And now that we've gotten this OT, something I couldn't resist:

*I've Built a Better Model than the One at Data General* by Steven Levine

(sung to the tune of I am the Very Model of a Modern Major General, many, many apologies to W.S. Gilbert and A.S. Sullivan)

I've built a better model than the one at Data General

For data bases vegetable, animal, and mineral

My OS handles CPUs with multiplexed duality;

My PL/I compiler shows impressive functionality.

My storage system's better than magnetic core polarity,

You never have to bother checking out a bit for parity;

There isn't any reason to install non-static floor matting;

My disk drive has capacity for variable formatting.

His disk drive has capacity for variable formatting,

His disk drive has capacity for variable formatting,

His disk drive has capacity for variable format-formatting.

I feel compelled to mention what I know to be a gloating point:

There's lots of space in memory for variable floating-point,

Which shows for input vegetable, animal and mineral

I've build a better model than the one at Data General.

Which shows for input vegetable, animal and mineral

He's built a better model than the one at Data General.

The IBM new home computer's nothing more than germinal;

At Prime they still have trouble with an interactive terminal;

While Tandy's done a lousy job with operations Boolean,

At Wang the byte capacity's too small to fit a coolie in.

Intel's mid-year finances are something of the trouble sort;

The Timex-Sinclair crashes when you implement a bubble sort.

All DEC investors soon will find they haven't spent their money well;

And need I even mention Nixdorf, Univac or Honeywell?

And need he even mention Nixdorf, Univac, or Honeywell?

And need he even mention Nixdorf, Univac, or Honeywell?

And need he even mention Nixdorf, Univac, or Honey-Honeywell?

By striving to eliminate all source code that's repetitive

I've brought my benchmark standings to results that are competitive.

In short, for input vegetable, animal and mineral

I've built a better model than the one at Data General.

Which shows for input vegetable, animal and mineral

He's built a better model than the one at Data General.

In fact when I've a floppy of a minimum diameter,

When I can call a subroutine of infinite parameter,

When I can point to registers and keep their current map around,

And when I can prevent the need for mystifying wraparound,

When I can update record blocks with minimum of suffering,

And when I can afford to use 100K for buffering,

When I've performed a matrix sort and tested the addition rate,

You'll marvel at the speed of my asynchronous transmission rate.

You'll marvel at the speed of his asynchronous transmission rate.

You'll marvel at the speed of his asynchronous transmission rate.

You'll marvel at the speed of his asynchronous transmission-mission rate.

Though all my better programs that self-reference recursively

Have only been obtained through expert spying, done subversively,

But still for input vegetable, animal, and mineral,

I've built a better model than the one at Data General.

But still for input vegetable, animal and mineral,

He's built a better model than the one at Data General.

Running 64 bit XP requires different hardware drivers. Having a 64 bit processor does not if it's running 32 bit XP.

BTW, I had a similar experience with a Umax SCSI scanner. Drivers were fine through Windows 98 and NT 4 but they didn't release any for Windows 2000. A friend managed to make the NT drivers partly work in 2000; I gave up.