Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Support > Re: Vista to XP upgrade

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Vista to XP upgrade

 
 
Graham
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-09-2008
"Lookout" <(E-Mail Removed)>
??????:(E-Mail Removed). ..
> http://www.computerworld.com/action/...icleId=9040318
>
> This site lets you do it WHILE you are installing Vista. How do you do
> it on a one year old lap top that already has Vista installed?
>
> Thanks


Well, I suggest a completely install of XP.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-09-2008
Lookout wrote:

> "Graham" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>"Lookout" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>> http://www.computerworld.com/action/...icleId=9040318
>>>
>>> This site lets you do it WHILE you are installing Vista. How do you
>>> do it on a one year old lap top that already has Vista installed?

>>
>> Well, I suggest a completely install of XP.
>>

> It's already installed...has been for a year as I said in the post.


I see your post saying, "..on a one year old lap top that already has
Vista installed?" (Did you really mean something else?)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Therefore, Graham's advice to wipe and install XP fits, along with the
link you posted.

Far less expensive than purchasing a license and full copy of XP:
http://www.ubuntu.com/

--
-bts
-Friends don't let friends drive Windows
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
hwأf
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-09-2008
On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 10:11:50 -0600, Lookout aided th' terraists with the
following claims :

> On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 09:42:30 -0500, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Lookout wrote:
>>
>>>> Far less expensive than purchasing a license and full copy of XP:
>>>> http://www.ubuntu.com/
>>>
>>> Stupid option.

>>
>>Perhaps not your cup of tea, but certainly not stupid.

>
> Sure it is. Ask any 100 PC users. You know what they'll say as well as
> I do.


No, they'll say, wtf is "linux"?



--
"Those who can make you believe absurdities,
can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire
http://www.alternet.org



 
Reply With Quote
 
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-09-2008
Lookout wrote:

> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>> Lookout wrote:
>>> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>>>> Far less expensive than purchasing a license and full copy of XP:
>>>> http://www.ubuntu.com/
>>>
>>> Stupid option.

>>
>> Perhaps not your cup of tea, but certainly not stupid.

>
> Sure it is. Ask any 100 PC users. You know what they'll say as well as
> I do.


It depends on how you ask them...

If you go in saying, "Windows SUCKS, use this", you might get what you
perceive to be "99% or 100."

If you start with, "I'm sorry you're having trouble with your Windows
installation. I'll try to fix it for you, but would you care to learn
about an alternative operating system .. and that doesn't need expensive
anti-this and anti-that programs?"

Typically, they answer, "Tell me more, and how much does it cost?" I
reply with, "<short description of Linux>. Oh, and it's free, and so is
all the software you'd normally need." They always perk up and want to
know more.

Flies, vinegar, and honey come to mind.

--
-bts
-Friends don't let friends drive Windows
 
Reply With Quote
 
Walter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-09-2008
Lookout wrote:

> On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 11:34:52 -0500, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Lookout wrote:
>>
>>> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>>>> Lookout wrote:
>>>>> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>>>>>> Far less expensive than purchasing a license and full copy of XP:
>>>>>> http://www.ubuntu.com/
>>>>>
>>>>> Stupid option.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps not your cup of tea, but certainly not stupid.
>>>
>>> Sure it is. Ask any 100 PC users. You know what they'll say as well
>>> as I do.

>>
>> It depends on how you ask them...
>>
>> If you go in saying, "Windows SUCKS, use this", you might get what
>> you perceive to be "99% or 100."
>>
>> If you start with, "I'm sorry you're having trouble with your Windows
>> installation. I'll try to fix it for you, but would you care to learn
>> about an alternative operating system .. and that doesn't need
>> expensive anti-this and anti-that programs?"


Since when does windows need "expensive anti-this and anti-that programs"?

I keep four things (all free) available and up to date. Avast! (anti virus)
MalwareBytes (ad/spyware removal) CCleaner (tool that gets rid of
missing/orphaned .dlls, wipes your temp Internet files, empties the recycle
bin, gets rid of useless registry entries left behind by **** uninstallers
like anything Norton/Symantec) Spyware Blaster (tool that does a pretty
good job of blocking malicious content 'on access' no matter what browser
you use.)

Spyware Blaster I update once a week. Other than that, it's dormant.
CCleaner I update and run once a week. Other than that, it's dormant.
MalwareBytes I update and run once a week. Other than that, it's dormant.
Avast! runs all the time, and updates itself automatically.

All of the above cost exactly 0. Work as well or better than the 'pay
stuff', dont' take up much system room or resources, and combined with a
little common sense will keep anyone running windows worry-free.

>> Typically, they answer, "Tell me more, and how much does it cost?" I
>> reply with, "<short description of Linux>. Oh, and it's free, and so
>> is all the software you'd normally need." They always perk up and
>> want to know more.
>>
>> Flies, vinegar, and honey come to mind.


You must deal with a different class of people than I do. When I ask folks
if they'd like to take a look at Linux it's generally met with a "No, I'm
not into learning something totally new. I've been using windows for x
years and I hardly understand it. All I want to do is send email, chat, and
maybe make a movie now and then."

And that's the end of that.

> Bullshit. If that were true everyone would be using it.
> It was and is a stupid solution.


That wasn't called for, Lookout. It's not a stupid solution. IMPRACTICAL
in most cases, yes. But not stupid.


 
Reply With Quote
 
William Poaster
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-09-2008
On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 13:41:40 -0500, Walter wrote:

> Lookout wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 11:34:52 -0500, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> Lookout wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>>>>> Lookout wrote:
>>>>>> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>>>>>>> Far less expensive than purchasing a license and full copy of XP:
>>>>>>> http://www.ubuntu.com/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stupid option.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps not your cup of tea, but certainly not stupid.
>>>>
>>>> Sure it is. Ask any 100 PC users. You know what they'll say as well as
>>>> I do.
>>>
>>> It depends on how you ask them...
>>>
>>> If you go in saying, "Windows SUCKS, use this", you might get what you
>>> perceive to be "99% or 100."
>>>
>>> If you start with, "I'm sorry you're having trouble with your Windows
>>> installation. I'll try to fix it for you, but would you care to learn
>>> about an alternative operating system .. and that doesn't need
>>> expensive anti-this and anti-that programs?"

>
> Since when does windows need "expensive anti-this and anti-that programs"?


WHY should it need them at all?

> I keep four things (all free) available and up to date. Avast! (anti
> virus) MalwareBytes (ad/spyware removal) CCleaner (tool that gets rid of
> missing/orphaned .dlls, wipes your temp Internet files, empties the
> recycle bin, gets rid of useless registry entries left behind by ****
> uninstallers like anything Norton/Symantec) Spyware Blaster (tool that
> does a pretty good job of blocking malicious content 'on access' no matter
> what browser you use.)
>
> Spyware Blaster I update once a week. Other than that, it's dormant.
> CCleaner I update and run once a week. Other than that, it's dormant.
> MalwareBytes I update and run once a week. Other than that, it's dormant.
> Avast! runs all the time, and updates itself automatically.
>
> All of the above cost exactly 0. Work as well or better than the 'pay
> stuff', dont' take up much system room or resources, and combined with a
> little common sense will keep anyone running windows worry-free.
>
>>> Typically, they answer, "Tell me more, and how much does it cost?" I
>>> reply with, "<short description of Linux>. Oh, and it's free, and so is
>>> all the software you'd normally need." They always perk up and want to
>>> know more.
>>>
>>> Flies, vinegar, and honey come to mind.

>
> You must deal with a different class of people than I do. When I ask
> folks if they'd like to take a look at Linux it's generally met with a
> "No, I'm not into learning something totally new. I've been using windows
> for x years and I hardly understand it. All I want to do is send email,
> chat, and maybe make a movie now and then."
>
> And that's the end of that.


Not my experience at all. In fact more people are becoming interested in
Linux.

>> Bullshit. If that were true everyone would be using it. It was and is a
>> stupid solution.

>
> That wasn't called for, Lookout. It's not a stupid solution. IMPRACTICAL
> in most cases, yes. But not stupid.


Not at all impractical, except in a very *few* cases.

--
Windows - "life without walls"
Oh, the irony!
Have these people actually read the M$ EULA?

 
Reply With Quote
 
William Poaster
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-09-2008
On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 09:42:30 -0500, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

> Lookout wrote:
>
>> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>>> Lookout wrote:
>>>> "Graham" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>> "Lookout" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>>>> http://www.computerworld.com/action/...icleId=9040318
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This site lets you do it WHILE you are installing Vista. How do you
>>>>>> do it on a one year old lap top that already has Vista installed?
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, I suggest a completely install of XP.
>>>>>
>>>> It's already installed...has been for a year as I said in the post.
>>>
>>> I see your post saying, "..on a one year old lap top that already has
>>> Vista installed?" (Did you really mean something else?)
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>>
>> Nope. I mean exactly that. The guy bought a lap top a year ago with
>> Vista and want's XP.

>
> Ok, then. I guess that was a typo when you answered Graham with "It's
> already installed..." in reply to his "install XP".
>
>> I don't want to get involved to the point of working on it myself and
>> he's not real computer literate.

>
> I understand that. You can set yourself up for "future support" no matter
> what. I do it for close friends.
>
>>> Therefore, Graham's advice to wipe and install XP fits, along with the
>>> link you posted.

>>
>> I've heard that drivers are a problem and I don't know if he's capable
>> of handling a difficult install. I thought I read where MS was offering
>> XP to Vista users who wanted to upgrade back to XP

>
> I seem to recall that the 'upgrade to XP' option (for no or small fee)
> expired some time ago. I haven't kept track of that. A friend bought a new
> computer about a month ago from a mom'n'popshop which came with XP. They
> didn't even offer Vista!
>
>>> Far less expensive than purchasing a license and full copy of XP:
>>> http://www.ubuntu.com/

>>
>> Stupid option.

>
> Perhaps not your cup of tea, but certainly not stupid.


What's amusing is that quite soon they could well be running the "stupid
option" without even knowing it!

Asus are to embed Linux in their entire mainboard range, for a fast bootup
Splashtop is an "instant on" Linux application, which will boot to the
internet in *seconds*. Surfing the Web safely, immune from the malware
that targets Windows.
http://www.splashtop.com/splashtop_overview.php

Now where one major manufacturer is doing this, others will follow
because they wouldn't want to be left behind!


 
Reply With Quote
 
Walter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-09-2008
William Poaster wrote:

> On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 13:41:40 -0500, Walter wrote:
>
>> Lookout wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 11:34:52 -0500, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lookout wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>>>>>> Lookout wrote:
>>>>>>> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>>>>>>>> Far less expensive than purchasing a license and full copy of
>>>>>>>> XP: http://www.ubuntu.com/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Stupid option.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps not your cup of tea, but certainly not stupid.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure it is. Ask any 100 PC users. You know what they'll say as
>>>>> well as I do.
>>>>
>>>> It depends on how you ask them...
>>>>
>>>> If you go in saying, "Windows SUCKS, use this", you might get what
>>>> you perceive to be "99% or 100."
>>>>
>>>> If you start with, "I'm sorry you're having trouble with your
>>>> Windows installation. I'll try to fix it for you, but would you
>>>> care to learn about an alternative operating system .. and that
>>>> doesn't need expensive anti-this and anti-that programs?"

>>
>> Since when does windows need "expensive anti-this and anti-that
>> programs"?

>
> WHY should it need them at all?


It doesn't need them. I just think it's good idea to have them around.

>> I keep four things (all free) available and up to date. Avast! (anti
>> virus) MalwareBytes (ad/spyware removal) CCleaner (tool that gets
>> rid of missing/orphaned .dlls, wipes your temp Internet files,
>> empties the recycle bin, gets rid of useless registry entries left
>> behind by **** uninstallers like anything Norton/Symantec) Spyware
>> Blaster (tool that does a pretty good job of blocking malicious
>> content 'on access' no matter what browser you use.)
>>
>> Spyware Blaster I update once a week. Other than that, it's dormant.
>> CCleaner I update and run once a week. Other than that, it's dormant.
>> MalwareBytes I update and run once a week. Other than that, it's
>> dormant. Avast! runs all the time, and updates itself automatically.
>>
>> All of the above cost exactly 0. Work as well or better than the
>> 'pay stuff', dont' take up much system room or resources, and
>> combined with a little common sense will keep anyone running windows
>> worry-free.
>>
>>>> Typically, they answer, "Tell me more, and how much does it cost?"
>>>> I reply with, "<short description of Linux>. Oh, and it's free,
>>>> and so is all the software you'd normally need." They always perk
>>>> up and want to know more.
>>>>
>>>> Flies, vinegar, and honey come to mind.

>>
>> You must deal with a different class of people than I do. When I ask
>> folks if they'd like to take a look at Linux it's generally met with
>> a "No, I'm not into learning something totally new. I've been using
>> windows for x years and I hardly understand it. All I want to do is
>> send email, chat, and maybe make a movie now and then."
>>
>> And that's the end of that.

>
> Not my experience at all. In fact more people are becoming interested
> in Linux.


Then you travel in the same circles as Beauregard, whereas I live in the
real world.

>>> Bullshit. If that were true everyone would be using it. It was and
>>> is a stupid solution.

>>
>> That wasn't called for, Lookout. It's not a stupid solution.
>> IMPRACTICAL in most cases, yes. But not stupid.

>
> Not at all impractical, except in a very *few* cases.


Look. I'm not here to argue the virtues of one OS over another because
quite honestly I don't care what anybody else runs until it shows up on my
bench.

Be that as it may, I use windows for some things and linux for others.
People who bring their boxes to me for repair generally don't know or care
what linux is. That's just the way it is around here. Occasionally a kid
might want to mess around with it, but the older people just want their
windows box to work like it used to. Like I said, they just want to launch
some IM program, surf the net and send some email. That's all.

I think what happens is that people like you and Beau get so 'into' this
stuff that you sometimes lose sight of what a 'typical' user does with his
machine. A 'typical' user in my experience, is someone who runs windows (XP
or Vista) and doesn't do much more with it than what I described above
except maybe play a game now and then. Believe it or not, that's all MOST
people really do with a computer. And that's why they don't give a ****
about Linux for the most part. The only other thing I can say on the
subject is that it seems to me the Mac users are for the most part a lot
more savvy about their machines than windows users are. And the linux
customers? Well they're non-existant because they can fix their own junk
when it breaks.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-09-2008
I'll reply to this one.

Walter wrote:
> Lookout wrote:
>> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:

[let me snip a bunch here]
>>> If you start with, "I'm sorry you're having trouble with your
>>> Windows installation. I'll try to fix it for you, but would you
>>> care to learn about an alternative operating system .. and that
>>> doesn't need expensive anti-this and anti-that programs?"

>
> Since when does windows need "expensive anti-this and anti-that
> programs"?


Nearly everyone I encounter is using a version of Norton Antivirus or
McAfee Antivirus (or their suites), and oft not renewed nor updating.
The people don't know about all the good free anti-stuff, unless someone
like you or me is handy to tell them about it. I always do, if they seem
receptive to the idea.

("My Norton died; should I buy McAfee?" or vice-versa.)

> I keep four things (all free) available and up to date. Avast! (anti
> virus) MalwareBytes (ad/spyware removal) CCleaner (tool that gets rid
> of missing/orphaned .dlls, wipes your temp Internet files, empties
> the recycle bin, gets rid of useless registry entries left behind by
> **** uninstallers like anything Norton/Symantec) Spyware Blaster
> (tool that does a pretty good job of blocking malicious content 'on
> access' no matter what browser you use.)
>
> Spyware Blaster I update once a week. Other than that, it's dormant.
> CCleaner I update and run once a week. Other than that, it's dormant.
> MalwareBytes I update and run once a week. Other than that, it's
> dormant. Avast! runs all the time, and updates itself automatically.


So what you are saying is that you need several anti-this and anti-that
applications to keep your computer clean, whether they are free or fee.
I don't need any of those things with my operating system. Because those
things were free to you doesn't mean you can forget about needing them.

The average Joe Sixpack home user also frequently forgets to do the
required updating or using them at all, that you know is necessary.

> All of the above cost exactly 0. Work as well or better than the
> 'pay stuff', dont' take up much system room or resources, and
> combined with a little common sense will keep anyone running windows
> worry-free.


I'll agree with that.

>>> Typically, they answer, "Tell me more, and how much does it cost?" I
>>> reply with, "<short description of Linux>. Oh, and it's free, and
>>> so is all the software you'd normally need." They always perk up
>>> and want to know more.
>>>
>>> Flies, vinegar, and honey come to mind.

>
> You must deal with a different class of people than I do. When I ask
> folks if they'd like to take a look at Linux it's generally met with
> a "No, I'm not into learning something totally new. I've been using
> windows for x years and I hardly understand it. All I want to do is
> send email, chat, and maybe make a movie now and then."


"and I hardly understand it." Perhaps if they did...

> And that's the end of that.


In your case, and Lookout's, I suppose it is. Best of luck in the
future.

>> Bullshit. If that were true everyone would be using it. It was and is
>> a stupid solution.

>
> That wasn't called for, Lookout. It's not a stupid solution.
> IMPRACTICAL in most cases, yes. But not stupid.


I'll partially agree with that; it's only impractical if one ****es off
the Windows users, rather than attempt to gently and gracefully urge
them to try something new. It isn't hard. I've numerous friends now
running Ubuntu who are most pleased that I came by and gave them the
advice and a demo from the LiveCD.

--
-bts
-Friends don't let friends drive Windows
 
Reply With Quote
 
Walter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-09-2008
Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

> I'll reply to this one.
>
> Walter wrote:
>> Lookout wrote:
>>> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:

> [let me snip a bunch here]
>>>> If you start with, "I'm sorry you're having trouble with your
>>>> Windows installation. I'll try to fix it for you, but would you
>>>> care to learn about an alternative operating system .. and that
>>>> doesn't need expensive anti-this and anti-that programs?"

>>
>> Since when does windows need "expensive anti-this and anti-that
>> programs"?

>
> Nearly everyone I encounter is using a version of Norton Antivirus or
> McAfee Antivirus (or their suites), and oft not renewed nor updating.
> The people don't know about all the good free anti-stuff, unless
> someone like you or me is handy to tell them about it. I always do,
> if they seem receptive to the idea.
>
> ("My Norton died; should I buy McAfee?" or vice-versa.)


100% absolutely, positively, totally agree. I see the same **** ALL the
time. But it's because people buy windows boxes off the shelf and almost
inevitably they come preloaded with a 'free trial' of bloated crapware like
McAffee or Norton. Not because they wanted it.

>> I keep four things (all free) available and up to date. Avast! (anti
>> virus) MalwareBytes (ad/spyware removal) CCleaner (tool that gets rid
>> of missing/orphaned .dlls, wipes your temp Internet files, empties
>> the recycle bin, gets rid of useless registry entries left behind by
>> **** uninstallers like anything Norton/Symantec) Spyware Blaster
>> (tool that does a pretty good job of blocking malicious content 'on
>> access' no matter what browser you use.)
>>
>> Spyware Blaster I update once a week. Other than that, it's dormant.
>> CCleaner I update and run once a week. Other than that, it's dormant.
>> MalwareBytes I update and run once a week. Other than that, it's
>> dormant. Avast! runs all the time, and updates itself automatically.

>
> So what you are saying is that you need several anti-this and
> anti-that applications to keep your computer clean, whether they are
> free or fee.


No. *I* don't need them. Joe (let me turn on my IMs, click every link I
see on a porn site and download every attachment somebody sends me in email)
Sixpack needs them.

> I don't need any of those things with my operating
> system. Because those things were free to you doesn't mean you can
> forget about needing them.


Beau. It's not that big a deal to install a decent free AV program on a
windows box, along with some malware prevention/removal tools. I find
people much more receptive to THAT, than I do to having me install an
entirely different OS on their machines. I'm not arguing with you about
security. Certainly any flavor of linux (out of the box) is much more
secure than windows.

> The average Joe Sixpack home user also frequently forgets to do the
> required updating or using them at all, that you know is necessary.


Not my problem. He goes home with an instruction sheet on how to update and
run anything I install.

>> All of the above cost exactly 0. Work as well or better than the
>> 'pay stuff', dont' take up much system room or resources, and
>> combined with a little common sense will keep anyone running windows
>> worry-free.

>
> I'll agree with that.
>
>>>> Typically, they answer, "Tell me more, and how much does it cost?"
>>>> I reply with, "<short description of Linux>. Oh, and it's free, and
>>>> so is all the software you'd normally need." They always perk up
>>>> and want to know more.
>>>>
>>>> Flies, vinegar, and honey come to mind.

>>
>> You must deal with a different class of people than I do. When I ask
>> folks if they'd like to take a look at Linux it's generally met with
>> a "No, I'm not into learning something totally new. I've been using
>> windows for x years and I hardly understand it. All I want to do is
>> send email, chat, and maybe make a movie now and then."

>
> "and I hardly understand it." Perhaps if they did...


The point is...It's not my job to make them understand. In fact it's
better for me if they don't.

>> And that's the end of that.

>
> In your case, and Lookout's, I suppose it is. Best of luck in the
> future.
>
>>> Bullshit. If that were true everyone would be using it. It was and
>>> is a stupid solution.

>>
>> That wasn't called for, Lookout. It's not a stupid solution.
>> IMPRACTICAL in most cases, yes. But not stupid.

>
> I'll partially agree with that; it's only impractical if one ****es
> off the Windows users, rather than attempt to gently and gracefully
> urge them to try something new. It isn't hard. I've numerous friends
> now running Ubuntu who are most pleased that I came by and gave them
> the advice and a demo from the LiveCD.


See my other post in reply to William Poster.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cisco 837 upgrade IOS upgrade gone wrong cisconewbie Hardware 5 10-05-2008 06:29 PM
Vista codec packages for Vista 32 & vista 64 Kue2 Windows 64bit 0 03-05-2007 05:48 PM
Upgrade vs Upgrade - not a faq but maybe some answers. Comments and Corrections welcomed. Agent86 Windows 64bit 2 02-09-2007 08:16 PM
Upgrade from vista 32 bit to vista 64 bit =?Utf-8?B?Tmlyb2s=?= Windows 64bit 7 02-03-2007 06:10 AM
x64-to-Vista: Will clean-install Vista "upgrade" invalidate x64 license? DP Windows 64bit 11 07-22-2006 11:00 PM



Advertisments