I am upgrading my computer system and am planning to dual-boot Vista
and Vista 64 - I have a lot of older applications which may not work
well (or at all) on the 64-bit OS, but I will also be doing a fair
amount of video processing, which will run much better with the larger
amount of memory accessible under Vista 64. I would like a copy of
Office 2007 to be accessible and usable under both OSes. Obviously, it
would need to be installed separately under each one, but would it be
OK to install it to the same directory (not on either boot disk) under
each one, or are some different files installed under the two OSes,
necessitating two completely separate install directories. Does anyone
have any relevant experience?

There is no Office 2007 64bit version, so the files are the same, whether
your version of Office allows for two installations and activations might be
relevent.
I'm not sure however as to how Outlook will react, you would at least need
to store the data file in a folder that both installations have access to

"Peter Fletcher" wrote in message
...
I am upgrading my computer system and am planning to dual-boot Vista
and Vista 64 - I have a lot of older applications which may not work
well (or at all) on the 64-bit OS, but I will also be doing a fair
amount of video processing, which will run much better with the larger
amount of memory accessible under Vista 64. I would like a copy of
Office 2007 to be accessible and usable under both OSes. Obviously, it
would need to be installed separately under each one, but would it be
OK to install it to the same directory (not on either boot disk) under
each one, or are some different files installed under the two OSes,
necessitating two completely separate install directories. Does anyone
have any relevant experience?

I have separate boot partitions, as this is the only safe way to dual-boot
Vista and XP. Each boot partition has its own Program Files folder, with
its own copy of Office 2007. It appears that the activation process looks
at computer hardware, and not installation directory, as I haven't had any
trouble activating both installations of Office.

Installing Office to the same directory in this scenario is a good way to
get files and registry entries out of sync. I do not recommend it.

Earle

"DL" wrote in message
...
There is no Office 2007 64bit version, so the files are the same, whether
your version of Office allows for two installations and activations might
be relevent.
I'm not sure however as to how Outlook will react, you would at least need
to store the data file in a folder that both installations have access to

"Peter Fletcher" wrote in message
...
I am upgrading my computer system and am planning to dual-boot Vista
and Vista 64 - I have a lot of older applications which may not work
well (or at all) on the 64-bit OS, but I will also be doing a fair
amount of video processing, which will run much better with the larger
amount of memory accessible under Vista 64. I would like a copy of
Office 2007 to be accessible and usable under both OSes. Obviously, it
would need to be installed separately under each one, but would it be
OK to install it to the same directory (not on either boot disk) under
each one, or are some different files installed under the two OSes,
necessitating two completely separate install directories. Does anyone
have any relevant experience?

Hi Peter--

Peter Fletcher" wrote in message
...
"I am upgrading my computer system and am planning to dual-boot Vista
and Vista 64 - I have a lot of older applications which may not work
well (or at all) on the 64-bit OS, but I will also be doing a fair
amount of video processing, which will run much better with the larger
amount of memory accessible under Vista 64. I would like a copy of
Office 2007 to be accessible and usable under both OSes. Obviously, it
would need to be installed separately under each one, but would it be
OK to install it to the same directory (not on either boot disk) under
each one, or are some different files installed under the two OSes,
necessitating two completely separate install directories. Does anyone
have any relevant experience?"

Quick answer: Yes you can install all your Offices to the same non-OS drive
with no problem. I've been doing it for a good while with dual boots with
Office 2007.

I always have dual or tri boots going and here's how I handle it and it
works fine in Vista and the next OS. Years ago I ignored a few things like
folders that don't make the jump and registry settings and got the idea of
simply dragging programs from one boot to another and it did work perfectly
for some, and not for others, and it did not work for larger programs,
Office being one of those. Obiously registry entries don't transfer and I
learned a lesson there.

1) I install the Office 2007 for each boot.
2) As you know when you're on a particular boot, the drive letter is
assigned as C:\.
3) I use the "custom install" option, and install my programs like Office to
D:\Program Files (X86) and as many Office installations as I do go there and
it works fine.

I have the other OS on another drive, and install all my programs on a drive
I use to store data, shortcuts, and many other files and folders full of
shortcuts, docs I want there, or other subfolders.

4) If you're using 64 bit, you'll see a Program Files folder and a Program
Files (X86) Folder. Since Office 2007 is 32 bit, I install it there on all
boots and it works just fine, Outlook 2007 included.

So my answer to you is that you can install them into the same directory
(not on either boot disk). I do. It's a good question, and when I first did
it I wondered if I would be spanked for not installing on the OS boot since
I didn't want to for space considerations. Installing on the non-OS boot
directory will work just fine.

The reason I have done this in the past is that the boxes I was using
previously had a limited amount of space on the HD and it worked fine. Now
I'm not space limited but since it works fine, I do it since I've gotten use
to installing all my programs onto another drive--the data drive.

There is ***no problem with Outlook 2007** whatsoever. In my experience
many of the problems that do arise with Outlook sending and receiving
(although this is blunt and general and not nuanced and doesn't happen with
what I typed above) can be solved by making sure that some antivirus
programs don't have screening of Outlook or back in the day OE and Win Mail
in Vista since they do their own screening just fine. Symantec is a case in
point--sometimes NIS (Norton Internet Security) has interfered with Outlook,
OE Send and Receive during the days of XP, but I haven't seen any problems
with Win One Care (to be changed and probably shipped with Win 7) in Vista.

This is peripheral to your question , but in Office 14 which is in Alpha and
will be named Office 2010, there will be a 32 bit and 64 bit version

Good luck,

CH



"

Thanks! I was only planning to install Outlook under Vista (32), which
is the OS I will still be using for the majority of the time. At least
initially, when I am using Vista 64 it will be for very resource
intensive applications, and I won't want anything unnecessary running
to slow these up, anyway.

On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 23:18:22 +0100, "DL"
wrote:

There is no Office 2007 64bit version, so the files are the same, whether
your version of Office allows for two installations and activations might be
relevent.
I'm not sure however as to how Outlook will react, you would at least need
to store the data file in a folder that both installations have access to

"Peter Fletcher" wrote in message
.. .
I am upgrading my computer system and am planning to dual-boot Vista
and Vista 64 - I have a lot of older applications which may not work
well (or at all) on the 64-bit OS, but I will also be doing a fair
amount of video processing, which will run much better with the larger
amount of memory accessible under Vista 64. I would like a copy of
Office 2007 to be accessible and usable under both OSes. Obviously, it
would need to be installed separately under each one, but would it be
OK to install it to the same directory (not on either boot disk) under
each one, or are some different files installed under the two OSes,
necessitating two completely separate install directories. Does anyone
have any relevant experience?

Thanks for your extremely helpful and comprehensive response!

On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 18:46:30 -0400, "Chad Harris"
wrote:

Hi Peter--

Peter Fletcher" wrote in message
.. .
"I am upgrading my computer system and am planning to dual-boot Vista
and Vista 64 - I have a lot of older applications which may not work
well (or at all) on the 64-bit OS, but I will also be doing a fair
amount of video processing, which will run much better with the larger
amount of memory accessible under Vista 64. I would like a copy of
Office 2007 to be accessible and usable under both OSes. Obviously, it
would need to be installed separately under each one, but would it be
OK to install it to the same directory (not on either boot disk) under
each one, or are some different files installed under the two OSes,
necessitating two completely separate install directories. Does anyone
have any relevant experience?"

Quick answer: Yes you can install all your Offices to the same non-OS drive
with no problem. I've been doing it for a good while with dual boots with
Office 2007.


SNIP

If your Video processing programs are not native 64 bit programs Vista 64
will offer them one extra GB of ram compared to Vista 32.
Clearly you are not aware of command line instructions that can make that 1
gb available under Vista 32.
Alas, most 32 bit programs are not multithreaded, are not 64 bit, and are
more limited by the brute power of your CPU than any other consideration.

"pupick" wrote in message
...

"Clearly you are not aware of command line instructions that can make that
1
gb available under Vista 32... "If your Video processing programs are not
native 64 bit programs Vista 64 will offer them one extra GB of ram compared
to Vista 32.
Alas, most 32 bit programs are not multithreaded"

Pupick--

I thought the OP just wanted to know if he could install Office to a common
directory on a different partition than his OS partitions, and we all
understand 64 bit Vista can run programs at speeds depending on a number of
factors including RAM and rocessor speed...

but

I'm interested in what you mean by

"Clearly you are not aware of command line instructions that can make that
1
gb available under Vista 32."

Why not link or post those command line instructions and make us all aware?

CH




That's why MSFT is trying to nudge developers and companies to make 64 bit
programs.

Given that the extra GB of RAM available to a 32 bit application under
Vista 64 is almost all actually available to the application (as
opposed to the "base" 3 GB which has to be shared with the OS and its
essential services, this benefit is not trivial. You are correct,
however, that I don't know how to achieve the same thing under Vista
32.

Some of this exercise represents forward planning, too - I am
expecting to be using 64 bit programs for my most demanding
applications within 12-15 months. And yes, I know that CPU power is
the #1 determinant of application speed, given adequate (but not
necessarily maximal) RAM.

On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 18:30:34 -0700, "pupick"
wrote:

If your Video processing programs are not native 64 bit programs Vista 64
will offer them one extra GB of ram compared to Vista 32.
Clearly you are not aware of command line instructions that can make that 1
gb available under Vista 32.
Alas, most 32 bit programs are not multithreaded, are not 64 bit, and are
more limited by the brute power of your CPU than any other consideration.