Dual booting - 32 & 64 bit versions

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/...b-cf8784d67ec9

http://forums.techguy.org/windows-vi...t-win-7-a.html

http://social.answers.microsoft.com/...e-8a3ca1b2c994



"Jim" <> wrote in message
news:...
> 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
>
>
>
>

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" <> wrote in message
news:hm6qs0$5so$...
> 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/...b-cf8784d67ec9
>
> http://forums.techguy.org/windows-vi...t-win-7-a.html
>
> http://social.answers.microsoft.com/...e-8a3ca1b2c994
>
>
>
> "Jim" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> 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

"Jim" <> 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

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

Yousuf Khan <> 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

On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 17:08:55 -0500, Yousuf Khan
<> 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

On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 11:29:02 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
<> wrote:

>On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 17:08:55 -0500, Yousuf Khan
><> 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.

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 17:08:55 -0500, Yousuf Khan
> <> 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.

On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 11:55:02 -0500, Joel <> wrote:

>Yousuf Khan <> 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.