Upgrading to XP64 from XP32
-
Has anyone done this without a format? Successfully?
-
Has anyone done this without a format? Successfully?
I'm almost positive this isn't possible. Your best bet is to use a program like Acronis TrueImage, which allows you to backup an entire drive, and then access the backup as if it's a folder on your hard drive, allowing you to retrieve individual files. Store the backup image on an external (or secondary) drive, and then format/install Windows again. Then, you can get the files you're concerned about off your backup.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
I'm almost positive this isn't possible. Your best bet is to use a program like Acronis TrueImage, which allows you to backup an entire drive, and then access the backup as if it's a folder on your hard drive, allowing you to retrieve individual files. Store the backup image on an external (or secondary) drive, and then format/install Windows again. Then, you can get the files you're concerned about off your backup.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001Yeah, I just thought it could be done without the hassle. Looks like that concept is now alien to MS.
-
I tried, IIRC said something about being impossible due to using an other programming language which doesn't sound like a reason to me (and even untrue, because why would they do that?) - in any case, it didn't want to do it without formating.
harold aptroot wrote:
I tried, IIRC said something about being impossible due to using an other programming language which doesn't sound like a reason to me (and even untrue, because why would they do that?)
WTF? Its a compiler issue, you just compile for 64 bit length words instead of 32. Granted I'd expect there to be specific items and tasks that are 64 bit specific, but those (my assumption) would come in with the copy of the kernel.
harold aptroot wrote:
in any case, it didn't want to do it without formating.
That would be the Windows CD?
-
harold aptroot wrote:
I tried, IIRC said something about being impossible due to using an other programming language which doesn't sound like a reason to me (and even untrue, because why would they do that?)
WTF? Its a compiler issue, you just compile for 64 bit length words instead of 32. Granted I'd expect there to be specific items and tasks that are 64 bit specific, but those (my assumption) would come in with the copy of the kernel.
harold aptroot wrote:
in any case, it didn't want to do it without formating.
That would be the Windows CD?
-
Thought so, that would be the standard MO of that b4st4rd :|
-
Yeah, I just thought it could be done without the hassle. Looks like that concept is now alien to MS.
To look at the positive side... one should always start with an empty disk, so they're just enforcing good practice. :-D
-
To look at the positive side... one should always start with an empty disk, so they're just enforcing good practice. :-D
meh, I've learned to take things from MS with a pinch of salt, a squeeze of lemon and a shot of tequila.
-
Has anyone done this without a format? Successfully?
-
harold aptroot wrote:
I tried, IIRC said something about being impossible due to using an other programming language which doesn't sound like a reason to me (and even untrue, because why would they do that?)
WTF? Its a compiler issue, you just compile for 64 bit length words instead of 32. Granted I'd expect there to be specific items and tasks that are 64 bit specific, but those (my assumption) would come in with the copy of the kernel.
harold aptroot wrote:
in any case, it didn't want to do it without formating.
That would be the Windows CD?
WinXP x64 is based upon the Server 2003 code base which has kernel 5.2 unlike WinXP 32 wich has kernel 5.1 so it isn't just a question of recompiling for 64-bit. That's also the reason why there is no SP3 for WinXP x64. And knowing MS, you better always start with a fresh disk, never try to update one OS with another.
-
Has anyone done this without a format? Successfully?
-
Upgrade? More like downgrade in my experience but whatever makes you happy. :)
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it." -Sam Levenson
Its the SVN "server" I just want to be able to utilize all 4 GB of RAM in addition to the second core :shrug: Its not meant to be the workhorse.
-
Upgrade? More like downgrade in my experience but whatever makes you happy. :)
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it." -Sam Levenson
Really? It hasn't given me much trouble, some installers have to be hacked a little (such as Live Mail..) and shell extensions are usually only installed for the 32bit Explorer which makes them pretty much useless, that's been all.. 16bit programs don't really exist anymore anyway :) It makes CPU bound .NET program about 30% faster if Paint.NET is any indication, which is a nice bonus..
-
Really? It hasn't given me much trouble, some installers have to be hacked a little (such as Live Mail..) and shell extensions are usually only installed for the 32bit Explorer which makes them pretty much useless, that's been all.. 16bit programs don't really exist anymore anyway :) It makes CPU bound .NET program about 30% faster if Paint.NET is any indication, which is a nice bonus..
On it's own, for purpose built systems that absolutely need to run some 64 bit software (and there are really only handful of apps that specialized at this point) it's perfect. Under any other circumstances it's not a good idea at all.
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it." -Sam Levenson
-
Its the SVN "server" I just want to be able to utilize all 4 GB of RAM in addition to the second core :shrug: Its not meant to be the workhorse.
Mustafa Ismail Mustafa wrote:
Its not meant to be the workhorse.
In my personal experience, unless you have a highly specialized 64bit app that you absolutely have to run (the kind that there are only a handful of in the world) there are just no benefits to it at all and many many down sides such as hyper expensive anti virus software, shell issues with every common app you're used to running, many apps despite being advertised as compatible running into glitches here and there and in the end most of the stuff you want to run turns out to not be truly 64bit anyway, just designed to be compatible with WOW as 32 bit emulated apps. Squeezing a few hundred kb of extra ram simply isn't worth it.
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it." -Sam Levenson
-
Mustafa Ismail Mustafa wrote:
Its not meant to be the workhorse.
In my personal experience, unless you have a highly specialized 64bit app that you absolutely have to run (the kind that there are only a handful of in the world) there are just no benefits to it at all and many many down sides such as hyper expensive anti virus software, shell issues with every common app you're used to running, many apps despite being advertised as compatible running into glitches here and there and in the end most of the stuff you want to run turns out to not be truly 64bit anyway, just designed to be compatible with WOW as 32 bit emulated apps. Squeezing a few hundred kb of extra ram simply isn't worth it.
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it." -Sam Levenson
-
Its the SVN "server" I just want to be able to utilize all 4 GB of RAM in addition to the second core :shrug: Its not meant to be the workhorse.
XP32 won't give you 4GB of RAM; it will be between 3.25 and 3.5 GB. (I always thought it was 3.5GB, but a colleague just got a new system and it cut him off at 3.25 for 32-bit.)
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
News to me, I made all the rounds of all the virus scanners a couple of months ago and no one had anything for x64 that wasn't an arm and a leg, I'll have to check again. Cheers!
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it." -Sam Levenson
-
News to me, I made all the rounds of all the virus scanners a couple of months ago and no one had anything for x64 that wasn't an arm and a leg, I'll have to check again. Cheers!
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it." -Sam Levenson
-
Mustafa Ismail Mustafa wrote:
Its not meant to be the workhorse.
In my personal experience, unless you have a highly specialized 64bit app that you absolutely have to run (the kind that there are only a handful of in the world) there are just no benefits to it at all and many many down sides such as hyper expensive anti virus software, shell issues with every common app you're used to running, many apps despite being advertised as compatible running into glitches here and there and in the end most of the stuff you want to run turns out to not be truly 64bit anyway, just designed to be compatible with WOW as 32 bit emulated apps. Squeezing a few hundred kb of extra ram simply isn't worth it.
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it." -Sam Levenson
Is XP64 really that bad? Running Vista64 I've encountered exactly one app that wouldn't work (a drag reordering task bar addin, thankfully a CPian has written a replacement.[^]) and am using avast free without issue.
Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots. -- Robert Royall
