Upgrading from Windows Vista 32 bit to Windows 7 64 bit

I am trying to figure out which version of Winodws 7 Home Premium I should upgrade to. I am currently running the release candiate of Windows 7 Ultimate in the 32 bit version on my desktop PC. I recently purchased a Vaio Notebook PC which came with Vista Home premium 64 bit version ( and a free Windows 7 upgrade). Both OS's run fine, except that I discovered that my Epson Stylus Photo 960 Printer does not have 64 bit drivers available. I was advised by Epson that there were no plans to issue drivers for this printer which I purchased approximately 5 years ago. It works fine with my 32 bit drivers on my desktop PC. The printer is fine, but I will most likely replace it in a year or two. Would you recommend sticking with 32 bit for the sake of printer compatability, or biting the bullet, moving to the 64 bit version of Windows 7, and buying a new printer a couple of years earlier than planned. If there is no real benefit to be gained between 64 bit and 32 bit, then my thinking was to wait. I would appreciate any suggestions.

64 bit

If your computer has 3gb of RAM or less, then why bother with the 64 bit incompatibilities?

If your computer has 3gb of RAM or less, then why bother with the 64 bit incompatibilities?
Why are we propgating the myth of Driver incompatibilities? Now it is not up to MS to be the provider of drivers it is up to the manufacturer of your equipment, Yes if you have really old equipment, such as scanners or really old printers you may have a problem finding 64 bit drivers. Scanner companies would rather have yo buy a new scanner than work on 64 bit drivers for the use of consumers. I had to get new scanner when I went to Vista 32 bit. but my Richo CL1000N laser printer is compatible with 64 bit along with my current scanner. As far as software goes I have had only one program that would not run on 64 bit it was windows washer by webroot

If you must have your old printer then stick with the 32 bit until you upgrade your printer.

I trashed my printers, they're just too much problems and expensive ink costs to make it worth while for me. Anything I want printed, I e-mail to myself, then use the computer and printer at the local library to print it out. They charge about $.10 cents a page, that's alot cheaper than $50 for ink cartriges every time I turn around.

I also have 4 gig of memory, and with the 32 bit RC I'm only using 3.25 gigs, which is plenty for me. All my programs and soundcard drivers work better with the 32 bit. I tried the 64 bit for a few weeks and there were a bunch of little things that didn't work right. Since I've gone back to 32 bit, everything is working much smoother.



Given that there is 4G RAM the answer is, pardon me, no offence meant, a "no brainer"... go 64!! It is worth it.

If you would like me to elaborate I'm willing but, comes down to, if you can do it, do it, no hesitation.

I run XP & Vista x86 & Windows 7 x86 & x64... go 64, absolutely. Or both, 32 & 64 if... (hardware issues)

Please elaborate a bit. Since it would involve me replacing my printer a year or so early, I'm wondring if I will see a performance improvement.


Honorable Member
Yes, you will. Since you get both x86 & x64 why not go dual-boot OR use the XP Virtual Mode (w/ Win7 64 as Host) to do your printing (for a year)? Anyway, the difference twixt x86 & x64 is in My Blog, this site. Basically...

64-bit is faster
More stable
Happier multi-tasking
The way of the future
Uses less CPU
Needs less RAM but, sees ALL available.

Difference is noticable. Migrating now or later is a judgement call/personal decision.

The problem with that is that you can't run the 32-bit version of XP mode over W7 64-bit. They make you install the same bit of the VM as the OS you have installed... It's a shame, but the plug-n-play compatability of XP mode runs directly through W7.

Also, 64-bit processing may take less CPU cycles, but the 64-bit code is much longer in memory space, requiring more RAM, even when running 32-bit processes.

Good Idea though. Just too bad we couldn't get MS to get that to happen. It would just mean a lot of extra work for them, which means more cost to the company, which means more cost to us.

But I guess that's the question. Would you pay extra for a feature like that? I just made a new thread about that.

This website is not affiliated, owned, or endorsed by Microsoft Corporation. It is a member of the Microsoft Partner Program.