> My OKIDATA color laser has partial support. None of my ATI > TV/Capture cards are supported. MY HP Scanner isn't supported. I > guess my 32 bit software will run OK. I would assume anything on a > new high end board would be supported. I have only briefly thought of > this and no little or nothing about 64. Is the issue only drivers? I > just read an editors comment on Vista 64 bit in this months > MaximumPC, and they are still warning readers away from it. >
Drivers were the main concern, yes. Frankly, I've had very good luck. I had to replace my old scanner, but that was it. On the software side, about the only issue comes from system utility type applications, and most of those (for me anyway) have newer versions that support 64-bit Windows. Those that don't go on my shitlist. Most of what I work with today is x64. > > >I don't know how true that will be going forward. Intel's current > trend > >seems to be to replace at least some of the EE chips with identical > non-EE > >chips within one or two refreshes. > > Not quite identical... they will be clock locked. And I have a > suspicion you will probably end up needing DDR3 when they come out. Yes, the non EE's are clock locked. That does provide some value, but (1) from what I gather, you don't do overclocking and (2) your typical overclocker wants to buy a dirt cheap CPU to push to the limit, not an EE--even an older and less expensive one. I should have clarified that I meant identical in terms of clock speed, FSB, feature support, etc. Nah, you won't need DDR3. X48 and P45 comprise Intel's last update for the LGA775 platform before launching the next-generation Nehalem architecture in Q4. Both X48 and P45 have full support for DDR2. > >Indeed, the QX9650 is set to be replaced > >in Q3 with a $500 Q9650, yes, at 3.0GHz. > > yes, I know about this. I have been waiting since January and nobody > has even mentioned a release date. I imagine we'll have a more firm date soon, but it's definitely in Q3. It was just today the price (at $530) was confirmed. > no.... I wouldn't spend that much. But I spent nine hundred something > four years ago when I bought my Xeons. I could of saved 3-400 just by > going with the 2.8s instead of the 3.06. Would I have noticed a > difference... probably not. Four years later I am very glad I spent > the extra dough then. If I had of gotten the 2.8s I would be looking > now on Ebay for 3.06s. Understood, but I wouldn't ever spend the money to upgrade a 2.8 to a 3.06--not only is it not worth the money, it isn't worth the time, especially late in the product's life. :) > > My primary computer is mission critical for my business and personal > needs. It is carefully setup to be problem free, and work the way I > want it to work when I need it to work. I can't afford down time, and > so I design redundancy into my setups. Right now I know I should tear > it down, clean everything, and put it back together, but I am > reluctant to do even that. > Given that mission critical requirement, I think you'd find me buying a server-grade tower from a tier-1 manufacturer with redundant systems (power, disk, ECC memory, etc) and a 2 or 4-hour SLA. Or, better yet, get two of the same setup and set up asynchronous replication. No way would I build my own--but that's me. I'm responsible for several mission critical server systems, and there's no substitute for the testing/validation, support, and management tools provided by a tier-1 manufacturer. Greg
