If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Win 8 vs 8.1 64 bit System Requirements
Paul wrote:
...winston wrote: Of particular note http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/w...m-requirements Windows 8 and 8.1 Processor: 1 gigahertz (GHz) or faster with support for PAE, NX, and SSE2 - http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/w...is-pae-nx-sse2 Windows 8.1 (not 8.0) To install a 64-bit OS on a 64-bit PC, your processor needs to support CMPXCHG16b, PrefetchW, and LAHF/SAHF i.e. the rules changed slightly Win8.1 64-bit for some older processors that function in Win8 but won't in 8.1 Who is most likely to be impacted...those purchasing full version 8.1 software to install on older 64-bit hardware (i.e. bare metal or clean install when previously using and earlier 64-bit Windows o/s)that could run or ran Windows 8 (but won't run 8.1) If you are running 8.0 on old hardware and not being offered the 8.1 upgrade...the above might be a reason. There is an 8.1 upgrade assistant on a linked page. http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/w...oad-online-faq Paul MS continues to screw things up, as usual. The page your link goes to has the following note: "Windows 8.1 Upgrade Assistant isn't supported for Windows XP or Windows Vista. For more info, see Upgrade to Windows 8.1 from Windows Vista or Windows XP. The link in that note goes to http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/w...ta-xp-tutorial That page has the following statement: "We recommend that you download and run the Windows 8 Upgrade Assistant to check if your PC meets the system requirements for Windows 8." There is a link to the Windows 8 Upgrade assistant. One would think that if MS is going to discuss upgrading from XP or Vista AND provide a link to a program (Windows 8 Upgrade Assistant), that they would make sure that the program actually checks one's pc. After running the program, it returns the following message: "The platform is not supported." Forgive me, but that gives zero info. Does it mean that Windows 8 will not run on the pc? Does that mean that the Upgrade assistant would not run on the pc? Does that mean that there is not way to bring the pc into a status to run Windows 8? Just another example of MS giving confusing responses to what should be a simple - yes, your pc can run Windows 8. No your pc wil not run Windows 8 unless you upgrade hardware. But MS wishes to be cryptic. What's bizarre is that reading the MS info, my pc is not 64-bit capable. However, I remember running a different tool that indicated my pc could handle a 64-bit OS. It couldn't handle MS' UEFI, however. |
Ads |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Win 8 vs 8.1 64 bit System Requirements
Yes wrote:
Paul wrote: ...winston wrote: Of particular note http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/w...m-requirements Windows 8 and 8.1 Processor: 1 gigahertz (GHz) or faster with support for PAE, NX, and SSE2 - http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/w...is-pae-nx-sse2 Windows 8.1 (not 8.0) To install a 64-bit OS on a 64-bit PC, your processor needs to support CMPXCHG16b, PrefetchW, and LAHF/SAHF i.e. the rules changed slightly Win8.1 64-bit for some older processors that function in Win8 but won't in 8.1 Who is most likely to be impacted...those purchasing full version 8.1 software to install on older 64-bit hardware (i.e. bare metal or clean install when previously using and earlier 64-bit Windows o/s)that could run or ran Windows 8 (but won't run 8.1) If you are running 8.0 on old hardware and not being offered the 8.1 upgrade...the above might be a reason. There is an 8.1 upgrade assistant on a linked page. http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/w...oad-online-faq Paul MS continues to screw things up, as usual. The page your link goes to .. snipped for brevity .. What's bizarre is that reading the MS info, my pc is not 64-bit capable. However, I remember running a different tool that indicated my pc could handle a 64-bit OS. It couldn't handle MS' UEFI, however. I knew I had checked the issue in the past, before Windows 8.1. I used CoreInfo from MS and its report sure seems to me to indicate that my pc can handle a 64-bit OS like Windows 8.1. The report from coreinfo: AMD Athlon(tm) II X3 440 Processor x86 Family 16 Model 5 Stepping 2, AuthenticAMD HTT * Multicore HYPERVISOR - Hypervisor is present VMX - Supports Intel hardware-assisted virtualization SVM * Supports AMD hardware-assisted virtualization EM64T * Supports 64-bit mode SMX - Supports Intel trusted execution SKINIT * Supports AMD SKINIT NX * Supports no-execute page protection SMEP - Supports Supervisor Mode Execution Prevention SMAP - Supports Supervisor Mode Access Prevention PAGE1GB * Supports 1 GB large pages PAE * Supports 32-bit physical addresses PAT * Supports Page Attribute Table PSE * Supports 4 MB pages PSE36 * Supports 32-bit address 4 MB pages PGE * Supports global bit in page tables SS - Supports bus snooping for cache operations VME * Supports Virtual-8086 mode RDWRFSGSBASE - Supports direct GS/FS base access FPU * Implements i387 floating point instructions MMX * Supports MMX instruction set MMXEXT * Implements AMD MMX extensions 3DNOW * Supports 3DNow! instructions 3DNOWEXT * Supports 3DNow! extension instructions SSE * Supports Streaming SIMD Extensions SSE2 * Supports Streaming SIMD Extensions 2 SSE3 * Supports Streaming SIMD Extensions 3 SSSE3 - Supports Supplemental SIMD Extensions 3 SSE4.1 - Supports Streaming SIMD Extensions 4.1 SSE4.2 - Supports Streaming SIMD Extensions 4.2 AES - Supports AES extensions AVX - Supports AVX intruction extensions FMA - Supports FMA extensions using YMM state MSR * Implements RDMSR/WRMSR instructions MTRR * Supports Memory Type Range Registers XSAVE - Supports XSAVE/XRSTOR instructions OSXSAVE - Supports XSETBV/XGETBV instructions RDRAND - Supports RDRAND instruction RDSEED - Supports RDSEED instruction CMOV * Supports CMOVcc instruction CLFSH * Supports CLFLUSH instruction CX8 * Supports compare and exchange 8-byte instructions CX16 * Supports CMPXCHG16B instruction BMI1 - Supports bit manipulation extensions 1 BMI2 - Supports bit maniuplation extensions 2 ADX - Supports ADCX/ADOX instructions DCA - Supports prefetch from memory-mapped device F16C - Supports half-precision instruction FXSR * Supports FXSAVE/FXSTOR instructions FFXSR * Supports optimized FXSAVE/FSRSTOR instruction MONITOR * Supports MONITOR and MWAIT instructions MOVBE - Supports MOVBE instruction ERMSB - Supports Enhanced REP MOVSB/STOSB PCLULDQ - Supports PCLMULDQ instruction POPCNT * Supports POPCNT instruction SEP * Supports fast system call instructions LAHF-SAHF * Supports LAHF/SAHF instructions in 64-bit mode HLE - Supports Hardware Lock Elision instructions RTM - Supports Restricted Transactional Memory instructions DE * Supports I/O breakpoints including CR4.DE DTES64 - Can write history of 64-bit branch addresses DS - Implements memory-resident debug buffer DS-CPL - Supports Debug Store feature with CPL PCID - Supports PCIDs and settable CR4.PCIDE INVPCID - Supports INVPCID instruction PDCM - Supports Performance Capabilities MSR RDTSCP * Supports RDTSCP instruction TSC * Supports RDTSC instruction TSC-DEADLINE - Local APIC supports one-shot deadline timer TSC-INVARIANT * TSC runs at constant rate xTPR - Supports disabling task priority messages EIST - Supports Enhanced Intel Speedstep ACPI - Implements MSR for power management TM - Implements thermal monitor circuitry TM2 - Implements Thermal Monitor 2 control APIC * Implements software-accessible local APIC x2APIC - Supports x2APIC CNXT-ID - L1 data cache mode adaptive or BIOS MCE * Supports Machine Check, INT18 and CR4.MCE MCA * Implements Machine Check Architecture PBE - Supports use of FERR#/PBE# pin PSN - Implements 96-bit processor serial number PREFETCHW * Supports PREFETCHW instruction Logical to Physical Processor Map: *-- Physical Processor 0 -*- Physical Processor 1 --* Physical Processor 2 Logical Processor to Socket Map: *** Socket 0 Logical Processor to NUMA Node Map: *** NUMA Node 0 Logical Processor to Cache Map: *-- Data Cache 0, Level 1, 64 KB, Assoc 2, LineSize 64 *-- Instruction Cache 0, Level 1, 64 KB, Assoc 2, LineSize 64 *-- Unified Cache 0, Level 2, 512 KB, Assoc 16, LineSize 64 -*- Data Cache 1, Level 1, 64 KB, Assoc 2, LineSize 64 -*- Instruction Cache 1, Level 1, 64 KB, Assoc 2, LineSize 64 -*- Unified Cache 1, Level 2, 512 KB, Assoc 16, LineSize 64 --* Data Cache 2, Level 1, 64 KB, Assoc 2, LineSize 64 --* Instruction Cache 2, Level 1, 64 KB, Assoc 2, LineSize 64 --* Unified Cache 2, Level 2, 512 KB, Assoc 16, LineSize 64 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Win 8 vs 8.1 64 bit System Requirements
Alias wrote:
On 10/29/2013 1:21 AM, ...winston wrote: Even today, one doesn't own Windows, just the right to use it. Yeah, but you don't have to pay for that right every month you use it. That's good. Let's hope tomorrow keeps the dream alive. Though I'm not sure I'd bet on that horse. g -- ...winston msft mvp consumer apps |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Win 8 vs 8.1 64 bit System Requirements
Yes wrote:
Yes wrote: Paul wrote: ...winston wrote: Of particular note http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/w...m-requirements Windows 8 and 8.1 Processor: 1 gigahertz (GHz) or faster with support for PAE, NX, and SSE2 - http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/w...is-pae-nx-sse2 Windows 8.1 (not 8.0) To install a 64-bit OS on a 64-bit PC, your processor needs to support CMPXCHG16b, PrefetchW, and LAHF/SAHF i.e. the rules changed slightly Win8.1 64-bit for some older processors that function in Win8 but won't in 8.1 Who is most likely to be impacted...those purchasing full version 8.1 software to install on older 64-bit hardware (i.e. bare metal or clean install when previously using and earlier 64-bit Windows o/s)that could run or ran Windows 8 (but won't run 8.1) If you are running 8.0 on old hardware and not being offered the 8.1 upgrade...the above might be a reason. There is an 8.1 upgrade assistant on a linked page. http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/w...oad-online-faq Paul MS continues to screw things up, as usual. The page your link goes to .. snipped for brevity .. What's bizarre is that reading the MS info, my pc is not 64-bit capable. However, I remember running a different tool that indicated my pc could handle a 64-bit OS. It couldn't handle MS' UEFI, however. I knew I had checked the issue in the past, before Windows 8.1. I used CoreInfo from MS and its report sure seems to me to indicate that my pc can handle a 64-bit OS like Windows 8.1. The report from coreinfo: AMD Athlon(tm) II X3 440 Processor x86 Family 16 Model 5 Stepping 2, AuthenticAMD HTT * Multicore HYPERVISOR - Hypervisor is present VMX - Supports Intel hardware-assisted virtualization SVM * Supports AMD hardware-assisted virtualization EM64T * Supports 64-bit mode SMX - Supports Intel trusted execution SKINIT * Supports AMD SKINIT NX * Supports no-execute page protection SMEP - Supports Supervisor Mode Execution Prevention SMAP - Supports Supervisor Mode Access Prevention PAGE1GB * Supports 1 GB large pages PAE * Supports 32-bit physical addresses PAT * Supports Page Attribute Table PSE * Supports 4 MB pages PSE36 * Supports 32-bit address 4 MB pages PGE * Supports global bit in page tables SS - Supports bus snooping for cache operations VME * Supports Virtual-8086 mode RDWRFSGSBASE - Supports direct GS/FS base access FPU * Implements i387 floating point instructions MMX * Supports MMX instruction set MMXEXT * Implements AMD MMX extensions 3DNOW * Supports 3DNow! instructions 3DNOWEXT * Supports 3DNow! extension instructions SSE * Supports Streaming SIMD Extensions SSE2 * Supports Streaming SIMD Extensions 2 SSE3 * Supports Streaming SIMD Extensions 3 SSSE3 - Supports Supplemental SIMD Extensions 3 SSE4.1 - Supports Streaming SIMD Extensions 4.1 SSE4.2 - Supports Streaming SIMD Extensions 4.2 AES - Supports AES extensions AVX - Supports AVX intruction extensions FMA - Supports FMA extensions using YMM state MSR * Implements RDMSR/WRMSR instructions MTRR * Supports Memory Type Range Registers XSAVE - Supports XSAVE/XRSTOR instructions OSXSAVE - Supports XSETBV/XGETBV instructions RDRAND - Supports RDRAND instruction RDSEED - Supports RDSEED instruction CMOV * Supports CMOVcc instruction CLFSH * Supports CLFLUSH instruction CX8 * Supports compare and exchange 8-byte instructions CX16 * Supports CMPXCHG16B instruction BMI1 - Supports bit manipulation extensions 1 BMI2 - Supports bit maniuplation extensions 2 ADX - Supports ADCX/ADOX instructions DCA - Supports prefetch from memory-mapped device F16C - Supports half-precision instruction FXSR * Supports FXSAVE/FXSTOR instructions FFXSR * Supports optimized FXSAVE/FSRSTOR instruction MONITOR * Supports MONITOR and MWAIT instructions MOVBE - Supports MOVBE instruction ERMSB - Supports Enhanced REP MOVSB/STOSB PCLULDQ - Supports PCLMULDQ instruction POPCNT * Supports POPCNT instruction SEP * Supports fast system call instructions LAHF-SAHF * Supports LAHF/SAHF instructions in 64-bit mode HLE - Supports Hardware Lock Elision instructions RTM - Supports Restricted Transactional Memory instructions DE * Supports I/O breakpoints including CR4.DE DTES64 - Can write history of 64-bit branch addresses DS - Implements memory-resident debug buffer DS-CPL - Supports Debug Store feature with CPL PCID - Supports PCIDs and settable CR4.PCIDE INVPCID - Supports INVPCID instruction PDCM - Supports Performance Capabilities MSR RDTSCP * Supports RDTSCP instruction TSC * Supports RDTSC instruction TSC-DEADLINE - Local APIC supports one-shot deadline timer TSC-INVARIANT * TSC runs at constant rate xTPR - Supports disabling task priority messages EIST - Supports Enhanced Intel Speedstep ACPI - Implements MSR for power management TM - Implements thermal monitor circuitry TM2 - Implements Thermal Monitor 2 control APIC * Implements software-accessible local APIC x2APIC - Supports x2APIC CNXT-ID - L1 data cache mode adaptive or BIOS MCE * Supports Machine Check, INT18 and CR4.MCE MCA * Implements Machine Check Architecture PBE - Supports use of FERR#/PBE# pin PSN - Implements 96-bit processor serial number PREFETCHW * Supports PREFETCHW instruction Logical to Physical Processor Map: *-- Physical Processor 0 -*- Physical Processor 1 --* Physical Processor 2 Logical Processor to Socket Map: *** Socket 0 Logical Processor to NUMA Node Map: *** NUMA Node 0 Logical Processor to Cache Map: *-- Data Cache 0, Level 1, 64 KB, Assoc 2, LineSize 64 *-- Instruction Cache 0, Level 1, 64 KB, Assoc 2, LineSize 64 *-- Unified Cache 0, Level 2, 512 KB, Assoc 16, LineSize 64 -*- Data Cache 1, Level 1, 64 KB, Assoc 2, LineSize 64 -*- Instruction Cache 1, Level 1, 64 KB, Assoc 2, LineSize 64 -*- Unified Cache 1, Level 2, 512 KB, Assoc 16, LineSize 64 --* Data Cache 2, Level 1, 64 KB, Assoc 2, LineSize 64 --* Instruction Cache 2, Level 1, 64 KB, Assoc 2, LineSize 64 --* Unified Cache 2, Level 2, 512 KB, Assoc 16, LineSize 64 I think your processor is nice :-) I see NX support. I know it's EM64T, without even looking at that line in your output. And the Windows 8.1 ones are there "Supports CMPXCHG16B instruction" "Supports PREFETCHW instruction" "Supports LAHF/SAHF instructions in 64-bit mode" What's not to like ? ******* I just had a thought. There is a subtle difference between "your processor supports" and "this feature is currently turned on in the BIOS". Go into the BIOs, the section where you switch on things like VT-X or Pacifica virtualization and the like, and check to see if anything "important" is turned off. ******* With regard to the Assistant, I noticed that thing about it only running in Windows 7. They would have done that on purpose. Usually that's enforced by the stupid use of .NET to make the Assistant, then "boil in" the need for the latest version like .NET 4.0, 4.5, 4.5.1 etc. They only create new .NET now, to **** people off. You can always try a "preview" DVD, and just use the Assistant on that (running under the WinPE used by the DVD boot disc). While using assistants from early versions of the OS isn't a good idea, the Assistant on the 8.1 preview should be mature. http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi...nt-email.me%3E I would probably grab this one for my own needs. This'll be a bit more than 3GB in size. http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=302161 To test in a VM, I could only run the 32 bit one. http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=302162 I seem to have lost that ISO. Maybe it's buried in the back yard. I'll post back a picture a bit later, with the details. Maybe I won't need to, if it turns out your BIOS is at fault, and needs some value toggled. Paul |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Win 8 vs 8.1 64 bit System Requirements
On 10/29/2013 4:04 AM, ...winston wrote:
Alias wrote: On 10/29/2013 1:21 AM, ...winston wrote: Even today, one doesn't own Windows, just the right to use it. Yeah, but you don't have to pay for that right every month you use it. That's good. Let's hope tomorrow keeps the dream alive. Though I'm not sure I'd bet on that horse. g If MS goes down that route I hope users will vote with their feet. I most certainly will. -- Alias The only real problems are avarice, anger and stupidity. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Win 8 vs 8.1 64 bit System Requirements
Paul wrote:
Yes wrote: Yes wrote: Paul wrote: ...winston wrote: Of particular note http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/w...m-requirements Windows 8 and 8.1 Processor: 1 gigahertz (GHz) or faster with support for PAE, NX, and SSE2 - http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/w...is-pae-nx-sse2 Windows 8.1 (not 8.0) To install a 64-bit OS on a 64-bit PC, your processor needs to support CMPXCHG16b, PrefetchW, and LAHF/SAHF i.e. the rules changed slightly Win8.1 64-bit for some older processors that function in Win8 but won't in 8.1 Who is most likely to be impacted...those purchasing full version 8.1 software to install on older 64-bit hardware (i.e. bare metal or clean install when previously using and earlier 64-bit Windows o/s)that could run or ran Windows 8 (but won't run 8.1) If you are running 8.0 on old hardware and not being offered the 8.1 upgrade...the above might be a reason. There is an 8.1 upgrade assistant on a linked page. http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/w...oad-online-faq Paul MS continues to screw things up, as usual. The page your link goes to .. snipped for brevity .. What's bizarre is that reading the MS info, my pc is not 64-bit capable. However, I remember running a different tool that indicated my pc could handle a 64-bit OS. It couldn't handle MS' UEFI, however. I knew I had checked the issue in the past, before Windows 8.1. I used CoreInfo from MS and its report sure seems to me to indicate that my pc can handle a 64-bit OS like Windows 8.1. The report from coreinfo: --snipped-- I think your processor is nice :-) I see NX support. I know it's EM64T, without even looking at that line in your output. And the Windows 8.1 ones are there "Supports CMPXCHG16B instruction" "Supports PREFETCHW instruction" "Supports LAHF/SAHF instructions in 64-bit mode" What's not to like ? ******* I just had a thought. There is a subtle difference between "your processor supports" and "this feature is currently turned on in the BIOS". Go into the BIOs, the section where you switch on things like VT-X or Pacifica virtualization and the like, and check to see if anything "important" is turned off. ******* --snipped-- Paul Thanks. I'll have to check the BIOS like you suggest. I'm almost 100% certain I'll be buying the Win 8.1 Pro 64-bit Retail O/S edition. From what I've read my mobo does not support UEFI but will otherwise run Windows 8.1. Also from what I've read, the main reason I might want UEFI would be for the BitLocker app, but I don't see any great loss if I can't use BitLocker, if only because I am the only one who uses my pc and only I have physical access to it. My main interest is using Hyper Visor (virtual machines). I've never gotten comfortable using VMBox nor the drain it seems to put on my pc. I'm hoping that Hyper Visor will offer a better experience. John |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Win 8 vs 8.1 64 bit System Requirements
Wolf K wrote:
On 2013-10-29 2:27 AM, Paul wrote: [...] I know it's EM64T, without even looking at that line in your output. [...] It _emulates_ 64 bit, which slows it down.Whether the slowdown will be enough to to bother the user, I don't know. But the access to larger disks is worth the price IMO. HTH EM64T is the same thing as AMD64. It's the 64 bit instruction set. It's not an emulation, it's an honest-to-God 64 bit instruction set. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64 "Upon release, AMD named it AMD64. Intel initially used the names IA-32e and EM64T before finally settling on Intel 64 for their implementation." Each instruction executed in 64 bit mode, causes the fetch of 8 bytes. The 8 bytes are then decoded and executed. If the 64 bit processor runs in 32 bit subset mode (like the Intel processor on my motherboard is doing right now), then instructions are 4 bytes. You get to stuff more of them into a cache line. In fact, on Intel, there is a slowdown in 64 bit mode, when compared to 32 bit mode. If operated in 32 bit mode, it's possible to "pack" two 32 bit instructions as they travel through part of the infrastructure. When a user selected 64 bit mode, the packing feature is basically turned off, and instructions aren't moving through the core with the same efficiency. When compared to the AMD implementation, AMD doesn't use the same packing technique, and there is no speed change between 64 bit and 32 bit modes. But on Intel, the 32 bit works slightly more efficiently, due to that added feature. This might not be the article I was looking at originally, but it does make a passing reference. http://www.anandtech.com/show/2594/3 "Intel introduced macro-ops fusion in Conroe, a feature where two coupled x86 instructions could be "fused" and treated as one. They would decode, execute and retire as a single instruction instead of two, effectively widening the hardware in certain situations." The reference to x86 is 32 bit mode. Apparently, another generation of Intel processor (Nehalem), makes the feature work for both instruction widths. But on my processor, I think mine has macro-ops fusion disabled in 64 bit mode. So my instruction retiring rate is slightly poorer in 64 bit mode. Now, when I speak loosely of efficiency, it's not the same issue as "how much more work can the processor do in 64 bit mode". If I was actually taking advantage of the 64 bit instruction set, that makes programs do more work in the same time period. So the properties of the instruction set, might make the thing 10 or 15 percent faster on average, and that actually amounts to more of an improvement compared to the relative loss caused by that packing feature. I think my best example of that here, was switching between a 32 bit and a 64 bit library for a program I was playing with, a program that did a lot of "wide math", and that program ran 70% faster. And that swamps out the tiny penalty for loss of macro-ops fusion. If, on the other hand, I was comparing a program that did lots of test and branch code, maybe it wouldn't be any faster. ******* This is an example of emulation. Transmeta Crusoe processor design was predicated on instruction translation, and uses an arbitrary instruction set as a means to translate other instructions sets. More than one ISA (instruction set) can be emulated, so you could make it behave like an x86 processor, or as a PowerPC processor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmeta_Crusoe I think people like the idea of having hardware that could run any OS or program for them. But I doubt they're willing to pay for it in any tangible way (slower machine operation). People would still expect the blazing speed they get from the processor that doesn't support more than one instruction set. Paul |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Win 8 vs 8.1 64 bit System Requirements
Yes wrote:
Thanks. I'll have to check the BIOS like you suggest. I'm almost 100% certain I'll be buying the Win 8.1 Pro 64-bit Retail O/S edition. From what I've read my mobo does not support UEFI but will otherwise run Windows 8.1. Also from what I've read, the main reason I might want UEFI would be for the BitLocker app, but I don't see any great loss if I can't use BitLocker, if only because I am the only one who uses my pc and only I have physical access to it. My main interest is using Hyper Visor (virtual machines). I've never gotten comfortable using VMBox nor the drain it seems to put on my pc. I'm hoping that Hyper Visor will offer a better experience. John For what it's worth, I was disappointed when Hyper-V refused to install on my machine. It turned out, Hyper-V on a Windows 8 desktop, requires SLAT, or second level address translation. It has something to do with keeping game performance high on a desktop. It's considered unimportant on a "server motherboard", because server administrators don't do graphics stuff like that on their machine. So SLAT is not required on the server version of Hyper-V. I think a Core i7 has SLAT. There are desktop processors that will accept a Hyper-V installation. In this Core i7 description, the important line is the EPT one. http://ark.intel.com/products/75123/...90-GHz?q=4770k "Intel VT-x with Extended Page Tables (EPT): Yes" The EPT is the Intel name for SLAT. And RVI is the AMD name for SLAT. If you have either of those on a desktop computer and have Windows 8, you get to use Hyper-V. My CPU isn't good enough. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...ss_Translation Paul |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Win 8 vs 8.1 64 bit System Requirements
On 2013-10-29, ...winston wrote:
Alias wrote: On 10/29/2013 1:21 AM, ...winston wrote: Even today, one doesn't own Windows, just the right to use it. Yeah, but you don't have to pay for that right every month you use it. That's good. Let's hope tomorrow keeps the dream alive. Though I'm not sure I'd bet on that horse. g I would prefer a fed "recall" program as in product recalls for any problems or bugs. Never mind the excuse of "millions of lines of code so it can't be fixed. "Consumer Reports" claim that the Ford Fusion is #26 of the 28 lowest reliability cars based on Ford's info/navigation screen; read long ago that the underlying software is based on windows, by microsoft. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Win 8 vs 8.1 64 bit System Requirements
On 2013-10-29 11:05 AM, Paul wrote:
Wolf K wrote: On 2013-10-29 2:27 AM, Paul wrote: [...] I know it's EM64T, without even looking at that line in your output. [...] It _emulates_ 64 bit, which slows it down.Whether the slowdown will be enough to to bother the user, I don't know. But the access to larger disks is worth the price IMO. HTH EM64T is the same thing as AMD64. It's the 64 bit instruction set. It's not an emulation, it's an honest-to-God 64 bit instruction set. [Etc] OK, thanks for the clarification and correction. Wolf K. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Win 8 vs 8.1 64 bit System Requirements
Paul wrote:
Yes wrote: Thanks. I'll have to check the BIOS like you suggest. I'm almost 100% certain I'll be buying the Win 8.1 Pro 64-bit Retail O/S edition. From what I've read my mobo does not support UEFI but will otherwise run Windows 8.1. Also from what I've read, the main reason I might want UEFI would be for the BitLocker app, but I don't see any great loss if I can't use BitLocker, if only because I am the only one who uses my pc and only I have physical access to it. My main interest is using Hyper Visor (virtual machines). I've never gotten comfortable using VMBox nor the drain it seems to put on my pc. I'm hoping that Hyper Visor will offer a better experience. John For what it's worth, I was disappointed when Hyper-V refused to install on my machine. It turned out, Hyper-V on a Windows 8 desktop, requires SLAT, or second level address translation. It has something to do with keeping game performance high on a desktop. It's considered unimportant on a "server motherboard", because server administrators don't do graphics stuff like that on their machine. So SLAT is not required on the server version of Hyper-V. I think a Core i7 has SLAT. There are desktop processors that will accept a Hyper-V installation. In this Core i7 description, the important line is the EPT one. http://ark.intel.com/products/75123/...90-GHz?q=4770k "Intel VT-x with Extended Page Tables (EPT): Yes" The EPT is the Intel name for SLAT. And RVI is the AMD name for SLAT. If you have either of those on a desktop computer and have Windows 8, you get to use Hyper-V. My CPU isn't good enough. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...ss_Translation Paul Yikes! The main reason that I would upgrade to Windows 8.1 Pro is the ability to use the native (built in) virtual machine in order to play around with various O/S in a contained environment. I have no desire to spend $200 for Windows 8.1 if I can't use its VM. That is money I don't have to waste that could be better spent elsehwere or at least saved for a rainy day. I assumed that my cpu would support Microsoft's VM because the output from coreinfo said Hypervisor is present and that it supports hardware assisted virtualization. I presumed hypervisor was Hyper-V. The alternative I'considered was to switch to some variant of 64-bit Linux; I'm not married to Windows but have so much software that runs under it that it seemed reasonable to stay with MS. I'll contact AMD about the CPU and Hyper-V and perhaps get a response from them. John |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Win 8 vs 8.1 64 bit System Requirements
Paul wrote:
Yes wrote: Thanks. I'll have to check the BIOS like you suggest. I'm almost 100% certain I'll be buying the Win 8.1 Pro 64-bit Retail O/S edition. From what I've read my mobo does not support UEFI but will otherwise run Windows 8.1. Also from what I've read, the main reason I might want UEFI would be for the BitLocker app, but I don't see any great loss if I can't use BitLocker, if only because I am the only one who uses my pc and only I have physical access to it. My main interest is using Hyper Visor (virtual machines). I've never gotten comfortable using VMBox nor the drain it seems to put on my pc. I'm hoping that Hyper Visor will offer a better experience. John For what it's worth, I was disappointed when Hyper-V refused to install on my machine. It turned out, Hyper-V on a Windows 8 desktop, requires SLAT, or second level address translation. It has something to do with keeping game performance high on a desktop. It's considered unimportant on a "server motherboard", because server administrators don't do graphics stuff like that on their machine. So SLAT is not required on the server version of Hyper-V. I think a Core i7 has SLAT. There are desktop processors that will accept a Hyper-V installation. In this Core i7 description, the important line is the EPT one. http://ark.intel.com/products/75123/...90-GHz?q=4770k "Intel VT-x with Extended Page Tables (EPT): Yes" The EPT is the Intel name for SLAT. And RVI is the AMD name for SLAT. If you have either of those on a desktop computer and have Windows 8, you get to use Hyper-V. My CPU isn't good enough. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...ss_Translation Paul After my earlier reply to you, I found this page on the AMD web site: AMD Processors with Rapid Virtualization Indexing Required to Run Hyper-V in Windows® 8 http://support.amd.com/en-us/kb-arti...yperVWin8.aspx My CPU is listed on there - AMD Athlon II X3 Series of Products, processor code name Rana, CPUID family 10h So it would seem that I can run Hyper-V; that would be a relief. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Win 8 vs 8.1 64 bit System Requirements
Yes wrote:
After my earlier reply to you, I found this page on the AMD web site: AMD Processors with Rapid Virtualization Indexing Required to Run Hyper-V in Windows 8 http://support.amd.com/en-us/kb-arti...yperVWin8.aspx My CPU is listed on there - AMD Athlon II X3 Series of Products, processor code name Rana, CPUID family 10h So it would seem that I can run Hyper-V; that would be a relief. I seem to be bad at picking CPUs. This is the second time I've gotten screwed on hardware features :-( I got no warning about it either, from the Upgrade Assistant. Paul |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Win 8 vs 8.1 64 bit System Requirements
generic name wrote:
On 2013-10-29, ...winston wrote: Alias wrote: On 10/29/2013 1:21 AM, ...winston wrote: Even today, one doesn't own Windows, just the right to use it. Yeah, but you don't have to pay for that right every month you use it. That's good. Let's hope tomorrow keeps the dream alive. Though I'm not sure I'd bet on that horse. g I would prefer a fed "recall" program as in product recalls for any problems or bugs. Never mind the excuse of "millions of lines of code so it can't be fixed. "Consumer Reports" claim that the Ford Fusion is #26 of the 28 lowest reliability cars based on Ford's info/navigation screen; read long ago that the underlying software is based on windows, by microsoft. Fyi... 26 out of 28 is the ranking for Ford Motor Company's entire product line and not based solely on MyTouch(Info/Nav system) e.g. underpowered EcoBoost engine, gas mileage (advertised at 47 but only testing at 37-39) and other features with poor ratings generated the 26th ranking of 28 car brands. -- ...winston msft mvp consumer apps |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|