Upgrading to 64 bit Vista?
July 15, 2008 5:37 PM Subscribe
If I buy the Vista Ultimate Upgrade DVD, do I have to install the 64 bit version on top of my install of 32 bit XP, or can I install it fresh if I have an authentic XP CD?
Also, do you think a novice like myself might have a problem networking Vista with other PCs running XP? (Simple file sharing . . . that's all I do.)
Also, do you think a novice like myself might have a problem networking Vista with other PCs running XP? (Simple file sharing . . . that's all I do.)
You have to do a custom install on top of the 32-bit XP to use the upgrade license. However there is no upgrade installation path which means you have to backup your XP settings elsewhere, reboot into the 64-bit Vista DVD, install it off the DVD, then migrate your files back from backup. Instructions here.
posted by junesix at 7:15 PM on July 15, 2008
posted by junesix at 7:15 PM on July 15, 2008
Does the Vista upgrade-itself-to-itself hack work for 64-bit?
That might be simpler than the method MS describes, if it does. It would boil down to:
(1) Back up what you want
(2) Blow the HD
(3) Install Vista64, clean install, but DO NOT ACTIVATE IT OR ENTER ACTIVATION INFORMATION
(4) Install Vista64 again, this time as an upgrade and this time entering the activation information.
do you think a novice like myself might have a problem networking Vista with other PCs running XP?
If you got it working in XP yourself, you should be able to in Vista. There are a couple of extra steps, but nothing tricky.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:24 PM on July 15, 2008
That might be simpler than the method MS describes, if it does. It would boil down to:
(1) Back up what you want
(2) Blow the HD
(3) Install Vista64, clean install, but DO NOT ACTIVATE IT OR ENTER ACTIVATION INFORMATION
(4) Install Vista64 again, this time as an upgrade and this time entering the activation information.
do you think a novice like myself might have a problem networking Vista with other PCs running XP?
If you got it working in XP yourself, you should be able to in Vista. There are a couple of extra steps, but nothing tricky.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:24 PM on July 15, 2008
You can't install 64-bit OSs on top of 32-bit OSs.
In general, that is not true. (It may be with Vista though.)
posted by azazello at 7:24 PM on July 15, 2008
In general, that is not true. (It may be with Vista though.)
posted by azazello at 7:24 PM on July 15, 2008
novice like myself
If you're a novice, why are you installing 64-bit Vista? Unless you're running 64-bit programs and running them hard, you're not going to get much benefit out of it. Even in games and graphics programs, the benchmarks show similar or barely better results. Kind of weak compared to having to deal with lack of 64-bit drivers and programs.
ROU_Xenophobe: Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't installing Vista once be easier than installing it twice? Microsoft's directions are essentially steps 1 and 4 from yours.
posted by junesix at 7:31 PM on July 15, 2008
If you're a novice, why are you installing 64-bit Vista? Unless you're running 64-bit programs and running them hard, you're not going to get much benefit out of it. Even in games and graphics programs, the benchmarks show similar or barely better results. Kind of weak compared to having to deal with lack of 64-bit drivers and programs.
ROU_Xenophobe: Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't installing Vista once be easier than installing it twice? Microsoft's directions are essentially steps 1 and 4 from yours.
posted by junesix at 7:31 PM on July 15, 2008
junesix: if you're running more than 3.2Gb of RAM you need a 64bit OS. Vista's 64bit driver support is excellent.
posted by Dark Messiah at 10:43 PM on July 15, 2008
posted by Dark Messiah at 10:43 PM on July 15, 2008
junesix: if you're running more than 3.2Gb of RAM you need a 64bit OS.
That's not true at all. You can run a 32-bit OS with 4GB+ RAM, it just fails to address all of it.
posted by Jairus at 12:22 AM on July 16, 2008
That's not true at all. You can run a 32-bit OS with 4GB+ RAM, it just fails to address all of it.
posted by Jairus at 12:22 AM on July 16, 2008
That's not true at all. You can run a 32-bit OS with 4GB+ RAM, it just fails to address all of it.
That's not entirely true either. Upper memory addresses are reserved for PCI devices - and if physical memory exists at that address, instability will result.
I haven't had much luck running machines with more than 3ish GB of RAM on 32bit OSes, although I suppose hardware that handles that more gracefully could exist.
ROU_Xenophobe: Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't installing Vista once be easier than installing it twice? Microsoft's directions are essentially steps 1 and 4 from yours.
The Vista upgrade requires a previous installation to exist or activation will fail - requiring a call to Microsoft to obtain a new key. By performing those steps, this issue will be avoided.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 8:10 AM on July 16, 2008
That's not entirely true either. Upper memory addresses are reserved for PCI devices - and if physical memory exists at that address, instability will result.
I haven't had much luck running machines with more than 3ish GB of RAM on 32bit OSes, although I suppose hardware that handles that more gracefully could exist.
ROU_Xenophobe: Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't installing Vista once be easier than installing it twice? Microsoft's directions are essentially steps 1 and 4 from yours.
The Vista upgrade requires a previous installation to exist or activation will fail - requiring a call to Microsoft to obtain a new key. By performing those steps, this issue will be avoided.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 8:10 AM on July 16, 2008
That's not entirely true either. Upper memory addresses are reserved for PCI devices - and if physical memory exists at that address, instability will result.
Instability? Could you describe in detail what you're talking about?
From what I know about operating systems, it's impossible to cause instability this way.
posted by azazello at 11:05 AM on July 16, 2008
Instability? Could you describe in detail what you're talking about?
From what I know about operating systems, it's impossible to cause instability this way.
posted by azazello at 11:05 AM on July 16, 2008
Instability? Could you describe in detail what you're talking about?
From what I know about operating systems, it's impossible to cause instability this way.
Some devices use memory mapping for I/O. If the address they mapped for their I/O happens to coincide with an address the OS has mapped for actual memory hilarity can ensue. Since this happens at the hardware level (with some driver help usually, but still), the OS isn't often able to do anything about it.
As I said, hardware that handles such a situation gracefully could exist. But I've seen machines that exhibit this behavior, because they didn't.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 7:34 PM on September 6, 2008
From what I know about operating systems, it's impossible to cause instability this way.
Some devices use memory mapping for I/O. If the address they mapped for their I/O happens to coincide with an address the OS has mapped for actual memory hilarity can ensue. Since this happens at the hardware level (with some driver help usually, but still), the OS isn't often able to do anything about it.
As I said, hardware that handles such a situation gracefully could exist. But I've seen machines that exhibit this behavior, because they didn't.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 7:34 PM on September 6, 2008
« Older Adapter for Standard ATX main power connector to... | To buy or not to buy; apple forces consumer to... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Jairus at 6:25 PM on July 15, 2008