Yes wrote:
Paul wrote:

Yes wrote:
Wolf K wrote:

On 2013-10-18 12:01 PM, philo wrote:
Yes wrote:

Microsoft is out of their collective f*** minds.
... snipped ...

I finally did find a comparison chart - using Google. It
popped up at the top of search results, as compared to nothing
using the search on Microsoft's pages.

Microsoft's comparison chart is in their Enterprise section at


https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/wind...e/default.aspx
I will be doing a new install over my existing WinXP Pro OS,
going from 32-bit (the WinXP) to 64-bit.
Use the MS Upgrade Adviser if you haven't done so already. And be
cautious about 640-bit. If your XP machine is older than about 5
years, the CPU may not run a 64-bit OS. CPUs of that age were
often "640bit ready", ie, they emulated 64-bit operation.

HTH

Thanks for the warning. I have already confirmed that my CPU can
handle 65-bit.

Not everything in computing is a power_of_two.

The machine we had in school was 60 bit. They used to fit
ten 6 bit characters in the registers. It made some kinda sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDC_6600

This company made a 36 bit processor. I never saw one
of these or worked on one, but because these existed,
I used to get software people at work, pestering me
to add some more bits to our 32 bit processor :-)
It was a running joke with them. People are spoiled
now, with 8/16/32/64 progressions. It used to be a
lot more fun when things were weird (like DEC and octal
for numbers - octal used to drive me crazy).

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

I did end up building something with a pretty
odd number of bits to it. Maybe up around 110 bits,
in a bit slice design. When you wrote firmware for it,
you burned sets of ROMs, and it cost the company a
small fortune for blanks. (Batches of chips used to
cost $3000, and I had to be careful not to waste them.
Or my manager would get that look in his eye.)
The fun part for me was, adding bits until you had
enough to control "everything".

Power_of_two is for wussies. 65 bits, no problem.

Paul

My typo :-) Should read 64-bit :-)

I'll now try to find out the licensing difference between the OEM
version and the so-called "Full Version" is.

It used to be a relatively simple decision. OEM was essentially
install the OS on one machine only whereas the license of the retail
version stayed with you the person so that you could use it
indefinitely and move it to a new pc, removing it of course from the
previous pc.

I seem to remember reading that with Windows 8 that Microsoft changed
licensing terms so that it no longer has a "retail" version as I
understood the concept, so then I have to wonder why choose its concept
of a retail version to that of the OEM version. Microsoft offers a
Personal Use License for those build your own pc people to use in
conjunction with the OEM license. Current promotion pricing for the
OEM is about $60 cheaper.

I think this time, I'll ignore Microsoft's own search function and
check what pops up on Google.

Win8 came in the following
Retail
- upgrade media (download was the same bitness as the pc performing
the download), option to get disc for additional price
- upgrade disc media came with 32 and 64 bit DVD)

Personal Use for System Builder Version
- came with 32 or 64 bit DVD not both
- during install user had option for Personal Use (build own pc) or
OEM build (build pc and resale to another)
** Personal Use choice was not transferrable, OEM was transferable
with machine)

Win 8.1
- all media is full version (retail or Personal Use/OEM)
- retail media is transferable
- Personal use/OEM choice no longer present (only OEM for reselling
o/s and pc to another) - i.e. not for use on building own pc

i.e. the licensing changed from 8 to 8.1

Licensing and 'Technically feasible' are two different things.


--
...winston
msft mvp consumer apps