Gotta rant a little about 64 & 32 bit versions.

Epson does have some of their models with XP64 drivers, check out their
website.

My R800 and 3170 scanner both install under Vista64 using the XP64 drivers.
The scanner would install under Vista32 but the printer won't using their
32bit drivers.

"Neal at Spectdar Computing"
<NealatSpectdarComputing@discussions.microsoft.com > wrote in message
news:9AD11CCC-FB87-4104-BDDF-BEC872562170@microsoft.com...

>I took the plunge and installed 64 bit in some of the production machines
>in
> my shop. We also happen to be using Epson all in one printers. Of course
> no
> drivers. This weekend I got the Microsoft prepared dvd's and installed
> both
> versions on different machines in a raid 0 configuration. Everything
> works.
> Except my printers. I installed it in the warehouse and tried other
> Epsons, a
> Canon, several HP's and a very old NEC. The only one that even tried was
> the
> NEC. The manufacturers ignored us when XP 64 came out and I pestered them
> with constant emails and telephone calls until I got drivers. Looks like I
> have to start all over again. These people don't seem to realize that
> Vista
> is here and will inherit the Windows market sooner that they think.
> Btw, Vista beta 2 along with Office 2007 beta 2 work very well in a
> production environment. The only pain is printing. If some of you would
> care
> to start emailing manufacturers requesting drivers it couldn't hurt.

"Neal at Spectdar Computing" <NealatSpectdarComputing@discussions.microsoft.com > wrote in
message news:9AD11CCC-FB87-4104-BDDF-BEC872562170@microsoft.com...

>I took the plunge and installed 64 bit in some of the production machines in
> my shop. We also happen to be using Epson all in one printers. Of course no
> drivers. This weekend I got the Microsoft prepared dvd's and installed both
> versions on different machines in a raid 0 configuration. Everything works.
> Except my printers. I installed it in the warehouse and tried other Epsons, a
> Canon, several HP's and a very old NEC. The only one that even tried was the
> NEC. The manufacturers ignored us when XP 64 came out and I pestered them
> with constant emails and telephone calls until I got drivers. Looks like I
> have to start all over again. These people don't seem to realize that Vista
> is here and will inherit the Windows market sooner that they think.
> Btw, Vista beta 2 along with Office 2007 beta 2 work very well in a
> production environment. The only pain is printing. If some of you would care
> to start emailing manufacturers requesting drivers it couldn't hurt.

Production machines? People who install a beta on their primary computers,
especially one that is not even a release candidate, are *fools* and quite
irresponsible. If I were your boss, I would fire you. There are IT bosses who
wait until at least the first service pack before committing to a new operating
system. No, Vista is not here. I remember how concerned Microsoft was
after XP came out- it took many businesses longer than they thought to upgrade
from NT and 2000. Even businesses using Win98 at employee workstations
took their sweet time. I like Vista, but I believe the move to Vista will be even
slower for many businesses. XP is a solid OS and I see no compelling reason
to rush and upgrade. Only those who like the "latest and greatest" thing when
it first comes out. A responsible IT manager would make sure an OS upgrade
was needed and the software solid before putting it on "production machines".
Reminds me of so many of those fools who rushed out like ignoramuses to buy
the XBOX 360 when it first came out. So many problems with the first batches
that came out, from overheating to bad DVD drives. I got my XBOX 360 a month
ago, it works flawlessly; and I didn't have to act the fool stampeding stores trying
to buy one. Now, I hear, that the XBOX 360 will be changing processors to one
that is a bit more powerful *and* runs cooler. Sometimes it pays to let others be
first. The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

Because of the hardware requirements of Vista, I see many IT departments
not upgrading anytime soon after the Vista release.

You and anyone else who have ignored the warnings and common sense
and installed Vista OS as their primary OS deserve whatever problems may
come your way.


-Michael

I have a little ol Epson Stylus Photo 1270 wide format printer and it
installed all by itself, I did not have to provide an drivers. Oh yeah, this
was on x86 and x64..2 different machines, neither had a working OS before
install.


"MICHAEL" <u158627_emr@dslr.net> wrote in message
news:%23XdmEOSmGHA.2112@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> "Neal at Spectdar Computing"
> <NealatSpectdarComputing@discussions.microsoft.com > wrote in message
> news:9AD11CCC-FB87-4104-BDDF-BEC872562170@microsoft.com...

>>I took the plunge and installed 64 bit in some of the production machines
>>in
>> my shop. We also happen to be using Epson all in one printers. Of course
>> no
>> drivers. This weekend I got the Microsoft prepared dvd's and installed
>> both
>> versions on different machines in a raid 0 configuration. Everything
>> works.
>> Except my printers. I installed it in the warehouse and tried other
>> Epsons, a
>> Canon, several HP's and a very old NEC. The only one that even tried was
>> the
>> NEC. The manufacturers ignored us when XP 64 came out and I pestered
>> them
>> with constant emails and telephone calls until I got drivers. Looks like
>> I
>> have to start all over again. These people don't seem to realize that
>> Vista
>> is here and will inherit the Windows market sooner that they think.
>> Btw, Vista beta 2 along with Office 2007 beta 2 work very well in a
>> production environment. The only pain is printing. If some of you would
>> care
>> to start emailing manufacturers requesting drivers it couldn't hurt.

>
>
> Production machines? People who install a beta on their primary computers,
> especially one that is not even a release candidate, are *fools* and quite
> irresponsible. If I were your boss, I would fire you. There are IT
> bosses who
> wait until at least the first service pack before committing to a new
> operating
> system. No, Vista is not here. I remember how concerned Microsoft was
> after XP came out- it took many businesses longer than they thought to
> upgrade
> from NT and 2000. Even businesses using Win98 at employee workstations
> took their sweet time. I like Vista, but I believe the move to Vista will
> be even
> slower for many businesses. XP is a solid OS and I see no compelling
> reason
> to rush and upgrade. Only those who like the "latest and greatest" thing
> when
> it first comes out. A responsible IT manager would make sure an OS
> upgrade
> was needed and the software solid before putting it on "production
> machines".
> Reminds me of so many of those fools who rushed out like ignoramuses to
> buy
> the XBOX 360 when it first came out. So many problems with the first
> batches
> that came out, from overheating to bad DVD drives. I got my XBOX 360 a
> month
> ago, it works flawlessly; and I didn't have to act the fool stampeding
> stores trying
> to buy one. Now, I hear, that the XBOX 360 will be changing processors to
> one
> that is a bit more powerful *and* runs cooler. Sometimes it pays to let
> others be
> first. The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the
> cheese.
>
> Because of the hardware requirements of Vista, I see many IT departments
> not upgrading anytime soon after the Vista release.
>
> You and anyone else who have ignored the warnings and common sense
> and installed Vista OS as their primary OS deserve whatever problems may
> come your way.
>
>
> -Michael

It was amazing to watch it install the chipset drivers. I had a live internet
connection as soon as the install was done. Still no luck with Epson however.

"Zapper" wrote:

> I have a little ol Epson Stylus Photo 1270 wide format printer and it
> installed all by itself, I did not have to provide an drivers. Oh yeah, this
> was on x86 and x64..2 different machines, neither had a working OS before
> install.
>
>
> "MICHAEL" <u158627_emr@dslr.net> wrote in message
> news:%23XdmEOSmGHA.2112@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> > "Neal at Spectdar Computing"
> > <NealatSpectdarComputing@discussions.microsoft.com > wrote in message
> > news:9AD11CCC-FB87-4104-BDDF-BEC872562170@microsoft.com...

> >>I took the plunge and installed 64 bit in some of the production machines
> >>in
> >> my shop. We also happen to be using Epson all in one printers. Of course
> >> no
> >> drivers. This weekend I got the Microsoft prepared dvd's and installed
> >> both
> >> versions on different machines in a raid 0 configuration. Everything
> >> works.
> >> Except my printers. I installed it in the warehouse and tried other
> >> Epsons, a
> >> Canon, several HP's and a very old NEC. The only one that even tried was
> >> the
> >> NEC. The manufacturers ignored us when XP 64 came out and I pestered
> >> them
> >> with constant emails and telephone calls until I got drivers. Looks like
> >> I
> >> have to start all over again. These people don't seem to realize that
> >> Vista
> >> is here and will inherit the Windows market sooner that they think.
> >> Btw, Vista beta 2 along with Office 2007 beta 2 work very well in a
> >> production environment. The only pain is printing. If some of you would
> >> care
> >> to start emailing manufacturers requesting drivers it couldn't hurt.

> >
> >
> > Production machines? People who install a beta on their primary computers,
> > especially one that is not even a release candidate, are *fools* and quite
> > irresponsible. If I were your boss, I would fire you. There are IT
> > bosses who
> > wait until at least the first service pack before committing to a new
> > operating
> > system. No, Vista is not here. I remember how concerned Microsoft was
> > after XP came out- it took many businesses longer than they thought to
> > upgrade
> > from NT and 2000. Even businesses using Win98 at employee workstations
> > took their sweet time. I like Vista, but I believe the move to Vista will
> > be even
> > slower for many businesses. XP is a solid OS and I see no compelling
> > reason
> > to rush and upgrade. Only those who like the "latest and greatest" thing
> > when
> > it first comes out. A responsible IT manager would make sure an OS
> > upgrade
> > was needed and the software solid before putting it on "production
> > machines".
> > Reminds me of so many of those fools who rushed out like ignoramuses to
> > buy
> > the XBOX 360 when it first came out. So many problems with the first
> > batches
> > that came out, from overheating to bad DVD drives. I got my XBOX 360 a
> > month
> > ago, it works flawlessly; and I didn't have to act the fool stampeding
> > stores trying
> > to buy one. Now, I hear, that the XBOX 360 will be changing processors to
> > one
> > that is a bit more powerful *and* runs cooler. Sometimes it pays to let
> > others be
> > first. The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the
> > cheese.
> >
> > Because of the hardware requirements of Vista, I see many IT departments
> > not upgrading anytime soon after the Vista release.
> >
> > You and anyone else who have ignored the warnings and common sense
> > and installed Vista OS as their primary OS deserve whatever problems may
> > come your way.
> >
> >
> > -Michael

>

I have to agree with Michael. There is no reason to install a Beta on
production PC's other than to see what's new. That is for test
environments. I was hesitant about even installing Office 2007 Beta on my
PC, which I consider a test PC. On a user's PC? Never.

And that's just a simple office program. A brand new OS? LOL. I'd have to
be drunk to put that on a production PC.

"MICHAEL" <u158627_emr@dslr.net> wrote in message
news:%23XdmEOSmGHA.2112@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> "Neal at Spectdar Computing"
> <NealatSpectdarComputing@discussions.microsoft.com > wrote in message
> news:9AD11CCC-FB87-4104-BDDF-BEC872562170@microsoft.com...

>>I took the plunge and installed 64 bit in some of the production machines
>>in
>> my shop. We also happen to be using Epson all in one printers. Of course
>> no
>> drivers. This weekend I got the Microsoft prepared dvd's and installed
>> both
>> versions on different machines in a raid 0 configuration. Everything
>> works.
>> Except my printers. I installed it in the warehouse and tried other
>> Epsons, a
>> Canon, several HP's and a very old NEC. The only one that even tried was
>> the
>> NEC. The manufacturers ignored us when XP 64 came out and I pestered
>> them
>> with constant emails and telephone calls until I got drivers. Looks like
>> I
>> have to start all over again. These people don't seem to realize that
>> Vista
>> is here and will inherit the Windows market sooner that they think.
>> Btw, Vista beta 2 along with Office 2007 beta 2 work very well in a
>> production environment. The only pain is printing. If some of you would
>> care
>> to start emailing manufacturers requesting drivers it couldn't hurt.

>
>
> Production machines? People who install a beta on their primary computers,
> especially one that is not even a release candidate, are *fools* and quite
> irresponsible. If I were your boss, I would fire you. There are IT
> bosses who
> wait until at least the first service pack before committing to a new
> operating
> system. No, Vista is not here. I remember how concerned Microsoft was
> after XP came out- it took many businesses longer than they thought to
> upgrade
> from NT and 2000. Even businesses using Win98 at employee workstations
> took their sweet time. I like Vista, but I believe the move to Vista will
> be even
> slower for many businesses. XP is a solid OS and I see no compelling
> reason
> to rush and upgrade. Only those who like the "latest and greatest" thing
> when
> it first comes out. A responsible IT manager would make sure an OS
> upgrade
> was needed and the software solid before putting it on "production
> machines".
> Reminds me of so many of those fools who rushed out like ignoramuses to
> buy
> the XBOX 360 when it first came out. So many problems with the first
> batches
> that came out, from overheating to bad DVD drives. I got my XBOX 360 a
> month
> ago, it works flawlessly; and I didn't have to act the fool stampeding
> stores trying
> to buy one. Now, I hear, that the XBOX 360 will be changing processors to
> one
> that is a bit more powerful *and* runs cooler. Sometimes it pays to let
> others be
> first. The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the
> cheese.
>
> Because of the hardware requirements of Vista, I see many IT departments
> not upgrading anytime soon after the Vista release.
>
> You and anyone else who have ignored the warnings and common sense
> and installed Vista OS as their primary OS deserve whatever problems may
> come your way.
>
>
> -Michael

So that's where that case of Coors went. Hehe. I've beta tested for years and
I always wait until RC1 or so. Putting it in a production environment is the
real acid test. Plus, we have other machines with retail os's on them that
pick up data from the network just in case.

"Badger" wrote:

> I have to agree with Michael. There is no reason to install a Beta on
> production PC's other than to see what's new. That is for test
> environments. I was hesitant about even installing Office 2007 Beta on my
> PC, which I consider a test PC. On a user's PC? Never.
>
> And that's just a simple office program. A brand new OS? LOL. I'd have to
> be drunk to put that on a production PC.
>
> "MICHAEL" <u158627_emr@dslr.net> wrote in message
> news:%23XdmEOSmGHA.2112@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> > "Neal at Spectdar Computing"
> > <NealatSpectdarComputing@discussions.microsoft.com > wrote in message
> > news:9AD11CCC-FB87-4104-BDDF-BEC872562170@microsoft.com...

> >>I took the plunge and installed 64 bit in some of the production machines
> >>in
> >> my shop. We also happen to be using Epson all in one printers. Of course
> >> no
> >> drivers. This weekend I got the Microsoft prepared dvd's and installed
> >> both
> >> versions on different machines in a raid 0 configuration. Everything
> >> works.
> >> Except my printers. I installed it in the warehouse and tried other
> >> Epsons, a
> >> Canon, several HP's and a very old NEC. The only one that even tried was
> >> the
> >> NEC. The manufacturers ignored us when XP 64 came out and I pestered
> >> them
> >> with constant emails and telephone calls until I got drivers. Looks like
> >> I
> >> have to start all over again. These people don't seem to realize that
> >> Vista
> >> is here and will inherit the Windows market sooner that they think.
> >> Btw, Vista beta 2 along with Office 2007 beta 2 work very well in a
> >> production environment. The only pain is printing. If some of you would
> >> care
> >> to start emailing manufacturers requesting drivers it couldn't hurt.

> >
> >
> > Production machines? People who install a beta on their primary computers,
> > especially one that is not even a release candidate, are *fools* and quite
> > irresponsible. If I were your boss, I would fire you. There are IT
> > bosses who
> > wait until at least the first service pack before committing to a new
> > operating
> > system. No, Vista is not here. I remember how concerned Microsoft was
> > after XP came out- it took many businesses longer than they thought to
> > upgrade
> > from NT and 2000. Even businesses using Win98 at employee workstations
> > took their sweet time. I like Vista, but I believe the move to Vista will
> > be even
> > slower for many businesses. XP is a solid OS and I see no compelling
> > reason
> > to rush and upgrade. Only those who like the "latest and greatest" thing
> > when
> > it first comes out. A responsible IT manager would make sure an OS
> > upgrade
> > was needed and the software solid before putting it on "production
> > machines".
> > Reminds me of so many of those fools who rushed out like ignoramuses to
> > buy
> > the XBOX 360 when it first came out. So many problems with the first
> > batches
> > that came out, from overheating to bad DVD drives. I got my XBOX 360 a
> > month
> > ago, it works flawlessly; and I didn't have to act the fool stampeding
> > stores trying
> > to buy one. Now, I hear, that the XBOX 360 will be changing processors to
> > one
> > that is a bit more powerful *and* runs cooler. Sometimes it pays to let
> > others be
> > first. The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the
> > cheese.
> >
> > Because of the hardware requirements of Vista, I see many IT departments
> > not upgrading anytime soon after the Vista release.
> >
> > You and anyone else who have ignored the warnings and common sense
> > and installed Vista OS as their primary OS deserve whatever problems may
> > come your way.
> >
> >
> > -Michael

>
>
>