Windows 7 32-bit vs 64-bit
in [64 Bits Windows]
|
Prev: separate partition
Next: .NET framework 3.5 SP1
From: Scott on 26 Dec 2009 09:50 On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 09:40:41 -0500, "Dave \"Crash\" Dummy" <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >Scott wrote: >> I have learnt that Windows 64-bit has better performance. I am going >> to have a new computer and would like to know if I should select >> 32-bit or 64-bit OS. If I select 64-bit OS, do I need to buy all >> application software for 64-bit in order to have better performance. >> Can someone give me guidance the pro and con for choosing 64-bit OS. >> >While 64 bit systems run into problems with other programs that haven't >caught up, yet, 64 bit is the Wave of the Future. Microsoft has dealt >with the 32 bit compatibility problem by including examples of both in >its 64 bit system. Using the 32 bit Internet Explorer will take care of >a lot of problems. If you are buying or building a new computer, it >makes sense to install the most advanced and forward looking system. That's what I did. I went for 64 bit as I think this is the future. Most things work fine (but as you say you need to use the 32 bit version of Internet Explorer for sites using Flash). My Palm PDA won't synchronise as there are no 64 bit drivers but I gather the way round this is to use Bluetooth instead (though I have not got this to work yet). The scanner won't work either as there are no drivers but conveniently my brother gave me an Amazon voucher which will just about pay for a new scanner. Scott (a different one)
From: Scott on 26 Dec 2009 10:39 If I select 64-bit OS, all the hardware drivers must be 64-bit to work smoothly. However, the application can be either 32-bit or 64-bit ones that the 64-bit OS can handle as backward compatible. Is it correct understanding? Thanks!! On 26/12/09 10:50 PM, in article nd8cj5tt90psddebf3o0oquvaesuth6f67(a)4ax.com, "Scott" <spiced.porkandham(a)virgin.net> wrote: > On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 09:40:41 -0500, "Dave \"Crash\" Dummy" > <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> Scott wrote: >>> I have learnt that Windows 64-bit has better performance. I am going >>> to have a new computer and would like to know if I should select >>> 32-bit or 64-bit OS. If I select 64-bit OS, do I need to buy all >>> application software for 64-bit in order to have better performance. >>> Can someone give me guidance the pro and con for choosing 64-bit OS. >>> >> While 64 bit systems run into problems with other programs that haven't >> caught up, yet, 64 bit is the Wave of the Future. Microsoft has dealt >> with the 32 bit compatibility problem by including examples of both in >> its 64 bit system. Using the 32 bit Internet Explorer will take care of >> a lot of problems. If you are buying or building a new computer, it >> makes sense to install the most advanced and forward looking system. > > That's what I did. I went for 64 bit as I think this is the future. > Most things work fine (but as you say you need to use the 32 bit > version of Internet Explorer for sites using Flash). My Palm PDA > won't synchronise as there are no 64 bit drivers but I gather the way > round this is to use Bluetooth instead (though I have not got this to > work yet). The scanner won't work either as there are no drivers but > conveniently my brother gave me an Amazon voucher which will just > about pay for a new scanner. > > Scott (a different one)
From: Jeff Gaines on 26 Dec 2009 12:24 On 26/12/2009 in message <C75C4F32.8EAB%NoSpam-Scott.Xe(a)gmail.com> Scott wrote: >If I select 64-bit OS, all the hardware drivers must be 64-bit to work >smoothly. However, the application can be either 32-bit or 64-bit ones >that >the 64-bit OS can handle as backward compatible. Is it correct >understanding? Thanks!! Spot on :-) -- Jeff Gaines Dorset UK By the time you can make ends meet they move the ends
From: Scott on 26 Dec 2009 12:51 On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 23:39:30 +0800, Scott <NoSpam-Scott.Xe(a)gmail.com> wrote: >If I select 64-bit OS, all the hardware drivers must be 64-bit to work >smoothly. However, the application can be either 32-bit or 64-bit ones that >the 64-bit OS can handle as backward compatible. Is it correct >understanding? Thanks!! > I assume you mean '64-bit or 32 bit ones that the 64-bit OS can handle as backward compatible'. That is my understanding also. The other Scott
From: Ron Rosenfeld on 26 Dec 2009 13:12
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 23:39:30 +0800, Scott <NoSpam-Scott.Xe(a)gmail.com> wrote: >If I select 64-bit OS, all the hardware drivers must be 64-bit to work >smoothly. However, the application can be either 32-bit or 64-bit ones that >the 64-bit OS can handle as backward compatible. Is it correct >understanding? Thanks!! More or less. I have a few (very few) 32 bit programs that won't run; and 2 old 16-bit programs. However, MS also supplies Windows Virtual PC with Windows XP mode (for free) and that allows running these legacy programs. It also allowed installing a 32 bit USB driver for my scanner (for which there is no 64bit TWAIN driver available). --ron |