Win32 or Win64

On 5/12/2010 13:36, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 12 May 2010 08:00:18 +0200, wrote:
errr.... there are better news readers then Thunderbird :-)

There are often things that are better than other things, that's for
sure. In this case, I think it was obvious that Thunderbird didn't do
its job as well as it should have.

Or rather call it "Office 14 and ProductXX 1".

"Bill" wrote in message
...

Thank you for your insight. I think I've been convinced to go with 64 bit.
Hopefully, I'll
be glad I did it some day! : )

Kerry, I agree with your remarks except I think my biggest performance
boost this time around is going to come from SSD. This brings me to:

Question: How many Gigabytes Does Windows7 (64bit) require on Disk (or
SSD) compared to WindowsXP?

Is there a large difference? Since I know my current usage, knowing the
difference will help me spend wisely.


You're welcome. I've been running 64 bit only on all my systems since Vista
was in beta. I would never go back to 32 bit. Lots of RAM is always better
:-)

I agree SSD will give you a big performance increase. I was talking about
the best bang for the buck. SSD's are still quite expensive. My laptop is
probably my lightest install of Windows 7 Ultimate. It takes up about 65GB
of a 90GB partition. This is Win7 Ultimate with Office 2010 and half a dozen
other programs installed. About 15GB out of the 65GB is user data. I
wouldn't install Win7 Ultimate on a much smaller partition than 80GB. It's
just not worth spending all your time tracking down why the drive is full.
I'd much rather spend my time using the computer rather than maintaining it.

--
Kerry Brown

On Wed, 12 May 2010 01:38:16 -0400, "Bill"
wrote:

Question: How many Gigabytes Does Windows7 (64bit) require on Disk (or SSD)
compared to WindowsXP?

Is there a large difference? Since I know my current usage, knowing the
difference will help me spend wisely.

Why not install it to a regular hard drive first. Get everything
installed and configured, then look at your disk usage. Add a certain
percentage for overhead and growth and you'll have your number. (Not
someone else's number, but YOUR number.) Purchase your SSD and clone
your system drive onto the SSD. Done.

"Question: How many Gigabytes Does Windows7 (64bit) require on Disk (or
SSD)
compared to WindowsXP?"
XP install size is very variable...say 2GB +.

WINDOWS 7 (all versions); Microsoft say "Recommended 21 GB"
I think it will install in less ..

The confusion lies in the creation during installation, of 2 very big system
files PAGEFILE.SYS & HYBERFILE.SYS .Windows Install will create these
determined by your RAM size They will be typically 4GB + each.
But Hyberfile.sys is only used for the 'Hibernation' stand-by feature.
this can be turned of (I have). & that file deleted.

Pagefile.sys is a large variable Virtual Memory file. It can be set to off
but IMO you should have something.
I have a 1GB fixed Pagefile.sys in my XP & Windows Vista & 7 in
a busy games 4GB machine & have never seen a 'Low Memory' message.

Sooo!!! the basic installed WINDOWS Vista or win 7 folders is around 9 GB
plus the above sys files . VISTA is a bit larger than 7.

To confuse even further both Vista & Win 7 have things called 'Hard Links'
within them that point to folders that don't really exist & other odd
things
to maintain compatibility with earlier versions.
This APPEARS to take up space. That is if I look at the System Disc
properties in 'My Computer' it might say 10 GB used BUT !!! if I open that
in folder view in Explorer, then select the Windows folders
& get properties it will give (say) 14 GB (its really that 10 GB).

In short Win 7 will install & run in 15 GB + .
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") mouse (& a Piece of string is .......)

"Char Jackson" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 May 2010 01:38:16 -0400, "Bill"
wrote:

Question: How many Gigabytes Does Windows7 (64bit) require on Disk (or
SSD)
compared to WindowsXP?

Is there a large difference? Since I know my current usage, knowing the
difference will help me spend wisely.



Why not install it to a regular hard drive first. Get everything
installed and configured, then look at your disk usage. Add a certain
percentage for overhead and growth and you'll have your number. (Not
someone else's number, but YOUR number.) Purchase your SSD and clone
your system drive onto the SSD. Done.

The same reason I drive my car to the gas station to fill it up with gas
rather than driving my second
car to the gas station driving home and siphoning gas from my second car to
my first. Clearly, the
the reason is to avoid the risk of contamination.

"Trimble Bracegirdle" wrote in message
...
"Question: How many Gigabytes Does Windows7 (64bit) require on Disk (or
SSD)
compared to WindowsXP?"
XP install size is very variable...say 2GB +.

WINDOWS 7 (all versions); Microsoft say "Recommended 21 GB"
I think it will install in less ..

The confusion lies in the creation during installation, of 2 very big
system files PAGEFILE.SYS & HYBERFILE.SYS .Windows Install will create
these
determined by your RAM size They will be typically 4GB + each.
But Hyberfile.sys is only used for the 'Hibernation' stand-by feature.
this can be turned of (I have). & that file deleted.

Pagefile.sys is a large variable Virtual Memory file. It can be set to off
but IMO you should have something.
I have a 1GB fixed Pagefile.sys in my XP & Windows Vista & 7 in
a busy games 4GB machine & have never seen a 'Low Memory' message.

Sooo!!! the basic installed WINDOWS Vista or win 7 folders is around 9 GB
plus the above sys files . VISTA is a bit larger than 7.

To confuse even further both Vista & Win 7 have things called 'Hard Links'
within them that point to folders that don't really exist & other odd
things
to maintain compatibility with earlier versions.
This APPEARS to take up space. That is if I look at the System Disc
properties in 'My Computer' it might say 10 GB used BUT !!! if I open that
in folder view in Explorer, then select the Windows folders
& get properties it will give (say) 14 GB (its really that 10 GB).

In short Win 7 will install & run in 15 GB + .
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") mouse (& a Piece of string is .......)


Thank you very much! I'm glad that it is as small as that.

Bill

On Wed, 12 May 2010 17:54:23 -0400, "Bill"
wrote:


"Char Jackson" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 12 May 2010 01:38:16 -0400, "Bill"
wrote:

Question: How many Gigabytes Does Windows7 (64bit) require on Disk (or
SSD)
compared to WindowsXP?

Is there a large difference? Since I know my current usage, knowing the
difference will help me spend wisely.



Why not install it to a regular hard drive first. Get everything
installed and configured, then look at your disk usage. Add a certain
percentage for overhead and growth and you'll have your number. (Not
someone else's number, but YOUR number.) Purchase your SSD and clone
your system drive onto the SSD. Done.

The same reason I drive my car to the gas station to fill it up with gas
rather than driving my second
car to the gas station driving home and siphoning gas from my second car to
my first. Clearly, the
the reason is to avoid the risk of contamination.

Sorry, bud, that makes no sense.

"Char Jackson" wrote in message
...
Question: How many Gigabytes Does Windows7 (64bit) require on Disk (or
SSD)
compared to WindowsXP?

Is there a large difference? Since I know my current usage, knowing the
difference will help me spend wisely.



Why not install it to a regular hard drive first. Get everything
installed and configured, then look at your disk usage. Add a certain
percentage for overhead and growth and you'll have your number. (Not
someone else's number, but YOUR number.) Purchase your SSD and clone
your system drive onto the SSD. Done.

The same reason I drive my car to the gas station to fill it up with gas
rather than driving my second
car to the gas station driving home and siphoning gas from my second car
to
my first. Clearly, the
the reason is to avoid the risk of contamination.

Sorry, bud, that makes no sense.

Sorry, I assume you were trying to be helpful. But your solution didn't make
much
sense to me. I'll install an 80GB Intel SSD drive and complete the
installation with
little unnecessary overhead.

Bill

Bill:
I have checked the usage on my gaming computer here now. I use it only
for games and only have small, necessary programs installed. The OS is
installed on a drive separate from other programs. Total usage is
currently 14.5 GB. My home dir is taking up 2.3 GB so you can subtract 2
GB leaving you with 12.5 GB (I also created a new user account and
logged in to prepare it. It's taking up right under 30 MB). I have
hibernation (hiberfil.sys) enabled taking up 3 GB at the moment. Virtual
memory is disabled here which you probably *don't* want to do. But *if*
I disable hibernation as well, the OS with all the necessary drivers and
things to run my games is only taking up 9.2 GB. Add some more for
virtual memory. The system is updated, I have not tweaked anything
(except for disabling virtual memory), and I do not have any .NET redist
libs installed. No junk in there. I hope this will give you good idea.

"Jackie" wrote in message
...
Bill:
I have checked the usage on my gaming computer here now. I use it only for
games and only have small, necessary programs installed. The OS is
installed on a drive separate from other programs. Total usage is
currently 14.5 GB. My home dir is taking up 2.3 GB so you can subtract 2
GB leaving you with 12.5 GB (I also created a new user account and logged
in to prepare it. It's taking up right under 30 MB). I have hibernation
(hiberfil.sys) enabled taking up 3 GB at the moment. Virtual memory is
disabled here which you probably *don't* want to do. But *if* I disable
hibernation as well, the OS with all the necessary drivers and things to
run my games is only taking up 9.2 GB. Add some more for virtual memory.
The system is updated, I have not tweaked anything (except for disabling
virtual memory), and I do not have any .NET redist libs installed. No junk
in there. I hope this will give you good idea.

Thank you for your help! Your post made for interesting reading/thinking!
I don't run a "junked-up" computer either. Who needs these 1 TB systems! : )
I was computing before there were "windows"!

Bill

"Bill" wrote in message
...

"Jackie" wrote in message
...
Bill:
I have checked the usage on my gaming computer here now. I use it only
for games and only have small, necessary programs installed. The OS is
installed on a drive separate from other programs. Total usage is
currently 14.5 GB. My home dir is taking up 2.3 GB so you can subtract 2
GB leaving you with 12.5 GB (I also created a new user account and logged
in to prepare it. It's taking up right under 30 MB). I have hibernation
(hiberfil.sys) enabled taking up 3 GB at the moment. Virtual memory is
disabled here which you probably *don't* want to do. But *if* I disable
hibernation as well, the OS with all the necessary drivers and things to
run my games is only taking up 9.2 GB. Add some more for virtual memory.
The system is updated, I have not tweaked anything (except for disabling
virtual memory), and I do not have any .NET redist libs installed. No
junk in there. I hope this will give you good idea.

Thank you for your help! Your post made for interesting reading/thinking!
I don't run a "junked-up" computer either. Who needs these 1 TB systems!
: )
I was computing before there were "windows"!


So was I. Do you know what this does? pip b:new=ald1,ald2

Don't waste your time trying to pare Windows down to a minimum. Give it room
to breathe and spend your time using the computer rather than maintaining it
:-)

--
Kerry Brown

"Bill" wrote in message
...

"McG." wrote in message
ster.com...



Thank you everyone for all of your feedback! I'll double-check that my
hardware has drivers and then opt for the 64-bit I think while I wait on
these new 64-bit applications to be developed (please make mine with
multi-core/parallel processing)! ; )

Will my "Linksys Broadband router" requre a driver (or a firmware
update)? I am as curious about the reason (s).

Thanks!
Bill


If you happen to still use some old things, check on the web that they will
work under a) Windows 7 b) the 64 bit version. Do not accept generalised
statements about whether stuff can be run, especially in various emulation
modes.

I got 32 bit (Pro version so XP emulation was available as a backup) because
I understood that the 64 bit version will not run 16 bit applications. I do
not know whether that is true, but the 32 bit version will run some of them.
Windows 7 itself will not run many quite recent applications so check the
box before purchase.

"Jackie" wrote in message
...
Or rather call it "Office 14 and ProductXX 1".

Just for information: I do not do much word processing, but my wife does.
This is the first PC I have had with Office on it, and I am not much
impressed, neither is Pat, and we would far rather install our old Lotus
Wordpro. Trouble is, it won't work under Windows 7. No doubt the Microsoft
screw everybody else's software it is our Operating System policy. They
have cut some fonts as well, though they don't cost a lot each.

On 5/13/2010 1:35 PM, johnbee wrote:

"Jackie" wrote in message
...
Or rather call it "Office 14 and ProductXX 1".

Just for information: I do not do much word processing, but my wife
does. This is the first PC I have had with Office on it, and I am not
much impressed, neither is Pat, and we would far rather install our old
Lotus Wordpro. Trouble is, it won't work under Windows 7. No doubt the
Microsoft screw everybody else's software it is our Operating System
policy. They have cut some fonts as well, though they don't cost a lot
each.

What makes you think it's Microsoft's fault that Lotus Wordpro won't run
on Windows 7?