Thanks all. I do have 2-4 year old printers and scanners. All but one (the
HP OfficeJet) use USB interfaces. I'll look into the driver issue.

Thanks for your help.

Howard
====================================

"Howard Woodard" <woodard@msn.com> wrote in message
news:uOwe8a2UIHA.4752@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
>
>
> I've noticed that a lot of ads for new PCs that have dual core processors
> include the Vista 32-bit OS. I didn't know that the 32-bit version would
> run on a 64-bit chip. But the real question is, even if it does, why
> would
> you? Wouldn't a 64-bit OS be the optimum OS for 64-bit hardware? Or is
> there a problem with the current 64-bit version?
>
> Curious in Seattle
>
>[/color]

On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 21:27:42 -0800, "Howard Woodard" <woodard@msn.com>
wrote:
[color=blue]
> Thanks all. I got it. I do have a lot of older (2-4 yr old) [USB] scanners
> and printers that I'll want to continue to use.[/color]


You're welcome. Glad to help.

Despite my earlier comments, don't automatically rule out 64-bit Vista
just based on the above sentence. If you are interested in using
64-bit Vista, check the web sites of the vendors of your printers and
scanners to see whether the needed drivers are available.


[color=blue]
> =====================================
>
> "Titus Pullo" <null@unix.site> wrote in message
> news:PvidnfqhgL3_UhvanZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@comcast.com...[color=green]
> >
> > "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
> > news:1mhco39b6ss1gvdokedv2koo3795rcr2oq@4ax.com...[color=darkred]
> >>
> >> 64-bit computing is really just beginning. A year or two or three from
> >> now, when there are lots of 64-bit applications available, and the
> >> older devices without 64-bit drivers are mostly gone, many of us will
> >> be running a 64-bit operating system. But for the moment, many people
> >> prefer to wait.
> >>[/color]
> >
> > Based on my experience, I'd advise him to go 64 bit now. If you buy a new
> > computer with x64 pre-installed, you'll have no problems. I bought a
> > ThinkPad R61 with Vista Business 64 and it runs great. No issues. All my
> > 32 bit programs (like Office 2007) run fine. 64 bit is the future. Why pay
> > money for yesterday's technology?[/color][/color]

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Hey, wath's up,
I just bought a 64 bit system, so that I could upgrade past 3 point whatever
gig's of ram. Everything works great. I've had no problems as of yet; that I
couldn't handle with a little research. However, a lot, and I mean a lot of
programs outside of windows are incompatable with the 64 bit OS. They, they
being Windows, claim that the 64 bit software is better for video editing.
That's all fine and dandy, only, my high def camcorders software doesn't
support 64 bit versions; either Vista nor XP. So if you are attempting to
decide weither nor not to make the leap, then I would pause until the market
catches up with 64 bit needs; which is, I don't know when. What would be nice
though, is some sort of backwards compatible software beyond the 32 - 64 bit
barrier. That way, people like us, who wish to upgrade, can operate programs
that require 32 bit systems without using a partition commander. which is
another option for you; at your own risk, of course.

"Howard Woodard" wrote:
[color=blue]
> I've noticed that a lot of ads for new PCs that have dual core processors
> include the Vista 32-bit OS. I didn't know that the 32-bit version would
> run on a 64-bit chip. But the real question is, even if it does, why would
> you? Wouldn't a 64-bit OS be the optimum OS for 64-bit hardware? Or is
> there a problem with the current 64-bit version?
>
> Curious in Seattle
>[/color]