S.SubZero

It came down to the download indicating it was a 64-bit media player and it wasn't. The "benefit" is simply making it so there's one less *32 in the task manager. I just use XP64 for gaming anyways so I'm not going to make a fuss about it. I recently put Vista x64 on my laptop, and it even has 64-bit Media Player 11, and I can't even get *that* to be the default. No matter what hacks or tweaks I try, it always uses the 32-bit MP11 for pre-defined associations. Extremely annoying.

Is this a default in nLite? I recently made a XP64+SP2 slipstreamed disc using nLite. I only did SP2, IE7, nVidia drivers slipstream, I didn't choose any other category. Does nLite change other settings without my knowledge?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batch_file

If Vista decides it can't run Aero on a particular setup, I'm not sure forcing it on is really the best idea. Vista on 512MB RAM just sounds painful.

No, it does not have these things. Here's the "new" things: http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsServe...3.mspx?mfr=true Otherwise it's just fixes: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/914962 Since this SP2 is primarily aimed at servers, WMP11 was probably not even considered and IE7.. meh, servers can live without that. I made a slipstreamed disc with SP2 and IE7, along with the new US Daylight Savings times (which SP2 I don't think has). I wasn't able to get WMP11 to slipstream unfortunately. nLite gave me a screwy dialogue box when it tried. I also have no way to test my disc @.@

Just a note - I slipstreamed this into XP64 with nlite this morning. While the process went fine, the ISO does get rather large. With SP2, IE7, and the latest nVidia drivers, the image was JUST under 700MB, enough that I'm not sure it would even fit on a 700MB CD. Depending on how you plan to do this, you may need to burn it out to DVD. I may do another one and see if I can take anything out.

http://www.pchell.com/virus/qaz.shtml This exploit from long ago tampered with notepad, so maybe given that practically every user will eventually run it, they decided to lock it down to prevent tampering.

Downloaded and installed over RC2 with no issues. I'll have to look up some slipstreaming documentation when I get a chance.

If you're talking about older hardware, then this topic isn't even for you. Very few people today would disagree that ISA is "dead" but I'm sure one of you has a rig that has ISA slots and probably has an ISA card or two laying around. NOT DEAD TO ME I GOT MY AWE32 RIGHT HERE SEE?! Floppies are "dead" in that Joe Consumer hasn't needed one in several years. Copying files to 1.44MB disks for transport purposes is outdated. If I want to move 1.44MB of data, Joe can upload it somewhere, then download it when he gets where he needs it. Heck, he can just email that much to himself. USB thumbdrives have made moving large amounts of data painless. CD-R and DVD-R have made archival easier and cheaper. Joe Consumer has better ways to move data than a floppy. Joe's data makes it near impossible anyway. To move a single mp3 would require spanning over several disks. Floppies are now left simply for old computers (obsolescence by choice) and vertical applications. Really, the day they stop putting that stupid interface on motherboards will be a joyous one. It's just wasted space on the board. I haven't used a floppy drive in about 10 years. Don't miss it at all.

You should talk to the Ulead people then, as PhotoImpact 12 is Vista compatible with a patch. http://www.ulead.com/tech/pi/pi_ftp.htm There is simply NO 16-bit support, at all. The code to do doesn't exist in Vista x64 (or XP64).

In Aero I can change the border color, but I don't see a way to change the inside color. My windows all come up with a bright white background and I'd like to change it. I don't see any obvious place to do this. Is it possible?

For the record... http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms838653.aspx They don't say you can't use it in XP Pro. They simply say it's not supported. If it was against any terms of service believe me, MS would have said so in this article and probably others.

I set up Ultimate 64-bit on my laptop yesterday. So far so good, but this is irking me. I currently have WMP11-64 as my default media player, thanks to a tweak in the x64Components codec pack. My videos now fire up in WMP11-64, whether they work or not. Great. However, my mp3s seem to be completely ignoring this setting, and continue to fire up in 32-bit WMP11. I tried changing the default program option several times, but it ignores this. Is there a registry tweak or more reliable way to change the default mp3 player to WMP11-64? (And why does MP11 take like 7 seconds to start playing? What's it doing?!)

It's not the age of the app per se, but rather that it's a 16-bit app. 64-bit Windows does not run 16-bit Windows programs. At all. If you REALLY need to run it, and you cannot let it go, either don't use a 64-bit OS, or configure a virtual install of a 32-bit OS for your app.

But that's absolutely 100% NOT what you said before. You said, specifically "better". To me, for the last.. well since I saw the word "better" in the dictionary, I've assumed it meant "taking something and improving it." In fact, Dictionary.com has many, many definitions for "better". Here's one: "3. of superior suitability, advisability, desirability, acceptableness, etc.; preferable: a better time for action." Now the thing that's supposedly "better" is the memory manage of Vista compared to XP. So when I read that, I think "Vista has memory management that is superior to XP's." But the reality is that it doesn't, UNLESS you redefine what it is you're making "better." Your definition of "better" seems to be like this: "If you use a higher grade gasoline in your car, you will get better mileage. But you also need to buy a new car that already has better mileage to begin with." See how that comes across? You don't make something better by replacing what you're trying to improve. The reason Vista has all these memory management things is to compensate for the fact that it's a freakin' beast on resources. They enhanced the suspension, bored out the engine, upgraded the transmission, and then threw an elephant in the back seat. In the end, does it really end up being better? Your statement of upgrading hardware with the same software also doesn't mean much. A faster video card makes games go faster. Period. If I have XP, and I have a $30 junk 8MB PCI card in that rig, and I replace that with a nVidia 8800GTX, guess what? Faster gaming. Guaranteed. Heck, even Freecell would be faster. Faster hard drive absolutely helps ANY OS. Faster CPU helps ANY OS. More memory helps any OS, if you're using it. Vista with 1GB of RAM and XP with 1GB of RAM will handle an app like, oh.. Photoshop, differently. If you need to load a 600MB project into Photoshop, do you think a system with XP and 1GB or an identical system with Vista and 1GB would be better suited? Now bump the RAM in both systems up to 2GB, and increase the project size to 1.8GB. Which will handle it better? Recent games like 1GB and even 2GB of RAM, and they cache alot and try to make use of as much as they can. I'd rather have XP's amount of free memory to fill with game data than Vista's. And that's if Vista doesn't randomly decide to index my hard drive. I hear it likes to do that. I own a desktop and laptop, both have 2GB of RAM and moderate to high-end specs. I run XP64 on my desktop and it's insanely fast. It's fast and it works. It works RIGHT. I run benchmarks, it benches right in the ballpark of systems of it's specifications. I load a game and it runs. Perfectly. I installed Final Fantasy XI (which won't install in Vista at all) and it's been pretty much running ever since, and it's perfect. My laptop has XP MCE on it and it works. It benches where it should, it runs apps like it should, it's fast and reliable. Vista so far from what I've read does not promise ANY of this with any consistency. The irony is that I'm sure to fix alot of the problems they'll just tack on yet more code. Be kinda funny if SP1 for Vista added 100MB to memory usage or something, just to fix things.

I really wish I knew the logic behind an OS taking several hundred megs of RAM at idle somehow being "better memory management" than one that takes a fraction of that at idle. XP in 1GB of RAM is happy. Vista in 1GB of RAM.. "does better in 2GB." How is memory being managed better here? If Vista could do everything it does with the memory footprint of XP I'd be extremely impressed. The way it is now, I'm definitely not impressed.

http://www.cpuinfo.de/index.php?lang=en&am...amp;articleid=1 This software tells you what instruction sets a CPU knows.

Ok, fine. I'll amend my statement. There is no downloadable 64-bit version of WMP. Windows Media Player (64-bit) By Microsoft http://www.windowsmarketplace.com/details....?itemid=3119208 Along with the third link in my other post (the link for the supposedly downloadable 64-bit version of WMP), this *Microsoft site* seems to think it's a 64-bit media player. So even if it's not a 64-bit player, why do they keep calling it as such?

http://compnetworking.about.com/od/windows...etworkdrive.htm This is the XP way. I don't have Vista so I don't know if the prompts look different. This isn't really a Vista question anyway.

It's in Vista 64, so you're wrong there. http://extended64.com/photos/rhoffman/picture2101.aspx http://www.mydigitallife.info/2007/01/19/s...x64-as-default/ --- This is the one I downloaded. I downloaded it BECAUSE of the bolded part. http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details...;DisplayLang=en

http://www.lexmark.com/lexmark/sequentiale...7567_en,00.html "Coming soon" Seeing as they actually have things like "March 2007" for some things, I assume "coming soon" means "no idea when." My Epson CX5800F is in the same boat.

I got Media Player 11 64-bit edition from Microsoft, the official one from January. http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details...;displaylang=en I'm trying to install it on XP64. However, despite being the 64-bit version, it never actually installs any 64-bit player. The installer installs the 32-bit version in "C:\Program Files (x86)\windows media player" just peachy, but no 64-bit version ever is generated in C:\Program Files, and the one in x86 is showing as a 32-bit app. Forget codec issues or compatibility or that stuff, I just want to get the 64-bit player installed. Is anyone else running into this issue?

http://www.crn.com/sections/breakingnews/b...cleId=162100194 This was from well over a year ago. MS was working on a 64-bit version of Office 2007. I can't really find anything else on it. Did they ever do anything with this, or was it blown off?

It's not a driver problem. When a floppy disk is formatted, it has a piece of information put at the beginning of the disk. Older disks may not have this piece of information, and therefore XP64 can't properly read the disk. This actually goes all the way back to NT4, and probably 3.51. http://www.jsifaq.com/SF/Tips/Tip.aspx?id=1861 Are you trying to read very old disks? They may just have gone bad if they are very old. I haven't owned a floppy drive in about 10 years, and I remember even then alot of disks I had were unreadable or had errors. (floppy drives in 2007.. amazing)

Try setting the compatibility mode to Windows XP? A 32-bit app can't magically run as a 64-bit one.