PDA

View Full Version : windows x86-64


Johnny Rebel
December 10th 04, 10:15 PM
When the final version ships will it require a clean install or will an
update
to 32 bit windows be available?

Dee
December 10th 04, 10:39 PM
Johnny Rebel wrote:
> When the final version ships will it require a clean install or will an
> update
> to 32 bit windows be available?
>
>
>

It will require a clean install. It is supposed to have the "Files and
Settings Transfer" capability.

R Fruth in Houston
December 11th 04, 04:17 AM
cogita tute

> When the final version ships will it require a clean install or will an
> update
> to 32 bit windows be available?
>
>
>

My cristal ball isn't working but 64 bit is a good guess & better have a
backup handy ....

--
Rob Fruth - Houston, Tx
http://www.rfruth.net

1981 Raleigh for errands & fun ____ __o
1997 Trek 2300 for real fun ! ____ _ \ | _)
2000 Civic hatchback (_)/ (_)

Sept1967
December 11th 04, 04:19 AM
Your current 32bit apps wont work on XP64. So an upgrade would be useless.


"Johnny Rebel" > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> When the final version ships will it require a clean install or will an
> update
> to 32 bit windows be available?
>
>
>

Doug Lynn
December 11th 04, 05:07 AM
HI, thats is not true, 32 bit apps will work on Windows 64 bit
"Sept1967" <[email protected](Erase)net> wrote in message
...
> Your current 32bit apps wont work on XP64. So an upgrade would be useless.
>
>
> "Johnny Rebel" > wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> When the final version ships will it require a clean install or will an
>> update
>> to 32 bit windows be available?
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Blaedmon
December 11th 04, 05:27 AM
most probably itll require a completely clean install
"Johnny Rebel" > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> When the final version ships will it require a clean install or will an
> update
> to 32 bit windows be available?
>
>
>

Hierophant
December 11th 04, 05:50 AM
"Sept1967" <[email protected](Erase)net> wrote in message
...
| Your current 32bit apps wont work on XP64. So an upgrade would be useless.
|

Very untrue. An upgrade will likely not be possible with the differences in
the two OSes, but 32 bit apps do work on XP64. There iwll be exceptions of
course, but they did a good job of incorporating an emulator to make sure
you will have cross compatibility with most applications. The install even
has a 32 and 64-bit version of IE already installed.

Ed Light
December 11th 04, 07:34 AM
A clean install is really the only way to go to avoid glitches.


--
Ed Light

Smiley :-/
MS Smiley :-\

Send spam to the FTC at

Thanks, robots.

Ed Koan
December 11th 04, 02:41 PM
Johnny Rebel wrote:
> When the final version ships will it require a clean install or will an
> update
> to 32 bit windows be available?
>
>
>

If they will ship in 2005, may I suggest a backup of your data? It will
be crash prone, a "stable" version won't be available before 2008.

Dave
December 11th 04, 03:10 PM
"Ed Koan" > wrote in message
...
> Johnny Rebel wrote:
>> When the final version ships will it require a clean install or will an
>> update
>> to 32 bit windows be available?
>>
>>
>>
>
> If they will ship in 2005, may I suggest a backup of your data? It will be
> crash prone, a "stable" version won't be available before 2008.

Very cynical, but true!

Dave

Stings.
December 11th 04, 04:24 PM
Oh so true!
If windows was a car it would be declared a lemon.
Way back when, I read that win95 had 15,000 known bugs.

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ed Koan" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Johnny Rebel wrote:
>>> When the final version ships will it require a clean install or will an
>>> update
>>> to 32 bit windows be available?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> If they will ship in 2005, may I suggest a backup of your data? It will
>> be crash prone, a "stable" version won't be available before 2008.
>
> Very cynical, but true!
>
> Dave
>
>

Ed Koan
December 11th 04, 06:28 PM
Dave wrote:

>>>When the final version ships will it require a clean install or will an
>>>update
>>>to 32 bit windows be available?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>If they will ship in 2005, may I suggest a backup of your data? It will be
>>crash prone, a "stable" version won't be available before 2008.
>
>
> Very cynical, but true!
>
Cynical ?
Realistic, perhaps.

Dee
December 11th 04, 08:59 PM
Sept1967 wrote:
> Your current 32bit apps wont work on XP64. So an upgrade would be useless.
>
>
> "Johnny Rebel" > wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>
>>When the final version ships will it require a clean install or will an
>>update
>>to 32 bit windows be available?
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Most 32-bit apps will work on x64, but they are placed in a different
directory, "Program Files (x86)" instead of just "Program Files." Only
64-bit apps will install to the "Program Files" directory.

So, even if there were an "upgrade" all your currently installed program
would be in the wrong directory!

Sept1967
December 13th 04, 05:41 AM
Yeah, and Windows95 had "Plug n Play" which didnt really work untill 98se/XP


"Noel" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 19:19:54 -0800, "Sept1967"
> <[email protected](Erase)net> wrote:
>
>>Your current 32bit apps wont work on XP64. So an upgrade would be useless.
>
> Sorry, but that is bull****. XP64 has the WOW layer for running
> 32-bit apps.
>
>

Carlo Razzeto
December 13th 04, 05:55 AM
"Sept1967" <[email protected](Erase)net> wrote in message
...
> Yeah, and Windows95 had "Plug n Play" which didnt really work untill
> 98se/XP

Try using it before making a comment... I have the beta of XP 64 installed
and as you can suspect, all of the software running on it is 32-bits... No
real major issues with running 32-bit apps on XP64. The only issue I have
seen is 32-bit IE plugins not loading correctly on IE64... However I can not
comment as to wether this problem is universal.

Carlo

Antoine Leca
December 17th 04, 03:49 PM
En , Noel va escriure:
> Win16 compatibility in Win95+ worked very well from the outset.

While your opponent is merely trolling, you are comparing apples and
oranges.

Of course Win95+ had a very good compatibility with Win16, it better have
to, since it is really the same OS! Win95 is "just" Windows v.4.0, the
successor of 3.1. It was am widely improved successor, better multitasking,
of course 32-bit user applications, and a couple more thingies, but the
architecture was still exactely the same as Windows 3.x, enhanced mode. With
16-bit USER included.

Widely different at the time was NT 3.5x. With a not-so-good compatibility.
Even then, it were possible to upgrade from Windows 3.x to NT 3.x (that is,
16- to 32- bits)... This is not to say it was a good idea, though.

When one is comparing XP-x64 with plain XP, it is "just" two architectures,
something that existed in NT since the very very beginning (NT is born on
MIPS, not i386), and that happens to disappear a bit with NT5.0 (W2K) and
that is resurfacing.


Antoine

Ondaware
December 21st 04, 02:31 PM
> When one is comparing XP-x64 with plain XP, it is "just" two architectures,
> something that existed in NT since the very very beginning (NT is born on
> MIPS, not i386), and that happens to disappear a bit with NT5.0 (W2K) and
> that is resurfacing.

Wrong. NT was born on an emulator for the Intel i860, which ended up trashed.
Microsoft created the NT architecture in the emulateor for that CPU, convinced
by Intel that it would be the "next big thing". The ideas on the i860 were
cool, but the project ended up dead. i386 with 32bit came up then.