XP 64 Not Drawing Crowds

[Whizbang]

No drivers, no drivers, no drivers.  That sums up the criticism of the XP 64 bit.  I am puzzled as to why Microsoft is taking the Scrooge attitude with supplying drivers.  OEM sources are not enthusiastic about having to pay to get their software included in the installation pack, and Microsoft seems to be equally unenthusisatic about giving the major players free space.  The embarrasing thing is that Linux actually has better support for Linux 64 bit than Microsoft does for XP.  From latest rumblings, I get the impression that the big M is becoming a bit like the Federal government, losing its fundamental sense of direction and enthusiasm.  Who knows if that is good for everyone else or not.  I have never seen the value to anyone for any company that produces a viable product becoming bogged in bureaucratic mire, even if the company created it themselves.

[query]

No doubt Microsoft is preoccupied with Vista, and as I recall, the driver model is changing yet again (which of course means a lot more orphaned hardware coming soon).

[Buffalo2102]

I participated in trials for XP 64-bit and Microsoft's stance throughout was that it is entirely up to the equipment manufacturers to provide drivers for the OS.  That is probably still the case and I agree with them.  Microsoft cannot possibly write drivers for every piece of hardware out there when it has not been involved in the design or manufacturing process.

I found drivers for all of my hardware and peripherals except for an external TV tuner and my Epson printer.  I really had to search for them though.  The printer did work with some other Epson 64-bit drivers however (with limited functionality).

I suspect that a large number of the people who complain about a lack of drivers have not really looked hard enough as the support newsgroups were packed with people requesting drivers that were available.  Most of the drivers were in Beta form and were tucked away on manufacturers support websites.

I think Microsoft have actually provided what seems to be a good stable OS.  As you say, the real problem is driver support but that is not a problem that Microsoft can address, other than to persuade the hardware manufacturers to provide them.
The real difference with Linux is that it is open-source and anybody with a bit of savvy can write a driver, without waiting for the manufacturer to provide it.

Buff

[Whizbang]

Microsoft cannot possibly write drivers for every piece of hardware out there when it has not been involved in the design or manufacturing process.

I fully agree here.  My point is that public enthusiasm will never materialize unless Microsoft either encourages manufacturers to supply OEM drivers to be put on the installation disk or freely grants placing manufacturer OEM drivers on MS web site so that the consumer does not have to wander all over the net.

The real problem as I see it is that the average office user does not care what OS he uses as long as it works.  I am sure that many offices work from one purchased 95 or 98 installation disk that is simply installed on all of the computers.  The business world, for all outward appearances to the contrary, will save money wherever it can, and illegal multiple use of a single disk license is not something that most office managers would put at the top of their lists for criminal violations.  Many just depend on contracted tech services to keep it all going, and many of those will bend the rules to get by as cheaply as possible in order to compete, sad, but true.

XP is not widely accepted because the need for a better OS just does not have a high priority as long as the average office desk jockey can get done in the allotted 7 to 8 hours each day and not be bothered on weekends.  The idea of not being able to install XP on more than one system is real financial shock to many of them, and the high price for upgrading in a very competetive market makes the idea inconceivable.  We here on the forum are of the extreme end, in spite of my glaring weaknesses, in that we enjoy innovation; the average office worker could not care less.  A 64 bit OS as compared to a 32 bit OS does not turn on any pulses of excitement to the vast majority of the workforce.  My wife uses Win95, while others in the office use Win98.  Her only gripe is that the others systems are a bit "prettier" than hers.  When she leaves work, she leaves the work.  Many times she has said, "I hate computers; I just use them because I have to."  'Nuff said.   :-\

[query]

The driver problem will keep getting worse - so many peripherals are now made by ghost manufacturers.  At one point, HP made its own printers - it no longer does, but rather contracts out the manufacture to the lowest bidder.  Once the contract ends (or the ghost maker vanishes), good luck with driver updates.  Other companies do similar things.

[Whizbang]

If Linux had existed in its current level of development when Bill Gates brought us Windows, we would not have a Microsoft company of any importance.  The fact is though that Linux never would have risen to its current stage of development without Windows setting the pace.  If Microsoft is going to continue to produce acceptable OS's, they will need to stop worrying so much about pirating.  It happens in virtually every area of society, although admittedly not with so much ease.  Corporations who are constantly suing others to prevent piracy and patent violations tend to become rather recluse and disconnected from the buyers.  Radio Shack threatened to sue Auto Shack, and Auto Shack changed its name to Auto Zone.  Microsoft sued Lindows which then changed to Linspire.  Who cares?

[Mark H]

It is now 9 months later since this thread was started and 64 bit windows is still not taking off. I am thinking about going to it, but Symantec and Macafee don't support it with their antivirus products for the general public. You can get the corporate/enterprise versions to work with 64 bit OS's, but those are sold in multiples of 5 or 10 licenses.

I found only two antivirus companies that work with 64 bit windows for the normal user so far: ESET NOD32 and Avast.

Mark H

[Buffalo2102]

It really depends what you mean by "work with 64 bit windows".  There are a few more that, although not officially supported, do actually work with x64  but with no real-time or "on-access" scanning (manual scans only).  This would obviously be unacceptable to most people, especially if you were paying for it!

CAT Quick Heal Antivirus 2006 is x64 compatible and they are listed as a Microsoft partner but at $74 (currently discounted to $52) a year, it's not the cheapest.

Sophos also do a x64 version of AV but it is aimed at small businesses and I don't know how much it costs.

When Windows x64 came out there were quite a few articles denouncing Symantec and Macafee (amongst others) for not providing x64 products.  It was thought at the time that Microsoft would jump in with it's own product and that the major AV companies would regret not developing their products.  However, as the thread title suggests, x64 has not taken off and that just hasn't happened.

Whether the lack of x64 support was a concious decision made by the AV companies (possibly based on the fact that they knew that Vista was imminent) is unknown but they seem to be embracing Vista (32-bit at least) far more readily.  There are already some companies announcing Vista compatibility before it is even released commercially.

Personally, I think Windows XP x64 will fade away before too long.  Windows XP x86 will still be the prime OS for home users for some time yet and then Vista will gradually take over (x86 and x64).  Businesses have Windows 2003.  I just can't see a reason to run Windows XP x64 in the longer term and I suspect that the major AV companies saw that a while ago.

[Whizbang]

I am curious to know if there is any secretive work going on to create an OS that is different from any of the "big" three of Windows, Apple, and Linux.  The irony here is that the current hardware is so biased in favor of Windows, followed by Mac and only piecemeal support to Linux that any intruding OS would be like an oasis on a desert island, nice to visit, but having few of the comforts of home.  That does not bode well for any future competition to Microsoft.   :'(

[scuzzy]

I believe the day will come that Microsoft will pay for its arrogance, and it will pay dearly.

I suspect Google is probably designing the perfect OS as we speak, and it will be provided to the masses free of charge. It will likely only be about 500k in size; use 256K of RAM; and it will run everything Linux, Mac, and Windows - all at the same time.

[Whizbang]

I believe the day will come that Microsoft will pay for its arrogance, and it will pay dearly.

I suspect Google is probably designing the perfect OS as we speak, and it will be provided to the masses free of charge. It will likely only be about 500k in size; use 256K of RAM; and it will run everything Linux, Mac, and Windows - all at the same time.

I believe you might be on a Rocky Mountain "high" Scuzzy.  ;D

[Allie-Baba]

Assuming everything works and one has all drivers needed.  What is the advantage to going to XP 64?  I know what it is/was supposed to be - but I haven't seen any real numbers.  Have to admit I haven't really looked.

If I were to weigh in and make a guess - it's beginning to look like XP 64 is going to go the way of about every third-fifth release of an OS for the PC platform.  Windows ME - for example.  Lot's of development but in the end it was quickly outdistanced by the more robust XP.  How many other various and asundry other OSs or OS paths have there been in the history of what is still fundamentally the "IBM PC" architecure?  And yes - I include Linux in that discussion (ducking  :) ).

Just because MS is a big company with all of their developmental might - don't think that for a minute the right hand necessarily knows what the left hand is doing, or that all of their plans work out.  In fact there may be some planned internal competition at work here as each of the internal technical groups within MS vie for budgets in the overall OS strategy - even just within MS.

THNX
BRAD

[Whizbang]

The biggest crowd attraction by far was Windows 95.  People were waiting in line for hours to get a copy.  Win 98 was not any where near the attraction of 95.  Every Windows version since 95 has tailed off in enthusiasm.  You could probably chart the OS interest by sales and get a good idea of where 64 bit is headed.  As I said earlier, office workers do not care which version they use as long as it works, and charging an arm and leg for a new OS in a very competitive work force does not draw crowds.  Eventually, I believe that Linux will become user friendly to the average person and cause even more disinterest in new Windows versions.  I am not anti-Windows; I am just looking realistically.

Microsoft would gain much more respect if they would cultivate Linux rather than alienate it.  Speed on office work stations is beginning to level off.  Who really cares if an offfice computer can boot up 3 seconds faster or open a program a half second faster than an older "primitive" OS.  If the current one is functional and causes relatively few problems, no practical manager is going to do a major switch-out.  

Right now, Microsoft seems to be trying and re-trying to get people enthusiastic about another OS, but what I see is just another suit of clothes that they are trying on to get all dressed up with no place to go.