lesser-equity

Magazine
Go Back   Computer Juice > Computer Software > Windows Operating Systems


Register


Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 23rd Oct 2009, 09:31
Member Group
 
what version of windows 7 shall i install as the retail box consists of both ver, i cant decide, my computer can support 64bit and ive heard all the program etc are backwards compatible ie games, office etc, what you think?!
  #2  
Old 23rd Oct 2009, 09:37
Donor Group
 
Personally 64bit should be avoided like the plauge, there are many pieces of software that don't support 64bit and even drivers. There is no performance increase either, the only rhing going for it is its ability to adress more than 3.25Gb of memory.

Go with 32 bit.
__________________

My System: xX_TeK_GaMeR_Xx

Processor(s):
Intel Core 2 Duo E6700
Motherboard:
GIGABYTE GA-EP45-UD3P
RAM Memory:
OCZ 6400 2 x 2GB ReaperX
Graphics Card(s):
MSI NX8800GT
Sound Card:
Realtek ALC 889A Dolby Digital
Hard Drive(s):
OCZ SSD 60GB, WD 250GB HDD
Optical Drive(s):
LG HL-DT-ST DVDRAM GH22LS30
Case / PSU:
Cooler Master HAF-932, OCZ 600W
Cooling:
Stock
Network / Internet:
Ethernet, BT @ 2mb (250KB/S DL)
Monitor(s):
Xerox XA7-17i, SHARP LC26D44
Operating System(s):
Windows 7 Ultimate RC1 X32
  #3  
Old 23rd Oct 2009, 12:40
Donor Group
 
I cannot say that I agree with xactly ..... I have been running the RC x64 version for a few months with no problems and have just installed the Retail x64 version, without problems.
There maybe be the odd driver that isn't found, if the system is old or has lesser known parts, but my experience has been positive. I also installed the x64 version on a Fujitsu Laptop and that worked fine too.

So far all of my software runs fine, including Office 2003, Nero 7, SuperAntiSpyware, AVG, SpywareBlaster, WinRar, Acronis Disk Director,Acronis True Image and a few more.

Dont confuse this with the awful XP x64 version ..... W7 has come a long way.
__________________

My System: Home Build

Processor(s):
AMD 64 x 2 Dual Core 5200+ 2.60GHz
Motherboard:
Asus M2V Rev 1.
RAM Memory:
4gb (3.25gb visible)
Graphics Card(s):
NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GS
Sound Card:
5.1 Reatek On-Board
Hard Drive(s):
250 gb SATA & 400gb SATA
Optical Drive(s):
Pioneer 110 x 2
Case / PSU:
Stock / 550w Silent
Cooling:
Stock
Network / Internet:
10/100 Nic / 20MB Virgin Cable
Monitor(s):
Fujitsu Siemens 22" TFT WS
Operating System(s):
Vista Ultimate x32/Windows 7 x64
  #4  
Old 23rd Oct 2009, 13:16
Donor Group
 
There are quite a few application which do not work with 64bit (I am running 32bit at the moment so I cannot tell you which they are).

64bit is good for machines a few years old, anymore than this and there are a lot of issues with finding drivers.

I have not had XP x64 but I have had Vista x64 and the lack of support of driver for 64bit is diabolical.

It depends entirely on what software you use and whether your PC is supported with the 64bit drivers.
  #5  
Old 23rd Oct 2009, 13:26
Donor Group
 
If you suspect that specific software is likely to be a problem, simply elect for the Pro or Ultimate editions .... these have XP Compatibilty mode, but generally speaking, most stuff that runs on Vista will run on W7. Also any serious software developer, will soon have fixes, should compatibilty issues become an issue.

Why limit yourself to x32 if x64 is available to you ..... if for any reason you hit problems, just revert to x32, as all Retail boxes contain both disks.
  #6  
Old 23rd Oct 2009, 15:43
Donor Group
 
I agree with Phil. The vast majority of applications work properly on 64-bit systems - the only problem you may run into is difficulties with very old 16-bit applications as well as device drivers for very, very old hardware, like parallel port printers. It's easy to think that 64-bit sucks, because 64-bit XP sucked pretty horribly, but from Vista onwards it was much better because past Vista's adoption, manufacturers started writing 64-bit drivers. After all, do you think people in 2002 or 2003 were even considering that anybody on a home system would ever have 4GB of RAM?

For a desktop system, 64-bit is by far the way to go. It is very difficult to run into any sort of scenario where you have difficulties - I've tried, and I've found 64-bit Vista and 7 flawless.
__________________
"I loved the P182 so much that, when my wife's system was all noisy and needed all sorts of cleaning, I bought her one. Then, when I wanted a cat, I bought a P182. The P182 is not a cat per se, but it's still an excellent buy."
__________________

My System: 日夏子

Processor(s):
Core 2 Duo E6400 2.13 -> 3.01ghz
Motherboard:
MSI P6N SLI Platinum LGA 775
RAM Memory:
2GB Patriot Extreme Performance
Graphics Card(s):
PNY 8800GTS 320MB
Sound Card:
Sound Blaster Xtremegamer 7.1
Hard Drive(s):
80GB + 500GB
Optical Drive(s):
2x SATA
Case / PSU:
Antec 900 + 620W Aerocool zeroDBA
Cooling:
4x 120mm Yate-Loon + 200mm top
Network / Internet:
Qwest
Monitor(s):
Dell 22" S2209W (1920x1080)
Operating System(s):
Windows XP + 7
  #7  
Old 23rd Oct 2009, 17:24
Member Group
 
if you can tell us what processor you have we can tell you if it supports 64-bit.

If it does you will surely want 64-bit because it will be more efficient and your system will run more smoothly
  #8  
Old 23rd Oct 2009, 17:38
Donor Group
 
Every CPU made since the Pentium 4 supports 64-bit, and who has 4GB of RAM on those old systems anyway?

And 64-bit systems are not "more efficient" nor do they "run more smoothly" except by virtue of the fact you're addressing another 500MB-750MB of memory on a 4GB machine which obviously has some performance impact. In fact, they're inherently less efficient, because the executable has to have registers twice as large to address all that extra memory.
__________________
"I loved the P182 so much that, when my wife's system was all noisy and needed all sorts of cleaning, I bought her one. Then, when I wanted a cat, I bought a P182. The P182 is not a cat per se, but it's still an excellent buy."
  #9  
Old 24th Oct 2009, 04:34
Donor Group
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carbon View Post
... In fact, they're inherently less efficient, because the executable has to have registers twice as large to address all that extra memory.
Exactly, 32 bit is somewhat more efficient than 64 bit.
  #10  
Old 24th Oct 2009, 08:12
Donor Group
 
X64 is the way to go, unless you have an old system.

If you plan to have 4gb Ram or more in the future, you will see improvements in multi-tasking and other applications that are memory intensive, such as CAD or Video encoding.

X64 not only utilises the extra Ram, it handles it more efficiently.
Reply

Register
Thread Tools




Arabic Bulgarian Chinese (Simplified) Chinese (Traditional) Croatian Czech Danish Dutch English Finnish French German Greek Hebrew Hungarian Italian Japanese Korean Latvian Lithuanian Norwegian Polish Portuguese Romanian Russian Serbian Slovak Spanish Swedish Thai Turkish Ukrainian

Copyright ©2006 - 2009 Computer Juice.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2009 Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. SEO by vBSEO ©2009, Crawlability, Inc.