Stay With Xp Or Move To Vista

[skippybangkok]

DONE !

Cant upgrade, needs fresh install. In all honesty, dont really feel tis that much difference.........bit more sexy, and gadgets on main screen......... bit more smart

Still trying to figure out whats so good about it.

My win 7 disk was 32 bit........... sadly no 64 trial.

Cheers and thanks for your advice.

[bangkokburning]

Fresh Install always better anyway. You made the right choice. In the end hey are all just an OS and so all will look/feel much same.

XP is enough, just enough - but it's a dinosaur. people forget this. Have to be crazy to want to stay w/ xp for next four years. That OS is about ten years old.

Unless you have a screamer PC and into gaming. 32bit is fine. 64 is exotic and needs different drivers than 32.

[welo]

I am interested in how much memory Windows can use on your PC (due to the 32bit limit).

I would be thankful if you could post your system memory values.

Go to TaskManager (CTRL-SHIFT-ESC), switch to the performance tab and start the 'Resource Monitor' (Button). A new window will pop up - switch to the 'Memory' tab and check the 4 values at the bottom

Available (basically the free memory)

Cached (cached resources aka 'superfetch')

Total (memory usable by windows)

Installed (installed memory in your PC).

Please also include the value for 'Hardware Reserved' from the graph in the same dialog.

Thanks!

welo

[skippybangkok]

As per the attached..........\\

[Pib]

Here you go.

[bkk_mike]

If you've got an Intel chipset (G45/Clarkdale/Arrandale at least - not so much if it's just a GMA500).

One advantage of 7 (or Vista) over XP is that you'll be able to turn on GPU acceleration for playing video (DXVA - DirectX Video Acceleration). Not as big an issue for Ati/Nvidia as their acceleration can be made to work under XP.

There are still some 32-bit processors out there that aren't Atoms, but only in the ultra low voltage segment (so only in small laptops - but they are a significant step up from an Atom).

[welo]

Thanks. This basically confirms what I've said before about 32bit Windows: Windows will not be able to use all of the 4GB RAM due to limits in 32bit architecture (meaning NOT Windows' fault!)

In your screenshot more than 512MB are 'hardware allocated'. This can mean two different things

1. Your video card doesn't come with it's own dedicated memory but uses 'shared memory', that is cutting off some megabytes from the main memory (RAM).

OR

2. Your video card comes with 512MB of dedicated graphics memory, but due to inner workings of the 32bit architecture this limits the maximum addressable main memory space to 3.5GB. Meaning that for the system (driver) to access the video memory it maps 512MB of address space into the main memory, effectively leading to 512MB of system memory being unusable because of a 'lack of address space'.

If (1) applies then in your case 32bit is fine for your system, you don't 'waste' any RAM.

If (2) applies then you waste about 0.5GB RAM that Windows cannot use/address.

Not sure it is worth switching to 64bit even in case (2) applies. As stated before, 64bit Windows will use slightly more memory than 32bit Windows, therefore minimizing the 'gap' further.

If you are an office user I wouldn't bother much, if you like to open several applications at the same time the extra 300-500MB might be valuable to you.

welo

Btw, here a semi-official explanation of that matter from Microsoft:

All 32-bit client versions of Windows (not just Vista/XP/7) have a 4GB

address space (64-bit versions can use much more). That's the

theoretical upper limit beyond which you can not go.

But you can't use the entire 4GB of address space. Even though you

have a 4GB address space, you can only use *around* 3.1GB of RAM.

That's because some of that space is used by hardware and is not

perating system and applications. The amount you can

use varies, depending on what hardware you have installed, but can

range from as little as 2GB to as much as 3.5GB. It's usually around

3.1GB.

Note that the hardware is using the address *space*, not the actual

RAM itself. If you have a greater amount of RAM, the rest of the RAM

goes unused because there is no address space to map it to.

source: http://social.answers.microsoft.com/Forums/en-CA/w7performance/thread/5818e83e-9c21-4557-8af1-576621ee44fa

[skippybangkok]

Thanks. This basically confirms what I've said before about 32bit Windows: Windows will not be able to use all of the 4GB RAM due to limits in 32bit architecture (meaning NOT Windows' fault!)

In your screenshot more than 512MB are 'hardware allocated'. This can mean two different things

1. Your video card doesn't come with it's own dedicated memory but uses 'shared memory', that is cutting off some megabytes from the main memory (RAM).

OR

2. Your video card comes with 512MB of dedicated graphics memory, but due to inner workings of the 32bit architecture this limits the maximum addressable main memory space to 3.5GB. Meaning that for the system (driver) to access the video memory it maps 512MB of address space into the main memory, effectively leading to 512MB of system memory being unusable because of a 'lack of address space'.

If (1) applies then in your case 32bit is fine for your system, you don't 'waste' any RAM.

If (2) applies then you waste about 0.5GB RAM that Windows cannot use/address.

Not sure it is worth switching to 64bit even in case (2) applies. As stated before, 64bit Windows will use slightly more memory than 32bit Windows, therefore minimizing the 'gap' further.

If you are an office user I wouldn't bother much, if you like to open several applications at the same time the extra 300-500MB might be valuable to you.

welo

Btw, here a semi-official explanation of that matter from Microsoft:

All 32-bit client versions of Windows (not just Vista/XP/7) have a 4GB

address space (64-bit versions can use much more). That's the

theoretical upper limit beyond which you can not go.

But you can't use the entire 4GB of address space. Even though you

have a 4GB address space, you can only use *around* 3.1GB of RAM.

That's because some of that space is used by hardware and is not

perating system and applications. The amount you can

use varies, depending on what hardware you have installed, but can

range from as little as 2GB to as much as 3.5GB. It's usually around

3.1GB.

Note that the hardware is using the address *space*, not the actual

RAM itself. If you have a greater amount of RAM, the rest of the RAM

goes unused because there is no address space to map it to.

source: http://social.answers.microsoft.com/Forums/en-CA/w7performance/thread/5818e83e-9c21-4557-8af1-576621ee44fa

Cheers

pretty much a MS office user and some browsing. Rare occasions maybe some graphics work..........

[welo]

Don't worry about the wasted RAM, will be hardly noticeable in your case.

But I still don't agree with most of the opinions here labeling 64bit as 'exotic' and prone to driver issues. 64bit is a non-issue with current hardware and is very recommended for systems with 4GB and up!

welo

(Btw, no need to quote the whole post again, clutters the thread </teachermode> )

[skippybangkok]

First bug.......... have a el-cheapo Wifi router / model at work (nlink)...W7 can work with it, but another XP laptop has no issues

[Royk]

Don't worry about the wasted RAM, will be hardly noticeable in your case.

But I still don't agree with most of the opinions here labeling 64bit as 'exotic' and prone to driver issues. 64bit is a non-issue with current hardware and is very recommended for systems with 4GB and up!

welo

(Btw, no need to quote the whole post again, clutters the thread </teachermode> )

64-bit is the path many people should consider if their VGA cards have a lot of on-board memory. When your VGA card comes with 1-1.5GB of its own RAM, the usable memory shrinks accordingly due to the limitation on addressable space. PAE can't help much either as very few applications can utilise this feature. Losing 1-1.5GB of system RAM is a big deal for me. I don't know how memory is organised in SLI and Crossfire.

In my experience, your must be using really old or proprietary hardware to have driver issues with Window 7. One of my systems running Window7 64 is 3-3.5 years old. Every single piece of hardware on the system is pre-windows 7 era. Surprisingly, I've run into more software problems than hardware but the pros outnumber the cons so I decided to stick with it.

Best regards,

Roy

[balo]

Forget XP , its old history.

W7 and you will be safe , also gives you much better protection against viruses.

[welo]

First bug.......... have a el-cheapo Wifi router / model at work (nlink)...W7 can work with it, but another XP laptop has no issues

Not really proof that Windows 7 is to blame. Did your laptop work with this Access Point before when you had XP installed?

Did you run the Network and Internet Troubleshooter?

Click the symbol for the wireless connection in the taskbar, then 'Open Network and Sharing Centre'. In the windows that now opens click the entry at the very bottom, named 'troubleshoot problems'.

I don't think there is an incompatibility, it might be a rather mundane problem like IP setup being wrong.

Troubleshooting: Any wireless connection is a two tier connection. First the wireless link, and on top of that the TCP/IP link (->IP address such as 192.168.1.2).

Did the wireless connection work? Usually you will get a yellow triangle with exclamation mark on top of the tray icon if the wireless connection works but the IP assignement fails.

Windows 7 is better at telling you what actually went wrong. How does the wireless system tray icon show?

welo

[welo]

Roy,

I completely agree with your statement. Loosing 1GB or more of RAM doesn't justify any inconveniences you might have with 64bit Windows 7.

In the OPs situation I personally would have still gone with 64bit, but I'm not somebody who pushes another user into doing something he/she doesn't feel comfortable with - if not for a very good reason. And his setup is really 'border-line', meaning that he probably looses only about 300-400MB depending on how much more memory the OS uses in the 64bit edition compared to 32bit. Do you have any numbers/comparisons on this matter?

Laptops often still come with only little dedicated video memory. As soon as you get any half-decent video card for a desktop PC you will probably end up with 1GB of dedicated video memory or more, and 64bit Windows is a must if you have more than 2.5-3GB of RAM.

welo

[Royk]

Roy,

I completely agree with your statement. Loosing 1GB or more of RAM doesn't justify any inconveniences you might have with 64bit Windows 7.

In the OPs situation I personally would have still gone with 64bit, but I'm not somebody who pushes another user into doing something he/she doesn't feel comfortable with - if not for a very good reason. And his setup is really 'border-line', meaning that he probably looses only about 300-400MB depending on how much more memory the OS uses in the 64bit edition compared to 32bit. Do you have any numbers/comparisons on this matter?

Laptops often still come with only little dedicated video memory. As soon as you get any half-decent video card for a desktop PC you will probably end up with 1GB of dedicated video memory or more, and 64bit Windows is a must if you have more than 2.5-3GB of RAM.

welo

Unfortunately, no but these websites may shed some light on the matter, although, not directly.

http://msmvps.com/blogs/russel/archive/2008/03/18/32-bit-memory-in-x64-windows.aspx

Optimizing 64-Bit Programs - CodeGuru

Agree that in many cases, it's not a clear cut situation but you can try both then make the decision later. I don't know how other people got their Windows 7. I bought mine when it was on a special offer and it came with both 32 and 64 bit versions.

Best regards,

Roy

[welo]

Thanks for the link. The codeguru article was an interesting read.

It seems that on 4GB systems the increased memory consumption of 64-bit programs might indeed outweigh the benefit of being able to use the entire 4GB (if the dedicated memory of your video card is not more than 0.5GB).

The performance penalty for running 32bit apps on a 64 bit system is rather minimal, and is comparable to the performance gain of some apps when available as 64bit editions. Most CPU hungry applications are most likely available in a 64bit edition by now anyway.

Therefore I consider speed penalties or gains not really relevant for a decision 32 vs. 64bit in most setups.

[Royk]

Talking about comparison, I have both 32 and 64 bit versions of CPU-Z 1.54 on my system. The Task Manager showed 2780K for 32-bit and 3960K for 64-bit. The 64-bit version does eat up a bit more of memory.

Best regards,

Roy