<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:pingback="http://madskills.com/public/xml/rss/module/pingback/" xmlns:trackback="http://madskills.com/public/xml/rss/module/trackback/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>this.Pose() as Expert - x64</title>
    <link>http://chrison.net/</link>
    <description />
    <language>en-us</language>
    <copyright>Christoph Wille</copyright>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2008 18:20:45 GMT</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>newtelligence dasBlog 2.3.9074.18820</generator>
    <managingEditor>christoph.wille@gmail.com</managingEditor>
    <webMaster>christoph.wille@gmail.com</webMaster>
    <item>
      <trackback:ping>http://chrison.net/Trackback.aspx?guid=00384b7a-52d6-455e-bf51-7668159debb3</trackback:ping>
      <pingback:server>http://chrison.net/pingback.aspx</pingback:server>
      <pingback:target>http://chrison.net/PermaLink,guid,00384b7a-52d6-455e-bf51-7668159debb3.aspx</pingback:target>
      <dc:creator>Christoph Wille</dc:creator>
      <wfw:comment>http://chrison.net/CommentView,guid,00384b7a-52d6-455e-bf51-7668159debb3.aspx</wfw:comment>
      <wfw:commentRss>http://chrison.net/SyndicationService.asmx/GetEntryCommentsRss?guid=00384b7a-52d6-455e-bf51-7668159debb3</wfw:commentRss>
      <slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
      <body xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
        <p>
        </p>
        <p>
No, this time it is not Microsoft - it is NetGear that is not providing an x64-capable
version of their software. The very latest VPN client software for a ProSafe router
(FVS338) doesn't work (install) on Vista x64: 
</p>
        <p>
          <img src="http://chrison.net/content/binary/netgearvpnclient_x64.png" border="0" />
        </p>
        <p>
I think it is needless to say that I am not amused. Who are you kidding in late 2008?
</p>
        <img width="0" height="0" src="http://chrison.net/aggbug.ashx?id=00384b7a-52d6-455e-bf51-7668159debb3" />
      </body>
      <title>Latest ProSafe VPN Firewall Client on x64</title>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">http://chrison.net/PermaLink,guid,00384b7a-52d6-455e-bf51-7668159debb3.aspx</guid>
      <link>http://chrison.net/LatestProSafeVPNFirewallClientOnX64.aspx</link>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2008 18:20:45 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
No, this time it is not Microsoft - it is NetGear that is not providing an x64-capable
version of their software. The very latest VPN client software for a ProSafe router
(FVS338) doesn't work (install) on Vista x64:&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
&lt;img src="http://chrison.net/content/binary/netgearvpnclient_x64.png" border=0&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
I think it is needless to say that I am not amused. Who are you kidding in late 2008?
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;img width="0" height="0" src="http://chrison.net/aggbug.ashx?id=00384b7a-52d6-455e-bf51-7668159debb3" /&gt;</description>
      <comments>http://chrison.net/CommentView,guid,00384b7a-52d6-455e-bf51-7668159debb3.aspx</comments>
      <category>Security</category>
      <category>this</category>
      <category>x64</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <trackback:ping>http://chrison.net/Trackback.aspx?guid=059d9379-138d-419d-9672-8408db9e5ceb</trackback:ping>
      <pingback:server>http://chrison.net/pingback.aspx</pingback:server>
      <pingback:target>http://chrison.net/PermaLink,guid,059d9379-138d-419d-9672-8408db9e5ceb.aspx</pingback:target>
      <dc:creator>Christoph Wille</dc:creator>
      <wfw:comment>http://chrison.net/CommentView,guid,059d9379-138d-419d-9672-8408db9e5ceb.aspx</wfw:comment>
      <wfw:commentRss>http://chrison.net/SyndicationService.asmx/GetEntryCommentsRss?guid=059d9379-138d-419d-9672-8408db9e5ceb</wfw:commentRss>
      <slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
      <body xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
        <p>
This time it is the Visual Studio 2008 extensions for Windows Sharepoint Services
3.0:
</p>
        <p>
          <img src="http://chrison.net/content/binary/anotherone_x64.png" border="0" />
        </p>
        <p>
Given all my past run-ins with developing on x64, how is anyone supposed get any development
work done on a x64 box? 
</p>
        <img width="0" height="0" src="http://chrison.net/aggbug.ashx?id=059d9379-138d-419d-9672-8408db9e5ceb" />
      </body>
      <title>Yet Another Microsoft Application Not Supporting x64</title>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">http://chrison.net/PermaLink,guid,059d9379-138d-419d-9672-8408db9e5ceb.aspx</guid>
      <link>http://chrison.net/YetAnotherMicrosoftApplicationNotSupportingX64.aspx</link>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Oct 2008 16:36:13 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;
This time it is the Visual Studio 2008 extensions for Windows Sharepoint Services
3.0:
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
&lt;img src="http://chrison.net/content/binary/anotherone_x64.png" border=0&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Given all my past run-ins with developing on x64, how is anyone supposed get any development
work done on a x64 box? 
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;img width="0" height="0" src="http://chrison.net/aggbug.ashx?id=059d9379-138d-419d-9672-8408db9e5ceb" /&gt;</description>
      <comments>http://chrison.net/CommentView,guid,059d9379-138d-419d-9672-8408db9e5ceb.aspx</comments>
      <category>.NET</category>
      <category>x64</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <trackback:ping>http://chrison.net/Trackback.aspx?guid=f0d1f505-a9c2-4536-81b1-862c87c7e745</trackback:ping>
      <pingback:server>http://chrison.net/pingback.aspx</pingback:server>
      <pingback:target>http://chrison.net/PermaLink,guid,f0d1f505-a9c2-4536-81b1-862c87c7e745.aspx</pingback:target>
      <dc:creator>Christoph Wille</dc:creator>
      <wfw:comment>http://chrison.net/CommentView,guid,f0d1f505-a9c2-4536-81b1-862c87c7e745.aspx</wfw:comment>
      <wfw:commentRss>http://chrison.net/SyndicationService.asmx/GetEntryCommentsRss?guid=f0d1f505-a9c2-4536-81b1-862c87c7e745</wfw:commentRss>
      <slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
      <body xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
        <p>
I am currently working on a Compact Framework project, and started development on
a different machine - where I successfully used the Cellular Emulator of the Windows
Mobile SDK. Today, on the other machine (the laptop), it didn't start but present
me with the following error message:
</p>
        <p>
          <img src="http://chrison.net/content/binary/sevenpairsofsomething.png" border="0" />
        </p>
        <p>
After some searching (on the G-word search engine), I came across this post:
</p>
        <p>
          <a href="http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=3538593&amp;SiteID=1">http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=3538593&amp;SiteID=1</a>
        </p>
        <p>
Sure enough I am using Vista x64, heck, we are living in 2008 with multicore CPUs
and 4GB+ of RAM!
</p>
        <p>
And here is the Catch 22: when moving development to a Virtual PC image, you don't
get USB ports which you need for connecting to a real device...
</p>
        <img width="0" height="0" src="http://chrison.net/aggbug.ashx?id=f0d1f505-a9c2-4536-81b1-862c87c7e745" />
      </body>
      <title>Mid-2008 and x64 is Still a Dead End</title>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">http://chrison.net/PermaLink,guid,f0d1f505-a9c2-4536-81b1-862c87c7e745.aspx</guid>
      <link>http://chrison.net/Mid2008AndX64IsStillADeadEnd.aspx</link>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:55:11 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;
I am currently working on a Compact Framework project, and started development on
a different machine - where I successfully used the Cellular Emulator of the Windows
Mobile SDK. Today, on the other machine (the laptop), it didn't start but present
me with the following error message:
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
&lt;img src="http://chrison.net/content/binary/sevenpairsofsomething.png" border=0&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
After some searching (on the G-word search engine), I came across this post:
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
&lt;a href="http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=3538593&amp;amp;SiteID=1"&gt;http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=3538593&amp;amp;SiteID=1&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Sure enough I am using Vista x64, heck, we are living in 2008 with multicore CPUs
and 4GB+ of RAM!
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
And here is the Catch 22: when moving development to a Virtual PC image, you don't
get USB ports which you need for connecting to a real device...
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;img width="0" height="0" src="http://chrison.net/aggbug.ashx?id=f0d1f505-a9c2-4536-81b1-862c87c7e745" /&gt;</description>
      <comments>http://chrison.net/CommentView,guid,f0d1f505-a9c2-4536-81b1-862c87c7e745.aspx</comments>
      <category>.NET</category>
      <category>Smartphone and PocketPC</category>
      <category>Vista</category>
      <category>x64</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <trackback:ping>http://chrison.net/Trackback.aspx?guid=860b3912-9799-4b2d-b602-98ab374e1e9f</trackback:ping>
      <pingback:server>http://chrison.net/pingback.aspx</pingback:server>
      <pingback:target>http://chrison.net/PermaLink,guid,860b3912-9799-4b2d-b602-98ab374e1e9f.aspx</pingback:target>
      <dc:creator>Christoph Wille</dc:creator>
      <wfw:comment>http://chrison.net/CommentView,guid,860b3912-9799-4b2d-b602-98ab374e1e9f.aspx</wfw:comment>
      <wfw:commentRss>http://chrison.net/SyndicationService.asmx/GetEntryCommentsRss?guid=860b3912-9799-4b2d-b602-98ab374e1e9f</wfw:commentRss>
      <body xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
        <p>
This is ridiculous considering that we are fast approaching mid-2006:
</p>
        <p>
          <img src="http://chrison.net/content/binary/RealPlayerOnx64.png" border="0" />
        </p>
        <img width="0" height="0" src="http://chrison.net/aggbug.ashx?id=860b3912-9799-4b2d-b602-98ab374e1e9f" />
      </body>
      <title>No RealPlayer on x64</title>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">http://chrison.net/PermaLink,guid,860b3912-9799-4b2d-b602-98ab374e1e9f.aspx</guid>
      <link>http://chrison.net/NoRealPlayerOnX64.aspx</link>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 May 2006 09:04:45 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;
This is ridiculous considering that we are fast approaching mid-2006:
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
&lt;img src="http://chrison.net/content/binary/RealPlayerOnx64.png" border=0&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;img width="0" height="0" src="http://chrison.net/aggbug.ashx?id=860b3912-9799-4b2d-b602-98ab374e1e9f" /&gt;</description>
      <comments>http://chrison.net/CommentView,guid,860b3912-9799-4b2d-b602-98ab374e1e9f.aspx</comments>
      <category>x64</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <trackback:ping>http://chrison.net/Trackback.aspx?guid=62d943ca-9086-48e6-8170-3c50274868d8</trackback:ping>
      <pingback:server>http://chrison.net/pingback.aspx</pingback:server>
      <pingback:target>http://chrison.net/PermaLink,guid,62d943ca-9086-48e6-8170-3c50274868d8.aspx</pingback:target>
      <dc:creator>Christoph Wille</dc:creator>
      <wfw:comment>http://chrison.net/CommentView,guid,62d943ca-9086-48e6-8170-3c50274868d8.aspx</wfw:comment>
      <wfw:commentRss>http://chrison.net/SyndicationService.asmx/GetEntryCommentsRss?guid=62d943ca-9086-48e6-8170-3c50274868d8</wfw:commentRss>
      <slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
      <body xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
        <p>
As you can see <a href="http://chrison.net/ScreenRecordingWithWindowsMediaEncoder.aspx">in
this blog post</a>, Windows Media Encoder allows for screen recording (option: Capture
Screen). Till now I had no need for a screen recording on my x64 box, but today was
the day:
</p>
        <p>
          <img src="http://chrison.net/content/binary/NoScreenRecordingOnX64.png" border="0" />
        </p>
        <p>
I am really, really growing tired of all the x64 annoyances. 
</p>
        <p>
          <strong>Update</strong> Installed the x86 version of Media Encoder alongside, et voila,
the x86 version delivers.
</p>
        <img width="0" height="0" src="http://chrison.net/aggbug.ashx?id=62d943ca-9086-48e6-8170-3c50274868d8" />
      </body>
      <title>No Screen Recording For Me (on x64)</title>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">http://chrison.net/PermaLink,guid,62d943ca-9086-48e6-8170-3c50274868d8.aspx</guid>
      <link>http://chrison.net/NoScreenRecordingForMeOnX64.aspx</link>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Mar 2006 16:05:28 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;
As you can see &lt;a href="http://chrison.net/ScreenRecordingWithWindowsMediaEncoder.aspx"&gt;in
this blog post&lt;/a&gt;, Windows Media Encoder allows for screen recording (option: Capture
Screen). Till now I had no need for a screen recording on my x64 box, but today was
the day:
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
&lt;img src="http://chrison.net/content/binary/NoScreenRecordingOnX64.png" border=0&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
I am really, really growing tired of all the x64 annoyances. 
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;Update&lt;/strong&gt; Installed the x86 version of Media Encoder alongside, et voila,
the x86 version delivers.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;img width="0" height="0" src="http://chrison.net/aggbug.ashx?id=62d943ca-9086-48e6-8170-3c50274868d8" /&gt;</description>
      <comments>http://chrison.net/CommentView,guid,62d943ca-9086-48e6-8170-3c50274868d8.aspx</comments>
      <category>x64</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <trackback:ping>http://chrison.net/Trackback.aspx?guid=5e8ebf41-aeb6-45b1-ad83-b0ead46b516c</trackback:ping>
      <pingback:server>http://chrison.net/pingback.aspx</pingback:server>
      <pingback:target>http://chrison.net/PermaLink,guid,5e8ebf41-aeb6-45b1-ad83-b0ead46b516c.aspx</pingback:target>
      <dc:creator>Christoph Wille</dc:creator>
      <wfw:comment>http://chrison.net/CommentView,guid,5e8ebf41-aeb6-45b1-ad83-b0ead46b516c.aspx</wfw:comment>
      <wfw:commentRss>http://chrison.net/SyndicationService.asmx/GetEntryCommentsRss?guid=5e8ebf41-aeb6-45b1-ad83-b0ead46b516c</wfw:commentRss>
      <slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
      <body xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
        <p>
        </p>
        <p>
Because I wanted to create a DVD cover, I decided to install CorelDraw 10 (fine for
what I need) onto my box. However, it very much refused to cooperate:
</p>
        <p>
          <img src="http://chrison.net/content/binary/x64NotAgain_CorelDraw10.png" border="0" />
        </p>
        <p>
It told me that it expects NT4 through 2000 as an operating system, however, that
it cannot detect my current OS (the blank third column). And that's the story. No
CorelDraw for me on the x64 box. Grrrrr.
</p>
        <p>
          <strong>Update</strong> No dice on 32-Bit Vista (December CTP) either. Setup completely
craps there. Well, so the final option is to install CorelDraw 10 in a 32-Bit virtual
machine on my x64 box...
</p>
        <img width="0" height="0" src="http://chrison.net/aggbug.ashx?id=5e8ebf41-aeb6-45b1-ad83-b0ead46b516c" />
      </body>
      <title>Most Creative "Won't Install on Your x64 Box" Setup Message to Date</title>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">http://chrison.net/PermaLink,guid,5e8ebf41-aeb6-45b1-ad83-b0ead46b516c.aspx</guid>
      <link>http://chrison.net/MostCreativeWontInstallOnYourX64BoxSetupMessageToDate.aspx</link>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2006 11:42:21 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Because I wanted to create a DVD cover, I decided to install CorelDraw 10 (fine for
what I need) onto my box. However, it very much refused to cooperate:
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
&lt;img src="http://chrison.net/content/binary/x64NotAgain_CorelDraw10.png" border=0&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
It told me that it expects NT4 through 2000 as an operating system, however, that
it cannot detect my current OS (the blank third column). And that's the story. No
CorelDraw for me on the x64 box. Grrrrr.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;Update&lt;/strong&gt; No dice on 32-Bit Vista (December CTP) either. Setup completely
craps there. Well, so the final option is to install CorelDraw 10 in a 32-Bit virtual
machine on my x64 box...
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;img width="0" height="0" src="http://chrison.net/aggbug.ashx?id=5e8ebf41-aeb6-45b1-ad83-b0ead46b516c" /&gt;</description>
      <comments>http://chrison.net/CommentView,guid,5e8ebf41-aeb6-45b1-ad83-b0ead46b516c.aspx</comments>
      <category>this</category>
      <category>x64</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <trackback:ping>http://chrison.net/Trackback.aspx?guid=34fc57ae-9e73-4427-816d-697a666a4519</trackback:ping>
      <pingback:server>http://chrison.net/pingback.aspx</pingback:server>
      <pingback:target>http://chrison.net/PermaLink,guid,34fc57ae-9e73-4427-816d-697a666a4519.aspx</pingback:target>
      <dc:creator>Christoph Wille</dc:creator>
      <wfw:comment>http://chrison.net/CommentView,guid,34fc57ae-9e73-4427-816d-697a666a4519.aspx</wfw:comment>
      <wfw:commentRss>http://chrison.net/SyndicationService.asmx/GetEntryCommentsRss?guid=34fc57ae-9e73-4427-816d-697a666a4519</wfw:commentRss>
      <slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
      <body xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
        <p>
The culprit: <a href="http://transfers.one.microsoft.com/ftm/">http://transfers.one.microsoft.com/ftm/</a></p>
        <p>
The error message:
</p>
        <pre>---------------------------<br />
Program Cannot Start or Run<br />
---------------------------<br />
The program or feature "\??\C:\DOCUME~1\CHRIST~1\LOCALS~1\TEMP\~EXB0000\setup.exe" 
<br />
cannot start or run due to incompatibility with 64-bit versions of Windows. Please 
<br />
contact the software vendor to ask if a 64-bit Windows compatible version 
<br />
is available.</pre>
        <p>
It's "only" the FTM that I need for Connect and MSDN Premium downloads! Dear Microsoft,
how about a working version for us Windows x64 guinea pigs?
</p>
        <p>
Note: I am complaining about the standalone install, not the ActiveX. But who's using
IE these days?
</p>
        <img width="0" height="0" src="http://chrison.net/aggbug.ashx?id=34fc57ae-9e73-4427-816d-697a666a4519" />
      </body>
      <title>Hitting the Roof</title>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">http://chrison.net/PermaLink,guid,34fc57ae-9e73-4427-816d-697a666a4519.aspx</guid>
      <link>http://chrison.net/HittingTheRoof.aspx</link>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Jan 2006 09:51:06 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;
The culprit: &lt;a href="http://transfers.one.microsoft.com/ftm/"&gt;http://transfers.one.microsoft.com/ftm/&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
The error message:
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;pre&gt;---------------------------&lt;br&gt;
Program Cannot Start or Run&lt;br&gt;
---------------------------&lt;br&gt;
The program or feature "\??\C:\DOCUME~1\CHRIST~1\LOCALS~1\TEMP\~EXB0000\setup.exe" 
&lt;br&gt;
cannot start or run due to incompatibility with 64-bit versions of Windows. Please 
&lt;br&gt;
contact the software vendor to ask if a 64-bit Windows compatible version 
&lt;br&gt;
is available.&lt;/pre&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
It's "only" the FTM that I need for Connect and MSDN Premium downloads! Dear Microsoft,
how about a working version for us Windows x64 guinea pigs?
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Note: I am complaining about the standalone install, not the ActiveX. But who's using
IE these days?
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;img width="0" height="0" src="http://chrison.net/aggbug.ashx?id=34fc57ae-9e73-4427-816d-697a666a4519" /&gt;</description>
      <comments>http://chrison.net/CommentView,guid,34fc57ae-9e73-4427-816d-697a666a4519.aspx</comments>
      <category>this</category>
      <category>x64</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <trackback:ping>http://chrison.net/Trackback.aspx?guid=04a8e4ce-be0c-4838-be58-69896592423b</trackback:ping>
      <pingback:server>http://chrison.net/pingback.aspx</pingback:server>
      <pingback:target>http://chrison.net/PermaLink,guid,04a8e4ce-be0c-4838-be58-69896592423b.aspx</pingback:target>
      <dc:creator>Christoph Wille</dc:creator>
      <wfw:comment>http://chrison.net/CommentView,guid,04a8e4ce-be0c-4838-be58-69896592423b.aspx</wfw:comment>
      <wfw:commentRss>http://chrison.net/SyndicationService.asmx/GetEntryCommentsRss?guid=04a8e4ce-be0c-4838-be58-69896592423b</wfw:commentRss>
      <body xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
        <p>
When I installed the QuickTime security fix (v7.0.4 for the records) on my laptop,
I finally found out who caused this event log entry on my x64 box:
</p>
        <p>
          <img src="http://chrison.net/content/binary/i64.png" border="0" />
        </p>
        <p>
I didn't pay attention to the files copied when installing on my x64 box, but this
incompatible GEARAspi driver is being installed by iTunes (which I still don't get
why it is installed when I need QuickTime, but isn't this the kind of "packaging"
that got Microsoft into hot water?).
</p>
        <img width="0" height="0" src="http://chrison.net/aggbug.ashx?id=04a8e4ce-be0c-4838-be58-69896592423b" />
      </body>
      <title>i64</title>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">http://chrison.net/PermaLink,guid,04a8e4ce-be0c-4838-be58-69896592423b.aspx</guid>
      <link>http://chrison.net/i64.aspx</link>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jan 2006 07:01:52 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;
When I installed the QuickTime security fix (v7.0.4 for the records)&amp;nbsp;on my laptop,
I finally found out who caused this event log entry on my x64 box:
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
&lt;img src="http://chrison.net/content/binary/i64.png" border=0&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
I didn't pay attention to the files copied when installing on my x64 box, but this
incompatible GEARAspi driver is being installed by iTunes (which I still don't get
why it is installed when I need QuickTime, but isn't this the kind of "packaging"
that got Microsoft into hot water?).
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;img width="0" height="0" src="http://chrison.net/aggbug.ashx?id=04a8e4ce-be0c-4838-be58-69896592423b" /&gt;</description>
      <comments>http://chrison.net/CommentView,guid,04a8e4ce-be0c-4838-be58-69896592423b.aspx</comments>
      <category>x64</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <trackback:ping>http://chrison.net/Trackback.aspx?guid=e006ed62-0aa4-4399-97d3-ea855f83a974</trackback:ping>
      <pingback:server>http://chrison.net/pingback.aspx</pingback:server>
      <pingback:target>http://chrison.net/PermaLink,guid,e006ed62-0aa4-4399-97d3-ea855f83a974.aspx</pingback:target>
      <dc:creator>Christoph Wille</dc:creator>
      <wfw:comment>http://chrison.net/CommentView,guid,e006ed62-0aa4-4399-97d3-ea855f83a974.aspx</wfw:comment>
      <wfw:commentRss>http://chrison.net/SyndicationService.asmx/GetEntryCommentsRss?guid=e006ed62-0aa4-4399-97d3-ea855f83a974</wfw:commentRss>
      <body xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
        <p>
You have heard that many times before - use <a href="http://www.gotdotnet.com/team/fxcop/">FxCop</a>!
This time you hear a wailing sound from the x64 world, me who is griping about assemblies
that ain't cross platform as they should be (like you are using ints instead of IntPtrs
for doing PInvoke...). Please, please check your assemblies with <a href="http://www.gotdotnet.com/team/fxcop/">FxCop</a>,
even if you use only those rules:
</p>
        <p>
          <img src="http://chrison.net/content/binary/usefxcopforx64comp.png" border="0" />
        </p>
        <p>
Thank you so much for considering!
</p>
        <img width="0" height="0" src="http://chrison.net/aggbug.ashx?id=e006ed62-0aa4-4399-97d3-ea855f83a974" />
      </body>
      <title>Do Me a Favor - Use FxCop</title>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">http://chrison.net/PermaLink,guid,e006ed62-0aa4-4399-97d3-ea855f83a974.aspx</guid>
      <link>http://chrison.net/DoMeAFavorUseFxCop.aspx</link>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2006 18:02:13 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;
You have heard that many times before - use &lt;a href="http://www.gotdotnet.com/team/fxcop/"&gt;FxCop&lt;/a&gt;!
This time you hear a wailing sound from the x64 world, me who is griping about assemblies
that ain't cross platform as they should be (like you are using ints instead of IntPtrs
for doing PInvoke...). Please, please check your assemblies with &lt;a href="http://www.gotdotnet.com/team/fxcop/"&gt;FxCop&lt;/a&gt;,
even if you use only those rules:
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
&lt;img src="http://chrison.net/content/binary/usefxcopforx64comp.png" border="0"&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Thank you so much for considering!
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;img width="0" height="0" src="http://chrison.net/aggbug.ashx?id=e006ed62-0aa4-4399-97d3-ea855f83a974" /&gt;</description>
      <comments>http://chrison.net/CommentView,guid,e006ed62-0aa4-4399-97d3-ea855f83a974.aspx</comments>
      <category>.NET</category>
      <category>x64</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <trackback:ping>http://chrison.net/Trackback.aspx?guid=93c853be-a5ff-4a90-a854-a1da68551641</trackback:ping>
      <pingback:server>http://chrison.net/pingback.aspx</pingback:server>
      <pingback:target>http://chrison.net/PermaLink,guid,93c853be-a5ff-4a90-a854-a1da68551641.aspx</pingback:target>
      <dc:creator>Christoph Wille</dc:creator>
      <wfw:comment>http://chrison.net/CommentView,guid,93c853be-a5ff-4a90-a854-a1da68551641.aspx</wfw:comment>
      <wfw:commentRss>http://chrison.net/SyndicationService.asmx/GetEntryCommentsRss?guid=93c853be-a5ff-4a90-a854-a1da68551641</wfw:commentRss>
      <body xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
        <p>
          <a href="http://www.3dvelocity.com/articles/win64compatibility/win64softlist.htm">http://www.3dvelocity.com/articles/win64compatibility/win64softlist.htm</a>
        </p>
        <p>
Very useful. And sad, because even the latest Nero / InCD doesn't support x64. No
packet writing software for me.
</p>
        <p>
          <strong>Update</strong> There is a packet writing SW for Windows XP Professional x64 <a href="- per Mail eingesendetes wird korrekt wiedergegeben">according
to this press release</a>. But what are they thinking? The <a href="http://www.cyberlink.com/multi/download/trials_33_ENU.html">trial
version</a> ships <strong>without</strong> the packet writing software InstantBurn.
Come on.
</p>
        <img width="0" height="0" src="http://chrison.net/aggbug.ashx?id=93c853be-a5ff-4a90-a854-a1da68551641" />
      </body>
      <title>Windows 64bit Compatibility Guide</title>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">http://chrison.net/PermaLink,guid,93c853be-a5ff-4a90-a854-a1da68551641.aspx</guid>
      <link>http://chrison.net/Windows64bitCompatibilityGuide.aspx</link>
      <pubDate>Sat, 07 Jan 2006 14:16:02 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;
&lt;a href="http://www.3dvelocity.com/articles/win64compatibility/win64softlist.htm"&gt;http://www.3dvelocity.com/articles/win64compatibility/win64softlist.htm&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Very useful. And sad, because even the latest Nero / InCD doesn't support x64. No
packet writing software for me.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;Update&lt;/strong&gt; There is a packet writing SW for Windows XP Professional x64 &lt;a href="- per Mail eingesendetes wird korrekt wiedergegeben"&gt;according
to this press release&lt;/a&gt;. But what are they thinking? The &lt;a href="http://www.cyberlink.com/multi/download/trials_33_ENU.html"&gt;trial
version&lt;/a&gt; ships &lt;strong&gt;without&lt;/strong&gt; the packet writing software InstantBurn.
Come on.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;img width="0" height="0" src="http://chrison.net/aggbug.ashx?id=93c853be-a5ff-4a90-a854-a1da68551641" /&gt;</description>
      <comments>http://chrison.net/CommentView,guid,93c853be-a5ff-4a90-a854-a1da68551641.aspx</comments>
      <category>this</category>
      <category>x64</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <trackback:ping>http://chrison.net/Trackback.aspx?guid=d0cd6378-d617-4ad5-aca4-2134622c7d4a</trackback:ping>
      <pingback:server>http://chrison.net/pingback.aspx</pingback:server>
      <pingback:target>http://chrison.net/PermaLink,guid,d0cd6378-d617-4ad5-aca4-2134622c7d4a.aspx</pingback:target>
      <dc:creator>Christoph Wille</dc:creator>
      <wfw:comment>http://chrison.net/CommentView,guid,d0cd6378-d617-4ad5-aca4-2134622c7d4a.aspx</wfw:comment>
      <wfw:commentRss>http://chrison.net/SyndicationService.asmx/GetEntryCommentsRss?guid=d0cd6378-d617-4ad5-aca4-2134622c7d4a</wfw:commentRss>
      <slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
      <body xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
        <p>
When will the misery end? Initially, I only bought 2GB of memory for my x64 workstation.
But I intended to add two more from day one, and today was the day - two additional
Kingston KVR400X64C3A/1G DDR-400 modules were delivered to my doorstep. So in theory
4 modules would yield 4GB of memory.
</p>
        <p>
Not so fast, Buster. Exactly. After finding out the hard way (blue screen and various
other sorts of lock-ups), it looks suspiciously like the ASUS A8N-SLI Premium does
not like four DDR-400 modules! (the <a href="http://www.valueram.com/config/ModelsInfoTest2.asp?SysID=21321&amp;mfr=ASUS&amp;model=A8N&amp;Sys=21321-ASUS-A8N-SLI%2FA8N-SLI+Deluxe%2FA8N-SLI+Premium&amp;OEM=ASU&amp;submit1=Search">ValueRAM
site hints at this</a>, and there are <a href="http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/46615/">discussion
threads too</a>) that pretty much takes the biscuit.
</p>
        <img width="0" height="0" src="http://chrison.net/aggbug.ashx?id=d0cd6378-d617-4ad5-aca4-2134622c7d4a" />
      </body>
      <title>You Can Have Too Much RAM</title>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">http://chrison.net/PermaLink,guid,d0cd6378-d617-4ad5-aca4-2134622c7d4a.aspx</guid>
      <link>http://chrison.net/YouCanHaveTooMuchRAM.aspx</link>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jan 2006 19:01:45 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;
When will the misery end? Initially, I only bought 2GB of memory for my x64 workstation.
But I intended to add two more from day one,&amp;nbsp;and today was the day - two additional
Kingston KVR400X64C3A/1G DDR-400 modules were delivered to my doorstep. So in theory
4 modules would yield 4GB of memory.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Not so fast, Buster. Exactly. After finding out the hard way (blue screen and various
other sorts of lock-ups), it looks suspiciously like the ASUS A8N-SLI Premium does
not like&amp;nbsp;four DDR-400 modules! (the &lt;a href="http://www.valueram.com/config/ModelsInfoTest2.asp?SysID=21321&amp;amp;mfr=ASUS&amp;amp;model=A8N&amp;amp;Sys=21321-ASUS-A8N-SLI%2FA8N-SLI+Deluxe%2FA8N-SLI+Premium&amp;amp;OEM=ASU&amp;amp;submit1=Search"&gt;ValueRAM
site hints at this&lt;/a&gt;, and there are &lt;a href="http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/46615/"&gt;discussion
threads too&lt;/a&gt;) that pretty much takes the biscuit.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;img width="0" height="0" src="http://chrison.net/aggbug.ashx?id=d0cd6378-d617-4ad5-aca4-2134622c7d4a" /&gt;</description>
      <comments>http://chrison.net/CommentView,guid,d0cd6378-d617-4ad5-aca4-2134622c7d4a.aspx</comments>
      <category>this</category>
      <category>x64</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <trackback:ping>http://chrison.net/Trackback.aspx?guid=f20470ab-44f7-4d51-a095-5bdecacfa97b</trackback:ping>
      <pingback:server>http://chrison.net/pingback.aspx</pingback:server>
      <pingback:target>http://chrison.net/PermaLink,guid,f20470ab-44f7-4d51-a095-5bdecacfa97b.aspx</pingback:target>
      <dc:creator>Christoph Wille</dc:creator>
      <wfw:comment>http://chrison.net/CommentView,guid,f20470ab-44f7-4d51-a095-5bdecacfa97b.aspx</wfw:comment>
      <wfw:commentRss>http://chrison.net/SyndicationService.asmx/GetEntryCommentsRss?guid=f20470ab-44f7-4d51-a095-5bdecacfa97b</wfw:commentRss>
      <body xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
        <p>
Is there anything working on Windows XP Pro x64? I think not. Point in case: I just tried
to install the Intelli* software for my Microsoft Laser Desktop 6000:
</p>
        <p>
          <img src="http://chrison.net/content/binary/nointellianythingforyou.png" border="0" />
        </p>
        <p>
Now come on. This is Intelli* v5.4, a version that is newer than anything to be found
on MS' download servers (where you won't find x64 versions either).
</p>
        <p>
Windows XP x64 at this point in time is only for people who are willing to put up
with below-par driver and application support. This experience almost comes close
to Vista Beta 1...
</p>
        <p>
          <strong>Update</strong> Turns out I was one day too early. The new version 5.5 can
be downloaded now, and it supports 64 Bit (<a href="http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=18cb8e7f-ecd3-424d-870c-32288020f788&amp;DisplayLang=en">IntelliPoint
5.5 x64</a>, <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=8d659a58-6510-46ac-ad2b-214daae4852a&amp;DisplayLang=en">IntelliType
5.5 x64</a> [one download for x86 and x64]).
</p>
        <img width="0" height="0" src="http://chrison.net/aggbug.ashx?id=f20470ab-44f7-4d51-a095-5bdecacfa97b" />
      </body>
      <title>No Intelli* For You</title>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">http://chrison.net/PermaLink,guid,f20470ab-44f7-4d51-a095-5bdecacfa97b.aspx</guid>
      <link>http://chrison.net/NoIntelliForYou.aspx</link>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jan 2006 17:41:31 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;
Is there anything working on Windows XP Pro x64? I think not. Point in case: I just&amp;nbsp;tried
to install the Intelli* software for my Microsoft Laser Desktop 6000:
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
&lt;img src="http://chrison.net/content/binary/nointellianythingforyou.png" border=0&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Now come on. This is Intelli* v5.4, a version that is newer than anything to be found
on MS' download servers (where you won't find x64 versions either).
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Windows XP x64 at this point in time is only for people who are willing to put up
with below-par driver and application support. This experience almost comes close
to Vista Beta 1...
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;Update&lt;/strong&gt; Turns out I was one day too early. The new version 5.5 can
be downloaded now, and it supports 64 Bit&amp;nbsp;(&lt;a href="http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=18cb8e7f-ecd3-424d-870c-32288020f788&amp;amp;DisplayLang=en"&gt;IntelliPoint
5.5 x64&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href="http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=8d659a58-6510-46ac-ad2b-214daae4852a&amp;amp;DisplayLang=en"&gt;IntelliType
5.5 x64&lt;/a&gt; [one download for x86 and x64]).
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;img width="0" height="0" src="http://chrison.net/aggbug.ashx?id=f20470ab-44f7-4d51-a095-5bdecacfa97b" /&gt;</description>
      <comments>http://chrison.net/CommentView,guid,f20470ab-44f7-4d51-a095-5bdecacfa97b.aspx</comments>
      <category>this</category>
      <category>x64</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <trackback:ping>http://chrison.net/Trackback.aspx?guid=c91906bf-cec9-4ebc-be05-f82005f79697</trackback:ping>
      <pingback:server>http://chrison.net/pingback.aspx</pingback:server>
      <pingback:target>http://chrison.net/PermaLink,guid,c91906bf-cec9-4ebc-be05-f82005f79697.aspx</pingback:target>
      <dc:creator>Christoph Wille</dc:creator>
      <wfw:comment>http://chrison.net/CommentView,guid,c91906bf-cec9-4ebc-be05-f82005f79697.aspx</wfw:comment>
      <wfw:commentRss>http://chrison.net/SyndicationService.asmx/GetEntryCommentsRss?guid=c91906bf-cec9-4ebc-be05-f82005f79697</wfw:commentRss>
      <slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
      <body xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
        <p>
This sordid story starts with a good thing to do: I wanted to perform a backup onto
my external USB hard disk. So I took the drive that was attached to my old workstation and
did my routine: delete an old backup to make space for new ones. But Windows decided
that it might be a rather good time to annoy me:
</p>
        <p>
          <img src="http://chrison.net/content/binary/yetanotherproblem1.png" border="0" />
        </p>
        <p>
Huh, what are you trying to tell me? At the same time, a tray notification popped
up:
</p>
        <p>
          <img src="http://chrison.net/content/binary/yetanotherproblem2.png" border="0" />
        </p>
        <p>
USB is usually not a network connection, and I most decidedly did not abuse the cord
for bungee jumping at that time. This error also yielded tons of event log entries
like this one here:
</p>
        <p>
          <img src="http://chrison.net/content/binary/yetanotherproblem5.png" border="0" />
        </p>
        <p>
Being already a little ticked off, I decided to take a peek into Computer Management,
section Disk Management:
</p>
        <p>
          <img src="http://chrison.net/content/binary/yetanotherproblem3.png" border="0" />
        </p>
        <p>
Gotta be kidding me! Being annoyed already, I dug deeper into the property sheets
for this drive:
</p>
        <p>
          <img src="http://chrison.net/content/binary/yetanotherproblem4.png" border="0" />
        </p>
        <p>
You remember the error messages about delayed write failures as well as paging?
Write caching is disabled?
</p>
        <p>
For good measure, I attached my harddisk to another (non-x64) machine. Working fine
there. Next, I switched USB cables. Same result. Used a different external USB hard
drive. Again, same result. So that pretty much means that external hard disks don't
work at my new workstation.
</p>
        <p>
I am wondering if that is another problem of x64, or the chipset driver in this case.
Cables and physical disks are already ruled out - ideas?
</p>
        <p>
          <strong>Update</strong> My drive enclosures have Firewire support too. So I connected
the drives via Firewire. That works around the DWF problem, however, now I stumbled
into a different issue (event log record):
</p>
        <p>
          <em>The device, \Device\Sbp2\ASSMANN AB-PENR35 Combo Devi, did not respond within
the timeout period.</em>
        </p>
        <p>
The KB article <a href="http://support.microsoft.com/kb/885464">SBP-2 drive stops
responding when you try to write data in Windows XP</a> nicely fits this error. Back
to square one, research on the USB issue. At least I am not the only one that experiences
those kinds of DWF problems, as an Internet search proves.
</p>
        <p>
          <strong>Update</strong> Tried again with USB after updating the nForce chipset driver
to v6.82. It got farther this time, but it still crashes with DWF. Judging from a
search for <strong>"delayed write failed"</strong>, I am most decidedly not alone.
</p>
        <p>
          <strong>Solution</strong> At least sort-of... I poached ye olde <a href="http://www.adaptec.com/worldwide/support/suppdetail.jsp?sess=no&amp;language=English+US&amp;prodkey=AUA-3121">Adaptec
DuoConnect</a> card from my old workstation and plugged it into the shiny new one
(which, thanks to the A8N board, already has 10 USB 2.0 ports of its own). Booted
the machine, drivers were installed automatically, plugged in the harddisk, did the
same operations as before - and it worked flawlessly.
</p>
        <p>
Conclusion: There must be an issue in the combination chipset / NVIDIA nForce (x64
only maybe?) chipset driver. 
</p>
        <p>
Seems like my computer is <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090525/">living up
to its name</a>.
</p>
        <p>
          <strong>Update</strong> I decided that I had to have another go at it. So I bought
a brand-new external 3.5" enclosure, a Map-H31S (according to the documentation it
should use a Genesyslogic GL811E). I disassembled the old enclosure and put the hard
disk in the new enclosure. Connected it to the mainboard's USB connectors - et voila,
it works! Seems that this enclosure's IDE to USB chip can deal with my motherboard.
</p>
        <img width="0" height="0" src="http://chrison.net/aggbug.ashx?id=c91906bf-cec9-4ebc-be05-f82005f79697" />
      </body>
      <title>Delayed Write Failed</title>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">http://chrison.net/PermaLink,guid,c91906bf-cec9-4ebc-be05-f82005f79697.aspx</guid>
      <link>http://chrison.net/DelayedWriteFailed.aspx</link>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jan 2006 13:40:39 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;
This sordid story starts with a good thing to do: I wanted to perform a backup onto
my external USB hard disk. So I took the drive that was attached to my old&amp;nbsp;workstation&amp;nbsp;and
did my routine: delete an old backup to make space for new ones. But Windows decided
that it might be a rather good time to annoy me:
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
&lt;img src="http://chrison.net/content/binary/yetanotherproblem1.png" border=0&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Huh, what are you trying to tell me? At the same time, a tray notification popped
up:
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
&lt;img src="http://chrison.net/content/binary/yetanotherproblem2.png" border=0&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
USB is usually not a network connection, and I most decidedly did not abuse the cord
for bungee jumping at that time. This error also yielded tons of event log entries
like this one here:
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
&lt;img src="http://chrison.net/content/binary/yetanotherproblem5.png" border=0&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Being already a little ticked off,&amp;nbsp;I decided to take a peek into Computer Management,
section Disk Management:
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
&lt;img src="http://chrison.net/content/binary/yetanotherproblem3.png" border=0&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Gotta be kidding me! Being annoyed already, I dug deeper into the property sheets
for this drive:
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
&lt;img src="http://chrison.net/content/binary/yetanotherproblem4.png" border=0&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
You remember the error messages about delayed write failures&amp;nbsp;as well as paging?
Write caching is disabled?
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
For good measure, I attached my harddisk to another (non-x64) machine. Working fine
there. Next, I switched USB cables. Same result. Used a different external USB hard
drive. Again, same result. So that pretty much means that external hard disks don't
work at my new workstation.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
I am wondering if that is another problem of x64, or the chipset driver in this case.
Cables and physical disks are already ruled out - ideas?
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;Update&lt;/strong&gt; My drive enclosures have Firewire support too. So I connected
the drives via Firewire. That works around the DWF problem, however, now I stumbled
into a different issue (event log record):
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
&lt;em&gt;The device, \Device\Sbp2\ASSMANN AB-PENR35 Combo Devi, did not respond within
the timeout period.&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
The KB article &lt;a href="http://support.microsoft.com/kb/885464"&gt;SBP-2 drive stops
responding when you try to write data in Windows XP&lt;/a&gt; nicely fits this error.&amp;nbsp;Back
to square one, research on the USB issue. At least I am not the only one that experiences
those kinds of DWF problems, as an Internet search proves.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;Update&lt;/strong&gt; Tried again with USB after updating the nForce chipset driver
to v6.82. It got farther this time, but it still crashes with DWF. Judging from a
search for &lt;strong&gt;"delayed write failed"&lt;/strong&gt;, I am most decidedly not alone.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;Solution&lt;/strong&gt; At least sort-of... I poached ye olde &lt;a href="http://www.adaptec.com/worldwide/support/suppdetail.jsp?sess=no&amp;amp;language=English+US&amp;amp;prodkey=AUA-3121"&gt;Adaptec
DuoConnect&lt;/a&gt; card from my old workstation and plugged it into the shiny new one
(which, thanks to the A8N board, already has 10 USB 2.0 ports of its own). Booted
the machine, drivers were installed automatically, plugged in the harddisk, did the
same operations as before - and it worked flawlessly.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Conclusion: There must be an issue in the combination chipset / NVIDIA nForce (x64
only maybe?) chipset driver. 
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Seems like my computer is &lt;a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090525/"&gt;living up
to its name&lt;/a&gt;.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;Update&lt;/strong&gt; I decided that I had to have another go at it. So I bought
a brand-new external 3.5" enclosure, a Map-H31S (according to the documentation it
should use a Genesyslogic GL811E). I disassembled the old enclosure and put the hard
disk in the new enclosure. Connected it to the mainboard's USB connectors - et voila,
it works! Seems that this enclosure's IDE to USB chip can deal with my motherboard.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;img width="0" height="0" src="http://chrison.net/aggbug.ashx?id=c91906bf-cec9-4ebc-be05-f82005f79697" /&gt;</description>
      <comments>http://chrison.net/CommentView,guid,c91906bf-cec9-4ebc-be05-f82005f79697.aspx</comments>
      <category>this</category>
      <category>x64</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <trackback:ping>http://chrison.net/Trackback.aspx?guid=7e9fef56-53b3-4b98-9aa7-f9fe9d2a2ebb</trackback:ping>
      <pingback:server>http://chrison.net/pingback.aspx</pingback:server>
      <pingback:target>http://chrison.net/PermaLink,guid,7e9fef56-53b3-4b98-9aa7-f9fe9d2a2ebb.aspx</pingback:target>
      <dc:creator>Christoph Wille</dc:creator>
      <wfw:comment>http://chrison.net/CommentView,guid,7e9fef56-53b3-4b98-9aa7-f9fe9d2a2ebb.aspx</wfw:comment>
      <wfw:commentRss>http://chrison.net/SyndicationService.asmx/GetEntryCommentsRss?guid=7e9fef56-53b3-4b98-9aa7-f9fe9d2a2ebb</wfw:commentRss>
      <body xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
        <p>
Instead of risking my sanity by trying to install Virtual PC 2004 on my x64 box, I
decided to go with Virtual Server 2005 R2 x64. Thankfully, this new release of Virtual
Server allows installation on an XP host, and the setup experience was pleasantly
uneventful.
</p>
        <p>
Of course I ran into a snag - my default browser is Firefox, and the administration
Web site didn't fully function with it. So back to Internet Explorer, and configure
the first (existing) virtual machine:
</p>
        <p>
          <img src="http://chrison.net/content/binary/firststepsvirtualserver2005r2.png" border="0" />
        </p>
        <p>
I learned the following things:
</p>
        <ul>
          <li>
Do not forget to configure the network adapters. Otherwise connecting to your domain
can be a challenge. 
</li>
          <li>
Definitely enable Remote Desktop on your virtual machines, which brings me to the
next item on my list: 
</li>
          <li>
When renaming a virtual machine beware of your own cleverness. Especially if all your
virtual machines were copied from a once-configured image, and you renamed one of
those instance so that the original name no longer exists in Active Directory.</li>
        </ul>
        <p>
Other than that I have to say that Virtual Server 2005 R2 is a much better experience
than Virtual PC 2004.
</p>
        <img width="0" height="0" src="http://chrison.net/aggbug.ashx?id=7e9fef56-53b3-4b98-9aa7-f9fe9d2a2ebb" />
      </body>
      <title>Virtual Server 2005 R2</title>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">http://chrison.net/PermaLink,guid,7e9fef56-53b3-4b98-9aa7-f9fe9d2a2ebb.aspx</guid>
      <link>http://chrison.net/VirtualServer2005R2.aspx</link>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Jan 2006 18:05:10 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;
Instead of risking my sanity by trying to install Virtual PC 2004 on my x64 box, I
decided to go with Virtual Server 2005 R2 x64. Thankfully, this new release of Virtual
Server allows installation on an XP host, and the setup experience was pleasantly
uneventful.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Of course I ran into a snag - my default browser is Firefox, and the administration
Web site didn't fully function with it. So back to Internet Explorer, and configure
the first (existing) virtual machine:
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
&lt;img src="http://chrison.net/content/binary/firststepsvirtualserver2005r2.png" border=0&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
I learned the following things:
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
Do not forget to configure the network adapters. Otherwise connecting to your domain
can be a challenge. 
&lt;li&gt;
Definitely enable Remote Desktop on your virtual machines, which brings me to the
next item on my list: 
&lt;li&gt;
When renaming a virtual machine beware of your own cleverness. Especially if all your
virtual machines were copied from a once-configured image, and you renamed one of
those instance so that the original name no longer exists in Active Directory.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Other than that I have to say that Virtual Server 2005 R2 is a much better experience
than Virtual PC 2004.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;img width="0" height="0" src="http://chrison.net/aggbug.ashx?id=7e9fef56-53b3-4b98-9aa7-f9fe9d2a2ebb" /&gt;</description>
      <comments>http://chrison.net/CommentView,guid,7e9fef56-53b3-4b98-9aa7-f9fe9d2a2ebb.aspx</comments>
      <category>Administration</category>
      <category>this</category>
      <category>Virtual PC</category>
      <category>x64</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <trackback:ping>http://chrison.net/Trackback.aspx?guid=38867240-3ba6-4c25-b399-cf5eed14506f</trackback:ping>
      <pingback:server>http://chrison.net/pingback.aspx</pingback:server>
      <pingback:target>http://chrison.net/PermaLink,guid,38867240-3ba6-4c25-b399-cf5eed14506f.aspx</pingback:target>
      <dc:creator>Christoph Wille</dc:creator>
      <wfw:comment>http://chrison.net/CommentView,guid,38867240-3ba6-4c25-b399-cf5eed14506f.aspx</wfw:comment>
      <wfw:commentRss>http://chrison.net/SyndicationService.asmx/GetEntryCommentsRss?guid=38867240-3ba6-4c25-b399-cf5eed14506f</wfw:commentRss>
      <body xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
        <p>
My journey through x64 land is getting more frustrating by the minute. When I tried
to connect to my dedicated server box via RDP, I got the following error message:
</p>
        <p>
          <em>The specified remote computer could not be found. Verify that you have typed the
correct computer name or IP address, and then try connecting again.</em>
        </p>
        <p>
"That can't be!" was my first reaction. Especially because I use the very same host
for email, and that was working from the start. So I fired up my trusty X31 laptop
and tried there - working just fine!
</p>
        <p>
Next, I compared the TCP/IP settings - both identical, because I use DHCP in my network
to dole out IP configurations. Back to the basics. Ping. Working fine on my laptop,
not working on my x64 box. Scratch, scratch. Wait a second! Because I am paranoid,
I don't configure the default gateway for my machines, so that when I turn off the
ISA client, I have no Internet connectivity whatsoever (nice for testing).
</p>
        <p>
Turns out that the email program makes proper (high-level) use of the network stack,
however, ping and mstsc go lower, and - nasty surprise - the ISA client doesn't work
properly on x64 (<a href="http://www.microsoft.com/communities/newsgroups/en-us/default.aspx?dg=microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general&amp;tid=df2416ba-dd87-46fd-b81b-0e6c8a7c0f6a&amp;p=1">thread
here</a>). Now that is the second time that my "no default gateway policy" rears its
ugly head (<a href="http://chrison.net/HowToShootYourselfInTheFootIssueINoLongerCareToCount.aspx">instance
#1</a>).
</p>
        <img width="0" height="0" src="http://chrison.net/aggbug.ashx?id=38867240-3ba6-4c25-b399-cf5eed14506f" />
      </body>
      <title>Remote Desktop Disconnected</title>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">http://chrison.net/PermaLink,guid,38867240-3ba6-4c25-b399-cf5eed14506f.aspx</guid>
      <link>http://chrison.net/RemoteDesktopDisconnected.aspx</link>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Jan 2006 10:25:18 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;
My journey through x64 land is getting more frustrating by the minute. When I tried
to connect to my dedicated server box via RDP, I got the following error message:
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
&lt;em&gt;The specified remote computer could not be found. Verify that you have typed the
correct computer name or IP address, and then try connecting again.&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
"That can't be!" was my first reaction. Especially because I use the very same host
for email, and that was working from the start. So I fired up my trusty X31 laptop
and tried there - working just fine!
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Next, I compared the TCP/IP settings - both identical, because I use DHCP in my network
to dole out IP configurations. Back to the basics. Ping. Working fine on my laptop,
not working on my x64 box. Scratch, scratch. Wait a second! Because I am paranoid,
I don't configure the default gateway for my machines, so that when I turn off the
ISA client, I have no Internet connectivity whatsoever (nice for testing).
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Turns out that the email program makes proper (high-level) use of the network stack,
however, ping and mstsc go lower, and - nasty surprise - the ISA client doesn't work
properly on x64 (&lt;a href="http://www.microsoft.com/communities/newsgroups/en-us/default.aspx?dg=microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general&amp;amp;tid=df2416ba-dd87-46fd-b81b-0e6c8a7c0f6a&amp;amp;p=1"&gt;thread
here&lt;/a&gt;). Now that is the second time that my "no default gateway policy" rears its
ugly head (&lt;a href="http://chrison.net/HowToShootYourselfInTheFootIssueINoLongerCareToCount.aspx"&gt;instance
#1&lt;/a&gt;).
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;img width="0" height="0" src="http://chrison.net/aggbug.ashx?id=38867240-3ba6-4c25-b399-cf5eed14506f" /&gt;</description>
      <comments>http://chrison.net/CommentView,guid,38867240-3ba6-4c25-b399-cf5eed14506f.aspx</comments>
      <category>this</category>
      <category>x64</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <trackback:ping>http://chrison.net/Trackback.aspx?guid=b967fc7f-222b-486e-acd3-efe61c0c8a04</trackback:ping>
      <pingback:server>http://chrison.net/pingback.aspx</pingback:server>
      <pingback:target>http://chrison.net/PermaLink,guid,b967fc7f-222b-486e-acd3-efe61c0c8a04.aspx</pingback:target>
      <dc:creator>Christoph Wille</dc:creator>
      <wfw:comment>http://chrison.net/CommentView,guid,b967fc7f-222b-486e-acd3-efe61c0c8a04.aspx</wfw:comment>
      <wfw:commentRss>http://chrison.net/SyndicationService.asmx/GetEntryCommentsRss?guid=b967fc7f-222b-486e-acd3-efe61c0c8a04</wfw:commentRss>
      <body xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
        <p>
Now THAT takes the biscuit by a long distance:
</p>
        <p>
          <img src="http://chrison.net/content/binary/pimpmyraid2.png" border="0" />
        </p>
        <p>
Those are the two hard disks of my RAID mirror! Showing up in Safely Remove Hardware...
hard disks, which of course are nowhere to be seen in the device manager:
</p>
        <p>
          <img src="http://chrison.net/content/binary/pimpmyraid1.png" border="0" />
        </p>
        <p>
Anybody have an idea on how to exclude certain devices from Safely Remove Hardware?
Let me know, I'd be really glad to hear.
</p>
        <p>
          <strong>Update</strong> A friend of mine pointed out that he had seen this with a
RAID controller on one of his boxes too. He suggested that stopping the device would
not work. After some hesitation, I decided to give it a try - and it failed:
</p>
        <p>
          <img src="http://chrison.net/content/binary/pimpmyraid_update.png" border="0" />
        </p>
        <p>
Thank goodness. If it had succeeded, I would have had a problem.
</p>
        <img width="0" height="0" src="http://chrison.net/aggbug.ashx?id=b967fc7f-222b-486e-acd3-efe61c0c8a04" />
      </body>
      <title>Pimp My RAID</title>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">http://chrison.net/PermaLink,guid,b967fc7f-222b-486e-acd3-efe61c0c8a04.aspx</guid>
      <link>http://chrison.net/PimpMyRAID.aspx</link>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Dec 2005 13:05:14 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;
Now THAT takes the biscuit by a long distance:
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
&lt;img src="http://chrison.net/content/binary/pimpmyraid2.png" border=0&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Those are the two hard disks of my RAID mirror! Showing up in Safely Remove Hardware...
hard disks, which of course are nowhere to be seen in the device manager:
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
&lt;img src="http://chrison.net/content/binary/pimpmyraid1.png" border=0&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Anybody have an idea on how to exclude certain devices from Safely Remove Hardware?
Let me know, I'd be really glad to hear.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;Update&lt;/strong&gt; A friend of mine pointed out that he had seen this with a
RAID controller on one of his boxes too. He suggested that stopping the device would
not work. After some hesitation, I decided to give it a try - and it failed:
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
&lt;img src="http://chrison.net/content/binary/pimpmyraid_update.png" border=0&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Thank goodness. If it had succeeded, I would have had a problem.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;img width="0" height="0" src="http://chrison.net/aggbug.ashx?id=b967fc7f-222b-486e-acd3-efe61c0c8a04" /&gt;</description>
      <comments>http://chrison.net/CommentView,guid,b967fc7f-222b-486e-acd3-efe61c0c8a04.aspx</comments>
      <category>Administration</category>
      <category>this</category>
      <category>x64</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <trackback:ping>http://chrison.net/Trackback.aspx?guid=5ed6ea95-2567-4aa1-a3a8-8886802f8bfa</trackback:ping>
      <pingback:server>http://chrison.net/pingback.aspx</pingback:server>
      <pingback:target>http://chrison.net/PermaLink,guid,5ed6ea95-2567-4aa1-a3a8-8886802f8bfa.aspx</pingback:target>
      <dc:creator>Christoph Wille</dc:creator>
      <wfw:comment>http://chrison.net/CommentView,guid,5ed6ea95-2567-4aa1-a3a8-8886802f8bfa.aspx</wfw:comment>
      <wfw:commentRss>http://chrison.net/SyndicationService.asmx/GetEntryCommentsRss?guid=5ed6ea95-2567-4aa1-a3a8-8886802f8bfa</wfw:commentRss>
      <body xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
        <p>
If you have ASP.NET 1.1 and ASP.NET 2.0 on an x64 machine, you better read the
KB article <a href="http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;894435">How
to switch between the 32-bit versions of ASP.NET 1.1 and the 64-bit version of ASP.NET
2.0 on a 64-bit version of Windows</a>.
</p>
        <img width="0" height="0" src="http://chrison.net/aggbug.ashx?id=5ed6ea95-2567-4aa1-a3a8-8886802f8bfa" />
      </body>
      <title>32 Bit and 64 Bit on IIS</title>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">http://chrison.net/PermaLink,guid,5ed6ea95-2567-4aa1-a3a8-8886802f8bfa.aspx</guid>
      <link>http://chrison.net/32BitAnd64BitOnIIS.aspx</link>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Dec 2005 11:15:48 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;
If you have ASP.NET 1.1 and ASP.NET 2.0 on an&amp;nbsp;x64 machine, you better read the
KB article &lt;a href="http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;894435"&gt;How
to switch between the 32-bit versions of ASP.NET 1.1 and the 64-bit version of ASP.NET
2.0 on a 64-bit version of Windows&lt;/a&gt;.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;img width="0" height="0" src="http://chrison.net/aggbug.ashx?id=5ed6ea95-2567-4aa1-a3a8-8886802f8bfa" /&gt;</description>
      <comments>http://chrison.net/CommentView,guid,5ed6ea95-2567-4aa1-a3a8-8886802f8bfa.aspx</comments>
      <category>ASP.NET</category>
      <category>x64</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <trackback:ping>http://chrison.net/Trackback.aspx?guid=e3c0b38f-4e26-4b97-959e-3babc5750dbc</trackback:ping>
      <pingback:server>http://chrison.net/pingback.aspx</pingback:server>
      <pingback:target>http://chrison.net/PermaLink,guid,e3c0b38f-4e26-4b97-959e-3babc5750dbc.aspx</pingback:target>
      <dc:creator>Christoph Wille</dc:creator>
      <wfw:comment>http://chrison.net/CommentView,guid,e3c0b38f-4e26-4b97-959e-3babc5750dbc.aspx</wfw:comment>
      <wfw:commentRss>http://chrison.net/SyndicationService.asmx/GetEntryCommentsRss?guid=e3c0b38f-4e26-4b97-959e-3babc5750dbc</wfw:commentRss>
      <slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
      <body xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
        <p>
it's then you stumble across such an error message:
</p>
        <img src="http://chrison.net/content/binary/seusinst.png" border="0" />
        <pre>java.lang.StringIndexOutOfBoundsException: String index out of range: -89<br />
 at java.lang.String.substring(Unknown Source)<br />
 at java.lang.String.substring(Unknown Source)<br />
 at ZeroGla.a(Unknown Source)<br />
 at com.zerog.ia.installer.util.magicfolders.JavaHomeMF.a(Unknown Source)<br />
 at com.zerog.ia.installer.util.magicfolders.JavaHomeMF.b(Unknown Source)<br />
 at com.zerog.ia.installer.util.magicfolders.MagicFolder.initializeAllMagicFolderPaths(Unknown
Source)<br />
 at com.zerog.ia.installer.Main.d(Unknown Source)<br />
 at com.zerog.ia.installer.Main.c(Unknown Source)<br />
 at com.zerog.ia.installer.Main.main(Unknown Source)<br />
 at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)<br />
 at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(Unknown Source)<br />
 at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(Unknown Source)<br />
 at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Unknown Source)<br />
 at com.zerog.lax.LAX.launch(Unknown Source)<br />
 at com.zerog.lax.LAX.main(Unknown Source)</pre>
        <p>
The application that blew up was the <a href="http://www.sonyericsson.com/spg.jsp?cc=gb&amp;lc=en&amp;ver=4000&amp;template=ps1_1_3_1_1&amp;zone=ps&amp;lm=ps1_1&amp;pid=10245&amp;fid=21839">Sony
Ericsson Update Service installer 2.2.11b</a>. And guess what: it craps only on x64,
not on my trusty 32-bit XP. I pretty much suspect that the programmer of this application
didn't expect <strong>Program Files (x86)</strong> as a directory name.
</p>
        <img width="0" height="0" src="http://chrison.net/aggbug.ashx?id=e3c0b38f-4e26-4b97-959e-3babc5750dbc" />
      </body>
      <title>When you thought you had seen it all...</title>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">http://chrison.net/PermaLink,guid,e3c0b38f-4e26-4b97-959e-3babc5750dbc.aspx</guid>
      <link>http://chrison.net/WhenYouThoughtYouHadSeenItAll.aspx</link>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Dec 2005 10:52:56 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;
it's then you stumble across such an error message:
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;img src="http://chrison.net/content/binary/seusinst.png" border=0&gt; &lt;pre&gt;java.lang.StringIndexOutOfBoundsException: String index out of range: -89&lt;br&gt;
&amp;nbsp;at java.lang.String.substring(Unknown Source)&lt;br&gt;
&amp;nbsp;at java.lang.String.substring(Unknown Source)&lt;br&gt;
&amp;nbsp;at ZeroGla.a(Unknown Source)&lt;br&gt;
&amp;nbsp;at com.zerog.ia.installer.util.magicfolders.JavaHomeMF.a(Unknown Source)&lt;br&gt;
&amp;nbsp;at com.zerog.ia.installer.util.magicfolders.JavaHomeMF.b(Unknown Source)&lt;br&gt;
&amp;nbsp;at com.zerog.ia.installer.util.magicfolders.MagicFolder.initializeAllMagicFolderPaths(Unknown
Source)&lt;br&gt;
&amp;nbsp;at com.zerog.ia.installer.Main.d(Unknown Source)&lt;br&gt;
&amp;nbsp;at com.zerog.ia.installer.Main.c(Unknown Source)&lt;br&gt;
&amp;nbsp;at com.zerog.ia.installer.Main.main(Unknown Source)&lt;br&gt;
&amp;nbsp;at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)&lt;br&gt;
&amp;nbsp;at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(Unknown Source)&lt;br&gt;
&amp;nbsp;at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(Unknown Source)&lt;br&gt;
&amp;nbsp;at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Unknown Source)&lt;br&gt;
&amp;nbsp;at com.zerog.lax.LAX.launch(Unknown Source)&lt;br&gt;
&amp;nbsp;at com.zerog.lax.LAX.main(Unknown Source)&lt;/pre&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
The application that blew up was the &lt;a href="http://www.sonyericsson.com/spg.jsp?cc=gb&amp;amp;lc=en&amp;amp;ver=4000&amp;amp;template=ps1_1_3_1_1&amp;amp;zone=ps&amp;amp;lm=ps1_1&amp;amp;pid=10245&amp;amp;fid=21839"&gt;Sony
Ericsson Update Service installer 2.2.11b&lt;/a&gt;. And guess what: it craps only on x64,
not on my trusty 32-bit XP. I pretty much suspect that the programmer of this application
didn't expect &lt;strong&gt;Program Files (x86)&lt;/strong&gt; as a directory name.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;img width="0" height="0" src="http://chrison.net/aggbug.ashx?id=e3c0b38f-4e26-4b97-959e-3babc5750dbc" /&gt;</description>
      <comments>http://chrison.net/CommentView,guid,e3c0b38f-4e26-4b97-959e-3babc5750dbc.aspx</comments>
      <category>this</category>
      <category>x64</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <trackback:ping>http://chrison.net/Trackback.aspx?guid=1194a869-51e9-478b-bdf2-07a834409fa6</trackback:ping>
      <pingback:server>http://chrison.net/pingback.aspx</pingback:server>
      <pingback:target>http://chrison.net/PermaLink,guid,1194a869-51e9-478b-bdf2-07a834409fa6.aspx</pingback:target>
      <dc:creator>Christoph Wille</dc:creator>
      <wfw:comment>http://chrison.net/CommentView,guid,1194a869-51e9-478b-bdf2-07a834409fa6.aspx</wfw:comment>
      <wfw:commentRss>http://chrison.net/SyndicationService.asmx/GetEntryCommentsRss?guid=1194a869-51e9-478b-bdf2-07a834409fa6</wfw:commentRss>
      <slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
      <body xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
        <p>
After Christmas, I set out to assemble the parts of my new x64 workstation:
</p>
        <ul>
          <li>
ASUS A8N-SLI Premium motherboard 
</li>
          <li>
Athlon 64 3700+ 
</li>
          <li>
2 GB of memory (to be upgraded next week to 4GB) 
</li>
          <li>
2 WD 400GB RE2 hard disks (used in a mirror, I am too old and lazy for data loss) 
</li>
          <li>
Matrox Millenium P650 PCIe graphics card 
</li>
          <li>
Optical drives (DVD-RAM &amp; DVD-RW DL) - reused from the old workstation 
</li>
          <li>
Arctic Cooling Silentium T5 midi tower case</li>
        </ul>
        <p>
Lessons learned:
</p>
        <ul>
          <li>
InCD 4 is my enemy #1 for 2005 - it doesn't work (even install) on XP Pro x64 
</li>
          <li>
Not all AV products' realtime scanners like x64 
</li>
          <li>
If you are used to Arctic Cooling CPU fans, don't install the out-of-the-box fan that
ships with your CPU - you will be disappointed. And opening the case soon again to
replace it. 
</li>
          <li>
Dual-head sucks. Why doesn't Matrox ship a triple-head card for PCIe?</li>
        </ul>
        <p>
I am pretty sure those ain't all the snags I will encounter, especially as Virtual
Server 2005 R2 is now waiting to be installed instead of VPC 2004 on this machine. 
</p>
        <p>
          <strong>Update</strong> Speaking of snags - the Canon LIDE 60 scanner doesn't work
on x64. The driver simply doesn't support it. How craptacular.
</p>
        <img width="0" height="0" src="http://chrison.net/aggbug.ashx?id=1194a869-51e9-478b-bdf2-07a834409fa6" />
      </body>
      <title>New x64 Workstation</title>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">http://chrison.net/PermaLink,guid,1194a869-51e9-478b-bdf2-07a834409fa6.aspx</guid>
      <link>http://chrison.net/NewX64Workstation.aspx</link>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Dec 2005 09:20:12 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;
After Christmas, I set out to assemble the parts of my new x64 workstation:
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
ASUS A8N-SLI Premium motherboard 
&lt;li&gt;
Athlon 64 3700+ 
&lt;li&gt;
2 GB of memory (to be upgraded next week to 4GB) 
&lt;li&gt;
2 WD 400GB RE2 hard disks (used in a mirror, I am too old and lazy for data loss) 
&lt;li&gt;
Matrox Millenium P650 PCIe graphics card 
&lt;li&gt;
Optical drives (DVD-RAM &amp;amp; DVD-RW DL) -&amp;nbsp;reused from the old workstation 
&lt;li&gt;
Arctic Cooling Silentium T5 midi tower case&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Lessons learned:
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
InCD 4 is my enemy #1 for 2005 - it doesn't work (even install) on XP Pro x64 
&lt;li&gt;
Not all AV products' realtime scanners&amp;nbsp;like x64 
&lt;li&gt;
If you are used to Arctic Cooling CPU fans, don't install the out-of-the-box fan that
ships with your CPU - you will be disappointed. And opening the case soon again to
replace it. 
&lt;li&gt;
Dual-head sucks. Why doesn't Matrox ship a triple-head card for PCIe?&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
I am pretty sure those ain't all the snags I will encounter, especially as Virtual
Server 2005 R2 is now waiting to be installed instead of VPC 2004 on this machine. 
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;Update&lt;/strong&gt; Speaking of snags - the Canon LIDE 60 scanner doesn't work
on x64. The driver simply doesn't support it. How craptacular.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;img width="0" height="0" src="http://chrison.net/aggbug.ashx?id=1194a869-51e9-478b-bdf2-07a834409fa6" /&gt;</description>
      <comments>http://chrison.net/CommentView,guid,1194a869-51e9-478b-bdf2-07a834409fa6.aspx</comments>
      <category>this</category>
      <category>x64</category>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>