Am I the only one who thinks that this forum is misplaced and should be placed under Windows 2003, as XP 64 based on Windows 2003?
Having it listed under XP, even though it's not based on XP, looks somehow unprofessional

I just wonder which sort of mad reasoning went on in the heads of MS so that, instead of a more fitting "Windows 2003 Professional", they named it "XP 64"

Since Server 2003 is a server OS and XP64, while it is S2K3, is a consumer OS.

by that logic, almost every forum would be a subforum of Windows NT (except for win9x)

I disagree with you all.

I think it should be a separate part all together, as it would highten the enlightment and a lot of posts that were in wrong forum etc, wouldnt have happened. I've already counted 5 such posts now. It is frustrating when you want to help people and they are totally in the wrong place, and thus starts a new thread on another forum again.

2003 was known for its incompability with adobe to mention just that, along with lots other software.
Xp x64bit had a lot less,and has, of these problems
Same what not family, i dont care. Its a totally different product, end of story. (as far as Microsoft and their, Ok guys, today we are going to copy this, strip that out, add new directx, and much profit ok guys? and whore in the money.. =) )