Move down to 32 bit Win 7?

[Frederick J. Barnett]

I bought a copy of Win 7 for my Dell Inspiron 1501 laptop. I
installed the 64 bit version, thinking I would eventually upgrade the
memory to take advantage of the 64 bit version. However I discovered
later that that laptop will only go up to 2 GB total in RAM, and part
of that is dedicated to the video card.

So my question is should I reformat and install the 32 bit
version? Would I see any improvement in performance? Or is there no
real difference other than the 64 bit being able to use more RAM,
which I can't install?

TIA.



Frederick J. Barnett
"Someone's got to take the responsibility if the job's going to get done!! Do you think that's easy?!" Gregory Peck - The Guns Of Navarone

 

[Chuck]

I bought a copy of Win 7 for my Dell Inspiron 1501 laptop. I
installed the 64 bit version, thinking I would eventually upgrade the
memory to take advantage of the 64 bit version. However I discovered
later that that laptop will only go up to 2 GB total in RAM, and part
of that is dedicated to the video card.

So my question is should I reformat and install the 32 bit
version? Would I see any improvement in performance? Or is there no
real difference other than the 64 bit being able to use more RAM,
which I can't install?

TIA.



Frederick J. Barnett
"Someone's got to take the responsibility if the job's going to get done!! Do you think that's easy?!" Gregory Peck - The Guns Of Navarone

To me it sounds like that laptop is an XP candidate, due to the lack of
memory. It barely meets the usable memory requirement for win 7.
The shared ram got you, and it's a common laptop problem.

 

[Boscoe]

I bought a copy of Win 7 for my Dell Inspiron 1501 laptop. I
installed the 64 bit version, thinking I would eventually upgrade the
memory to take advantage of the 64 bit version. However I discovered
later that that laptop will only go up to 2 GB total in RAM, and part
of that is dedicated to the video card.

So my question is should I reformat and install the 32 bit
version? Would I see any improvement in performance? Or is there no
real difference other than the 64 bit being able to use more RAM,
which I can't install?

TIA.



Frederick J. Barnett

It all depends on what you use your computer for. Yes, 64-bit can run
complex programs faster, and accommodate more memory and data storage.
But, unless you are involved in high-end video and graphics editing and
processing or who works with very large databases or specialised
scientific applications etc., there is little benefit if you only use it
for routine tasks.

 

[Frederick J. Barnett]

It all depends on what you use your computer for. Yes, 64-bit can run
complex programs faster, and accommodate more memory and data storage.
But, unless you are involved in high-end video and graphics editing and
processing or who works with very large databases or specialised
scientific applications etc., there is little benefit if you only use it
for routine tasks.

I don't do any of that on my laptop. The laptop came with
Vista installed, so I figured Win 7 would run on it, which it does.
I'm just wondering if going down to the 32 bit version would make it
run better.

Frederick J. Barnett
"Someone's got to take the responsibility if the job's going to get done!! Do you think that's easy?!" Gregory Peck - The Guns Of Navarone

 

[Student]

I don't do any of that on my laptop. The laptop came with
Vista installed, so I figured Win 7 would run on it, which it does.
I'm just wondering if going down to the 32 bit version would make it
run better.

Frederick J. Barnett

I have "downgraded" my daughters laptop which came with 64 bit win 7
to 32 bit by using my OEM 32 bit win 7.

Her computer has 3 gigs memory

The installation is about half the size and there are less confusing folders.

Acronis images are much smaller with 32 bit than 64 bit.

It did require telephone activation with a microsoft computer.

 

[Nil]

I bought a copy of Win 7 for my Dell Inspiron 1501 laptop. I
installed the 64 bit version, thinking I would eventually upgrade
the memory to take advantage of the 64 bit version. However I
discovered later that that laptop will only go up to 2 GB total in
RAM, and part of that is dedicated to the video card.

So my question is should I reformat and install the 32 bit
version? Would I see any improvement in performance? Or is there
no real difference other than the 64 bit being able to use more
RAM, which I can't install?

I've heard that there are quite a few programs that won't run in the
64-bit OS, so if I were you, and I didn't have to spend any more money
for the 32-bit version (is it included with the 64-bit version?) I
would downgrade in order to avoid compatibility problems.

 

[Boscoe]

I don't do any of that on my laptop. The laptop came with
Vista installed, so I figured Win 7 would run on it, which it does.
I'm just wondering if going down to the 32 bit version would make it
run better.

Frederick J. Barnett
"Someone's got to take the responsibility if the job's going to get done!! Do you think that's easy?!" Gregory Peck - The Guns Of Navarone

Yes, 32-bit should run better on your machine. Windows 7 is less
processor-hungry than its predecessor, Windows Vista, which means it is
better-suited to lower spec machines, and Windows 7 comes pre-installed
on a number of netbook computers

So, a laptop should run fine.

 

[Ken Blake]

I've heard that there are quite a few programs that won't run in the
64-bit OS,

On the contrary, there are very few. I run 64-bit Windows 7 here, and
I've never run into a single program that won't run.

And most of the programs that won't run are utilities, rather than
application programs.

 

[Nil]

On the contrary, there are very few. I run 64-bit Windows 7 here,
and I've never run into a single program that won't run.

I've been told that DOS programs won't run properly or at all in a 64-
bit command session. I have some of those that important to me.

And most of the programs that won't run are utilities, rather than
application programs.

Utilities are programs. They count.

 

[Stan Brown]

On the contrary, there are very few. I run 64-bit Windows 7 here, and
I've never run into a single program that won't run.

And most of the programs that won't run are utilities, rather than
application programs.

I think "few" versus" many depends on what one does with one's
computer. None of the dozen-or-so games in the Windows Entertainment
Pack will run.

As I've posted here, my scanner won't run because no driver is
available. And TI-GraphLink Software won't even install.

Still, I'm quibbling. I agree that by any objective standard the
great majority of Windows-hosted software does run just fine. And
I've never seen anything written specifically for XP or Vista that
won't.

 

[Stan Brown]

I've been told that DOS programs won't run properly or at all in a 64-
bit command session. I have some of those that important to me.

The free DOSBox does a great job with that, for me anyway. I wrote
my accounting system in dBase III back in 1985 or so, and upgraded it
all the way to dBase IV a year or so later. It runs like a champ in
DOSBox.

DOSBox was suggested to me in this newsgroup, IIRC.

 

[Yousuf Khan]

I bought a copy of Win 7 for my Dell Inspiron 1501 laptop. I
installed the 64 bit version, thinking I would eventually upgrade the
memory to take advantage of the 64 bit version. However I discovered
later that that laptop will only go up to 2 GB total in RAM, and part
of that is dedicated to the video card.

So my question is should I reformat and install the 32 bit
version? Would I see any improvement in performance? Or is there no
real difference other than the 64 bit being able to use more RAM,
which I can't install?

TIA.

If you already got the 64-bit installed, then I wouldn't worry about
going back to 32-bit, I doubt there will be any noticeable improvement
in speed. If it's working, then don't try to fix it.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Ken Blake]

I've been told that DOS programs won't run properly or at all in a 64-
bit command session. I have some of those that important to me.

That's true, 16-bit programs won't run. But only few people still run
any DOS programs, and that's why I said "there are very few."

Utilities are programs. They count.

Yes, of course they are programs, and of course they count. I was
differentiating between two types of programs--applications and
utilities--and pointing out that most programs that won't run are of
the latter type. And also note that there are far fewer utilities than
applications.

 

[Rob]

Yes, of course they are programs, and of course they count. I was
differentiating between two types of programs--applications and
utilities--and pointing out that most programs that won't run are of
the latter type. And also note that there are far fewer utilities
than
applications.

And running ancient utilites designed for older versions of Windows
might
not be a particularly good idea anyway.

 

[Nil]

Yes, of course they are programs, and of course they count. I was
differentiating between two types of programs--applications and
utilities--and pointing out that most programs that won't run are
of the latter type. And also note that there are far fewer
utilities than applications.

I don't understand your point. You seem to be contradicting me by
making an irrelevant distinction between an application and a utility.
In either case, if it don't run, it don't run, and you're still in
trouble. In this case, the original poster can't take advantage of any
of the advantages of Win7-64, and he runs the risk of finding that a
favorite program is incompatible. I say he should avoid it on this
machine - it's all potential risk and no potential benefit. Are you
recommending that he stick with 64? Why?

 

[Nil]

The free DOSBox does a great job with that, for me anyway. I
wrote my accounting system in dBase III back in 1985 or so, and
upgraded it all the way to dBase IV a year or so later. It runs
like a champ in DOSBox.

DOSBox was suggested to me in this newsgroup, IIRC.

I've tried it for a couple of things and it worked pretty well. One of
the things I plan to keep around for years to come is Paradox for DOS.
If I ever consider 64-bit Windows, I'll have to see if DOSBox is a good
solution.

I remember finding a couple things that didn't work well in DOSBox,
although I can't recall what they were right not. Maybe network
utilities. DOSBox seems to be geared toward games, so maybe its network
support is weak.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

If you already got the 64-bit installed, then I wouldn't worry about
going back to 32-bit, I doubt there will be any noticeable improvement
in speed. If it's working, then don't try to fix it.

Yousuf Khan

You forget my favorite bumper sticker:
"If it ain't broke, break it."

I saw it years ago - on the bumper of a car, oddly enough - and I still
like it

 

[Monty]

You forget my favorite bumper sticker:
"If it ain't broke, break it."

Same sentiment as my favourite
"If it ain't broke, fix it 'til it is."

 

[Frederick J. Barnett]

I don't understand your point. You seem to be contradicting me by
making an irrelevant distinction between an application and a utility.
In either case, if it don't run, it don't run, and you're still in
trouble. In this case, the original poster can't take advantage of any
of the advantages of Win7-64, and he runs the risk of finding that a
favorite program is incompatible. I say he should avoid it on this
machine - it's all potential risk and no potential benefit. Are you
recommending that he stick with 64? Why?

Just FYI, that's not a problem. I don't use anything that
hasn't run on my desktop with Win 7 64 or the laptop.


Frederick J. Barnett
"Someone's got to take the responsibility if the job's going to get done!! Do you think that's easy?!" Gregory Peck - The Guns Of Navarone

 

[Nil]

Just FYI, that's not a problem. I don't use anything that
hasn't run on my desktop with Win 7 64 or the laptop.

Well, OK. If so, I guess you might as well leave it as is. I've never
heard of a performance difference in this kind of situation, although I
would still suspect that the 32-bit version would run faster for you.
But it probably wouldn't be worth the pain of reinstalling everything.

Still, if it were me, I would avoid the 64-bit OS until I had an
application that I knew would take good advantage of it. I would have
too many old reliable programs that I'd have to replace, and I don't
have any problem with 32-bit now. In other words, I'd need a very good
reason to make that step. I wouldn't do it casually.

Unfortunately (maybe) we are getting forced into it. I was at Costco
the other day, and I noticed that maybe 80% of the computers they had
for sale came with Win7-64 installed.