Vista - Switching from x64 back to x86 with an upgrade pk

This is the last batch of upgrade experiments (for now). This one is all
about reverting from 64bits to 32 bits using a Vista Home Premium x86
upgrade edition product key. There are some mystifying results this time.

I installed XP Pro x64 on a single drive system with 512MB. I then
installed Office 2003 pro. Finally I launched Vista Setup x86 from the XP
Pro x64 desktop and performed a custom installation using a VHP UE pk.

To follow this it helps to know a little about the folder structure of x64
Windows. Native x64 software is installed in the "Program Files" folder and
x86 software, like Office, is installed in the "Program Files (x86)" folder.
This is the reverse of what some new users of 64bit Windows expect, but we
x64 users get used to it. The point is that a 32bit version of Windows
should not have a Program Files (x86) folder, just a Program Files folder.
The custom installed VHP x86 has both folders!

I don't know whether this stuff is supposed to be rolled up into windows.old
and just wasn't or if it is expected behavior. It is consistent, though,
because I reproduced it to make sure. Whatever, this is NOT the equivalent
of a clean install. The executibles are nowhere to be found, windows.old or
otherwise, but the folders contain dll's and other small system files. Some
stuff is in the windows.old folder and some stuff is not.

Does this copy of VHP run OK? Seems to. Do I trust it? Uh, uh. Not until
I hear a reasonable explanation of why I should want my computer this way.

I suggest users not try an x86 to x64 custom installation. I suggest
reverting to a clean install of W2k or XP x86 and before upgrading with
Vista x86.

(I tried a couple of times to include an attachment, but the messages are
not showing up on the server.)

They've always fixed the servers when they've gone fssst, bchrl, ptchush
in the past. Not immediately, but generally it does get done eventually.

"Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst@msn.com> wrote in message news:2F0CA6DD-BACC-40F1-94FA-C5620FA567A4@microsoft.com...
> (I tried a couple of times to include an attachment, but the messages are
> not showing up on the server.)
>

Very odd. Thanks again Colin.

"Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst@msn.com> wrote

> This is the last batch of upgrade experiments (for now). This one is all
> about reverting from 64bits to 32 bits using a Vista Home Premium x86
> upgrade edition product key. There are some mystifying results this time.
>
> I installed XP Pro x64 on a single drive system with 512MB. I then
> installed Office 2003 pro. Finally I launched Vista Setup x86 from the XP
> Pro x64 desktop and performed a custom installation using a VHP UE pk.
>
> To follow this it helps to know a little about the folder structure of x64
> Windows. Native x64 software is installed in the "Program Files" folder
> and
> x86 software, like Office, is installed in the "Program Files (x86)"
> folder.
> This is the reverse of what some new users of 64bit Windows expect, but we
> x64 users get used to it. The point is that a 32bit version of Windows
> should not have a Program Files (x86) folder, just a Program Files folder.
> The custom installed VHP x86 has both folders!
>
> I don't know whether this stuff is supposed to be rolled up into
> windows.old and just wasn't or if it is expected behavior. It is
> consistent, though, because I reproduced it to make sure. Whatever, this
> is NOT the equivalent of a clean install. The executibles are nowhere to
> be found, windows.old or otherwise, but the folders contain dll's and
> other small system files. Some stuff is in the windows.old folder and
> some stuff is not.
>
> Does this copy of VHP run OK? Seems to. Do I trust it? Uh, uh. Not
> until I hear a reasonable explanation of why I should want my computer
> this way.
>
> I suggest users not try an x86 to x64 custom installation. I suggest
> reverting to a clean install of W2k or XP x86 and before upgrading with
> Vista x86.
>
> (I tried a couple of times to include an attachment, but the messages are
> not showing up on the server.)

--
Rock [MVP - User/Shell]

Colin, do you mean "I suggest users not try an x64 to x86 custom
installation." instead of "I suggest users not try an x86 to x64 custom
installation." ?

--
Jane, not plain 64 bit enabled :-)
Batteries not included. Braincell on vacation ;-)
"Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst@msn.com> wrote in message
news:2F0CA6DD-BACC-40F1-94FA-C5620FA567A4@microsoft.com...
> This is the last batch of upgrade experiments (for now). This one is all
> about reverting from 64bits to 32 bits using a Vista Home Premium x86
> upgrade edition product key. There are some mystifying results this time.
>
> I installed XP Pro x64 on a single drive system with 512MB. I then
> installed Office 2003 pro. Finally I launched Vista Setup x86 from the XP
> Pro x64 desktop and performed a custom installation using a VHP UE pk.
>
> To follow this it helps to know a little about the folder structure of x64
> Windows. Native x64 software is installed in the "Program Files" folder
> and
> x86 software, like Office, is installed in the "Program Files (x86)"
> folder.
> This is the reverse of what some new users of 64bit Windows expect, but we
> x64 users get used to it. The point is that a 32bit version of Windows
> should not have a Program Files (x86) folder, just a Program Files folder.
> The custom installed VHP x86 has both folders!
>
> I don't know whether this stuff is supposed to be rolled up into
> windows.old and just wasn't or if it is expected behavior. It is
> consistent, though, because I reproduced it to make sure. Whatever, this
> is NOT the equivalent of a clean install. The executibles are nowhere to
> be found, windows.old or otherwise, but the folders contain dll's and
> other small system files. Some stuff is in the windows.old folder and
> some stuff is not.
>
> Does this copy of VHP run OK? Seems to. Do I trust it? Uh, uh. Not
> until I hear a reasonable explanation of why I should want my computer
> this way.
>
> I suggest users not try an x86 to x64 custom installation. I suggest
> reverting to a clean install of W2k or XP x86 and before upgrading with
> Vista x86.
>
> (I tried a couple of times to include an attachment, but the messages are
> not showing up on the server.)

Yeah. Tell 'em to hold off for more info on x64 to x86 custom installs, or
at least have a backup plan. What I think I'd tell them to do if they
haven't installed at all is do an unactivated install of x86 and image it.
Then use a custom install to switch to x64 and not activate until they
decide whether or not they like x64. If they don't like x64 then restore
the x86 image and activate rather than do a custom install of x86 over x64.
I don't know the impacts of the strange setup I keep getting with these
scenarios. Hopefully someone will figure out that there is no big deal.

"Jane C" <jellybean@NOSPAMxjgarage.org> wrote in message
newsD81789F-D676-47DF-A373-0C192003A98D@microsoft.com...
> Colin, do you mean "I suggest users not try an x64 to x86 custom
> installation." instead of "I suggest users not try an x86 to x64 custom
> installation." ?
>
> --
> Jane, not plain 64 bit enabled :-)
> Batteries not included. Braincell on vacation ;-)
> "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:2F0CA6DD-BACC-40F1-94FA-C5620FA567A4@microsoft.com...
>> This is the last batch of upgrade experiments (for now). This one is all
>> about reverting from 64bits to 32 bits using a Vista Home Premium x86
>> upgrade edition product key. There are some mystifying results this
>> time.
>>
>> I installed XP Pro x64 on a single drive system with 512MB. I then
>> installed Office 2003 pro. Finally I launched Vista Setup x86 from the
>> XP
>> Pro x64 desktop and performed a custom installation using a VHP UE pk.
>>
>> To follow this it helps to know a little about the folder structure of
>> x64
>> Windows. Native x64 software is installed in the "Program Files" folder
>> and
>> x86 software, like Office, is installed in the "Program Files (x86)"
>> folder.
>> This is the reverse of what some new users of 64bit Windows expect, but
>> we
>> x64 users get used to it. The point is that a 32bit version of Windows
>> should not have a Program Files (x86) folder, just a Program Files
>> folder. The custom installed VHP x86 has both folders!
>>
>> I don't know whether this stuff is supposed to be rolled up into
>> windows.old and just wasn't or if it is expected behavior. It is
>> consistent, though, because I reproduced it to make sure. Whatever, this
>> is NOT the equivalent of a clean install. The executibles are nowhere to
>> be found, windows.old or otherwise, but the folders contain dll's and
>> other small system files. Some stuff is in the windows.old folder and
>> some stuff is not.
>>
>> Does this copy of VHP run OK? Seems to. Do I trust it? Uh, uh. Not
>> until I hear a reasonable explanation of why I should want my computer
>> this way.
>>
>> I suggest users not try an x86 to x64 custom installation. I suggest
>> reverting to a clean install of W2k or XP x86 and before upgrading with
>> Vista x86.
>>
>> (I tried a couple of times to include an attachment, but the messages are
>> not showing up on the server.)
>