[jvness]

I have a Dell Inspiron 1721 laptop in which came with Windows Vista. I upgraded to Windows 7 32-bit in 2009. I am going ot be upgrading my hard drive from 160gb to a 500gb and I also want to make it a 64-bit. Do I have to do anything special in order to upgrade from the 32 to the 64 other than purchasing Windows 7 64-bit? Thanks.

[AgentF]

First thing is to verify your processor is 64-bit compatible. Second is to understand you can't actually upgrade from a 32-bit OS to a 64-bit OS, so it's a completely fresh installation. With that being said, make sure you backed up all your important data.

[coastie65]

If you are purchasing Windows 7 Home Premiun, it will come with both the 32 bit and 64bit disks ( at least in the Retail Version and maybe in the OEM version ).

[jvness]

How do I test to see if my processor is 64 compatible?

[LincolnSpector]

jvness, on 11 March 2011 - 08:24 AM, said:

How do I test to see if my processor is 64 compatible?

If your computer came with a 32-bit OS installed, I'd assume that it's a 32-bit processor, and not 64-bit compatible. I've never seen a computer on sale with a 64-bit processor and a 32-bit OS, although it's technically possible.

But if you want to be sure, can you tell us more about your computer? Make? Model? CPU? The CPU would be the key information.

Lincoln

[jvness]

It is a Dell Inspiron 1721 cam with Vista back in 2007. It is a 32-bit. 2gb ram. Processor is AMD Turion™ 64 X2 Mobile Technology TL-56 1.80 GHz.

[rgreen4]

Lincoln, I am going to assume you are talking about the current market. Back when XP was the pre-installed OS, and Intel has introduced the Dual Core processors and then the Core2Duo all of them were 64bit. In fact, I believe the last of the single core Pentium 4 line was 64bit, yet no consumer machine ever came pre-installed with 64bit XP. When Vista was first released, it was available in both 32bit and 64bit, but because of early problems with getting 64bit drivers, almost all machines came with the 32bit of Vista. This started to change in the last year Vista was pre-installed with the vast majority coming with the 64bit version. When Windows 7 was released, virtually all of the full sized laptops and desktops being shipped with the 64bit version of Win7. The exception being the netbooks and very small laptops.

[Flashorn]

Hey jvness !

Yes, you can but, to be sure , run the windows 7 upgrade tool :

http://www.microsoft...de-advisor.aspx

To verify that you do have a 64bit processor , run this little .exe from
GRC (Gibson Research Corp.) No install needed.



This is the output of the .exe :



I have recently Re-Installed W7 on a DV9800 HP notebook and did a Full install with the UPGRADE DVD that
I had pre-purchased on July 2010. I did upgrade to 32bit but could have done so with the 64bit version as well.

The Upgrade Advisor (tool) from MS will tell you what your best option is plus all compatible and non-compatible
hardware and software.

I had to look for one driver that wasn't on the disc.



FLASHORN.

[LincolnSpector]

rgreen4, on 11 March 2011 - 09:38 AM, said:

Lincoln, I am going to assume you are talking about the current market. Back when XP was the pre-installed OS, and Intel has introduced the Dual Core processors and then the Core2Duo all of them were 64bit. In fact, I believe the last of the single core Pentium 4 line was 64bit, yet no consumer machine ever came pre-installed with 64bit XP. When Vista was first released, it was available in both 32bit and 64bit, but because of early problems with getting 64bit drivers, almost all machines came with the 32bit of Vista. This started to change in the last year Vista was pre-installed with the vast majority coming with the 64bit version. When Windows 7 was released, virtually all of the full sized laptops and desktops being shipped with the 64bit version of Win7. The exception being the netbooks and very small laptops.

I stand corrected. I'd forgotten about those days.

Lincoln

[cyberknight]

rgreen4, on 11 March 2011 - 09:38 AM, said:

Lincoln, I am going to assume you are talking about the current market. Back when XP was the pre-installed OS, and Intel has introduced the Dual Core processors and then the Core2Duo all of them were 64bit. In fact, I believe the last of the single core Pentium 4 line was 64bit, yet no consumer machine ever came pre-installed with 64bit XP. When Vista was first released, it was available in both 32bit and 64bit, but because of early problems with getting 64bit drivers, almost all machines came with the 32bit of Vista. This started to change in the last year Vista was pre-installed with the vast majority coming with the 64bit version. When Windows 7 was released, virtually all of the full sized laptops and desktops being shipped with the 64bit version of Win7. The exception being the netbooks and very small laptops.

Totally right...earlier systems mostly came with 32-bit OS despite having 64-bit processors. The probable reason could be that most apps were designed keeping 32-bit in mind. Hence 64-bit had issues in running certain apps/games while the 32-bit OS was compatible with almost every app.

[rgreen4]

Some of those older apps still had modules with 16bit code which the 32 bit OS could handle, but the 64 bit OS would not. Some games were bad about this as well as the direct addressing of the video which had been warned about for at least 10 years before the release of Vista. XP would handle it, so they saw no reason to change until they had to.

[LincolnSpector]

rgreen4, on 17 March 2011 - 02:44 PM, said:

Some of those older apps still had modules with 16bit code which the 32 bit OS could handle, but the 64 bit OS would not. Some games were bad about this as well as the direct addressing of the video which had been warned about for at least 10 years before the release of Vista. XP would handle it, so they saw no reason to change until they had to.

Hey, it was 9 or 10 years between the first 32-bit PC (it was a Compaq computer with an 80386 chip) and the first really popular 32-bit OS (Windows 95).

Lincoln

[rgreen4]

That Deskpro386 was a screamer compared to the others available on the market. We bought a lot of them when I was at the Big Island, Va paper mill. A few years later I was transferred back down to the Valdosta, Ga mill and they had one Compaq 386. All the rest of the desktops were IBM PS/2 models with only a 286 chip. It seems that one department went out on their own and bought the machine on their own without contacting IT. They would not allow the unit to be connected to the central system for that department somehow managed to crash the system repeatedly with it. The Systems Analyst and I were old friends, so when I showed up he came to see me. It had been put on a shelf and rather than buy a new machine for my use he came to see me and see if I would accept it. I smiled at him and said "I guess I can put up with it". He laughed.

I enjoyed the use of that machine for the next four years. We finally got a management in that realized that buying the oldest technology meant we were always behind the curve. They basically jumped from the 286 to the 486 with my 386 about the only one around.

When MS was developing Windows 3.0 it was announced that it was being developed on the Compaq Deskpro386 since it was the only one commercially available. That was the beginning of the passing of the torch from IBM to others. Up unitl then, IBM had always brought out systems with the new chip first. Of course this was about when IBM had decided to emulate Apple with proprietary boards (MicroChannel) and develop their OS (OS/2). The market decided it did not want to follow and the rest is history.

Thanks for the memory jog.

This post has been edited by rgreen4: 18 March 2011 - 09:55 AM

[LincolnSpector]

That first Compaq 386 was an amazing machine. Not only because it was faster than anything else and had that great 80386 memory management and virtual machine abilities. It was also amazing because it was not by IBM.

Up until it came out, PCs were frequently called "PC compatibles" and even "IBM compatibles." The assumption was that IBM would lead and all the imitators would follow. Then Compaq took PCs in one direction (the 386) and IBM took them in another (the PS/2). Compaq won.

Lincoln

[rgreen4]

That split offered the market a choice. Continue down the open architecture or go with the new closed architecture (PS/2). The market made it choice. Ironic, however, that neither company is still in the market.

[coastie65]

LincolnSpector, on 20 March 2011 - 11:09 AM, said:

That first Compaq 386 was an amazing machine. Not only because it was faster than anything else and had that great 80386 memory management and virtual machine abilities. It was also amazing because it was not by IBM.

Up until it came out, PCs were frequently called "PC compatibles" and even "IBM compatibles." The assumption was that IBM would lead and all the imitators would follow. Then Compaq took PCs in one direction (the 386) and IBM took them in another (the PS/2). Compaq won.

Lincoln

Around these parts, we always referred to them as IBM compatibles. I stayed with my Commodore, first the 64 and then the 128 and skipped all of that. I did have a machine tool control at work with an 80286 processor though that I worked with.

[LincolnSpector]

coastie65, on 20 March 2011 - 04:07 PM, said:

Around these parts, we always referred to them as IBM compatibles. I stayed with my Commodore, first the 64 and then the 128 and skipped all of that. I did have a machine tool control at work with an 80286 processor though that I worked with.

Four years ago I finally bought a computer with an IBM logo on it. And it's a Lenovo.

Lincoln