| Author |
Message |
| Registered: August 1, 2007 | | Posts: 6 |
| | Posted: | | | | If your computer is using 32 bit windows Vista or XP then you need to install 32 bit windows 7. You cannot install 64 bit windows on a computer that is already running 32 bit windows, and also windows 7 will inform you of this when you try to install it. |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 |  Posts: 2,337 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting fredreed: Quote:
If your computer is using 32 bit windows Vista or XP then you need to install 32 bit windows 7. You cannot install 64 bit windows on a computer that is already running 32 bit windows, and also windows 7 will inform you of this when you try to install it. What difference does it make which OS you had if you're going to format the hard drive? Sure you cannot upgrade 32bit > 64bit, but it doesn't prevent you to install one. |
|
| Registered: May 19, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 5,917 |
| | Posted: | | | | But running a 32 bit processor would stop him. |
|
| Registered: March 29, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 2,750 |
| | Posted: | | | | Until companies start writing their programs to take advantage of 64 bit processing, the only thing you will probably manage to do is slow down your computer, among other things. Also, some programs won't even run on a 64 bit system. So check with your IT friends and/or the software and hardware companies whose products you are using before going to 64 bit. I was all gung ho to go 64 bit until I talked to others who have had experience with it. It does have it's pros, but I think the cons out-weigh them. JMO | | | | Marty - Registered July 10, 2004, User since 2002. |
|
| Registered: May 19, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 6,730 |
| | Posted: | | | | The cons strongly depend on the age of your hard- and software. For older computers and peripherals (>3 years) I would recommend to remain on a 32 Bit environment even if the PC as such has a 64 Bit CPU. For younger models with a matching software equipment you will usually find a 64 Bit OS more convenient.
If a commercial software of your choice isn't available as a 64 Bit version, check the free- and/or shareware market. You will often find that a program that has the same or even better capabilities is available there. | | | It all seems so stupid, it makes me want to give up!
But why should I give up, when it all seems so stupid?
Registrant since 05/22/2003 | | | | Last edited: by Lewis_Prothero |
|
| Registered: May 10, 2007 | | Posts: 418 |
| | Posted: | | | | I reason I haven't went 64 yet was I am scare drivers or programs I need will have issues. |
|
| Registered: May 19, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,730 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Randall_Lind: Quote:
I reason I haven't went 64 yet was I am scare drivers or programs I need will have issues. For newer hardware (except for very low-budget equipment) you usually find a 64 Bit driver (at least on the homepage of the manufacturer). Concerning your software you can always check the homepage of the developer for issues with a 64 Bit environment (or even better: a 64 Bit version). Most of the newer software is running quite fine on Vista-64 or Win7-64 because the 32 Bit compatibility of these two has very much improved in comparison to XP-64. On my Win7-64 installation I have an old Nero running (and I mean old, it's ver. 5.5) for testing purposes, there were no issues yet. | | | It all seems so stupid, it makes me want to give up!
But why should I give up, when it all seems so stupid?
Registrant since 05/22/2003 |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 452 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Kulju: Quote:
Quoting fredreed:
Quote:
If your computer is using 32 bit windows Vista or XP then you need to install 32 bit windows 7. You cannot install 64 bit windows on a computer that is already running 32 bit windows, and also windows 7 will inform you of this when you try to install it.
What difference does it make which OS you had if you're going to format the hard drive? Sure you cannot upgrade 32bit > 64bit, but it doesn't prevent you to install one. You can't do any update at all because the update option has been deactivated in europe due to the IE issue. |
|
| Registered: May 10, 2007 | | Posts: 418 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting goblinsdoitall: Quote:
Quoting Randall_Lind:
Quote:
I reason I haven't went 64 yet was I am scare drivers or programs I need will have issues.
For newer hardware (except for very low-budget equipment) you usually find a 64 Bit driver (at least on the homepage of the manufacturer).
Concerning your software you can always check the homepage of the developer for issues with a 64 Bit environment (or even better: a 64 Bit version). Most of the newer software is running quite fine on Vista-64 or Win7-64 because the 32 Bit compatibility of these two has very much improved in comparison to XP-64.
On my Win7-64 installation I have an old Nero running (and I mean old, it's ver. 5.5) for testing purposes, there were no issues yet. I use Nero 7 myself the newer version is just so damn bloated. They even add a RSS feed to I believe version 9. I was like what the heck? lol |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 103 |
| | Posted: | | | | Not to post too far of topic, but reading that people still use Nero is a little surprising. Nero is bloat ware. I stopped at v 5.x. I have been using a little app that is free and works great. it is called CDBurnerXP, about 3 megs. Also a great free app for ISO's called IMGburn, under 2megs. CDBurnerXP runs on Win 2000 - Win 7 both 32 and 64 bit versions. IMGburn supports all Windows from '95 to 7 32 and 64 bit.
Google them to find the sites.
If you like the programs and would like to support them you can donate to them. | | | | Last edited: by graymadder |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 |  Posts: 630 |
| | Posted: | | | | I went 64 bit when Vista was released (I have 4Gb of memory). In the start there where a few driver issues, but I can't even remember when I last encountered a program or driver that wouldn't work in 64 bit. For me it's pretty much a no brainer - if you have 4GB or above, then 64bit it is. | | | Regards
Lars |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 2,337 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting graymadder: Quote:
Not to post too far of topic, but reading that people still use Nero is a little surprising. Nero is bloat ware. I stopped at v 5.x. I have been using a little app that is free and works great. it is called CDBurnerXP, about 3 megs. Also a great free app for ISO's called IMGburn, under 2megs. Why do you use two different software? CDBurnerXP works fine with ISOs. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 3,197 |
| | Posted: | | | | Just tried to install Win 7 on my old 2001 computer. It refused, said it needed 512 MB.  So I'm looking for a cheap memory upgrade... Not easy to find for such old hardware. | | | | First registered: February 15, 2002 |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 103 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Kulju: Quote:
Quoting graymadder:
Quote:
Not to post too far of topic, but reading that people still use Nero is a little surprising. Nero is bloat ware. I stopped at v 5.x. I have been using a little app that is free and works great. it is called CDBurnerXP, about 3 megs. Also a great free app for ISO's called IMGburn, under 2megs.
Why do you use two different software? CDBurnerXP works fine with ISOs. IMGburn supports many image formats and and has a better interface for creating/burning images. I only stated that ImgBurn is good for ISO's where I should have stated that IMGburn is a great for image file formats. I refrained because I didn't want to confuse some people who may have thought image meant pics. I rarely create compilations, music, data, etc cd's. Most of my burning is of image files. So I choose to use a program that is designed for that purpose. | | | | Last edited: by graymadder |
|