Can someone point my to an idiots guide to installing win7 to dual boot 32 &
64 bit versions
regards & TIA



__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4893 (20100224) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

 

Use your favourite search engine to find sites for reading up on terms such
as dual booting, partitioning and formatting partitions, NTFS, and so on.

Generally and practically speaking, you will need at least two partitions
(on one or more harddrives - one partition for each operating system) in
order to dual boot.

There are a dozens of ways to set up a dual and multi-boots - it all comes
down to what you want.

Here's some links to get you started:

http://social.technet.microsoft.com...l/thread/487582f4-f6c2-4b92-b70b-cf8784d67ec9

http://forums.techguy.org/windows-vista/826989-solved-dual-boot-win-7-a.html

http://social.answers.microsoft.com...l/thread/e5099d54-3d67-48c3-a77e-8a3ca1b2c994



"Jim" <Me@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news_2dnX6CKrF2fhvWnZ2dnUVZ8vednZ2d@eclipse.net.uk...
> Can someone point my to an idiots guide to installing win7 to dual boot 32
> & 64 bit versions
> regards & TIA
>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 4893 (20100224) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
>

 

Re: Dual booting - 32 & 64 bit versions (supplementary question)

Ok ... Thanks for that Pulse... I have a question ... it appears from the
last of those links that I can't have both versions activated with the same
CD key.

If I activated 64 bit and later had difficulties would I be able to uninstal
the 64 bit version and activate the 32 bit version with the same CD key ?

Regards & TIA



"Pulse" <pulse@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:hm6qs0$5so$1@speranza.aioe.org...
> Use your favourite search engine to find sites for reading up on terms
> such as dual booting, partitioning and formatting partitions, NTFS, and
> so on.
>
> Generally and practically speaking, you will need at least two partitions
> (on one or more harddrives - one partition for each operating system) in
> order to dual boot.
>
> There are a dozens of ways to set up a dual and multi-boots - it all comes
> down to what you want.
>
> Here's some links to get you started:
>
> http://social.technet.microsoft.com...l/thread/487582f4-f6c2-4b92-b70b-cf8784d67ec9
>
> http://forums.techguy.org/windows-vista/826989-solved-dual-boot-win-7-a.html
>
> http://social.answers.microsoft.com...l/thread/e5099d54-3d67-48c3-a77e-8a3ca1b2c994
>
>
>
> "Jim" <Me@somewhere.com> wrote in message
> news_2dnX6CKrF2fhvWnZ2dnUVZ8vednZ2d@eclipse.net.uk...
>> Can someone point my to an idiots guide to installing win7 to dual boot
>> 32 & 64 bit versions
>> regards & TIA
>>
>>
>>
>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
>> signature database 4893 (20100224) __________
>>
>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>>
>> http://www.eset.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 4896 (20100225) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>



__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4896 (20100225) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

 

Re: Dual booting - 32 & 64 bit versions (supplementary question)

"Jim" <Me@somewhere.com> wrote:

>If I activated 64 bit and later had difficulties would I be able to uninstal
>the 64 bit version and activate the 32 bit version with the same CD key ?


Yes, as long as it's a retail package - those keys work on one
install, from either DVD-ROM, at a time.

--
Joel Crump

 

Re: Dual booting - 32 & 64 bit versions (supplementary question)

Jim wrote:
> Ok ... Thanks for that Pulse... I have a question ... it appears from the
> last of those links that I can't have both versions activated with the same
> CD key.
>
> If I activated 64 bit and later had difficulties would I be able to uninstal
> the 64 bit version and activate the 32 bit version with the same CD key ?
>
> Regards & TIA

Yes, you can use the same key for either 64-bit or 32-bit versions, as
long as you don't use them at the same time.

Regarding 64-bit, there's nothing to worry about here anymore. Just go
ahead and do it, and don't diddle around with 32-bit anymore. It's well
past time to go to 64-bit.

Yousuf Khan

 

Re: Dual booting - 32 & 64 bit versions (supplementary question)

Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:

>Regarding 64-bit, there's nothing to worry about here anymore. Just go
>ahead and do it, and don't diddle around with 32-bit anymore. It's well
>past time to go to 64-bit.


With less than 4 GB RAM, most people would be better off with 32-bit.

--
Joel Crump

 

Re: Dual booting - 32 & 64 bit versions (supplementary question)

On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 17:08:55 -0500, Yousuf Khan
<bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:


> Regarding 64-bit, there's nothing to worry about here anymore. Just go
> ahead and do it, and don't diddle around with 32-bit anymore. It's well
> past time to go to 64-bit.


I strongly disagree.

There's very little benefit of running a 64-bit version of Windows
now, because the benefit is essentially gotten only if you run 64-bit
applications. And there are very few 64-bit applications yet.

And there is often a serious disadvantage of 64-bit Windows for many
people. If they have hardware for which they need but can't get a
64-bit driver, they may have to spend the money to replace the
hardware.

*However*, for those without driver issues. I think most people should
use 64-bit Windows--not because it's better today, but because it's a
step forward that will let them buy 64-bit applications as they become
available.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

 

Re: Dual booting - 32 & 64 bit versions (supplementary question)

On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 11:29:02 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
<kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote:

>On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 17:08:55 -0500, Yousuf Khan
><bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Regarding 64-bit, there's nothing to worry about here anymore. Just go
>> ahead and do it, and don't diddle around with 32-bit anymore. It's well
>> past time to go to 64-bit.
>
>
>I strongly disagree.
>
>There's very little benefit of running a 64-bit version of Windows
>now, because the benefit is essentially gotten only if you run 64-bit
>applications. And there are very few 64-bit applications yet.
>
>And there is often a serious disadvantage of 64-bit Windows for many
>people. If they have hardware for which they need but can't get a
>64-bit driver, they may have to spend the money to replace the
>hardware.
>
>*However*, for those without driver issues. I think most people should
>use 64-bit Windows--not because it's better today, but because it's a
>step forward that will let them buy 64-bit applications as they become
>available.

Ken, that's not a strong disagreement, that's a positive agreement
with caveats. And FWIW, I agree with your assessment.

Bottom line: go with 64-bit unless you have a reason not to.

 

Re: Dual booting - 32 & 64 bit versions (supplementary question)

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 17:08:55 -0500, Yousuf Khan
> <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Regarding 64-bit, there's nothing to worry about here anymore. Just go
>> ahead and do it, and don't diddle around with 32-bit anymore. It's well
>> past time to go to 64-bit.
>
>
> I strongly disagree.
>
> There's very little benefit of running a 64-bit version of Windows
> now, because the benefit is essentially gotten only if you run 64-bit
> applications. And there are very few 64-bit applications yet.
>
> And there is often a serious disadvantage of 64-bit Windows for many
> people. If they have hardware for which they need but can't get a
> 64-bit driver, they may have to spend the money to replace the
> hardware.
>
> *However*, for those without driver issues. I think most people should
> use 64-bit Windows--not because it's better today, but because it's a
> step forward that will let them buy 64-bit applications as they become
> available.
>
There is a reason why David Cutler pushed for the 64-bit version of
windows. And the same reasons that Apple pushed to get their os into
the 64-bit intel arena... 32-bit intel code lacks the necessary general
purpose registers that their 64-bit has. What you get is wasted time
fetching something from slow memory. By temporarily storing a value in
a local register, this is your fastest means possible. Then the next
fastest is your local L2 then L3 cache.
With the IBM G5 (970FX) processor, the 32-bit code was a lot faster than
the 64-bit code if you stayed within the 4Gb memory bounds. The G5 had
plenty of gp registers (32) that were both 32-bit and 64-bit capable.
Intel chips that run 32-bit compiled code do not get to use the 64-bit
gp regs.

 

Re: Dual booting - 32 & 64 bit versions (supplementary question)

On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 11:55:02 -0500, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:

>Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Regarding 64-bit, there's nothing to worry about here anymore. Just go
>>ahead and do it, and don't diddle around with 32-bit anymore. It's well
>>past time to go to 64-bit.
>
>
>With less than 4 GB RAM, most people would be better off with 32-bit.

I disagree. The statement is too broad.

 

Re: Dual booting - 32 & 64 bit versions (supplementary question)

Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> wrote:

>>With less than 4 GB RAM, most people would be better off with 32-bit.
>
>I disagree. The statement is too broad.


I didn't say it was true in all cases. But 64-bit Windows 7 does use
more RAM than 32-bit, and thus the amount of RAM in the system is
relevant to the choice (in particular, with 4 GB it becomes really
worthwhile and even necessary, although I would grant that with 3 GB
it might still be a toss-up - not with 2 GB, though).

--
Joel Crump

 

Re: Dual booting - 32 & 64 bit versions (supplementary question)

Joel wrote:
> Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Regarding 64-bit, there's nothing to worry about here anymore. Just go
>> ahead and do it, and don't diddle around with 32-bit anymore. It's well
>> past time to go to 64-bit.
>
>
> With less than 4 GB RAM, most people would be better off with 32-bit.


It doesn't matter, there is negligible performance impact with the
64-bit kernel, and you won't have to reinstall an OS from scratch again,
once you do upgrade to 4GB+. It's extremely cost-effective to go to 4GB
these days.

Yousuf Khan

 

Re: Dual booting - 32 & 64 bit versions (supplementary question)

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 17:08:55 -0500, Yousuf Khan
> <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Regarding 64-bit, there's nothing to worry about here anymore. Just go
>> ahead and do it, and don't diddle around with 32-bit anymore. It's well
>> past time to go to 64-bit.
>
>
> I strongly disagree.

Why would you strongly disagree, all of your statements below make it
sound like you only slightly disagree.

> There's very little benefit of running a 64-bit version of Windows
> now, because the benefit is essentially gotten only if you run 64-bit
> applications. And there are very few 64-bit applications yet.
>
> And there is often a serious disadvantage of 64-bit Windows for many
> people. If they have hardware for which they need but can't get a
> 64-bit driver, they may have to spend the money to replace the
> hardware.
>
> *However*, for those without driver issues. I think most people should
> use 64-bit Windows--not because it's better today, but because it's a
> step forward that will let them buy 64-bit applications as they become
> available.


Most newer systems these days are coming with at least 4GB of RAM. If
somebody has a device driver that won't work in 64-bit, then likely
it'll have a tough time working 32-bit Windows 7 as well, as the driver
models have all been changed from the XP days.

Yousuf Khan

 

Re: Dual booting - 32 & 64 bit versions (supplementary question)

GreyCloud wrote:
> There is a reason why David Cutler pushed for the 64-bit version of
> windows. And the same reasons that Apple pushed to get their os into
> the 64-bit intel arena... 32-bit intel code lacks the necessary general
> purpose registers that their 64-bit has. What you get is wasted time
> fetching something from slow memory. By temporarily storing a value in
> a local register, this is your fastest means possible. Then the next
> fastest is your local L2 then L3 cache.
> With the IBM G5 (970FX) processor, the 32-bit code was a lot faster than
> the 64-bit code if you stayed within the 4Gb memory bounds. The G5 had
> plenty of gp registers (32) that were both 32-bit and 64-bit capable.
> Intel chips that run 32-bit compiled code do not get to use the 64-bit
> gp regs.

Weren't the very first versions of the Intel OS X, 32-bit only? I think
that was OS X 10.4 "Tiger", 64-bit didn't come till 10.5 "Leopard".

Yousuf Khan

 

Re: Dual booting - 32 & 64 bit versions (supplementary question)

Yousuf Khan wrote:
> GreyCloud wrote:
>> There is a reason why David Cutler pushed for the 64-bit version of
>> windows. And the same reasons that Apple pushed to get their os into
>> the 64-bit intel arena... 32-bit intel code lacks the necessary
>> general purpose registers that their 64-bit has. What you get is
>> wasted time fetching something from slow memory. By temporarily
>> storing a value in a local register, this is your fastest means
>> possible. Then the next fastest is your local L2 then L3 cache.
>> With the IBM G5 (970FX) processor, the 32-bit code was a lot faster
>> than the 64-bit code if you stayed within the 4Gb memory bounds. The
>> G5 had plenty of gp registers (32) that were both 32-bit and 64-bit
>> capable.
>> Intel chips that run 32-bit compiled code do not get to use the 64-bit
>> gp regs.
>
> Weren't the very first versions of the Intel OS X, 32-bit only? I think
> that was OS X 10.4 "Tiger", 64-bit didn't come till 10.5 "Leopard".
>
The os was 32-bit, but you could compile 64-bit programs. They had
something quirky configured that allowed 64-bit intel programs to run.

The G4/G5 started off as 32-bit ppc. Actually, the 32-bit programs ran
faster than
the 64-bit programs. And it is the other way around with Intel
processors that are 64-bit.



--
"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument."
William G. McAdoo.
American Government official (1863-1941).

 

Re: Dual booting - 32 & 64 bit versions (supplementary question)

Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:

>>> Regarding 64-bit, there's nothing to worry about here anymore. Just go
>>> ahead and do it, and don't diddle around with 32-bit anymore. It's well
>>> past time to go to 64-bit.
>>
>> With less than 4 GB RAM, most people would be better off with 32-bit.
>
>It doesn't matter, there is negligible performance impact with the
>64-bit kernel, and you won't have to reinstall an OS from scratch again,
>once you do upgrade to 4GB+. It's extremely cost-effective to go to 4GB
>these days.


It's definitely worth considering that option, yes.

--
Joel Crump

 

Re: Dual booting - 32 & 64 bit versions (supplementary question)

"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4b8b6455$1@news.bnb-lp.com...
> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 17:08:55 -0500, Yousuf Khan
>> <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Regarding 64-bit, there's nothing to worry about here anymore. Just go
>>> ahead and do it, and don't diddle around with 32-bit anymore. It's well
>>> past time to go to 64-bit.
>>
>>
>> I strongly disagree.
>
> Why would you strongly disagree, all of your statements below make it
> sound like you only slightly disagree.
>
>> There's very little benefit of running a 64-bit version of Windows
>> now, because the benefit is essentially gotten only if you run 64-bit
>> applications. And there are very few 64-bit applications yet.
>>
>> And there is often a serious disadvantage of 64-bit Windows for many
>> people. If they have hardware for which they need but can't get a
>> 64-bit driver, they may have to spend the money to replace the
>> hardware.
>>
>> *However*, for those without driver issues. I think most people should
>> use 64-bit Windows--not because it's better today, but because it's a
>> step forward that will let them buy 64-bit applications as they become
>> available.
>
>
> Most newer systems these days are coming with at least 4GB of RAM. If
> somebody has a device driver that won't work in 64-bit, then likely it'll
> have a tough time working 32-bit Windows 7 as well, as the driver models
> have all been changed from the XP days.
>
> Yousuf Khan

A major consideration in buying a new PC and operating system
is fear that your old stuff will be no longer available. I have hundreds of
documents and spreadsheets created with Lotus software. Word and Excel
won't read them, and Lotus will not install under Windows 7. It was a pain
in the butt converting them, and I even had to install a font which was not
included with Windows 7 (Lydian if you are curious). I was a bit worried
that the 64 bit version would be more of a problem which is why I chose
32 bit. Certainly I have not had as many problems with software
incompatibility as I expected from reading web pages about Windows 7.

Basically therefore, if buying a new PC and operating system, the sooner
you expect to be replacing it, the more likely it is that 32 bit is the best
choice.

 

Re: Dual booting - 32 & 64 bit versions (supplementary question)

johnbee wrote:
> A major consideration in buying a new PC and operating system
> is fear that your old stuff will be no longer available. I have
> hundreds of
> documents and spreadsheets created with Lotus software. Word and Excel
> won't read them, and Lotus will not install under Windows 7. It was a pain
> in the butt converting them, and I even had to install a font which was not
> included with Windows 7 (Lydian if you are curious). I was a bit worried
> that the 64 bit version would be more of a problem which is why I chose
> 32 bit. Certainly I have not had as many problems with software
> incompatibility as I expected from reading web pages about Windows 7.
>
> Basically therefore, if buying a new PC and operating system, the sooner
> you expect to be replacing it, the more likely it is that 32 bit is the
> best
> choice.

I have not had any problems yet with installing software from Windows XP
days to Seven. And that's with 64-bit Seven. Those issues you had with
Lotus occurred until 32-bit Seven, so it would've likely also happened
under 64-bit Seven. It wasn't a 32-bit vs. 64-bit thing, it was just an
XP vs. Seven thing.

I'm recommending that if anybody has at least 2GB of RAM installed that
they have a system more than capable of running 64-bit Seven, and if
they ever want to upgrade their RAM in the future, they are better off
already having 64-bit installed as they won't have to reinstall Seven again.

Yousuf Khan