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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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