A few Win 7 questions before making the switch

[Corporate Thug]

1. Should I install 32 bit or 64 bit (hardware is x48 + Q9550)

2. If 64 bit, is the best version 7100.0.090421-1700?

3. Will I have any issues running office 2003 in EITHER 64 bit or 32 bit Win 7?

Thanks!

 

[Samalama]

Switching to a Release Candidate? Why not just wait until October?
But to answer your questions...

1. I would recommend 64 bit, especially if you are running or intend to run more than 4 GB of RAM.

2. I cannot answer this one. Too unfamiliar with their version numbers.

3. From what I've read, Office 2003 has trouble installing on pre-release versions of Windows 7. I would expect this to go away by the official release in October.

 

[KeypoX]

If you have >3GB ram then go 64bit.

2. Most officially available. Its RC and will expire in less than a year.
3. I dont think so, i use 2k7 though.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Before you install the OS, go through each of your devices and search for 64-bit drivers. If there's anything important that you don't want to replace that has no 64 bit drivers, you may be better off going 32 bit. I had a really hard time with some of my devices after hearing people all over the place (this forum included) saying that 64 bit was a cinch and there's no good reason not to use it. Yes, 64-bit is very easy and simple and works just like the 32-bit version, as long as your hardware is supported. That qualifier is important.

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: Samalama
Switching to a Release Candidate? Why not just wait until October?
But to answer your questions...

1. I would recommend 64 bit, especially if you are running or intend to run more than 4 GB of RAM.

2. I cannot answer this one. Too unfamiliar with their version numbers.

3. From what I've read, Office 2003 has trouble installing on pre-release versions of Windows 7. I would expect this to go away by the official release in October.

from what I understand, RC is pretty damn stable.

 

[Billb2]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
...go through each of your devices and search for 64-bit drivers.

A useless endeavour...
There are very few W7 drivers in the wild yet. But pretty much anything you need is already included in the W7 x64 packade. If not, Vista X64 drivers work just fine.

 

[SickBeast]

1. 32
2. yes
3. I think so

I'm very happy with W7 32 bit. I have 3gb of ram that I cannot upgrade due to a motherboard limitation.

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
1. 32
2. yes
3. I think so

I'm very happy with W7 32 bit. I have 3gb of ram that I cannot upgrade due to a motherboard limitation.

why do you recommend the 32 bit?

 

[Sylvanas]

1. 64bit- even if you have under 4gb ram it's the best choice, 64bit is simply just faster in some tasks and not slower in any there is no reason to go 32bit.
2. Yeah whatever the RC version on Microsofts site is, thats 7100.
3. Not sure but in worst case you may need a patch or a work around.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: Billb2

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
...go through each of your devices and search for 64-bit drivers.

A useless endeavour...
There are very few W7 drivers in the wild yet. But pretty much anything you need is already included in the W7 x64 packade. If not, Vista X64 drivers work just fine.

I never said anything about Windows 7 drivers :roll: It's common knowledge that Vista drivers work in Windows 7. But what if there are no Vista x64 drivers? This is what happened to me.

 

[Scotteq]

(1) My vote is for 64 bit, unless you have some specific reason not to.

(2) That is the version number for the Release Candidate, yes... But I most strongly urge you to obtain the bits directly from Microsoft rather than a torrent. It is still available for direct download, and there *are* cracked versions of 7 floating around the torrents.

(3) Office 2003 works fine on BOTH versions of Win 7.


**To answer for SickBeast: His post said his motherboard is limited to 3GB of memory. So likely he stuck with 32 bit since he doesn't need 64 to cover address space requirements.

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: Scotteq
(1) My vote is for 64 bit, unless you have some specific reason not to.

(2) That is the version number for the Release Candidate, yes... But I most strongly urge you to obtain the bits directly from Microsoft rather than a torrent. It is still available for direct download, and there *are* cracked versions of 7 floating around the torrents.

(3) Office 2003 works fine on BOTH versions of Win 7.


**To answer for SickBeast: His post said his motherboard is limited to 3GB of memory. So likely he stuck with 32 bit since he doesn't need 64 to cover address space requirements.

thanx, Scott. Office 2003 is my #1 concern as 90% of my work is done in office.

BTW, the file was directly downloaded from MS.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Corporate Thug

Originally posted by: SickBeast
1. 32
2. yes
3. I think so

I'm very happy with W7 32 bit. I have 3gb of ram that I cannot upgrade due to a motherboard limitation.

why do you recommend the 32 bit?

It has a smaller memory footprint, 32 bit applications have a smaller memory footprint, it takes up less hard drive space, has less driver issues, has less compatibility issues, and in my experience has been overall better.

Going forward everyone will need to make the switch over to 64 bit but we're not at the point where it's required yet. I'd say we've got at least 2-3 years left under 32 bit.

 

[VinylxScratches]

If you are doing real work on your computer, I'd stick to Vista/XP.

 

[Andrmgic]

Originally posted by: Corporate Thug

Originally posted by: Scotteq
(1) My vote is for 64 bit, unless you have some specific reason not to.

(2) That is the version number for the Release Candidate, yes... But I most strongly urge you to obtain the bits directly from Microsoft rather than a torrent. It is still available for direct download, and there *are* cracked versions of 7 floating around the torrents.

(3) Office 2003 works fine on BOTH versions of Win 7.


**To answer for SickBeast: His post said his motherboard is limited to 3GB of memory. So likely he stuck with 32 bit since he doesn't need 64 to cover address space requirements.

thanx, Scott. Office 2003 is my #1 concern as 90% of my work is done in office.

BTW, the file was directly downloaded from MS.

Office 2003 will work fine. Worst case scenario, download the Virtual Windows XP Beta on Microsoft's site.. it is a fully functional copy of Windows XP SP3 in a virtual machine that can have its programs virtualized and placed on your start menu without having to work directly in the virtual machine. Provided that your cpu supports Hyper-V or the Amd equivalent.

Windows 7 is largely "safe" to use in a production environment at this point. Half of the support techs in my office (including myself) are running the RC on our workstations that we depend on for over a month and it has been fantastic.

 

[mshan]

I have tried the 32 and 64 bit versions and have had two components, a Hauppauge 950 hdtv tuner, and my old Canon A20 camera, not install because driver couldn't be found. Windows found 32 bit drivers automatically.

64 bit version, to me, seemed slightly sluggish (instantaneous responsiveness) vs. 32 bit on same rig, but then again I am not running super power computing parts (e7200, 4 GB RAM, XFX7600GS, and WD6400AAKS), so ymmv. Also tried installing 64 bit on less powerful system (Shuttle SG31G2 with Celeron 440, 2 GB RAM, WD6400AAKS, and stock integrated graphics) and it seems to struggle a bit (vs XP Pro); haven't tried installing 32 bit version yet.

I don't need 4 GB RAM or more for my needs, so I think I am leaning to 32 bit for possible greater compatability with legacy components and electronics (?)

 

[bsobel]

It has a smaller memory footprint, 32 bit applications have a smaller memory footprint, it takes up less hard drive space, has less driver issues, has less compatibility issues, and in my experience has been overall better.

But is more secure (x64), so its a tradeoff. If (like that user) I was stuck at just 3gb, then 32bit is a fairly reasonable choice (but I'd definately be on the fence)

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: bsobel

It has a smaller memory footprint, 32 bit applications have a smaller memory footprint, it takes up less hard drive space, has less driver issues, has less compatibility issues, and in my experience has been overall better.

But is more secure (x64), so its a tradeoff. If (like that user) I was stuck at just 3gb, then 32bit is a fairly reasonable choice (but I'd definately be on the fence)

64 bit apps will also be faster and will not have a larger memory footprint. I just find that it's not worth it yet. It probably will be in 2-3 years when we have more 64 bit applications. I will say that 64 bit Firefox is noticeably faster than the 32 bit version, especially with a bunch of tabs open. The problem is that the flash software for it is not very mature and tends to have issues. When I used it, it was still an alpha version.

 

[bsobel]

Most of the time this is from people presuming driver aren't available if Windows Update doesn't have them...

a Hauppauge 950 hdtv tuner

"What Operating Systems are supported by the WinTV-HVR-950?
Microsoft® Windows® XP, XP Pro or Windows XP Media Center Edition, with Service Pack 2.
Windows Vista (all versions), 32-bit and 64-bit
Mac OSX (with Elgato's EyeTV software)"

and my old Canon A20 camera

What kind of drivers do you need for your camera? I just throw the memory card in the computer (shrug). From the Canon site it looks like the only 32bit sw might be the 'remote capture' utility. The camera should appear as a usb device even simply cabled (no?)

Bill

 

[bsobel]

64 bit apps will also be faster and will not have a larger memory footprint

Did you misword that, 64 bit apps do tend to have a larger footprint (its not double as many suggest, but indeed they are larger)

 

[mshan]

I did a google search for 64 bit vista drivers for Hauppauge 950, tried installing it, and still get no tuner installed error message.

Not sure if I tried Windows update for driver for Canon A20.

Could you elaborate on how / what ways 64 bit version is more secure?

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: mshan
I did a google search for 64 bit vista drivers for Hauppauge 950, tried installing it, and still get no tuner installed error message.

Not sure if I tried Windows update for driver for Canon A20.

Could you elaborate on how / what ways 64 bit version is more secure?

'No tuner installed', was that in media center? The Hauppauge page mentioned having to install a second item for MC so see the tuner...

As for security http://blogs.msdn.com/windowsv...2006/08/11/695993.aspx

 

[mshan]

Yes, but I think I also got that yellow error flag in device manager.

Actually did try and install with second tuner (VBox 3560), and VBox is recognized fine.

Thanks for link.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: bsobel

64 bit apps will also be faster and will not have a larger memory footprint

Did you misword that, 64 bit apps do tend to have a larger footprint (its not double as many suggest, but indeed they are larger)

I was under the impression that it was 32 bit apps running on a 64 bit OS that needed more memory; I thought native 64 bit apps did not use more. My mistake.