xp 64 vs vista 64?

March 31, 2008

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

March 31, 2008

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.

March 31, 2008

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

March 31, 2008

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).

March 31, 2008

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.

March 31, 2008

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).

March 31, 2008

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

March 31, 2008

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

March 31, 2008

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).

>

March 31, 2008

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.

March 31, 2008

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).

>>

March 31, 2008

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).

>>>

>

April 1, 2008

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).

>>>>

>>

April 1, 2008

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.

April 1, 2008

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: