I just bought a laptop with Vista Home Premium 64-bit OS and checked my website. The QT music control in my home page is gone. I have computers with other operating systems, XP and Win98. Browsers in those OS seem to display music controls OK. Any ideas why this is happening?

http://www.tsmdental.com/

TS

Do you have QT installed on your new computer?

quote:

Originally posted by Bruceee:
Do you have QT installed on your new computer?

Yes, Firefox browser gave me a warning that Quick Time was not installed. There is a black bar across where the volume control is now. Music is playing fine but without the volume control it might be coming out too loud and I’m afraid it may annoy whoever is visiting my site.

I reinstalled the QT and rebooted but the result is the same. This happens on both FF and IE. I’m baffled! I’m running into all kinds of problems in running this 64-bit Vista OS. This computer is fast and rated 5.9 Windows Experience Index, except for gaming, still at 5.1; however, what a troublesome system.

TS

AFIAK, there is no 64-bit version of QT for windows. You need to be running Vista in 32-bit mode. I think this is also an issue with the Adobe Flash player.

quote:

Originally posted by larryd:
AFIAK, there is no 64-bit version of QT for windows. You need to be running Vista in 32-bit mode. I think this is also an issue with the Adobe Flash player.

For a couple of weeks now, I’ve been searching high and low in trying to determine why FLVSplitter for DirectShow sources does not register serve in “C:\…Windows\SYSTEM32.” Your brief explanation maybe the possible reason., although I thought any 32-bit application is translated to SysWOW64 in 64-bit system computers for compatibility issues.

Can anyone confirm, who’s using 64-bit OS, this; that is indeed a 64-bit issue not just directly related to solely to my computer. Thanks again, Larry.

TS

Sorry TS, I can’t help you there, but you have provided two questions from me.

1. Larry, what is AFIAK?

2. Can anybody explain the advantages (and/or disadvantages) of installing a 64-bit version rather than 32.

The reason I ask is, I have just built myself a super-duper desktop, and have yet to decide what OS to put on it.

Thanks in advance,

Terry

1. AFIAK is a typo. It should have been AFAIK (as far as I know). There are days when my fingers work fatser than my brian (er, faster than my brain).

2. In theory, a 64-bit system would work faster than a 32-bit system due to the improved CPU architecture (64-bits registers, 64-bit memory access, etc). Also, a 32-bit Windows system is limited to 3GB main memory (I do not know the limit of 64-bit systems).

Unless you are doing some pretty intensive CPU-bound processing, I have never seen much difference. If most of the programs you use require user interaction, then the comparison is much like driving a formula 1 race car in a town with a stop sign on every corner.

If you are the adventurous type, you can download the Windows 7 RC and give it a spin (both 32 and 64 bit versions are available).

If you've got 4GB of memory or more, then 64 bit is faster than 32 bit. However, "faster" is relative. I'm currently running Windows 7 RC as my main OS and am running SSPro with no problems. I haven't done any speed testing between the 32 (which I've also got installed) and the 64 bit versions of Win7 RC. I've found that most 32 bit programs will install and run under 64 bit except for those that explicitly have a check during install that prohibit installation.

As far as QT video, I installed it under my Win7 64 bit and I see and hear it fine when I view ks47's site when using FF3. However, I guess I don't have QT installed for IE8 since all I see are those cursed little red x thingies.

Thanks, Kirk. Here is what I see in my computer:

quote:

Originally posted by postyr:
2. Can anybody explain the advantages (and/or disadvantages) of installing a 64-bit version rather than 32.
Terry

I don’t think you’ll see that much difference if you’re surfing the net or doing a word processing. I do computer video editing for hobby, which requires intensive CPU and graphic resources. It makes a whole lot of difference for these types of applications, especially when you are working with very compressed format such as for Blue Ray. As pointed out by Larry, 32-bit architecture will not allow for higher resource, such as limitation on RAM, L2 Cache, Front Side Bus etc. On the other hand, you still have conflicts and headaches until software catches up with the hardware.

As I mentioned above that Windows Experience Index let you guide on performance level requirements for different tasks.

http://www.microsoft.com/windo...xperience-index.aspx

General guidelines
A computer with a base score of 1.0 or 2.0 usually has sufficient performance to do most general computing tasks, such as run office productivity applications and search the Internet. However, a computer with this base score is generally not powerful enough to run Windows Aero, or the advanced multimedia experiences that are available with Windows Vista.
A computer with a base score of 3.0 is able to run Windows Aero and many new features of Windows Vista at a basic level. Some of the new Windows Vista advanced features might not have all of their functionality available. For example, a machine with a base score of 3.0 can display the Windows Vista theme at a resolution of 1280 × 1024, but might struggle to run the theme on multiple monitors. Or, it can play digital TV content but might struggle to play High Definition Television (HDTV) content.
A computer with a base score of 4.0 or 5.0 is able to run all new features of Windows Vista with full functionality, and it is able to support high-end, graphics-intensive experiences, such as multiplayer and 3 D gaming and recording and playback of HDTV content. Computers with a base score of 5.0 were the highest performing computers available when Windows Vista was released

Specific to CPU alone, for Intel chips here’s a rating system:

http://www.intel.com/consumer/rating.htm

As you can see there’s quite a difference in performance depending on the applications but you need a right type of architecture to take advantage of the computer power.

http://www.intel.com/performan...d=perf_desktop+i7_cp

TS

Well, Vista X64 wasn’t working for Quick Time Player. I tried to embed Windows Media Player in my website instead, using this code:

http://www.mioplanet.com/rsc/embed_mediaplayer.htm

Now, I got a new problem. Windows Media Player only works for XP Operating system and only with Internet Explorer. Vista X64 is DOA for both FF and IE along with XP for FF.

Any solution to the problem is appreciated.

TS