Office 2013 - Load 32 bit or 64 bit version?

[ZeeOSix]

I'm going to purchase Office 2013 through a discount channel for employees at work and was wondering if I should load the 32-bit or 64-bit version of Office 2013 on my Windows 7 64-bit operating system. I have the choice to pick either the 32-bit or 64-bit version.

Are there any situations where using the 64-bit version of Office 2013 would cause any problems with things like sharing Word and Excel files with people that have the 32-bit version, or saving Word or Excel files created in Office 2013 to previous versions if they don't have Office that uses the .docx and .xlsx file extension/format?

 

[CarbonSteel]

Install the 32 bit version unless there is a definitive need to run the 64. We have over 20K installations of Office 32 bit on x64 W7 and there are no issues whatsoever. In fact, MS recommends the same:

64 bit Office or 32 bit?

 

[dparm]

Unless you work with MASSIVE files, there is no need for 64-bit. It's nothing but headaches. It does not interfere with your ability to open or share files, it just gives you the ability to access very very large ones.

BTW, the serial number is not architecture-specific. You could always reinstall the other version with the same serial number.

 

[ZeeOSix]

^^^ Just the kind of info I was looking for, thank you guys! Looks like the 32-bit version is the way to go for me.

 

[mattwithcats]

Previous versions of Office used the .doc format.

If you save as a .docx (or .xlsx) format, to open it with a previous version, you will need the free Office Compatibility Pack.

 

[mattwithcats]

And for those interested, I just installed Office 2003 on a Windows 8.1 laptop.

Goodwill find for $10...

Runs fine, I put Office 2003 SP3, then the Compatibility Pack in.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Is it my perception, or does the 64-bit architecture seem to be somewhat thinly-supported in the Windows world? I have a 64-bit version of Windows on our main machine at home, but most of the information out there (including from Microsoft itself) recommends 32-bit software unless you have a technical need for a 64-bit version. Why are 64-bit softwares not as common or not as supported? Is it truly a lack of market? It seems that most mainstream CPUs have used the 64-bit architecture for nearly a decade by now.

 

[simple_gifts]

MS was the LAST vendor to the 64-bit mainstream realm.

I would load the 32 bit as I suspect a desktop application was written with a load of accommodations and considerations that won't scale to 64 bits as any server type application would. The last version of Excel I used had a row limitation of 2^15 (32768 rows); how helpful is 16Gb of memory with that?

You will get the footprint/overhead of a 64 bit app, with likely, 0 benefit.

 

[TxHeat]

Microsoft suggests you install the 32 bit version. They cite compatibility concerns.........yeah, really. I've only run the 32 bit version of Office 2007, Office 2010 & Office 2013 and I've been running 64 bit Windows since Vista.

Originally Posted By: mattwithcats
And for those interested, I just installed Office 2003 on a Windows 8.1 laptop.

Goodwill find for $10...

Runs fine, I put Office 2003 SP3, then the Compatibility Pack in.


To mattwithcats, you should be aware that Office 2003 is no longer secure. Support ended in April at the same time support ended for Windows XP. You will not receive even security patches for it.

 

[SHOZ]

After you install it go to MS update site and get the latest updates.

 

[Donald]

While I am not a Windows operating system expert, I am extremely knowledgeable about z/OS which is the operating system for all IBM mainframes.

32 bit allows a storage addressibility of 4 GB. 64 bit is 16 extabytes

4 GB is more than enough for any consumer application. But if you are a server and running 1000 concurrent processes then more than 4 GB will be needed.

I think the real reason for Win support of 64 bit is to get the hardware addressibility of more than 4 GB of RAM. I know one is physical storage and the other virtual, but typically one needs the 64 bit architecture support to get real storage support.

 

[rjundi]

My guess you'll be more then happy with Office 32bit.

I use Office 2007 a 32 bit application and work with data sets up to 300k rows and 40 columns in excel and a few sheets and it does not fail.

 

[rjundi]

Originally Posted By: mattwithcats
And for those interested, I just installed Office 2003 on a Windows 8.1 laptop.

Goodwill find for $10...

Runs fine, I put Office 2003 SP3, then the Compatibility Pack in.


The downside of Office 2003 is it only handles 64,000 rows by 256 columns in Excel. Probably won't bother most home users but annoying if you do real heavy data noodling.