J
Johnny Rebel
When the final version ships will it require a clean install or will an
update
to 32 bit windows be available?
update
to 32 bit windows be available?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
D
Dee
Johnny said: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
R Fruth in Houston
cogita tute
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 (_)/ (_)
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 (_)/ (_)
S
Sept1967
Your current 32bit apps wont work on XP64. So an upgrade would be useless.
D
Doug Lynn
HI, thats is not true, 32 bit apps will work on Windows 64 bit
B
Blaedmon
most probably itll require a completely clean install
H
Hierophant
| 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.
|
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.
E
Ed Light
A clean install is really the only way to go to avoid glitches.
--
Ed Light
Smiley :-/
MS Smiley :-\
Send spam to the FTC at
(e-mail address removed)
Thanks, robots.
--
Ed Light
Smiley :-/
MS Smiley :-\
Send spam to the FTC at
(e-mail address removed)
Thanks, robots.
E
Ed Koan
Johnny said: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.
D
Dave
Ed Koan said: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
S
Stings.
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.
If windows was a car it would be declared a lemon.
Way back when, I read that win95 had 15,000 known bugs.
E
Ed Koan
Cynical ?Dave said:Very cynical, but true!
Realistic, perhaps.
D
Dee
Most 32-bit apps will work on x64, but they are placed in a differentSept1967 said:Your current 32bit apps wont work on XP64. So an upgrade would be useless.
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!
N
Noel
Your current 32bit apps wont work on XP64. So an upgrade would be useless.
Sorry, but that is bullshit. XP64 has the WOW layer for running
32-bit apps.
S
Sept1967
Yeah, and Windows95 had "Plug n Play" which didnt really work untill 98se/XP
C
Carlo Razzeto
Sept1967 said: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
N
Noel
Yeah, and Windows95 had "Plug n Play" which didnt really work untill 98se/XP
Win16 compatibility in Win95+ worked very well from the outset. Why
not try the beta of XP64, you'll find that it runs 32-bit apps just
fine.
A
Antoine Leca
En (e-mail address removed), Noel va escriure:
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
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
O
Ondaware
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.
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.