windows 7 upgrade question
blank
copy of windows 7 can i still do a clean install with that upgrade copy?
Fred
"blank" <nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:0084d6ee$0$26892$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>i have a legal copy of vista installed on my machine if i but an upgrade
>copy of windows 7 can i still do a clean install with that upgrade copy?
Yes. All the Seven media are esentially the same and contain all versions of
the 32 bit OS or 64 bit OS.
The main difference is the key that informs the installer which version you
are licensed to use.
To clean install using the Seven media you could run the Seven installer
from within the Vista instal and select clean instal.
Or start with an empty drive and instal Seven without initially entering
your key. Just leave the field blank and don't activate.
Instal all updates and once that has finished activate at your leisure
entering your key then.
You have 30 days use before Seven will bug you to activate.
blank
"Fred" <blu...@gaymail.com> wrote in message
news:7m1d6iF...@mid.individual.net...
know that I am entitled to an upgrade rather than a new full edition?
Fred
If you instal from within Vista then the installer detects the qualifying OS
on your drive.
If you instal using the second method on a blank drive without first
entering the serial number when it does come time to activate the Windows 7
slmgr utility (License Manager) sees the existing Windows 7 installation as
a qualifying OS.
Using the second method for instal Microsoft have stated that you *won't* be
in breach of the EULA as long as you have a qualifying Windows version to
upgrade from and you no longer use that older version.
son of a bitch
That doesn't make cents, sounds like a honesty system and not One
Microsoft Way.
You can have Vista on One Partition and Put 7 on another Partition.
Why anyone would want this is beyond me.
Fred
"son of a bitch" <bitchi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4afbd10b$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Yes, it is an honour system but it hardly matters as nearly all the future
Windows 7 users will get 7 with a new pc. Only a few will purchase 7 by
itself.
PhilD
marketing of the versions here in Aust. Some vendors are listing it as
separate stock or part numbers for either the 32 or 64 bit versions
inferring that they are physically separate packages. My understanding is
that in a version box there are both 32 & 64 versions and you choose which
to install. Is there a separate 32 and 64 disc in the box or are both on the
one disc?
PhilD
blank
"PhilD" <replytonew...@aussient.com.au> wrote in message
news:B1UKm.54316$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
for I think $170 and home premium new version for $265. Didnt see any 64
bit different version.
Fred
The retail boxed upgrade and full package contain both 32bit and 64 bit
versions. The associated retail license key is good for both versions.
System Builder OEM are full copies sold as either 32bit or 64 bit. The
included license covers either 32bit or 64bit, not both.
son of a bitch
The same problem exists today as it was 5 years ago
Unless you really need to have more than 4Gig of RAM, there
is no advantage in 64bit.
annily
Is there no speed advantage in running 64-bit code if you have a 64-bit
processor?
--
Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia,
which may or may not influence my opinions.
Dr. Sir John Howard, AC, WSCMoF
>
> Unless you really need to have more than 4Gig of RAM, there
> is no advantage in 64bit.
Er, not quite. If you have an app. that requires an address space of more than
4GB then you'd need a 64bit OS. And 4GB or more of memory, obviously. A 32bit
OS, on the other hand, can handle virtual memory of more than 4GB. At least,
real OSes like Unix ones. MS is probably fucked in that regard too.
--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ipvdBnU8F8
- KRudd at his finest.
"The Labour Party is corrupt beyond redemption!"
- Labour hasbeen Mark Latham in a moment of honest clarity.
"This is the recession we had to have!"
- Paul Keating explaining why he gave Australia another Labour recession.
"Silly old bugger!"
- Well known ACTU pisspot and sometime Labour prime minister Bob Hawke
responding to a pensioner who dared ask for more.
"By 1990, no child will live in poverty"
- Bob Hawke again, desperate to win another election.
"A billion trees ..."
- Borke, pissed as a newt again.
"Well may we say 'God save the Queen' because nothing will save the governor
general!"
- Egotistical shithead and pompous fuckwit E.G. Whitlam whining about his
appointee for Governor General John Kerr.
"SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU DUMB CUNT!"
- FlangesBum on learning the truth about Labour's economic capabilities.
"I don't care what you fuckers think!"
- KRudd the KRude at his finest again.
"We'll just change it all when we get in."
- Garrett the carrott
Dr. Sir John Howard, AC, WSCMoF
>
> Is there no speed advantage in running 64-bit code if you have a 64-bit
> processor?
No. Its actually slightly slower because the buses are twice as wide in a 64bit
environment as they are in a 32bit environment. 16bit is faster still but the
old 16bit CPUs (and related hardware) have much slower clock speeds so you
wouldn't notice.
Doug Jewell
better on data intensive applications, but only if both the
OS AND the application are designed for 64 bit. If you are
running a 32 bit application on a 64bit OS, it can in some
cases be slower than on a 32 bit OS, because it has to put a
compatibility layer over the application.
The main gain with a 64 bit system is that you can have more
than 4GB of addressible ram, so your applications can be
larger, you can load more applications simultaneously, OR it
can use the excess RAM as a cache, so it doesn't need to do
as much work on the hard drive.
The drawback with 64 bit is compatibility. There are less
drivers available and some 32 bit applications won't run.
My recommendation would be to only go to 64 bit if you are
doing a lot of photo/video work or other similarly intensive
work, have lots of ram, and your main application(s) are 64
bit. If any 1 of the above doesn't apply, you'd be just as
well off with 32 bit.
--
What is the difference between a duck?
Doug Jewell
> annily wrote:
>>
>> Is there no speed advantage in running 64-bit code if you have a
>> 64-bit processor?
>
> No. Its actually slightly slower because the buses are twice as wide in
> a 64bit environment as they are in a 32bit environment. 16bit is faster
> still but the old 16bit CPUs (and related hardware) have much slower
> clock speeds so you wouldn't notice.
true, but in some cases that is just plain wrong. A full 64
bit system, with a full 64 bit data bus can shift twice as
much data in the same time, and so depending on the task at
hand, can operate potentially twice as fast. Of course real
world applications do more than just shift data, so the
actual performance gains are much less than the potential
double.
When 32 bit systems started coming out, there were some
chipsets that still had a 16 bit memory interface, so a 32
bit request required 2 x 16 bit accesses. This meant they
were slower than the equivalent 16 bit systems. I haven't
studied this fully with regards to the newest 64 bit
chipsets, but considering many of the systems with 64 bit
CPU's do not require paired memory modules, I'd hazard a
guess that many of the current chipsets only request 32 bits
at a time, and so what you describe will be true.
son of a bitch
All the Instruction Codes are Longer, therefore it has fetch more bytes
and process more bytes for each opcode, and therefore Programs to do
Identical 32bit source code are also Bigger.
There is no way a 64Bit can beat a 32Bit code running at the same
clock speed. In order to make them faster they add Huge Caches and
Multi-Processors, so it consumes even more power and gets even Hotter.