did I install the wrong windows?

The Send to Onenote printer driver is broken, insert printouts relies on that driver also, and OCR is tied in somehow. There are work arounds which fix some of this with third party drivers (though I don't know of any free ones that will), but I myself use these features several times a day, and it's a problem. But yes, as I mentioned in an earlier post, Onenote 2010 fixes this, and is the only reason I can use 64-bit.

Apologies for not explaining what I meant by "theoretically inferior". I know why 32-bit is inferior technically, but when you have show-stopper incompatibilities like that, 32-bit becomes superior, because it actually works. Practicality beats out small technical advances.

I'm with DJG on this: try 64-bit, but be ready to drop down to 32-bit, because serious incompatibilities do exist.

32 bit to 64 bit equally levels out at 1.5GB RAM, or 2 GB assuming Dual Channel isen't being used. Any less than that is a benefit to x86 mode, taking in account the overhead. If your running 2BG+, 64 is the better alternative, strictly looking at performance on a win7 platform.

Sorry, I can't share my graphs

jw12345 said:

The Send to Onenote printer driver is broken, insert printouts relies on that driver also, and OCR is tied in somehow. There are work arounds which fix some of this with third party drivers (though I don't know of any free ones that will), but I myself use these features several times a day, and it's a problem. But yes, as I mentioned in an earlier post, Onenote 2010 fixes this, and is the only reason I can use 64-bit.

Apologies for not explaining what I meant by "theoretically inferior". I know why 32-bit is inferior technically, but when you have show-stopper incompatibilities like that, 32-bit becomes superior, because it actually works. Practicality beats out small technical advances.

I'm with DJG on this: try 64-bit, but be ready to drop down to 32-bit, because serious incompatibilities do exist.

EVERYTHING can be made compatible with 64 bit. It just depends on your willingness on how much time and effort you want to spend getting drivers and making programs compatible. I've been on a 100% 64 bit diet for a little over a year now, and have been able to overcome every driver obstacle I've run across.

So I'll leave my post to this: If you have the time, energy, and frontal brain bandwidth to be able to get over the 64 bit hurdles, do it! It will be rewarded in a faster, and more stable system.

antalgebra said:

32 bit to 64 bit equally levels out at 1.5GB RAM, or 2 GB assuming Dual Channel isen't being used. Any less than that is a benefit to x86 mode, taking in account the overhead. If your running 2BG+, 64 is the better alternative, strictly looking at performance on a win7 platform.

Sorry, I can't share my graphs

So 2 GB in dual channel (as it's more than 1.5) should be faster on x64 than on x86? If so this fits with the benchmarks I have ran as my laptop with 2 GB indeed scores better with x64 than x86.

antalgebra said:

EVERYTHING can be made compatible with 64 bit. It just depends on your willingness on how much time and effort you want to spend getting drivers and making programs compatible. I've been on a 100% 64 bit diet for a little over a year now, and have been able to overcome every driver obstacle I've run across.

So I'll leave my post to this: If you have the time, energy, and frontal brain bandwidth to be able to get over the 64 bit hurdles, do it! It will be rewarded in a faster, and more stable system.

Eh, I don't think anybody's found a way around ti-89 calculators not connecting to the official client, other than the do some hacks to get in working in this crummy unofficial client that doesn't half work. Running it in virtual XP works, but an entire VM for a calculator program can't be great for performance, virtual XP isn't really free, and it isn't seamless because of having to connect the usb in the VM before doing the whole coherence mode thing. Since I rarely sync the calculator anymore, I just use the 32-bit laptop I have, but I'm just making a point of there being instances where 64-bit simply won't work (I'm excluding VMs because of cost and resources)

jw12345 said:

Eh, I don't think anybody's found a way around ti-89 calculators not connecting to the official client, other than the do some hacks to get in working in this crummy unofficial client that doesn't half work. Running it in virtual XP works, but an entire VM for a calculator program can't be great for performance, virtual XP isn't really free, and it isn't seamless because of having to connect the usb in the VM before doing the whole coherence mode thing. Since I rarely sync the calculator anymore, I just use the 32-bit laptop I have, but I'm just making a point of there being instances where 64-bit simply won't work (I'm excluding VMs because of cost and resources)

Win7 comes with an xp 32 bit simlulator built in. Have you tried that?

antalgebra said:

Win7 comes with an xp 32 bit simlulator built in. Have you tried that?

Are you referring to Virtual XP? Then yes, that's what I meant by the VM, but it's a hassle to load the VM, connect the usb to the vm, and then switch to the coherence mode (whatever it's called). But since it doesn't come on the most common version of Windows (Home Premium) then you have to pay more for a higher version of Windows for the feature.

Or if you're talking about compatibility modes: it doesn't work. There have been tons of people trying to get this to work for several years trying all sorts of hacks. TI refuses to issue a 64-bit driver, though I imagine their hand will be forced soon enough.

fakeasdf said:

I've been using 64 bit for the last 4 years with almost zero incompatibilities. Just because you are having some issues with it doesn't mean everyone else will. Stay in the past, it helps those lazy ass companies who don't want to create 64 bit drivers justify themselves :) It really doesn't matter to me if you use 32 bit or 64 bit, I'm using 64 bit and enjoying all of the advantages (which aren't just increased memory amount).

I think some of you are mistaking me as arguing against 64-bit. I run 64-bit 95% of the time, but I'm just noting that telling somebody that it's ALWAYS the best idea to upgrade to 64-bit as your signature says isn't the best course of action, because there still are issues some people experience on modern software/hardware that flat out can't be resolved without running a 32-bit VM.

jw12345 said:

Are you referring to Virtual XP? Then yes, that's what I meant by the VM, but it's a hassle to load the VM, connect the usb to the vm, and then switch to the coherence mode (whatever it's called). But since it doesn't come on the most common version of Windows (Home Premium) then you have to pay more for a higher version of Windows for the feature.

Or if you're talking about compatibility modes: it doesn't work. There have been tons of people trying to get this to work for several years trying all sorts of hacks. TI refuses to issue a 64-bit driver, though I imagine their hand will be forced soon enough.

Yup, your right, this is a premium service for Ultimate/Enterprise/Professional. I do hope the bugs will be ironed out before release.

And yes, the debate of having many 'grades' of software is up for debate for pros/cons, and what to include in each level. I personally hate not being able to setup a domain on the lower levels... but hey, when you got a monopoly, build hotels