[OT] 64bit windows software

Windows 7 64bit 8mb ram desktop

[rant]
Why does so much 64bit software fail to work properly yet their 32 bit
versions are fine, or is it just my bad luck.

In excited anticipation of my new software purchase, in goes the CD and
it autoruns installing the 64bit version by default, no choices of
whether you want 32bit or 64bit, unless you delve into the CD and find
32bit to install manually, but why would I want to do that as I have a
64bit machine. :-?

I have installed Office 2010, after using for a few weeks I found that
Access had some problems and the only workaround was to uninstall the
64bit and use the 32bit version. I can live with that.

Then I upgraded to AcdSee Pro 6 image editor and database, couple of
days later I wanted to import from my scanner, lo and behold no scanner
option, only available in the 32bit version. Uninstall and install the
32bit.

Now, this week I have upgraded to Serif PagePlus X7. I do a mailshot
of a flyer to about 1200 people. As usual I mailmerge names and
addresses from an Excel file. But it won't work, there is no option to
import from Excel, that is only available in the 32bit version. There
is a workaround though, two actually, either convert the Excel file to
csv then rename it to .sdb (serif database) or, yippee! by downloading
the 64bit Access database engine driver. I did that but when I came to
install it, it would not allow me because I only had the 32bit version
of Office :-@ So you guessed it, I had to install 32bit PagePlus.

So what is the point of having a 64bit operating system if so much
software does not run on it, after all it has been around for a long
time now and so many new computers come with 64bit windows
pre-installed these days. It is not cheap third party software that I
am buying but supposedly leading brands. I have lost a lot of
productive time, not to mention hours of frustration trying to resolve
issues that should not be there in the first place :-@ :-@ :-@
[rant over]

off now for a glass of calming fluid :-)

--
mick

On 10/9/2013 11:32 AM, mick wrote:
Windows 7 64bit 8mb ram desktop

[rant]
Why does so much 64bit software fail to work properly yet their 32 bit
versions are fine, or is it just my bad luck.

In excited anticipation of my new software purchase, in goes the CD and
it autoruns installing the 64bit version by default, no choices of
whether you want 32bit or 64bit, unless you delve into the CD and find
32bit to install manually, but why would I want to do that as I have a
64bit machine. :-?

I have installed Office 2010, after using for a few weeks I found that
Access had some problems and the only workaround was to uninstall the
64bit and use the 32bit version. I can live with that.

Then I upgraded to AcdSee Pro 6 image editor and database, couple of
days later I wanted to import from my scanner, lo and behold no scanner
option, only available in the 32bit version. Uninstall and install the
32bit.

Now, this week I have upgraded to Serif PagePlus X7. I do a mailshot of
a flyer to about 1200 people. As usual I mailmerge names and addresses
from an Excel file. But it won't work, there is no option to import
from Excel, that is only available in the 32bit version. There is a
workaround though, two actually, either convert the Excel file to csv
then rename it to .sdb (serif database) or, yippee! by downloading the
64bit Access database engine driver. I did that but when I came to
install it, it would not allow me because I only had the 32bit version
of Office :-@ So you guessed it, I had to install 32bit PagePlus.

So what is the point of having a 64bit operating system if so much
software does not run on it, after all it has been around for a long
time now and so many new computers come with 64bit windows pre-installed
these days. It is not cheap third party software that I am buying but
supposedly leading brands. I have lost a lot of productive time, not to
mention hours of frustration trying to resolve issues that should not be
there in the first place :-@ :-@ :-@
[rant over]

off now for a glass of calming fluid :-)


Nice rant. It takes a longer time span to migrate applications than
to upgrade them. I seem to recall that it took somewhere between 4
to 6 years to migrate 16-bit applications to 32-bit at the time when
Windows NT 4.0 Workstation was first introduced. The same is happening
here, as 64-bit based computers and OS's start prevailing.

GR

mick wrote:
Windows 7 64bit 8mb ram desktop

[rant]
Why does so much 64bit software fail to work properly yet their 32 bit
versions are fine, or is it just my bad luck.

In excited anticipation of my new software purchase, in goes the CD and
it autoruns installing the 64bit version by default, no choices of
whether you want 32bit or 64bit, unless you delve into the CD and find
32bit to install manually, but why would I want to do that as I have a
64bit machine. :-?

I have installed Office 2010, after using for a few weeks I found that
Access had some problems and the only workaround was to uninstall the
64bit and use the 32bit version. I can live with that.


cf.
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/wo...010369476.aspx

qp
By default, Microsoft Office 2010 installs the 32-bit version of Office
2010 even if your computer is running 64-bit editions of Windows.
/qp

For the 64 bit version of Office 2010 to be present one would have to
specifically chosen to install the 64 bit version of Office 2010 or had
a 64 bit version previously installed but that wouldn't be possible
since all prior versions of Office were only available in 32 bit flavors
(and your post implies Office 2010 was a new purchase "my new software
purchase, in goes the CD..."






--
...winston
msft mvp consumer apps

On 10/9/2013 11:32 AM, mick wrote:
Windows 7 64bit 8mb ram desktop

[rant]
Why does so much 64bit software fail to work properly yet their 32 bit
versions are fine, or is it just my bad luck.



off now for a glass of calming fluid :-)

6 or 7 glasses,cups,bottles or cans is just about right and it also
prevents you from breaking out the BFH ! I find that has helped many
times in the past!

On Wed, 09 Oct 2013 12:42:45 -0700, Ghostrider wrote:
Nice rant. It takes a longer time span to migrate applications than
to upgrade them. I seem to recall that it took somewhere between 4
to 6 years to migrate 16-bit applications to 32-bit at the time when
Windows NT 4.0 Workstation was first introduced. The same is happening
here, as 64-bit based computers and OS's start prevailing.

But it's been 10 years already since I first saw Windows XP 64-bit (IA64).
So I'm guessing it's been roughly 9 years since AMD64 Windows XP existed.

Software developers might have a tough time porting their sources since some
of them relies on third party libraries whose authors may not be dedicated
to the library development. e.g.: open source. Some may be forced to port
the codes by their own, where internal library workings aren't well known by
them. So the result are poor quality 64-bit softwares due to lack of
knowledge regarding the third party open source library.

Other cause is that, some softwares don't really need 64-bit computing power
or need memory larger than 2GB, and some of the developers are content with
that, but are forced to migrate the software to 64-bit either by user demand
or by their bosses. So the result are poor quality 64-bit softwares due to
lack of dedication.

On 10/10/2013 00:47:57, ...winston wrote:
mick wrote:
Windows 7 64bit 8mb ram desktop

[rant]
Why does so much 64bit software fail to work properly yet their 32 bit
versions are fine, or is it just my bad luck.

In excited anticipation of my new software purchase, in goes the CD and
it autoruns installing the 64bit version by default, no choices of
whether you want 32bit or 64bit, unless you delve into the CD and find
32bit to install manually, but why would I want to do that as I have a
64bit machine. :-?

I have installed Office 2010, after using for a few weeks I found that
Access had some problems and the only workaround was to uninstall the
64bit and use the 32bit version. I can live with that.


cf.
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/wo...010369476.aspx

qp
By default, Microsoft Office 2010 installs the 32-bit version of Office 2010
even if your computer is running 64-bit editions of Windows.
/qp

For the 64 bit version of Office 2010 to be present one would have to
specifically chosen to install the 64 bit version of Office 2010 or had a 64
bit version previously installed but that wouldn't be possible since all
prior versions of Office were only available in 32 bit flavors (and your post
implies Office 2010 was a new purchase "my new software purchase, in goes the
CD..."

Yes, I know that, I had chosen to install the 64bit of Office because I
had win7 64bit, IIRC though you do get an option of which version you
want to install.
The sweeping statement of excited anticipation comes from the majority
of software that just installs itself without giving the user an option
of which version they would prefer to use. I think most people would
recognise that off the cuff remark :-)

--
mick

On 10/10/2013 09:47:20, Bob Henson wrote:
mick wrote:


So what is the point of having a 64bit operating system if so much
software does not run on it, after all it has been around for a long
time now and so many new computers come with 64bit windows
pre-installed these days. It is not cheap third party software that I
am buying but supposedly leading brands. I have lost a lot of
productive time, not to mention hours of frustration trying to resolve
issues that should not be there in the first place :-@ :-@ :-@
[rant over]

off now for a glass of calming fluid :-)

I've had to have several glasses of calming fluid for similar reasons. The
first was when my shining brand new computer arrived a couple of years back
and I had (after many hours research) to buy a new printer as there were no
64 bit drivers for my old, but fully functional one. I could have managed
by networking, but my flatbed scanner had the same problem, so I needed a
new scanner too, so I bought a combined job for ease of use. Since then it
has not been bad software or missing drivers so much as there being still,
after all this time, no 64 bit software out there to take advantage of the
facilities it offers. Only yesterday I was delighted to find that Waterfox
was a very quick 64 bit versions of Firefox - until I discovered that
RoboForm won't work with it - a deal breaker for me. 64 bit plugins were
fairly limited too.

Anyway, Mick, I don't suppose it will make your headache any less to know
that occasionally it works the other way round. This week we tried
connecting my other half's new Hudl (7" Android tablet) to her Windows 7
32bit machine via USB cable. Much research later, it still won't recognise
the HUDL at all, and tells us there are no drivers available. Out of
curiosity I plugged it into my 64bit Windows 7 system and it worked
perfectly and installed the correct drivers instantly. It all goes to show
- you just can't win!

I know I am not alone with getting frustrated about things not working
as they should, problems on this group just highlights a fraction of
what is happening out there on a daily basis.

The desktop I have is quad core Q6600 @2.4Ghz with 8mb of ram, next to
me is my wife's desktop with a core2 6400 @2.13Ghz with 3mb ram running
win7 32bit. Both are connected to a home network sharing a
printer/scanner and both are using virtually the same software for main
functions like word processing, dtp, image editing and so on. Now, I
am using win 7 64bit to make use of the extra ram, but in all honesty I
cannot physically see much difference in performance between the two
computers, maybe the image editing and large Excel spreadsheets perform
slightly quicker on mine but it is not going to allow me to stay in bed
any longer!

IMO, was it worth me stuffing the extra 4mb of ram in the original
machine and going with the 64bit operating system and 64bit software.
I don't think so, and I probably would not have had so many problems
with getting things to work identically on both machines. The only
upside of all this is that I have different systems to experiment on,
especially when I factor in another old pentium desktop with XP pro and
a laptop which is very slow but ideal for trying all the dodgy stuff
from the internet :-)

--
mick

On 10/10/2013 16:14:40, Bob Henson wrote:
mick wrote:

On 10/10/2013 09:47:20, Bob Henson wrote:
mick wrote:


So what is the point of having a 64bit operating system if so much
software does not run on it, after all it has been around for a long
time now and so many new computers come with 64bit windows
pre-installed these days. It is not cheap third party software that I
am buying but supposedly leading brands. I have lost a lot of
productive time, not to mention hours of frustration trying to resolve
issues that should not be there in the first place :-@ :-@ :-@
[rant over]

off now for a glass of calming fluid :-)

I've had to have several glasses of calming fluid for similar reasons. The
first was when my shining brand new computer arrived a couple of years back
and I had (after many hours research) to buy a new printer as there were no
64 bit drivers for my old, but fully functional one. I could have managed
by networking, but my flatbed scanner had the same problem, so I needed a
new scanner too, so I bought a combined job for ease of use. Since then it
has not been bad software or missing drivers so much as there being still,
after all this time, no 64 bit software out there to take advantage of the
facilities it offers. Only yesterday I was delighted to find that Waterfox
was a very quick 64 bit versions of Firefox - until I discovered that
RoboForm won't work with it - a deal breaker for me. 64 bit plugins were
fairly limited too.

Anyway, Mick, I don't suppose it will make your headache any less to know
that occasionally it works the other way round. This week we tried
connecting my other half's new Hudl (7" Android tablet) to her Windows 7
32bit machine via USB cable. Much research later, it still won't recognise
the HUDL at all, and tells us there are no drivers available. Out of
curiosity I plugged it into my 64bit Windows 7 system and it worked
perfectly and installed the correct drivers instantly. It all goes to show
- you just can't win!

I know I am not alone with getting frustrated about things not working
as they should, problems on this group just highlights a fraction of
what is happening out there on a daily basis.

The desktop I have is quad core Q6600 @2.4Ghz with 8mb of ram, next to
me is my wife's desktop with a core2 6400 @2.13Ghz with 3mb ram running
win7 32bit. Both are connected to a home network sharing a
printer/scanner and both are using virtually the same software for main
functions like word processing, dtp, image editing and so on. Now, I
am using win 7 64bit to make use of the extra ram, but in all honesty I
cannot physically see much difference in performance between the two
computers, maybe the image editing and large Excel spreadsheets perform
slightly quicker on mine but it is not going to allow me to stay in bed
any longer!

IMO, was it worth me stuffing the extra 4mb of ram in the original
machine and going with the 64bit operating system and 64bit software.
I don't think so, and I probably would not have had so many problems
with getting things to work identically on both machines. The only
upside of all this is that I have different systems to experiment on,
especially when I factor in another old pentium desktop with XP pro and
a laptop which is very slow but ideal for trying all the dodgy stuff
from the internet :-)

I have a very similar setup to yours and, like you, can see almost no
advantage in the 64 bit system - certainly not when compared with the
hassle it has caused.

I have learned a lot though through time spent solving issues, which
now makes me the number one port of call for friends and relatives LOL

--
mick

On 09/10/2013 2:32 PM, mick wrote:
So what is the point of having a 64bit operating system if so much
software does not run on it, after all it has been around for a long
time now and so many new computers come with 64bit windows pre-installed
these days. It is not cheap third party software that I am buying but
supposedly leading brands. I have lost a lot of productive time, not to
mention hours of frustration trying to resolve issues that should not be
there in the first place :-@ :-@ :-@
[rant over]

off now for a glass of calming fluid :-)

It seems to be a problem unique to Windows, when I'd been using Linux
64-bit, there was hardly any difference between the 32-bit or 64-bit
versions. It was simply an easy recompile which was already done for you
when you downloaded installation packages. I had no real issues with
Linux, but I was starting to get a little ****ed off at Ubuntu and its
constant mandatory changing of user interfaces though. I would go to
Mint, but after I deleted the Linux partitions, I added them to the
Windows partition space, and then I found I couldn't shrink them down
again. Oh well.

Yousuf Khan

"mick" wrote in message ...


Yes, I know that, I had chosen to install the 64bit of Office because I
had win7 64bit, IIRC though you do get an option of which version you
want to install.
The sweeping statement of excited anticipation comes from the majority
of software that just installs itself without giving the user an option
of which version they would prefer to use. I think most people would
recognise that off the cuff remark :-)


Yes, the default is 32 bit. The setup program that runs after inserting the
disk does not provide an option to select 32 or 64.
To install 64 bit one has to cancel setup and navigate to the setup.exe in
the x64 folder on the Office 2010 disk.

IIrc even MSFT recommends (probably publicly noted somewhere on their
Office.com web site) installing the 64 bit unless. Even with that
disclaimer since Office 2010 is about 3 yrs old and was the first version
offering 64 bit capability the version release at the time was primarily for
3rd parties to develop new 64 bit capable add-ins (since existing 32bit
won't work) and gain some experience going forward for Office 2013. (i.e.
the 64 bit was intended for the developer side and not consumer).

In message , Bob Henson
writes:
mick wrote:
[]
IMO, was it worth me stuffing the extra 4mb of ram in the original
machine and going with the 64bit operating system and 64bit software.
I don't think so, and I probably would not have had so many problems
with getting things to work identically on both machines. The only
upside of all this is that I have different systems to experiment on,
especially when I factor in another old pentium desktop with XP pro and
a laptop which is very slow but ideal for trying all the dodgy stuff
from the internet :-)

I have a very similar setup to yours and, like you, can see almost no
advantage in the 64 bit system - certainly not when compared with the
hassle it has caused.

Thanks both of you; reinforces my inclination to go 32-bit if I ever go
W7. Though it's probably hard to find 7-32 now (probably hard to find 7
at all!), and will be even more so by the time I switch. (Maybe one of
the end-of-line merchants like Morgancomputers
http://www.morgancomputers.co.uk/c/599/Laptop-Sale/. Yes, they do, like
http://www.morgancomputers.co.uk/pro...Windows-7-Pro/
[for "new"; they've got plenty including XP and Vista "refurbished", but
that's probably true of any reseller. Though I'd trust Morgan to
refurbish properly].)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

....Every morning is the dawn of a new error...

On 12/10/2013 09:10:54, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Bob Henson
writes:
mick wrote:
[]
IMO, was it worth me stuffing the extra 4mb of ram in the original
machine and going with the 64bit operating system and 64bit software.
I don't think so, and I probably would not have had so many problems
with getting things to work identically on both machines. The only
upside of all this is that I have different systems to experiment on,
especially when I factor in another old pentium desktop with XP pro and
a laptop which is very slow but ideal for trying all the dodgy stuff
from the internet :-)

I have a very similar setup to yours and, like you, can see almost no
advantage in the 64 bit system - certainly not when compared with the
hassle it has caused.

Thanks both of you; reinforces my inclination to go 32-bit if I ever go W7.
Though it's probably hard to find 7-32 now (probably hard to find 7 at all!),
and will be even more so by the time I switch. (Maybe one of the end-of-line
merchants like Morgancomputers
http://www.morgancomputers.co.uk/c/599/Laptop-Sale/. Yes, they do, like
http://www.morgancomputers.co.uk/pro...Windows-7-Pro/
[for "new"; they've got plenty including XP and Vista "refurbished", but
that's probably true of any reseller. Though I'd trust Morgan to refurbish
properly].)

John, there is no problem running a machine that is capable of 64bit
using windows 7 64bit as the operating system. What I have found is
that the majority of other installed software I have performs better
when the 32bit version of that software is installed.

Instead of letting autorun automatically install software from the CD
if you have a 64bit OS, you have to search on the CD for the 32bit
version then install that. Sometimes when downloading software direct
from the internet you will get no choice and will end up with the
version that is the same as your OS.

Some 64bit software runs quite happily on a 64bit system with no
problems. The main ones to look out for are software that needs to
interact with other software for importing/exporting, communicating
with scanners and cameras and such like.

I would keep away from Vista. I had it for 3 years and it was never a
problem for me, but many other people found it to be very troublesome.
I cannot fault win 7 in any way.

--
mick

In message , mick
writes:
On 12/10/2013 09:10:54, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
[]
Thanks both of you; reinforces my inclination to go 32-bit if I ever
go W7. Though it's probably hard to find 7-32 now (probably hard to
[]
John, there is no problem running a machine that is capable of 64bit
using windows 7 64bit as the operating system. What I have found is
that the majority of other installed software I have performs better
when the 32bit version of that software is installed.

Interesting: so the 32bit version (of a lot of software) "performs
better" even on a 53-bit system running a 64-bit OS, is that what you're
saying?

Instead of letting autorun automatically install software from the CD
if you have a 64bit OS, you have to search on the CD for the 32bit
version then install that. Sometimes when downloading software direct
from the internet you will get no choice and will end up with the
version that is the same as your OS.

In such circumstances, can you get the 32-bit version at all (maybe by
spoofing something?), or will it not run anyway? (I thought 64OS
supported 32software, though possibly not 16 or less.)

Some 64bit software runs quite happily on a 64bit system with no
problems. The main ones to look out for are software that needs to
interact with other software for importing/exporting, communicating
with scanners and cameras and such like.

Ah, the eternal driver problem, that people have mentioned here a lot. I
haven't paid it a _lot_ of attention, but I get the feeling that there's
still a lot more hardware about for which drivers that work in 32bit W7
are available but 64b7 are not, than vice versa.

I would keep away from Vista. I had it for 3 years and it was never a
problem for me, but many other people found it to be very troublesome.
I cannot fault win 7 in any way.

My brother has Vista, and has little problem with it - but he's just a
user. (I have when trying to install new versions of software on his
system, as I have to fight it.) From what I've seen, I'd (I'll) have no
problems, other than unfamiliarity on where some things are, with 7
either, though it's a pity libraries don't work in the way I thought
they would when I first heard about them.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Diplomacy is the art of letting someone have your way.

In message , "J. P. Gilliver
(John)" writes:
In message , mick
writes:
On 12/10/2013 09:10:54, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
[]
Thanks both of you; reinforces my inclination to go 32-bit if I ever
go W7. Though it's probably hard to find 7-32 now (probably hard to
[]
John, there is no problem running a machine that is capable of 64bit
using windows 7 64bit as the operating system. What I have found is
that the majority of other installed software I have performs better
when the 32bit version of that software is installed.

Interesting: so the 32bit version (of a lot of software) "performs
better" even on a 53-bit system running a 64-bit OS, is that what
oops - both meant to be 64 of course!
you're saying?

Instead of letting autorun automatically install software from the CD
if you have a 64bit OS, you have to search on the CD for the 32bit
version then install that. Sometimes when downloading software direct
from the internet you will get no choice and will end up with the
version that is the same as your OS.

In such circumstances, can you get the 32-bit version at all (maybe by
spoofing something?), or will it not run anyway? (I thought 64OS
supported 32software, though possibly not 16 or less.)

Some 64bit software runs quite happily on a 64bit system with no
problems. The main ones to look out for are software that needs to
interact with other software for importing/exporting, communicating
with scanners and cameras and such like.

Ah, the eternal driver problem, that people have mentioned here a lot.
I haven't paid it a _lot_ of attention, but I get the feeling that
there's still a lot more hardware about for which drivers that work in
32bit W7 are available but 64b7 are not, than vice versa.

I would keep away from Vista. I had it for 3 years and it was never a
problem for me, but many other people found it to be very troublesome.
I cannot fault win 7 in any way.

My brother has Vista, and has little problem with it - but he's just a
user. (I have when trying to install new versions of software on his
system, as I have to fight it.) From what I've seen, I'd (I'll) have no
problems, other than unfamiliarity on where some things are, with 7
either, though it's a pity libraries don't work in the way I thought
they would when I first heard about them.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Very funny, Scotty. Now beam down my clothes

On 13/10/2013 11:32:36, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , mick
writes:
On 12/10/2013 09:10:54, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
[]
Thanks both of you; reinforces my inclination to go 32-bit if I ever go
W7. Though it's probably hard to find 7-32 now (probably hard to
[]
John, there is no problem running a machine that is capable of 64bit using
windows 7 64bit as the operating system. What I have found is that the
majority of other installed software I have performs better when the 32bit
version of that software is installed.

Interesting: so the 32bit version (of a lot of software) "performs better"
even on a 53-bit system running a 64-bit OS, is that what you're saying?

In my experiences of what I have installed, yes.

Instead of letting autorun automatically install software from the CD if you
have a 64bit OS, you have to search on the CD for the 32bit version then
install that. Sometimes when downloading software direct from the internet
you will get no choice and will end up with the version that is the same as
your OS.

In such circumstances, can you get the 32-bit version at all (maybe by
spoofing something?), or will it not run anyway? (I thought 64OS supported
32software, though possibly not 16 or less.)

On some of the installation CD's I have there are both 32 and 64bit
versions of the software. What I am saying is that when you insert the
CD in the drive and it autoruns it will automatically install the
version of the software that is the same as the operating system. e.g.
If you have 64bit windows and wish to use a 32bit program you will have
to choose that manually from the disk. Also, when downloading software
from the internet you will sometimes find that by default the saved
program is 64bit, therefore you will have to go and find the 32bit
version if you want to install that.

Some 64bit software runs quite happily on a 64bit system with no problems.
The main ones to look out for are software that needs to interact with
other software for importing/exporting, communicating with scanners and
cameras and such like.

Ah, the eternal driver problem, that people have mentioned here a lot. I
haven't paid it a _lot_ of attention, but I get the feeling that there's
still a lot more hardware about for which drivers that work in 32bit W7 are
available but 64b7 are not, than vice versa.

Yes

I would keep away from Vista. I had it for 3 years and it was never a
problem for me, but many other people found it to be very troublesome. I
cannot fault win 7 in any way.

My brother has Vista, and has little problem with it - but he's just a user.
(I have when trying to install new versions of software on his system, as I
have to fight it.) From what I've seen, I'd (I'll) have no problems, other
than unfamiliarity on where some things are, with 7 either, though it's a
pity libraries don't work in the way I thought they would when I first heard
about them.

I have found win7 very easy to use. I don't bother at all with
libraries, I really cannot see the point of them if you keep a well
organised structure of folders and files. I don't use windows explorer
either as I use Directory Opus for file management and hundreds of
other things too. In fact there is nothing I do use in win 7 apart
from delving into control panel now and then to tweak settings.

--
mick