|
|
I had the 64bit installed - it has since been removed, have the key written
down safely.
Now I found reason and space to try out the 32bit (different machine) can I
use the same key now? The machine where the ISO's are stored (and the
e-mails with the keys) is not currently in use. Moreover, the 32bit may be a
coaster, may have to try the Beta2, but I only have the one key at hand -
can it be reused for this purpose?
I vaguely remember those keys remaining the same through the Beta versions -
is that correct? As a sidenote, I do have TechNet's Download offers
available are they still living and functional?
TIA!
Tony. . .
|
|
The key was supposed to be able to be used for up to 10 installs, however, I
was unable to reuse my key even when it was still in RC1. The same key was
usable for both 32 and 64 bit versions of both beta2 and RC1 at one point.
"Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling[ at ]dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
news:uf5LJqYhHHA.4368[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] >I had the 64bit installed - it has since been removed, have the key written
> down safely.
>
> Now I found reason and space to try out the 32bit (different machine) can
> I
> use the same key now? The machine where the ISO's are stored (and the
> e-mails with the keys) is not currently in use. Moreover, the 32bit may be
> a
> coaster, may have to try the Beta2, but I only have the one key at hand -
> can it be reused for this purpose?
>
> I vaguely remember those keys remaining the same through the Beta
> versions -
> is that correct? As a sidenote, I do have TechNet's Download offers
> available are they still living and functional?
>
> TIA!
>
>
> Tony. . .
>
>
|
|
Tony - The same key works for both 64bit and 32bit, but both are no longer
legal - license to use all beta copies expires with the full availability of
the released product, if I remember correctly.
You can, however, use any RTM version to install for 30 days without a key
at all.
--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
"Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling[ at ]dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
news:uf5LJqYhHHA.4368[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] >I had the 64bit installed - it has since been removed, have the key written
> down safely.
>
> Now I found reason and space to try out the 32bit (different machine) can
> I
> use the same key now? The machine where the ISO's are stored (and the
> e-mails with the keys) is not currently in use. Moreover, the 32bit may be
> a
> coaster, may have to try the Beta2, but I only have the one key at hand -
> can it be reused for this purpose?
>
> I vaguely remember those keys remaining the same through the Beta
> versions -
> is that correct? As a sidenote, I do have TechNet's Download offers
> available are they still living and functional?
>
> TIA!
>
>
> Tony. . .
>
>
|
|
I checked the information that came in my RC1 box, and I can find no
restriction except the expiration date of June 01, 2007. Of course there is
the appropriate use admonition that it is only to be used for testing.
"Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie[ at ]mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in message
news:144FD35F-182D-441E-AD73-6C77C3D70B67[ at ]microsoft.com...
[Quoted Text] > Tony - The same key works for both 64bit and 32bit, but both are no longer > legal - license to use all beta copies expires with the full availability > of the released product, if I remember correctly. > > You can, however, use any RTM version to install for 30 days without a key > at all. > > -- > Charlie. > http://msmvps.com/xperts64> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel> > > "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling[ at ]dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message > news:uf5LJqYhHHA.4368[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >>I had the 64bit installed - it has since been removed, have the key >>written >> down safely. >> >> Now I found reason and space to try out the 32bit (different machine) can >> I >> use the same key now? The machine where the ISO's are stored (and the >> e-mails with the keys) is not currently in use. Moreover, the 32bit may >> be a >> coaster, may have to try the Beta2, but I only have the one key at hand - >> can it be reused for this purpose? >> >> I vaguely remember those keys remaining the same through the Beta >> versions - >> is that correct? As a sidenote, I do have TechNet's Download offers >> available are they still living and functional? >> >> TIA! >> >> >> Tony. . . >> >> >
|
|
I am quite sure that I will take advantage of the chance to legaly upgrade
my retail Win2K Pro, so I will try it out, all in all I should find a
suitable target machine within that time-frame, and right or wrong I don't
expect the Software Asso. . .(who's that on the door, now?)
Tony. . .
P.S.
Thanks John, Charlie.
-------------------------
"John Barnes" <jbarnes[ at ]email.net> wrote in message
news:%23ZwLDhchHHA.4368[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > I checked the information that came in my RC1 box, and I can find no
> restriction except the expiration date of June 01, 2007. Of course there
is
> the appropriate use admonition that it is only to be used for testing.
>
> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie[ at ]mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in message
> news:144FD35F-182D-441E-AD73-6C77C3D70B67[ at ]microsoft.com...
> > Tony - The same key works for both 64bit and 32bit, but both are no
longer
> > legal - license to use all beta copies expires with the full
availability
> > of the released product, if I remember correctly.
> >
> > You can, however, use any RTM version to install for 30 days without a
key
> > at all.
> >
> > --
> > Charlie.
> > http://msmvps.com/xperts64
> > http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
> >
> >
> > "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling[ at ]dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
> > news:uf5LJqYhHHA.4368[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> >>I had the 64bit installed - it has since been removed, have the key
> >>written
> >> down safely.
> >>
> >> Now I found reason and space to try out the 32bit (different machine)
can
> >> I
> >> use the same key now? The machine where the ISO's are stored (and the
> >> e-mails with the keys) is not currently in use. Moreover, the 32bit may
> >> be a
> >> coaster, may have to try the Beta2, but I only have the one key at
hand -
> >> can it be reused for this purpose?
> >>
> >> I vaguely remember those keys remaining the same through the Beta
> >> versions -
> >> is that correct? As a sidenote, I do have TechNet's Download offers
> >> available are they still living and functional?
> >>
> >> TIA!
> >>
> >>
> >> Tony. . .
> >>
> >>
> >
>
|
|
In any case - whatever it is that has expired or not, the key is not
accepted for any of the versions any longer.
Tony. . .
"Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling[ at ]dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
news:egCRBzdhHHA.4588[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > I am quite sure that I will take advantage of the chance to legaly upgrade
> my retail Win2K Pro, so I will try it out, all in all I should find a
> suitable target machine within that time-frame, and right or wrong I don't
> expect the Software Asso. . .(who's that on the door, now?)
>
>
> Tony. . .
>
> P.S.
>
> Thanks John, Charlie.
> -------------------------
>
>
>
> "John Barnes" <jbarnes[ at ]email.net> wrote in message
> news:%23ZwLDhchHHA.4368[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> > I checked the information that came in my RC1 box, and I can find no
> > restriction except the expiration date of June 01, 2007. Of course
there
> is
> > the appropriate use admonition that it is only to be used for testing.
> >
> > "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie[ at ]mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in
message
> > news:144FD35F-182D-441E-AD73-6C77C3D70B67[ at ]microsoft.com...
> > > Tony - The same key works for both 64bit and 32bit, but both are no
> longer
> > > legal - license to use all beta copies expires with the full
> availability
> > > of the released product, if I remember correctly.
> > >
> > > You can, however, use any RTM version to install for 30 days without a
> key
> > > at all.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Charlie.
> > > http://msmvps.com/xperts64
> > > http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
> > >
> > >
> > > "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling[ at ]dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
> > > news:uf5LJqYhHHA.4368[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> > >>I had the 64bit installed - it has since been removed, have the key
> > >>written
> > >> down safely.
> > >>
> > >> Now I found reason and space to try out the 32bit (different machine)
> can
> > >> I
> > >> use the same key now? The machine where the ISO's are stored (and the
> > >> e-mails with the keys) is not currently in use. Moreover, the 32bit
may
> > >> be a
> > >> coaster, may have to try the Beta2, but I only have the one key at
> hand -
> > >> can it be reused for this purpose?
> > >>
> > >> I vaguely remember those keys remaining the same through the Beta
> > >> versions -
> > >> is that correct? As a sidenote, I do have TechNet's Download offers
> > >> available are they still living and functional?
> > >>
> > >> TIA!
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Tony. . .
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
>
|
|
It would appear they are restricting new and re-installations, but seem fine
with continued use of the previous installs. If they wanted to, with the
constant 'phone home' calls that Vista makes, they could disable them
quickly if they wanted to.
"Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling[ at ]dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
news:%23KPeTHmhHHA.3452[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > In any case - whatever it is that has expired or not, the key is not > accepted for any of the versions any longer. > > > Tony. . . > > > "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling[ at ]dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message > news:egCRBzdhHHA.4588[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >> I am quite sure that I will take advantage of the chance to legaly >> upgrade >> my retail Win2K Pro, so I will try it out, all in all I should find a >> suitable target machine within that time-frame, and right or wrong I >> don't >> expect the Software Asso. . .(who's that on the door, now?) >> >> >> Tony. . . >> >> P.S. >> >> Thanks John, Charlie. >> ------------------------- >> >> >> >> "John Barnes" <jbarnes[ at ]email.net> wrote in message >> news:%23ZwLDhchHHA.4368[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >> > I checked the information that came in my RC1 box, and I can find no >> > restriction except the expiration date of June 01, 2007. Of course > there >> is >> > the appropriate use admonition that it is only to be used for testing. >> > >> > "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie[ at ]mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in > message >> > news:144FD35F-182D-441E-AD73-6C77C3D70B67[ at ]microsoft.com... >> > > Tony - The same key works for both 64bit and 32bit, but both are no >> longer >> > > legal - license to use all beta copies expires with the full >> availability >> > > of the released product, if I remember correctly. >> > > >> > > You can, however, use any RTM version to install for 30 days without >> > > a >> key >> > > at all. >> > > >> > > -- >> > > Charlie. >> > > http://msmvps.com/xperts64>> > > http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel>> > > >> > > >> > > "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling[ at ]dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message >> > > news:uf5LJqYhHHA.4368[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >> > >>I had the 64bit installed - it has since been removed, have the key >> > >>written >> > >> down safely. >> > >> >> > >> Now I found reason and space to try out the 32bit (different >> > >> machine) >> can >> > >> I >> > >> use the same key now? The machine where the ISO's are stored (and >> > >> the >> > >> e-mails with the keys) is not currently in use. Moreover, the 32bit > may >> > >> be a >> > >> coaster, may have to try the Beta2, but I only have the one key at >> hand - >> > >> can it be reused for this purpose? >> > >> >> > >> I vaguely remember those keys remaining the same through the Beta >> > >> versions - >> > >> is that correct? As a sidenote, I do have TechNet's Download offers >> > >> available are they still living and functional? >> > >> >> > >> TIA! >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> Tony. . . >> > >> >> > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > >
|
|
Yes, it would seem so. But I'm not complaining - I wasn't ready for Vista,
it was too big a change in the midst of everything else that was going
around here. After the relative painless and extremely agreeable contact
with XP x64, I thought it would be a walk in the park. Now, I must make a
decision without the chance to snoop on it.
Right now, it feels like I'll be scraping the bare necessities off my fine
old Win2K (Athlon XP 2400+) and relegate it to a pure Linux job, then have
32bit Vista upgrade Win2K on the AMD FX-62 machine - keep XP x64 (naturally)
and stop all testing there, have it do some real work!
Then, perhaps I can revive the old Athlon 64 3000+ and have that one as a
test bed, it has just been sitting there for the last six months and I just
found out it has developed some really strange behavior. I think I will look
for a 939 MB and rebuild it from scratch - it was a good machine and I think
it deserves it.
("the plans of mice and men. . .") But thanks, anyhow!
Tony. . .
"John Barnes" <jbarnes[ at ]email.net> wrote in message
news:O2bAaTmhHHA.4904[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > It would appear they are restricting new and re-installations, but seem
fine
> with continued use of the previous installs. If they wanted to, with the
> constant 'phone home' calls that Vista makes, they could disable them
> quickly if they wanted to.
>
> "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling[ at ]dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
> news:%23KPeTHmhHHA.3452[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> > In any case - whatever it is that has expired or not, the key is not
> > accepted for any of the versions any longer.
> >
> >
> > Tony. . .
> >
> >
> > "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling[ at ]dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
> > news:egCRBzdhHHA.4588[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> >> I am quite sure that I will take advantage of the chance to legaly
> >> upgrade
> >> my retail Win2K Pro, so I will try it out, all in all I should find a
> >> suitable target machine within that time-frame, and right or wrong I
> >> don't
> >> expect the Software Asso. . .(who's that on the door, now?)
> >>
> >>
> >> Tony. . .
> >>
> >> P.S.
> >>
> >> Thanks John, Charlie.
> >> -------------------------
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "John Barnes" <jbarnes[ at ]email.net> wrote in message
> >> news:%23ZwLDhchHHA.4368[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> >> > I checked the information that came in my RC1 box, and I can find no
> >> > restriction except the expiration date of June 01, 2007. Of course
> > there
> >> is
> >> > the appropriate use admonition that it is only to be used for
testing.
> >> >
> >> > "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie[ at ]mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in
> > message
> >> > news:144FD35F-182D-441E-AD73-6C77C3D70B67[ at ]microsoft.com...
> >> > > Tony - The same key works for both 64bit and 32bit, but both are no
> >> longer
> >> > > legal - license to use all beta copies expires with the full
> >> availability
> >> > > of the released product, if I remember correctly.
> >> > >
> >> > > You can, however, use any RTM version to install for 30 days
without
> >> > > a
> >> key
> >> > > at all.
> >> > >
> >> > > --
> >> > > Charlie.
> >> > > http://msmvps.com/xperts64
> >> > > http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling[ at ]dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
> >> > > news:uf5LJqYhHHA.4368[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> >> > >>I had the 64bit installed - it has since been removed, have the key
> >> > >>written
> >> > >> down safely.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Now I found reason and space to try out the 32bit (different
> >> > >> machine)
> >> can
> >> > >> I
> >> > >> use the same key now? The machine where the ISO's are stored (and
> >> > >> the
> >> > >> e-mails with the keys) is not currently in use. Moreover, the
32bit
> > may
> >> > >> be a
> >> > >> coaster, may have to try the Beta2, but I only have the one key at
> >> hand -
> >> > >> can it be reused for this purpose?
> >> > >>
> >> > >> I vaguely remember those keys remaining the same through the Beta
> >> > >> versions -
> >> > >> is that correct? As a sidenote, I do have TechNet's Download
offers
> >> > >> available are they still living and functional?
> >> > >>
> >> > >> TIA!
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Tony. . .
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
|
|
The problem with 939 mobos at this point is that it's getting hard to find
CPUs for them that aren't way overpriced. And RAM is already in short supply
as well - everyone is now moving to DDR2. I've got some existing 939 boxes,
but won't be building any new ones. I just bought a small footprint 939 mobo
to take the last of the food chain components to build a Windows Home Server
test box. But so far, no joy on being able to run what I need there, so it
may get pure XP x64 or Vista x64 and TiVo Desktop on it. Be the media server
for home, with several older 100-300 GB drives in it.
--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
"Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling[ at ]dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
news:edF8Y4mhHHA.3472[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > Yes, it would seem so. But I'm not complaining - I wasn't ready for Vista, > it was too big a change in the midst of everything else that was going > around here. After the relative painless and extremely agreeable contact > with XP x64, I thought it would be a walk in the park. Now, I must make a > decision without the chance to snoop on it. > > Right now, it feels like I'll be scraping the bare necessities off my fine > old Win2K (Athlon XP 2400+) and relegate it to a pure Linux job, then have > 32bit Vista upgrade Win2K on the AMD FX-62 machine - keep XP x64 > (naturally) > and stop all testing there, have it do some real work! > > Then, perhaps I can revive the old Athlon 64 3000+ and have that one as a > test bed, it has just been sitting there for the last six months and I > just > found out it has developed some really strange behavior. I think I will > look > for a 939 MB and rebuild it from scratch - it was a good machine and I > think > it deserves it. > > ("the plans of mice and men. . .") But thanks, anyhow! > > > Tony. . . > > > "John Barnes" <jbarnes[ at ]email.net> wrote in message > news:O2bAaTmhHHA.4904[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >> It would appear they are restricting new and re-installations, but seem > fine >> with continued use of the previous installs. If they wanted to, with the >> constant 'phone home' calls that Vista makes, they could disable them >> quickly if they wanted to. >> >> "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling[ at ]dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message >> news:%23KPeTHmhHHA.3452[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> > In any case - whatever it is that has expired or not, the key is not >> > accepted for any of the versions any longer. >> > >> > >> > Tony. . . >> > >> > >> > "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling[ at ]dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message >> > news:egCRBzdhHHA.4588[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >> >> I am quite sure that I will take advantage of the chance to legaly >> >> upgrade >> >> my retail Win2K Pro, so I will try it out, all in all I should find a >> >> suitable target machine within that time-frame, and right or wrong I >> >> don't >> >> expect the Software Asso. . .(who's that on the door, now?) >> >> >> >> >> >> Tony. . . >> >> >> >> P.S. >> >> >> >> Thanks John, Charlie. >> >> ------------------------- >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> "John Barnes" <jbarnes[ at ]email.net> wrote in message >> >> news:%23ZwLDhchHHA.4368[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >> >> > I checked the information that came in my RC1 box, and I can find no >> >> > restriction except the expiration date of June 01, 2007. Of course >> > there >> >> is >> >> > the appropriate use admonition that it is only to be used for > testing. >> >> > >> >> > "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie[ at ]mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in >> > message >> >> > news:144FD35F-182D-441E-AD73-6C77C3D70B67[ at ]microsoft.com... >> >> > > Tony - The same key works for both 64bit and 32bit, but both are >> >> > > no >> >> longer >> >> > > legal - license to use all beta copies expires with the full >> >> availability >> >> > > of the released product, if I remember correctly. >> >> > > >> >> > > You can, however, use any RTM version to install for 30 days > without >> >> > > a >> >> key >> >> > > at all. >> >> > > >> >> > > -- >> >> > > Charlie. >> >> > > http://msmvps.com/xperts64>> >> > > http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel>> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling[ at ]dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message >> >> > > news:uf5LJqYhHHA.4368[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >> >> > >>I had the 64bit installed - it has since been removed, have the >> >> > >>key >> >> > >>written >> >> > >> down safely. >> >> > >> >> >> > >> Now I found reason and space to try out the 32bit (different >> >> > >> machine) >> >> can >> >> > >> I >> >> > >> use the same key now? The machine where the ISO's are stored (and >> >> > >> the >> >> > >> e-mails with the keys) is not currently in use. Moreover, the > 32bit >> > may >> >> > >> be a >> >> > >> coaster, may have to try the Beta2, but I only have the one key >> >> > >> at >> >> hand - >> >> > >> can it be reused for this purpose? >> >> > >> >> >> > >> I vaguely remember those keys remaining the same through the Beta >> >> > >> versions - >> >> > >> is that correct? As a sidenote, I do have TechNet's Download > offers >> >> > >> available are they still living and functional? >> >> > >> >> >> > >> TIA! >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> Tony. . . >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >
|
|
With the 3500+ that I had, Vista was always having tasks hanging when I
needed it for work (XP64 ran great). I moved to a 5200+ and works great
now. I also did what Charlie is mentioning, I changed to an AM2 board and
DDR2 memory. I had already made the move to all SATA and PCIe video cards
last time. Many newer boards only have one dual channel IDE connection but
support 6-10 SATA connections to handle the SATA CD/DVD hardware and HDs.
"Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling[ at ]dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
news:edF8Y4mhHHA.3472[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > Yes, it would seem so. But I'm not complaining - I wasn't ready for Vista, > it was too big a change in the midst of everything else that was going > around here. After the relative painless and extremely agreeable contact > with XP x64, I thought it would be a walk in the park. Now, I must make a > decision without the chance to snoop on it. > > Right now, it feels like I'll be scraping the bare necessities off my fine > old Win2K (Athlon XP 2400+) and relegate it to a pure Linux job, then have > 32bit Vista upgrade Win2K on the AMD FX-62 machine - keep XP x64 > (naturally) > and stop all testing there, have it do some real work! > > Then, perhaps I can revive the old Athlon 64 3000+ and have that one as a > test bed, it has just been sitting there for the last six months and I > just > found out it has developed some really strange behavior. I think I will > look > for a 939 MB and rebuild it from scratch - it was a good machine and I > think > it deserves it. > > ("the plans of mice and men. . .") But thanks, anyhow! > > > Tony. . . > > > "John Barnes" <jbarnes[ at ]email.net> wrote in message > news:O2bAaTmhHHA.4904[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >> It would appear they are restricting new and re-installations, but seem > fine >> with continued use of the previous installs. If they wanted to, with the >> constant 'phone home' calls that Vista makes, they could disable them >> quickly if they wanted to. >> >> "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling[ at ]dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message >> news:%23KPeTHmhHHA.3452[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> > In any case - whatever it is that has expired or not, the key is not >> > accepted for any of the versions any longer. >> > >> > >> > Tony. . . >> > >> > >> > "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling[ at ]dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message >> > news:egCRBzdhHHA.4588[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >> >> I am quite sure that I will take advantage of the chance to legaly >> >> upgrade >> >> my retail Win2K Pro, so I will try it out, all in all I should find a >> >> suitable target machine within that time-frame, and right or wrong I >> >> don't >> >> expect the Software Asso. . .(who's that on the door, now?) >> >> >> >> >> >> Tony. . . >> >> >> >> P.S. >> >> >> >> Thanks John, Charlie. >> >> ------------------------- >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> "John Barnes" <jbarnes[ at ]email.net> wrote in message >> >> news:%23ZwLDhchHHA.4368[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >> >> > I checked the information that came in my RC1 box, and I can find no >> >> > restriction except the expiration date of June 01, 2007. Of course >> > there >> >> is >> >> > the appropriate use admonition that it is only to be used for > testing. >> >> > >> >> > "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie[ at ]mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in >> > message >> >> > news:144FD35F-182D-441E-AD73-6C77C3D70B67[ at ]microsoft.com... >> >> > > Tony - The same key works for both 64bit and 32bit, but both are >> >> > > no >> >> longer >> >> > > legal - license to use all beta copies expires with the full >> >> availability >> >> > > of the released product, if I remember correctly. >> >> > > >> >> > > You can, however, use any RTM version to install for 30 days > without >> >> > > a >> >> key >> >> > > at all. >> >> > > >> >> > > -- >> >> > > Charlie. >> >> > > http://msmvps.com/xperts64>> >> > > http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel>> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling[ at ]dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message >> >> > > news:uf5LJqYhHHA.4368[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >> >> > >>I had the 64bit installed - it has since been removed, have the >> >> > >>key >> >> > >>written >> >> > >> down safely. >> >> > >> >> >> > >> Now I found reason and space to try out the 32bit (different >> >> > >> machine) >> >> can >> >> > >> I >> >> > >> use the same key now? The machine where the ISO's are stored (and >> >> > >> the >> >> > >> e-mails with the keys) is not currently in use. Moreover, the > 32bit >> > may >> >> > >> be a >> >> > >> coaster, may have to try the Beta2, but I only have the one key >> >> > >> at >> >> hand - >> >> > >> can it be reused for this purpose? >> >> > >> >> >> > >> I vaguely remember those keys remaining the same through the Beta >> >> > >> versions - >> >> > >> is that correct? As a sidenote, I do have TechNet's Download > offers >> >> > >> available are they still living and functional? >> >> > >> >> >> > >> TIA! >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> Tony. . . >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >
|
|
Luckily, though, the Athlon XP 64 3000+ that is currently in a 754 socket,
should fit well in a 939 - I have had numerous indications at least, that it
will. I understand that the entire family of sockets from around that time
are all 940 pins that are wired differently, and only the AM2 is a 940 pin
with a different pinout. Had I been better informed at the time, I would
have bought a 939 from the start, I don't think I am going to have any
trouble from keeping the board I have, but it does look like a fairly cheap
way to extend it's life and extract a bit of extra performance. All the rest
of the 'good' stuff I have in the AM2 FX-62 at the moment, but I want to
stop using all my dual and tripple booting machines as test-beds on
rotation, have one full time work-horse and a couple of funnies.
Tony. . .
"Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie[ at ]mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in message
news:375542CD-A0B3-4113-A8F3-238DC36F8EA8[ at ]microsoft.com...
[Quoted Text] > The problem with 939 mobos at this point is that it's getting hard to find
> CPUs for them that aren't way overpriced. And RAM is already in short
supply
> as well - everyone is now moving to DDR2. I've got some existing 939
boxes,
> but won't be building any new ones. I just bought a small footprint 939
mobo
> to take the last of the food chain components to build a Windows Home
Server
> test box. But so far, no joy on being able to run what I need there, so it
> may get pure XP x64 or Vista x64 and TiVo Desktop on it. Be the media
server
> for home, with several older 100-300 GB drives in it.
>
> --
|
|
I agree, the AM2 is really great. It's like somebody just found the
light-switch. That is the reason why a perfectly functioning machine saw
early retirement. And the reason why I want to revive it with the smallest
amount of cost and effort - I would never go ahead and build such a thing
from scratch today. I must have expressed myself vaguely there, I simply
ment that moving everything else over onto a new board is the same work
process as when building from scratch.
Tony. . .
"John Barnes" <jbarnes[ at ]email.net> wrote in message
news:ejsno0nhHHA.4980[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > With the 3500+ that I had, Vista was always having tasks hanging when I
> needed it for work (XP64 ran great). I moved to a 5200+ and works great
> now. I also did what Charlie is mentioning, I changed to an AM2 board and
> DDR2 memory. I had already made the move to all SATA and PCIe video cards
> last time. Many newer boards only have one dual channel IDE connection
but
> support 6-10 SATA connections to handle the SATA CD/DVD hardware and HDs.
>
|
|
Hi,
> Luckily, though, the Athlon XP 64 3000+ that is currently in a 754
>socket, should fit well in a 939 - I have had numerous indications
>at least, that it will....
Sorry, but this is *NOT* the case.... :-(
I read your comment with a great deal of interest as I have a socket 939
motherboard lying around waiting for a processor, and a spare socket 754
processor. :-) I just gave it a go, but the processor simply won't fit; I
wasn't too surprised as my information was that it was a no-go anyway.
>....I understand that the entire family of sockets from around that time
>are all 940 pins that are wired differently, and only the AM2 is a 940
>pin with a different pinout....
Originally, socket 940 was used only by the Opteron processors, though I
*think* the early Athlon FXs might have used it too?
AMD changed from socket 754 to socket 939 mainly because s754 doesn't
support dual channel memory. I don't know if there're any other differences
between them?
Socket AM2 is a slight variation on socket 939. The reason for this is that
sAM2 processors use DDR2 memory, whereas s939 processors use DDR(1). Again,
I'm not aware of any other differences between them.
> Had I been better informed at the time, I would
>have bought a 939 from the start....
You and me both, I'm waiting for the dual core s939 processors to drop in
price a little bit more before I get one.
TTFN - Pete.
|
|
Don't hold your breath. They will likely go up in price, not down. :(
--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
"Ensor" <none[ at ]localhost> wrote in message
news:3PKdnRCRHICXPLPbRVnyuwA[ at ]brightview.com...
[Quoted Text] > Hi,
>
> > Luckily, though, the Athlon XP 64 3000+ that is currently in a 754
> >socket, should fit well in a 939 - I have had numerous indications
> >at least, that it will....
>
> Sorry, but this is *NOT* the case.... :-(
>
> I read your comment with a great deal of interest as I have a socket 939
> motherboard lying around waiting for a processor, and a spare socket 754
> processor. :-) I just gave it a go, but the processor simply won't fit; I
> wasn't too surprised as my information was that it was a no-go anyway.
>
> >....I understand that the entire family of sockets from around that time
> >are all 940 pins that are wired differently, and only the AM2 is a 940
> >pin with a different pinout....
>
> Originally, socket 940 was used only by the Opteron processors, though I
> *think* the early Athlon FXs might have used it too?
>
> AMD changed from socket 754 to socket 939 mainly because s754 doesn't
> support dual channel memory. I don't know if there're any other
> differences between them?
>
> Socket AM2 is a slight variation on socket 939. The reason for this is
> that sAM2 processors use DDR2 memory, whereas s939 processors use DDR(1).
> Again, I'm not aware of any other differences between them.
>
>
> > Had I been better informed at the time, I would
> >have bought a 939 from the start....
>
> You and me both, I'm waiting for the dual core s939 processors to drop in
> price a little bit more before I get one.
>
>
> TTFN - Pete.
>
>
|
|
Sorry to disappoint you, tony, but it won't work. Even if it would fit,
which it won't, it wouldn't work. They are different electrically.
--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
"Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling[ at ]dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
news:%2385h8VqhHHA.4588[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > Luckily, though, the Athlon XP 64 3000+ that is currently in a 754 socket,
> should fit well in a 939 - I have had numerous indications at least, that
> it
> will. I understand that the entire family of sockets from around that time
> are all 940 pins that are wired differently, and only the AM2 is a 940 pin
> with a different pinout. Had I been better informed at the time, I would
> have bought a 939 from the start, I don't think I am going to have any
> trouble from keeping the board I have, but it does look like a fairly
> cheap
> way to extend it's life and extract a bit of extra performance. All the
> rest
> of the 'good' stuff I have in the AM2 FX-62 at the moment, but I want to
> stop using all my dual and tripple booting machines as test-beds on
> rotation, have one full time work-horse and a couple of funnies.
>
>
> Tony. . .
>
>
> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie[ at ]mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in message
> news:375542CD-A0B3-4113-A8F3-238DC36F8EA8[ at ]microsoft.com...
>> The problem with 939 mobos at this point is that it's getting hard to
>> find
>> CPUs for them that aren't way overpriced. And RAM is already in short
> supply
>> as well - everyone is now moving to DDR2. I've got some existing 939
> boxes,
>> but won't be building any new ones. I just bought a small footprint 939
> mobo
>> to take the last of the food chain components to build a Windows Home
> Server
>> test box. But so far, no joy on being able to run what I need there, so
>> it
>> may get pure XP x64 or Vista x64 and TiVo Desktop on it. Be the media
> server
>> for home, with several older 100-300 GB drives in it.
>>
>> --
>
>
|
|
Oh well - far better to be wrong AND disappointed, than having made a bad
investment. So I'm stuck with the Asrock - which has been amazingly good
anyway really, and I'll be benefiting from the continued use of a rather
good AGP card to boot.
Wrong, is alright too! But anybody know where the misinformation comes from?
When I bought it it was widely described as being upgradeable, and Sandra
sticks a note to it being upgradeable to 939. Is there a Generation
difference specifically with the XP 64 3000+?
Tony. . .
"Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie[ at ]mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in message
news:uFmUViuhHHA.4880[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > Sorry to disappoint you, tony, but it won't work. Even if it would fit, > which it won't, it wouldn't work. They are different electrically. > > -- > Charlie. > http://msmvps.com/xperts64> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel> > > "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling[ at ]dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message > news:%2385h8VqhHHA.4588[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > > Luckily, though, the Athlon XP 64 3000+ that is currently in a 754
> > should fit well in a 939 - I have had numerous indications at least,
that
> > it
> > will. I understand that the entire family of sockets from around that
time
> > are all 940 pins that are wired differently, and only the AM2 is a 940
pin
> > with a different pinout. Had I been better informed at the time, I would
> > have bought a 939 from the start, I don't think I am going to have any
> > trouble from keeping the board I have, but it does look like a fairly
> > cheap
> > way to extend it's life and extract a bit of extra performance. All the
> > rest
> > of the 'good' stuff I have in the AM2 FX-62 at the moment, but I want to
> > stop using all my dual and tripple booting machines as test-beds on
> > rotation, have one full time work-horse and a couple of funnies.
> >
> >
> > Tony. . .
> >
> >
> > "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie[ at ]mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in
message
> > news:375542CD-A0B3-4113-A8F3-238DC36F8EA8[ at ]microsoft.com...
> >> The problem with 939 mobos at this point is that it's getting hard to
> >> find
> >> CPUs for them that aren't way overpriced. And RAM is already in short
> > supply
> >> as well - everyone is now moving to DDR2. I've got some existing 939
> > boxes,
> >> but won't be building any new ones. I just bought a small footprint 939
> > mobo
> >> to take the last of the food chain components to build a Windows Home
> > Server
> >> test box. But so far, no joy on being able to run what I need there, so
> >> it
> >> may get pure XP x64 or Vista x64 and TiVo Desktop on it. Be the media
> > server
> >> for home, with several older 100-300 GB drives in it.
> >>
> >> --
> >
> >
>
|
|
Which Asrock board do you have? Some Asrock boards can be upgraded to later
processors with an add-on board in a special slot. See
http://www.asrock.com/mb/index.asp?s=n for product details.
"Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling[ at ]dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
news:eeABRDxhHHA.4296[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > Oh well - far better to be wrong AND disappointed, than having made a bad > investment. So I'm stuck with the Asrock - which has been amazingly good > anyway really, and I'll be benefiting from the continued use of a rather > good AGP card to boot. > > Wrong, is alright too! But anybody know where the misinformation comes > from? > When I bought it it was widely described as being upgradeable, and Sandra > sticks a note to it being upgradeable to 939. Is there a Generation > difference specifically with the XP 64 3000+? > > > Tony. . . > > > "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie[ at ]mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in message > news:uFmUViuhHHA.4880[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> Sorry to disappoint you, tony, but it won't work. Even if it would fit, >> which it won't, it wouldn't work. They are different electrically. >> >> -- >> Charlie. >> http://msmvps.com/xperts64>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel>> >> >> "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling[ at ]dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message >> news:%2385h8VqhHHA.4588[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >> > Luckily, though, the Athlon XP 64 3000+ that is currently in a 754 > socket, >> > should fit well in a 939 - I have had numerous indications at least, > that >> > it >> > will. I understand that the entire family of sockets from around that > time >> > are all 940 pins that are wired differently, and only the AM2 is a 940 > pin >> > with a different pinout. Had I been better informed at the time, I >> > would >> > have bought a 939 from the start, I don't think I am going to have any >> > trouble from keeping the board I have, but it does look like a fairly >> > cheap >> > way to extend it's life and extract a bit of extra performance. All the >> > rest >> > of the 'good' stuff I have in the AM2 FX-62 at the moment, but I want >> > to >> > stop using all my dual and tripple booting machines as test-beds on >> > rotation, have one full time work-horse and a couple of funnies. >> > >> > >> > Tony. . . >> > >> > >> > "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie[ at ]mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in > message >> > news:375542CD-A0B3-4113-A8F3-238DC36F8EA8[ at ]microsoft.com... >> >> The problem with 939 mobos at this point is that it's getting hard to >> >> find >> >> CPUs for them that aren't way overpriced. And RAM is already in short >> > supply >> >> as well - everyone is now moving to DDR2. I've got some existing 939 >> > boxes, >> >> but won't be building any new ones. I just bought a small footprint >> >> 939 >> > mobo >> >> to take the last of the food chain components to build a Windows Home >> > Server >> >> test box. But so far, no joy on being able to run what I need there, >> >> so >> >> it >> >> may get pure XP x64 or Vista x64 and TiVo Desktop on it. Be the media >> > server >> >> for home, with several older 100-300 GB drives in it. >> >> >> >> -- >> > >> > >> > >
|
|
As Dennis says - if it's asrock, they have some upgradeable boards - but you
need a special add-on board/card to do it. I'm not sure the result would
make sense financially, frankly, but it is possible.
--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
"Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling[ at ]dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
news:eeABRDxhHHA.4296[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > Oh well - far better to be wrong AND disappointed, than having made a bad > investment. So I'm stuck with the Asrock - which has been amazingly good > anyway really, and I'll be benefiting from the continued use of a rather > good AGP card to boot. > > Wrong, is alright too! But anybody know where the misinformation comes > from? > When I bought it it was widely described as being upgradeable, and Sandra > sticks a note to it being upgradeable to 939. Is there a Generation > difference specifically with the XP 64 3000+? > > > Tony. . . > > > "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie[ at ]mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in message > news:uFmUViuhHHA.4880[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> Sorry to disappoint you, tony, but it won't work. Even if it would fit, >> which it won't, it wouldn't work. They are different electrically. >> >> -- >> Charlie. >> http://msmvps.com/xperts64>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel>> >> >> "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling[ at ]dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message >> news:%2385h8VqhHHA.4588[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >> > Luckily, though, the Athlon XP 64 3000+ that is currently in a 754 > socket, >> > should fit well in a 939 - I have had numerous indications at least, > that >> > it >> > will. I understand that the entire family of sockets from around that > time >> > are all 940 pins that are wired differently, and only the AM2 is a 940 > pin >> > with a different pinout. Had I been better informed at the time, I >> > would >> > have bought a 939 from the start, I don't think I am going to have any >> > trouble from keeping the board I have, but it does look like a fairly >> > cheap >> > way to extend it's life and extract a bit of extra performance. All the >> > rest >> > of the 'good' stuff I have in the AM2 FX-62 at the moment, but I want >> > to >> > stop using all my dual and tripple booting machines as test-beds on >> > rotation, have one full time work-horse and a couple of funnies. >> > >> > >> > Tony. . . >> > >> > >> > "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie[ at ]mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in > message >> > news:375542CD-A0B3-4113-A8F3-238DC36F8EA8[ at ]microsoft.com... >> >> The problem with 939 mobos at this point is that it's getting hard to >> >> find >> >> CPUs for them that aren't way overpriced. And RAM is already in short >> > supply >> >> as well - everyone is now moving to DDR2. I've got some existing 939 >> > boxes, >> >> but won't be building any new ones. I just bought a small footprint >> >> 939 >> > mobo >> >> to take the last of the food chain components to build a Windows Home >> > Server >> >> test box. But so far, no joy on being able to run what I need there, >> >> so >> >> it >> >> may get pure XP x64 or Vista x64 and TiVo Desktop on it. Be the media >> > server >> >> for home, with several older 100-300 GB drives in it. >> >> >> >> -- >> > >> > >> > >
|
|
Ah, yes - that's right, but it's not one of those I'm affraid (K8SA
something, I believe?) no, Sandra was listing the CPU as fitting a 939
socket, which is a bit puzzling. . .
Tony. . .
"Dominic Payer" <dcp[ at ]fsv.co.uk> wrote in message
news:60F87ED5-E13A-4681-86EA-CD0B5095AD21[ at ]microsoft.com...
[Quoted Text] > Which Asrock board do you have? Some Asrock boards can be upgraded to
later
> processors with an add-on board in a special slot. See
> http://www.asrock.com/mb/index.asp?s=n for product details.
>
>
>
> "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling[ at ]dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
> news:eeABRDxhHHA.4296[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> > Oh well - far better to be wrong AND disappointed, than having made a
bad
> > investment. So I'm stuck with the Asrock - which has been amazingly good
> > anyway really, and I'll be benefiting from the continued use of a rather
> > good AGP card to boot.
> >
> > Wrong, is alright too! But anybody know where the misinformation comes
> > from?
> > When I bought it it was widely described as being upgradeable, and
Sandra
> > sticks a note to it being upgradeable to 939. Is there a Generation
> > difference specifically with the XP 64 3000+?
> >
> >
> > Tony. . .
> >
> >
> > "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie[ at ]mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in
message
> > news:uFmUViuhHHA.4880[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> >> Sorry to disappoint you, tony, but it won't work. Even if it would fit,
> >> which it won't, it wouldn't work. They are different electrically.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Charlie.
> >> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
> >> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
> >>
> >>
> >> "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling[ at ]dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
> >> news:%2385h8VqhHHA.4588[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> >> > Luckily, though, the Athlon XP 64 3000+ that is currently in a 754
> > socket,
> >> > should fit well in a 939 - I have had numerous indications at least,
> > that
> >> > it
> >> > will. I understand that the entire family of sockets from around that
> > time
> >> > are all 940 pins that are wired differently, and only the AM2 is a
940
> > pin
> >> > with a different pinout. Had I been better informed at the time, I
> >> > would
> >> > have bought a 939 from the start, I don't think I am going to have
any
> >> > trouble from keeping the board I have, but it does look like a fairly
> >> > cheap
> >> > way to extend it's life and extract a bit of extra performance. All
the
> >> > rest
> >> > of the 'good' stuff I have in the AM2 FX-62 at the moment, but I want
> >> > to
> >> > stop using all my dual and tripple booting machines as test-beds on
> >> > rotation, have one full time work-horse and a couple of funnies.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Tony. . .
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie[ at ]mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in
> > message
> >> > news:375542CD-A0B3-4113-A8F3-238DC36F8EA8[ at ]microsoft.com...
> >> >> The problem with 939 mobos at this point is that it's getting hard
to
> >> >> find
> >> >> CPUs for them that aren't way overpriced. And RAM is already in
short
> >> > supply
> >> >> as well - everyone is now moving to DDR2. I've got some existing 939
> >> > boxes,
> >> >> but won't be building any new ones. I just bought a small footprint
> >> >> 939
> >> > mobo
> >> >> to take the last of the food chain components to build a Windows
Home
> >> > Server
> >> >> test box. But so far, no joy on being able to run what I need there,
> >> >> so
> >> >> it
> >> >> may get pure XP x64 or Vista x64 and TiVo Desktop on it. Be the
media
> >> > server
> >> >> for home, with several older 100-300 GB drives in it.
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>
|
|
They were called daughterboards, but the only ones that seem to come up now
are the 939 to AM2 boards.
"Dominic Payer" <dcp[ at ]fsv.co.uk> wrote in message
news:60F87ED5-E13A-4681-86EA-CD0B5095AD21[ at ]microsoft.com...
[Quoted Text] > Which Asrock board do you have? Some Asrock boards can be upgraded to > later processors with an add-on board in a special slot. See > http://www.asrock.com/mb/index.asp?s=n for product details. > > > > "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling[ at ]dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message > news:eeABRDxhHHA.4296[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >> Oh well - far better to be wrong AND disappointed, than having made a bad >> investment. So I'm stuck with the Asrock - which has been amazingly good >> anyway really, and I'll be benefiting from the continued use of a rather >> good AGP card to boot. >> >> Wrong, is alright too! But anybody know where the misinformation comes >> from? >> When I bought it it was widely described as being upgradeable, and Sandra >> sticks a note to it being upgradeable to 939. Is there a Generation >> difference specifically with the XP 64 3000+? >> >> >> Tony. . . >> >> >> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie[ at ]mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in message >> news:uFmUViuhHHA.4880[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >>> Sorry to disappoint you, tony, but it won't work. Even if it would fit, >>> which it won't, it wouldn't work. They are different electrically. >>> >>> -- >>> Charlie. >>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64>>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel>>> >>> >>> "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling[ at ]dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message >>> news:%2385h8VqhHHA.4588[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >>> > Luckily, though, the Athlon XP 64 3000+ that is currently in a 754 >> socket, >>> > should fit well in a 939 - I have had numerous indications at least, >> that >>> > it >>> > will. I understand that the entire family of sockets from around that >> time >>> > are all 940 pins that are wired differently, and only the AM2 is a 940 >> pin >>> > with a different pinout. Had I been better informed at the time, I >>> > would >>> > have bought a 939 from the start, I don't think I am going to have any >>> > trouble from keeping the board I have, but it does look like a fairly >>> > cheap >>> > way to extend it's life and extract a bit of extra performance. All >>> > the >>> > rest >>> > of the 'good' stuff I have in the AM2 FX-62 at the moment, but I want >>> > to >>> > stop using all my dual and tripple booting machines as test-beds on >>> > rotation, have one full time work-horse and a couple of funnies. >>> > >>> > >>> > Tony. . . >>> > >>> > >>> > "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie[ at ]mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in >> message >>> > news:375542CD-A0B3-4113-A8F3-238DC36F8EA8[ at ]microsoft.com... >>> >> The problem with 939 mobos at this point is that it's getting hard to >>> >> find >>> >> CPUs for them that aren't way overpriced. And RAM is already in short >>> > supply >>> >> as well - everyone is now moving to DDR2. I've got some existing 939 >>> > boxes, >>> >> but won't be building any new ones. I just bought a small footprint >>> >> 939 >>> > mobo >>> >> to take the last of the food chain components to build a Windows Home >>> > Server >>> >> test box. But so far, no joy on being able to run what I need there, >>> >> so >>> >> it >>> >> may get pure XP x64 or Vista x64 and TiVo Desktop on it. Be the media >>> > server >>> >> for home, with several older 100-300 GB drives in it. >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> > >>> > >>> >> >> >
|
|
Hi,
> Don't hold your breath. They will likely go up in price, not
>down. :(
Dammit, you're right.
Just checked my local supplier's website and they now only list 1 dual core
s939 processor, a month ago they had 7!! :-(
TTFN - Pete.
|
|
Check eBay. You'll find some decent x2 Athlons and Opterons on there that
are 939. Or at least you could a couple of weeks ago.
--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
"Ensor" <none[ at ]localhost> wrote in message
news:pJOdnVFj6fdiv63bRVnytgA[ at ]brightview.com...
[Quoted Text] > Hi,
>
> > Don't hold your breath. They will likely go up in price, not
> >down. :(
>
> Dammit, you're right.
>
> Just checked my local supplier's website and they now only list 1 dual
> core s939 processor, a month ago they had 7!! :-(
>
>
> TTFN - Pete.
>
>
|
|
|