Which Windows 7: 32 vs 64 bit, Home Premium vs. Professional?

[Numo]

I have the opportunity to order a copy of Windows 7 for $30. I'd like to install it as follows:

1.83 Ghz Core 2 duo Mac Mini (2Mb of RAM)
Snow Leopard
Fusion 3

Two questions:

Which version of Windows 7 should I order: 32 or 64 bit?

I can also choose between the Home Premium and the Professional version. The Professional version says it allows you to, "join your school's network domain." (whatever that means). Again, what version would be best to order?

[Carm]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_2
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=426710

32 bit is what I would do.

[Carm]

Professional, usually has more "pro" options.

[Sam3]

If you need to connect to a Windows domain, as most business user need to, then you should get Pro. If you are just using it at home or as a standalone OS, then get the Home Premium.

I always get the Pro version, as I take my laptop in to work and I want to be able to use the resources, such as networked printers and shares.

[ztirffritz]

Get the 32bit Professional version unless you want to re-purchase all of your Windows apps. I don't think that Windows allows you to use 32 bit apps in the 64bit version.

[M A V I C]

I'd go/I went with with Pro: http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windo...ts/compare

ztirffritz wrote:
Get the 32bit Professional version unless you want to re-purchase all of your Windows apps. I don't think that Windows allows you to use 32 bit apps in the 64bit version.

Eh, no. XP 64 was bad, but Vista and 7 are not. But he's probably not going to be allocating more than 4GB of RAM to it, so no point in going 64.

[ztirffritz]

Although Windows has come a long way, I don't think that the average user is ready to make the 64bit plunge yet. If you're using Linux or OS X then go ahead and use 64 bit because the applications, drivers, and OS are ready for it. You won't even notice the difference. Windows XP dipped it's toes in the 64bit water, Vista stuck its foot in, and Win7 may have jumped in, but the rest of the software and device drivers haven't quite caught up yet. In 1-2 years 64bit will be standard. It is a chicken vs. egg problem though - if no one uses it why support it? If you want to be a pioneer with arrows in your back then by all means go for it.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2354768,00.asp
There are some potential downsides to using 64-bit Windows. You need 64-bit device drivers, which may not be available for all your hardware. There's also the requirement than all device drivers must be digitally signed, which could also be a problem. And although most 32-bit apps will probably work on 64-bit Windows, not all will. This may require you to find 64-bit versions of those programs or use other software altogether. You might also try Windows on Windows 64 (WoW64) is an emulator designed to let you natively run 32-bit software within a 64-bit Windows 7 installation.

[M A V I C]

I've been running Vista 64bit for nearly two years without any issues. If he's got really old hardware, then there may be an issue. The system I'm running it on is from 2004 and it has no problems at all.

A C2D system is going to have no problems running it at all.

And the paragraph after the one you quoted reads:
Support for 64-bit has skyrocketed in recent years—it's had to, since so many computer buyers were using it, whether they knew it or not—so the chances you'll run into any difficulties are slim. So if you have the proper hardware, 64-bit Windows is definitely the way to go.

I think one is more likely to run into hardware that isn't supported in 7 at all, than not work in 7 64.