Athlon64 X2 3800+ Feedback need I WANT one but is it good ??

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Magnulus" <Magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:g6tPe.330$2_.136@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> Windows 64 bites. I feel so burned I bought it. Lots of drivers for
> stuff wouldn't work (I had to use Broadcom drivers instead of Linksys
> wireless drivers, and I lost out on the 125 mbps transfer rate). The last
> straw was I went out and bought a Creative X-Fi, and of course it did not
> include drivers for x64. So I reinstalled Windows XP, activated it
> (amazingly had no problems doing so), and now everything runs.
>
> Windows x64 is for "enthusiasts", but I think more than a few gamers were
> fooled into believing that's "gamers". In actual fact, Windows x64 does
> have some legitimate applications (Episode III Star Wars was done with
> Windows x64). But the average gamer doesn't need the ability to address
> over 4 gigabytes of memory, which as far as I could tell, is the only real
> benefit to Windows x64. Sure, there is a marginal speed increase in
> certain non-gaming applications, but it's not worth it. Windows x64 is
> today's Windows 2000.
>
Agreed about it being an "enthusiasts OS" for the moment. I discovered very
fast that common peripheral drivers for 64 bit mostly don't exist. Some
tech support types tell me (politely) not to expect 64 bit drivers to be
written for non-professional hardware Ha! Like my printer and scanner
can't be 'professional'? The Graphire3 6x8 pen tablet? Hmmm. Methinks
tunes will change, or x64 will simply disappear. But with good support with
Linux 64, I don't think M$ will bow out of this one at all. They'll just
take a couple years to catch up
Things that do go faster: Far Cry 64!!!!! Even Doom3.
McG.

 

[jk]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

The reality is that MS is consumer testing Windows 64. In a few years when
a large percentage of machines are 64 bit and most software is written in 64
bit code as well as 32 bit code a second or third version of 64 bit Windows
will take full advantage of the hardware and there will be huge increases in
speed and stability.

JK

"McGrandpa" <McGrandpaNOT@NOThotmail.com> wrote in message
news:UuuPe.247986$X76.152251@tornado.texas.rr.com...
>
> "Magnulus" <Magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:g6tPe.330$2_.136@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>> Windows 64 bites. I feel so burned I bought it. Lots of drivers for
>> stuff wouldn't work (I had to use Broadcom drivers instead of Linksys
>> wireless drivers, and I lost out on the 125 mbps transfer rate). The
>> last straw was I went out and bought a Creative X-Fi, and of course it
>> did not include drivers for x64. So I reinstalled Windows XP, activated
>> it (amazingly had no problems doing so), and now everything runs.
>>
>> Windows x64 is for "enthusiasts", but I think more than a few gamers
>> were fooled into believing that's "gamers". In actual fact, Windows x64
>> does have some legitimate applications (Episode III Star Wars was done
>> with Windows x64). But the average gamer doesn't need the ability to
>> address over 4 gigabytes of memory, which as far as I could tell, is the
>> only real benefit to Windows x64. Sure, there is a marginal speed
>> increase in certain non-gaming applications, but it's not worth it.
>> Windows x64 is today's Windows 2000.
>>
> Agreed about it being an "enthusiasts OS" for the moment. I discovered
> very fast that common peripheral drivers for 64 bit mostly don't exist.
> Some tech support types tell me (politely) not to expect 64 bit drivers to
> be written for non-professional hardware Ha! Like my printer and
> scanner can't be 'professional'? The Graphire3 6x8 pen tablet? Hmmm.
> Methinks tunes will change, or x64 will simply disappear. But with good
> support with Linux 64, I don't think M$ will bow out of this one at all.
> They'll just take a couple years to catch up
> Things that do go faster: Far Cry 64!!!!! Even Doom3.
> McG.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Then everyone will program for multicaore. The everything will slow
down as much as for single core cpus and were back where we started.

bahahah.


On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 03:36:14 +0200, Mean_Chlorine
<mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>Thusly "McGrandpa" <McGrandpaNOT@NOThotmail.com> Spake Unto All:
>
>>Yeah but you oughtta see how fast PSP9 opens up.
>
>The big advantage of dual core isn't that things run faster - as a
>rule things wont - but that it improves multitasking. It is probably
>true that most people don't run a lot of apps in parallel at present,
>but IMHO that's to no small part because single-CPU systems discourage
>paralellism & multitasking. Once dualcores are common hopefully people
>will learn to multitask & run multiple apps at the same time.
>
>For me, I look forward to the day when I get my dualcore and a
>CPU-intensive Photoshop action, a Norton full disk scan, or a hung
>program, doesn't stall Windows Explorer.
>