When I get a new PC it'll be Windows 7, but what are the pros and cons of
the two differebt bit sizes ?
I've heard you can't copy stuff from XP machines to 64 bit Win 7 machines.
Is that true ?
I'd like to copy .jpg and .pdf files, Outlook Express folders and MS Word
..doc files. Are those a problem, and if so, are there any workarounds or
conversion utilities available ?

Jim Hawkins

Jim Hawkins wrote:
When I get a new PC it'll be Windows 7, but what are the pros and cons of
the two differebt bit sizes ?
I've heard you can't copy stuff from XP machines to 64 bit Win 7 machines.
Is that true ?
I'd like to copy .jpg and .pdf files, Outlook Express folders and MS Word
.doc files. Are those a problem, and if so, are there any workarounds or
conversion utilities available ?


Those will all work.

Only COMPILED programs may not copy. Data is - just data. I mean I copy
those freely between a 32bit XP virtual machine and a 64 bit Linux..


Jim Hawkins





--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

On 10/04/2012 18:22, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Only COMPILED programs may not copy. Data is - just data. I mean I copy
those freely between a 32bit XP virtual machine and a 64 bit Linux..

Indeed. My experience is as follows.

My old laptop started having problems last year and I found that it was
hard to avoid getting 64-bit Win7 on any reasonable replacement, so I
gave in and did that. I found that the only *program* that didn't work
was something called Turnpike (a very good reader for Usenet News).
This used some features of 32-bit windows which weren't in the 64-bit
version, and was also a "mature product" i.e. no longer being developed
for new operating systems. All the possible work-arounds turned out to
be dead ends. There is a Win XP mode in Windows 7 but it can't be used
in Win7 Home Premium; you have to pay Microsoft an extortionate fee to
upgrade it. Eventually I switched to using Thunderbird for news reading
(it isn't as good, but I can live with it).

But printer drivers are also executable code, and I found that my new HP
laptop would not work with my existing HP laser printer, because HP
could not be bothered to create a 64-bit printer driver for it. It
won't even drive it over the home network when the old printer is
connected to the old Win XP computer which surprised me. Obviously HP
are trying very hard to get me to buy a new printer. Again I eventually
found a work-around, but it's clunky. As a result of my HP experience,
when I do get another printer, it certainly won't be from Hewlett Packard.

So: if you use any programs which are no longer supported (in the sense
of new versions still being developed), or device drivers for old
devices, you might have problems. Other than that, everything is
compatible.

By the way, the user interface for Windows 7 is substantially different,
and in my view worse, but it's easy to find instructions on the web to
get it all looking and behaving like Win XP. I see that Windows 8 has
even done away with the "Start" button - so it's a good idea to get Win
7 before Microsoft messes things up even more.

--
Clive Page

In article ,
Clive Page wrote:
On 10/04/2012 18:22, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Only COMPILED programs may not copy. Data is - just data. I mean I copy
those freely between a 32bit XP virtual machine and a 64 bit Linux..

Indeed. My experience is as follows.

My old laptop started having problems last year and I found that it was
hard to avoid getting 64-bit Win7 on any reasonable replacement, so I
gave in and did that. I found that the only *program* that didn't work
was something called Turnpike (a very good reader for Usenet News).
This used some features of 32-bit windows which weren't in the 64-bit
version, and was also a "mature product" i.e. no longer being developed
for new operating systems. All the possible work-arounds turned out to
be dead ends. There is a Win XP mode in Windows 7 but it can't be used
in Win7 Home Premium; you have to pay Microsoft an extortionate fee to
upgrade it. Eventually I switched to using Thunderbird for news reading
(it isn't as good, but I can live with it).

But printer drivers are also executable code, and I found that my new HP
laptop would not work with my existing HP laser printer, because HP
could not be bothered to create a 64-bit printer driver for it. It
won't even drive it over the home network when the old printer is
connected to the old Win XP computer which surprised me. Obviously HP
are trying very hard to get me to buy a new printer. Again I eventually
found a work-around, but it's clunky. As a result of my HP experience,
when I do get another printer, it certainly won't be from Hewlett Packard.

HP have a "universal printer driver" which I am using, rather than one
dedicted to a particular printer. It seems to have all the facilities that
I need.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On 12/04/2012 08:50, charles wrote:

HP have a "universal printer driver" which I am using, rather than one
dedicted to a particular printer. It seems to have all the facilities that
I need.

Thanks for the suggestion, but I tried that. My printer (HP1100) was a
cheap and simple one which depends upon the computer for its
rasterisation, and that's what prevents a generic driver from working.


--
Clive Page

"Clive Page" wrote in message
...
On 10/04/2012 18:22, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Only COMPILED programs may not copy. Data is - just data. I mean I copy
those freely between a 32bit XP virtual machine and a 64 bit Linux..

Indeed. My experience is as follows.

My old laptop started having problems last year and I found that it was
hard to avoid getting 64-bit Win7 on any reasonable replacement, so I gave
in and did that. I found that the only *program* that didn't work was
something called Turnpike (a very good reader for Usenet News). This used
some features of 32-bit windows which weren't in the 64-bit version, and
was also a "mature product" i.e. no longer being developed for new
operating systems. All the possible work-arounds turned out to be dead
ends. There is a Win XP mode in Windows 7 but it can't be used in Win7
Home Premium; you have to pay Microsoft an extortionate fee to upgrade it.

Nope, it doesnt cost that much for a version that supports it.

Eventually I switched to using Thunderbird for news reading (it isn't as
good, but I can live with it).

But printer drivers are also executable code, and I found that my new HP
laptop would not work with my existing HP laser printer, because HP could
not be bothered to create a 64-bit printer driver for it. It won't even
drive it over the home network when the old printer is connected to the
old Win XP computer which surprised me. Obviously HP are trying very hard
to get me to buy a new printer. Again I eventually found a work-around,
but it's clunky. As a result of my HP experience, when I do get another
printer, it certainly won't be from Hewlett Packard.

So: if you use any programs which are no longer supported (in the sense of
new versions still being developed), or device drivers for old devices,
you might have problems. Other than that, everything is compatible.

By the way, the user interface for Windows 7 is substantially different,
and in my view worse, but it's easy to find instructions on the web to get
it all looking and behaving like Win XP. I see that Windows 8 has even
done away with the "Start" button - so it's a good idea to get Win 7
before Microsoft messes things up even more.

--
Clive Page

On 12/04/2012 10:53, Rod Speed wrote:
Nope, it doesnt cost that much for a version that supports it.

I guess that depends on what you call "that much". From what I
remember, it was nearly £100 to upgrade from Home Premium to the
Professional version, which is more than it would cost to replace the
printer. Also I resent giving any more than absolutely essential to
Micro$oft.


--
Clive Page

On 12/04/2012 08:39, Clive Page wrote:
On 10/04/2012 18:22, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Only COMPILED programs may not copy. Data is - just data. I mean I copy
those freely between a 32bit XP virtual machine and a 64 bit Linux..

Indeed. My experience is as follows.

[snip]

be dead ends. There is a Win XP mode in Windows 7 but it can't be used
in Win7 Home Premium; you have to pay Microsoft an extortionate fee to
upgrade it. Eventually I switched to using Thunderbird for news reading

A few have mentioned XP compatibility mode, so some comments are
probably worthwhile.

Its true that you need Pro (or better) to use this out of the box.

However, XP mode is in reality a complete virtual machine running a real
copy of WinXP. There is nothing to stop you using any other virtual PC
hypervisor (including Microsoft's own Virtual PC) and installing your
own real copy of XP on that.

However the confusion is added to, if you go to MS' web page for Virtual
PC, where it will tell you you are not eligible to run XP mode on Win 7
Home for example. While this is true, its misleading, since its
referring to the bundled XP mode, and not talking about installing
Virtual PC and your own XP, which is kind of what you expect the web
page about Virtual PC would be all about!

Running Virtual PC on Win 7 Home *is* a supported platform. However the
difference is that with XP mode in Win 7 pro, it automatically includes
the Win XP license required to run XP in this way. If you have the Home
version (or Basic etc), you will need a separate fully licensed version
of XP to install under Virtual PC to make it work.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

John Rumm :
On 12/04/2012 08:39, Clive Page wrote:
On 10/04/2012 18:22, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Only COMPILED programs may not copy. Data is - just data. I mean I copy
those freely between a 32bit XP virtual machine and a 64 bit Linux..

Indeed. My experience is as follows.

[snip]

be dead ends. There is a Win XP mode in Windows 7 but it can't be used
in Win7 Home Premium; you have to pay Microsoft an extortionate fee to
upgrade it. Eventually I switched to using Thunderbird for news reading

A few have mentioned XP compatibility mode, so some comments are
probably worthwhile.

Its true that you need Pro (or better) to use this out of the box.

However, XP mode is in reality a complete virtual machine running a
real copy of WinXP. There is nothing to stop you using any other
virtual PC hypervisor (including Microsoft's own Virtual PC) and
installing your own real copy of XP on that.

However the confusion is added to, if you go to MS' web page for
Virtual PC, where it will tell you you are not eligible to run XP mode
on Win 7 Home for example. While this is true, its misleading, since
its referring to the bundled XP mode, and not talking about installing
Virtual PC and your own XP, which is kind of what you expect the web
page about Virtual PC would be all about!

Running Virtual PC on Win 7 Home *is* a supported platform. However the
difference is that with XP mode in Win 7 pro, it automatically includes
the Win XP license required to run XP in this way. If you have the Home
version (or Basic etc), you will need a separate fully licensed version
of XP to install under Virtual PC to make it work.

That's all useful stuff, thanks.

I've no personal experience but I've heard of some difficulties with the
apparently simple Virtual Machine approach. AIUI the virtual machine
does not automatically get access to all the resources on the host PC.
So you won't see your network drives, installed printers, etc, in the
applications running in the VM. I'd hope that you can install them in
the VM but even so it seems a bit of a faff.

--
Mike Barnes

In article ,
Mike Barnes wrote:
John Rumm :
On 12/04/2012 08:39, Clive Page wrote:
On 10/04/2012 18:22, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Only COMPILED programs may not copy. Data is - just data. I mean I copy
those freely between a 32bit XP virtual machine and a 64 bit Linux..

Indeed. My experience is as follows.

[snip]

be dead ends. There is a Win XP mode in Windows 7 but it can't be used
in Win7 Home Premium; you have to pay Microsoft an extortionate fee to
upgrade it. Eventually I switched to using Thunderbird for news reading

A few have mentioned XP compatibility mode, so some comments are
probably worthwhile.

Its true that you need Pro (or better) to use this out of the box.

However, XP mode is in reality a complete virtual machine running a
real copy of WinXP. There is nothing to stop you using any other
virtual PC hypervisor (including Microsoft's own Virtual PC) and
installing your own real copy of XP on that.

However the confusion is added to, if you go to MS' web page for
Virtual PC, where it will tell you you are not eligible to run XP mode
on Win 7 Home for example. While this is true, its misleading, since
its referring to the bundled XP mode, and not talking about installing
Virtual PC and your own XP, which is kind of what you expect the web
page about Virtual PC would be all about!

Running Virtual PC on Win 7 Home *is* a supported platform. However the
difference is that with XP mode in Win 7 pro, it automatically includes
the Win XP license required to run XP in this way. If you have the Home
version (or Basic etc), you will need a separate fully licensed version
of XP to install under Virtual PC to make it work.

That's all useful stuff, thanks.

I've no personal experience but I've heard of some difficulties with the
apparently simple Virtual Machine approach. AIUI the virtual machine
does not automatically get access to all the resources on the host PC.
So you won't see your network drives, installed printers, etc, in the
applications running in the VM. I'd hope that you can install them in
the VM but even so it seems a bit of a faff.

I was certainly able to access my scanner and printer when I had to use the
virtual machine on first getting Win7. After a few months the right
drivers were avavilable, so i don't use it any more.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On 12/04/2012 13:42, Mike Barnes wrote:
John :
On 12/04/2012 08:39, Clive Page wrote:
On 10/04/2012 18:22, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Only COMPILED programs may not copy. Data is - just data. I mean I copy
those freely between a 32bit XP virtual machine and a 64 bit Linux..

Indeed. My experience is as follows.

[snip]

be dead ends. There is a Win XP mode in Windows 7 but it can't be used
in Win7 Home Premium; you have to pay Microsoft an extortionate fee to
upgrade it. Eventually I switched to using Thunderbird for news reading

A few have mentioned XP compatibility mode, so some comments are
probably worthwhile.

Its true that you need Pro (or better) to use this out of the box.

However, XP mode is in reality a complete virtual machine running a
real copy of WinXP. There is nothing to stop you using any other
virtual PC hypervisor (including Microsoft's own Virtual PC) and
installing your own real copy of XP on that.

However the confusion is added to, if you go to MS' web page for
Virtual PC, where it will tell you you are not eligible to run XP mode
on Win 7 Home for example. While this is true, its misleading, since
its referring to the bundled XP mode, and not talking about installing
Virtual PC and your own XP, which is kind of what you expect the web
page about Virtual PC would be all about!

Running Virtual PC on Win 7 Home *is* a supported platform. However the
difference is that with XP mode in Win 7 pro, it automatically includes
the Win XP license required to run XP in this way. If you have the Home
version (or Basic etc), you will need a separate fully licensed version
of XP to install under Virtual PC to make it work.

That's all useful stuff, thanks.

I've no personal experience but I've heard of some difficulties with the
apparently simple Virtual Machine approach. AIUI the virtual machine
does not automatically get access to all the resources on the host PC.

You need to chose which ones it gets by default when you configure it.
Once running it can also see network shared resources just like any
other PC. So in some cases you could for example give it access to a
drive that the host machine has already shared, and to it, it looks like
a native drive. Alternatively, it can share it itself (even when its the
virtual machines host that is doing the sharing!)

So in short, its not trivial to configure, and if you can run software
natively without needing to jump through these hoops, then usually so
much the better. However if there is something that you really must run
that can't hack the native environment, its an option.

So you won't see your network drives, installed printers, etc, in the
applications running in the VM. I'd hope that you can install them in
the VM but even so it seems a bit of a faff.



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"Mike Barnes" wrote in message
...
John Rumm :
On 12/04/2012 08:39, Clive Page wrote:
On 10/04/2012 18:22, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Only COMPILED programs may not copy. Data is - just data. I mean I copy
those freely between a 32bit XP virtual machine and a 64 bit Linux..

Indeed. My experience is as follows.

[snip]

be dead ends. There is a Win XP mode in Windows 7 but it can't be used
in Win7 Home Premium; you have to pay Microsoft an extortionate fee to
upgrade it. Eventually I switched to using Thunderbird for news reading

A few have mentioned XP compatibility mode, so some comments are
probably worthwhile.

Its true that you need Pro (or better) to use this out of the box.

However, XP mode is in reality a complete virtual machine running a
real copy of WinXP. There is nothing to stop you using any other
virtual PC hypervisor (including Microsoft's own Virtual PC) and
installing your own real copy of XP on that.

However the confusion is added to, if you go to MS' web page for
Virtual PC, where it will tell you you are not eligible to run XP mode
on Win 7 Home for example. While this is true, its misleading, since
its referring to the bundled XP mode, and not talking about installing
Virtual PC and your own XP, which is kind of what you expect the web
page about Virtual PC would be all about!

Running Virtual PC on Win 7 Home *is* a supported platform. However the
difference is that with XP mode in Win 7 pro, it automatically includes
the Win XP license required to run XP in this way. If you have the Home
version (or Basic etc), you will need a separate fully licensed version
of XP to install under Virtual PC to make it work.

That's all useful stuff, thanks.

I've no personal experience but I've heard of some difficulties with the
apparently simple Virtual Machine approach. AIUI the virtual machine
does not automatically get access to all the resources on the host PC.
So you won't see your network drives, installed printers, etc, in the
applications running in the VM. I'd hope that you can install them in
the VM but even so it seems a bit of a faff.

You don't necessarily need the printer if you are just running OE in it tho.

One significant downside is that you no longer can set the screen
format so the letters can be quite small and hard to read.

Mike Barnes wrote:
John Rumm :
On 12/04/2012 08:39, Clive Page wrote:
On 10/04/2012 18:22, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Only COMPILED programs may not copy. Data is - just data. I mean I copy
those freely between a 32bit XP virtual machine and a 64 bit Linux..
Indeed. My experience is as follows.
[snip]

be dead ends. There is a Win XP mode in Windows 7 but it can't be used
in Win7 Home Premium; you have to pay Microsoft an extortionate fee to
upgrade it. Eventually I switched to using Thunderbird for news reading
A few have mentioned XP compatibility mode, so some comments are
probably worthwhile.

Its true that you need Pro (or better) to use this out of the box.

However, XP mode is in reality a complete virtual machine running a
real copy of WinXP. There is nothing to stop you using any other
virtual PC hypervisor (including Microsoft's own Virtual PC) and
installing your own real copy of XP on that.

However the confusion is added to, if you go to MS' web page for
Virtual PC, where it will tell you you are not eligible to run XP mode
on Win 7 Home for example. While this is true, its misleading, since
its referring to the bundled XP mode, and not talking about installing
Virtual PC and your own XP, which is kind of what you expect the web
page about Virtual PC would be all about!

Running Virtual PC on Win 7 Home *is* a supported platform. However the
difference is that with XP mode in Win 7 pro, it automatically includes
the Win XP license required to run XP in this way. If you have the Home
version (or Basic etc), you will need a separate fully licensed version
of XP to install under Virtual PC to make it work.

That's all useful stuff, thanks.

I've no personal experience but I've heard of some difficulties with the
apparently simple Virtual Machine approach. AIUI the virtual machine
does not automatically get access to all the resources on the host PC.
So you won't see your network drives, installed printers, etc, in the
applications running in the VM. I'd hope that you can install them in
the VM but even so it seems a bit of a faff.



You can if the host is Linux up to a point.

I have one 'mapped' drive which is the linux machines home directory
that is there by default. Since everything else up to and including the
local server, and drives a 150 miles way is NFS mounted on that, they
simply appear as as subdirs of that drive.

Networked printers* simply have their own windows drivers to the network.

The sound works flawlessly from host or guest or indeed both together...

USB devices are somewhat trickier, as is the CD ROM. You have to decide
who 'owns' it....

*including a parallel connected printer connected to a linux server.

I cant answer for how crap a windows hosted virtual box is but a linux
hosted one is way way better than you might expect.

I am not proposing that the OP goes this route, but a 64 bit linux with
a legacy 32 bit XP in a virtual box is what runs here. Don't ask where
the XP came from...

--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 12:38:29 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

[-snip-]

However, XP mode is in reality a complete virtual machine running a real
copy of WinXP. There is nothing to stop you using any other virtual PC
hypervisor (including Microsoft's own Virtual PC) and installing your
own real copy of XP on that.

Running virtual machines can be very useful. However I would avoid
Microsoft Virtual PC. It's v-e-r-y slow. Oracle (Sun) VirtualBox is
much better IMHO.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

Clive Page wrote:
On 10/04/2012 18:22, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Only COMPILED programs may not copy. Data is - just data. I mean I copy
those freely between a 32bit XP virtual machine and a 64 bit Linux..

Indeed. My experience is as follows.

My old laptop started having problems last year and I found that it was
hard to avoid getting 64-bit Win7 on any reasonable replacement, so I
gave in and did that. I found that the only *program* that didn't work
was something called Turnpike (a very good reader for Usenet News). This
used some features of 32-bit windows which weren't in the 64-bit
version, and was also a "mature product" i.e. no longer being developed
for new operating systems. All the possible work-arounds turned out to
be dead ends. There is a Win XP mode in Windows 7 but it can't be used
in Win7 Home Premium; you have to pay Microsoft an extortionate fee to
upgrade it. Eventually I switched to using Thunderbird for news reading
(it isn't as good, but I can live with it).

But printer drivers are also executable code, and I found that my new HP
laptop would not work with my existing HP laser printer, because HP
could not be bothered to create a 64-bit printer driver for it. It
won't even drive it over the home network when the old printer is
connected to the old Win XP computer which surprised me. Obviously HP
are trying very hard to get me to buy a new printer. Again I eventually
found a work-around, but it's clunky. As a result of my HP experience,
when I do get another printer, it certainly won't be from Hewlett Packard.

So: if you use any programs which are no longer supported (in the sense
of new versions still being developed), or device drivers for old
devices, you might have problems. Other than that, everything is
compatible.

By the way, the user interface for Windows 7 is substantially different,
and in my view worse, but it's easy to find instructions on the web to
get it all looking and behaving like Win XP. I see that Windows 8 has
even done away with the "Start" button - so it's a good idea to get Win
7 before Microsoft messes things up even more.


that ws te one blot on an otherwise beautiful 64 bit landscape when I
moved to 64 bit linux|: no scanner drivers for the HP scanner.

So I gave it to my wife for her mac and bought a ten year old heap of
**** from ebay.

I use it solely for scanning scale drawings for tracing: If I want
actual color rendition I use an anglepoise lamp and a DLSR. Its actually
better quality - but you cant rely on it for exact dimensions due to
the inevitable barrel and pincushion and perspective issues.


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

Windows 7 has no email client and Outlook express won't run on it. You need
to download Live Mail or Thunderbird.
Most files will copy, but its the software that might need to be fiddled
with. certainly more oproblems with 64 bit. If you really need that access
to address space then fine, but most do not.
Note that only the top of the range Win 7 will allow you to run what is in
effect XP under 7.
Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Jim Hawkins" wrote in message
...
When I get a new PC it'll be Windows 7, but what are the pros and cons of
the two differebt bit sizes ?
I've heard you can't copy stuff from XP machines to 64 bit Win 7 machines.
Is that true ?
I'd like to copy .jpg and .pdf files, Outlook Express folders and MS Word
.doc files. Are those a problem, and if so, are there any workarounds or
conversion utilities available ?

Jim Hawkins

Wasn't that due to the various anti-monolpoly regulations? I'm running
Office Outlook - but that came with MS Office.



In article ,
Brian Gaff wrote:
Windows 7 has no email client and Outlook express won't run on it. You
need to download Live Mail or Thunderbird. Most files will copy, but its
the software that might need to be fiddled with. certainly more
oproblems with 64 bit. If you really need that access to address space
then fine, but most do not.

Note that only the top of the range Win 7 will allow you to run what is
in effect XP under 7.
Brian

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

charles wrote:

Wasn't that due to the various anti-monolpoly regulations?

Nope.

I'm running Office Outlook - but that came with MS Office.

And it wont do usenet.

Brian Gaff wrote:
Windows 7 has no email client and Outlook express won't run on it.
You need to download Live Mail or Thunderbird. Most files will
copy, but its the software that might need to be fiddled with.
certainly more oproblems with 64 bit. If you really need that access
to address space then fine, but most do not.

Note that only the top of the range Win 7 will allow you to run
what is in effect XP under 7.
Brian

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
And it wont do usenet.

Windose never has done properly. You've always have had to use different
software of which there's lots around for free. Like Thunderbird.

--
*If we weren't meant to eat animals, why are they made of meat?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote
charles wrote

I'm running Office Outlook - but that came with MS Office.

And it wont do usenet.

Windose never has done properly.

Bull****.

You've always have had to use different software

Thats not windows, thats just outlook.

of which there's lots around for free. Like Thunderbird.

And like OE.

Brian Gaff wrote:
Windows 7 has no email client and Outlook express won't run on it.
You need to download Live Mail or Thunderbird.
Most files will copy, but its the software that might need to be
fiddled with. certainly more oproblems with 64 bit. If you really
need that access to address space then fine, but most do not.

Note that only the top of the range Win 7 will allow you to run what
is in effect XP under 7.

It isnt just Ultimate that allows that, Pro and Enterprise do too.

When I get a new PC it'll be Windows 7, but what are the pros and
cons of the two differebt bit sizes ?
I've heard you can't copy stuff from XP machines to 64 bit Win 7
machines. Is that true ?
I'd like to copy .jpg and .pdf files, Outlook Express folders and MS
Word .doc files. Are those a problem, and if so, are there any
workarounds or conversion utilities available ?

Jim Hawkins

In article ,
Jim Hawkins wrote:
When I get a new PC it'll be Windows 7, but what are the pros and cons of
the two differebt bit sizes ?
I've heard you can't copy stuff from XP machines to 64 bit Win 7 machines.
Is that true ?

What sort of stuff? I've been using Win7 for nearly 2 years and initially
had the odd problem with drivers for scanner and printers. I think one
games programme refused to work, but everything else seems fine. All the
work files are fine.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On 10/04/12 18:20, Jim Hawkins wrote:
When I get a new PC it'll be Windows 7, but what are the pros and cons of
the two differebt bit sizes ?

If you want to use more than about 3.5Gb of memory then you have to use
64-bit. Most new machines have 64-bit pre-installed.

I've heard you can't copy stuff from XP machines to 64 bit Win 7 machines.
Is that true ?

No. You can copy any file either way between the two systems. But some
old programs will not run under 64-bit OS.

Some old hardware does not work with 64-bit.

I'd like to copy .jpg and .pdf files, Outlook Express folders and MS Word
.doc files. Are those a problem, and if so, are there any workarounds or
conversion utilities available ?

Only the Outlook Express data files should present any problems as OE is
not supplied with W7. There is a replacement program and I believe that
it can import data from OE files.


--
Bernard Peek

On 10/04/2012 18:34, Bernard Peek wrote:

Only the Outlook Express data files should present any problems as OE is
not supplied with W7. There is a replacement program and I believe that
it can import data from OE files.

Install Thunderbird on the XP machine. It will offer to import all OE
stuff. Copy the profile to the thunderbird installation on the win 7
machine. You will have to amend profile.ini on the win7 machine to call
up the copied profile (just change the reference). Just done it for my
Daughter and found that was the easiest way to do it.


--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

Old Codger wrote:
On 10/04/2012 18:34, Bernard Peek wrote:

Only the Outlook Express data files should present any problems as OE is
not supplied with W7. There is a replacement program and I believe that
it can import data from OE files.

Install Thunderbird on the XP machine. It will offer to import all OE
stuff. Copy the profile to the thunderbird installation on the win 7
machine. You will have to amend profile.ini on the win7 machine to call
up the copied profile (just change the reference). Just done it for my
Daughter and found that was the easiest way to do it.


+1

--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

In message , Bernard Peek
writes
On 10/04/12 18:20, Jim Hawkins wrote:
When I get a new PC it'll be Windows 7, but what are the pros and cons of
the two differebt bit sizes ?

If you want to use more than about 3.5Gb of memory then you have to use
64-bit. Most new machines have 64-bit pre-installed.

I've heard you can't copy stuff from XP machines to 64 bit Win 7 machines.
Is that true ?

No. You can copy any file either way between the two systems. But some
old programs will not run under 64-bit OS.
Snip
Anything which relies on 32 bit windows explorer will not run on 64 bit
W7. Unfortunately that includes my mail/usenet agent Turnpike which I am
loath to give up.
--
hugh

In message ], hugh ]
writes
In message , Bernard Peek
writes
On 10/04/12 18:20, Jim Hawkins wrote:
When I get a new PC it'll be Windows 7, but what are the pros and cons of
the two differebt bit sizes ?

If you want to use more than about 3.5Gb of memory then you have to
use 64-bit. Most new machines have 64-bit pre-installed.

I've heard you can't copy stuff from XP machines to 64 bit Win 7 machines.
Is that true ?

No. You can copy any file either way between the two systems. But some
old programs will not run under 64-bit OS.
Snip
Anything which relies on 32 bit windows explorer will not run on 64 bit
W7. Unfortunately that includes my mail/usenet agent Turnpike which I
am loath to give up.

AIUI version 5 is OK if you can find a back copy.

Lots of discussion on the Demon newsgroups.

regards

--
Tim Lamb

In message , Tim Lamb
writes
In message ], hugh ]
writes
In message , Bernard Peek
writes
On 10/04/12 18:20, Jim Hawkins wrote:
When I get a new PC it'll be Windows 7, but what are the pros and cons of
the two differebt bit sizes ?

If you want to use more than about 3.5Gb of memory then you have to
use 64-bit. Most new machines have 64-bit pre-installed.

I've heard you can't copy stuff from XP machines to 64 bit Win 7 machines.
Is that true ?

No. You can copy any file either way between the two systems. But
some old programs will not run under 64-bit OS.
Snip
Anything which relies on 32 bit windows explorer will not run on 64
bit W7. Unfortunately that includes my mail/usenet agent Turnpike
which I am loath to give up.

AIUI version 5 is OK if you can find a back copy.

Lots of discussion on the Demon newsgroups.

regards

Yes, I'm plugged in to the Demon newsgroups. I may well go down the V5
route eventually. Of course our modus operandi is now geared to all the
facilities of V6 and unlearning it might prove a bit tricky esp for
SWMBO
--
hugh

In message ], hugh ]
writes
In message , Tim Lamb
writes
In message ], hugh ]
writes
In message , Bernard Peek
writes
On 10/04/12 18:20, Jim Hawkins wrote:
When I get a new PC it'll be Windows 7, but what are the pros and cons of
the two differebt bit sizes ?

If you want to use more than about 3.5Gb of memory then you have to
use 64-bit. Most new machines have 64-bit pre-installed.

I've heard you can't copy stuff from XP machines to 64 bit Win 7 machines.
Is that true ?

No. You can copy any file either way between the two systems. But
some old programs will not run under 64-bit OS.
Snip
Anything which relies on 32 bit windows explorer will not run on 64
bit W7. Unfortunately that includes my mail/usenet agent Turnpike
which I am loath to give up.

AIUI version 5 is OK if you can find a back copy.

Lots of discussion on the Demon newsgroups.

regards

Yes, I'm plugged in to the Demon newsgroups. I may well go down the V5
route eventually. Of course our modus operandi is now geared to all the
facilities of V6 and unlearning it might prove a bit tricky esp for SWMBO

I think I'm right in saying that if you're using TP V6, you can't
transfer the data back into V5. Of course, you can probably keep V6 as
it is (as an archive), and start V5 again separately, with a 'clean
slate', However, you might also think about using properly supported
mail/news client which is nearly as good as - and very similar in
appearance to - TP. As I'm sure you know, Thunderbird and Forte Agent
come well recommended as good candidates. And at least you will then be
able to leave Demon without much hassle.
--
Ian

hugh ]:
Anything which relies on 32 bit windows explorer will not run on 64 bit
W7. Unfortunately that includes my mail/usenet agent Turnpike which I
am loath to give up.

That's the one and only reason I've standardised on W7 32-bit.
Fortunately 4 GB is plenty for my (not exactly modest) needs.

--
Mike Barnes

In message , Mike Barnes
writes
hugh ]:
Anything which relies on 32 bit windows explorer will not run on 64 bit
W7. Unfortunately that includes my mail/usenet agent Turnpike which I
am loath to give up.

That's the one and only reason I've standardised on W7 32-bit.
Fortunately 4 GB is plenty for my (not exactly modest) needs.

It's probably plenty for the vast majority of people, but the "more is
better" brigade are running the show.
I run XP on 2 gb and it's enough most of the time.
--
hugh

In article ],
hugh ] wrote:
In message , Mike Barnes
writes
hugh ]:
Anything which relies on 32 bit windows explorer will not run on 64 bit
W7. Unfortunately that includes my mail/usenet agent Turnpike which I
am loath to give up.

That's the one and only reason I've standardised on W7 32-bit.
Fortunately 4 GB is plenty for my (not exactly modest) needs.

It's probably plenty for the vast majority of people, but the "more is
better" brigade are running the show.
I run XP on 2 gb and it's enough most of the time.

It depends on what you are doing. I've got sound files well over 1GB in
length. If I want to edit them it would be a much slower process with only
2GB memory

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On 12/04/2012 14:07, hugh wrote:
In message , Mike Barnes
writes
hugh ]:
Anything which relies on 32 bit windows explorer will not run on 64 bit
W7. Unfortunately that includes my mail/usenet agent Turnpike which I
am loath to give up.

That's the one and only reason I've standardised on W7 32-bit.
Fortunately 4 GB is plenty for my (not exactly modest) needs.

It's probably plenty for the vast majority of people, but the "more is
better" brigade are running the show.
I run XP on 2 gb and it's enough most of the time.

Remember the OS base requirements are higher for Vista and Win7. So If
you are just ok with 2 on XP, you will need more on later OSs.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

hugh wrote:
In message , Mike Barnes
writes
hugh ]:
Anything which relies on 32 bit windows explorer will not run on 64 bit
W7. Unfortunately that includes my mail/usenet agent Turnpike which I
am loath to give up.

That's the one and only reason I've standardised on W7 32-bit.
Fortunately 4 GB is plenty for my (not exactly modest) needs.

It's probably plenty for the vast majority of people, but the "more is
better" brigade are running the show.
I run XP on 2 gb and it's enough most of the time.

so do I because it went funny on more.. but boy I need 8GB because that
2GN is stolen irrevocably from Linux when XP is running and I have seen
the host go into major thrash when a lot of windows are open on it.

Howver I dont often use windows any more.

Only if I have some serious graphics work to do and then its my chief
task so I can shut down almost everything else beyond a web browser and
mail.

The other use fr XP is to test web sites against IE6. If it works with
IE6 it generally works with anything...


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

Jim Hawkins wrote

When I get a new PC it'll be Windows 7, but what are the pros and cons of the two differebt bit sizes ?

64bit does allow you to use more than about 3.xGB of physical ram.

It can be a problem finding drivers for some obscure hardware.

I've heard you can't copy stuff from XP machines to 64 bit Win 7 machines. Is that true ?

Nope, works fine here.

I'd like to copy .jpg and .pdf files, Outlook Express folders

OE doesnt work on either version of Win7 except in the virtual XP on Win7.

The virtual XP does work fine, but you need more than the most basic versions of Win7.

and MS Word .doc files. Are those a problem,

Just with OE.

and if so, are there any workarounds or conversion utilities available ?

The OE story is complicated. MS wants you to use Windows Live Mail
which is the lastest incarnation of OE. But the latest version doesnt
bother to quote usenet posts when replying to them. One of the previous
versions does quote fine and there is a 3rd party overlay that quotes too.
But WLM has the other downside that there is now a separate inbox for
each of the POP3 email accounts you use, which makes searching in
old emails a bit cumbersome unless you have separate email addreses
for particular types of email like say ebay etc.

Other than that, it all works fine.

On 10/04/2012 18:20, Jim Hawkins wrote:

When I get a new PC it'll be Windows 7, but what are the pros and cons of
the two differebt bit sizes ?

64bit gives the ability to address more physical RAM - 32 bit is limited
to 4GB of which windows and things like your graphics RAM will take a
slice, giving a practical maximum of around 3.5GB usable memory.

64bit code is faster for some applications, although slightly more
memory hungry.

64bit was at one time slightly harder to find drivers for older
peripherals - but the situation is much improved.

I've heard you can't copy stuff from XP machines to 64 bit Win 7 machines.
Is that true ?

No, not really.

There are some compatibility problems which are mainly Win7 Vs XP rather
than 32/64 bit. These mostly stem from the more stringently policed
security model of Win7.

Note that the 64 bit OS can run 32 bit code in the same way as WinXP
32bit can run 16bit code. The 64 bit OS may be be slightly slower
running 32 bit code than the same hardware running the 32 bit OS
(depends a bit on your hardware).

Nothing stopping you installing a virtual machine hypervisor and running
a 32 bit OS as well should you need to.

The more expensive versions of Win7 also allow XP compatibility mode
(which is basically just a thinly disguised WinXP virtual machine)

I'd like to copy .jpg and .pdf files, Outlook Express folders and MS Word
.doc files. Are those a problem, and if so, are there any workarounds or
conversion utilities available ?

Data files in general are no problem. There is no Win7 version of
outlook express however. However there are plenty of alternatives.



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Jim Hawkins wrote:
When I get a new PC it'll be Windows 7, but what are the pros and
cons of the two differebt bit sizes ?
I've heard you can't copy stuff from XP machines to 64 bit Win 7
machines. Is that true ?
I'd like to copy .jpg and .pdf files, Outlook Express folders and MS
Word .doc files. Are those a problem, and if so, are there any
workarounds or conversion utilities available ?

Jim Hawkins

My thanks to all respondents for the many helpful contributions.
This newsgroup shows just how good usenet can be.

Jim Hawkins

On 11/04/2012 09:44, Jim Hawkins wrote:
Jim Hawkins wrote:
When I get a new PC it'll be Windows 7, but what are the pros and
cons of the two differebt bit sizes ?
....
My thanks to all respondents for the many helpful contributions.
This newsgroup shows just how good usenet can be.


And no one mentioned Linux, specifically the Angle Grinder distribution....

--
Adrian C

Adrian C wrote:
On 11/04/2012 09:44, Jim Hawkins wrote:
Jim Hawkins wrote:
When I get a new PC it'll be Windows 7, but what are the pros and
cons of the two differebt bit sizes ?
...
My thanks to all respondents for the many helpful contributions.
This newsgroup shows just how good usenet can be.


And no one mentioned Linux, specifically the Angle Grinder distribution....

yes I did.

I said rthat if I could transfer my xp data freely to a linux 64 bit
machine even microsoft couldn't break the transfer to a windows 7 machine.

Mind you, that may well be a non sequitur and false logic.

racist joke: look away now

Van de Merwe is visiting America, and sees a statue of a black man
rising up abd breaking the chains of slavery.

"What do you make of that, Mr Van De Merve?"
"Ach man, Kaffirs can break anything. So what?"

Microsoft can also break anything.

--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 18:20:11 +0100, Jim Hawkins
wrote:

When I get a new PC it'll be Windows 7, but what are the pros and cons of
the two different bit sizes ?

Pros of 64-bit Windows 7:

1. Can run genuine 64-bit applications (but there are very few of those).

2. Can support a larger amount of physical memory (maximum 4 GB on Win32,
up to 192 GB on Win64 depending on version).

Cons of 64-bit Windows 7:

1. Can't run any 16-bit (DOS) programs - other than using a emulator like
DOSBOX.

2. Poorer support for legacy device drivers: if you have an older
scanner, printer, camera etc. 64-bit drivers may not be available.

3. 32-bit applications run under the WoW64 emulation layer: compatibility
is good but not 100% and a few programs may not run properly.

On balance I generally recommend the 32-bit version, but YMMV.

Richard.
http://www.rtrussell.co.uk/