1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Dual booting - 32 & 64 bit versions

Discussion in 'Windows 7' started by Jim, Feb 25, 2010.

  1. Jim

    Jim Flightless Bird

    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
     
  2. Pulse

    Pulse Flightless Bird

    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:-O_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
    >
    >
    >
    >
     
  3. Jim

    Jim Flightless Bird

    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:-O_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
     
  4. Joel

    Joel Flightless Bird

    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
     
  5. Yousuf Khan

    Yousuf Khan Flightless Bird

    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
     
  6. Joel

    Joel Flightless Bird

    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
     
  7. Ken Blake, MVP

    Ken Blake, MVP Flightless Bird

    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
     
  8. Char Jackson

    Char Jackson Flightless Bird

    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.
     
  9. GreyCloud

    GreyCloud Flightless Bird

    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.
     
  10. Char Jackson

    Char Jackson Flightless Bird

    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.
     
  11. Joel

    Joel Flightless Bird

    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
     
  12. Yousuf Khan

    Yousuf Khan Flightless Bird

    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
     
  13. Yousuf Khan

    Yousuf Khan Flightless Bird

    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
     
  14. Yousuf Khan

    Yousuf Khan Flightless Bird

    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
     
  15. GreyCloud

    GreyCloud Flightless Bird

    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).
     
  16. Joel

    Joel Flightless Bird

    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
     
  17. johnbee

    johnbee Flightless Bird

    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.
     
  18. Yousuf Khan

    Yousuf Khan Flightless Bird

    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
     

Share This Page