XP Pro - 32 vs 64 bit

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fred Mertz
  • Start date Start date
F

Fred Mertz

I have been running XP Pro 32-bit and life has been good.

What are the reasons I (or anyone) would want to run the 64 bit version of
XP Pro ?

Just curious.

Thanks.
 
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 15:04:49 -0800, "Fred Mertz" <A@B.com> wrote:

> I have been running XP Pro 32-bit and life has been good.
>
> What are the reasons I (or anyone) would want to run the 64 bit version of
> XP Pro ?


There's only one possible good reason, as far as I'm concerned:
because you run 64-bit applications and want to take advantage of the
increased speed of your 64-bit processor for those applications.

Since there are very few 64-bit applications yet, that reason applies
to very few people. For most people, all you would get is extra
problems.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
 
"Fred Mertz" <A@B.com> wrote in message
news:OSfeLgDQIHA.2268@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>I have been running XP Pro 32-bit and life has been good.
>
> What are the reasons I (or anyone) would want to run the 64 bit version of
> XP Pro ?

To be honest, pretty minimal. Support for 64-bit drivers is minimal. What
64-bit DOES offer you is:

- 64-bit native processor support
- higher quantity of RAM available (compared to the 3.2GB max generally
available in 32-bit)
- enforcement of signed driver install only (actually, unless you are a
business trying to stop anyone installing devices that you don't approve,
this is a right pain!!)

64-bit Vista has more potential to become more mainstream. But driver
support is still lacking - even for new devices.

JW
 
"Fred Mertz" <A@B.com> wrote in message
news:OSfeLgDQIHA.2268@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>I have been running XP Pro 32-bit and life has been good.
>
> What are the reasons I (or anyone) would want to run the 64 bit version of
> XP Pro ?
>
> Just curious.
>
> Thanks.

Mostly, the reason is access to much larger amounts of memory, such as in
high-end and intensive engineering, visual, and database applications.

You have to really need this, and understand your need, to justify the extra
expense and care in building the system.

HTH
-pk
 
"Fred Mertz" wrote in message
news:OSfeLgDQIHA.2268@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>I have been running XP Pro 32-bit and life has been good.
>
> What are the reasons I (or anyone) would want to run the 64 bit
> version of XP Pro ?


If you had been curious, you would've realized that 64-bit hardware
has become available for the last several years. Well, if you want to
make as much use of that 64-bit hardware, switch from a 32-bit OS to a
64-bit version. However, unless you have applications that have
64-bit versions, the new hardware doesn't help them run faster (other
than getting new x64 hardware usually entails getting faster
hardware - but faster hardware, 32- or 64-bit, always help speed up
your apps).

Since you don't know if it will help you then it won't. If you had
64-bit hardware, you would've been motivated to get an OS that also
supported it. Because you still have 32-bit hardware, you don't need
a 64-bit OS and you can't use it.
 
"VanguardLH" <VanguardLH@mail.invalid> wrote in message
news:%23prQcVEQIHA.5524@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> "Fred Mertz" wrote in message
> news:OSfeLgDQIHA.2268@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>I have been running XP Pro 32-bit and life has been good.
>>
>> What are the reasons I (or anyone) would want to run the 64 bit version
>> of XP Pro ?
>
>
> If you had been curious, you would've realized that 64-bit hardware has
> become available for the last several years. Well, if you want to make as
> much use of that 64-bit hardware, switch from a 32-bit OS to a 64-bit
> version. However, unless you have applications that have 64-bit versions,
> the new hardware doesn't help them run faster (other than getting new x64
> hardware usually entails getting faster hardware - but faster hardware,
> 32- or 64-bit, always help speed up your apps).
>
> Since you don't know if it will help you then it won't. If you had 64-bit
> hardware, you would've been motivated to get an OS that also supported it.
> Because you still have 32-bit hardware, you don't need a 64-bit OS and you
> can't use it.

Stunning assessment of my psychology :-) And you did it all without
reading my palms!

RE:
> If you had 64-bit hardware, you would've been motivated to get an OS that
> also supported it. Because you still have 32-bit hardware, you don't need
> a 64-bit OS and you can't use it.

Fact is I just built a new computer for which [apparently] all parts
"support" 64-bits:

Intel Quad Core 2.4 GHz (Q6600) LGA 775, Giga-Byte GA-P35-DS4 Rev.2.0 (Intel
P35 chipset) MOBO, four Seagate Barracuda SATA II HDs running in RAID 10,
two Asus GeForce 128-bit PCI Express x16 DVI video cards (I have 3 monitors
going), four GB Crucial Ballistix DDR2 (1066 PC8500) Dual Channel memory (4x
1GB sticks).

I also have an MSDN Premium subscription which includes every version of
every operating system Microsoft makes - including both 32- and 64-bit
versions of XP and Vista.

Fact-checking aside...
I have never been motivated to go to 64 bits until I built this new computer
over this past weekend and saw that it recognized only 3 GB of the installed
4 MB RAM. Initially thinking that one of the sticks was possibly dead, I did
the research that revealed (for me, anyway), that it was 32-bit XP that was
the limiting factor - showing 3GB available after taking some for the
hardware (whatever). So no sticks are dead - just finaly ran into the 3GB
(or so) limitation of 32-bit Windows on this particular build.

Thus my OP here... now that I have a machine that *could* use it, why would
I? I guess it won't make much difference for me even though I *could* run
it. In fact, based on the various responses to my OP here here, I might run
into more problems going to 64-bits, at least for now.

BTW: What do I want for dinner tonight?

-Fred
 
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 17:40:37 -0800, "Fred Mertz" <A@B.com> wrote:


> I have never been motivated to go to 64 bits until I built this new computer
> over this past weekend and saw that it recognized only 3 GB of the installed
> 4 MB RAM. Initially thinking that one of the sticks was possibly dead, I did
> the research that revealed (for me, anyway), that it was 32-bit XP that was
> the limiting factor - showing 3GB available after taking some for the
> hardware (whatever). So no sticks are dead - just finaly ran into the 3GB
> (or so) limitation of 32-bit Windows on this particular build.
>
> Thus my OP here... now that I have a machine that *could* use it, why would
> I? I guess it won't make much difference for me even though I *could* run
> it. In fact, based on the various responses to my OP here here, I might run
> into more problems going to 64-bits, at least for now.


Chances are, although 64-bit XP could *see* all 4GB, it wouldn't be
able to use it effectively. It depends on what apps you run and how
big are the files you open with them, but it's a very rare person who
could make effective use of that much memory in XP. Almost certainly
you would see no difference in performance between 3GB and 4GB (and
maybe not even between 1GB and 4GB).

Despite the number of people who tell you that the more RAM the
better, that's true only up to a point. And for almost everyone
running XP, 3GB is *way* past that point.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
 
"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.am.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:r3nbm3ldecthqli9of1nbgp466491j47rb@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 17:40:37 -0800, "Fred Mertz" <A@B.com> wrote:
>
>
>> I have never been motivated to go to 64 bits until I built this new
>> computer
>> over this past weekend and saw that it recognized only 3 GB of the
>> installed
>> 4 MB RAM. Initially thinking that one of the sticks was possibly dead, I
>> did
>> the research that revealed (for me, anyway), that it was 32-bit XP that
>> was
>> the limiting factor - showing 3GB available after taking some for the
>> hardware (whatever). So no sticks are dead - just finaly ran into the 3GB
>> (or so) limitation of 32-bit Windows on this particular build.
>>
>> Thus my OP here... now that I have a machine that *could* use it, why
>> would
>> I? I guess it won't make much difference for me even though I *could* run
>> it. In fact, based on the various responses to my OP here here, I might
>> run
>> into more problems going to 64-bits, at least for now.
>
>
> Chances are, although 64-bit XP could *see* all 4GB, it wouldn't be
> able to use it effectively. It depends on what apps you run and how
> big are the files you open with them, but it's a very rare person who
> could make effective use of that much memory in XP. Almost certainly
> you would see no difference in performance between 3GB and 4GB (and
> maybe not even between 1GB and 4GB).
>
> Despite the number of people who tell you that the more RAM the
> better, that's true only up to a point. And for almost everyone
> running XP, 3GB is *way* past that point.


Interesting. I built this box in anticipation of Vista - which I understand
(possibly incorrectly) can and does use/hog as many system resources as we
make available to it. I have a new project which will, unfortunately,
require Vista (I really need IIS7, but that only comes with Vista). I'm
going to run XP on this new machine until the last minute, then reimage with
Vista for the IIS7 portion of the project. Too bad IIS7 can't be installed
on XP. I asked the IIS guys and one of them almost took offense to the idea
that I'd even *ask* about a possible port of IIS7 to XP ("jerk!" - it's a
reasonable question given that Vista has so many well documented and
significant problems...).

-Fred
 
"Fred Mertz" <A@B.com> wrote in message
news:OmkHP3EQIHA.5160@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
> "VanguardLH" <VanguardLH@mail.invalid> wrote in message
> news:%23prQcVEQIHA.5524@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> "Fred Mertz" wrote in message
>> news:OSfeLgDQIHA.2268@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>I have been running XP Pro 32-bit and life has been good.
>>>
>>> What are the reasons I (or anyone) would want to run the 64 bit
>>> version of XP Pro ?
>>
>>
>> If you had been curious, you would've realized that 64-bit hardware
>> has become available for the last several years. Well, if you want
>> to make as much use of that 64-bit hardware, switch from a 32-bit
>> OS to a 64-bit version. However, unless you have applications that
>> have 64-bit versions, the new hardware doesn't help them run faster
>> (other than getting new x64 hardware usually entails getting faster
>> hardware - but faster hardware, 32- or 64-bit, always help speed up
>> your apps).
>>
>> Since you don't know if it will help you then it won't. If you had
>> 64-bit hardware, you would've been motivated to get an OS that also
>> supported it. Because you still have 32-bit hardware, you don't
>> need a 64-bit OS and you can't use it.
>
> Stunning assessment of my psychology :-) And you did it all
> without reading my palms!
>
> RE:
>> If you had 64-bit hardware, you would've been motivated to get an
>> OS that also supported it. Because you still have 32-bit hardware,
>> you don't need a 64-bit OS and you can't use it.
>
> Fact is I just built a new computer for which [apparently] all parts
> "support" 64-bits:
>
> Intel Quad Core 2.4 GHz (Q6600) LGA 775, Giga-Byte GA-P35-DS4
> Rev.2.0 (Intel P35 chipset) MOBO, four Seagate Barracuda SATA II HDs
> running in RAID 10, two Asus GeForce 128-bit PCI Express x16 DVI
> video cards (I have 3 monitors going), four GB Crucial Ballistix
> DDR2 (1066 PC8500) Dual Channel memory (4x 1GB sticks).
>
> I also have an MSDN Premium subscription which includes every
> version of every operating system Microsoft makes - including both
> 32- and 64-bit versions of XP and Vista.

Uh huh, sure. If YOU paid for that pricey MSDN subscription then you
already have the resources to do your own research and should already
have the expertise to make your own judgement. I have yet to see
anyone run up with a gun and force someone to accept a free MSDN
subscription. If you have it, you paid for it (or your employer did -
but then your employer was led to believe you had a need to access to
it since they don't buy the big bucks for it just to give you a free
copy of each OS version).

> Fact-checking aside...
> I have never been motivated to go to 64 bits until I built this new
> computer over this past weekend and saw that it recognized only 3 GB
> of the installed 4 MB RAM. Initially thinking that one of the sticks
> was possibly dead, I did the research that revealed (for me,
> anyway), that it was 32-bit XP that was the limiting factor -
> showing 3GB available after taking some for the hardware (whatever).
> So no sticks are dead - just finaly ran into the 3GB (or so)
> limitation of 32-bit Windows on this particular build.

So you were asking a vague question trying to elicit an unfocused
response when you already had some specifics in mind and already knew
why you might want to pair up a 64-bit OS with your new 64-bit
hardware.

> Thus my OP here... now that I have a machine that *could* use it,
> why would I? I guess it won't make much difference for me even
> though I *could* run it. In fact, based on the various responses to
> my OP here here, I might run into more problems going to 64-bits, at
> least for now.

Well, with your MSDN subscription and Internet access, you certainly
can do your own research to determine if all your current applications
that are critical or important will run on a 64-bit version of
Windows. And since you claim to have an MSDN subscription then you
have Vista to play with so you can even test if the 64-bit drivers for
your hardware are usable or if they even have 64-bit versions. While
many 32-bit apps might run okay, some don't, especially games.

> BTW: What do I want for dinner tonight?

If you play dumb then expect to get treated like a dummy. Reread your
original post. Duh.

So for what were you really fishing with such a vague query?
 
"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.am.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:r3nbm3ldecthqli9of1nbgp466491j47rb@4ax.com...
>
> Chances are, although 64-bit XP could *see* all 4GB, it wouldn't be
> able to use it effectively. It depends on what apps you run and how
> big are the files you open with them, but it's a very rare person who
> could make effective use of that much memory in XP.

That's sort of incorrect Ken. No-one can make effective use of that memory,
because a hell of a lot of it is taken up by different pieces of hardware in
the machine. I have a 256MB graphics card. I am left with 3.2GB usable. My
nephew has a 320GB graphics card...he is left with just over 3GB. OK...we're
both on Vista, but I'm certain the scenario is similar with XP 32-bit.

Device Manager - View - Devices by Type/Connection shows the full story.

> Almost certainly
> you would see no difference in performance between 3GB and 4GB

True.

> (and maybe not even between 1GB and 4GB).

Hmmm...depends on the application. A lot of photo editing can use up to 2GB
quite effectively. Agreed that over 2GB is not that much use in XP.

>
> Despite the number of people who tell you that the more RAM the
> better, that's true only up to a point. And for almost everyone
> running XP, 3GB is *way* past that point.
>
> --
> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
> Please Reply to the Newsgroup
 
> Uh huh, sure.

Why the attitude? It's unprofessional and unnecessary.


> If YOU paid for that pricey MSDN subscription then you already have the
> resources to do your own research and should already have the expertise to
> make your own judgement.

Yes - I made use of my resources - specifically an Internet connection and
Outlook Express news reader to post the OP here to get my answer - which I
got from others more helpful than yourself. I then made my own judgement
based on the helpful feedback I received. Brilliant - eh?

>I have yet to see anyone run up with a gun and force someone to accept a
>free MSDN subscription.

What is that supposed to mean? MSDN Premium isn't free - which you
apparently understand - but the gun thing and free MSDN? You'll have to
explain that to the simpletons such as myself.

> If you have it, you paid for it (or your employer did - but then your
> employer was led to believe you had a need to access to it since they
> don't buy the big bucks for it just to give you a free copy of each OS
> version).

??? My employer was led to believe? There you go reading way too much into
the situation - again.

What do you think is free about MSDN or the OS versions in it?

>> Fact-checking aside...
>> I have never been motivated to go to 64 bits until I built this new
>> computer over this past weekend and saw that it recognized only 3 GB of
>> the installed 4 MB RAM. Initially thinking that one of the sticks was
>> possibly dead, I did the research that revealed (for me, anyway), that it
>> was 32-bit XP that was the limiting factor - showing 3GB available after
>> taking some for the hardware (whatever). So no sticks are dead - just
>> finaly ran into the 3GB (or so) limitation of 32-bit Windows on this
>> particular build.
>
> So you were asking a vague question trying to elicit an unfocused response
> when you already had some specifics in mind and already knew why you might
> want to pair up a 64-bit OS with your new 64-bit hardware.

There you go trying to read too much into the situation - again. And to
clarify - no - I didn't already have specific reasons in mind to go to
64-bit. I just said I was going to use Vista for a future project -
blissfully unaware of any *need* to go to to 64-bit Vista. I haven't made a
decision yet on 64-bit Vista... might install 32-bit Vista (probably will).

The vagueness part - which you so brilliantly picked up on - was to get a
high-level response. Nothing wrong with doing that if that's the level of
information you're after - as I was. You can see how effective I was in
getting my desired level of information without telling the group my life
story. The responses I received from Ken Blake (an MVP, which you aren't)
were totally helpful and exactly the sort of information I was after.

>> Thus my OP here... now that I have a machine that *could* use it, why
>> would I? I guess it won't make much difference for me even though I
>> *could* run it. In fact, based on the various responses to my OP here
>> here, I might run into more problems going to 64-bits, at least for now.
>
> Well, with your MSDN subscription and Internet access, you certainly can
> do your own research to determine if all your current applications that
> are critical or important will run on a 64-bit version of Windows.

Ahhh, but that's not what I was wanting to know. "Will run?" and/or "Must
run?" are two questions that are NOT what I was wanting to know. "Must run"
and there is no question - gotta have it. "Will run" - of course practically
all 32-bit apps WILL run on 64-bit - even if some virtual machine is reqired
to run 32-bit software in a 64-bit environment. But neither of those are my
question. If you read my OP here without wearing your psychoanalytical sun
glasses you will see that I was wanting to know why anyone would *want to*
run 64-bit Windows. The question was not about apps -but about Windows, and
about why we'd *want* to run the 64-bit version of XP.

> And since you claim to have an MSDN subscription then you have Vista to
> play with so you can even test if the 64-bit drivers for your hardware are
> usable or if they even have 64-bit versions. While many 32-bit apps might
> run okay, some don't, especially games.

True - but why should I spend all that time if all I want is a high-level
response (which I got in just a few minutes).


>> BTW: What do I want for dinner tonight?
>
> If you play dumb then expect to get treated like a dummy. Reread your
> original post. Duh.

Nobody was playing dumb. Are you just offended that I called you on your
ridiculous psychobabble and psychoanalysis?

> So for what were you really fishing with such a vague query?

Read the other responses I got here - apparently you are the only person who
read too much into my OP, therefore having difficulty responding in a
helpful and relevant way (the story of your life - right?).

Sometimes what you see is what you get. Even your apparent hero, Freud, is
credited with stating that "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." No need to
psychoanalyze to the extent that you have.

-Fred
 
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 23:23:19 -0000, "John Whitworth"
<sexyjw@gEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEmail.com> wrote:

>
> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.am.invalid.domain> wrote in message
> news:r3nbm3ldecthqli9of1nbgp466491j47rb@4ax.com...
> >
> > Chances are, although 64-bit XP could *see* all 4GB, it wouldn't be
> > able to use it effectively. It depends on what apps you run and how
> > big are the files you open with them, but it's a very rare person who
> > could make effective use of that much memory in XP.
>
> That's sort of incorrect Ken. No-one can make effective use of that memory,
> because a hell of a lot of it is taken up by different pieces of hardware in
> the machine.


Sorry, John, but what you say is incorrect on two counts:

1. The phenomenon you are talking about is one that occurs on 32-bit
versions of Windows, and *not* on 64-bit ones, which is what the
paragraph above explicitly refers to.

2. On those 32-bit versions of Windows, the *memory* is not taken up
by the hardware, it's some of the address space that's taken up. As a
result the memory has no address space to map to.


> I have a 256MB graphics card. I am left with 3.2GB usable. My
> nephew has a 320GB graphics card...he is left with just over 3GB. OK...we're
> both on Vista, but I'm certain the scenario is similar with XP 32-bit.


Yes, it's identical with 32-bit XP. It's a 32-bit phenomenon.

Here's my standard message on this subject, which I've posted in these
newsgroups many times:

"All 32-bit versions of Windows (Vista as well as XP), even though
they have a 4GB address space, can only use *around* 3.1GB of RAM.
That's because some of that space is used by hardware and not
available to the operating system and applications. The amount you can
use varies, depending on what hardware you have installed, but is
usually around 3.1GB."



> Device Manager - View - Devices by Type/Connection shows the full story.
>
> > Almost certainly
> > you would see no difference in performance between 3GB and 4GB
>
> True.
>
> > (and maybe not even between 1GB and 4GB).
>
> Hmmm...depends on the application.


Absolutely. Note the word "maybe" in the sentence quoted above.


> A lot of photo editing can use up to 2GB
> quite effectively. Agreed that over 2GB is not that much use in XP.


But I don't agree. Again, it depends on the application, and how large
are the files you are opening with them. Making effective use of more
than 2GB for editing photographic images is fairly common. But for
those not doing particularly memory-hungry things, like photo editing
or video editing, more than 2GB is usually overkill.



> > Despite the number of people who tell you that the more RAM the
> > better, that's true only up to a point. And for almost everyone
> > running XP, 3GB is *way* past that point.
> >
> > --
> > Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
> > Please Reply to the Newsgroup

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
 
"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.am.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:29sgm358j700go6vg15a4ls3k8e6anrvam@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 23:23:19 -0000, "John Whitworth"
> <sexyjw@gEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.am.invalid.domain> wrote in message
>> news:r3nbm3ldecthqli9of1nbgp466491j47rb@4ax.com...
>> >
>> > Chances are, although 64-bit XP could *see* all 4GB, it wouldn't be
>> > able to use it effectively. It depends on what apps you run and how
>> > big are the files you open with them, but it's a very rare person who
>> > could make effective use of that much memory in XP.
>>
>> That's sort of incorrect Ken. No-one can make effective use of that
>> memory,
>> because a hell of a lot of it is taken up by different pieces of hardware
>> in
>> the machine.
>
>
> Sorry, John, but what you say is incorrect on two counts:
>
> 1. The phenomenon you are talking about is one that occurs on 32-bit
> versions of Windows, and *not* on 64-bit ones, which is what the
> paragraph above explicitly refers to.
>
> 2. On those 32-bit versions of Windows, the *memory* is not taken up
> by the hardware, it's some of the address space that's taken up. As a
> result the memory has no address space to map to.

How embarrassing...I should have realised the first point, and I did know
the second...too much Baileys last night obviously. <walks away in shame>
:-(
 
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:02:14 -0000, "John Whitworth"
<sexyjw@gEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEmail.com> wrote:

>
> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.am.invalid.domain> wrote in message
> news:29sgm358j700go6vg15a4ls3k8e6anrvam@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 23:23:19 -0000, "John Whitworth"
> > <sexyjw@gEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.am.invalid.domain> wrote in message
> >> news:r3nbm3ldecthqli9of1nbgp466491j47rb@4ax.com...
> >> >
> >> > Chances are, although 64-bit XP could *see* all 4GB, it wouldn't be
> >> > able to use it effectively. It depends on what apps you run and how
> >> > big are the files you open with them, but it's a very rare person who
> >> > could make effective use of that much memory in XP.
> >>
> >> That's sort of incorrect Ken. No-one can make effective use of that
> >> memory,
> >> because a hell of a lot of it is taken up by different pieces of hardware
> >> in
> >> the machine.
> >
> >
> > Sorry, John, but what you say is incorrect on two counts:
> >
> > 1. The phenomenon you are talking about is one that occurs on 32-bit
> > versions of Windows, and *not* on 64-bit ones, which is what the
> > paragraph above explicitly refers to.
> >
> > 2. On those 32-bit versions of Windows, the *memory* is not taken up
> > by the hardware, it's some of the address space that's taken up. As a
> > result the memory has no address space to map to.
>
> How embarrassing...I should have realised the first point, and I did know
> the second...too much Baileys last night obviously. <walks away in shame>
> :-(



LOL! Not a problem, John. We all make mistakes now and then.

Ken

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
 
Back
Top