from win home to win x64

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by =?Utf-8?B?V2l6em93?=, Dec 2, 2005.

  1. Hi i wonder if i can upgrade F home to x64
    =?Utf-8?B?V2l6em93?=, Dec 2, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. There is no upgrade path from Windows XP Home to XP Professional x64, clean
    install only, which means backing up your data, and installing it on a clean
    hard disk or on partition. You can dual boot with XP Home, by creating a
    separate partition and install it on it. Its also important that you
    determine if your your machine is 64-bit enabled.
    --
    Andre
    Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
    Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
    http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
    FAQ for MS AntiSpy http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm

    "Wizzow" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hi i wonder if i can upgrade F home to x64
    Andre Da Costa [Extended64], Dec 2, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Wizzow wrote:
    > Hi i wonder if i can upgrade F home to x64



    No. There's no upgrade path from 32-bit WinXP to WinXPx64.
    Further, WinXPx64 is currently available to the consumer market only as
    an OEM license, which cannot perform upgrades.

    Assuming that you even have a 64-bit computer (why would it have WinXP
    Home on it?), you'll need to perform a clean installation. Make sure
    that you have all of the necessary 64-bit device drivers for your PC's
    hardware components readily available.


    --

    Bruce Chambers

    Help us help you:
    http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
    http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

    You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
    both at once. - RAH
    Bruce Chambers, Dec 3, 2005
    #3
  4. My wife is running a 64-bit computer that came with XP Home.

    --
    Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    "Bruce Chambers" <3t> wrote in message
    news:%23OePyID%...
    > Wizzow wrote:
    >> Hi i wonder if i can upgrade F home to x64

    >
    >
    > No. There's no upgrade path from 32-bit WinXP to WinXPx64. Further,
    > WinXPx64 is currently available to the consumer market only as an OEM
    > license, which cannot perform upgrades.
    >
    > Assuming that you even have a 64-bit computer (why would it have WinXP
    > Home on it?), you'll need to perform a clean installation. Make sure that
    > you have all of the necessary 64-bit device drivers for your PC's hardware
    > components readily available.
    >
    >
    > --
    >
    > Bruce Chambers
    >
    > Help us help you:
    > http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
    > http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
    >
    > You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
    > both at once. - RAH
    Colin Barnhorst, Dec 3, 2005
    #4
  5. Many are
    --
    Andre
    Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
    Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
    http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
    FAQ for MS AntiSpy http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm

    "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
    news:ueoOOcF%...
    > My wife is running a 64-bit computer that came with XP Home.
    >
    > --
    > Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    > (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    > "Bruce Chambers" <3t> wrote in message
    > news:%23OePyID%...
    >> Wizzow wrote:
    >>> Hi i wonder if i can upgrade F home to x64

    >>
    >>
    >> No. There's no upgrade path from 32-bit WinXP to WinXPx64. Further,
    >> WinXPx64 is currently available to the consumer market only as an OEM
    >> license, which cannot perform upgrades.
    >>
    >> Assuming that you even have a 64-bit computer (why would it have WinXP
    >> Home on it?), you'll need to perform a clean installation. Make sure
    >> that you have all of the necessary 64-bit device drivers for your PC's
    >> hardware components readily available.
    >>
    >>
    >> --
    >>
    >> Bruce Chambers
    >>
    >> Help us help you:
    >> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
    >> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
    >>
    >> You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
    >> both at once. - RAH

    >
    >
    Andre Da Costa [Extended64], Dec 3, 2005
    #5
  6. Colin Barnhorst wrote:
    > My wife is running a 64-bit computer that came with XP Home.
    >



    I see. Why would one make such a purchase? I simply don't understand
    the rationale of buying a 64-bit PC and then deliberately crippling it
    with a 32-bit OS.


    --

    Bruce Chambers

    Help us help you:
    http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
    http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

    You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
    both at once. - RAH
    Bruce Chambers, Dec 4, 2005
    #6
  7. =?Utf-8?B?V2l6em93?=

    John Barnes Guest

    And I don't see the purpose of having an operating system that only works
    with half your software and little of your hardware. Buying a 64-bit
    computer is a wise decision for when 64-bit is mainstream and there are
    actually programs that do what you want/need and you carefully replace your
    hardware as needed, not en masse to conform to an OS that isn't going to do
    much for the general user. Watch Charlies webcast. Isn't for everyone.


    "Bruce Chambers" <3t> wrote in message
    news:e3rGkKP%...
    > Colin Barnhorst wrote:
    >> My wife is running a 64-bit computer that came with XP Home.
    >>

    >
    >
    > I see. Why would one make such a purchase? I simply don't understand the
    > rationale of buying a 64-bit PC and then deliberately crippling it with a
    > 32-bit OS.
    >
    >
    > --
    >
    > Bruce Chambers
    >
    > Help us help you:
    > http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
    > http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
    >
    > You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
    > both at once. - RAH
    John Barnes, Dec 4, 2005
    #7
  8. In what way is it crippled? That's what she wanted so that's what she
    bought. You make it sound like Microsoft somehow did something to XP Home
    the day XP64 came out to make Home quit working on 64-bit processors as well
    as it used to. Consider:

    She's not doing anything requiring any of the advantages of XP x64.
    She is using some peripherals that are not yet supported by the manufacturer
    under x64.
    She likes not invalidating her product support by installing a version of
    Windows unsupported by the system builder. She doesn't take it to work so
    doesn't care about joining a domain.

    XP Home would not be my choice, I would have purchased it with Pro. But I
    still would have chosen 32-bit Pro.
    But I didn't purchase it. She did and it was right for her.

    I use it and it is a very fast computer with a lovely widescreen and plenty
    of video ram, big hard drive, great wireless.

    --
    Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    "Bruce Chambers" <3t> wrote in message
    news:e3rGkKP%...
    > Colin Barnhorst wrote:
    >> My wife is running a 64-bit computer that came with XP Home.
    >>

    >
    >
    > I see. Why would one make such a purchase? I simply don't understand the
    > rationale of buying a 64-bit PC and then deliberately crippling it with a
    > 32-bit OS.
    >
    >
    > --
    >
    > Bruce Chambers
    >
    > Help us help you:
    > http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
    > http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
    >
    > You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
    > both at once. - RAH
    Colin Barnhorst, Dec 4, 2005
    #8
  9. Colin Barnhorst wrote:
    > In what way is it crippled? That's what she wanted so that's what she
    > bought. You make it sound like Microsoft somehow did something to XP Home
    > the day XP64 came out to make Home quit working on 64-bit processors as well
    > as it used to.



    Well, I'll concede that "crippled" is the wrong word. The point I was
    trying to make is that placing a 32-bit OS on a 64-bit platform doesn't
    allow one to use the 64-bit platform to it's fullest potential.


    > Consider:
    >
    > She's not doing anything requiring any of the advantages of XP x64.



    Then why pay for more for a 64-bit platform? Or was there a sale or
    special offer that made the combination more attractive than one would
    normally expect?


    > She is using some peripherals that are not yet supported by the manufacturer
    > under x64.



    A perfectly sound reason for sticking with a 32-bit OS and platform.
    But it begs the question: Why buy a 64-bit platform, knowing that it
    couldn't be fully utilized? Why not buy a 32-bit platform, if there's
    no intention of using a 64-bit OS?


    > She likes not invalidating her product support by installing a version of
    > Windows unsupported by the system builder.


    Shouldn't be a factor, had the computer been ordered with a 64-bit OS.
    It's a good reason for not changing the OS, but doesn't address the
    real question.

    > She doesn't take it to work so
    > doesn't care about joining a domain.
    >
    > XP Home would not be my choice, I would have purchased it with Pro. But I
    > still would have chosen 32-bit Pro.
    > But I didn't purchase it. She did and it was right for her.
    >



    And I'm not saying that there's anything "wrong" with the purchase; I'm
    just trying to understand the reasoning behind it, for my own education.


    > I use it and it is a very fast computer with a lovely widescreen and plenty
    > of video ram, big hard drive, great wireless.
    >


    And it would be faster still, had it a 64-bit OS installed.


    --

    Bruce Chambers

    Help us help you:
    http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
    http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

    You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
    both at once. - RAH
    Bruce Chambers, Dec 4, 2005
    #9
  10. It doesn't matter to someone who isn't using anything requiring what you
    consider fullest potential. All that matters is that if things change, she
    doesn't have to buy another computer to keep up.

    --
    Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    "Bruce Chambers" <3t> wrote in message
    news:OUevpzQ%...
    > Colin Barnhorst wrote:
    >> In what way is it crippled? That's what she wanted so that's what she
    >> bought. You make it sound like Microsoft somehow did something to XP
    >> Home the day XP64 came out to make Home quit working on 64-bit processors
    >> as well as it used to.

    >
    >
    > Well, I'll concede that "crippled" is the wrong word. The point I was
    > trying to make is that placing a 32-bit OS on a 64-bit platform doesn't
    > allow one to use the 64-bit platform to it's fullest potential.
    >
    >
    >> Consider:
    >>
    >> She's not doing anything requiring any of the advantages of XP x64.

    >
    >
    > Then why pay for more for a 64-bit platform? Or was there a sale or
    > special offer that made the combination more attractive than one would
    > normally expect?
    >
    >
    >> She is using some peripherals that are not yet supported by the
    >> manufacturer under x64.

    >
    >
    > A perfectly sound reason for sticking with a 32-bit OS and platform. But
    > it begs the question: Why buy a 64-bit platform, knowing that it couldn't
    > be fully utilized? Why not buy a 32-bit platform, if there's no intention
    > of using a 64-bit OS?
    >
    >
    >> She likes not invalidating her product support by installing a version of
    >> Windows unsupported by the system builder.

    >
    > Shouldn't be a factor, had the computer been ordered with a 64-bit OS.
    > It's a good reason for not changing the OS, but doesn't address the real
    > question.
    >
    >> She doesn't take it to work so doesn't care about joining a domain.
    >>
    >> XP Home would not be my choice, I would have purchased it with Pro. But
    >> I still would have chosen 32-bit Pro.
    >> But I didn't purchase it. She did and it was right for her.
    >>

    >
    >
    > And I'm not saying that there's anything "wrong" with the purchase; I'm
    > just trying to understand the reasoning behind it, for my own education.
    >
    >
    >> I use it and it is a very fast computer with a lovely widescreen and
    >> plenty of video ram, big hard drive, great wireless.
    >>

    >
    > And it would be faster still, had it a 64-bit OS installed.
    >
    >
    > --
    >
    > Bruce Chambers
    >
    > Help us help you:
    > http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
    > http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
    >
    > You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
    > both at once. - RAH
    Colin Barnhorst, Dec 4, 2005
    #10
  11. Colin Barnhorst wrote:
    > It doesn't matter to someone who isn't using anything requiring what you
    > consider fullest potential. All that matters is that if things change, she
    > doesn't have to buy another computer to keep up.
    >



    That's true enough. Preparing for the future never hurts.

    --

    Bruce Chambers

    Help us help you:
    http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
    http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

    You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
    both at once. - RAH
    Bruce Chambers, Dec 4, 2005
    #11
  12. Agreed, more power plus compatibility, and when 64 bit Windows get its act
    together, then you can upgrade your system without any hassle of buying a
    brand new PC, just upgrade to Vista x64, well, clean install, since there is
    no upgrade path from 32 bit Windows. :)
    --
    Andre
    Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
    Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
    http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
    FAQ for MS AntiSpy http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm

    "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
    news:O%23DvQIR%...
    > It doesn't matter to someone who isn't using anything requiring what you
    > consider fullest potential. All that matters is that if things change,
    > she doesn't have to buy another computer to keep up.
    >
    > --
    > Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    > (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    > "Bruce Chambers" <3t> wrote in message
    > news:OUevpzQ%...
    >> Colin Barnhorst wrote:
    >>> In what way is it crippled? That's what she wanted so that's what she
    >>> bought. You make it sound like Microsoft somehow did something to XP
    >>> Home the day XP64 came out to make Home quit working on 64-bit
    >>> processors as well as it used to.

    >>
    >>
    >> Well, I'll concede that "crippled" is the wrong word. The point I was
    >> trying to make is that placing a 32-bit OS on a 64-bit platform doesn't
    >> allow one to use the 64-bit platform to it's fullest potential.
    >>
    >>
    >>> Consider:
    >>>
    >>> She's not doing anything requiring any of the advantages of XP x64.

    >>
    >>
    >> Then why pay for more for a 64-bit platform? Or was there a sale or
    >> special offer that made the combination more attractive than one would
    >> normally expect?
    >>
    >>
    >>> She is using some peripherals that are not yet supported by the
    >>> manufacturer under x64.

    >>
    >>
    >> A perfectly sound reason for sticking with a 32-bit OS and platform. But
    >> it begs the question: Why buy a 64-bit platform, knowing that it
    >> couldn't be fully utilized? Why not buy a 32-bit platform, if there's no
    >> intention of using a 64-bit OS?
    >>
    >>
    >>> She likes not invalidating her product support by installing a version
    >>> of Windows unsupported by the system builder.

    >>
    >> Shouldn't be a factor, had the computer been ordered with a 64-bit OS.
    >> It's a good reason for not changing the OS, but doesn't address the real
    >> question.
    >>
    >>> She doesn't take it to work so doesn't care about joining a domain.
    >>>
    >>> XP Home would not be my choice, I would have purchased it with Pro. But
    >>> I still would have chosen 32-bit Pro.
    >>> But I didn't purchase it. She did and it was right for her.
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >> And I'm not saying that there's anything "wrong" with the purchase; I'm
    >> just trying to understand the reasoning behind it, for my own education.
    >>
    >>
    >>> I use it and it is a very fast computer with a lovely widescreen and
    >>> plenty of video ram, big hard drive, great wireless.
    >>>

    >>
    >> And it would be faster still, had it a 64-bit OS installed.
    >>
    >>
    >> --
    >>
    >> Bruce Chambers
    >>
    >> Help us help you:
    >> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
    >> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
    >>
    >> You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
    >> both at once. - RAH

    >
    >
    Andre Da Costa [Extended64], Dec 8, 2005
    #12
  13. But remember, MS is claiming that an upgrade in Vista will be a new kind of
    clean install that does not disturb apps. I have no clue how that works,
    but that is what they have said. It may be possible to go from 32-bit XP to
    64-bit Vista with apps still in place. I can't my head around that one but
    if true, great!

    --
    Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    "Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" <> wrote in message
    news:O6tzax4%...
    > Agreed, more power plus compatibility, and when 64 bit Windows get its act
    > together, then you can upgrade your system without any hassle of buying a
    > brand new PC, just upgrade to Vista x64, well, clean install, since there
    > is no upgrade path from 32 bit Windows. :)
    > --
    > Andre
    > Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
    > Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
    > http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
    > FAQ for MS AntiSpy http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm
    >
    > "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
    > news:O%23DvQIR%...
    >> It doesn't matter to someone who isn't using anything requiring what you
    >> consider fullest potential. All that matters is that if things change,
    >> she doesn't have to buy another computer to keep up.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    >> (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    >> "Bruce Chambers" <3t> wrote in message
    >> news:OUevpzQ%...
    >>> Colin Barnhorst wrote:
    >>>> In what way is it crippled? That's what she wanted so that's what she
    >>>> bought. You make it sound like Microsoft somehow did something to XP
    >>>> Home the day XP64 came out to make Home quit working on 64-bit
    >>>> processors as well as it used to.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Well, I'll concede that "crippled" is the wrong word. The point I was
    >>> trying to make is that placing a 32-bit OS on a 64-bit platform doesn't
    >>> allow one to use the 64-bit platform to it's fullest potential.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> Consider:
    >>>>
    >>>> She's not doing anything requiring any of the advantages of XP x64.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Then why pay for more for a 64-bit platform? Or was there a sale or
    >>> special offer that made the combination more attractive than one would
    >>> normally expect?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> She is using some peripherals that are not yet supported by the
    >>>> manufacturer under x64.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> A perfectly sound reason for sticking with a 32-bit OS and platform. But
    >>> it begs the question: Why buy a 64-bit platform, knowing that it
    >>> couldn't be fully utilized? Why not buy a 32-bit platform, if there's
    >>> no intention of using a 64-bit OS?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> She likes not invalidating her product support by installing a version
    >>>> of Windows unsupported by the system builder.
    >>>
    >>> Shouldn't be a factor, had the computer been ordered with a 64-bit OS.
    >>> It's a good reason for not changing the OS, but doesn't address the real
    >>> question.
    >>>
    >>>> She doesn't take it to work so doesn't care about joining a domain.
    >>>>
    >>>> XP Home would not be my choice, I would have purchased it with Pro.
    >>>> But I still would have chosen 32-bit Pro.
    >>>> But I didn't purchase it. She did and it was right for her.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> And I'm not saying that there's anything "wrong" with the purchase; I'm
    >>> just trying to understand the reasoning behind it, for my own education.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> I use it and it is a very fast computer with a lovely widescreen and
    >>>> plenty of video ram, big hard drive, great wireless.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> And it would be faster still, had it a 64-bit OS installed.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>>
    >>> Bruce Chambers
    >>>
    >>> Help us help you:
    >>> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
    >>> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
    >>>
    >>> You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
    >>> both at once. - RAH

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    Colin Barnhorst, Dec 8, 2005
    #13
  14. Well, if we ever see Beta 2, I'll try doing an in place upgrade of the
    32-bit partition on this Ferrari. But I wouldn't risk it now.

    --
    Charlie.
    http://msmvps.com/xperts64

    Colin Barnhorst wrote:
    > But remember, MS is claiming that an upgrade in Vista will be a new kind
    > of clean install that does not disturb apps. I have no clue how that
    > works, but that is what they have said. It may be possible to go from
    > 32-bit XP to 64-bit Vista with apps still in place. I can't my head
    > around that one but if true, great!
    >
    >> Agreed, more power plus compatibility, and when 64 bit Windows get its
    >> act together, then you can upgrade your system without any hassle of
    >> buying a brand new PC, just upgrade to Vista x64, well, clean install,
    >> since there is no upgrade path from 32 bit Windows. :)
    >> --
    >> Andre
    >> Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
    >> Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
    >> http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
    >> FAQ for MS AntiSpy http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm
    >>
    >> "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
    >> news:O%23DvQIR%...
    >>> It doesn't matter to someone who isn't using anything requiring what you
    >>> consider fullest potential. All that matters is that if things change,
    >>> she doesn't have to buy another computer to keep up.
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    >>> (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    >>> "Bruce Chambers" <3t> wrote in message
    >>> news:OUevpzQ%...
    >>>> Colin Barnhorst wrote:
    >>>>> In what way is it crippled? That's what she wanted so that's what she
    >>>>> bought. You make it sound like Microsoft somehow did something to XP
    >>>>> Home the day XP64 came out to make Home quit working on 64-bit
    >>>>> processors as well as it used to.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Well, I'll concede that "crippled" is the wrong word. The point I was
    >>>> trying to make is that placing a 32-bit OS on a 64-bit platform doesn't
    >>>> allow one to use the 64-bit platform to it's fullest potential.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> Consider:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> She's not doing anything requiring any of the advantages of XP x64.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Then why pay for more for a 64-bit platform? Or was there a sale or
    >>>> special offer that made the combination more attractive than one would
    >>>> normally expect?
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> She is using some peripherals that are not yet supported by the
    >>>>> manufacturer under x64.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> A perfectly sound reason for sticking with a 32-bit OS and platform.
    >>>> But it begs the question: Why buy a 64-bit platform, knowing that it
    >>>> couldn't be fully utilized? Why not buy a 32-bit platform, if there's
    >>>> no intention of using a 64-bit OS?
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> She likes not invalidating her product support by installing a version
    >>>>> of Windows unsupported by the system builder.
    >>>>
    >>>> Shouldn't be a factor, had the computer been ordered with a 64-bit OS.
    >>>> It's a good reason for not changing the OS, but doesn't address the
    >>>> real question.
    >>>>
    >>>>> She doesn't take it to work so doesn't care about joining a domain.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> XP Home would not be my choice, I would have purchased it with Pro.
    >>>>> But I still would have chosen 32-bit Pro.
    >>>>> But I didn't purchase it. She did and it was right for her.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> And I'm not saying that there's anything "wrong" with the purchase; I'm
    >>>> just trying to understand the reasoning behind it, for my own
    >>>> education.
    >>>>> I use it and it is a very fast computer with a lovely widescreen and
    >>>>> plenty of video ram, big hard drive, great wireless.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> And it would be faster still, had it a 64-bit OS installed.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> --
    >>>>
    >>>> Bruce Chambers
    >>>>
    >>>> Help us help you:
    >>>> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
    >>>> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
    >>>>
    >>>> You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
    >>>> both at once. - RAH
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Dec 8, 2005
    #14
  15. I intend to test it in a virtual machine first. But not before the RC.

    --
    Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
    news:elptKpB$...
    > Well, if we ever see Beta 2, I'll try doing an in place upgrade of the
    > 32-bit partition on this Ferrari. But I wouldn't risk it now.
    >
    > --
    > Charlie.
    > http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    >
    > Colin Barnhorst wrote:
    >> But remember, MS is claiming that an upgrade in Vista will be a new kind
    >> of clean install that does not disturb apps. I have no clue how that
    >> works, but that is what they have said. It may be possible to go from
    >> 32-bit XP to 64-bit Vista with apps still in place. I can't my head
    >> around that one but if true, great!
    >>
    >>> Agreed, more power plus compatibility, and when 64 bit Windows get its
    >>> act together, then you can upgrade your system without any hassle of
    >>> buying a brand new PC, just upgrade to Vista x64, well, clean install,
    >>> since there is no upgrade path from 32 bit Windows. :)
    >>> --
    >>> Andre
    >>> Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
    >>> Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
    >>> http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
    >>> FAQ for MS AntiSpy http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm
    >>>
    >>> "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
    >>> news:O%23DvQIR%...
    >>>> It doesn't matter to someone who isn't using anything requiring what
    >>>> you
    >>>> consider fullest potential. All that matters is that if things change,
    >>>> she doesn't have to buy another computer to keep up.
    >>>>
    >>>> --
    >>>> Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    >>>> (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    >>>> "Bruce Chambers" <3t> wrote in message
    >>>> news:OUevpzQ%...
    >>>>> Colin Barnhorst wrote:
    >>>>>> In what way is it crippled? That's what she wanted so that's what she
    >>>>>> bought. You make it sound like Microsoft somehow did something to XP
    >>>>>> Home the day XP64 came out to make Home quit working on 64-bit
    >>>>>> processors as well as it used to.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Well, I'll concede that "crippled" is the wrong word. The point I was
    >>>>> trying to make is that placing a 32-bit OS on a 64-bit platform
    >>>>> doesn't
    >>>>> allow one to use the 64-bit platform to it's fullest potential.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Consider:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> She's not doing anything requiring any of the advantages of XP x64.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Then why pay for more for a 64-bit platform? Or was there a sale or
    >>>>> special offer that made the combination more attractive than one would
    >>>>> normally expect?
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> She is using some peripherals that are not yet supported by the
    >>>>>> manufacturer under x64.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> A perfectly sound reason for sticking with a 32-bit OS and platform.
    >>>>> But it begs the question: Why buy a 64-bit platform, knowing that it
    >>>>> couldn't be fully utilized? Why not buy a 32-bit platform, if there's
    >>>>> no intention of using a 64-bit OS?
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> She likes not invalidating her product support by installing a
    >>>>>> version
    >>>>>> of Windows unsupported by the system builder.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Shouldn't be a factor, had the computer been ordered with a 64-bit OS.
    >>>>> It's a good reason for not changing the OS, but doesn't address the
    >>>>> real question.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> She doesn't take it to work so doesn't care about joining a domain.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> XP Home would not be my choice, I would have purchased it with Pro.
    >>>>>> But I still would have chosen 32-bit Pro.
    >>>>>> But I didn't purchase it. She did and it was right for her.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> And I'm not saying that there's anything "wrong" with the purchase;
    >>>>> I'm
    >>>>> just trying to understand the reasoning behind it, for my own
    >>>>> education.
    >>>>>> I use it and it is a very fast computer with a lovely widescreen and
    >>>>>> plenty of video ram, big hard drive, great wireless.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> And it would be faster still, had it a 64-bit OS installed.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> --
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Bruce Chambers
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Help us help you:
    >>>>> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
    >>>>> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
    >>>>>
    >>>>> You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
    >>>>> having
    >>>>> both at once. - RAH

    >
    >
    Colin Barnhorst, Dec 8, 2005
    #15
  16. Sigh. I can't wait till RC -- I'm writing 1/4 of the RK.

    --
    Charlie.
    http://msmvps.com/xperts64

    Colin Barnhorst wrote:
    > I intend to test it in a virtual machine first. But not before the RC.
    >
    >> Well, if we ever see Beta 2, I'll try doing an in place upgrade of the
    >> 32-bit partition on this Ferrari. But I wouldn't risk it now.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Charlie.
    >> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    >>
    >> Colin Barnhorst wrote:
    >>> But remember, MS is claiming that an upgrade in Vista will be a new kind
    >>> of clean install that does not disturb apps. I have no clue how that
    >>> works, but that is what they have said. It may be possible to go from
    >>> 32-bit XP to 64-bit Vista with apps still in place. I can't my head
    >>> around that one but if true, great!
    >>>
    >>>> Agreed, more power plus compatibility, and when 64 bit Windows get its
    >>>> act together, then you can upgrade your system without any hassle of
    >>>> buying a brand new PC, just upgrade to Vista x64, well, clean install,
    >>>> since there is no upgrade path from 32 bit Windows. :)
    >>>> --
    >>>> Andre
    >>>> Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
    >>>> Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
    >>>> http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
    >>>> FAQ for MS AntiSpy
    >>>> http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm "Colin Barnhorst"
    >>>> <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
    >>>> news:O%23DvQIR%...
    >>>>> It doesn't matter to someone who isn't using anything requiring what
    >>>>> you
    >>>>> consider fullest potential. All that matters is that if things
    >>>>> change, she doesn't have to buy another computer to keep up.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> --
    >>>>> Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    >>>>> (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    >>>>> "Bruce Chambers" <3t> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:OUevpzQ%...
    >>>>>> Colin Barnhorst wrote:
    >>>>>>> In what way is it crippled? That's what she wanted so that's what
    >>>>>>> she bought. You make it sound like Microsoft somehow did something
    >>>>>>> to XP Home the day XP64 came out to make Home quit working on 64-bit
    >>>>>>> processors as well as it used to.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Well, I'll concede that "crippled" is the wrong word. The point I
    >>>>>> was trying to make is that placing a 32-bit OS on a 64-bit platform
    >>>>>> doesn't
    >>>>>> allow one to use the 64-bit platform to it's fullest potential.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Consider:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> She's not doing anything requiring any of the advantages of XP x64.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Then why pay for more for a 64-bit platform? Or was there a sale or
    >>>>>> special offer that made the combination more attractive than one
    >>>>>> would normally expect?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> She is using some peripherals that are not yet supported by the
    >>>>>>> manufacturer under x64.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> A perfectly sound reason for sticking with a 32-bit OS and platform.
    >>>>>> But it begs the question: Why buy a 64-bit platform, knowing that it
    >>>>>> couldn't be fully utilized? Why not buy a 32-bit platform, if
    >>>>>> there's no intention of using a 64-bit OS?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> She likes not invalidating her product support by installing a
    >>>>>>> version
    >>>>>>> of Windows unsupported by the system builder.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Shouldn't be a factor, had the computer been ordered with a 64-bit
    >>>>>> OS. It's a good reason for not changing the OS, but doesn't address
    >>>>>> the real question.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> She doesn't take it to work so doesn't care about joining a domain.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> XP Home would not be my choice, I would have purchased it with Pro.
    >>>>>>> But I still would have chosen 32-bit Pro.
    >>>>>>> But I didn't purchase it. She did and it was right for her.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> And I'm not saying that there's anything "wrong" with the purchase;
    >>>>>> I'm
    >>>>>> just trying to understand the reasoning behind it, for my own
    >>>>>> education.
    >>>>>>> I use it and it is a very fast computer with a lovely widescreen and
    >>>>>>> plenty of video ram, big hard drive, great wireless.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> And it would be faster still, had it a 64-bit OS installed.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> --
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Bruce Chambers
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Help us help you:
    >>>>>> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
    >>>>>> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
    >>>>>> having
    >>>>>> both at once. - RAH
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Dec 9, 2005
    #16
  17. Yeah, I forgot you mentioned that before. Sorry.

    --
    Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
    news:eBGbwGJ$...
    > Sigh. I can't wait till RC -- I'm writing 1/4 of the RK.
    >
    > --
    > Charlie.
    > http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    >
    > Colin Barnhorst wrote:
    >> I intend to test it in a virtual machine first. But not before the RC.
    >>
    >>> Well, if we ever see Beta 2, I'll try doing an in place upgrade of the
    >>> 32-bit partition on this Ferrari. But I wouldn't risk it now.
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> Charlie.
    >>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    >>>
    >>> Colin Barnhorst wrote:
    >>>> But remember, MS is claiming that an upgrade in Vista will be a new
    >>>> kind
    >>>> of clean install that does not disturb apps. I have no clue how that
    >>>> works, but that is what they have said. It may be possible to go from
    >>>> 32-bit XP to 64-bit Vista with apps still in place. I can't my head
    >>>> around that one but if true, great!
    >>>>
    >>>>> Agreed, more power plus compatibility, and when 64 bit Windows get its
    >>>>> act together, then you can upgrade your system without any hassle of
    >>>>> buying a brand new PC, just upgrade to Vista x64, well, clean install,
    >>>>> since there is no upgrade path from 32 bit Windows. :)
    >>>>> --
    >>>>> Andre
    >>>>> Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
    >>>>> Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
    >>>>> http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
    >>>>> FAQ for MS AntiSpy
    >>>>> http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm "Colin
    >>>>> Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:O%23DvQIR%...
    >>>>>> It doesn't matter to someone who isn't using anything requiring what
    >>>>>> you
    >>>>>> consider fullest potential. All that matters is that if things
    >>>>>> change, she doesn't have to buy another computer to keep up.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> --
    >>>>>> Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    >>>>>> (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    >>>>>> "Bruce Chambers" <3t> wrote in message
    >>>>>> news:OUevpzQ%...
    >>>>>>> Colin Barnhorst wrote:
    >>>>>>>> In what way is it crippled? That's what she wanted so that's what
    >>>>>>>> she bought. You make it sound like Microsoft somehow did something
    >>>>>>>> to XP Home the day XP64 came out to make Home quit working on
    >>>>>>>> 64-bit
    >>>>>>>> processors as well as it used to.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Well, I'll concede that "crippled" is the wrong word. The point I
    >>>>>>> was trying to make is that placing a 32-bit OS on a 64-bit platform
    >>>>>>> doesn't
    >>>>>>> allow one to use the 64-bit platform to it's fullest potential.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Consider:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> She's not doing anything requiring any of the advantages of XP x64.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Then why pay for more for a 64-bit platform? Or was there a sale or
    >>>>>>> special offer that made the combination more attractive than one
    >>>>>>> would normally expect?
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> She is using some peripherals that are not yet supported by the
    >>>>>>>> manufacturer under x64.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> A perfectly sound reason for sticking with a 32-bit OS and platform.
    >>>>>>> But it begs the question: Why buy a 64-bit platform, knowing that
    >>>>>>> it
    >>>>>>> couldn't be fully utilized? Why not buy a 32-bit platform, if
    >>>>>>> there's no intention of using a 64-bit OS?
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> She likes not invalidating her product support by installing a
    >>>>>>>> version
    >>>>>>>> of Windows unsupported by the system builder.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Shouldn't be a factor, had the computer been ordered with a 64-bit
    >>>>>>> OS. It's a good reason for not changing the OS, but doesn't address
    >>>>>>> the real question.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> She doesn't take it to work so doesn't care about joining a domain.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> XP Home would not be my choice, I would have purchased it with Pro.
    >>>>>>>> But I still would have chosen 32-bit Pro.
    >>>>>>>> But I didn't purchase it. She did and it was right for her.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> And I'm not saying that there's anything "wrong" with the purchase;
    >>>>>>> I'm
    >>>>>>> just trying to understand the reasoning behind it, for my own
    >>>>>>> education.
    >>>>>>>> I use it and it is a very fast computer with a lovely widescreen
    >>>>>>>> and
    >>>>>>>> plenty of video ram, big hard drive, great wireless.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> And it would be faster still, had it a 64-bit OS installed.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> --
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Bruce Chambers
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Help us help you:
    >>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
    >>>>>>> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
    >>>>>>> having
    >>>>>>> both at once. - RAH

    >
    >
    Colin Barnhorst, Dec 9, 2005
    #17
  18. No problem. I just wish I could wait, given what this looks like right now.

    --
    Charlie.
    http://msmvps.com/xperts64

    Colin Barnhorst wrote:
    > Yeah, I forgot you mentioned that before. Sorry.
    >
    >> Sigh. I can't wait till RC -- I'm writing 1/4 of the RK.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Charlie.
    >> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    >>
    >> Colin Barnhorst wrote:
    >>> I intend to test it in a virtual machine first. But not before the RC.
    >>>
    >>>> Well, if we ever see Beta 2, I'll try doing an in place upgrade of the
    >>>> 32-bit partition on this Ferrari. But I wouldn't risk it now.
    >>>>
    >>>> --
    >>>> Charlie.
    >>>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    >>>>
    >>>> Colin Barnhorst wrote:
    >>>>> But remember, MS is claiming that an upgrade in Vista will be a new
    >>>>> kind
    >>>>> of clean install that does not disturb apps. I have no clue how that
    >>>>> works, but that is what they have said. It may be possible to go from
    >>>>> 32-bit XP to 64-bit Vista with apps still in place. I can't my head
    >>>>> around that one but if true, great!
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Agreed, more power plus compatibility, and when 64 bit Windows get
    >>>>>> its act together, then you can upgrade your system without any
    >>>>>> hassle of buying a brand new PC, just upgrade to Vista x64, well,
    >>>>>> clean install, since there is no upgrade path from 32 bit Windows. :)
    >>>>>> --
    >>>>>> Andre
    >>>>>> Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
    >>>>>> Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
    >>>>>> http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
    >>>>>> FAQ for MS AntiSpy
    >>>>>> http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm "Colin
    >>>>>> Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
    >>>>>> news:O%23DvQIR%...
    >>>>>>> It doesn't matter to someone who isn't using anything requiring what
    >>>>>>> you
    >>>>>>> consider fullest potential. All that matters is that if things
    >>>>>>> change, she doesn't have to buy another computer to keep up.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> --
    >>>>>>> Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    >>>>>>> (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    >>>>>>> "Bruce Chambers" <3t> wrote in message
    >>>>>>> news:OUevpzQ%...
    >>>>>>>> Colin Barnhorst wrote:
    >>>>>>>>> In what way is it crippled? That's what she wanted so that's what
    >>>>>>>>> she bought. You make it sound like Microsoft somehow did
    >>>>>>>>> something to XP Home the day XP64 came out to make Home quit
    >>>>>>>>> working on 64-bit
    >>>>>>>>> processors as well as it used to.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Well, I'll concede that "crippled" is the wrong word. The point I
    >>>>>>>> was trying to make is that placing a 32-bit OS on a 64-bit platform
    >>>>>>>> doesn't
    >>>>>>>> allow one to use the 64-bit platform to it's fullest potential.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Consider:
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> She's not doing anything requiring any of the advantages of XP
    >>>>>>>>> x64.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Then why pay for more for a 64-bit platform? Or was there a sale
    >>>>>>>> or special offer that made the combination more attractive than one
    >>>>>>>> would normally expect?
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> She is using some peripherals that are not yet supported by the
    >>>>>>>>> manufacturer under x64.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> A perfectly sound reason for sticking with a 32-bit OS and
    >>>>>>>> platform. But it begs the question: Why buy a 64-bit platform,
    >>>>>>>> knowing that it
    >>>>>>>> couldn't be fully utilized? Why not buy a 32-bit platform, if
    >>>>>>>> there's no intention of using a 64-bit OS?
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> She likes not invalidating her product support by installing a
    >>>>>>>>> version
    >>>>>>>>> of Windows unsupported by the system builder.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Shouldn't be a factor, had the computer been ordered with a 64-bit
    >>>>>>>> OS. It's a good reason for not changing the OS, but doesn't address
    >>>>>>>> the real question.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> She doesn't take it to work so doesn't care about joining a
    >>>>>>>>> domain. XP Home would not be my choice, I would have purchased it
    >>>>>>>>> with
    >>>>>>>>> Pro. But I still would have chosen 32-bit Pro.
    >>>>>>>>> But I didn't purchase it. She did and it was right for her.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> And I'm not saying that there's anything "wrong" with the purchase;
    >>>>>>>> I'm
    >>>>>>>> just trying to understand the reasoning behind it, for my own
    >>>>>>>> education.
    >>>>>>>>> I use it and it is a very fast computer with a lovely widescreen
    >>>>>>>>> and
    >>>>>>>>> plenty of video ram, big hard drive, great wireless.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> And it would be faster still, had it a 64-bit OS installed.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> --
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Bruce Chambers
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Help us help you:
    >>>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
    >>>>>>>> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
    >>>>>>>> having
    >>>>>>>> both at once. - RAH
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Dec 9, 2005
    #18
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?Utf-8?B?SmltIEM=?=

    Win 2k Pro can't see Win XP Home

    =?Utf-8?B?SmltIEM=?=, Mar 15, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,737
    Chuck
    Mar 15, 2005
  2. Pocahontas

    Win XP pro vs. Win XP Home

    Pocahontas, Sep 20, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,556
    rob andrews
    Sep 21, 2004
  3. =?Utf-8?B?V2l6em93?=

    from win home to win xp

    =?Utf-8?B?V2l6em93?=, Dec 2, 2005, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    316
    Andre Da Costa [Extended64]
    Dec 2, 2005
  4. Replies:
    6
    Views:
    868
  5. Eric Vogel

    Cannot Install WIn Server 2008 R2 x64 in Win 7

    Eric Vogel, Sep 3, 2010, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    994
    Eric Vogel
    Sep 5, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page