joćo> Yes, but while with Windows' 1 CD you get about 1.1G of stuff
Joćo> installed on your harddrive and nothing more than the operating
Joćo> system, you need only 500M of a Linux distro installed in your
Joćo> harddrive to get the operating system, graphics environment and
Joćo> 2 or 3 desktop managers, compiler for C, C++, and Objc, 3 or 4
Joćo> assemblers, the devels of all libraries, an office suite, an
Joćo> imaging program, cd recording utilites, web server and php
Joćo> interpreter, one or two database servers, multimedia utilities
Joćo> and a complete development environment.

Hay, what do you expect?

Later,

Alan

malcolm
August 20th 04, 01:57 PM
"Steve Midgley" > wrote in message
...
> > and how is it different ?
> > do they have network working now on it?
> > I coundnt get my network running when I tried the last version of win64,
> > regards malcolm
> >
>
> For starters, it looks much more like a finished operating system. The
> log-on and log-off are like XP, themes are enabled, sytem restore is
> available, the parallel port works but my printer still isn't supported
and
> a lot of other little things. There is a firewall similar to the one in
XP
> SP2.
>
> I wish I could tell you that your networking is going to work but that I
do
> not know. I do know that my Linksys wireless adapter still isn't going to
> work but my onboard nVidia always has worked. What network card or onboard
> network device do you have?
>
> Steve Midgley
>
>

hello Steve
3C Gigabyte onboard network, on an ALbatron K8X800 pro2 mobo.
I coundnt get a MS NIC working either with the earlier 64os.
regards malcolm

Jason Cothran
August 20th 04, 02:39 PM
"Joćo Manuel Moura Paredes" > wrote in message
...
| Ugly Mugly wrote:
|
| > I guess you have been away from Windows for awhile. There is a program
out
| > that will let you remove many of the xtras that you misname "bloatware"
| > Heck, most versions of Linux come on 3 or more CD's nowdays. Windows
still
| > comes on 1 cd. So, who has the more xtras? :o)
|
|
| Yes, but while with Windows' 1 CD you get about 1.1G of stuff installed on
your
| harddrive and nothing more than the operating system, you need only 500M
of a
| Linux distro installed in your harddrive to get the operating system,
graphics
| environment and 2 or 3 desktop managers, compiler for C, C++, and Objc, 3
or 4
| assemblers, the devels of all libraries, an office suite, an imaging
program,
| cd recording utilites, web server and php interpreter, one or two database
| servers, multimedia utilities and a complete development environment.

Don't confuse him with facts lol.

Joćo Manuel Moura Paredes
August 20th 04, 04:25 PM
Post Replies Here Please wrote:

>
> Hay, what do you expect?

I don't expect nothing. Well... it would be nice to have a good operating system
without garbage, that doesn't crash, does exactly what it is supposed to do,
performs well, doesn't have driver versioning problems...
But these days that seems to be an utopy and the remains of the "Dreams of
Before".

Ed Light
August 20th 04, 07:55 PM
Jason and Mugly:

Yikes! Relax.

It's just 2 points of view due to differing experiences.

--
Ed Light

Smiley :-/
MS Smiley :-\

Send spam to the FTC at

Thanks, robots.

Gilles Vollant
August 20th 04, 09:15 PM
They support Theme (to have a "XP" like look and feel), parallel printer
port for printing, it include the same firewall than XP SP2 32 bits (1069
had not firewall)

This build also support the Intel EM64T computer (Xeon Nocoma and somes
futures Pentium 4)

Another thing : when I use Windows 64 bits build 1218 (XP64 or Win2003-64)
as network client and a 32 bits XP SP2 computer as file server, I've
incredible network performance (16 megabytes/sec with two Realtek 8139D, or
using the Realtek 8139D on the 32 bits computer and the gigabit port on the
motherboard of the 64 bits computer)

Carlo Razzeto
August 21st 04, 04:44 AM
"Ugly Mugly" > wrote in message
...
>
https://microsoft.order-9.com/winxp64/product.asp?catalog%5Fname=MSTrialandEval&category%5Fname=winxp64&product%5Fid=winxp64&id=dl
>
> And use the same serial you used with 1069
>
>

Finally have it installed, deffonetly feels more like a finished product.
But I havn't played with it enough to know what all has changed... Very nice
though.

Carlo

Carlo Razzeto
August 21st 04, 05:03 AM
"John Hollingsworth" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> (Jason Cothran) wrote:
>
>>
>> "quasar" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> | How does it compare to the 32 bit version of XP (running on the same
>> 64 bit
>> | architecture that is) i.e. how does xp64-on-654/939 compare to
>> | xp32-on-754/939? Is it faster in any respect?
>> |
>>
>> For now, yes. It is considerably faster. A lot of that has to do with
>> how "raw" it is though. Once they add all there bloatware in there, it
>> will likely slow down some, but the early releases look promising. On
>> the flip side, it is already considerably faster "feeling", and that's
>> without good drver optimization. From that viewpoint, it also stands to
>> get better even as they add the "bloatware" into it. I have a good
>> feeling about things to come in the future. They won't catch Linux on
>> 64-bit any time soon, but at least they are putting forth an effort to
>> put out a product even if it is way overdue.
>>
>>
>>
> That's an very interesting answer. AAMOI, do 32bit programs run OK, eg
> Microsoft Office?
>
> I ask because I've just built an A8V 3500+ system but gone for the XP Pro
> 32 bit, although I've got the original 64bit beta. I'm just wondering if
> with the latest beta, its worth changing over. There seem to be quite a
> lot of 64 bit drivers about now.
>
> Thanks.
>
> John
>
> Please remove "NO-SPAM" if sending email.

32bit Apps run just fine. I've been running Java, Zend (java app), trillion
and MS office 2003 on XP64 with no real problems. The only issue I have is I
can't get spellcheck to work in OE and it seems like 32bit plugins to 64bit
IE don't work well, other than that it's just fine. Pretty impressive all
things considered.

Carlo

John Hollingsworth
August 21st 04, 11:02 AM
In article >,
(Carlo Razzeto) wrote:

> "John Hollingsworth" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> >
> > (Jason Cothran) wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> "quasar" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> | How does it compare to the 32 bit version of XP (running on the
> > same
> >> 64 bit
> >> | architecture that is) i.e. how does xp64-on-654/939 compare to
> >> | xp32-on-754/939? Is it faster in any respect?
> >> |
> >>
> >> For now, yes. It is considerably faster. A lot of that has to do with
> >> how "raw" it is though. Once they add all there bloatware in there,
> > it
> >> will likely slow down some, but the early releases look promising. On
> >> the flip side, it is already considerably faster "feeling", and
> > that's
> >> without good drver optimization. From that viewpoint, it also stands
> > to
> >> get better even as they add the "bloatware" into it. I have a good
> >> feeling about things to come in the future. They won't catch Linux on
> >> 64-bit any time soon, but at least they are putting forth an effort
> > to
> >> put out a product even if it is way overdue.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > That's an very interesting answer. AAMOI, do 32bit programs run OK, eg
> > Microsoft Office?
> >
> > I ask because I've just built an A8V 3500+ system but gone for the XP
> > Pro
> > 32 bit, although I've got the original 64bit beta. I'm just wondering
> > if
> > with the latest beta, its worth changing over. There seem to be quite
> > a
> > lot of 64 bit drivers about now.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > John
> >
> > Please remove "NO-SPAM" if sending email.
>
> 32bit Apps run just fine. I've been running Java, Zend (java app),
> trillion and MS office 2003 on XP64 with no real problems. The only
> issue I have is I can't get spellcheck to work in OE and it seems like
> 32bit plugins to 64bit IE don't work well, other than that it's just
> fine. Pretty impressive all things considered.
>
> Carlo
>
>
>
Thanks Carlo, that's great :-)

John

Please remove "NO-SPAM" if sending email.

Need For Speed
August 21st 04, 12:30 PM
Ugly Mugly wrote:

> https://microsoft.order-9.com/winxp64/product.asp?catalog%5Fname=MSTrialandEval&category%5Fname=winxp64&product%5Fid=winxp64&id=dl
>
> And use the same serial you used with 1069
>
>

Download page is offline since last night! :-(
--
Need For Speed
leva due marce per rispondermi in email

Joćo Manuel Moura Paredes
August 21st 04, 02:07 PM
Carlo Razzeto wrote:

>
> 32bit Apps run just fine. I've been running Java, Zend (java app), trillion
> and MS office 2003 on XP64 with no real problems. The only issue I have is I
> can't get spellcheck to work in OE and it seems like 32bit plugins to 64bit
> IE don't work well, other than that it's just fine. Pretty impressive all
> things considered.
>

Wrong. Not all 32bit apps run. Visual Studio.NET 2003 won't even install,
refusing to install on a 64bit platform, ATI Multimedia Center doesn't even
start, Rainbow Six installer crashes and many other problems.

Carlo Razzeto
August 21st 04, 02:58 PM
"Joćo Manuel Moura Paredes" > wrote in message
...
>
> Carlo Razzeto wrote:
>
> Wrong. Not all 32bit apps run. Visual Studio.NET 2003 won't even install,
> refusing to install on a 64bit platform, ATI Multimedia Center doesn't
> even
> start, Rainbow Six installer crashes and many other problems.

Well, I don't have VS.Net 2003, I have 2002. Though I havn't even tried to
install it yet. I don't doubt there would be problems though since from what
I understand Microsoft doesn't have .Net ported to 64bits yet. For the most
part most 32bit apps run just fine, as you point out there are those which
have issues. For instance games will tend to have issues as probably 90% of
WinXP 64 users will be running on Beta 64 bit drivers as I am. Keep in mind
that this is a beta, that generally requires beta drivers to make it
work....

Carlo

Joćo Manuel Moura Paredes
August 21st 04, 06:16 PM
Carlo Razzeto wrote:

> Well, I don't have VS.Net 2003, I have 2002. Though I havn't even tried to
> install it yet. I don't doubt there would be problems though since from what
> I understand Microsoft doesn't have .Net ported to 64bits yet. For the most
> part most 32bit apps run just fine, as you point out there are those which
> have issues. For instance games will tend to have issues as probably 90% of
> WinXP 64 users will be running on Beta 64 bit drivers as I am. Keep in mind
> that this is a beta, that generally requires beta drivers to make it
> work....
>
> Carlo

Quake III ran well. But Visual Studio.NET 2003 should work in 32bit mode. And it
doesn't. It specifically says that it's not going to install itself on a 64bit
platform (perhaps feeling embarrassed with the power of the machine ;)). But MS
does have .Net ported to 64 bits, although still in beta stages. You can
download it from MS site, although I don't have the direct link here.

Carlo Razzeto
August 21st 04, 08:32 PM
"Joćo Manuel Moura Paredes" > wrote in message
...
> Carlo Razzeto wrote:
>
> Quake III ran well. But Visual Studio.NET 2003 should work in 32bit mode.
> And it
> doesn't. It specifically says that it's not going to install itself on a
> 64bit
> platform (perhaps feeling embarrassed with the power of the machine ;)).
> But MS
> does have .Net ported to 64 bits, although still in beta stages. You can
> download it from MS site, although I don't have the direct link here.

Well, I guess they are further along in porting .Net over, but still. Visial
Studio needs to be patched to understand how to use the new framework.
Getting Visual Studio.Net to run on Windows64 is a much different
propisition than getting Quake III to run. I'm sure soon enough they'll have
something to get Visual Studio going, in the mean time WindowsXP 64 isn't in
any shape to be a day to day use workstation OS so it's best not to be
thinking of it quite yet. What it is right now is a preview of what should
be a fairly nice workstation OS. This is why I duel boot, I can do all my
..Net work in win32, and play around in Win64 whenever I want.

Carlo

Joćo Manuel Moura Paredes
August 21st 04, 09:57 PM
Carlo Razzeto wrote:

> I'm sure soon enough they'll have
> something to get Visual Studio going, in the mean time WindowsXP 64 isn't in
> any shape to be a day to day use workstation OS so it's best not to be
> thinking of it quite yet.
>
> Carlo

Win64 beta shouldn't be a day-to-day use workstation, but I do hope Win64 final
be. I am a low level developer (OS and programming language stuff) and cannot
do without a decent low level language compiler for the native architecture of
each machine I work on.

Carlo Razzeto
August 22nd 04, 05:22 AM
"Joćo Manuel Moura Paredes" > wrote in message
...
> Carlo Razzeto wrote:
>
>> I'm sure soon enough they'll have
>> something to get Visual Studio going, in the mean time WindowsXP 64 isn't
>> in
>> any shape to be a day to day use workstation OS so it's best not to be
>> thinking of it quite yet.
>>
>> Carlo
>
> Win64 beta shouldn't be a day-to-day use workstation, but I do hope Win64
> final
> be. I am a low level developer (OS and programming language stuff) and
> cannot
> do without a decent low level language compiler for the native
> architecture of
> each machine I work on.
>

Should already be there... Microsoft has already discussed their driver
development tools for Win64 extensivly, I'm sure there's a beta you can
download at least. There for you should be able to code in C++/Assembler. By
the time Win64 is gold I'm sure you'll have everything you need to write any
system level app you want.

Carlo