Is there a firewall that will work with win 64?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jr
  • Start date Start date
jr said:
Thats it?
There are no retail versions?
Click to expand...

Ahh .. we want to spend some money now, do we? I dabbled with x64 two
months ago and delved into all the possible solutions for a working retail
firewall and antivirus, and several of the posters here gave me some very
good tips that I tried out. Avast, Sygate, and Black Ice all work well; AVG
and Giant also work well as antivirus and antispyware. Microsoft has
actually adopted Giant as its beta version antispyware, and I found that it
actually blocked many intruders in the process, making it a viable firewall.
Am I using any of them now? Alas, no, because I've reverted to XP 32-bit
version, after vainly trying to make my hard-earned hardware and software
work with x64.
J.
 
Ahh .. we want to spend some money now, do we? I dabbled with x64 two
months ago and delved into all the possible solutions for a working retail
firewall and antivirus, and several of the posters here gave me some very
good tips that I tried out. Avast, Sygate, and Black Ice all work well; AVG
and Giant also work well as antivirus and antispyware. Microsoft has
actually adopted Giant as its beta version antispyware, and I found that it
actually blocked many intruders in the process, making it a viable firewall.
Am I using any of them now? Alas, no, because I've reverted to XP 32-bit
version, after vainly trying to make my hard-earned hardware and software
work with x64.
J.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the advice.

I had tried Win 64 out when Microssoft first realased there 1 year
trial version available ...I could get almost nothing to work w/ it .
So I reverted back also ..
But it has been a couple of months since , So i thought i would give
it another go ...It's a good os and has great potential ...it Just
needs some third party support..

Take care and thanks again
Jr
 
jr said:
Thanks for the advice.

I had tried Win 64 out when Microssoft first realased there 1 year
trial version available ...I could get almost nothing to work w/ it .
So I reverted back also ..
But it has been a couple of months since , So i thought i would give
it another go ...It's a good os and has great potential ...it Just
needs some third party support..
Click to expand...

What are the benefits of x64 that you need?

Steve
 
Steven de Mena said:
What are the benefits of x64 that you need?
Steve
Click to expand...

Good question. Personally, I would like to try out things are new in the
market - not just for the hell of it, but to see what advances technology
has attained. Had I been satisfied "with what I have", I would still be
plodding along with my Mac Classic, which in many ways would probably do
some of the tasks for which I use the computer, though still "plodding" at a
very much reduced speed. I bought myself a new computer about half a year
ago - one that has an AMD Athlon 64 processor in it - but discovered that it
did not include an OS that was made for the processor. On reading posts in
this newsgroup, I was introduced to Windows x64 and managed to download and
install the RC2, but discovered the drawbacks in not having suitable drivers
for my hardware - keyboard, mouse, scanner, etc. So I reverted to the old
32-bit Windows. The July issue PC World says right out that it's better to
wait for Longhorn, rather than install Windows x64; probably because many
hardware manufacturers are betting on it rather than produce drivers now for
the x64.

Coming back to the benefits of the x64, I would say that speed would be
the primary issue. I remember writing on this newsgroup about my opening a
DVD packed with backed-up files - with the 32-bit, it took a whole 2
minutes, but with the x64, it took 3 seconds. Repeating what I wrote a
couple of months ago, it's actually "to discover new worlds, and to go where
no man has gone before". Unfortunately there were other draw-backs, so I've
been drawn back to my ol' 32-bit.
J.
 
J.Venning said:
Good question. Personally, I would like to try out things are new in the
market - not just for the hell of it, but to see what advances technology
has attained. Had I been satisfied "with what I have", I would still be
plodding along with my Mac Classic, which in many ways would probably do
some of the tasks for which I use the computer, though still "plodding" at a
very much reduced speed. I bought myself a new computer about half a year
ago - one that has an AMD Athlon 64 processor in it - but discovered that it
did not include an OS that was made for the processor. On reading posts in
this newsgroup, I was introduced to Windows x64 and managed to download and
install the RC2, but discovered the drawbacks in not having suitable drivers
for my hardware - keyboard, mouse, scanner, etc. So I reverted to the old
32-bit Windows. The July issue PC World says right out that it's better to
wait for Longhorn, rather than install Windows x64; probably because many
hardware manufacturers are betting on it rather than produce drivers now for
the x64.

Coming back to the benefits of the x64, I would say that speed would be
the primary issue. I remember writing on this newsgroup about my opening a
DVD packed with backed-up files - with the 32-bit, it took a whole 2
minutes, but with the x64, it took 3 seconds. Repeating what I wrote a
couple of months ago, it's actually "to discover new worlds, and to go where
no man has gone before". Unfortunately there were other draw-backs, so I've
been drawn back to my ol' 32-bit.
J.
Click to expand...

Makes it tempting to dual boot it which, I read here, was possible to
do. (I am in the same predicament as you)
 
Le Rosbif said:
Makes it tempting to dual boot it which, I read here, was possible to do.
(I am in the same predicament as you)
Click to expand...

Read that, been there, done that, just haven't bought the T-shirt. When
I installed both the 32 and the 64 bit OS's, it was to enable me to use my
scanner with the x32, but I ended up having to decide which programs I would
use with which OS, and my keyboard and mouse still didn't work properly with
the x64, neither did my spell check in Outlook Express. Gradually, I found
myself using the x32 more than the x64. Would you personally install the x64
OS just to open DVD files quicker? I wouldn't.
J.
 
Le Rosbif said:
Makes it tempting to dual boot it which, I read here, was possible to do.
(I am in the same predicament as you)
Click to expand...

I have been dual booting (actual triple booting including my Penguin) with
x64 since RC1. x64 is considerably "snappier" than 32-bit with most
everything I run. Even in gaming, it feels much better. The framerates
report about the same, or a tick lower, but they run much smoother even at
the same framerates. I assume this is due to the larger memory chunk x64 is
capable of addressing.
 
Yadayada said:
I have been dual booting (actual triple booting including my Penguin) with
x64 since RC1. x64 is considerably "snappier" than 32-bit with most
everything I run. Even in gaming, it feels much better. The framerates
report about the same, or a tick lower, but they run much smoother even at
the same framerates. I assume this is due to the larger memory chunk x64
is capable of addressing.
Click to expand...
How much RAM do you have in your x64 system? 16 Gigs? 32 gigs?

Or is it the normal 1-2 gigs most of us have, and thus your x64 system is
not addressing anything more than it would in XP32.

Steve
 
Steven de Mena said:
How much RAM do you have in your x64 system? 16 Gigs? 32 gigs?

Or is it the normal 1-2 gigs most of us have, and thus your x64 system is
not addressing anything more than it would in XP32.
Click to expand...

So little your knowledge of the 64bit extensions appears to be.
 
Yadayada said:
So little your knowledge of the 64bit extensions appears to be.
Click to expand...

A truer statement was never written ! I admit that my knowledge of the
x64 is primitive, that is why I read and ask experts the likes of you in
this newsgroup for enlightment.
J.
 
So little your knowledge of the 64bit extensions appears to be.
Click to expand...

I took it that he was *only* talking about the memory extension, in which
case he's still wrong. There is a gain from having virtual memory > real
memory.

In any case, it's a short-sighted view.
 
Back
Top