Does anyone know how to choose? Microsoft says only to choose the one most
appropriate for me. Should I install both? I have a Vista home premium
machine 32-bit

Windows6.0-KB917607-x64.msu
611 KB
Download
Windows6.0-KB917607-x86.msu
601 KB

Regards,,
Anthony Giorgianni

For everyone's benefit, please post back to the group

Windows6.0-KB917607-x86.msu

"Anthony Giorgianni" <pleasereply@to.group> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Does anyone know how to choose? Microsoft says only to choose the one most
>appropriate for me. Should I install both? I have a Vista home premium
>machine 32-bit[/color]
[color=blue]
>Windows6.0-KB917607-x64.msu
> 611 KB
> Download
>Windows6.0-KB917607-x86.msu
> 601 KB[/color]

The first one is for the 64-bit version of Vista. You'll need the
second one (-x86).

--
Tim Slattery
MS MVP(Shell/User)
[email]Slattery_T@bls.gov[/email]
[url]http://members.cox.net/slatteryt[/url]

32-bit so x86. Makes perfect sense to me. 86/32=2.6875*(11.906976744=32.) I
see. :O)

and 64-bit so x64. 64=64

Thanks all!

Regards,,
Anthony Giorgianni

For everyone's benefit, please post back to the group
"Tim Slattery" <Slattery_T@bls.gov> wrote in message
news:3svab411ruguc927on4260p73fgns17dp4@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> "Anthony Giorgianni" <pleasereply@to.group> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>Does anyone know how to choose? Microsoft says only to choose the one most
>>appropriate for me. Should I install both? I have a Vista home premium
>>machine 32-bit[/color]
>[color=green]
>>Windows6.0-KB917607-x64.msu
>> 611 KB
>> Download
>>Windows6.0-KB917607-x86.msu
>> 601 KB[/color]
>
> The first one is for the 64-bit version of Vista. You'll need the
> second one (-x86).
>
> --
> Tim Slattery
> MS MVP(Shell/User)
> [email]Slattery_T@bls.gov[/email]
> [url]http://members.cox.net/slatteryt[/url][/color]

"Anthony Giorgianni" <pleasereply@to.group> wrote in message
news:48b58ea0$0$29519$607ed4bc@cv.net...[color=blue]
> 32-bit so x86. Makes perfect sense to me. 86/32=2.6875*(11.906976744=32.)
> I see. :O)
>
> and 64-bit so x64. 64=64
>
> Thanks all!
>
> Regards,,
> Anthony Giorgianni
>
> For everyone's benefit, please post back to the group
> "Tim Slattery" <Slattery_T@bls.gov> wrote in message
> news:3svab411ruguc927on4260p73fgns17dp4@4ax.com...[color=green]
>> "Anthony Giorgianni" <pleasereply@to.group> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>Does anyone know how to choose? Microsoft says only to choose the one
>>>most
>>>appropriate for me. Should I install both? I have a Vista home premium
>>>machine 32-bit[/color]
>>[color=darkred]
>>>Windows6.0-KB917607-x64.msu
>>> 611 KB
>>> Download
>>>Windows6.0-KB917607-x86.msu
>>> 601 KB[/color]
>>
>> The first one is for the 64-bit version of Vista. You'll need the
>> second one (-x86).
>>
>> --
>> Tim Slattery
>> MS MVP(Shell/User)
>> [email]Slattery_T@bls.gov[/email]
>> [url]http://members.cox.net/slatteryt[/url][/color]
>[/color]


'Comes from 8086 8088 i186 i286 i386 and i486. The i586 moniker never
happened as Intel called it the Pentium, instead. The i386 (also called
80386) was the first to sport what is called "32-bit architecture". First to
company to build gets to name:

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I386[/url]

Look to bottom of page for links to the various Intel processors.

Saucy

Thanks for the explainer!

Regards,,
Anthony Giorgianni

For everyone's benefit, please post back to the group
"Saucy" <saucylemon@newsgroup.nospam> wrote in message
news:ezvhjDJCJHA.1632@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> "Anthony Giorgianni" <pleasereply@to.group> wrote in message
> news:48b58ea0$0$29519$607ed4bc@cv.net...[color=green]
>> 32-bit so x86. Makes perfect sense to me. 86/32=2.6875*(11.906976744=32.)
>> I see. :O)
>>
>> and 64-bit so x64. 64=64
>>
>> Thanks all!
>>
>> Regards,,
>> Anthony Giorgianni
>>
>> For everyone's benefit, please post back to the group
>> "Tim Slattery" <Slattery_T@bls.gov> wrote in message
>> news:3svab411ruguc927on4260p73fgns17dp4@4ax.com...[color=darkred]
>>> "Anthony Giorgianni" <pleasereply@to.group> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Does anyone know how to choose? Microsoft says only to choose the one
>>>>most
>>>>appropriate for me. Should I install both? I have a Vista home premium
>>>>machine 32-bit
>>>
>>>>Windows6.0-KB917607-x64.msu
>>>> 611 KB
>>>> Download
>>>>Windows6.0-KB917607-x86.msu
>>>> 601 KB
>>>
>>> The first one is for the 64-bit version of Vista. You'll need the
>>> second one (-x86).
>>>
>>> --
>>> Tim Slattery
>>> MS MVP(Shell/User)
>>> [email]Slattery_T@bls.gov[/email]
>>> [url]http://members.cox.net/slatteryt[/url][/color]
>>[/color]
>
>
> 'Comes from 8086 8088 i186 i286 i386 and i486. The i586 moniker never
> happened as Intel called it the Pentium, instead. The i386 (also called
> 80386) was the first to sport what is called "32-bit architecture". First
> to company to build gets to name:
>
> [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I386[/url]
>
> Look to bottom of page for links to the various Intel processors.
>
> Saucy[/color]

"Saucy" <saucylemon@newsgroup.nospam> wrote in message
news:ezvhjDJCJHA.1632@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...[color=blue][color=green]
>> 32-bit so x86. Makes perfect sense to me. 86/32=2.6875*(11.906976744=32.)
>> I see. :O)
>>[/color]
> 'Comes from 8086 8088 i186 i286 i386 and i486. The i586 moniker never
> happened as Intel called it the Pentium, instead. The i386 (also called
> 80386) was the first to sport what is called "32-bit architecture". First
> to company to build gets to name:
>
> [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I386[/url]
>
> Look to bottom of page for links to the various Intel processors.[/color]

No, it comes from the x86 instruction set, used on those processors. x86-64
is a superset of that, and x64 must just be a contraction of that.

ss.

"Saucy" <saucylemon@newsgroup.nospam> wrote in message
news:ezvhjDJCJHA.1632@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...[color=blue][color=green]
>> 32-bit so x86. Makes perfect sense to me. 86/32=2.6875*(11.906976744=32.)
>> I see. :O)
>>[/color]
> 'Comes from 8086 8088 i186 i286 i386 and i486. The i586 moniker never
> happened as Intel called it the Pentium, instead. The i386 (also called
> 80386) was the first to sport what is called "32-bit architecture". First
> to company to build gets to name:
>
> [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I386[/url]
>
> Look to bottom of page for links to the various Intel processors.[/color]

No, it comes from the x86 instruction set, used on those processors. x86-64
is a superset of that, and x64 must just be a contraction of that.

ss.

"Synapse Syndrome" <synapse@NOSPAMsyndrome.me.uk> wrote in message
news:%23BoxG$TCJHA.1628@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> "Saucy" <saucylemon@newsgroup.nospam> wrote in message
> news:ezvhjDJCJHA.1632@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> 32-bit so x86. Makes perfect sense to me.
>>> 86/32=2.6875*(11.906976744=32.) I see. :O)
>>>[/color]
>> 'Comes from 8086 8088 i186 i286 i386 and i486. The i586 moniker never
>> happened as Intel called it the Pentium, instead. The i386 (also called
>> 80386) was the first to sport what is called "32-bit architecture". First
>> to company to build gets to name:
>>
>> [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I386[/url]
>>
>> Look to bottom of page for links to the various Intel processors.[/color]
>
> No, it comes from the x86 instruction set, used on those processors.
> x86-64 is a superset of that, and x64 must just be a contraction of that.
>
> ss.
>[/color]


You forgot your cite:

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64[/url]

Saucy

"Synapse Syndrome" <synapse@NOSPAMsyndrome.me.uk> wrote in message
news:%23BoxG$TCJHA.1628@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> "Saucy" <saucylemon@newsgroup.nospam> wrote in message
> news:ezvhjDJCJHA.1632@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> 32-bit so x86. Makes perfect sense to me.
>>> 86/32=2.6875*(11.906976744=32.) I see. :O)
>>>[/color]
>> 'Comes from 8086 8088 i186 i286 i386 and i486. The i586 moniker never
>> happened as Intel called it the Pentium, instead. The i386 (also called
>> 80386) was the first to sport what is called "32-bit architecture". First
>> to company to build gets to name:
>>
>> [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I386[/url]
>>
>> Look to bottom of page for links to the various Intel processors.[/color]
>
> No, it comes from the x86 instruction set, used on those processors.
> x86-64 is a superset of that, and x64 must just be a contraction of that.
>
> ss.
>[/color]


You forgot your cite:

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64[/url]

Saucy

"Saucy" <saucylemon@newsgroup.nospam> wrote in message
news:OGHjzgUCJHA.4916@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>> 32-bit so x86. Makes perfect sense to me.
>>>> 86/32=2.6875*(11.906976744=32.) I see. :O)
>>>>
>>> 'Comes from 8086 8088 i186 i286 i386 and i486. The i586 moniker
>>> never happened as Intel called it the Pentium, instead. The i386 (also
>>> called 80386) was the first to sport what is called "32-bit
>>> architecture". First to company to build gets to name:
>>>
>>> [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I386[/url]
>>>
>>> Look to bottom of page for links to the various Intel processors.[/color]
>>
>> No, it comes from the x86 instruction set, used on those processors.
>> x86-64 is a superset of that, and x64 must just be a contraction of that.[/color]
>
> You forgot your cite:
>
> [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64[/url]
>[/color]

I didn't feel the need for one, as it's not something that I have only just
found out, and it's common enough knowledge. You can even get to that page
with only two clicks from the link you posted, via the one for 'x64
instruction set'.

ss.

"Saucy" <saucylemon@newsgroup.nospam> wrote in message
news:OGHjzgUCJHA.4916@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>> 32-bit so x86. Makes perfect sense to me.
>>>> 86/32=2.6875*(11.906976744=32.) I see. :O)
>>>>
>>> 'Comes from 8086 8088 i186 i286 i386 and i486. The i586 moniker
>>> never happened as Intel called it the Pentium, instead. The i386 (also
>>> called 80386) was the first to sport what is called "32-bit
>>> architecture". First to company to build gets to name:
>>>
>>> [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I386[/url]
>>>
>>> Look to bottom of page for links to the various Intel processors.[/color]
>>
>> No, it comes from the x86 instruction set, used on those processors.
>> x86-64 is a superset of that, and x64 must just be a contraction of that.[/color]
>
> You forgot your cite:
>
> [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64[/url]
>[/color]

I didn't feel the need for one, as it's not something that I have only just
found out, and it's common enough knowledge. You can even get to that page
with only two clicks from the link you posted, via the one for 'x64
instruction set'.

ss.

"Synapse Syndrome" <synapse@NOSPAMsyndrome.me.uk> wrote in message
news:e%23GzBMWCJHA.1628@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> "Saucy" <saucylemon@newsgroup.nospam> wrote in message
> news:OGHjzgUCJHA.4916@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>>> 32-bit so x86. Makes perfect sense to me.
>>>>> 86/32=2.6875*(11.906976744=32.) I see. :O)
>>>>>
>>>> 'Comes from 8086 8088 i186 i286 i386 and i486. The i586 moniker
>>>> never happened as Intel called it the Pentium, instead. The i386 (also
>>>> called 80386) was the first to sport what is called "32-bit
>>>> architecture". First to company to build gets to name:
>>>>
>>>> [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I386[/url]
>>>>
>>>> Look to bottom of page for links to the various Intel processors.
>>>
>>> No, it comes from the x86 instruction set, used on those processors.
>>> x86-64 is a superset of that, and x64 must just be a contraction of
>>> that.[/color]
>>
>> You forgot your cite:
>>
>> [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64[/url]
>>[/color]
>
> I didn't feel the need for one, as it's not something that I have only
> just found out, and it's common enough knowledge. You can even get to
> that page with only two clicks from the link you posted, via the one for
> 'x64 instruction set'.
>
> ss.[/color]


Excuses are not acceptable.