Window Vista 64 Bit Question??

I recently bought a new PC with Vista Home Premium pre-installed (it was the
32 bit version). I was thinking about installing Vista Home Premium 64 bit
instead. I went to Microsoft's update web site to order a 64 bit version of
Vista at a discounted price. I followed the directions and was told to type
the product code for Vista, which I found that on the PC itself. When I
submitted the the form it said my version was not qualified. My question is,
do I have to pay full retail price for the 64 bit version of Vista Home
Premium and why can't my pre-installed version qualify for the discounted
price or is this only for the ones bought off the store shelves.

-Thanks-

--
Mad Mike

Since Vista 64 is less stable and less compatible with a wide variety of
programs then Vista 32, as well as lacking drivers for many peripherals, if
you insist on getting Vista 64 install it as a dual boot option with Vista
32.
However you would be better off installing XP in a dual boot setup so you
can get work done in XP and fiddle with Vista when you have nothing else to
do and want to wonder what Microsoft was thinking when they said that turkey
could fly.
In any event, realizing what a semi-disaster Vista has been in the upgrade
market, as opposed to being forced out on OEM retail boxes, Microsoft has
lowered the price of retail Vista upgrades. Not to what Vista is actually
worth--Microsoft should pay consumers to take copies of Vista off their
hands.
I think the same programmers who forgot to convert feet to meters and
crashed a Mars probe a few years ago were the lead coders on the Vista
project for Microsoft.

Unfortunately it isn't applicable to OEM versions. You may be able to get
your oem to make the swap, but most don't. You can buy an oem version
yourself for less than retail versions. Please do your research and make
sure you have a good knowledge of the difficulties you will have with the
64-bit version. Drivers, some software and no benefits unless you are going
to use native 64-bit programs and have more than 4 gig memory.

"Mad Mike" <> wrote in message
news:sHCyj.10789$...
>I recently bought a new PC with Vista Home Premium pre-installed (it was
>the 32 bit version). I was thinking about installing Vista Home Premium 64
>bit instead. I went to Microsoft's update web site to order a 64 bit
>version of Vista at a discounted price. I followed the directions and was
>told to type the product code for Vista, which I found that on the PC
>itself. When I submitted the the form it said my version was not qualified.
>My question is, do I have to pay full retail price for the 64 bit version
>of Vista Home Premium and why can't my pre-installed version qualify for
>the discounted price or is this only for the ones bought off the store
>shelves.
>
> -Thanks-
>
> --
> Mad Mike

Are you sure your motherboard will support 64 bit?
"Mad Mike" <> wrote in message
news:sHCyj.10789$...
>I recently bought a new PC with Vista Home Premium pre-installed (it was
>the 32 bit version). I was thinking about installing Vista Home Premium 64
>bit instead. I went to Microsoft's update web site to order a 64 bit
>version of Vista at a discounted price. I followed the directions and was
>told to type the product code for Vista, which I found that on the PC
>itself. When I submitted the the form it said my version was not qualified.
>My question is, do I have to pay full retail price for the 64 bit version
>of Vista Home Premium and why can't my pre-installed version qualify for
>the discounted price or is this only for the ones bought off the store
>shelves.
>
> -Thanks-
>
> --
> Mad Mike

Motherboard is FOXCONN NFORCE 590 SLI with AND ATHLON 64 x2

--
Mad Mike
"Charlie" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Are you sure your motherboard will support 64 bit?
> "Mad Mike" <> wrote in message
> news:sHCyj.10789$...
>>I recently bought a new PC with Vista Home Premium pre-installed (it was
>>the 32 bit version). I was thinking about installing Vista Home Premium 64
>>bit instead. I went to Microsoft's update web site to order a 64 bit
>>version of Vista at a discounted price. I followed the directions and was
>>told to type the product code for Vista, which I found that on the PC
>>itself. When I submitted the the form it said my version was not
>>qualified. My question is, do I have to pay full retail price for the 64
>>bit version of Vista Home Premium and why can't my pre-installed version
>>qualify for the discounted price or is this only for the ones bought off
>>the store shelves.
>>
>> -Thanks-
>>
>> --
>> Mad Mike
>
>

"flambe" wrote:

> Since Vista 64 is less stable and less compatible with a wide variety of
> programs then Vista 32, as well as lacking drivers for many peripherals, if
> you insist on getting Vista 64 install it as a dual boot option with Vista
> 32.
> However you would be better off installing XP in a dual boot setup so you
> can get work done in XP and fiddle with Vista when you have nothing else to
> do and want to wonder what Microsoft was thinking when they said that turkey
> could fly.
> In any event, realizing what a semi-disaster Vista has been in the upgrade
> market, as opposed to being forced out on OEM retail boxes, Microsoft has
> lowered the price of retail Vista upgrades. Not to what Vista is actually
> worth--Microsoft should pay consumers to take copies of Vista off their
> hands.
> I think the same programmers who forgot to convert feet to meters and
> crashed a Mars probe a few years ago were the lead coders on the Vista
> project for Microsoft.
>

Instead of picking each bit of misinformation apart I'll simply say almost
all of that is untrue. What might be accurate in it is a guess since we don't
know the OP's specifics.

I'm running x64 (which seems to be common with people who post solutions in
the technical forums) and have no problems with drivers or compatibility. As
it has been said so many times, if there is an issue with a driver or
third-party application you should contact that manufacturer for a resolution
or compatible version.

ultimate 64 here....all is well

"PNutts" <> wrote in message
news:287EF0F9-3EB2-4BD4-9481-...
> "flambe" wrote:
>
>> Since Vista 64 is less stable and less compatible with a wide variety of
>> programs then Vista 32, as well as lacking drivers for many peripherals,
>> if
>> you insist on getting Vista 64 install it as a dual boot option with
>> Vista
>> 32.
>> However you would be better off installing XP in a dual boot setup so you
>> can get work done in XP and fiddle with Vista when you have nothing else
>> to
>> do and want to wonder what Microsoft was thinking when they said that
>> turkey
>> could fly.
>> In any event, realizing what a semi-disaster Vista has been in the
>> upgrade
>> market, as opposed to being forced out on OEM retail boxes, Microsoft has
>> lowered the price of retail Vista upgrades. Not to what Vista is actually
>> worth--Microsoft should pay consumers to take copies of Vista off their
>> hands.
>> I think the same programmers who forgot to convert feet to meters and
>> crashed a Mars probe a few years ago were the lead coders on the Vista
>> project for Microsoft.
>>
>
> Instead of picking each bit of misinformation apart I'll simply say almost
> all of that is untrue. What might be accurate in it is a guess since we
> don't
> know the OP's specifics.
>
> I'm running x64 (which seems to be common with people who post solutions
> in
> the technical forums) and have no problems with drivers or compatibility.
> As
> it has been said so many times, if there is an issue with a driver or
> third-party application you should contact that manufacturer for a
> resolution
> or compatible version.

There is no significant advantage to installing a 64-bit version unless one
of two conditions is met. Either you need to support more than 4GB of RAM,
or you have programs that require 64-bit support. In every other case it's
best to stay with the 32-bit Windows versions. There are more drivers
available and less compatibility issues that way.

--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User]
* NEW! Catch my blog ... http://msmvps.com/blogs/rgharper/
* PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
* The Website - http://rgharper.mvps.org/


"Mad Mike" <> wrote in message
news:sHCyj.10789$...
>I recently bought a new PC with Vista Home Premium pre-installed (it was
>the 32 bit version). I was thinking about installing Vista Home Premium 64
>bit instead. I went to Microsoft's update web site to order a 64 bit
>version of Vista at a discounted price. I followed the directions and was
>told to type the product code for Vista, which I found that on the PC
>itself. When I submitted the the form it said my version was not qualified.
>My question is, do I have to pay full retail price for the 64 bit version
>of Vista Home Premium and why can't my pre-installed version qualify for
>the discounted price or is this only for the ones bought off the store
>shelves.
>
> -Thanks-
>
> --
> Mad Mike

I have been using 64-bit since beta XP64 days, and have selected hardware
and software carefully to assure compatibility. That said, there is a lot
of hardware and software that is fairly recent that doesn't support 64-bit.
Microsoft Thumbprint Reader was a disappointment when there was no external
evidence that it would not work until the install program. My wife's 32-bit
version is happy. Most will see no benefit. Nice for techies but a useless
hassle for most home users.

"That Guy" <> wrote in message
news:%rFyj.17548$ et...
> ultimate 64 here....all is well
>
> "PNutts" <> wrote in message
> news:287EF0F9-3EB2-4BD4-9481-...
>> "flambe" wrote:
>>
>>> Since Vista 64 is less stable and less compatible with a wide variety of
>>> programs then Vista 32, as well as lacking drivers for many peripherals,
>>> if
>>> you insist on getting Vista 64 install it as a dual boot option with
>>> Vista
>>> 32.
>>> However you would be better off installing XP in a dual boot setup so
>>> you
>>> can get work done in XP and fiddle with Vista when you have nothing else
>>> to
>>> do and want to wonder what Microsoft was thinking when they said that
>>> turkey
>>> could fly.
>>> In any event, realizing what a semi-disaster Vista has been in the
>>> upgrade
>>> market, as opposed to being forced out on OEM retail boxes, Microsoft
>>> has
>>> lowered the price of retail Vista upgrades. Not to what Vista is
>>> actually
>>> worth--Microsoft should pay consumers to take copies of Vista off their
>>> hands.
>>> I think the same programmers who forgot to convert feet to meters and
>>> crashed a Mars probe a few years ago were the lead coders on the Vista
>>> project for Microsoft.
>>>
>>
>> Instead of picking each bit of misinformation apart I'll simply say
>> almost
>> all of that is untrue. What might be accurate in it is a guess since we
>> don't
>> know the OP's specifics.
>>
>> I'm running x64 (which seems to be common with people who post solutions
>> in
>> the technical forums) and have no problems with drivers or compatibility.
>> As
>> it has been said so many times, if there is an issue with a driver or
>> third-party application you should contact that manufacturer for a
>> resolution
>> or compatible version.
>

Ouch! I see the Fingerprint Reader on the list below as 32 bit only:
http://www.microsoft.com/hardware/wi...a/support.mspx

"John Barnes" wrote:

> I have been using 64-bit since beta XP64 days, and have selected hardware
> and software carefully to assure compatibility. That said, there is a lot
> of hardware and software that is fairly recent that doesn't support 64-bit.
> Microsoft Thumbprint Reader was a disappointment when there was no external
> evidence that it would not work until the install program. My wife's 32-bit
> version is happy. Most will see no benefit. Nice for techies but a useless
> hassle for most home users.
>
> "That Guy" <> wrote in message
> news:%rFyj.17548$ et...
> > ultimate 64 here....all is well
> >
> > "PNutts" <> wrote in message
> > news:287EF0F9-3EB2-4BD4-9481-...
> >> "flambe" wrote:
> >>
> >>> Since Vista 64 is less stable and less compatible with a wide variety of
> >>> programs then Vista 32, as well as lacking drivers for many peripherals,
> >>> if
> >>> you insist on getting Vista 64 install it as a dual boot option with
> >>> Vista
> >>> 32.
> >>> However you would be better off installing XP in a dual boot setup so
> >>> you
> >>> can get work done in XP and fiddle with Vista when you have nothing else
> >>> to
> >>> do and want to wonder what Microsoft was thinking when they said that
> >>> turkey
> >>> could fly.
> >>> In any event, realizing what a semi-disaster Vista has been in the
> >>> upgrade
> >>> market, as opposed to being forced out on OEM retail boxes, Microsoft
> >>> has
> >>> lowered the price of retail Vista upgrades. Not to what Vista is
> >>> actually
> >>> worth--Microsoft should pay consumers to take copies of Vista off their
> >>> hands.
> >>> I think the same programmers who forgot to convert feet to meters and
> >>> crashed a Mars probe a few years ago were the lead coders on the Vista
> >>> project for Microsoft.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Instead of picking each bit of misinformation apart I'll simply say
> >> almost
> >> all of that is untrue. What might be accurate in it is a guess since we
> >> don't
> >> know the OP's specifics.
> >>
> >> I'm running x64 (which seems to be common with people who post solutions
> >> in
> >> the technical forums) and have no problems with drivers or compatibility.
> >> As
> >> it has been said so many times, if there is an issue with a driver or
> >> third-party application you should contact that manufacturer for a
> >> resolution
> >> or compatible version.
> >
>
>