[Closed] 32bit Windows 7 and memory

Have I made a big mistake and if I want to add more memory will I need to upgrade to a 64bit OS?

In short, yes.

Basically 32 bits means 2^32 possible memory addresses = 4294967296 bytes = 4194304 kB = 4096 MB = 4GB.

And it's a bit less than that because it needs some of it to address devices you have attached.
You'll probably only be able to use around 3.5GB in total and any single application will normally be limited to 2GB.

The total amount of RAM (non-shared graphics and system) is limited to either 3.25 or 3.5Gb on 32 bit systems.

What software do you want to run? I've not had a problem with any non-64bit specific software on my win7 machine. I've also had no issues with drivers at all - printer, camera, scanner etc... all work fine.

IIRC 32bit Windows can only address 2.5gb of memory in total, and that *includes* the memory on your graphics card too!

So if you have a 1gb graphics card, you're effectively only able to address 1.5gb of System RAM.

I can't remember the exact figure, but it's either 2.5 or 3gb tops - something like that.

Out of interest, what 32bit applications do you want to run? Win7 64bit is backwards compatible with 32bit applications, and the drivers are absolutely fine unless you have really obscure hardware!

bah - beaten to it by 60 seconds 🙂

Looks like I've made an expensive boob then! I'm a bit annoyed that there was no mention of an memory limit on the operating system section of the company's system customisation tool.

I'm fine with 4GB of memory for now but it looks like I'll have to shell out for a new version of Windows if I add extra (and I could have had a 64bit version from the start). I guess I should have done some more research.

Sorry dude, you live/you learn :/

You *could* try and sell the 32 bit version to a friend or something and buy the 64bit version?

who did you buy from? Can you still return under the 14 day distance selling gumf? Do they have some sort of 'satisfaction' period?

My windows 7 box came with both 32 and 64bit DVDs does the licence not cover both versions?

You've not that much of an expensive boob.
How much would the extra RAM have been, about 40 quid?

OR getting friendly with a student and buy it cheap through the education scheme M$ run! Costs about 30 quid this way

It's an OEM installation, 32bit only I'm afraid. The default system came without an OS and I had to chose on, there was no indication of the customisation screen that this was such a potential pitfall!

OR getting friendly with a student and buy it cheap through the education scheme M$ run! Costs about 30 quid this way

but tecnically not legal.

So if I've got 4GB or memory and a 1gb gfx card are you saying I'm only able to address about 2.5Gb system ram? Windows itself is saying that there's 4GB installed of which 3.25Gb is usable.

x32 and x64 are covered by the same license, hence OEMs often bundle in both 32 and 64 installation media.

there was no indication of the customisation screen that this was such a potential pitfall!

well if it's a new system then I'd point that out to them and demand a replacement.

Stop.

There's more FUD and misinformation about this topic than just about anything else in IT currently. Let me try and clarify a few misconceptions.

It's correct that a 32-bit OS can only access 4Gb of RAM. Due to technical reasons (which I can explain if you really want but isn't wholly necessary to understand this), Windows has a 'blind spot' at the top end of the 4Gb address space meaning you lose about half a gig.

Now. Various forums will tell you that you "need" a 64-bit OS in order to use this missing RAM. Usually with lots of ZOMGs and exclamation marks for good measure. Technically this is true. But.

Moving from 32-bit to 64-bit will indeed allow you to access the "missing" memory. However, a 64-bit OS by definition *requires* more memory. You're doubling the width of memory addresses without adding more RAM; think about this for a second, if you've got a finite amount of something and you suddenly make it twice as wide, it's going to be half as long. You can't get something from nothing.

So, whilst it's correct that you need a 64-bit OS to access more than ~3.5Gb in a Windows system, all other things being equal it's a complete fallacy that this automatically is a good idea.

In practice, a good chunk of Windows x64 is still 32-bit, so you're not really doubling your memory requirements. However, you are increasing them. This will at least offset any theoretical gains you might see from the reclaimed half gig.

With a 64-bit OS, 64-bit drivers are *required* for all your hardware and, whilst the situation is better than it used to be, these aren't always available.

Under Windows x64, you can run 32-bit and 64-bit applications. The bulk of your software will still be 32-bit. 64-bit versions are thin on the ground except in certain fields (eg, video editing, CAD, SQL servers etc) but the tradeoff here is that this software requires more memory (as discussed). 32-bit apps are still restricted by their architecture; if you were to fit a hundred Gig of RAM in there, the 32-bit apps would still only see a 2Gb application address space (though you could run a hell of a lot of them concurrently). Also, 32-bit apps run under emulation (well, sort of, but that's the easiest way of explaining), so you can get a performance hit here too.

Finally, for 32-bit Windows, the actual real-world difference in performance between a 3.5Gb system and a 4Gb system (if such a thing were actually possible) will be as close to zero as makes no odds. You'd have to cane it pretty hard to use up all that RAM.

In short, it's a lot of work and effort to fix what is, for all practical purposes, a cosmetic problem. Don't worry about it. Anyone who tells you different fundementally doesn't understand Windows memory management.

Now, if you're upgrading beyond 4Gb, 64-bit Windows becomes a viable proposition. Whether or not you'd ever need to do this is debatable, it depends what you're running. But for the sake of argument let's go with that.

The Windows 7 licence covers both 32- and 64-bit versions, certainly on retail. I think this is also true for OEM but haven't looked (it was true for Vista, but they may have changed it).

I bought a 32-bit Vista laptop a couple of years back. Whilst not provided as default, Dell would ship a 64-bit disc on demand. So, I'd suggest getting on to the supplier to see if they'll do that just so you've got a copy. The same licence key should be good for both.

I don't think there's a clean upgrade path from 32 to 64, so upgrading would need to be a clean install. If you are going to upgrade, then you might want to do it sooner rather than later to lessen the impact. However, as per my previous edit, do you really want to?

_^ what he said.

Unless you want/need significantly more memory than 4GB (probably 8GB or more) then there's no really need to go x64.
Unless your software is x64 only, but that's not very common.

Just to back Cougar up I'd stick with the 32bit OS now you have it.

Once you really start needing 4 Gb+ then get 64bit Windows 7 when you get the extra Ram.

I was perfectly happy with 32bit Vista & 3Gb and only upgraded to x64 win7 when I needed to do some work with 64bit SQL Server and needed to address > 4Gb.

It's made very little difference to system performance for anything else.

Thanks guys, that's reassuring. So where does the memory in the gfx card come in? I've 4Gb ram (Windows can use 3.25Gb) and 1Gb in the gfx card, can I use all the system ram or do I lose 1Gb to the gfx card?

I certainly don't need more than 4Gb (although I probably don't need a quad core processor either) I'm just annoyed that I could have selected a 64bit OS instead of a 32bit one and probably would if the customisation system had mentioned the limitations of 32bit. I could have configured the system with 8 or 16Gb memory and a 32bit OS, I wonder if the system builders would have mentioned anything.

However, a 64-bit OS by definition *requires* more memory. You're doubling the width of memory addresses without adding more RAM; think about this for a second, if you've got a finite amount of something and you suddenly make it twice as wide, it's going to be half as long. You can't get something from nothing.

Still not convinced this is right. Addresses stored in code will take up more space for sure, but how much difference is that going to make? And 1kB of data is still 1024 BYTES regardless of the word size. Do compilers have to use 64 bit words for every data type though? If they did, then 1024 variables of byte type would indeed take up 8KB of RAM.
This 64 bit Windows 7 install currently has 3171MB used out of a total 8124MB of the pagefile (I think - is that what Commit means?) and physical memory usage is 2.11MB.

I've 4Gb ram (Windows can use 3.25Gb) and 1Gb in the gfx card, can I use all the system ram or do I lose 1Gb to the gfx card?

Imagine if, when you write your address down, you were only allowed by law (on pain of death) to use two numerical digits for your house number. Fine when there are 20 houses on your street - you can build 79 more and then there are 99 houses all properly numbered. If you build another four on top of that though, you won't be able to write their addresses down so they won't be able to get any mail ever, their inhabitants won't be on the electoral roll or be able to get any credit. Even though there'd be 103 houses on your street, the Post Office and the world would not believe they existed.

Your CPU can only ADRESS 4GB of memory. The 1GB your graphics card still has to be addressed - so it takes the place of 1GB of your system ram which will be sat there doing nothing.

The 1GB your graphics card still has to be addressed - so it takes the place of 1GB of your system ram which will be sat there doing nothing.

Is that really true? I thought the gfx card handled memory itself.

I think that's what DMA is all about isn't it?

Well all I know is that Windows reports 4Gb of which 3.25Gb is useable, if 1Gb of this comes from the Gfx card shouldn't it be reporting 5Gb of installed memory of which 3.25Gb is useable?

It seems daft to me that that a system builder can offer a default 4Gb system with a 1Gb gfx card and the option of a 32bit OS and not even mention these limitations!

It means there is 4Gb of system memory - the gfx card is hijacking the addresses that would be usable by the system memory. The gfx card memory is not system memory but it is using addresses as if it were.. I *think*.

It is daft yes, but it's as daft as selling someone a quad core 3GHz machine to someone who comes in looking for something with which to surf the net. And in any case I think there are various strategies around it which may or may not be in place on these machines.

Well I'm no expert but my thoughts were that the gfx card processor handles the gfx memory and it's seperate. So if you put a 4gb gfx card on your PC with 32 bit windows it wouldn't do much?!

The memory is separate, the address space is not.. as I understand it.

A quick search on the internet suggests that 32b Windows 7 can address 3.25-3.5Gb depending on the memory on the Gfx card (mine can use 3.25Gb with a 1Gb gfx card). I was toying at some point of adding a second gfx card in an ATI Crossfire (which will take up to 4 cards), will I lose 1GB again?

Windows will only see a portion of your 3.5GB physical RAM.
This behavior is due to "memory mapped IO reservations". Those reservations overlay the physical address space and mask out those physical addresses so that they cannot be used for working memory. This is independent of the OS running on the machine.

Significant chunks of address space below 4GB (the highest address accessible via 32-bit (2 to the 32nd power = 4GB)) get reserved for use by system hardware:

• BIOS – including ACPI and legacy video support

• PCI bus including bridges etc.

[b]• PCI Express support will reserve at least 256MB, up to 768MB depending on graphics card installed memory[/b]

Globally, between ~256MB and 1GB of address space below 4GB may be reserved for hardware use. The OS will not see these Address spaces.

I've also got some sort of Memory Mapping feature activated in the BIOS which say something about putting overlapping PCI memory above the address space, I assume that this won't make any extra memory available to Windows but may avoid it losing it to hardware.

A useful link about memory available to MS O/Ss:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-gb/library/aa366778.aspx

Thanks Mudshark, I had found that which also links to an article on [url= http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-gb/library/aa366796.aspx ]Physical Address Extension[/url] which Windows 7 supposedly supports which should allow the use of memory abouve the 4Gb limit, it's all rather confusing.

Regarding the OP - Another suggestion. Are you running the Windows 7 Ultimate version? If so, it might be possible to go for a x64 Windows 7 running XP mode (virtualised windows XP Pro) to launch your earlier apps?

If not its a reinstall of the OS later on (no upgrade path).

I'm not up to date with current hardware and OEM versions of windows, but don't these come with evaluation periods before the chosen OS needs to be activated (as used in KMS or MAK)????

You're getting muddled. I'm off out now but I'll type something up when I've got time, sorry.

Short answer, don't worry about PAE, you're not losing as much memory as you think you are, and what you are losing isn't worth a damn one way or the other.

Thanks Cougar

I've emailed the company to see if there's an option of Windows 7 64Bit install DVD and I'll wait and see but hopefully the system I have will be fine (at least until I need to add more memory).

Since it's an OEM installation it looks like I'm dependant of the computer company helping me out. I've emailed them and I'll be keeping my fingers crossed.

I thought that I was reasonably knowledable around computers, but obviously not. I'm rather confused whether a 4gb system with 1Gb graphics card and 32bit Windows is a compromised system or not (would an upgrade of the same spec. to 64bit make a difference)?

I went 32bit as I use some oldish software packages that I can't afford to upgrade so, ironically, the choice to go 32bit was made to keep costs down. I'm sure that my Office 2007 installation would be fine under 64bit but for those that asked, I also use Macromedia Studio MX and Corel Draw 11, both of which are a bit long in the tooth (and I've already noticed some cosmetic glitches with Dreamweaver MX).

I have just started using Windows 7 Enterprise and am using the XP VM quite a bit to use my old applications.

You don't need 64 bit software for 64 bit windows. Your old stuff will work fine. It's only the device drivers that need to be 64 bit - and almost everything is now supported.

+_1 to what Cougar said.

WRT the graphics card using up main memory. Some cheaper embedded graphics adapters (where the graphics adapter is on the mother board) won't have dedicated memory, it'll use main memory that would otherwise be used for applications. This is common on low end laptops & desktops & small embedded systems. Sometimes in the BIOS you can adjust the amount of memory you dedicate to the graphics adapter. If you've got a separate graphics card with, say 1GB, then that won't take up 1GB of your memory address space. As molgrips said, this is what DMA is for. The card will have a window in the CPU's I/O address space but this will be a lot less than the memory on the card itself.

Besides being able to address a wider memory range there's other advantages with x64 o/s. A subset of an x86 CPU's registers are only available in 64 bit mode. If you're looking at doing a lot of math intensive work (games, video encoding etc) these help. You'd need the app compiled for 64-bit to really make full use of these though.

It looks like you're running 32-bit pass. I'd stick with the 32-bit o/s you have installed.

You may well have compatibility issues with older versions of software too.

Assuming PCI-E, the video card will use memory-mapped I/O but it's not a 1:1 ratio. A chunk of memory - strictly, a chunk of memory [i]addresses[/i] - will be allocated for the video card's usage. This isn't typically all of the video card's RAM, it's more like a window. From memory (ho ho!) I think PCI-E takes between 256Mb and 768Mb for its own nefarious purposes, depending on sunspots and the phase of the moon.

(sorry for any duplication there, there's been a few more posts in the hour it took me to write that inbetween doing stuff at work)

Did we check that the OP's new PC actually has a 64 bit CPU?

Molgrips >

Still not convinced this is right. Addresses stored in code will take up more space for sure, but how much difference is that going to make? And 1kB of data is still 1024 BYTES regardless of the word size. Do compilers have to use 64 bit words for every data type though? If they did, then 1024 variables of byte type would indeed take up 8KB of RAM.

Well, no. Memory usage isn't going to be doubled across the board. However, when 64-bit data types are used, it's going to add an overhead. Even if it's a couple of hundred meg (I've not looked this up but it feels about right), once you've added into the mix any system DLLs that need to be loaded twice (native 64-bit and 32-bit for compatibility reasons), that's going to be sufficient to remove any advantage you might have gained from that extra half gig.

Plus, as I've said, the real world difference in performance between a 3.5Gb system and a 4Gb system is going to be as close to nowt as makes no odds anyway. You'd have to seriously load the box for it to become an issue.

is that what Commit means?

Committed data is data which has had a page in memory 'committed' to it - ie, it's being used, either actively or passively. This could be RAM or the page file on the disk. A Committed figure which is consistently significantly higher than the available RAM would point towards needing more RAM to avoid performance issues as the OS starts thrashing the page file.

Did we check that the OP's new PC actually has a 64 bit CPU?

I'll be very, very shocked if it isn't. Can you still buy Pentium III's?

64-bit chipset, on the other hand, that [i]could [/i]be an issue. It's pretty unlikely on a new system though.

Well, no. Memory usage isn't going to be doubled across the board. However, when 64-bit data types are used, it's going to add an overhead. Even if it's a couple of hundred meg.

I've been using 64-bit since 2005 (first XP x64, then Vista 64, Win7 64 is sat on the shelf waiting to be installed). And I can't say I've noticed this really. Certainly not of the order of a couple of hundred meg that's for sure.

I agree that the extra memory gained from going from 3.5GB accessible on 32-bit to 4GB on 64-bit is not going to make much odds, but if the OP plans to increase memory beyond 4GB, as he said, then he'll need a 64-bit OS.

There is a good summary of the differences here:
http://superuser.com/questions/56540/32-bit-vs-64-bit-systems/

I can't say I've noticed this really.

I'm not sure as it's something that would be particularly noticable. But you may well be right, I made that figure up after all. (-: I'd expect it to be more of an issue when you're running more native 64-bit software, and there wasn't exactly a glut of these back in 2005.

There is a good summary of the differences here:

Yeah, that's not bad actually. Good spot.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying going 64-bit is inherently a bad idea. I'm saying that doing it for the sole reason of "reclaiming wasted memory" is wooly thinking. There are a number of good reasons for making the move, but that's not one of them.

Plus, as I've said, the real world difference in performance between a 3.5Gb system and a 4Gb system is going to be as close to nowt as makes no odds anyway

Agreed, I do think the OP need not worry about it.

Does commit represent the total memory usage of the OS then? (Including the caching and stuff of course that Windows does because it can)

I'm saying that doing it for the sole reason of "reclaiming wasted memory" is wooly thinking. There are a number of good reasons for making the move, but that's not one of them.

Agreed. But likewise when speccing/buying a new system now, as the OP did, I can't see any reason not to with 64-bit OS unless you have obscure legacy hardware to support.

Thanks for the input. Maybe I'll stick with 32bit for now until I need more memory (the new CPU is 64bit by the way, it's a quad core Intel I5 750).

A final bit of help please. I've spoken to the supplier who say that as I've activated the software they can't replace it with a 64bit version but that I am licensed for 32 or 64 bit use and that I can legitimately download or 'acquire' a 64bit CD and use my license to activate it and in doing so I'd be legally licensed; apparent there rep. says that Microsoft aren't worried where the CD comes from as long as the license in valid. Do this sound right or am I being fobbed off? Having said that I did know someone with a hooky Windows XP installation on which the Genuine Advantage software kept offering to sall them a license to legitamise their copy.

If anyone has an unused 64bit Windows Professional install CD they'd be happy to sell on do let me know.

The last time I rang MS to try an activate a copy of XP with a copied CD and legitimate OEM key, they were arsey and refused.

Dunno if their 'activation' tale is correct or not; if that's their story, perhaps ring again and tell them you haven't activated it yet? It sounds wrong to me, but I'm honestly not sure. Like I said, with Vista, Dell shipped the 32-bit disc but would supply an additional x64 disc on request. I don't see as it's a version exchange, the retail pack comes with both discs. You just need the media.

I can, ah, let you hold on to a copy of my Windows 7 disc for offsite backup purposes if you like, but it's retail rather than OEM so is unlikely to work with your existing key.

they don't care where the cd comes from, it's the bit of paper with the licence key on which has all the value. I'm sure there's somewhere on the MS website where you can download ISO images of the appropriate CD's.

The is a site on MSDN with ISO images but I don't have access to download them.

Cougar, I thought that it was just the license key used that designated a copy OEM or retail etc. Do you think that a retail CD won't work with a OEM key?

If you're happy to sell on a Windows 7 Professional 64 bit CD do let me know, equally if anyone knows of where I can download an iso image that would be useful too. I might stick with 32bit for now but would like the option to upgrade if I need more memory.

Oh well, that sounded too good to be true. Apparently most iso images available online will be retail packages and my OEM key won't work (Cougar's right) so I need to source a 64bit Window 7 Profession OEM CD.

I probably need to stop worrying and enjoy my nice new system which is significantly better than the dual core 2Gb system it replaced, I just can't help feeling narked and the company providing a customisable system an absolutely no warning about the memory limit on 32bit OS systems (and then not helpling resolve it).

I guess that when I do need more memory I'll have to buy an upgrade.

Another question though, my PCI-e seems to have taken about 750Mb for the graphics card (it's a 1Mb unit). If I add a second 1mb graphics card in Crossfire configuration will I loose more system memory?

back to the op

if you only have 2 slots then don't worry about it. 3.5 is way better than 2 which is probably your only alternative unles you go 64bit.

I've got 4 slots and a 16Gb limit (which comes for the mobo/processor/chipset) although apparently 4GB is the recommended configuration for an i5 (something to do with the way the memory works).

I guess that there's no rush but I would like to get hold of an OEM Windows 7 Pro. 64 CD to give me the upgrade option at a later date (and save me the cost of shelling out £100+ for a new one)

something to do with the way the memory works

Dual channel, yes.

they don't care where the cd comes from

They did when I rang them. I (usually) don't just make this stuff up you know. (-:

Wait a minute. I've just reread this.

I've spoken to the supplier who say that as I've activated the software they can't replace it with a 64bit version but that I am licensed for 32 or 64 bit use and that I can legitimately download or 'acquire' a 64bit CD and use my license to activate it and in doing so I'd be legally licensed;

You were told[i] by your supplier[/i] to download a hooky copy? Where did you buy it, Honest John's Used Computers? I think I'd be tempted to ring them up and say "how about this, you send me an x64 disc, and I won't tell Microsoft that you're advocating piracy to your customers."

Anyway. I looked it up cos I wasn't sure. Check this out.

... seems they might be right. You only get to change at will if you buy the retail version, otherwise you choose at point of sale. I'm pretty sure this is new with W7.

More reading here.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/what-microsoft-wont-tell-you-about-windows-7-licensing/1514?pg=2

See the last paragraph in each section. (seems to contradict the diagram but...)

No I actually bought it from an established supplier who, amongst other things, supply education establishments, corporate, reseller etc. (ironically after being put off buying from MESH from folks on here; typical). The claim apparently came from their rep (I assumed from Microsoft. I guess that they were fobbing me off (or at least the guy on the phone was) although I have seen Microsoft's Genuine Advantage software offer to direct a dodgy XP install to a site to buy a licesne for their dodgy copy (so the source didn't appear to matter there). I don't think I shall say who they are just yet but I don't think I shall be buying from them again!

Anyway, I've tried another email and we'll see where that gets us; not very far I suspect. I think I need to just get over it and enjoy what I have and then worry about 64bit if I decide to add more memory (and a decent flatscreen is first on the list, I'm still using an old 17" CRT). It doesn't sound like I'm seriously compromised performance-wise with what I have.

--Edit--

Got this reply from an MVP on Microsoft's own forums, looks like I'm just gong to have to admit defeat and fork out for a new, retail copy when the time comes. It was my fault I suppose but I'm not happy with the lack of information on the supplier's customisation system.

OEM licenses are to be installed by professional system manufacturers only. Under Microsoft's OEM License Agreement, they are not to be sold to end-users under any circumstance, and are to be preinstalled on a computer using the OEM Preinstallation Kit (OPK) before shipment to the customer, and must include at the very least the manufacturer's support contact information. They are, therefore, designed for installation only on a single computer and are not transferable, even if the original computer is no longer in use. This is not usually an issue for users who purchase new computer systems, because most pre-assembled systems ship with a preinstalled operating system. There are few circumstances where Microsoft will allow the transfer of an OEM license from one non-functioning system to another, but the OEM System Builder License Agreement (SBLA), as well as the OEM End User License Agreement (EULA) do not contain any allowance for this, so it is entirely up to Microsoft's discretion, depending on the situation.

So, to be honest, you shouldn't have bought it in the first place unless you know what you were doing.

You will just have to look at this as a loss and move on. Purchase a retail upgrade license Windows 7 and use the OEM license as a qualifying product:

MS Store Prices for Windows 7:
http://store.microsoft.com/microsoft/Windows-Windows-7/category/102

Well this has turned out to be an education, not just 32bit vs 64bit but customer support and Microsoft Licensing! It's probably time to draw it to a close, I made a booboo (although I still think better advice should have been on hand) and I'll have to live with it. I'm a bit old for proper forum speak but I think the usual response is MTFU (although I've been gratefull that folk haven't said it and have offered lots of advice). I've still got a nice system and need to enjoy that.

On a related note, I'm getting all sorts of licensing 'advice' from a MVP Microsoft forum, some of which is rather odd. I've been told essential that OEM licenses are not to be sold to end users under any circumstances (although the clearly are, even Amazon is doing it) and I've bought them before and I'm being advised to purchase a retail upgrade but (and I'm not sure about this) apparently if I transfer my newly acquired retail Windows to a new machine I'll need a second qualifying product (i.e. the new machine needs to be running Windows to validate the upgrade) as the original OEM license is not transferable! Does this make sense to anyone? MVPs aren't, to my knowledge, official spokes people for Microsoft.

So, can I legally buy OEM software with hardware for my own system? Equally if I buy a retail upgrade am I stuck with no legal way to transfer it to a new system since the qualifying OEM license isn't transferable?

Like with most things in life, a little knowledge can be 'dangerous'.

I use to argue with my users, who 'cos they'd managed to install a wireless network at home they thought they 'knew' about IT, amazing as to what they would come out with - and what they thought it [b]should[/b] cost...

I'm perplexed at the response from the 'professionals.' You can't buy a licence, fine - but you don't need to because you already have one, n'est-ce pas? You can't transfer it to another PC but again, you're not trying to.

Time was you could buy OEM software along with hardware - a lot of vendors used to sell Windows OEM with a three quid mouse. I don't know if that's still true but I wouldn't be remotely surprised if MS have clamped down on that practice now.

I'm getting told different things from different people in the company, one that I am licensed for 64bit (and should download one) and another that says I'm only licensed for 32bit and can't transfer it; I should have stuck with MESH! In any event they're clear that it's my fault and nothing's going to be done about it so that's that I guess.

The other 'professional' advice (about OEM and the fact that the end user can't buy it,licensing etc.) is coming from an MVP on a Microsoft forum, some sort of licensing expert. The original company are happy to sell me OEM Windows with a harddrive and say it's fine. Who knows who's righ, I certainly don't.