Win 8 Upgrade -- Are there diff versions

[M Harris[_2_]]

Anyone know if the Windows 8 Pro Upgrade file is different for differet
for XP Vista & Win 7

Also if there a difference between 32 & 64bit distributions

[Robin Bignall]

On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 19:20:29 -0500, M Harris > wrote:

>Anyone know if the Windows 8 Pro Upgrade file is different for differet
>for XP Vista & Win 7
>
The upgrade disk will only offer clean install for XP and Vista. You
have a choice of clean or upgrade installs for Win 7.

>Also if there a difference between 32 & 64bit distributions

There are two separate disks, 32 and 64. At least, there were in mine.
--
Robin Bignall
Herts, England

[Paul]

M Harris wrote:
> Anyone know if the Windows 8 Pro Upgrade file is different for differet
> for XP Vista & Win 7
>
> Also if there a difference between 32 & 64bit distributions

If you buy the OS for electronic download, you get one distribution.

If you're sitting at a 32 bit computer and order it, the downloaded
item is 32 bit.

If you're sitting at a 64 bit computer and order it, the downloaded
item is 64 bit.

So purchased electronically, Microsoft tries to encourage "like-to-like"
download. This means, some trickery is required on the user's part,
to be able to order the right download.

Let's take an example. I want to upgrade my WinXP 32 bit machine.
This is the machine I'm typing on right now. It's a Core2 processor
computer, one I know is compatible enough to accept 32 bit or a 64 bit
OS. Perhaps I use the Upgrade Assistant, see a couple programs are not
compatible, and remove them now.

But, being a modern hip guy, I want the 64 bit OS. If I use the Upgrade
Assistant while sitting at the 32 bit WinXP machine, it'll try to download
the 32 bit version.

I have a Windows 7 x64 laptop. I don't want to upgrade it. But, I sit
at the Windows 7 x64 laptop and use the Upgrade Assistant. Using it's
"like-to-like" logic, it orders the 64 bit download for me. When the
download is finished, I burn it to a DVD, then walk over to the WinXP
machine.

At the WinXP x32 machine I start the upgrade install. The Upgrade Assistant
on the DVD disc, says a WinXP->Win8 upgrade is a "Clean Install". Programs
are not preserved. This would be the case anyway, even if 32bit->32bit.
Only Win7->Win8 can do Upgrade install. Upgrades as such, are only possible
by 32bit->32bit, or 64bit->64bit. If I do 32bit->64bit, that's a Clean install.
The installation starts, and my WinXP x32 install is ignored while the
new Windows x64 is installed. None of my old programs are copied over.
It'll take half the day reinstalling them.

If I bought the software at a "bricks and mortar" store, it could have
both 32 bit and 64 bit discs in the box. That would be one difference
compared to the electronic purchase.

Most of the time, these discs are very similar to one another. So I would
not expect the Upgrade Assistant to be ordering different discs depending
on the original OS being WinXP versus Windows 7.

The disc images ordered electronically, might have a different SKU
depending on country. And some difference between ordering the 32 bit
versus the 64 bit image. But the same disc should work with WinXP,
Vista, Windows7 as the precursor OS. The "upgrade table logic" in
the installer DVD, decides how to handle each precursor OS. Whether
to Clean install or Upgrade install.

The size of the 32 bit download is smaller than the 64 bit download.
The size of the executables included would be different, as the
64 bit version could have both 64 bit and 32 bit versions of things.
The 64 bit version is mainly of interest if you have more than 4GB
of physical memory. The 64 bit version is of less interest otherwise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_8

"Software compatibility

64-bit Windows 8 runs 64-bit and 32-bit software while
32-bit Windows 8 will be able to run 32-bit and 16-bit software
(although some 16-bit software may require compatibility settings
to be applied, or not work at all).

I'm waiting for someone with the x64 version, to test whether any 16 bit
installers work or not. To see if the Windows 7 rules still apply or not.
I'm not 100% sure that info in the Wikipedia article is accurate.

In this example, it's worse in a way, in that a dialog box actually
has to be enabled, before 32 bit Windows 8 will run a 16 bit program.

http://www.askvg.com/windows-8-comes-with-built-in-16-bit-application-support/

For some reason, I'd read a blurb somewhere months ago, suggesting
Win8 x64 would support 16 bit programs. Maybe the blurb was just
wishful thinking.

HTH,
Paul

[Rob]

On 23/11/2012 2:33 PM, Paul wrote:
> M Harris wrote:
>> Anyone know if the Windows 8 Pro Upgrade file is different for
>> differet for XP Vista & Win 7
>>
>> Also if there a difference between 32 & 64bit distributions
>
> If you buy the OS for electronic download, you get one distribution.
>
> If you're sitting at a 32 bit computer and order it, the downloaded
> item is 32 bit.
>
> If you're sitting at a 64 bit computer and order it, the downloaded
> item is 64 bit.
>
> So purchased electronically, Microsoft tries to encourage "like-to-like"
> download. This means, some trickery is required on the user's part,
> to be able to order the right download.
>
> Let's take an example. I want to upgrade my WinXP 32 bit machine.
> This is the machine I'm typing on right now. It's a Core2 processor
> computer, one I know is compatible enough to accept 32 bit or a 64 bit
> OS. Perhaps I use the Upgrade Assistant, see a couple programs are not
> compatible, and remove them now.
>
> But, being a modern hip guy, I want the 64 bit OS. If I use the Upgrade
> Assistant while sitting at the 32 bit WinXP machine, it'll try to download
> the 32 bit version.
>
> I have a Windows 7 x64 laptop. I don't want to upgrade it. But, I sit
> at the Windows 7 x64 laptop and use the Upgrade Assistant. Using it's
> "like-to-like" logic, it orders the 64 bit download for me. When the
> download is finished, I burn it to a DVD, then walk over to the WinXP
> machine.
>
> At the WinXP x32 machine I start the upgrade install. The Upgrade Assistant
> on the DVD disc, says a WinXP->Win8 upgrade is a "Clean Install". Programs
> are not preserved. This would be the case anyway, even if 32bit->32bit.
> Only Win7->Win8 can do Upgrade install. Upgrades as such, are only possible
> by 32bit->32bit, or 64bit->64bit. If I do 32bit->64bit, that's a Clean
> install.
> The installation starts, and my WinXP x32 install is ignored while the
> new Windows x64 is installed. None of my old programs are copied over.
> It'll take half the day reinstalling them.
>
> If I bought the software at a "bricks and mortar" store, it could have
> both 32 bit and 64 bit discs in the box. That would be one difference
> compared to the electronic purchase.
>

I have the OEM version to make clean installs and I bought a 64 bit only
disk.

As I have not looked at the disk as yet to see if it contains both W8
and W8 pro on the disk and is still only locked with the ei.cfg file.

You can still do an upgrade with this disk.

It is a waste of time loading 32 bit windows what ever PC you own.


> Most of the time, these discs are very similar to one another. So I would
> not expect the Upgrade Assistant to be ordering different discs depending
> on the original OS being WinXP versus Windows 7.
>
> The disc images ordered electronically, might have a different SKU
> depending on country. And some difference between ordering the 32 bit
> versus the 64 bit image. But the same disc should work with WinXP,
> Vista, Windows7 as the precursor OS. The "upgrade table logic" in
> the installer DVD, decides how to handle each precursor OS. Whether
> to Clean install or Upgrade install.
>
> The size of the 32 bit download is smaller than the 64 bit download.
> The size of the executables included would be different, as the
> 64 bit version could have both 64 bit and 32 bit versions of things.
> The 64 bit version is mainly of interest if you have more than 4GB
> of physical memory. The 64 bit version is of less interest otherwise.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_8
>
> "Software compatibility
>
> 64-bit Windows 8 runs 64-bit and 32-bit software while
> 32-bit Windows 8 will be able to run 32-bit and 16-bit software
> (although some 16-bit software may require compatibility settings
> to be applied, or not work at all).
>
> I'm waiting for someone with the x64 version, to test whether any 16 bit
> installers work or not. To see if the Windows 7 rules still apply or not.
> I'm not 100% sure that info in the Wikipedia article is accurate.
>
> In this example, it's worse in a way, in that a dialog box actually
> has to be enabled, before 32 bit Windows 8 will run a 16 bit program.
>
> http://www.askvg.com/windows-8-comes-with-built-in-16-bit-application-support/
>
>
> For some reason, I'd read a blurb somewhere months ago, suggesting
> Win8 x64 would support 16 bit programs. Maybe the blurb was just
> wishful thinking.
>
> HTH,
> Paul

[BillW50]

On 11/23/2012 2:58 AM, Rob wrote:
> It is a waste of time loading 32 bit windows what ever PC you own.

Why is that? I personally have no interest in 64 bit Windows and I never
had. Why on Earth would I want that for? You don't know how many times I
have heard that a given 32 bit application won't run under 64 bit
Windows and there isn't a 64 bit version of it yet.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v12
Centrino Core2 Duo T7400 2.16 GHz - 4GB - Windows 8

[Alias[_43_]]

On 11/23/2012 9:58 AM, Rob wrote:
>
> It is a waste of time loading 32 bit windows what ever PC you own.

Well, a 32 bit computer would have a hard time with 64 bit Windows ...

--
Alias

[Paul]

On 23/11/2012 6:18 AM, Alias wrote:
> On 11/23/2012 9:58 AM, Rob wrote:
>>
>> It is a waste of time loading 32 bit windows what ever PC you own.
>
> Well, a 32 bit computer would have a hard time with 64 bit Windows ...
>

How many pure 32 bit computers have NX/XD support ? That's
a requirement for Windows 8. There's a good chance that a computer
that can install it, supports both 32 and 64 bit just in the process
of supporting NX/XD.

Paul

[Auric__]

Rob wrote:

> It is a waste of time loading 32 bit windows what ever PC you own.

Not if you still run Win16 apps.

--
I never realized lust was a fractal emotion.

[Rob]

On 24/11/2012 6:08 AM, Auric__ wrote:
> Rob wrote:
>
>> It is a waste of time loading 32 bit windows what ever PC you own.
>
> Not if you still run Win16 apps.
>


Well no use to you since your still running W95 with 1 Mb of ram.

[Rob]

On 23/11/2012 10:18 PM, Alias wrote:
> On 11/23/2012 9:58 AM, Rob wrote:
>>
>> It is a waste of time loading 32 bit windows what ever PC you own.
>
> Well, a 32 bit computer would have a hard time with 64 bit Windows ...
>

How many computers are still running full time since W95/98 was released?

[Auric__]

Rob wrote:

> On 24/11/2012 6:08 AM, Auric__ wrote:
>> Rob wrote:
>>
>>> It is a waste of time loading 32 bit windows what ever PC you own.
>>
>> Not if you still run Win16 apps.
>
> Well no use to you since your still running W95 with 1 Mb of ram.

Hah, no. I run a few Win16 apps under both XP and Win7. I will continue to
run those apps until I find replacements that I am happy with. (Both machines
have x64 processors, but neither one has enough RAM to *require* a 64-bit
OS... so I don't bother.)

For that matter, I run some DOS apps, too. Win32 can handle them; Win64
cannot.

(Yes, I could just run 32-bit Windows under emulation -- but why bother when
I have *nothing* that requires 64-bit Windows?)

--
And you, my dear dragon, are a fool for insulting me. Pay the price.

[Alias[_43_]]

On 11/25/2012 7:22 AM, Rob wrote:
> On 23/11/2012 10:18 PM, Alias wrote:
>> On 11/23/2012 9:58 AM, Rob wrote:
>>>
>>> It is a waste of time loading 32 bit windows what ever PC you own.
>>
>> Well, a 32 bit computer would have a hard time with 64 bit Windows ...
>>
>
> How many computers are still running full time since W95/98 was released?

Not relevant.

--
Alias

[BillW50]

On 11/25/2012 2:50 AM, Auric__ wrote:
> Rob wrote:
>
>> On 24/11/2012 6:08 AM, Auric__ wrote:
>>> Rob wrote:
>>>
>>>> It is a waste of time loading 32 bit windows what ever PC you own.
>>>
>>> Not if you still run Win16 apps.
>>
>> Well no use to you since your still running W95 with 1 Mb of ram.
>
> Hah, no. I run a few Win16 apps under both XP and Win7. I will continue to
> run those apps until I find replacements that I am happy with. (Both machines
> have x64 processors, but neither one has enough RAM to *require* a 64-bit
> OS... so I don't bother.)
>
> For that matter, I run some DOS apps, too. Win32 can handle them; Win64
> cannot.
>
> (Yes, I could just run 32-bit Windows under emulation -- but why bother when
> I have *nothing* that requires 64-bit Windows?)

I couldn't agree more. ;-)

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v12
Centrino Core2 Duo T7400 2.16 GHz - 4GB - Windows 8

[..winston]

"Could" -> 'Would'

"If I bought the software at a "bricks and mortar" store, it ***would*** have
both 32 bit and 64 bit discs in the box.

The exception to the above 'would' occurs if purchasing the Personal Use System Builder version where purchasing from any source
would only provide the 32 or 64 bit version but not both


--
....winston
msft mvp


"Paul" wrote in message ...

If I bought the software at a "bricks and mortar" store, it could have
both 32 bit and 64 bit discs in the box. That would be one difference
compared to the electronic purchase.