A bit messed up, but it is a real print. ;P "Sonopress GmbH" germany printed these in 2021. You will find these at some of the bigger OEM partners lying around in masses, incl. a DVD. Some made it to ebay back then. On the back it says : Insert DVD - Choose 32- or 64- Bit ;P Hints and tutorials : windows.com/windows10getstarted There are variations :
I have the second variant (Windows 11 Pro, with the gray DVD, X22-78034-01) and it contains only the 64bit architecture. Possibly the cardboard was printed before MS decided not to release the 32bit Win11 (which indeed existed as internal build).
I got told that there was an internal 32-bit build before...it got called "Windows 10X". But seriously, any chance it might pop up on betaarchive one day or was ist top-secret-nda-internal ?
Depends on if it ever leaked or leaks from MS. The normal way, it won't make its way out, for sure. If we still lived in the WZor / Zukona times, we'd probably have it already.
Sigh. Must be fake anyway, as Win11 wouldn't fit on a DVD Dual Layer disk regardless, carrying all the bloat it does. No, I'm not serious lol, it's a 'joke'
Did you read what I wrote just few message above, right? Most programs are threaded, even if your chrome takes 8GB because you have a ton of tabs opened, what counts is the single thread (one per tab, one per extension, one for the main app and so on. Obviously there are photo editing SW that may need to load a stupidly large RAW file, but that's not what the majority of users face, nor it's applicable to the 2004 scenario I mentioned above. Just for example in 2004 the top of the top professional digital reflex camera were the Nikon D1X and D1H 5Mpixel and 3MPixel, respectively. Most Americans had never touched a cellphone, let alone a smartphone. The crappy Iphone 1 released three years later had a 2MPixel camera. Most people around the world was still on 56K dialup connections and the videos were sized accordingly. So, aside large organizations, there was absolutely no point in using a 64bit OS, but like I said sill XP64 was a way better OS than XP because it had a way better kernel. Server 2003 (x86) turned to client (what i call XP52) was a way better OS than XP as well. Actually XP52 was BETTER and faster than XP64 in most applications, because in windows 64bit means larger files, larger executable, larger memory transfers and occupations, and when you have to load/store/transfer a file which is 1.6MB instead of a file which is 1MB, the time needed to do that counts (especially when using mechanical HDDs).