- Status
I would upgrade to win 7 only if it outperform my xp x64 systems. Currently there's no 64bit PhysX support on Vista for the applications I use, until most of these kinks are worked out, I am sticking to the well-tuned and mature xp64 platform.
Stability-wise I remember the days when crashes on win32 occur daily, upon transitioning to x64, I could run massive calculations for months without a hiccup.
There's really no reason not to do x64, just what flavor of it.
Stability-wise I remember the days when crashes on win32 occur daily, upon transitioning to x64, I could run massive calculations for months without a hiccup.
There's really no reason not to do x64, just what flavor of it.
I suppose the people that writes about sticking to x32 doesn't really have a need for apps in 64bit at the moment. But I think as an industry as a whole, its better much to migrate to 64bit finally, as soon as that adoption happens, it opens door to application that utilize it.
I suppose if you are only using office then it really doesn't matter, but given how media rich today's computer world is, its hard to ignore.
Imagine doing the below using 32bit, good luck with that.
http://www.paris-20-gigapixels.com/en/
It not what you need now with 64bit, but really what you can with 64bit.
I suppose if you are only using office then it really doesn't matter, but given how media rich today's computer world is, its hard to ignore.
Imagine doing the below using 32bit, good luck with that.
http://www.paris-20-gigapixels.com/en/
It not what you need now with 64bit, but really what you can with 64bit.
michaelahess
Distinguished
- Jan 30, 2006
- 1,711
- 0
- 19,780
It depends. Office 2007 didn't work with 64 bit properly. If 2010 does, and if DDR2 SODIMMs come down in price, an 8 GB laptop with Office 2010 is the way to go on W7x64. Otherwise, 32 bit is staying. So far it works on my tx2500z cto just fine.
Desktop, no question, x64.
Desktop, no question, x64.
I will definitely be going with 32-bit, as I still only require 2GB RAM. However, since the software drives the hardware, I would like to see Microsoft announce RIGHT NOW that their next version of Windows will be 64-BIT ONLY.
Why? Because that would spur the manufacturers on to make 64-bit compliant hardware and software. If they don't do that, we will have to wait until Windows 10 before 64-bit becomes a viable solution. By that stage, we will need to use 12GB RAM to run our system reliably while we will still only be able to address 3GB.
32-bit Windows does not fulfil it's role anymore. The MINIMUM RAM a computer needs to be sold with today is 2GB of RAM, with a lot of computers coming with 3 or 4GB RAM as standard. We have come to the 32-bit addressable RAM limit! It is NOW TIME to move to 64-bit.
I quickly read someone was talking about 32-bit OS being the only option for laptops and netbooks. However, now is the time Microsoft could finally get rid of (32-bit) XP, or sell it and Vista as well as a new version of Windows 7 and beyond specifically designed for laptops and netbooks while introducing the 64-bit version for the desktop environment. This might also encourage speedier time-to-market for things such as the fuel/hydrogen/etc cell battery which would herald a new era of more powerful and longer powered laptops. They have been talking about it and working on it for a while (anyone say Blu-ray?)...where's the product?
Why? Because that would spur the manufacturers on to make 64-bit compliant hardware and software. If they don't do that, we will have to wait until Windows 10 before 64-bit becomes a viable solution. By that stage, we will need to use 12GB RAM to run our system reliably while we will still only be able to address 3GB.
32-bit Windows does not fulfil it's role anymore. The MINIMUM RAM a computer needs to be sold with today is 2GB of RAM, with a lot of computers coming with 3 or 4GB RAM as standard. We have come to the 32-bit addressable RAM limit! It is NOW TIME to move to 64-bit.
I quickly read someone was talking about 32-bit OS being the only option for laptops and netbooks. However, now is the time Microsoft could finally get rid of (32-bit) XP, or sell it and Vista as well as a new version of Windows 7 and beyond specifically designed for laptops and netbooks while introducing the 64-bit version for the desktop environment. This might also encourage speedier time-to-market for things such as the fuel/hydrogen/etc cell battery which would herald a new era of more powerful and longer powered laptops. They have been talking about it and working on it for a while (anyone say Blu-ray?)...where's the product?
Belardo
Splendid
- Nov 23, 2008
- 3,545
- 2
- 22,795
[citation][nom]apache_lives[/nom]Im sorry but i dont use hardware from 2001, i use new hardware with a new OS - the way it should be[/citation]
Do you understand English? I have two pretty much equally powered notebooks. The NEW on has Vista, clean system. Both have AV - no bloated add-on software. 2GB Vista is Sloooooower than the 1GB notebook and sloooower to boot up & shutdown than the 5year old computer using *gasp* Windows7... a bit newer OS than Vista (you may want to look that up to confirm). Adding another 512mb to the 5year old computer increased the boot time by 5 seconds and desktop operations are a lot smoother. Its 5 year old HD isn't helping.
Easy deduction. Vista is crap on OLD and NEW hardware, duh! And I never said anything about 2001 hardware. My own PC is a Core2Quad which runs fine and does everything I need.
[citation][nom]apache_lives[/nom]
id prefer the extra features, smooth performance and better looks to an extra ~1% performance - dont care about that factor at all.[/citation]
What extra features? DX10? How many games really make a big difference out there or require it. Halo2 is the ONLY DX10 only game on the market, and its a crappy game anyways. Vista smooth? Funny, some of the Vista PCs I've worked on has a shiny "VISTA" sticker on it... meaning that its certified to be 100% to minimum Vista experience. FAIL. After 2 years, Vista is about 23% of the PC market. It may reach 25% when Windows 7 comes out... and that will be the end of Vista. In the END, 2-3 years from now - there WILL be more people using WindowsXP than Vista.
[citation][nom]apache_lives[/nom]
Vista is crap for low end pcs im not saying windows 7 is worse (or better for that matter) - its still not 100% completed but is looking good yes.[/citation]
Vista is crap for anything unless it has 6~12GB of RAM and an SSD. Win7 on a NEW $300 PC (1~2GB /$50 CPU) will be a better experience than Vista on a $600 with 4~6GB/$150 CPU. Vista has never (will never) be installed on any of my own computers. The few people I know who have Vista, they either HATE or "Its okay - its what came with the notebook" and just live with it.
[citation][nom]apache_lives[/nom]
I also dont care about laptops and pcs pre-installed with bloatware - if you bother doing a fresh install, raising pagefile manually to ~4gb (both figures - max and min to stop fragmentation), disable uac and sec. sentre, disable system restore, enable caching and the sidebar that OS is fkn sweet - it is not a bad OS.[/citation]
I don't care either about typical HPaq/Dell junk. But Clone-Notebooks are not on exactly great on the market. But RE-READ your OWN quote above!
You talk about the "features", but YOU (YES YOU) have disabled many of those "features" and basic functions, have at least 4GB of RAM - have a HUGE 4GB swap file? If the WindowsPC has 6+ GB of RAM, you DON'T need a swap file - that tends to slow things down. So with YOUR own words, you have to GO out of your way to make YOUR vista PC run perhaps as good as my 2GB XP system. When I quote times, I am referring to the stop-watch I used to : Boot & Shutdown, transfer 1 / 2 GB of DATA. Also, when you TURN off those features (AERO too?) you effectively reduced Vista down to XP... but still requiring more memory, etc. 😉
And I'm running Win7 with UAC on (so much smarter than Vista's - bugging YOU to change a desktop background or un-install a program! geez!), System Restore ON, full Aero.
Simple proof Vista blows: Microsoft STILL *STILL* has to sell WindowsXP.
The Windows7RC is far better Vista w/SP2.
Who should switch to Windows7:
- Anyone with Vista, hands down. Your PC will thank you.
- XP users who want to upgrade and have good hardware. 1GB min. 2GB would be preferred since its about $15~20 per GB nowadays.
- XP users who have OLD/slow PCs can buy a new Compaq for $370 at bestbuy with 3GB ram, 2.5Ghz dual core AMD, 250+GB HD(going by memory) and easily far-better graphics than intel. Comes with coupon for Win7.
Trust me dude, I am not a Microsoft lover - I don't kiss their ass. But Microsoft would prefer that if people like ME likes to use Windows7 and would buy it, its a good sign. Read my previous rants on Vista, if ya want. If I could buy Adobe software for Linux (native) or on AmigaOS 4 on modern hardware, I'd dump Windows all together and use a PS3 for my gaming.
Windows7 stomps Vista into the ground. The new task bar is FINALLY up to modern standards... not some Win95 crap. OS-X, AmigaOS and Linux has been doing it for years.
So give a thumbs up for the Windows7 team.
Do you understand English? I have two pretty much equally powered notebooks. The NEW on has Vista, clean system. Both have AV - no bloated add-on software. 2GB Vista is Sloooooower than the 1GB notebook and sloooower to boot up & shutdown than the 5year old computer using *gasp* Windows7... a bit newer OS than Vista (you may want to look that up to confirm). Adding another 512mb to the 5year old computer increased the boot time by 5 seconds and desktop operations are a lot smoother. Its 5 year old HD isn't helping.
Easy deduction. Vista is crap on OLD and NEW hardware, duh! And I never said anything about 2001 hardware. My own PC is a Core2Quad which runs fine and does everything I need.
[citation][nom]apache_lives[/nom]
id prefer the extra features, smooth performance and better looks to an extra ~1% performance - dont care about that factor at all.[/citation]
What extra features? DX10? How many games really make a big difference out there or require it. Halo2 is the ONLY DX10 only game on the market, and its a crappy game anyways. Vista smooth? Funny, some of the Vista PCs I've worked on has a shiny "VISTA" sticker on it... meaning that its certified to be 100% to minimum Vista experience. FAIL. After 2 years, Vista is about 23% of the PC market. It may reach 25% when Windows 7 comes out... and that will be the end of Vista. In the END, 2-3 years from now - there WILL be more people using WindowsXP than Vista.
[citation][nom]apache_lives[/nom]
Vista is crap for low end pcs im not saying windows 7 is worse (or better for that matter) - its still not 100% completed but is looking good yes.[/citation]
Vista is crap for anything unless it has 6~12GB of RAM and an SSD. Win7 on a NEW $300 PC (1~2GB /$50 CPU) will be a better experience than Vista on a $600 with 4~6GB/$150 CPU. Vista has never (will never) be installed on any of my own computers. The few people I know who have Vista, they either HATE or "Its okay - its what came with the notebook" and just live with it.
[citation][nom]apache_lives[/nom]
I also dont care about laptops and pcs pre-installed with bloatware - if you bother doing a fresh install, raising pagefile manually to ~4gb (both figures - max and min to stop fragmentation), disable uac and sec. sentre, disable system restore, enable caching and the sidebar that OS is fkn sweet - it is not a bad OS.[/citation]
I don't care either about typical HPaq/Dell junk. But Clone-Notebooks are not on exactly great on the market. But RE-READ your OWN quote above!
You talk about the "features", but YOU (YES YOU) have disabled many of those "features" and basic functions, have at least 4GB of RAM - have a HUGE 4GB swap file? If the WindowsPC has 6+ GB of RAM, you DON'T need a swap file - that tends to slow things down. So with YOUR own words, you have to GO out of your way to make YOUR vista PC run perhaps as good as my 2GB XP system. When I quote times, I am referring to the stop-watch I used to : Boot & Shutdown, transfer 1 / 2 GB of DATA. Also, when you TURN off those features (AERO too?) you effectively reduced Vista down to XP... but still requiring more memory, etc. 😉
And I'm running Win7 with UAC on (so much smarter than Vista's - bugging YOU to change a desktop background or un-install a program! geez!), System Restore ON, full Aero.
Simple proof Vista blows: Microsoft STILL *STILL* has to sell WindowsXP.
The Windows7RC is far better Vista w/SP2.
Who should switch to Windows7:
- Anyone with Vista, hands down. Your PC will thank you.
- XP users who want to upgrade and have good hardware. 1GB min. 2GB would be preferred since its about $15~20 per GB nowadays.
- XP users who have OLD/slow PCs can buy a new Compaq for $370 at bestbuy with 3GB ram, 2.5Ghz dual core AMD, 250+GB HD(going by memory) and easily far-better graphics than intel. Comes with coupon for Win7.
Trust me dude, I am not a Microsoft lover - I don't kiss their ass. But Microsoft would prefer that if people like ME likes to use Windows7 and would buy it, its a good sign. Read my previous rants on Vista, if ya want. If I could buy Adobe software for Linux (native) or on AmigaOS 4 on modern hardware, I'd dump Windows all together and use a PS3 for my gaming.
Windows7 stomps Vista into the ground. The new task bar is FINALLY up to modern standards... not some Win95 crap. OS-X, AmigaOS and Linux has been doing it for years.
So give a thumbs up for the Windows7 team.
apache_lives
Splendid
- Dec 10, 2002
- 6,873
- 1
- 26,160
Belardo
Splendid
- Nov 23, 2008
- 3,545
- 2
- 22,795
[citation][nom]Carlo1440[/nom]I will definitely be going with 32-bit, as I still only require 2GB RAM. However, since the software drives the hardware, I would like to see Microsoft announce RIGHT NOW that their next version of Windows will be 64-BIT ONLY. [/citation]
Microsoft has already said the next OS will be 64bit only. Now, it MAY have 32bit compatibility, but you can ONLY install a 64bit version. Personally, I think Win7 should only install 64bit ONLY with 32bit compatibility - but todays netbooks/PCs would suffer from it and there is still some lingering 32/64bit issues to be worked out.
Microsoft has already said the next OS will be 64bit only. Now, it MAY have 32bit compatibility, but you can ONLY install a 64bit version. Personally, I think Win7 should only install 64bit ONLY with 32bit compatibility - but todays netbooks/PCs would suffer from it and there is still some lingering 32/64bit issues to be worked out.
How come nobody mentions dual boot in the 64/32bit debate? Best of both worlds in case you ever need the compatibility...
apache_lives
Splendid
- Dec 10, 2002
- 6,873
- 1
- 26,160
[citation][nom]hagok[/nom]How come nobody mentions dual boot in the 64/32bit debate? Best of both worlds in case you ever need the compatibility...[/citation]
i have other rigs for that 😀
i have other rigs for that 😀
bige420
Distinguished
- Dec 29, 2008
- 717
- 0
- 19,010
Why wouldn't you go 64-bit these days? There no excuse for it really. Why would you want to limit yourself with a 32-bit OS. I dont even know why they release a 32-bit version. I know some programs have trouble working in 64-bit but most of the good companies have released 64-bit versions.
Both, I have one laptop running 64-bit Vista ultimate, and a 32-bit XP for work related (our compiler is not update to date, and so does checkpoint's remote client).
anamaniac
Distinguished
- Jan 7, 2009
- 2,447
- 0
- 19,790
I was running 64-bit Win7 since the start of January, but recently I came across a program I wanted to use that had some 16 bit code in it apparantly (unsopprted by 64bit), and then I ruined my partition, so i decided to grab a 32 bit Win7 version instead, discorving that the program was junk (Terminator Salvation the game by the way... Why have 16 bit code in a new game? Wy such a crappy game?)
I run a crappy PC that actually doesn't benefit from running 64 bit in most applications. 1GB of RAM and 512MB of video RAM, thus the extra address space is uneeded. That followed that in 32 bit programs, 64 bit OS's lag behind a small (almost trivial) amount.
However, my next build (which will hopefully be soon...) will be 64 bit no question. In theory a native 64 bit program can benefit from a 100% boost, though in reality, for servers, 15%-40% in productivity over a 32 bit program in a 32 bit enviroment (I belioeve I read this somewhere on a Microsoft info page or Microsoft blog concerning their server edition).
64 bit OS with all native 64 bit program is the future. The extra memory is awesome, and as long as the program is total 64 bit, the extra power just cranks the dial to 11.
I run a crappy PC that actually doesn't benefit from running 64 bit in most applications. 1GB of RAM and 512MB of video RAM, thus the extra address space is uneeded. That followed that in 32 bit programs, 64 bit OS's lag behind a small (almost trivial) amount.
However, my next build (which will hopefully be soon...) will be 64 bit no question. In theory a native 64 bit program can benefit from a 100% boost, though in reality, for servers, 15%-40% in productivity over a 32 bit program in a 32 bit enviroment (I belioeve I read this somewhere on a Microsoft info page or Microsoft blog concerning their server edition).
64 bit OS with all native 64 bit program is the future. The extra memory is awesome, and as long as the program is total 64 bit, the extra power just cranks the dial to 11.
Damn Windows 7 and the big deal you're making of it. I'm using the socall RTM version and is shitty unstable. Crashes on: BSplayer, 3dMark 06, 3Dmark Vantage, Rainbow Six Vegas and pretty much everything that stresses the system a litlle.
I have a good system about 5300 in pcmark vantage and 6500 in 3dmark vantage using vista.
No way for moving to windows 7 until SP1 at least. Right now is only good for workstation and htpc no way for any benchmarks or games.
I have a good system about 5300 in pcmark vantage and 6500 in 3dmark vantage using vista.
No way for moving to windows 7 until SP1 at least. Right now is only good for workstation and htpc no way for any benchmarks or games.
yonef
Distinguished
- Jan 22, 2008
- 289
- 0
- 18,780
I'm usin RC build 7100, and I have never ever have a single crash at all !! I have all my components severaly overclocked and the windows is rock solid! I suggest you do check your "good system" for major hardware problems.
P.S. 3D Mark vantage score of 6500 is way below a "good system" !
apache_lives
Splendid
- Dec 10, 2002
- 6,873
- 1
- 26,160
[citation][nom]naidnerb[/nom]Damn Windows 7 and the big deal you're making of it. I'm using the socall RTM version and is shitty unstable. Crashes on: BSplayer, 3dMark 06, 3Dmark Vantage, Rainbow Six Vegas and pretty much everything that stresses the system a litlle. I have a good system about 5300 in pcmark vantage and 6500 in 3dmark vantage using vista. No way for moving to windows 7 until SP1 at least. Right now is only good for workstation and htpc no way for any benchmarks or games.[/citation]
Heard the same BS when vista was out or coming out - TEST YOUR RUBBISH HARDWARE AND CONFIG
Heard the same BS when vista was out or coming out - TEST YOUR RUBBISH HARDWARE AND CONFIG
swright4641
Distinguished
- Jul 18, 2009
- 2
- 0
- 18,510
[citation][nom]VioMeTriX[/nom]swright4641...im on win 7 64 and i just sent an internet fax without fail using my office 2007... its not the programs or versions that are the problem, it is the uneducated users.... poor example here, but does a cancer patient tell the doctor how to do is job.... people we are techs, i have been for 25 years now, how bout you others that are all talking how 32bit is all you need?....shut up[/citation]
Your petulant posts aside, here are some webby's from MS you should review, first...
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/products/HA101668651033.aspx
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/livemeeting/HA102415191033.aspx
Tech, huh? Ok, tech, I'm a BSA, and I'd really love for you to tell me how you can make something incompatible like internet fax coded for 32-bit systems compatible on a 64-bit system. I'd also like you to tell me how to upload content on Live Meeting.
Maybe you could tell us all what you know that MS and all of its coders do not. Perhaps you should spend some time in their development areas. I'm sure they'd love for you to be there to help them with their Windows Live compatibility issues as well.
If you are looking at requirements, all of your software is 32-bit, performance increases are minimal, and the speed of transition is not expected to increase in the future, how would it possibly be cost-effective to switch?
Could you list the reasons why and how 64-bit technology would increase the performance and functionality of the 32-bit applications of the Office suite, what inherently in the programs would benefit from such a transition, and why it would be cost-effective to do so?
I'll wait...
Your petulant posts aside, here are some webby's from MS you should review, first...
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/products/HA101668651033.aspx
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/livemeeting/HA102415191033.aspx
Tech, huh? Ok, tech, I'm a BSA, and I'd really love for you to tell me how you can make something incompatible like internet fax coded for 32-bit systems compatible on a 64-bit system. I'd also like you to tell me how to upload content on Live Meeting.
Maybe you could tell us all what you know that MS and all of its coders do not. Perhaps you should spend some time in their development areas. I'm sure they'd love for you to be there to help them with their Windows Live compatibility issues as well.
If you are looking at requirements, all of your software is 32-bit, performance increases are minimal, and the speed of transition is not expected to increase in the future, how would it possibly be cost-effective to switch?
Could you list the reasons why and how 64-bit technology would increase the performance and functionality of the 32-bit applications of the Office suite, what inherently in the programs would benefit from such a transition, and why it would be cost-effective to do so?
I'll wait...
I can't understand why Vista or Win7 (specially Win7) releases versions of 32bits. In this way we will never pass completely in 64 bit versions, the future. If that was the case, developers will force to actualize the aplications. I see, in 2030 we will continue with 32 bit versions.
Running 32 bit with 2GB ram on win Vista.
My next computer will certainly be 64bit.
Shops are already starting to deliver 64bit on high-end machines
(with e.g. 6GB ram).
This trend will probably continue to the lower end until 32bit is dead.
Hopefully software and driver makers will spend as much effort on 64bit as they do now on 32bit.
It really needs to become a little more mainstream to have good support.
That's so far the only concern for me about 64bit.
My next computer will certainly be 64bit.
Shops are already starting to deliver 64bit on high-end machines
(with e.g. 6GB ram).
This trend will probably continue to the lower end until 32bit is dead.
Hopefully software and driver makers will spend as much effort on 64bit as they do now on 32bit.
It really needs to become a little more mainstream to have good support.
That's so far the only concern for me about 64bit.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Question I have questions about changing thermal paste on my laptop.
- Started by Aude01100
- Replies: 1
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
-
Question Windows is using Microsoft Basic Display Adapter ?
- Started by Corbin8756
- Replies: 84
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram