did I install the wrong windows?

[jw12345]

The Send to Onenote printer driver is broken, insert printouts relies on that driver also, and OCR is tied in somehow. There are work arounds which fix some of this with third party drivers (though I don't know of any free ones that will), but I myself use these features several times a day, and it's a problem. But yes, as I mentioned in an earlier post, Onenote 2010 fixes this, and is the only reason I can use 64-bit.

Apologies for not explaining what I meant by "theoretically inferior". I know why 32-bit is inferior technically, but when you have show-stopper incompatibilities like that, 32-bit becomes superior, because it actually works. Practicality beats out small technical advances.

I'm with DJG on this: try 64-bit, but be ready to drop down to 32-bit, because serious incompatibilities do exist.

 

[antalgebra]

32 bit to 64 bit equally levels out at 1.5GB RAM, or 2 GB assuming Dual Channel isen't being used. Any less than that is a benefit to x86 mode, taking in account the overhead. If your running 2BG+, 64 is the better alternative, strictly looking at performance on a win7 platform.

Sorry, I can't share my graphs

 

[antalgebra]

The Send to Onenote printer driver is broken, insert printouts relies on that driver also, and OCR is tied in somehow. There are work arounds which fix some of this with third party drivers (though I don't know of any free ones that will), but I myself use these features several times a day, and it's a problem. But yes, as I mentioned in an earlier post, Onenote 2010 fixes this, and is the only reason I can use 64-bit.

Apologies for not explaining what I meant by "theoretically inferior". I know why 32-bit is inferior technically, but when you have show-stopper incompatibilities like that, 32-bit becomes superior, because it actually works. Practicality beats out small technical advances.

I'm with DJG on this: try 64-bit, but be ready to drop down to 32-bit, because serious incompatibilities do exist.

EVERYTHING can be made compatible with 64 bit. It just depends on your willingness on how much time and effort you want to spend getting drivers and making programs compatible. I've been on a 100% 64 bit diet for a little over a year now, and have been able to overcome every driver obstacle I've run across.

So I'll leave my post to this: If you have the time, energy, and frontal brain bandwidth to be able to get over the 64 bit hurdles, do it! It will be rewarded in a faster, and more stable system.

 

[Fizban]

32 bit to 64 bit equally levels out at 1.5GB RAM, or 2 GB assuming Dual Channel isen't being used. Any less than that is a benefit to x86 mode, taking in account the overhead. If your running 2BG+, 64 is the better alternative, strictly looking at performance on a win7 platform.

Sorry, I can't share my graphs

So 2 GB in dual channel (as it's more than 1.5) should be faster on x64 than on x86? If so this fits with the benchmarks I have ran as my laptop with 2 GB indeed scores better with x64 than x86.

 

[jw12345]

EVERYTHING can be made compatible with 64 bit. It just depends on your willingness on how much time and effort you want to spend getting drivers and making programs compatible. I've been on a 100% 64 bit diet for a little over a year now, and have been able to overcome every driver obstacle I've run across.

So I'll leave my post to this: If you have the time, energy, and frontal brain bandwidth to be able to get over the 64 bit hurdles, do it! It will be rewarded in a faster, and more stable system.

Eh, I don't think anybody's found a way around ti-89 calculators not connecting to the official client, other than the do some hacks to get in working in this crummy unofficial client that doesn't half work. Running it in virtual XP works, but an entire VM for a calculator program can't be great for performance, virtual XP isn't really free, and it isn't seamless because of having to connect the usb in the VM before doing the whole coherence mode thing. Since I rarely sync the calculator anymore, I just use the 32-bit laptop I have, but I'm just making a point of there being instances where 64-bit simply won't work (I'm excluding VMs because of cost and resources)

 

[antalgebra]

Eh, I don't think anybody's found a way around ti-89 calculators not connecting to the official client, other than the do some hacks to get in working in this crummy unofficial client that doesn't half work. Running it in virtual XP works, but an entire VM for a calculator program can't be great for performance, virtual XP isn't really free, and it isn't seamless because of having to connect the usb in the VM before doing the whole coherence mode thing. Since I rarely sync the calculator anymore, I just use the 32-bit laptop I have, but I'm just making a point of there being instances where 64-bit simply won't work (I'm excluding VMs because of cost and resources)

Win7 comes with an xp 32 bit simlulator built in. Have you tried that?

 

[jw12345]

Win7 comes with an xp 32 bit simlulator built in. Have you tried that?

Are you referring to Virtual XP? Then yes, that's what I meant by the VM, but it's a hassle to load the VM, connect the usb to the vm, and then switch to the coherence mode (whatever it's called). But since it doesn't come on the most common version of Windows (Home Premium) then you have to pay more for a higher version of Windows for the feature.

Or if you're talking about compatibility modes: it doesn't work. There have been tons of people trying to get this to work for several years trying all sorts of hacks. TI refuses to issue a 64-bit driver, though I imagine their hand will be forced soon enough.

 

[fakeasdf]

I've been using 64 bit for the last 4 years with almost zero incompatibilities. Just because you are having some issues with it doesn't mean everyone else will. Stay in the past, it helps those lazy ass companies who don't want to create 64 bit drivers justify themselves It really doesn't matter to me if you use 32 bit or 64 bit, I'm using 64 bit and enjoying all of the advantages (which aren't just increased memory amount).

 

[jw12345]

I've been using 64 bit for the last 4 years with almost zero incompatibilities. Just because you are having some issues with it doesn't mean everyone else will. Stay in the past, it helps those lazy ass companies who don't want to create 64 bit drivers justify themselves It really doesn't matter to me if you use 32 bit or 64 bit, I'm using 64 bit and enjoying all of the advantages (which aren't just increased memory amount).

I think some of you are mistaking me as arguing against 64-bit. I run 64-bit 95% of the time, but I'm just noting that telling somebody that it's ALWAYS the best idea to upgrade to 64-bit as your signature says isn't the best course of action, because there still are issues some people experience on modern software/hardware that flat out can't be resolved without running a 32-bit VM.

 

[antalgebra]

Are you referring to Virtual XP? Then yes, that's what I meant by the VM, but it's a hassle to load the VM, connect the usb to the vm, and then switch to the coherence mode (whatever it's called). But since it doesn't come on the most common version of Windows (Home Premium) then you have to pay more for a higher version of Windows for the feature.

Or if you're talking about compatibility modes: it doesn't work. There have been tons of people trying to get this to work for several years trying all sorts of hacks. TI refuses to issue a 64-bit driver, though I imagine their hand will be forced soon enough.

Yup, your right, this is a premium service for Ultimate/Enterprise/Professional. I do hope the bugs will be ironed out before release.

And yes, the debate of having many 'grades' of software is up for debate for pros/cons, and what to include in each level. I personally hate not being able to setup a domain on the lower levels... but hey, when you got a monopoly, build hotels

 

[fakeasdf]

I think some of you are mistaking me as arguing against 64-bit. I run 64-bit 95% of the time, but I'm just noting that telling somebody that it's ALWAYS the best idea to upgrade to 64-bit as your signature says isn't the best course of action, because there still are issues some people experience on modern software/hardware that flat out can't be resolved without running a 32-bit VM.

This is a forum for people using a beta OS, They should switch to a 64 bit OS and try it out. If there is some weird issue then they can switch back to 32 bit. And if people follow my signature without reading the article then they are more than likely going to switch to Mac OS X cause the commercials told them to. Which has moved to 64 bit as well, and in their latest OS (snow leopard) they totally dropped 32 bit support all together.

 

[antalgebra]

This is a forum for people using a beta OS, They should switch to a 64 bit OS and try it out. If there is some weird issue then they can switch back to 32 bit. And if people follow my signature without reading the article then they are more than likely going to switch to Mac OS X cause the commercials told them to. Which has moved to 64 bit as well, and in their latest OS (snow leopard) they totally dropped 32 bit support all together.

I think you striking a couple nerves with posters here... your saying ALL peeps should go to 64 bit if their processors allow... and that if they dont read yur signature, then they should go to Mac, and turn into a paragram to utilizing an overly managed 64 bit OS anywayz.

While great for conversation, these ALWAYS statments just aren't true.

 

[fakeasdf]

I think you striking a couple nerves with posters here... your saying ALL peeps should go to 64 bit if their processors allow... and that if they dont read yur signature, then they should go to Mac, and turn into a paragram to utilizing an overly managed 64 bit OS anywayz.

While great for conversation, these ALWAYS statments just aren't true.

Proof that another person read the signature and not the article... Please read the article before you post responses. And I would never recommend going to a Mac, they've never been able to create an OS, proof when they bought a unix flavor and just stuck a GUI on top of it (Hello Mac OS X). My statement was that people who follow a signature just from looking at it, are probably just as willing to just watch one of the BS Mac commercials and switch over cause they said so, not cause they did any research on it.

 

[jw12345]

I don't get how you can say "always yes" in your signature but then argue that that's not at all what your article is claiming. Does "always" mean something that I'm not aware of?

But what do I know, I'm one of those crazy OS X fans with no brain on my own.

 

[antalgebra]

Proof that another person read the signature and not the article... Please read the article before you post responses. And I would never recommend going to a Mac, they've never been able to create an OS, proof when they bought a unix flavor and just stuck a GUI on top of it (Hello Mac OS X). My statement was that people who follow a signature just from looking at it, are probably just as willing to just watch one of the BS Mac commercials and switch over cause they said so, not cause they did any research on it.

Check out my signature. It is true that it's difficult to do clean comparisons of 32 bit versus 64 bit when using 64 bit CPU's. Intel 64 (formerly EMT64) and AMD64. If you have a 64 bit CPU, both 64 bit and 32 bit software generally run better on a 64 bit OS than on a 32 bit OS.
.

Seriously??

Quite the contrary, I did read your posts, very thoroughly as a matter of fact. I would've ignored your signature, had you not referenced it specifcally as part of your posts, and used it to strengthen a... um... point, I suppose?

 

[Lordbob75]

Alright, this got way off topic, way too fast.
Time to stop.

This is NOT an OS war, and we certainly should not be arguing about x86 and x64.

Just stop the argument now, or this thread is going to be locked.

~Lordbob

 

[jw12345]

Alright, this got way off topic, way too fast.
Time to stop.

This is NOT an OS war, and we certainly should not be arguing about x86 and x64.

Just stop the argument now, or this thread is going to be locked.

~Lordbob

No offense, but the entire thread is about 32-bit vs 64-bit. Sure, there's a bit of bickering of opinions, but I don't really agree that it's become off topic (other than 2-3 lines about OS X). It seems to be a valid discussion of some of the issues and quirks that arise from switching to 64-bit that are often ignored.

 

[DJG]

Unix-For-Appliances aside (just kidding ), every person's situation is different. What works for some may "almost" work for others, and often "almost" doersn't cut it.

Sure most systems sold in the past three years have x64-friendly CPUs, but the CPU is only part of the equation. There are no absolutes in this business.

Take it from somebody whose first "PC" had 10 DPDT relays, 10 DPDT switches, and 10 red lamps (I do mean lamps - LEDs were not yet born), 10 bits in 7x10" and thought "Man, this is the stuff!" ...
:roflmao:

 

[Lordbob75]

No offense, but the entire thread is about 32-bit vs 64-bit. Sure, there's a bit of bickering of opinions, but I don't really agree that it's become off topic (other than 2-3 lines about OS X). It seems to be a valid discussion of some of the issues and quirks that arise from switching to 64-bit that are often ignored.

No, I mean this just turned into an argument.

~Lordbob

 

[Fizban]

Alright, this got way off topic, way too fast.
Time to stop.

This is NOT an OS war, and we certainly should not be arguing about x86 and x64.

Just stop the argument now, or this thread is going to be locked.

~Lordbob

Did you mistake yourself for a moderator when you woke up this morning? I assure you, you are not one.