Printable View
I think I'm about ready to attempt a fresh Windows install. I have (legal) access to various 32 and 64 bit versions of XP, Vista, and 7. I want to maximize performance on my laptop. Also, I'm sick of losing 20GB of HD space to Vista's magical void. I am also considering upgrading from 2GB to at least 4GB of RAM. Recommendations?
Windows 7
That or XP.
:laugh4:
I bought an OEM copy of windows 7 yesterday, will try dual booting soon.
Windows7 is a thing of beauty compared to other versions, they did it right this time.
64bit Windows 7. Definitely.
Cool. I'm really bent on XP Professional 64-bit, but I'll try 7 if all of you think it's that great. Thanks.
What about the RAM?
More RAM is always a good thing. Photoshop just seems to get hungrier with every revision. Even Dreamweaver likes to stake a hefty claim in RAM land. Frankly, everything Adobe makes wants RAM and lots of it.
And I agree with the Team Org consensus, Windows 7 64-bit is the place to be.
Of course 4GB RAM if you have the 64bit versions.
Thank you.
What they said. I just bought a laptop with Windows 7 Professional, and it's much better than XP or Vista.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Care to go into a handful of details?
It works, it doesn't feel like a beta, it's just solid. This is a great 'sorry for Vista' and apology is accepted.
Faster boot, reboot, sleep/wake times. About 25-30% faster loading times of applications compared with Vista. Easy to join networks. Better interface than both Vista and XP. Better system management than Vista. Better file management. Runs most Adobe products well. Uh... yeh, there's probably other things good about it, but that's what I can think of off the top of my head.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
Why 64-bit ? What else do you get other than the compatibility issues ?
I've only had this new laptop with Win7 for a couple of days. My desktop runs vista. Boot up time is definitely faster, and I like the user interface better. My son used the laptop to make a video presentation for a school project and he claims the video encoding with Win Live Movie Maker was much faster.Quote:
Originally Posted by Psychonaut
I bought this laptop specifically for the 32 bit operating system, my desktop runs 64 bit. I have older programs, games & other things I use at work, that are incompatible with a 64 bit. To answer your question LEN, I guess you'd have to determine what you are using your system for. Running high end games and such probably requires a 64 bit system.
If you have more than 2GB of RAM you get to actually use it.Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine
Also, the vast majority of security fixes were applied to the 64-bit version, and not to the 32-bit version. So if you're using Win7 64-bit, you're much less vulnerable.Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine
And it looks so darn pretty.
Everything....is....orange...:smitten:
Like what kind of benefits, Tito-san ?Quote:
To answer your question LEN, I guess you'd have to determine what you are using your system for. Running high end games and such probably requires a 64 bit system.
Or maybe it just comes with a lot more holes?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I'm not sure I follow, Husar, but here's a little overview of the security upgrades applied to Windows 7 64-bit.
It's not going to be an enduring safety buffer, but it's nice for now.
What I'm trying to say is maybe 64bit had more security holes to begin with and maybe has more left than 32 bit as well?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Just a guess but I think more patches does not mean more secure, maybe it just means there were more things wrong with it.
Husar, as I understand it, the newer security models (mandatory signed drivers, random memory positioning (which has a name which I forget)*, etc.) were incorporated into 64-bit Windows, and not into 32-bit. That's what I'm talking about. Also, 64-bit Windows has the same advantage as OS X; it's the minority. So lazy spyware/adware/malware writers in Bulgaria are less likely to target your platform. Something to think about.
-edit-
*Ah, here it is: Address space layout randomization. So obvious I would have never guessed it.
Address space layout randomization relies on the low chance of an attacker guessing where randomly-placed areas are located; security is increased by increasing the search space. Thus, address space randomization is more effective when more entropy is present in the random offsets. Entropy is increased by either raising the amount of virtual memory area space the randomization occurs over, or reducing the period the randomization occurs over; the period is typically implemented as small as possible, so most systems must increase VMA space randomization.
To defeat the randomization attackers must successfully guess the positions of all areas they wish to attack. For data areas such as stack and heap, where custom code or useful data can be loaded, more than one state can be attacked by using NOP slides for code or repeated copies of data; this allows an attack to succeed if the area is randomized to one of a handful of values. In contrast, code areas such as library base and main executable need to be discovered exactly. Often these areas are mixed, for example stack frames are injected onto the stack and a library is returned into.
Well, guess I misunderstood you then, didn't know that.
I use 64bit anyway, and about your last point, why are you recommending it to more and more people then? ~;)
Well, it's not as though recommending it to friends and acquaintances on the Org is going to cause a huge spike in 64-bit adoption. Non-geeks don't even know the difference, and will take whatever comes loaded on the integrated-graphics boxen they get from Best Buy. I think it's safe to recommend to people who should know better.
Tito-san, the links you provided agree only on the possibility of utilizing 4+ GB RAM for gaming purposes. The applications still are not optimized and are not looking to be in a middle-term period of time.
So I conclude 64-bit is a bugger, rather than an innovation, for now. Nothing ain't broken and I ain't fixin' it.
:bow:
Faulty video drivers are now the annoyance of Win7, but UAC is less annoying. UAC is Paradise for those who have a brother who wants to install every program on Internet.
64-bit Windows also allows applications to run with 3gb of Ram whilst 32-bit is capped at 2gigs. Also, the normal applications are improved in an 64-bit environment by 25% performance increase, apparently. There are a great many of reasons to adopt 64-bit.
Wrong. Those who are not on 64-bit are the :daisy:s, because they hold back innovation by using internet Explorer 6, etc. Also, let me know how the Horse and cart is getting along in Turkey, as no point getting a car if it isn't 'broken',Quote:
So I conclude 64-bit is a bugger, rather than an innovation, for now. Nothing ain't broken and I ain't fixin' it.
It's actually capped at 4GB in 32-bit but there was some reason I forgot so you can only use about 3.5GB.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Good point about the cars though.
Other than that, 64bit is the way to go.
If one has no need to "fix it" or upgrade then you are wise to save your money. However, I just purchased a new reasonably cheap *$600* laptop with a 32-bit system to run older programs that are incompatible with my 64-bit desktop. I really had to search for a 32-bit os, most offerings are 64-bit only. Eventually you will submit.~:pat:Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine
No. Individual (as opposed to the entire system with all running processes) 32bit applications are by default capped at 2GB maximum memory. This is enforced in the header of the executable binary; and yes you can fix that yourself by setting the binary flag that tells the OS whether or not the application can (is allowed to) handle more than 2GB. CFF explorer will let you do that from a GUI.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
This is what I was referring to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
Oh, I see, but the system as a whole can use more afaik, never had more than 2GB with a 32bit system myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
I'm still not sure that's quite right. I think we need to seperate out two seperate issues to try to clarify....Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
First, no 32-bit software will ever support more than 4GB of address space. With 2^32 bits of address space, it's just not possible.
Now, the 2GB limitation comes in once you're talking about Windows. In 32-bit Windows, the most RAM the system would ever see is 3GB and change. That's because, as 32-bit software, it can never(excepting PAE) address address more than 4GB and part of that must be reserved for hardware addresses. By default, 32-bit Windows would reserve part of that for itself, leaving 2GB for user processes. Therefore, 32-bit programs made for Windows never needed to see more than 2GB of RAM and most are not coded to be aware of larger addresses. The 3GB switch that was mentioned previously would make the OS leave 3GB of space available for user processes, but the result would be that the OS would be left with less RAM- generally not a good idea. And even still, no one application would see more than 2GB.
Now, with 64-bit Windows you have many more times the amount of addressable space (2^64). However, most of us are still running 32-bit applications on our 64-bit Windows and the 2GB limitation still applies. In the rare instance when we're running a 64-bit app, it can have access to huge amounts of RAM, but most apps we're using are still 32-bit. The benefit to running a 32-bit app on 64-bit Windows is that you can have a bigger pool of RAM that can be handed out in 2GB or smaller chunks
Here's a table from MSDN that outlines some of what I'm talking about. :sweatdrop:
The 3GB switch is IIRC intended as a difference between Server and Consumer/Workstation versions of Windows. Much like how Server versions can use more TCP/IP sockets concurrently than Workstations can: an arbitrary restriction imposed on the part of MS. (The restriction is entirely arbitrary in the sense that it was created in the days that RAM starvation would typically occur way before 2GB was used anyways.)
:huh:Quote:
Wrong. Those who are not on 64-bit are the :daisy:s, because they hold back innovation by using internet Explorer 6, etc. Also, let me know how the Horse and cart is getting along in Turkey, as no point getting a car if it isn't 'broken',
Are you distressed about something in your real life ?
I was just wondering how life was, without technical and engineering progress. No point doing anything different, if it works, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine
Edit: This is commented towards the phrase "Do not fix what is not broken."
I take it you haven't had the best time of your life recently. Okay.
Beskar, it ain't polite to troll a mod in his own sub-forum. He can't respond to you properly (or at least he's not supposed to), 'cause he's supposed to maintain the peace. I'll pitch in:
Beskar, you want to know what's sad about people like you, who gladly fork over money for Windows Vista and the Segway Personal Transport? What's really sad is that without earlyQuote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
victimsadopters like you, our economy would implode.
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...st-gadgets.jpg
I already contacted LEN and apologised to him over PM, I was out of order. So I am not going to continue that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
However, to explain my position in reference to your response, I would like to point-out the following:
I would like to draw a very crucial difference Lemur to your example and me. I would never buy a Segway, they are a complete waste of money, I wouldn't buy Windows Vista either (though I owned a free copy of Vista Ultimate), though I would advocate Windows 7. I am also very money concious individual, I don't even own an iPod, simply as it would be a waste of money for me (when I did, it was cheaper than a portable hard drive). I usually buy things when they are at a good price. Even then, a Segway isn't progress, it is a waste-of-space-gress.
Progress is when things are getting held up because people refuse to move from Internet Explorer 6, with its vast array of bugs and problems. The whole 64-architechure for instance has been in the market for over 5 years now, first with the iMac G4 series, I believe, and including Windows XP had the 64-bit option. There are obvious massive advantages to this, but some how, some where, and unknown reasons to why, people are simply refusing to make the change, even worse is arguably these companies who still ship 32-bit only computers and shipped them within the last 5 years. Progress is the force of innovation, advancement and betterment. However, what is the point in progress when it is simply bottlenecked to the point it feels like a hinderance. I have owned different computers over the years which are 64-capable, however, there is very limited 64-bit applications because many companies simply don't bother to cater for 64-bit, as there is still a numerous 32-bit only out there. In otherwords, progress is simply being held back for no reason at all.
Also, no one gets excited about the latest Acrobat update, simply because vast majority of the time, it isn't really an improvement of anything.
As for LEN, I didn't mean it personally against him and I don't harbour any ill-feelings towards him personally. If anything, I harbour ill-feelings to human nature in general. To clarify this, humans in general hate change and any change, they don't like anything that is change. As such, when Obama cried change, there was a collective shiver down the spine of American people, ready to get their pitchforks out.
I am a different breed of person, I really love positive change. To make things better, to improve, I am an idealist, I see what we got and how to make it better. When some one goes "This has been that way since 1849" I automatically think "Surely, there must have came up with a better way by now". I see History as stepping stones to advancement, learn from the past, create today, tomorrow is the bright future.
So when the attitude of sticking your head in the sand going "lalala" comes about, usually stereotyped with that saying, it usually jar-grates me.
Also, we are really off-topic. Fancy a cup-of-tea?
Uh, well, hey, out of tea but what about cold beer ?
About the little trouble we had here; thanks to Beskar's constructive approach, nothing of any real importance exists. Although less frequently than me, everybody could mess up a bit from time to time. The aftermath is generally what matters in such circumstances, rather than the shock itself.
On topic: I am a supporter of innovation. I took my first chance to upgrade to Windows 7, but yes, 32-bit. Possessing 2 GB of RAM for the moment, the 64-bit hassle is not crucial for me and until then it seems to me nothing more than troubles that could pop up anytime. Windows 7 hasn't settled yet, let alone what 64-bit could make me encounter. So I prefer to sit back and watch this non-revolutionary revolution and upgrade to it when it is the standard.
For your information, I don't have one program on my PC that is not the latest version. I'm an update hoar.
And that makes it a deal. Over. :smoking: BURRRP- sorray.
English breakfast, please. And I take it with a bit of milk and sugar, just like a proper lady should.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Milk mixed with sugar is the only real breakfast.
win 7 64 bit.
Given the improvements mentioned by several posters in the first page of this thread, i find it both funny and upsetting that the key features in Windows' advertising are the snap feature. If that is simmultaneously the main advancement that win7 offers and the main reason people buy it, isn't this one of the saddest indictments of MS' product, its creativity and us as consumers? Or just their cynical, pisspoor marketing startegy?
It had better be the latter.
That said, I'm a PC and Win7 was my idea. [retch] [/retch]
I am happy with Win7 64 cos it runs much faster and better than XP 32.
/nerd rage.
What snap feature? And how is that unique? Tiling window manager have been there, done that since the dawn of X? And to think I only bought Windows 7 'cause I figured that €45 was sort of not too much money to spend on another 3 to 5 years of maintenance -- I figure they'll close the maintenance window of Vista early (plus it gave me an upgrade to the slightly less handcuffed Professional version instead of Home Premium).
Oh well. :shrug:
Its faster, prettier, doesnt crash, and it let me change everything to orange really easily (i didnt like XP's method of that)
Actually it does. It has some weird suspend/wakeup IRQ problem with graphics cards that may cause it to generate BSOD from time to time. Then again, last time I booted Win 7 would be a month ago or more, maybe it's fixed now. :shrug:
I have had 2 post auto-update problems where I've had to do a system restore, but no BSODs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios