[windows2000] Re: 32-bit virtual machines

  • From: "Charles R. Buchanan" <charles@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: windows2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 20:52:13 -0800

From a layman's perspective, using the 64-bit cpu for 32bit apps/os'es
and so forth is no biggy. In fact, in a lot of cases, having that
dual/quad core cpu will make life so much better! :-)  I experimented
with XP64 for about a week and uninstalled it. It didn't like my sound
card, and I wasn't having that! lol!!! :-)  64bit computing would
probably be great, except for a few minor annoyances, like the lack of
drivers and the lack of 64bit programs to actually run! :-O  As you know,
max out on the memory! 

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 23:10:38 -0500, While Searching For The "ANY" Key, "Ray 
Costanzo" <ray@xxxxxxxxxx> said this:

> Hi list,
> My winter project this year is to rebuild my home network.  I'm upgrading to
> a WS2003 domain from Windows 2000 (or I may venture into 2008 depending on
> when that comes out).  I'm going to make use of virtualization as much as
> possible and anticipate having five or six VMs.  I'm not a big fan of 64 bit
> OSes, so I want to run all 32 bit ones.  When I build the machine that will
> host all the virtual machines, I'll want to get as much processing power as
> I can reasonably afford.  It seems, however, that all the hardcore
> processors these days are 64 bit.  Will this matter?  Will I just be wasting
> money buying a 64 bit processor for all 32 bit OSes?  Aside from the "you
> should run 64 bit OSes" responses, any thoughts on this?
> Thanks

Jesus Christ: "There is no surer proof of Christ's divinity than that he is 
still so hated 
some two thousand years after his death."

New Site from The Kenzig Group!
Windows Vista Links, list options
and info are available at:
To Unsubscribe, set digest or vacation
mode or view archives use the below link.


Other related posts: