64bit or 32 bit

pparks1 said:

1). Cost (licensing 2 copies of the OS)
2). Space consumed on the hard drive
3). Unnecessary complexity
4). Not likely that any performance increases would be noticeable by the person
5). Maintaining 2 OS's (defrag, viruses, spyware, malware, software installs).

In my particular case of having 2 machines available...it's nice because I can continue to use my primary box for whatever I want, while the kids simultaneously use the older computer to play their games and surf the web, etc.

!) no extra cost as the person would obviously already have the existing XP operating system.
2) Space, you are kidding, I maintain a 20Gb partition for exactly this reason, having a laser that I like, but has not vista or w7 drivers, Hard drives are so cheap these days it is ridiculous.
3) what complexity exactly are you talking about? You install XP, then you install Windows 7 and use that mainly, unless of course the option of which OS to boot into confuses you a great deal at start up
4) If the person is only maintaining the secondary OS to use certain hardware who cares about performance?
5) Second OS does not contact web as it is only used for the hardware that will not run under W7, where virus or spyware?

pparks1 said:

Well, software and hardware is just about the only reason that people us computers...so that is a rather large category.

pparks1++

And let's not forget the extra memory overhead for WOW64 (and larger code size), which can be a pretty significant hit for systems without a lot of RAM.

Philluk57 said:

hi i'm currently have a amd 64 bit computer runiing windows vista 64 bit
does this meen i can only have the 64 bit version of windows seven or would i be able to install windows 7 32 bit on my 64 bit computer and i know i may seem strange to want to run a 32 bit on a 64 bit but i have my reasons

you can run either one, but if you are upgradeing from your vista x64 to 7 you will have to upgrade with x64 and the same package you have also (home, home premium, ultimate).

now if you do a clean install you can put what ever you want on it.

Antman said:

I have a video capture device with a feature that I like very much. It has no 64-bit driver.

Out of curiosity, have you tried it in 64-bit? I have a first-generation digital TV tuner from ATI. They never made 64-bit drivers for this model. All the drivers listed at AMD and in the Windows Update catalog were 32-bit. But then I ended up installing Win64 as a dual-boot for other reasons, and much to my surprise, the TV tuner worked. With the 32-bit drivers. After some investigation, I discovered that for TV tuner drivers, Microsoft provides a thunking layer so that 32-bit drivers could work in 64-bit Windows. (Sadly, there's no thunking layer for sound card drivers, and Creative, being in the PITA that they are, never released 64-bit drivers for their low-end legacy sound cards.) Anyway, I don't know if the same holds for video capture devices (I guess they're sorta similar to TV tuners?)...

Stranger said:

!) no extra cost as the person would obviously already have the existing XP operating system.

But the question was whether to use 64-bit or 32-bit. So, if they already have a 32-bit Windows version licensed, there would be a cost to getting a 64-bit version of the OS to install. Seems a bit pointless to pay for 64-bit just because you could run it.

Stranger said:

2) Space, you are kidding, I maintain a 20Gb partition for exactly this reason, having a laser that I like, but has not vista or w7 drivers, Hard drives are so cheap these days it is ridiculous.

Sure, drives are cheap and so are some people. Tons of people won't spend the $100 to properly license Windows yet they use it every single day.

Stranger said:

3) what complexity exactly are you talking about? You install XP, then you install Windows 7 and use that mainly, unless of course the option of which OS to boot into confuses you a great deal at start up

Some users are barely able to install antivirus or run windows update to get hotfixes without somehow screwing up their computer. I could never imagine my inlaws trying to take a 64-bit operating system and installing a dual boot on their computer.

Stranger said:

4) If the person is only maintaining the secondary OS to use certain hardware who cares about performance?

My point about performance was actually geared towards the 64-bit version of Windows. Many average users will really reap no tangible performance benefits of 64-bit. Therefore, for average tasks and with less than 4GB of RAM...I don't see a lot to be gained from dual booting. Just continue to use 32-bit.

Stranger said:

5) Second OS does not contact web as it is only used for the hardware that will not run under W7, where virus or spyware?

That's assuming person doesn't access the web. What if their hardware has a problem and they have to start searching the web for a solution? Are they going to instead reboot into their other OS, search for some answers, download what they need, and then reboot back into the other OS to actually try out the solution and see if it works.

Stranger said:

<Comment Removed by Dwarf>

Well, if you want to spend the majority of your life with your computer...I guess that is an option for you. However, sooner or later I need a little something else in my life.

DataMan47 said:

Out of curiosity, have you tried it in 64-bit ...

It is actually a very old Intel card that doesn't even work in XP. It makes video greeting cards and my Number One likes to send these to friends and family.

pparks1 said:

But the question was whether to use 64-bit or 32-bit. So, if they already have a 32-bit Windows version licensed, there would be a cost to getting a 64-bit version of the OS to install. Seems a bit pointless to pay for 64-bit just because you could run it.

32 bit license will also activate 64 bit version, if run on the same machine totally legal, no requirement for a second purchase.

pparks1 said:

Sure, drives are cheap and so are some people. Tons of people won't spend the $100 to properly license Windows yet they use it every single day.

I assume the person has ethics and runs a legit version of their OS

pparks1 said:

Some users are barely able to install antivirus or run windows update to get hotfixes without somehow screwing up their computer. I could never imagine my inlaws trying to take a 64-bit operating system and installing a dual boot on their computer.

Some people should never use computers, but they do, just look at many questions on this forum

pparks1 said:

My point about performance was actually geared towards the 64-bit version of Windows. Many average users will really reap no tangible performance benefits of 64-bit. Therefore, for average tasks and with less than 4GB of RAM...I don't see a lot to be gained from dual booting. Just continue to use 32-bit.

This was about using hardware that does not run under W7, not about perfomance.

pparks1 said:

That's assuming person doesn't access the web. What if their hardware has a problem and they have to start searching the web for a solution? Are they going to instead reboot into their other OS, search for some answers, download what they need, and then reboot back into the other OS to actually try out the solution and see if it works.

The 2nd OS would only be to use the hardware that does not run uner W7, what part of that do you fail to understand?

pparks1 said:

Well, if you want to spend the majority of your life with your computer...I guess that is an option for you. However, sooner or later I need a little something else in my life.

Been there, done that, (I am female by the way, and, sadly to say a mother also), there are other things to life rather than living through your offspring. I live in the middle of a rainforest and trek into it most days... you do what?