32 bit and 64 bit Vista and XP

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

I have installed 64 bit Vista on a computer and find that various programs do
not function well or at all in the 64 bit Vista environment. In addition some
hardware does not have drivers for 64 bit Vista. Can I install a 32 bit
version of Vista or XP on a computer with a 64 bit processor. I understand
XP and Vista can coexist on a computer if installed in different partitions.
I've also seen that you cannot install a 64 bit operating system on a
computer with a 32 bit processor. However, I can't find any info on whether
the 32 bit version can be installed on a computer with a 64 bit processor.
Are the processors backward compatible?
 
Skip said:
I have installed 64 bit Vista on a computer and find that various programs
do
not function well or at all in the 64 bit Vista environment. In addition
some
hardware does not have drivers for 64 bit Vista. Can I install a 32 bit
version of Vista or XP on a computer with a 64 bit processor. I
understand
XP and Vista can coexist on a computer if installed in different
partitions.
I've also seen that you cannot install a 64 bit operating system on a
computer with a 32 bit processor. However, I can't find any info on
whether
the 32 bit version can be installed on a computer with a 64 bit processor.
Are the processors backward compatible?
Click to expand...

Yes you install the 32-bit INSTEAD of the 64-bit (you cannot run both side
by side as that is a breach of the license EULA section 2.c)
 
Mike:

Thanks. You will note the same question twice due to the error message I
received when I posted the first.

Skip
 
Mike,

Since it's Friday - I have to take you to task on this one......

The EULA states (p 2c.)

" Alternative Versions. The software may include more than one version, such as 32-bit and 64-bit. You may use only one version at one time."

Now since he has the 64 bit version, that means he has the Ultimate license - and that's important to note because of the licensing differences. You can run the 32 bit and 64 bit versions on the same device and at the same time according to the EULA under "Additional License Terms" for Vista Ultimate if running with Virtualization Technologies (Para 6).

Nothing in the EULA say's you can't have both versions installed and the activation process (by design) allows you to install all the variants you want to evaluate for a period of up to 120 days (rearm). Technically, both of these can be activated since they're on the same hardware but activating the second version requires a phone call.

When I installed both versions to test, I activated the 64 bit version first. After a week, I found that all the drivers and programs that I wanted to run were not ready yet. Loaded up the 32 bit version, called MS, told them why I needed to activate and what my configuration was (multi-boot) and that's when they pointed out that I could - as long as I only used one at a time - unless I was using virtual mode and then I could run both at the same time per the EULA.

Articles I've read also indicated this was the case but were aimed more at the pirating aspects of the licensing model (it allows a way for pirating....). See Windows Secrets site for several of the articles and links to others.

Now is this all legal? Keep the words "licensed device", "per copy" and "at one time". All ambiguous terms and certainly open to interpretation by the lawyers and I'm sure those terms will be challenged more than once.

In this case, the "licensed device" is the same for both versions, "one copy" is one copy of 32 bit and one copy of 64 bit - they come on separate DVD's. "At one time" is a normal multi-boot configuration and you are only running one version at a time except if you're in virtual mode - which then is also allowed by the EULA for Vista Ultimate.

The above is not my interpretations but opinions being published on the net by a number of well known authors - some of who even got legal advice before publishing articles. Some of the above may be out of context but the point being, MS by design allows the operation to be done and does not have anything in the EULA that states it can't.

I'm certainly not advocating anyone do anything illegal but read the EULA and the news - and make your own determinations. MS has changed the EULA several times and has relaxed some earlier restrictions but yet the above wording remains the same. After my testing and evaluation, I will pick the version to keep on my system (32 bit it looks like now) and shelve the other until the software and drivers catch up. I'm not a developer so I don't need to keep both versions but there certainly are valid reasons for having both the 32 and 64 bit versions on the same computer - along with WinXP, Linux and maybe even some earlier versions of Windows.

So while the wording sounds tough - I think MS knew exactly what they were doing in choosing the right words for the Eula's and to allow the flexibility the developers and OEM's need. Using an undocumented feature is not illegal....



Bob S.
 
Not correct. It can only be installed on one partition or blade. See
below.
INSTALLATION AND USE RIGHTS. Before you use the software under a license,
you must
assign that license to one device (physical hardware system). That device is
the “licensed device.â€
A hardware partition or blade is considered to be a separate device.






Mike,

Since it's Friday - I have to take you to task on this one......

The EULA states (p 2c.)

" Alternative Versions. The software may include more than one version, such
as 32-bit and 64-bit. You may use only one version at one time."
Now since he has the 64 bit version, that means he has the Ultimate
license - and that's important to note because of the licensing differences.
You can run the 32 bit and 64 bit versions on the same device and at the
same time according to the EULA under "Additional License Terms" for Vista
Ultimate if running with Virtualization Technologies (Para 6).
Nothing in the EULA say's you can't have both versions installed and the
activation process (by design) allows you to install all the variants you
want to evaluate for a period of up to 120 days (rearm). Technically, both
of these can be activated since they're on the same hardware but activating
the second version requires a phone call.
When I installed both versions to test, I activated the 64 bit version
first. After a week, I found that all the drivers and programs that I
wanted to run were not ready yet. Loaded up the 32 bit version, called MS,
told them why I needed to activate and what my configuration was
(multi-boot) and that's when they pointed out that I could - as long as I
only used one at a time - unless I was using virtual mode and then I could
run both at the same time per the EULA.
Articles I've read also indicated this was the case but were aimed more at
the pirating aspects of the licensing model (it allows a way for
pirating....). See Windows Secrets site for several of the articles and
links to others.
Now is this all legal? Keep the words "licensed device", "per copy" and "at
one time". All ambiguous terms and certainly open to interpretation by the
lawyers and I'm sure those terms will be challenged more than once.
In this case, the "licensed device" is the same for both versions, "one
copy" is one copy of 32 bit and one copy of 64 bit - they come on separate
DVD's. "At one time" is a normal multi-boot configuration and you are only
running one version at a time except if you're in virtual mode - which then
is also allowed by the EULA for Vista Ultimate.
The above is not my interpretations but opinions being published on the net
by a number of well known authors - some of who even got legal advice before
publishing articles. Some of the above may be out of context but the point
being, MS by design allows the operation to be done and does not have
anything in the EULA that states it can't.
I'm certainly not advocating anyone do anything illegal but read the EULA
and the news - and make your own determinations. MS has changed the EULA
several times and has relaxed some earlier restrictions but yet the above
wording remains the same. After my testing and evaluation, I will pick the
version to keep on my system (32 bit it looks like now) and shelve the other
until the software and drivers catch up. I'm not a developer so I don't
need to keep both versions but there certainly are valid reasons for having
both the 32 and 64 bit versions on the same computer - along with WinXP,
Linux and maybe even some earlier versions of Windows.
So while the wording sounds tough - I think MS knew exactly what they were
doing in choosing the right words for the Eula's and to allow the
flexibility the developers and OEM's need. Using an undocumented feature is
not illegal....

Bob S.
 
John,

I knew someone would point that out and your thinking is that a hardware
partition is a hard drive partition. It's not - by definition. A hardware
partition or a blade, has it's "own" processor.

Blades are individual servers in a common chassis as hardware partitions are
individual PC's (cards with their own processors) in a common chassis. This
is the MS definition - not mine.

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/dhp.mspx

As I said - ambiguous wording or well thought out? They know what they're
doing and chose the words carefully.

Bob S.
 
There is no Vista server. Your article is totally not applicable to either
this poster or this product.
 
John,

Boy are you touchy. You said I was wrong, I simply pointed out what the
EULA states for Vista Ultimate and the wording - plus MS own definitions and
you say it is not applicable. John, have you ever even heard or seen a
hardware partition setup (multiple PC's in a common chassis) - or understand
what it is? These are typically workstation configurations in businesses -
look the term up. I made no reference to a Vista server either but the MS
reference does speak to both so I think you were confused. Next time I'll
find a simpler explanation for you to understand.

If you're going to say someone is wrong - then back it up with proof. I
wasn't looking for a fight or to embarrass you but people asking for advice
here expect it to be somewhere near the truth at least. I didn't conjure
any of my responses up out of mid-air. I gave you site references and then
also included the Microsoft definitions and URL's so someone like yourself
could look them up if you wanted.

Now either post your proof and state why these statements from MS are
wrong/incorrect/misunderstood or at least acknowledge that perhaps you
misunderstood. I doubt you'll do either based on your responses so far.

When you give advice - do make sure you have your facts straight and if you
are giving an opinion, at least inform us that it's just that - and not
fact.

Bob S.


John Barnes said:
There is no Vista server. Your article is totally not applicable to
either this poster or this product.
Click to expand...
 
Back
Top