xp 64 vs vista 64?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pat
  • Start date Start date
P

Pat

Guest
I know this is a topic that's been beaten to death, and I've read a lot
of the discussions comparing these two. What's interesting (and
confusing) is the lack of consensus - some like xp64 better (because
it's faster and uses less resources) and others prefer vista (almost as
fast, greater driver availability, and future support).

I was at first leaning towards xp64, but am now rethinking this (due
mainly to future support issues - if I buy a new printer or camera, it
will more likely have Vista 64 drivers available). But there are a
couple of things I'm still not clear on:

1. Will Vista 64 run older 32-bit software, like MS Office XP and MS
Project 2002 (or any other XP software for that matter)? I'd like to
run these, and I'm pretty sure XP64 can (via WOW) - but I'm not so sure
about Vista. I've read conflicting reports on that.

2. My computer has dual processors with dual-core cpus (4 cores in
all). I've read that xp64 is better at load balancing among multiple
cores (since it uses the Windows 2003 server kernel) compared to Vista.
Does anyone know if that is true? Given that multi-core cpus are now
mainstream, I'd be surprised if MS hadn't paid attention to this in the
design of Vista.

3. Is XP64 actually available for install on an existing PC? I ask
because the only copies I've been able to find for sale are the "systems
builder" version. Since I'll be replacing an existing OS (Linux) and a
computer I purchased two years ago, I'm not sure I qualify (at least per
the letter of the licensing agreement). Any thoughts on this?

Thanks for the feedback.

Pat
 
Re: xp 64 vs vista 64?

On Mar 31, 10:19 am, Pat <pkel...@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> I know this is a topic that's been beaten to death, and I've read a lot
> of the discussions comparing these two. What's interesting (and
> confusing) is the lack of consensus - some like xp64 better (because
> it's faster and uses less resources) and others prefer vista (almost as
> fast, greater driver availability, and future support).
>
> I was at first leaning towards xp64, but am now rethinking this (due
> mainly to future support issues - if I buy a new printer or camera, it
> will more likely have Vista 64 drivers available). But there are a
> couple of things I'm still not clear on:
>
> 1. Will Vista 64 run older 32-bit software, like MS Office XP and MS
> Project 2002 (or any other XP software for that matter)? I'd like to
> run these, and I'm pretty sure XP64 can (via WOW) - but I'm not so sure
> about Vista. I've read conflicting reports on that.
>
> 2. My computer has dual processors with dual-core cpus (4 cores in
> all). I've read that xp64 is better at load balancing among multiple
> cores (since it uses the Windows 2003 server kernel) compared to Vista.
> Does anyone know if that is true? Given that multi-core cpus are now
> mainstream, I'd be surprised if MS hadn't paid attention to this in the
> design of Vista.
>
> 3. Is XP64 actually available for install on an existing PC? I ask
> because the only copies I've been able to find for sale are the "systems
> builder" version. Since I'll be replacing an existing OS (Linux) and a
> computer I purchased two years ago, I'm not sure I qualify (at least per
> the letter of the licensing agreement). Any thoughts on this?
>
> Thanks for the feedback.
>
> Pat

For point #3, this has been covered here. X64 is OEM software. My
understanding is all that means is you can't move it from one PC to
another according to MS terms. I don't know if this is gospel, but my
understanding is you need to purchase hardware at the same time as you
buy OEM windows. In the old days, this meant you had to buy a hard
drive with the OEM software. The last OEM OS I bought required me to
buy one freakin' USB cable. Well, at least it was a cheap Chinese $1
usb cable.

For point #1, you may be correct. However, for cameras, Vuescan will
probably get around OS issues. I have a postscript network printer,
which I think makes it easier to get around the driver issue, though
my printer was supported by X64 even though it was maybe 6 years old.
 
Re: xp 64 vs vista 64?

#1: Vista uses the same WOW64 layer as XP x64. Well, sort of. For the
purposes of this discussion, however, it's the same. As a general rule,
32-bit software should run fine, so long as it doesn't use a system level
driver and can handle UAC and various other Vista differences.

#2: Not true. Both OS's will balance well, within some limitations. (And the
code base for Vista SP1 is the same as for Server 2k8. )

#3: Yes, you have to buy a "System Builder" (aka, OEM) version. There has
never been a retail version of XP x64, nor will there be. (covered at length
over the years since this newsgroup was created, and on my blog back when we
started.)

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel


"Pat" <pkelecy@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:Ovp8zN1kIHA.1280@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>I know this is a topic that's been beaten to death, and I've read a lot of
>the discussions comparing these two. What's interesting (and confusing) is
>the lack of consensus - some like xp64 better (because it's faster and uses
>less resources) and others prefer vista (almost as fast, greater driver
>availability, and future support).
>
> I was at first leaning towards xp64, but am now rethinking this (due
> mainly to future support issues - if I buy a new printer or camera, it
> will more likely have Vista 64 drivers available). But there are a couple
> of things I'm still not clear on:
>
> 1. Will Vista 64 run older 32-bit software, like MS Office XP and MS
> Project 2002 (or any other XP software for that matter)? I'd like to run
> these, and I'm pretty sure XP64 can (via WOW) - but I'm not so sure about
> Vista. I've read conflicting reports on that.
>
> 2. My computer has dual processors with dual-core cpus (4 cores in all).
> I've read that xp64 is better at load balancing among multiple cores
> (since it uses the Windows 2003 server kernel) compared to Vista. Does
> anyone know if that is true? Given that multi-core cpus are now
> mainstream, I'd be surprised if MS hadn't paid attention to this in the
> design of Vista.
>
> 3. Is XP64 actually available for install on an existing PC? I ask
> because the only copies I've been able to find for sale are the "systems
> builder" version. Since I'll be replacing an existing OS (Linux) and a
> computer I purchased two years ago, I'm not sure I qualify (at least per
> the letter of the licensing agreement). Any thoughts on this?
>
> Thanks for the feedback.
>
> Pat
 
Re: xp 64 vs vista 64?

miso@sushi.com wrote:
> On Mar 31, 10:19 am, Pat <pkel...@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>> I know this is a topic that's been beaten to death, and I've read a lot
>> of the discussions comparing these two. What's interesting (and
>> confusing) is the lack of consensus - some like xp64 better (because
>> it's faster and uses less resources) and others prefer vista (almost as
>> fast, greater driver availability, and future support).
>>
>> I was at first leaning towards xp64, but am now rethinking this (due
>> mainly to future support issues - if I buy a new printer or camera, it
>> will more likely have Vista 64 drivers available). But there are a
>> couple of things I'm still not clear on:
>>
>> 1. Will Vista 64 run older 32-bit software, like MS Office XP and MS
>> Project 2002 (or any other XP software for that matter)? I'd like to
>> run these, and I'm pretty sure XP64 can (via WOW) - but I'm not so sure
>> about Vista. I've read conflicting reports on that.
>>
>> 2. My computer has dual processors with dual-core cpus (4 cores in
>> all). I've read that xp64 is better at load balancing among multiple
>> cores (since it uses the Windows 2003 server kernel) compared to Vista.
>> Does anyone know if that is true? Given that multi-core cpus are now
>> mainstream, I'd be surprised if MS hadn't paid attention to this in the
>> design of Vista.
>>
>> 3. Is XP64 actually available for install on an existing PC? I ask
>> because the only copies I've been able to find for sale are the "systems
>> builder" version. Since I'll be replacing an existing OS (Linux) and a
>> computer I purchased two years ago, I'm not sure I qualify (at least per
>> the letter of the licensing agreement). Any thoughts on this?
>>
>> Thanks for the feedback.
>>
>> Pat
>
> For point #3, this has been covered here. X64 is OEM software. My
> understanding is all that means is you can't move it from one PC to
> another according to MS terms. I don't know if this is gospel, but my
> understanding is you need to purchase hardware at the same time as you
> buy OEM windows. In the old days, this meant you had to buy a hard
> drive with the OEM software. The last OEM OS I bought required me to
> buy one freakin' USB cable. Well, at least it was a cheap Chinese $1
> usb cable.
>
> For point #1, you may be correct. However, for cameras, Vuescan will
> probably get around OS issues. I have a postscript network printer,
> which I think makes it easier to get around the driver issue, though
> my printer was supported by X64 even though it was maybe 6 years old.


Thanks for the feedback. Happy to hear about point #3 - that could have
been a show stopper.

I've never heard of Vuescan, but will look into it if the need arises.
Having been on Linux for the past year, I'm well aware of driver issues.
But I was hoping to escape a lot of that by going back to Windows (and
for the most part I think I will).
 
Re: xp 64 vs vista 64?

The EULA online at
http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/useterms/default.aspx (choose XP and
then 64bit).

Contains the following:

"4. TRANSFER-Internal. You may move the Product to a different Workstation
Computer. After the transfer, you
must completely remove the Product from the former Workstation Computer.
Transfer to Third Party. The initial
user of the Product may make a one-time transfer of the Product to another
end user. The transfer has to include
all component parts, media, printed materials, this EULA, and if applicable,
the Certificate of Authenticity. The
transfer may not be an indirect transfer, such as a consignment. Prior to
the transfer, the end user receiving the
transferred Product must agree to all the EULA terms. No Rental. You may not
rent, lease, lend or provide
commercial hosting services to third parties with the Product."

This agrees with the EULA in the AMD64 folder on my XP Pro x64 cd and on my
hard drive.

<miso@sushi.com> wrote in message
news:39216efe-ebe8-4c96-aeaa-d867065afac7@b5g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 31, 10:19 am, Pat <pkel...@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>> I know this is a topic that's been beaten to death, and I've read a lot
>> of the discussions comparing these two. What's interesting (and
>> confusing) is the lack of consensus - some like xp64 better (because
>> it's faster and uses less resources) and others prefer vista (almost as
>> fast, greater driver availability, and future support).
>>
>> I was at first leaning towards xp64, but am now rethinking this (due
>> mainly to future support issues - if I buy a new printer or camera, it
>> will more likely have Vista 64 drivers available). But there are a
>> couple of things I'm still not clear on:
>>
>> 1. Will Vista 64 run older 32-bit software, like MS Office XP and MS
>> Project 2002 (or any other XP software for that matter)? I'd like to
>> run these, and I'm pretty sure XP64 can (via WOW) - but I'm not so sure
>> about Vista. I've read conflicting reports on that.
>>
>> 2. My computer has dual processors with dual-core cpus (4 cores in
>> all). I've read that xp64 is better at load balancing among multiple
>> cores (since it uses the Windows 2003 server kernel) compared to Vista.
>> Does anyone know if that is true? Given that multi-core cpus are now
>> mainstream, I'd be surprised if MS hadn't paid attention to this in the
>> design of Vista.
>>
>> 3. Is XP64 actually available for install on an existing PC? I ask
>> because the only copies I've been able to find for sale are the "systems
>> builder" version. Since I'll be replacing an existing OS (Linux) and a
>> computer I purchased two years ago, I'm not sure I qualify (at least per
>> the letter of the licensing agreement). Any thoughts on this?
>>
>> Thanks for the feedback.
>>
>> Pat
>
> For point #3, this has been covered here. X64 is OEM software. My
> understanding is all that means is you can't move it from one PC to
> another according to MS terms. I don't know if this is gospel, but my
> understanding is you need to purchase hardware at the same time as you
> buy OEM windows. In the old days, this meant you had to buy a hard
> drive with the OEM software. The last OEM OS I bought required me to
> buy one freakin' USB cable. Well, at least it was a cheap Chinese $1
> usb cable.
>
> For point #1, you may be correct. However, for cameras, Vuescan will
> probably get around OS issues. I have a postscript network printer,
> which I think makes it easier to get around the driver issue, though
> my printer was supported by X64 even though it was maybe 6 years old.
 
Re: xp 64 vs vista 64?

If you read the EULA you will find that it IS transferrable (system builder
editions).

"Pat" <pkelecy@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:uNF9XU2kIHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> miso@sushi.com wrote:
>> On Mar 31, 10:19 am, Pat <pkel...@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>> I know this is a topic that's been beaten to death, and I've read a lot
>>> of the discussions comparing these two. What's interesting (and
>>> confusing) is the lack of consensus - some like xp64 better (because
>>> it's faster and uses less resources) and others prefer vista (almost as
>>> fast, greater driver availability, and future support).
>>>
>>> I was at first leaning towards xp64, but am now rethinking this (due
>>> mainly to future support issues - if I buy a new printer or camera, it
>>> will more likely have Vista 64 drivers available). But there are a
>>> couple of things I'm still not clear on:
>>>
>>> 1. Will Vista 64 run older 32-bit software, like MS Office XP and MS
>>> Project 2002 (or any other XP software for that matter)? I'd like to
>>> run these, and I'm pretty sure XP64 can (via WOW) - but I'm not so sure
>>> about Vista. I've read conflicting reports on that.
>>>
>>> 2. My computer has dual processors with dual-core cpus (4 cores in
>>> all). I've read that xp64 is better at load balancing among multiple
>>> cores (since it uses the Windows 2003 server kernel) compared to Vista.
>>> Does anyone know if that is true? Given that multi-core cpus are now
>>> mainstream, I'd be surprised if MS hadn't paid attention to this in the
>>> design of Vista.
>>>
>>> 3. Is XP64 actually available for install on an existing PC? I ask
>>> because the only copies I've been able to find for sale are the "systems
>>> builder" version. Since I'll be replacing an existing OS (Linux) and a
>>> computer I purchased two years ago, I'm not sure I qualify (at least per
>>> the letter of the licensing agreement). Any thoughts on this?
>>>
>>> Thanks for the feedback.
>>>
>>> Pat
>>
>> For point #3, this has been covered here. X64 is OEM software. My
>> understanding is all that means is you can't move it from one PC to
>> another according to MS terms. I don't know if this is gospel, but my
>> understanding is you need to purchase hardware at the same time as you
>> buy OEM windows. In the old days, this meant you had to buy a hard
>> drive with the OEM software. The last OEM OS I bought required me to
>> buy one freakin' USB cable. Well, at least it was a cheap Chinese $1
>> usb cable.
>>
>> For point #1, you may be correct. However, for cameras, Vuescan will
>> probably get around OS issues. I have a postscript network printer,
>> which I think makes it easier to get around the driver issue, though
>> my printer was supported by X64 even though it was maybe 6 years old.
>
>
> Thanks for the feedback. Happy to hear about point #3 - that could have
> been a show stopper.
>
> I've never heard of Vuescan, but will look into it if the need arises.
> Having been on Linux for the past year, I'm well aware of driver issues.
> But I was hoping to escape a lot of that by going back to Windows (and for
> the most part I think I will).
 
Re: xp 64 vs vista 64?

#1: Vista uses the same WOW64 layer as XP x64. Well, sort of. For the
purposes of this discussion, however, it's the same. As a general rule,
32-bit software should run fine, so long as it doesn't use a system level
driver and can handle UAC and various other Vista differences.

#2: Not true. Both OS's will balance well, within some limitations. (And the
code base for Vista SP1 is the same as for Server 2k8. )

#3: Yes, you have to buy a "System Builder" (aka, OEM) version. There has
never been a retail version of XP x64, nor will there be. (covered at length
over the years since this newsgroup was created, and on my blog back when we
started.)


--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel


"Pat" <pkelecy@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:Ovp8zN1kIHA.1280@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>I know this is a topic that's been beaten to death, and I've read a lot of
>the discussions comparing these two. What's interesting (and confusing) is
>the lack of consensus - some like xp64 better (because it's faster and uses
>less resources) and others prefer vista (almost as fast, greater driver
>availability, and future support).
>
> I was at first leaning towards xp64, but am now rethinking this (due
> mainly to future support issues - if I buy a new printer or camera, it
> will more likely have Vista 64 drivers available). But there are a couple
> of things I'm still not clear on:
>
> 1. Will Vista 64 run older 32-bit software, like MS Office XP and MS
> Project 2002 (or any other XP software for that matter)? I'd like to run
> these, and I'm pretty sure XP64 can (via WOW) - but I'm not so sure about
> Vista. I've read conflicting reports on that.
>
> 2. My computer has dual processors with dual-core cpus (4 cores in all).
> I've read that xp64 is better at load balancing among multiple cores
> (since it uses the Windows 2003 server kernel) compared to Vista. Does
> anyone know if that is true? Given that multi-core cpus are now
> mainstream, I'd be surprised if MS hadn't paid attention to this in the
> design of Vista.
>
> 3. Is XP64 actually available for install on an existing PC? I ask
> because the only copies I've been able to find for sale are the "systems
> builder" version. Since I'll be replacing an existing OS (Linux) and a
> computer I purchased two years ago, I'm not sure I qualify (at least per
> the letter of the licensing agreement). Any thoughts on this?
>
> Thanks for the feedback.
>
> Pat
 
Re: xp 64 vs vista 64?

Hi, Pat.

> 1. Will Vista 64 run older 32-bit software, like MS Office XP and MS
> Project 2002 (or any other XP software for that matter)? I'd like to run
> these, and I'm pretty sure XP64 can (via WOW) - but I'm not so sure about
> Vista. I've read conflicting reports on that.

If Vista x64 wouldn't run 32-bit software, it would be dead in the water,
because there is almost NO 64-bit software on the market yet!

Nearly 100% of the software on the market today is 32-bit and just about all
of it will run without complaint on Vista x64. Personally, I'm running
Office 2007, Quicken, Photoshop Elements 6.0, PerfectDisk...and too many
others to list. Plus, of course, the full gamut of Vista built-ins and
add-ons, like Windows Media Player and Media Center, Virtual Earth, Windows
Live Mail, etc.

You gave us no clue as to what you use your computer for, so there's
certainly a chance that some applications that you need won't run, but you
should have no problem with any of the mainstream stuff.

I should stay out of your #2 and #3, since I'm just one guy with one
computer and no net but the Internet. My one computer uses the AMD Athlon
x64 X2 CPU and 4 GB of PC6400 RAM and 4 SATA II HDs. No quad-core - yet.

My understanding of the OEM OS is that it was intended for your local
computer shop to install when they put together a new computer for you and
add the OS, thus the requirement that it be sold only with the hardware.
But that requirement was perverted a bit for customers who wanted to buy the
OS to install on their own computer; they didn't want the mobo, hard drives,
computer case, etc. The local shop complied with the literal language of
the license by selling the OEM OS with the cheapest piece of hardware (like
that USB cable) in the store. In this scenario, the end-user is the "system
builder", even if he builds just his one system using a 2-year-old case that
he already owns.

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
rc@grandecom.net
Microsoft Windows MVP
(Running Windows Live Mail 2008 in Vista Ultimate x64 SP1)

"Pat" <pkelecy@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:Ovp8zN1kIHA.1280@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> I know this is a topic that's been beaten to death, and I've read a lot of
> the discussions comparing these two. What's interesting (and confusing)
> is the lack of consensus - some like xp64 better (because it's faster and
> uses less resources) and others prefer vista (almost as fast, greater
> driver availability, and future support).
>
> I was at first leaning towards xp64, but am now rethinking this (due
> mainly to future support issues - if I buy a new printer or camera, it
> will more likely have Vista 64 drivers available). But there are a couple
> of things I'm still not clear on:
>
> 1. Will Vista 64 run older 32-bit software, like MS Office XP and MS
> Project 2002 (or any other XP software for that matter)? I'd like to run
> these, and I'm pretty sure XP64 can (via WOW) - but I'm not so sure about
> Vista. I've read conflicting reports on that.
>
> 2. My computer has dual processors with dual-core cpus (4 cores in all).
> I've read that xp64 is better at load balancing among multiple cores
> (since it uses the Windows 2003 server kernel) compared to Vista. Does
> anyone know if that is true? Given that multi-core cpus are now
> mainstream, I'd be surprised if MS hadn't paid attention to this in the
> design of Vista.
>
> 3. Is XP64 actually available for install on an existing PC? I ask
> because the only copies I've been able to find for sale are the "systems
> builder" version. Since I'll be replacing an existing OS (Linux) and a
> computer I purchased two years ago, I'm not sure I qualify (at least per
> the letter of the licensing agreement). Any thoughts on this?
>
> Thanks for the feedback.
>
> Pat
 
Re: xp 64 vs vista 64?

Colin Barnhorst wrote:
> If you read the EULA you will find that it IS transferrable (system
> builder editions).

Thanks Colin. That's good to know (especially since I had already
bought XP64! ;^). I was just trying to decide whether to exchange it
for Vista instead. But I've just about decided to keep it at this
point. One of the things that's driving this is some technical software
(FEA code) I need to run for my work. I've been conducting trials of
several different packages, and when discussing system requirements, ALL
of the reps have advised (some quite strongly) going with XP64, even
though their most recent releases support Vista. Apparently their Vista
releases are still a little shaky at this point (although they blame it
on Vista). But I think that's tipped the scales for me.




>
> "Pat" <pkelecy@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:uNF9XU2kIHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> miso@sushi.com wrote:
>>> On Mar 31, 10:19 am, Pat <pkel...@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>> I know this is a topic that's been beaten to death, and I've read a lot
>>>> of the discussions comparing these two. What's interesting (and
>>>> confusing) is the lack of consensus - some like xp64 better (because
>>>> it's faster and uses less resources) and others prefer vista (almost as
>>>> fast, greater driver availability, and future support).
>>>>
>>>> I was at first leaning towards xp64, but am now rethinking this (due
>>>> mainly to future support issues - if I buy a new printer or camera, it
>>>> will more likely have Vista 64 drivers available). But there are a
>>>> couple of things I'm still not clear on:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Will Vista 64 run older 32-bit software, like MS Office XP and MS
>>>> Project 2002 (or any other XP software for that matter)? I'd like to
>>>> run these, and I'm pretty sure XP64 can (via WOW) - but I'm not so sure
>>>> about Vista. I've read conflicting reports on that.
>>>>
>>>> 2. My computer has dual processors with dual-core cpus (4 cores in
>>>> all). I've read that xp64 is better at load balancing among multiple
>>>> cores (since it uses the Windows 2003 server kernel) compared to Vista.
>>>> Does anyone know if that is true? Given that multi-core cpus are now
>>>> mainstream, I'd be surprised if MS hadn't paid attention to this in the
>>>> design of Vista.
>>>>
>>>> 3. Is XP64 actually available for install on an existing PC? I ask
>>>> because the only copies I've been able to find for sale are the
>>>> "systems
>>>> builder" version. Since I'll be replacing an existing OS (Linux) and a
>>>> computer I purchased two years ago, I'm not sure I qualify (at least
>>>> per
>>>> the letter of the licensing agreement). Any thoughts on this?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the feedback.
>>>>
>>>> Pat
>>>
>>> For point #3, this has been covered here. X64 is OEM software. My
>>> understanding is all that means is you can't move it from one PC to
>>> another according to MS terms. I don't know if this is gospel, but my
>>> understanding is you need to purchase hardware at the same time as you
>>> buy OEM windows. In the old days, this meant you had to buy a hard
>>> drive with the OEM software. The last OEM OS I bought required me to
>>> buy one freakin' USB cable. Well, at least it was a cheap Chinese $1
>>> usb cable.
>>>
>>> For point #1, you may be correct. However, for cameras, Vuescan will
>>> probably get around OS issues. I have a postscript network printer,
>>> which I think makes it easier to get around the driver issue, though
>>> my printer was supported by X64 even though it was maybe 6 years old.
>>
>>
>> Thanks for the feedback. Happy to hear about point #3 - that could
>> have been a show stopper.
>>
>> I've never heard of Vuescan, but will look into it if the need arises.
>> Having been on Linux for the past year, I'm well aware of driver
>> issues. But I was hoping to escape a lot of that by going back to
>> Windows (and for the most part I think I will).
>
 
Re: xp 64 vs vista 64?


> For point #3, this has been covered here. X64 is OEM software. My
> understanding is all that means is you can't move it from one PC to
> another according to MS terms. I don't know if this is gospel, but my
> understanding is you need to purchase hardware at the same time as you
> buy OEM windows. In the old days, this meant you had to buy a hard
> drive with the OEM software. The last OEM OS I bought required me to
> buy one freakin' USB cable. Well, at least it was a cheap Chinese $1
> usb cable.
>
> For point #1, you may be correct. However, for cameras, Vuescan will
> probably get around OS issues. I have a postscript network printer,
> which I think makes it easier to get around the driver issue, though
> my printer was supported by X64 even though it was maybe 6 years old.
 
Re: xp 64 vs vista 64?

Just be sure to read the EULA on YOUR copy of XP Pro x64. At least one user
here reported a couple of weeks ago that his copy was an OEM (no transfers)
EULA, so it may depend on whether you bought a system builder copy or it
came preinstalled. Just check yours.

"Pat" <pkelecy@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:udTs0B4kIHA.2396@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Colin Barnhorst wrote:
>> If you read the EULA you will find that it IS transferrable (system
>> builder editions).
>
> Thanks Colin. That's good to know (especially since I had already bought
> XP64! ;^). I was just trying to decide whether to exchange it for Vista
> instead. But I've just about decided to keep it at this point. One of
> the things that's driving this is some technical software (FEA code) I
> need to run for my work. I've been conducting trials of several different
> packages, and when discussing system requirements, ALL of the reps have
> advised (some quite strongly) going with XP64, even though their most
> recent releases support Vista. Apparently their Vista releases are still
> a little shaky at this point (although they blame it on Vista). But I
> think that's tipped the scales for me.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> "Pat" <pkelecy@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:uNF9XU2kIHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>> miso@sushi.com wrote:
>>>> On Mar 31, 10:19 am, Pat <pkel...@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> I know this is a topic that's been beaten to death, and I've read a
>>>>> lot
>>>>> of the discussions comparing these two. What's interesting (and
>>>>> confusing) is the lack of consensus - some like xp64 better (because
>>>>> it's faster and uses less resources) and others prefer vista (almost
>>>>> as
>>>>> fast, greater driver availability, and future support).
>>>>>
>>>>> I was at first leaning towards xp64, but am now rethinking this (due
>>>>> mainly to future support issues - if I buy a new printer or camera, it
>>>>> will more likely have Vista 64 drivers available). But there are a
>>>>> couple of things I'm still not clear on:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Will Vista 64 run older 32-bit software, like MS Office XP and MS
>>>>> Project 2002 (or any other XP software for that matter)? I'd like to
>>>>> run these, and I'm pretty sure XP64 can (via WOW) - but I'm not so
>>>>> sure
>>>>> about Vista. I've read conflicting reports on that.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. My computer has dual processors with dual-core cpus (4 cores in
>>>>> all). I've read that xp64 is better at load balancing among multiple
>>>>> cores (since it uses the Windows 2003 server kernel) compared to
>>>>> Vista.
>>>>> Does anyone know if that is true? Given that multi-core cpus are
>>>>> now
>>>>> mainstream, I'd be surprised if MS hadn't paid attention to this in
>>>>> the
>>>>> design of Vista.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. Is XP64 actually available for install on an existing PC? I ask
>>>>> because the only copies I've been able to find for sale are the
>>>>> "systems
>>>>> builder" version. Since I'll be replacing an existing OS (Linux) and
>>>>> a
>>>>> computer I purchased two years ago, I'm not sure I qualify (at least
>>>>> per
>>>>> the letter of the licensing agreement). Any thoughts on this?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the feedback.
>>>>>
>>>>> Pat
>>>>
>>>> For point #3, this has been covered here. X64 is OEM software. My
>>>> understanding is all that means is you can't move it from one PC to
>>>> another according to MS terms. I don't know if this is gospel, but my
>>>> understanding is you need to purchase hardware at the same time as you
>>>> buy OEM windows. In the old days, this meant you had to buy a hard
>>>> drive with the OEM software. The last OEM OS I bought required me to
>>>> buy one freakin' USB cable. Well, at least it was a cheap Chinese $1
>>>> usb cable.
>>>>
>>>> For point #1, you may be correct. However, for cameras, Vuescan will
>>>> probably get around OS issues. I have a postscript network printer,
>>>> which I think makes it easier to get around the driver issue, though
>>>> my printer was supported by X64 even though it was maybe 6 years old.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for the feedback. Happy to hear about point #3 - that could have
>>> been a show stopper.
>>>
>>> I've never heard of Vuescan, but will look into it if the need arises.
>>> Having been on Linux for the past year, I'm well aware of driver issues.
>>> But I was hoping to escape a lot of that by going back to Windows (and
>>> for the most part I think I will).
>>
 
Re: xp 64 vs vista 64?

Colin Barnhorst wrote:
> Just be sure to read the EULA on YOUR copy of XP Pro x64. At least one
> user here reported a couple of weeks ago that his copy was an OEM (no
> transfers) EULA, so it may depend on whether you bought a system builder
> copy or it came preinstalled. Just check yours.
>

It's definitely a systems builder copy. I bought it from Newegg last
week, and it's clearly marked on the packaging (which I haven't yet
opened). So I think I'm ok.

Thanks. -Pat


> "Pat" <pkelecy@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:udTs0B4kIHA.2396@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> Colin Barnhorst wrote:
>>> If you read the EULA you will find that it IS transferrable (system
>>> builder editions).
>>
>> Thanks Colin. That's good to know (especially since I had already
>> bought XP64! ;^). I was just trying to decide whether to exchange it
>> for Vista instead. But I've just about decided to keep it at this
>> point. One of the things that's driving this is some technical
>> software (FEA code) I need to run for my work. I've been conducting
>> trials of several different packages, and when discussing system
>> requirements, ALL of the reps have advised (some quite strongly) going
>> with XP64, even though their most recent releases support Vista.
>> Apparently their Vista releases are still a little shaky at this point
>> (although they blame it on Vista). But I think that's tipped the
>> scales for me.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> "Pat" <pkelecy@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:uNF9XU2kIHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>> miso@sushi.com wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 31, 10:19 am, Pat <pkel...@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> I know this is a topic that's been beaten to death, and I've read
>>>>>> a lot
>>>>>> of the discussions comparing these two. What's interesting (and
>>>>>> confusing) is the lack of consensus - some like xp64 better (because
>>>>>> it's faster and uses less resources) and others prefer vista
>>>>>> (almost as
>>>>>> fast, greater driver availability, and future support).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was at first leaning towards xp64, but am now rethinking this (due
>>>>>> mainly to future support issues - if I buy a new printer or
>>>>>> camera, it
>>>>>> will more likely have Vista 64 drivers available). But there are a
>>>>>> couple of things I'm still not clear on:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. Will Vista 64 run older 32-bit software, like MS Office XP and MS
>>>>>> Project 2002 (or any other XP software for that matter)? I'd like to
>>>>>> run these, and I'm pretty sure XP64 can (via WOW) - but I'm not so
>>>>>> sure
>>>>>> about Vista. I've read conflicting reports on that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. My computer has dual processors with dual-core cpus (4 cores in
>>>>>> all). I've read that xp64 is better at load balancing among multiple
>>>>>> cores (since it uses the Windows 2003 server kernel) compared to
>>>>>> Vista.
>>>>>> Does anyone know if that is true? Given that multi-core cpus
>>>>>> are now
>>>>>> mainstream, I'd be surprised if MS hadn't paid attention to this
>>>>>> in the
>>>>>> design of Vista.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3. Is XP64 actually available for install on an existing PC? I ask
>>>>>> because the only copies I've been able to find for sale are the
>>>>>> "systems
>>>>>> builder" version. Since I'll be replacing an existing OS (Linux)
>>>>>> and a
>>>>>> computer I purchased two years ago, I'm not sure I qualify (at
>>>>>> least per
>>>>>> the letter of the licensing agreement). Any thoughts on this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for the feedback.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pat
>>>>>
>>>>> For point #3, this has been covered here. X64 is OEM software. My
>>>>> understanding is all that means is you can't move it from one PC to
>>>>> another according to MS terms. I don't know if this is gospel, but my
>>>>> understanding is you need to purchase hardware at the same time as you
>>>>> buy OEM windows. In the old days, this meant you had to buy a hard
>>>>> drive with the OEM software. The last OEM OS I bought required me to
>>>>> buy one freakin' USB cable. Well, at least it was a cheap Chinese $1
>>>>> usb cable.
>>>>>
>>>>> For point #1, you may be correct. However, for cameras, Vuescan will
>>>>> probably get around OS issues. I have a postscript network printer,
>>>>> which I think makes it easier to get around the driver issue, though
>>>>> my printer was supported by X64 even though it was maybe 6 years old.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the feedback. Happy to hear about point #3 - that could
>>>> have been a show stopper.
>>>>
>>>> I've never heard of Vuescan, but will look into it if the need
>>>> arises. Having been on Linux for the past year, I'm well aware of
>>>> driver issues. But I was hoping to escape a lot of that by going
>>>> back to Windows (and for the most part I think I will).
>>>
>
 
Re: xp 64 vs vista 64?

Read the EULA anyway.

"Pat" <pkelecy@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:OzZFAe4kIHA.5260@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Colin Barnhorst wrote:
>> Just be sure to read the EULA on YOUR copy of XP Pro x64. At least one
>> user here reported a couple of weeks ago that his copy was an OEM (no
>> transfers) EULA, so it may depend on whether you bought a system builder
>> copy or it came preinstalled. Just check yours.
>>
>
> It's definitely a systems builder copy. I bought it from Newegg last
> week, and it's clearly marked on the packaging (which I haven't yet
> opened). So I think I'm ok.
>
> Thanks. -Pat
>
>
>> "Pat" <pkelecy@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:udTs0B4kIHA.2396@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>> Colin Barnhorst wrote:
>>>> If you read the EULA you will find that it IS transferrable (system
>>>> builder editions).
>>>
>>> Thanks Colin. That's good to know (especially since I had already
>>> bought XP64! ;^). I was just trying to decide whether to exchange it
>>> for Vista instead. But I've just about decided to keep it at this
>>> point. One of the things that's driving this is some technical software
>>> (FEA code) I need to run for my work. I've been conducting trials of
>>> several different packages, and when discussing system requirements, ALL
>>> of the reps have advised (some quite strongly) going with XP64, even
>>> though their most recent releases support Vista. Apparently their Vista
>>> releases are still a little shaky at this point (although they blame it
>>> on Vista). But I think that's tipped the scales for me.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Pat" <pkelecy@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:uNF9XU2kIHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>> miso@sushi.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Mar 31, 10:19 am, Pat <pkel...@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>> I know this is a topic that's been beaten to death, and I've read a
>>>>>>> lot
>>>>>>> of the discussions comparing these two. What's interesting (and
>>>>>>> confusing) is the lack of consensus - some like xp64 better (because
>>>>>>> it's faster and uses less resources) and others prefer vista (almost
>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>> fast, greater driver availability, and future support).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I was at first leaning towards xp64, but am now rethinking this (due
>>>>>>> mainly to future support issues - if I buy a new printer or camera,
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>> will more likely have Vista 64 drivers available). But there are a
>>>>>>> couple of things I'm still not clear on:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. Will Vista 64 run older 32-bit software, like MS Office XP and
>>>>>>> MS
>>>>>>> Project 2002 (or any other XP software for that matter)? I'd like
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> run these, and I'm pretty sure XP64 can (via WOW) - but I'm not so
>>>>>>> sure
>>>>>>> about Vista. I've read conflicting reports on that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. My computer has dual processors with dual-core cpus (4 cores in
>>>>>>> all). I've read that xp64 is better at load balancing among
>>>>>>> multiple
>>>>>>> cores (since it uses the Windows 2003 server kernel) compared to
>>>>>>> Vista.
>>>>>>> Does anyone know if that is true? Given that multi-core cpus are
>>>>>>> now
>>>>>>> mainstream, I'd be surprised if MS hadn't paid attention to this in
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> design of Vista.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3. Is XP64 actually available for install on an existing PC? I ask
>>>>>>> because the only copies I've been able to find for sale are the
>>>>>>> "systems
>>>>>>> builder" version. Since I'll be replacing an existing OS (Linux)
>>>>>>> and a
>>>>>>> computer I purchased two years ago, I'm not sure I qualify (at least
>>>>>>> per
>>>>>>> the letter of the licensing agreement). Any thoughts on this?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for the feedback.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Pat
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For point #3, this has been covered here. X64 is OEM software. My
>>>>>> understanding is all that means is you can't move it from one PC to
>>>>>> another according to MS terms. I don't know if this is gospel, but my
>>>>>> understanding is you need to purchase hardware at the same time as
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> buy OEM windows. In the old days, this meant you had to buy a hard
>>>>>> drive with the OEM software. The last OEM OS I bought required me to
>>>>>> buy one freakin' USB cable. Well, at least it was a cheap Chinese $1
>>>>>> usb cable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For point #1, you may be correct. However, for cameras, Vuescan will
>>>>>> probably get around OS issues. I have a postscript network printer,
>>>>>> which I think makes it easier to get around the driver issue, though
>>>>>> my printer was supported by X64 even though it was maybe 6 years old.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the feedback. Happy to hear about point #3 - that could
>>>>> have been a show stopper.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've never heard of Vuescan, but will look into it if the need arises.
>>>>> Having been on Linux for the past year, I'm well aware of driver
>>>>> issues. But I was hoping to escape a lot of that by going back to
>>>>> Windows (and for the most part I think I will).
>>>>
>>
 
Re: xp 64 vs vista 64?

On Mar 31, 12:26 pm, Pat <pkel...@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> m...@sushi.com wrote:
> > On Mar 31, 10:19 am, Pat <pkel...@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> >> I know this is a topic that's been beaten to death, and I've read a lot
> >> of the discussions comparing these two. What's interesting (and
> >> confusing) is the lack of consensus - some like xp64 better (because
> >> it's faster and uses less resources) and others prefer vista (almost as
> >> fast, greater driver availability, and future support).
>
> >> I was at first leaning towards xp64, but am now rethinking this (due
> >> mainly to future support issues - if I buy a new printer or camera, it
> >> will more likely have Vista 64 drivers available). But there are a
> >> couple of things I'm still not clear on:
>
> >> 1. Will Vista 64 run older 32-bit software, like MS Office XP and MS
> >> Project 2002 (or any other XP software for that matter)? I'd like to
> >> run these, and I'm pretty sure XP64 can (via WOW) - but I'm not so sure
> >> about Vista. I've read conflicting reports on that.
>
> >> 2. My computer has dual processors with dual-core cpus (4 cores in
> >> all). I've read that xp64 is better at load balancing among multiple
> >> cores (since it uses the Windows 2003 server kernel) compared to Vista.
> >> Does anyone know if that is true? Given that multi-core cpus are now
> >> mainstream, I'd be surprised if MS hadn't paid attention to this in the
> >> design of Vista.
>
> >> 3. Is XP64 actually available for install on an existing PC? I ask
> >> because the only copies I've been able to find for sale are the "systems
> >> builder" version. Since I'll be replacing an existing OS (Linux) and a
> >> computer I purchased two years ago, I'm not sure I qualify (at least per
> >> the letter of the licensing agreement). Any thoughts on this?
>
> >> Thanks for the feedback.
>
> >> Pat
>
> > For point #3, this has been covered here. X64 is OEM software. My
> > understanding is all that means is you can't move it from one PC to
> > another according to MS terms. I don't know if this is gospel, but my
> > understanding is you need to purchase hardware at the same time as you
> > buy OEM windows. In the old days, this meant you had to buy a hard
> > drive with the OEM software. The last OEM OS I bought required me to
> > buy one freakin' USB cable. Well, at least it was a cheap Chinese $1
> > usb cable.
>
> > For point #1, you may be correct. However, for cameras, Vuescan will
> > probably get around OS issues. I have a postscript network printer,
> > which I think makes it easier to get around the driver issue, though
> > my printer was supported by X64 even though it was maybe 6 years old.
>
> Thanks for the feedback. Happy to hear about point #3 - that could have
> been a show stopper.
>
> I've never heard of Vuescan, but will look into it if the need arises.
> Having been on Linux for the past year, I'm well aware of driver issues.
> But I was hoping to escape a lot of that by going back to Windows (and
> for the most part I think I will).

http://www.hamrick.com/
for more info.
 
Re: xp 64 vs vista 64?

miso@sushi.com wrote:
> On Mar 31, 12:26 pm, Pat <pkel...@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>> m...@sushi.com wrote:
>>> On Mar 31, 10:19 am, Pat <pkel...@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>> I know this is a topic that's been beaten to death, and I've read a lot
>>>> of the discussions comparing these two. What's interesting (and
>>>> confusing) is the lack of consensus - some like xp64 better (because
>>>> it's faster and uses less resources) and others prefer vista (almost as
>>>> fast, greater driver availability, and future support).
>>>> I was at first leaning towards xp64, but am now rethinking this (due
>>>> mainly to future support issues - if I buy a new printer or camera, it
>>>> will more likely have Vista 64 drivers available). But there are a
>>>> couple of things I'm still not clear on:
>>>> 1. Will Vista 64 run older 32-bit software, like MS Office XP and MS
>>>> Project 2002 (or any other XP software for that matter)? I'd like to
>>>> run these, and I'm pretty sure XP64 can (via WOW) - but I'm not so sure
>>>> about Vista. I've read conflicting reports on that.
>>>> 2. My computer has dual processors with dual-core cpus (4 cores in
>>>> all). I've read that xp64 is better at load balancing among multiple
>>>> cores (since it uses the Windows 2003 server kernel) compared to Vista.
>>>> Does anyone know if that is true? Given that multi-core cpus are now
>>>> mainstream, I'd be surprised if MS hadn't paid attention to this in the
>>>> design of Vista.
>>>> 3. Is XP64 actually available for install on an existing PC? I ask
>>>> because the only copies I've been able to find for sale are the "systems
>>>> builder" version. Since I'll be replacing an existing OS (Linux) and a
>>>> computer I purchased two years ago, I'm not sure I qualify (at least per
>>>> the letter of the licensing agreement). Any thoughts on this?
>>>> Thanks for the feedback.
>>>> Pat
>>> For point #3, this has been covered here. X64 is OEM software. My
>>> understanding is all that means is you can't move it from one PC to
>>> another according to MS terms. I don't know if this is gospel, but my
>>> understanding is you need to purchase hardware at the same time as you
>>> buy OEM windows. In the old days, this meant you had to buy a hard
>>> drive with the OEM software. The last OEM OS I bought required me to
>>> buy one freakin' USB cable. Well, at least it was a cheap Chinese $1
>>> usb cable.
>>> For point #1, you may be correct. However, for cameras, Vuescan will
>>> probably get around OS issues. I have a postscript network printer,
>>> which I think makes it easier to get around the driver issue, though
>>> my printer was supported by X64 even though it was maybe 6 years old.
>> Thanks for the feedback. Happy to hear about point #3 - that could have
>> been a show stopper.
>>
>> I've never heard of Vuescan, but will look into it if the need arises.
>> Having been on Linux for the past year, I'm well aware of driver issues.
>> But I was hoping to escape a lot of that by going back to Windows (and
>> for the most part I think I will).
>
> http://www.hamrick.com/
> for more info.

???
 
Re: xp 64 vs vista 64?

Charlie Russel - MVP wrote:
> #1: Vista uses the same WOW64 layer as XP x64. Well, sort of. For the
> purposes of this discussion, however, it's the same. As a general rule,
> 32-bit software should run fine, so long as it doesn't use a system level
> driver and can handle UAC and various other Vista differences.
>
> #2: Not true. Both OS's will balance well, within some limitations. (And
> the
> code base for Vista SP1 is the same as for Server 2k8. )
>
> #3: Yes, you have to buy a "System Builder" (aka, OEM) version. There has
> never been a retail version of XP x64, nor will there be. (covered at
> length
> over the years since this newsgroup was created, and on my blog back
> when we
> started.)
>
>

Thanks for the additional clarification on my questions. It's pretty
clear either OS would work. Since I already have XP64 (and would have
to buy Vista) I think I'll stick with my original plan and go with it.
Maybe in year or so, when Vista support for my technical apps is a
little more solid, I'll revisit this.

Thanks, -Pat
 
Re: xp 64 vs vista 64?

R. C. White wrote:
> Hi, Pat.
>
>> 1. Will Vista 64 run older 32-bit software, like MS Office XP and MS
>> Project 2002 (or any other XP software for that matter)? I'd like to
>> run these, and I'm pretty sure XP64 can (via WOW) - but I'm not so
>> sure about Vista. I've read conflicting reports on that.
>
> If Vista x64 wouldn't run 32-bit software, it would be dead in the
> water, because there is almost NO 64-bit software on the market yet!
>
> Nearly 100% of the software on the market today is 32-bit and just about
> all of it will run without complaint on Vista x64. Personally, I'm
> running Office 2007, Quicken, Photoshop Elements 6.0, PerfectDisk...and
> too many others to list. Plus, of course, the full gamut of Vista
> built-ins and add-ons, like Windows Media Player and Media Center,
> Virtual Earth, Windows Live Mail, etc.
>
> You gave us no clue as to what you use your computer for, so there's
> certainly a chance that some applications that you need won't run, but
> you should have no problem with any of the mainstream stuff.
>
> I should stay out of your #2 and #3, since I'm just one guy with one
> computer and no net but the Internet. My one computer uses the AMD
> Athlon x64 X2 CPU and 4 GB of PC6400 RAM and 4 SATA II HDs. No
> quad-core - yet.
>
> My understanding of the OEM OS is that it was intended for your local
> computer shop to install when they put together a new computer for you
> and add the OS, thus the requirement that it be sold only with the
> hardware. But that requirement was perverted a bit for customers who
> wanted to buy the OS to install on their own computer; they didn't want
> the mobo, hard drives, computer case, etc. The local shop complied with
> the literal language of the license by selling the OEM OS with the
> cheapest piece of hardware (like that USB cable) in the store. In this
> scenario, the end-user is the "system builder", even if he builds just
> his one system using a 2-year-old case that he already owns.
>
> RC

Thanks for explanation. Oddly, when I bought XP64 (Systems Builder
version) from Newegg there was no requirement to buy other hardware
(even a cable). Perhaps they've relaxed this requirement. There are
stickers on the packaging though stating that the license may only be
distributed with a fully assembled computer system, and that it must be
"preinstalled on the hard drive" (not sure how you do that!).

It's pretty clear they really don't want people installing this on older
PC (or to be more precise, replacing the OS on their existing PC). That
really doesn't make sense to me though. Why is installing this on an
older PC worse than installing it on a new one? From what I've read,
XP64 is probably a better choice for an older PC due to the higher
system requirements for Vista. Go figure.

Thanks again for the feedback. -Pat
 
Re: xp 64 vs vista 64?

It is no longer required.

"Pat" <pkelecy@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:eCFgEFAlIHA.3876@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> R. C. White wrote:
>> Hi, Pat.
>>
>>> 1. Will Vista 64 run older 32-bit software, like MS Office XP and MS
>>> Project 2002 (or any other XP software for that matter)? I'd like to
>>> run these, and I'm pretty sure XP64 can (via WOW) - but I'm not so sure
>>> about Vista. I've read conflicting reports on that.
>>
>> If Vista x64 wouldn't run 32-bit software, it would be dead in the water,
>> because there is almost NO 64-bit software on the market yet!
>>
>> Nearly 100% of the software on the market today is 32-bit and just about
>> all of it will run without complaint on Vista x64. Personally, I'm
>> running Office 2007, Quicken, Photoshop Elements 6.0, PerfectDisk...and
>> too many others to list. Plus, of course, the full gamut of Vista
>> built-ins and add-ons, like Windows Media Player and Media Center,
>> Virtual Earth, Windows Live Mail, etc.
>>
>> You gave us no clue as to what you use your computer for, so there's
>> certainly a chance that some applications that you need won't run, but
>> you should have no problem with any of the mainstream stuff.
>>
>> I should stay out of your #2 and #3, since I'm just one guy with one
>> computer and no net but the Internet. My one computer uses the AMD
>> Athlon x64 X2 CPU and 4 GB of PC6400 RAM and 4 SATA II HDs. No
>> quad-core - yet.
>>
>> My understanding of the OEM OS is that it was intended for your local
>> computer shop to install when they put together a new computer for you
>> and add the OS, thus the requirement that it be sold only with the
>> hardware. But that requirement was perverted a bit for customers who
>> wanted to buy the OS to install on their own computer; they didn't want
>> the mobo, hard drives, computer case, etc. The local shop complied with
>> the literal language of the license by selling the OEM OS with the
>> cheapest piece of hardware (like that USB cable) in the store. In this
>> scenario, the end-user is the "system builder", even if he builds just
>> his one system using a 2-year-old case that he already owns.
>>
>> RC
>
> Thanks for explanation. Oddly, when I bought XP64 (Systems Builder
> version) from Newegg there was no requirement to buy other hardware (even
> a cable). Perhaps they've relaxed this requirement. There are stickers
> on the packaging though stating that the license may only be distributed
> with a fully assembled computer system, and that it must be "preinstalled
> on the hard drive" (not sure how you do that!).
>
> It's pretty clear they really don't want people installing this on older
> PC (or to be more precise, replacing the OS on their existing PC). That
> really doesn't make sense to me though. Why is installing this on an
> older PC worse than installing it on a new one? From what I've read, XP64
> is probably a better choice for an older PC due to the higher system
> requirements for Vista. Go figure.
>
> Thanks again for the feedback. -Pat
>
 
Re: xp 64 vs vista 64?

On Apr 1, 6:20 am, Pat <pkel...@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> m...@sushi.com wrote:
> > On Mar 31, 12:26 pm, Pat <pkel...@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> >> m...@sushi.com wrote:
> >>> On Mar 31, 10:19 am, Pat <pkel...@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>>> I know this is a topic that's been beaten to death, and I've read a lot
> >>>> of the discussions comparing these two. What's interesting (and
> >>>> confusing) is the lack of consensus - some like xp64 better (because
> >>>> it's faster and uses less resources) and others prefer vista (almost as
> >>>> fast, greater driver availability, and future support).
> >>>> I was at first leaning towards xp64, but am now rethinking this (due
> >>>> mainly to future support issues - if I buy a new printer or camera, it
> >>>> will more likely have Vista 64 drivers available). But there are a
> >>>> couple of things I'm still not clear on:
> >>>> 1. Will Vista 64 run older 32-bit software, like MS Office XP and MS
> >>>> Project 2002 (or any other XP software for that matter)? I'd like to
> >>>> run these, and I'm pretty sure XP64 can (via WOW) - but I'm not so sure
> >>>> about Vista. I've read conflicting reports on that.
> >>>> 2. My computer has dual processors with dual-core cpus (4 cores in
> >>>> all). I've read that xp64 is better at load balancing among multiple
> >>>> cores (since it uses the Windows 2003 server kernel) compared to Vista.
> >>>> Does anyone know if that is true? Given that multi-core cpus are now
> >>>> mainstream, I'd be surprised if MS hadn't paid attention to this in the
> >>>> design of Vista.
> >>>> 3. Is XP64 actually available for install on an existing PC? I ask
> >>>> because the only copies I've been able to find for sale are the "systems
> >>>> builder" version. Since I'll be replacing an existing OS (Linux) and a
> >>>> computer I purchased two years ago, I'm not sure I qualify (at least per
> >>>> the letter of the licensing agreement). Any thoughts on this?
> >>>> Thanks for the feedback.
> >>>> Pat
> >>> For point #3, this has been covered here. X64 is OEM software. My
> >>> understanding is all that means is you can't move it from one PC to
> >>> another according to MS terms. I don't know if this is gospel, but my
> >>> understanding is you need to purchase hardware at the same time as you
> >>> buy OEM windows. In the old days, this meant you had to buy a hard
> >>> drive with the OEM software. The last OEM OS I bought required me to
> >>> buy one freakin' USB cable. Well, at least it was a cheap Chinese $1
> >>> usb cable.
> >>> For point #1, you may be correct. However, for cameras, Vuescan will
> >>> probably get around OS issues. I have a postscript network printer,
> >>> which I think makes it easier to get around the driver issue, though
> >>> my printer was supported by X64 even though it was maybe 6 years old.
> >> Thanks for the feedback. Happy to hear about point #3 - that could have
> >> been a show stopper.
>
> >> I've never heard of Vuescan, but will look into it if the need arises.
> >> Having been on Linux for the past year, I'm well aware of driver issues.
> >> But I was hoping to escape a lot of that by going back to Windows (and
> >> for the most part I think I will).
>
> >http://www.hamrick.com/
> > for more info.
>
> ???

Ed Hamrick wrote Vuescan.
 
Re: xp 64 vs vista 64?

On Apr 1, 7:04 am, Pat <pkel...@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> R. C. White wrote:
> > Hi, Pat.
>
> >> 1. Will Vista 64 run older 32-bit software, like MS Office XP and MS
> >> Project 2002 (or any other XP software for that matter)? I'd like to
> >> run these, and I'm pretty sure XP64 can (via WOW) - but I'm not so
> >> sure about Vista. I've read conflicting reports on that.
>
> > If Vista x64 wouldn't run 32-bit software, it would be dead in the
> > water, because there is almost NO 64-bit software on the market yet!
>
> > Nearly 100% of the software on the market today is 32-bit and just about
> > all of it will run without complaint on Vista x64. Personally, I'm
> > running Office 2007, Quicken, Photoshop Elements 6.0, PerfectDisk...and
> > too many others to list. Plus, of course, the full gamut of Vista
> > built-ins and add-ons, like Windows Media Player and Media Center,
> > Virtual Earth, Windows Live Mail, etc.
>
> > You gave us no clue as to what you use your computer for, so there's
> > certainly a chance that some applications that you need won't run, but
> > you should have no problem with any of the mainstream stuff.
>
> > I should stay out of your #2 and #3, since I'm just one guy with one
> > computer and no net but the Internet. My one computer uses the AMD
> > Athlon x64 X2 CPU and 4 GB of PC6400 RAM and 4 SATA II HDs. No
> > quad-core - yet.
>
> > My understanding of the OEM OS is that it was intended for your local
> > computer shop to install when they put together a new computer for you
> > and add the OS, thus the requirement that it be sold only with the
> > hardware. But that requirement was perverted a bit for customers who
> > wanted to buy the OS to install on their own computer; they didn't want
> > the mobo, hard drives, computer case, etc. The local shop complied with
> > the literal language of the license by selling the OEM OS with the
> > cheapest piece of hardware (like that USB cable) in the store. In this
> > scenario, the end-user is the "system builder", even if he builds just
> > his one system using a 2-year-old case that he already owns.
>
> > RC
>
> Thanks for explanation. Oddly, when I bought XP64 (Systems Builder
> version) from Newegg there was no requirement to buy other hardware
> (even a cable). Perhaps they've relaxed this requirement. There are
> stickers on the packaging though stating that the license may only be
> distributed with a fully assembled computer system, and that it must be
> "preinstalled on the hard drive" (not sure how you do that!).
>
> It's pretty clear they really don't want people installing this on older
> PC (or to be more precise, replacing the OS on their existing PC). That
> really doesn't make sense to me though. Why is installing this on an
> older PC worse than installing it on a new one? From what I've read,
> XP64 is probably a better choice for an older PC due to the higher
> system requirements for Vista. Go figure.
>
> Thanks again for the feedback. -Pat

A system builder makes a target system, then clones the hard drive to
build the duplicates of the target. Since every system is the same,
they don't have to go through the silly game of installation. Now I've
never done this myself, so I don't know the details. For instance, how
do you enter the codes unique to the OS DVD.

I know someone with a Dell that decided to wipe the drive and
reinstall windows. It got to the point where the 3rd party drivers
were to be installed via floppy, but the system didn't have a floppy.
Well Dell obviously didn't do an install on that particular PC. The OS
was just placed on the HD.
 
Back
Top