Posted: Wed, 25th Jan 2006, 1:40am
Post 1 of 30
Just hoping for some confirmation that the FXhome Pro range of sotware will definitely work on WIndows XP Pro 64?
Posted: Wed, 25th Jan 2006, 4:59am
Post 2 of 30
You know, I have a 64bit processor and was thinking about upgrading to Windows 64bit version, but after reading some reviews, I decided not to.
Supposedly, it's really hard to get drivers for Windows 64, the support is terrible, and a great majority of 32bit programs don't run on Windows 64.
So, don't upgrade
(I guess that's probably not too helpful, is it
Posted: Wed, 25th Jan 2006, 10:56am
Post 3 of 30
Hi, Well I actually have a 64-bit system with Windows x64 and to answer your question, Yes the Pro range do work on Windows x64 they work really well.
Roozer - I don't think that is 100% correct about the 32-bit programs as i have installed my 32bit programs and all of them work and the ones that didn't at first I just needed to get an update from the software provider to allow it to work on x64 I think that most software providers are releasing updates so that it will enable the software to work. But as I said I only had one problem with one program not working but nowI have the update it works fine.
I don't mean to sound rude, I just thought it would be good just to say so that people can have some feedback from an x64 user
Hope this helps
Posted: Wed, 25th Jan 2006, 1:43pm
Post 4 of 30
As I understand it the biggest problem with Windows x64 is drivers. I've been having real problems with the FX Pro range and other programs just don't function very well, and I'm hoping upgrading to Windows x64, fully utilizing my 64 bit CPU, will increase overall system stability.
What a load of bollocks lol
Posted: Wed, 25th Jan 2006, 3:31pm
Post 5 of 30
Currently the Fxhome product range is not fully optimised for 64-bit processing. So you won't get the full advantage of your 64-bit processor yet.
But they are working on finishing the optimisation, even as we speak, so in the near future you will be able to get all the benefits of 64-bit processing.
Posted: Wed, 25th Jan 2006, 3:38pm
Post 6 of 30
Upgrading to Windows 64 won't make your system more stable - although the format and reinstall might fix the problems your system sounds like it has. Just reinstalling Window XP 32-bit would also have this effect.
Windows XP 32-bit runs flawlessly on 64-bit processors so if you are having application problems then you've got problems somewhere else on your system.
We are looking in to moving to 64-bit in the future but its not a magical path to greater stability and better performance - in many cases it makes almost no difference at all.
Posted: Wed, 25th Jan 2006, 4:36pm
Post 7 of 30
I just wanted to say that I am not actually have problems with my 64-bit machine, I was just saying that some of my programs didn't work at first because the specific software vendors hadn't released updates to allow it to work on the systems but NOW it all works fine, all my software runs absolutley fine
no problems at all
I just wanted to clear this up, sorry if this sounds harsh and rude, it is intended to.
Posted: Thu, 26th Jan 2006, 8:33pm
Post 8 of 30
Hey, if you're just having stability issues, I might be able to help. I've been fighting with my computer for the last month or so (ever since I got an Athlon64 3700+) and was having problems with the computer rebooting for no reason all the time. (Just like someone pressed the reset button.)
I finally found that disabling "Quiet 'n Cool" in the BIOS helps some.
Another thing: Don't install any Windows updates after SP1. (You can still get Windows Media Player, DirectX, etc., but the security updates killed my computer. (If I don't install them, I don't have ANY stability issues.)
If you like security features, then I guess that doesn't help. (Personally, I hate SP2.)
Hey, does anyone know if a new copy of windows (one that comes with SP2) lets you drag items around in the start menu with no problems? Also, do you know if it actually recognizes when you take out a CD and put a new one in? (I'm just getting sick of issues like this that were introduced in SP2 on my computer. It could just be that my copy of XP is pre-SP1 and there's some problem when going through all those updates.)
Posted: Sat, 28th Jan 2006, 2:47pm
Post 9 of 30
[quote="schwar"]Upgrading to Windows 64 won't make your system more stable/quote]
I'm going to have to disagree with that statement, as Windows 64-Bit is based on a much newer, redesigned kernel than Windows 32-Bit. Its a lot more stable!
Posted: Tue, 31st Jan 2006, 11:52pm
Post 10 of 30
You can't assume new=stable. Take Windows 95 as a great example. It WAS new, but it wasn't stable. Man, I wish Microsoft would go consumer oriented instead of developer oriented. I don't know about you guys, but I rather spend more on my software and less on my computer. (Think of old games. Expensive but they worked.)
Oh, I just talked to a friend of mine who sets up servers/infrastructure for businesses. He said he hasn't seen any benefit to Windows64.
Posted: Wed, 1st Feb 2006, 12:43am
Post 11 of 30
I've upgraded to x64 and personally, the benefits are equal to the problems. My system is definitely a lot more stable now, in terms of software crashes (including the FXhome products) and such, but I'm unable to use my printer or wifi access point, or even adobe acrobat pro. These issues are annoying, but my computer used to take a few minutes to boot up and be usable with all my programs installed, now it takes a lot less time and like I said, it's just a lot more stable. I guess only time will tell.
Hope Windows Vista turns out to be worth it.
Posted: Wed, 1st Feb 2006, 1:06am
Post 12 of 30
Stepladder wrote:These issues are annoying, but my computer used to take a few minutes to boot up and be usable with all my programs installed, now it takes a lot less time and like I said, it's just a lot more stable.
It's not very fair to compare your old Windows XP system (with however many months/years of software being installed & configured on it) to a fresh Win XP x64 system. A true "stability" comparison would require a clean Win XP vs clean Win XP x64.
Furthermore, if any Windows application does something naughty, like attempt to access memory outside its allocated area, then both Windows XP and x64 are going to intercept it and kill it. These application crashes are not Windows' fault -- they are bugs in the applications -- and do not mean that Windows is unstable.
If Windows successfully intercepts the problem, kills the process, and then returns control to the user then it should still be considered "stable", IMO.
I suspect your perceived increased stability is more down to the fresh start than to x64. Nonetheless, all the best with it!
Posted: Wed, 1st Feb 2006, 2:22am
Post 13 of 30
Ordinarily you'd be correct, but the problems I was experiencing before upgrading were on a fresh install of Windows XP 32 bit, which is why I decided to upgrade
And I'm happy with the result
Posted: Wed, 1st Feb 2006, 8:23am
Post 14 of 30
Windows XP 64-Bit is actually more stable and faster, even when running 32-Bit programs as compared to 32-Bit Windows. Numerous sites have posted benchmarks on fresh installs of both operating systems to actually back up these results. Besides, WinXP 64-Bit is based on the Windows 2003 Server kernel, which is more stable than the WinNT/2000 kernel XP 32-Bit is based on.
Posted: Wed, 1st Feb 2006, 8:55am
Post 15 of 30
Windows 64 is meant to be a bit faster on 64-bit CPUs but I've yet to read any reports of it being more stable overall. Many people I know have found it to be less stable due to new/early driver issues (which will be resolved over time). Instability reports from major developers were the main reasons I didn't upgraded to Windows 64 when I got my new computer 5 months ago.
I'm rather suprised any website with a fresh & updated install of Windows XP on good hardware (correctly setup) were able to make the machine crash at all, even once, due to problems with the OS.
What I find really odd are the statements of "my system is A LOT more stable under Windows 64". How much was your machine crashing before? I've been running Windows XP 32-bit on a 64-bit processor for 5 months now (between 18-24 hours a day) and not had a single crash or any form of instability which was OS related.
Doing programming work you tend to hit on these things more often than most people and its been 100% perfect (as you would expect from a tried and tested OS). I've not had a single stability problem which was OS related on a PC (I have 1 PC running 24/7, another 18-24 hours a day and another about 12 hours a day) for several years and I can't say I know anyone (with a well set up machine 32-bit or 64-bit) who has when running 32-bit Windows 2000/XP.
Every problem has been dodgy drivers, dodgy hardware or people messing about with the machine and installing bad third party software.
I don't really get how you can have an unstable system running Windows XP if your machine is setup correctly (and doesn't have any dodgy hardware/software installed) with either a 32-bit or 64-bit CPU.
Posted: Wed, 1st Feb 2006, 11:43am
Post 16 of 30
All I can tell you that I tried a fresh install of Win 32 on my X2 4800+ dual core, and I still experienced the occasional laggy-ness and random crashes that have become the trademark of Windows operating systems.
I now use Windows XP 64-Bit, and my machine runs great - its more responsive, faster and more stable. I'm not sure what driver issues you speak of, as all my components 64-Bit drivers with the same version number as their 32-Bit counterparts; I guess it depends on what sort of hardware you use.
Posted: Wed, 1st Feb 2006, 12:01pm
Post 17 of 30
All I can tell you that I tried a fresh install of Win 32 on my X2 4800+ dual core, and I still experienced the occasional laggy-ness and random crashes that have become the trademark of Windows operating systems.
These have not been trademarks of the Windows operating system since Windows 2000 came on to the market!
Since then Windows has been a very solid performer with none of the "occasional laggy-ness and random crashes" that you talk about.
An up-to-date version of Windows XP runs flawlessly on 32-bit or 64-bit processors - its made to and thats what it does. If its not then its probably an issue with the computer's hardware or software installed.
Last edited Wed, 1st Feb 2006, 12:07pm; edited 1 times in total.
Posted: Wed, 1st Feb 2006, 12:05pm
Post 18 of 30
You must be luckiest 32-Bit Windows user in the world then
In all seriousness though, if you have a 64-Bit processor, there's no reason not to switch - whether you think its worth it or not, Windows 64-Bit does not have a single downside compared to 32-Bit...
Posted: Wed, 1st Feb 2006, 12:07pm
Post 19 of 30
Roozer wrote:Another thing: Don't install any Windows updates after SP1. (You can still get Windows Media Player, DirectX, etc., but the security updates killed my computer. (If I don't install them, I don't have ANY stability issues.)
That's one of the more insane things I've read recently.
If you're trying to avoid having an unstable system, then having it unsecured is not
the way to go.
As has been pointed out already, most system instability comes from a poorly set up machine, nothing to do with the OS. For example, your random resets are probably due to a hardware clash or overheating.
I also find XP to be generally very, very stable. If an application crashes (nothing to do with Windows), Windows normally catches it fine and can continue working. Only problems I've ever had were from installing crappy third party software.
Posted: Wed, 1st Feb 2006, 12:10pm
Post 20 of 30
Alpha54 - I'm not lucky, I don't know of anyone (offline) with up-to-date XP with any crashing problems at all which are not caused by other software (a software crash NOT and OS crash) or hardware issues.
As people here know, I'm a Mac fan, so I'll take any chance to say Windows isn't that great
but when it comes to stability I don't have a bad word to say against XP.
Posted: Wed, 1st Feb 2006, 12:13pm
Post 21 of 30
hehe, I'm not saying my machine is perfect. Its got cheap memory, second hand graphics card and CPU, cause I can't afford anything else. I'm sure if I went out and bought a brand spanking new top of the range machine, everything would be fine. All I know is that Windows x64 works better on MY system, and that's good enough for me.
Posted: Wed, 1st Feb 2006, 12:44pm
Post 22 of 30
Stepladder wrote:All I know is that Windows x64 works better on MY system, and that's good enough for me.
Yep, my thoughts exactly!
Posted: Wed, 1st Feb 2006, 11:11pm
Post 23 of 30
Tarn, it's true... I know it sounds stupid, but identical computer, identical BIOS settings, identical software, identical everything. XP is stable on my computer with SP1 but not SP2. Same drivers... All of them are recommended for SP2, but it's more stable with SP1. Hardware? I kind of doubt I put together a crummy system… It’s possible, but I kind of doubt it. (Well obviously if it doesn’t work, it’s crummy, but it shouldn’t be crummy.
I've found installing a newer build of XP clears up all of these issues. So, you are partly correct.
Security... I HATE XP security. (I was an IT administrator for a couple years and then switched to programming... Nice change. One problem -- I don't like programming. I consider it manual labor. Once you program for a number of years, it's all the same in my opinion.)
I think that if Microsoft re-wrote Windows from a consumer-oriented perspective instead of a developer-oriented one, things would be a lot better. (I absolutely hate .NET, the direction NT has been going, the new Vista file system, etc.) So, in all, I'm basically a fan of Unix/Linux... One problem -- nothing runs on it
Posted: Wed, 1st Feb 2006, 11:49pm
Post 24 of 30
Roozer wrote:I think that if Microsoft re-wrote Windows from a consumer-oriented perspective instead of a developer-oriented one, things would be a lot better. (I absolutely hate .NET, the direction NT has been going, the new Vista file system, etc.)
I don't follow why you think Windows is developer-oriented. Windows doesn't come with a compiler, or an IDE, or SDKs already installed.
Windows is incredibly consumer-oriented, IMO. It ships with generic drivers in case a user can't get one from the hardware company. Of all the new features introduced in Windows 2000, XP, 2003 and Vista beta, I can't think of any that were put in there for developers. The new file system is designed to make it easier for users to find stuff on their hard disks, not for developers to write new snazzy apps.
Furthermore, Windows has incredible accessibility support for people with disabilities.
Just because MS also makes developer tools and has a strong development community doesn't mean that Windows is developer-oriented. It's just that they very quickly realised that for Windows to be a success, they would need the "killer apps" that users would want to run. Hence MS invests an incredible amount on 3rd party developers, because it's in MS' interest for these 3rd party apps to succeed.
As I see it, the only OS more consumer-friendly would be the Mac. But people have to remember that Apple has the advantage of controlling the hardware for it. Windows has to put up with hardware from anywhere and seamlessly support it. And when there's a problem, people perceive that it's Windows' fault. The reality is that "instability" is usually down to bugs in applications & drivers.
Linux, on the other hand, is surely more developer-oriented than either Win or Mac. It certainly comes with developer tools built in -- at least the distros I've seen. I'm a big fan of open source, but one of its downsides is that they can't afford the luxuries of R&D, HCI design, usability testing and so forth which MS invests millions in.
Posted: Thu, 2nd Feb 2006, 6:28am
Post 25 of 30
Hey, those are good points, but I think I mislead you when I said "developer oriented".
Let me explain:
Let's compare the Windows 95 and Windows XP system requirements:
Windows 95: 20Mb of disk space, 386DX processor, 4MB ram
Windows XP: 1.5GB of disk space, 300MHz processor, 128MB ram
Now, let's compare a couple of the feature differences from a USER'S perspective: (I know this is in no wise complete.)
GUI: Well, there are definitely some enhancements in XP... Overall, though, it is quite similar. Sure, it's a lot more graphical, etc., but functionality wise, there's not that much difference.
Internet Explorer/Outlook Express/Windows Media Player/DirectX: These apps weren't standard to 95. You could install them separately. XP naively comes with them. (I don't think Outlook Express was around back then?)
Security: Yes, XP has quite a bit more security. XP supports more of a true multi-user environment, allows you to connect to and log into a PDC (server), does a much better job of handling policies, has file security, etc.
NTFS file system: WAY better than FAT32... Too bad it's so hard to access it when booting from a floppy/cd.
From these points, yes, XP is LOADS better, but can you justify that huge system requirement leap? True, computers have gotten a lot better since then, but feature for feature, is XP really that efficient? (Yes, I know the NT technology is generally heftier than the 9x series, but we're looking at it from the user's perspective.)
In my opinion, the height of Windows was somewhere between 95 and 98. I personally think that they should develop a really stable kernel/back-end framework which supports all the current security features but is optimized for performance.
After that, they should develop a great shell WITHOUT Internet Explorer integration. (Microsoft integrated Internet Explorer into the Windows shell back in Windows 98.)
Microsoft should then develop an internet security layer. This would be a bunch of API's which would allow your program to connect to a network/internet. This set of API's would only be running when something like Internet Explorer is running.
Microsoft should then develop two programs: Internet Explorer and Windows Explorer. Each one should sit on top of the back-end/security layer and not be integrated into the actual OS in any way. (Seems like this would help out the security quite a bit. Just imagine not having to have a continual mammoth security system in place when you're playing Solitaire!)
After that, they should go back to developing the Windows API. Instead of supporting .NET, I think a well thought out, modularized API would be even better. (It's not as developer friendly, but performance wise, we'd probably be back to near Windows 95.)
Well, that's just my thought on the matter.
Posted: Thu, 2nd Feb 2006, 8:30am
Post 26 of 30
Roozer wrote:From these points, yes, XP is LOADS better, but can you justify that huge system requirement leap? True, computers have gotten a lot better since then, but feature for feature, is XP really that efficient? (Yes, I know the NT technology is generally heftier than the 9x series, but we're looking at it from the user's perspective.)
I would have to say yes, XP is better (however we define that) and worth the additional hardware requirements. RAM is cheap.
In terms of the user's perspective, here's just one topical function that we couldn't do back on Win 95: Today we can edit DV (and HD) movies and generate visual effects on our XP computers. The Win 95 computer spec you listed (386DX, 4MB RAM) wouldn't even have come close.
Another driver is the Home Theater PC. What Win 95 computer would serve as a gateway to multimedia content such as HDTV, videos, music, email, web browsing, etc?
Roozer wrote:In my opinion, the height of Windows was somewhere between 95 and 98. I personally think that they should develop a really stable kernel/back-end framework which supports all the current security features but is optimized for performance.
While I fully respect your opinion, and certainly agree that Win 95 was a big jump from 3.1, I don't believe that it's peak was at that period. Again from a user perspective, another example would be networking. Remember having to reboot your PC after changing network configurations? Now in XP you can modify it to your heart's content without restarting.
IMO, the stable kernel that you're after is the NT/2000/XP/2003/Vista one we already have. Under Win 95, if an app crashed then it would often take down Windows with it. Not these days. I'm curious -- what instability do you see in the current kernel? I'm not saying it's perfect; just that it's far better than any 9x kernel.
Roozer wrote:After that, they should go back to developing the Windows API. Instead of supporting .NET, I think a well thought out, modularized API would be even better. (It's not as developer friendly, but performance wise, we'd probably be back to near Windows 95.)
Managed code under .NET has the great advantage of reducing application crashes. How many apps had/have memory access violations?! Or even security holes? Far too many, because many programmers get lazy/forgetful when they're writing low-level C. Of course, C/C++ apps will continue to be developed when required. But the future on Windows for the great majority of apps is XAML & .NET.
Posted: Thu, 2nd Feb 2006, 9:26am
Post 27 of 30
^^ I fully agree with pretty much everything you've said there!
Posted: Thu, 2nd Feb 2006, 8:46pm
Post 28 of 30
I fully agree that XP is a lot better than the 9x series, but I liked the back-end concept of 9x far better than XP. (I'm not talking actual implementation, just models. Yea, it had a lot of bugs. Rebooting, crashes, etc. could be fixed with a re-write.)
In my opinion, the 9x series, if it were re-written, has far more potential for delivering performance to the end user than XP. (I don't really care about security. I think security should sit on top of Windows, not be integrated with it.)
.NET... Developer oriented, not consumer oriented. True software can be cheaper, but look at it's performance! You'll probably never see a game written in .NET. (True, Microsoft has produced a .NET wrapper for DirectX, but I doubt you'll see a game using it!)
Think DOS... Do you remember Wolfenstein 3D? That game was the first of its kind and could probably be considered the game that opened up the computer for games. (The Doom engine is just a more sophisticated version of the Wolfenstein engine. (It still uses ray-casting, but they introduced polygons.)) Anyway, if ID software could make Wolfenstein do the millions of calculations/sec that it does and have a decent frame rate on a 286, what kind of performance could we get out of a Pentium IV?
I think the new PlayStation is a great example of what computers can do in an optimized environment. (Wait till you see it... Intel is making a custom processor for it
Posted: Thu, 2nd Feb 2006, 10:57pm
Post 29 of 30
Roozer wrote:.NET... Developer oriented, not consumer oriented. True software can be cheaper, but look at it's performance! You'll probably never see a game written in .NET. (True, Microsoft has produced a .NET wrapper for DirectX, but I doubt you'll see a game using it!)
Actually, Vertigo Software ported Quake 2 to .NET and introduced some new features like a radar.http://www.vertigosoftware.com/Quake2.htm
Posted: Fri, 3rd Feb 2006, 5:17am
Post 30 of 30
OK, you win
That's kind of funny.
No, that's really funny.
Then again, I use the Acknex game engine quite frequently... It's a scripting engine, so in a way, I guess it's pretty much the same as .NET. (Adds that extra layer for control.) Plus, .NET is actually compiled at run-time... Still, you have security issues with your source code. (It's completely readable with the help from a little utility unless you use some type of a third-party encryption program.)
I guess I should have listened to my friend more when he went into huge technical details about .NET. (He gives talks for those local Microsoft Developer meetings. I can't quite remember what they're called.)