PDA

View Full Version : I want to make sure I do this right


JM^3
14-06-2005, 19:06:34
So I bought WinXP

now do I need to install it?

and then it will allow me to download XP 64bit?

and then I install that?

this is sort of a pain...

JM

JM^3
14-06-2005, 19:45:18
it appears like I am going to need to install the WinXP first

then the WinXP 64bit... (won't even let me download it before)

so I start out by backing up that harddrive (6 or so DVDs)

Jon Miller

Venom
14-06-2005, 19:45:44
Is it the XP upgrade or the full version?

JM^3
14-06-2005, 19:47:16
I have the XP upgrade...

do I need the full version?

JM

JM^3
14-06-2005, 19:47:49
it is the professional upgrade... if it matters

JM

JM^3
14-06-2005, 19:49:48
I haven't opened it up yet.. and I still have the receipt, if neccesary..

JM

Sir Penguin
15-06-2005, 03:43:54
Like I said last time you posted this thread, you need a copy of Windows XP 64-bit edition. Just a copy of Windows XP Pro won't cut it. The 64-bit edition is not a download, it's a separate operating system version.

SP

Cruddy
15-06-2005, 03:48:16
Why not (after you've backed up your system) download the 120 day trial of XP-64?

It does need a drive format, but it means you don't have to open the XP.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/evaluation/trial.mspx

550 Mb download though. Although you can order it on CD from the same page.

JM^3
15-06-2005, 05:10:16
Originally posted by Sir Penguin
Like I said last time you posted this thread, you need a copy of Windows XP 64-bit edition. Just a copy of Windows XP Pro won't cut it. The 64-bit edition is not a download, it's a separate operating system version.

SP

yeah

and in order to get the free copy of 64-bit edition (Which is not a download :( I thought it was), you have to have an installed registered version of Windows XP Professional

Which I just installed

now I don't feel like doing another install in a couple weeks when my copy of WinXP 64bit arrives..

so I will use this for a while (will install the 64bit much later, I still want to get it though)

Jon Miller

JM^3
15-06-2005, 05:11:38
I have been running the 64bit beta

I am tired of it, as there is still a bit of instability in it (it is ~ 1 year old)

so even just XP Pro is better..

and you have to have Pro installed to get Microsoft to send you the free copy of XP 64

Jon Miller

JM^3
15-06-2005, 05:13:26
Now it is all about getting it back to normal...

I have firefox now..

now how do I get my old bookmarks?

I copied (most) everything to the other harddrive...

JM

Sir Penguin
15-06-2005, 05:31:08
That's retarded. They should sell copies of the 64 bit edition.

SP

JM^3
15-06-2005, 05:59:49
It is one of those free update things, because they don't sell copies (only OEM).

It is only free until July though, don't know what happens then.

Jon Miller

JM^3
15-06-2005, 08:42:30
well

HL2, AO, Thunderbird, and Firefox are all working..

JM

No longer Trippin
15-06-2005, 08:59:03
It isn't that much of a benefit to be worth worrying about. To get 64 bit performance in applications you need a 64 bit processor, a 64 bit OS, and a 64 bit application. You know how many consumer apps and games are being written for this? Nada - maybe a couple small lines in games, but nothing you'd notice in gameplay. Just get plain old XP. 64 bit drivers are quite dodgy at the moment (if you can get them to begin with) as well. Not all applications and games will run on them either from what I've gathered.

JM^3
15-06-2005, 17:06:54
I ran 64 beta for almost a year...

and could run almost everything

I do hate reinstally OSes, so probably won't install one after this (XP Pro) for a little while

Jon Miller

Cruddy
15-06-2005, 22:40:39
Originally posted by No longer Trippin
It isn't that much of a benefit to be worth worrying about. To get 64 bit performance in applications you need a 64 bit processor, a 64 bit OS, and a 64 bit application. You know how many consumer apps and games are being written for this? Nada - maybe a couple small lines in games, but nothing you'd notice in gameplay. Just get plain old XP. 64 bit drivers are quite dodgy at the moment (if you can get them to begin with) as well. Not all applications and games will run on them either from what I've gathered.

True - except the situation can only improve.

Also, might be worth grabbing a copy while the grabbing is good. When was the last time MS offered a free operating system?

Sir Penguin
16-06-2005, 03:30:46
And the more programs you install now, the more trouble it's going to be when you re-install Windows later.

SP

JM^3
16-06-2005, 05:19:48
yeah..

so I think I won't be installing in the near future..

JM

No longer Trippin
16-06-2005, 06:07:40
You can grab MS OS's for a buck ATM in certain areas - legally. Some places a little more. Not to mention Longhorn due out in early 07 most likely would make me cringe at going to a beta OS with no 64 bit apps and some drivers still in beta condition to see no bloody benefit except 2 seconds off my boot time.

JM^3
17-06-2005, 19:57:46
I spent a lot on mine..

ah well...

and XP 64bit is no longer a beta OS, I did use it while it was beta for almost a year though...

JM
(bought it from best buy)

No longer Trippin
19-06-2005, 04:03:55
It doesn't work with all 32-bit applications, so IMO XP 64 is still beta since they were aiming for a seamless transition.

JM^3
19-06-2005, 06:11:32
Win2000/XP doesn't work with all 16bit applications

that doens't make them beta...

JM

No longer Trippin
19-06-2005, 21:10:20
Yes, but 32 bit was accepted on OS's quite awhile before then (Win95 was 32 bit IIRC). Most 16 bit apps you'd be trying to run would be old DOS based applications and the only reason they'd fail to run is because the emulation mode was miserably incorporated.

Win 64 is still "beta" IMO because MS there still is some lack of driver support (that is highly needed and since it isn't open sourced, you can't write one yourself like for linux) and without drivers a computer is useless. Add in the fact that some 32 bit apps still don't work and that's enough for me to label it "beta" in quality. If something you absolutely need for your computer to work isn't available and the OS doesn't supply it (drivers), then the OS is useless at certain levels. Betas are also useless at certain levels. I'm equating it to being like a beta, not being a beta in actual literal terms as they could have shoved it out the door a year ago and said it was gold TECHNICALLY.

Added in the quotes since you seem to take everything literally. Hell, people called GOLD copies of 2000 betas till SP 2 in some circles and for them, it pretty much still was. Technical definitions don't mean squat, just look at the computer gaming industry and what gets put out as gold only to have a 200 meg patch roll out the day of release. If you need a 200 meg patch on the release date, it obviously wasn't in gold status when it the CDs were pressed.

Cruddy
20-06-2005, 02:32:18
Hmm... I'm inclined to support JM a little on this.

Back when Win95 was rolled out, MS were busy promising splending new applications and games. Yet people who had a lot of 3.1 stuff were very sceptical.

10 years on, same thing is happening. There are differences of course (more people own computers for one) but the basic principle holds - if nobody ever upgraded, software companies would go bust pretty quick.

No longer Trippin
20-06-2005, 08:18:35
I'm not - I'd just soon have used a 32 bit version I've had on hand. You also really need more than a couple gigs (4 technically) of memory to really even benefit from any memory addressing - and that's the big benefit right there. Since Longhorn is close enough to wait for and by the time 64 bit apps are prevalent in any real degree, you'll only have about 3 to 6 months tops of usage from having the advantages of a 64 bit OS. OS upgrades are always problemsome from MS - and this is a ad-hoc job of one thanks to the long forseen problems MS has been having with Longhorn - and why it probably isn't going to be half the OS it was originally touted.