OT - Rant about trying to findi details about versions of Win 8.1 OS

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

I just spent a half hour trying to find details about what the versions
of Win 8.1 are and how they differ and have yet to find a list on their
site of the versions that they publish with details. They love
pictures, as if those explain everything.

I know from looking at NewEgg's site that Microsoft offers two basic
versions - Windows 8.1 and Windows 8.1 Pro and that there are two
flavors - 32-bit and 64-bit. But I seem to recall there was a third
version (I'm not talking about RT).

Last time I narrowed my option down to Windows 8 Professional 64-bit
(Full Version) OEM System Builder. Using MS' search function returned
no usable hits. It's as if it's no longer available. Instead, there's
Microsoft Windows 8.1 Pro - 64-bit - OEM and Microsoft Windows 8.1
Professional. The pricing between these two titles is significant, but
there's no real indication of what one gets, if anything, between the
two titles. I had expected to find that info on MS' web site.

It's just more of the same old MS approach - cryptic and/or
insufficient phrases that are not useful in order to make purchase
decisions.

I suppose I'll have to call up their phone operators to get answers,
which I am not looking forward to.

On 10/18/2013 08:10 AM, Yes wrote:
Microsoft is out of their collective f*** minds.

I just spent a half hour trying to find details about what the versions
of Win 8.1 are and how they differ and have yet to find a list on their
site of the versions that they publish with details. They love
pictures, as if those explain everything.

I know from looking at NewEgg's site that Microsoft offers two basic
versions - Windows 8.1 and Windows 8.1 Pro and that there are two
flavors - 32-bit and 64-bit. But I seem to recall there was a third
version (I'm not talking about RT).

Last time I narrowed my option down to Windows 8 Professional 64-bit
(Full Version) OEM System Builder. Using MS' search function returned
no usable hits. It's as if it's no longer available. Instead, there's
Microsoft Windows 8.1 Pro - 64-bit - OEM and Microsoft Windows 8.1
Professional. The pricing between these two titles is significant, but
there's no real indication of what one gets, if anything, between the
two titles. I had expected to find that info on MS' web site.

It's just more of the same old MS approach - cryptic and/or
insufficient phrases that are not useful in order to make purchase
decisions.

I suppose I'll have to call up their phone operators to get answers,
which I am not looking forward to.




Assuming you have a 64 bit cpu, go with the 64 bit version of Windows by
all means.

With an OEM version, if you ever got a differnt machine, the OS would
/not/ be transferrable.

If you are a home user and would have no need to put the machine on a
domain...then you do not need the "pro" version.

On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 13:10:11 +0000 (UTC), "Yes"
wrote:

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

I just spent a half hour trying to find details about what the versions
of Win 8.1 are and how they differ and have yet to find a list on their
site of the versions that they publish with details. They love
pictures, as if those explain everything.

I know from looking at NewEgg's site that Microsoft offers two basic
versions - Windows 8.1 and Windows 8.1 Pro and that there are two
flavors - 32-bit and 64-bit. But I seem to recall there was a third
version (I'm not talking about RT).

Last time I narrowed my option down to Windows 8 Professional 64-bit
(Full Version) OEM System Builder. Using MS' search function returned
no usable hits. It's as if it's no longer available. Instead, there's
Microsoft Windows 8.1 Pro - 64-bit - OEM and Microsoft Windows 8.1
Professional. The pricing between these two titles is significant, but
there's no real indication of what one gets, if anything, between the
two titles. I had expected to find that info on MS' web site.

It's just more of the same old MS approach - cryptic and/or
insufficient phrases that are not useful in order to make purchase
decisions.

I suppose I'll have to call up their phone operators to get answers,
which I am not looking forward to.

If you expect to need/use the Media Center, you need to buy the Pro
version. Pro is a $70 higher price than the regular Win 8.0. Can be
upgraded later, but if it is known it is needed, buy it immediately.
If the system has an x64 processor, always buy the x64 version. That
allows full use of more memory (4GB and above) and full use of larger
HDDs (over 2TB).

On 10/18/2013 4:04 PM, philo wrote:

With an OEM version, if you ever got a differnt machine, the OS would
/not/ be transferrable.

You mean *may* not be transferable which is stated in an EULA that you
don't get to read until it's too late to get your money back. It can be
done although M$ wouldn't like it but know they can't do jack **** to
stop it.

--
Alias

The only real problems are avarice, anger and stupidity.

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.


@philo, yes, I am a home user, but, no, the regular edition does not
have the features I want. The Pro Edition does.


@jerryab, at present, I haven't decided if I want, need or would use
Media Player if I had it. Under WinXP, the same security settings were
shared by both Windows Media Player and Internet Explorer. I couldn't
stand that because I wanted to use different security settings; the IE
settings being considerably more restrictive. One size does not fit
all. If I changed security settings in one app, I had to go back and
reset them when I used the other - a very big hassle. So I chose to
use a third party app for media and lock down IE. I will be going with
64-bit OS for the reasons you gave - increase the amount of RAM I can
use and to use hard drives larger than 2TB.

On 10/18/2013 10:00 AM, Yes 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.


@philo, yes, I am a home user, but, no, the regular edition does not
have the features I want. The Pro Edition does.



Good idea then.



snip



BTW: I advise using at least 4 gigs of RAM

Wolf K wrote:

And be cautious about 640-bit.

Hell of a typo there. ;-) ...Now I want a 640-bit computer.

--
The only one hundred percent certain way to get rid of a troll is to close
the browser tab. Takes a mouse click. Hard to do though, isn't it?

Wolf K wrote:


Use the MS Upgrade Adviser if you haven't done so already.

And be cautious about 64-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 "64 bit ready", ie, they
emulated 64-bit operation. --- ???

If this were true, they'd be "slower than molasses on
a winter's day".

A processor either supports the 64 bit extensions,
or it does not.

For Intel processors, you can look on ark.intel.com .
This is the listing for my processor. The entry
"Intel 64" says "yes". That means my processor has
both 64 bit and 32 bit instructions. I can install
a 64 bit or 32 bit OS. If the "Intel 64" says no,
then only 32 bit instructions are supported, and only
a 32 bit OS will install. There is no emulation.

http://ark.intel.com/products/33910/...Hz-FSB?q=e8400

For AMD, you look here. http://products.amd.com

http://products.amd.com/en-us/Deskto...il.aspx?id=447

Operating Mode 32 Bit Yes
Operating Mode 64 Bit Yes

AMD leaves no doubt in your mind, as to what is supported.
This is what it shows, when an AMD processor only supports
32 bit instructions (some Sempron processors were made
that way, for reasons unknown). No amount of emulation would
fix this. It would be pointless to fake a 64 bit instruction
extension, as it would be too slow. It would run at about 5%
of the speed of a regular 64 bit processor. Running a 32 bit
OS on this pig, would work fine.

http://products.amd.com/en-us/Deskto...il.aspx?id=167

Operating Mode 32 Bit Yes
Operating Mode 64 Bit No

HTH,
Paul

On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 19:20:33 +0000 (UTC), "Auric__"
wrote:

Wolf K wrote:

And be cautious about 640-bit.

Hell of a typo there. ;-) ...Now I want a 640-bit computer.


You'll never get one. One day there might be a 512-bit computer, and
perhaps even 1024-bit. But not 640-bit. vbg


--
Ken Blake

"Ken Blake" wrote:
"Auric__" wrote:
Wolf K wrote:

And be cautious about 640-bit.

Hell of a typo there. ;-) ...Now I want a 640-bit computer.

You'll never get one. One day there might be a 512-bit computer, and
perhaps even 1024-bit. But not 640-bit. vbg

Maybe he meant "640K"? Nobody would ever need more memory... gd&r

Joe

On 10/18/2013 2:21 PM, 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.

It doesn't relate to this topic, but I think the MS upgrade adviser is a
joke.

Here are the "requirements" for Windows 7 and what a computer of mine
was running just fine with Windows XP Pro SP3 installed.

1 gigahertz (GHz) or faster 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor

Check! Intel Celeron D 331 Prescott 2.66GHz

1 gigabyte (GB) RAM (32-bit) or 2 GB RAM (64-bit)

Check! 2 GBs of RAM

16 GB available hard disk space (32-bit) or 20 GB (64-bit)

Check! 60 GBs of free space on a 80 GB HDD.

DirectX 9 graphics device with WDDM 1.0 or higher driver

Check! Intel GMA 950 graphics

After installing W7 Home it ran like ****. Was slower. Would freeze up
with "program not responding". Boot time took forever - mainly waiting
for the LAN to connect. I ended up disabling a LOT of services, Aero,
and some other stuff just to get it close to what it was while running
Win XP. I never could get it to connect to the internet faster. Would
have the blue circle spinning over the lan/network icon for 20-30
seconds before it would go away and connect.

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.

Yes wrote:

@jerryab, at present, I haven't decided if I want, need or would use
Media Player if I had it. Under WinXP, the same security settings were
shared by both Windows Media Player and Internet Explorer. I couldn't
stand that because I wanted to use different security settings; the IE
settings being considerably more restrictive. One size does not fit
all. If I changed security settings in one app, I had to go back and
reset them when I used the other - a very big hassle. So I chose to
use a third party app for media and lock down IE. I will be going with
64-bit OS for the reasons you gave - increase the amount of RAM I can
use and to use hard drives larger than 2TB.


Media Player is included with Windows 8.
Media Center is not included with Windows 8.

Media Center plays DVD's, Media Player does not.

Media Center is an update and only available for Win8 Pro at a cost of $10.

Installing Media Center (on an OEM or Retail Windows 8 Pro) will change
the license to a retail Windows 8 Pro with Media Center. It will also
change the product key.
- if the system is ever returned via a clean install (or recovery
media) to Win8 Pro pre Media Center and then desired to be updated to
Win8 Pro with Media Center then both product keys may be necessary to
facilitate the clean install (Win 8 Pro) and update (Media Center). The
exception may be OEM recovery media which may or may not require the
original product key.

Since Media Center changes the license...if installing on an OEM machine
and still in warranty...check with them if it nullifies o/s support
during the warranty period.


--
...winston
msft mvp consumer apps

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

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.