dumb question

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 08:12:15 -0500, Norvin Gordon
wrote:

Tim Slattery wrote:
Norvin Gordon wrote:

OK, my age is showing, how do I know if my system is 32 or 64 bit?
Find "My Computer", right-click it and select Properties. If it's a
64-bit system it will say so on that page. If you can't find any
mention, then it's a 32-bit system.

Thanks, have to buy a new printer and some will only work with 64 bit.


Are you sure about that? I've never heard of a printer that will only
work with 64-bit Windows.

You may find some printers that only have drivers for *32-bit*
Windows, but not the other way around.


I ended up buying a HP 5520 (home use only) and one of the system
minimum requirements was "Windows XP SP3 (32 bit)" so I assumed that
I needed to be a 32 bit system. Right or wrong???

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 09:22:33 -0500, Norvin Gordon
wrote:

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 08:12:15 -0500, Norvin Gordon
wrote:

Tim Slattery wrote:
Norvin Gordon wrote:

OK, my age is showing, how do I know if my system is 32 or 64 bit?
Find "My Computer", right-click it and select Properties. If it's a
64-bit system it will say so on that page. If you can't find any
mention, then it's a 32-bit system.

Thanks, have to buy a new printer and some will only work with 64 bit.


Are you sure about that? I've never heard of a printer that will only
work with 64-bit Windows.

You may find some printers that only have drivers for *32-bit*
Windows, but not the other way around.


I ended up buying a HP 5520 (home use only) and one of the system
minimum requirements was "Windows XP SP3 (32 bit)" so I assumed that
I needed to be a 32 bit system. Right or wrong???


What you said earlier was "have to buy a new printer and some will
only work with 64 bit." Now you are saying the opposite. Which do you
think is correct? What version of Windows are you running?

The minimum system requirements, as stated on the HP web site, are :
•Windows 8, Windows 7: 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor, 2
GB available hard disk space, CD-ROM/DVD drive or Internet connection,
USB port, Internet Explorer; Windows Vista: 800 MHz 32-bit (x86) or
64-bit (x64) processor, 2 GB available hard disk space, CD-ROM/DVD
drive or Internet connection, USB port, Internet Explorer; Windows XP
Service Pack 3 or higher (32-bit only): any Intel® Pentium® II,
Celeron® or compatible processor, 233 MHz or higher, 750 MB available
hard disk space, CD-ROM/DVD drive or Internet connection, USB port,
Internet Explorer 6 or higher. Windows 8: hp.com/go/Windows8." It
would appear that both 32-bit and 64-bit are supported for Windows
Vista, 7, and 8, but for Windows XP, only a 32-bit driver exists and
there is no 64-bit driver.

As I said above, "You may find some printers that only have drivers
for *32-bit* Windows, but not the other way around."

Norvin Gordon wrote:
Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 08:12:15 -0500, Norvin Gordon
wrote:

Tim Slattery wrote:
Norvin Gordon wrote:

OK, my age is showing, how do I know if my system is 32 or 64 bit?
Find "My Computer", right-click it and select Properties. If it's a
64-bit system it will say so on that page. If you can't find any
mention, then it's a 32-bit system.

Thanks, have to buy a new printer and some will only work with 64 bit.


Are you sure about that? I've never heard of a printer that will only
work with 64-bit Windows.

You may find some printers that only have drivers for *32-bit*
Windows, but not the other way around.


I ended up buying a HP 5520 (home use only) and one of the system
minimum requirements was "Windows XP SP3 (32 bit)" so I assumed that
I needed to be a 32 bit system. Right or wrong???

From the driver download page.

http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/s...536&sw_la ng=

"HP Photosmart 5520 e-All-in-One Printer"

Release details
Released:
2012-10-22
File name:
PS5520_1315.exe [1/1, 62.42M]
Version:
28.8
Compatibility:
Microsoft Windows Vista
Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium (32-bit)
Microsoft Windows Vista Home Basic (32-bit)
Microsoft Windows Vista Business (32-bit)
Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate (32-bit)
Microsoft Windows 7 (32-bit)
Microsoft Windows 7 Home Basic (32-bit)
Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium (32-bit)
Microsoft Windows 7 Professional (32-bit)
Microsoft Windows 7 Enterprise (32-bit)
Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate (32-bit)
Microsoft Windows 7 Home Basic (64-bit)
Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium (64-bit)
Microsoft Windows 7 Professional (64-bit)
Microsoft Windows 7 Enterprise (64-bit)
Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate (64-bit)
Microsoft Windows 7 (64-bit)
Microsoft Windows Vista (64-bit)
Microsoft Windows XP Professional
Microsoft Windows Vista Enterprise (32-bit)
Microsoft Windows Vista Enterprise (64-bit)
Microsoft Windows 8 (32-bit)
Microsoft Windows 8 (64-bit)
Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition
Microsoft Windows XP Media Center
Microsoft Windows Vista Home Basic (64-bit)
Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium (64-bit)
Microsoft Windows Vista Business (64-bit)
Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate (64-bit)
Microsoft Windows 8 Enterprise (32-bit)
Microsoft Windows 8 Enterprise (64-bit)
Microsoft Windows 8 Pro (32-bit)
Microsoft Windows 8 Pro (64-bit)
Microsoft Windows XP

Now, how is that for complete coverage ?
32 or 64, they have you covered.
No Win 3.1 driver though :-)

*******

Before buying any printer, find some reviews.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16828415427

Only got 3 of 5 stars, from 8 reviewers total.

"Slightly loud"

"Paper feed is not reliable"

No real comments on ink sucking habits, which is one thing
I check for in the reviews. Some printers, if left powered,
they "clean the heads" every day. Until the reservoir
is dry... If you do a lot of printing, and burn up a couple
hundred dollars worth of ink a month, you'll hardly notice.
But you'll notice you don't have enough money left to
make the car payments :-)

The Amazon rating is 2.5 stars, for 97 reviews. The
words "paper jam" are here also.

http://www.amazon.com/HP-Photosmart-...hotosmart+5520

Paul

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 11:21:17 -0400, "Paul" wrote in
article ...


No Win 3.1 driver though :-)


Completely OT, but seeing this reminded me that Linus Torvalds has
decided to codename the Linux 3.11 Kernel as "Linux for Workgroups",
borrowing the moniker that Microsoft gave to Windows 3.11 back in 1993.

I am amused (though it does open the door to snarky comments such as
"That means Linux is *still* 20 years behind Windows!")

--
Zaphod

"The best Bang since the Big One" - Eccentrica Gallumbits

Norvin Gordon wrote:

I ended up buying a HP 5520 (home use only) and one of the system
minimum requirements was "Windows XP SP3 (32 bit)" so I assumed that
I needed to be a 32 bit system. Right or wrong???

Wrong. Key word: "minimum"

--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 12:40:45 -0400, Zaphod Beeblebrox
wrote:

Completely OT, but seeing this reminded me that Linus Torvalds has
decided to codename the Linux 3.11 Kernel as "Linux for Workgroups",
borrowing the moniker that Microsoft gave to Windows 3.11 back in 1993.


A bit of (ancient) trivia, but Windows 3.11 was *not* Windows for
Workgroups.

Yes, there was a Windows for Workgroups 3.11, but there was also a
Windows 3.11.

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 11:13:19 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
wrote in article
...

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 12:40:45 -0400, Zaphod Beeblebrox
wrote:

Completely OT, but seeing this reminded me that Linus Torvalds has
decided to codename the Linux 3.11 Kernel as "Linux for Workgroups",
borrowing the moniker that Microsoft gave to Windows 3.11 back in 1993.


A bit of (ancient) trivia, but Windows 3.11 was *not* Windows for
Workgroups.

Yes, there was a Windows for Workgroups 3.11, but there was also a
Windows 3.11.

And this I actually knew, but had forgotten. Thanks for the memories!

--
Zaphod

The secret of flying is to hurl yourself to the ground, and miss.

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 14:24:38 -0400, Zaphod Beeblebrox
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 11:13:19 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
wrote in article
...

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 12:40:45 -0400, Zaphod Beeblebrox
wrote:

Completely OT, but seeing this reminded me that Linus Torvalds has
decided to codename the Linux 3.11 Kernel as "Linux for Workgroups",
borrowing the moniker that Microsoft gave to Windows 3.11 back in 1993.


A bit of (ancient) trivia, but Windows 3.11 was *not* Windows for
Workgroups.

Yes, there was a Windows for Workgroups 3.11, but there was also a
Windows 3.11.

And this I actually knew, but had forgotten. Thanks for the memories!


You're welcome, and glad you knew it. Only few people do.

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 13:25:04 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 14:24:38 -0400, Zaphod Beeblebrox
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 11:13:19 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
wrote in article
...

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 12:40:45 -0400, Zaphod Beeblebrox
wrote:

Completely OT, but seeing this reminded me that Linus Torvalds has
decided to codename the Linux 3.11 Kernel as "Linux for Workgroups",
borrowing the moniker that Microsoft gave to Windows 3.11 back in 1993.


A bit of (ancient) trivia, but Windows 3.11 was *not* Windows for
Workgroups.

Yes, there was a Windows for Workgroups 3.11, but there was also a
Windows 3.11.

And this I actually knew, but had forgotten. Thanks for the memories!


You're welcome, and glad you knew it. Only few people do.

In message , "Ken Blake,
MVP" writes:
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 13:25:04 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 14:24:38 -0400, Zaphod Beeblebrox
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 11:13:19 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
wrote in article
...

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 12:40:45 -0400, Zaphod Beeblebrox
wrote:

Completely OT, but seeing this reminded me that Linus Torvalds has
decided to codename the Linux 3.11 Kernel as "Linux for Workgroups",
borrowing the moniker that Microsoft gave to Windows 3.11 back in 1993.


A bit of (ancient) trivia, but Windows 3.11 was *not* Windows for
Workgroups.

Yes, there was a Windows for Workgroups 3.11, but there was also a
Windows 3.11.

And this I actually knew, but had forgotten. Thanks for the memories!


You're welcome, and glad you knew it. Only few people do.

(I couldn't find the additional text in that posting?)

If we're on ancient trivia, do you remember the bug there was in one of
the libraries (or whatever) in Windows 3.1x that was most embarrassingly
shown by firing up calculator and asking it to - IIRR - work out 3.11
minus 3.1? (It was something like that, and it got it wrong.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Dailysex, or is it spelled dyslexia, rules KO! (Dr[.] J.[ ]B.[ ]Davis)

On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 07:12:19 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:


If we're on ancient trivia, do you remember the bug there was in one of
the libraries (or whatever) in Windows 3.1x that was most embarrassingly
shown by firing up calculator and asking it to - IIRR - work out 3.11
minus 3.1? (It was something like that, and it got it wrong.)


I do remember the Calc bug, but not its details. Was it 3.11 - 3.1?
That doesn't look familiar.