Win32 or Win64

"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).


No driver required as you are probably connecting to it as an appliance via
wired Ethernet or wireless. Only places where I've seen an Internet access
device require a driver is an actual old-school modem or a USB based
broadband modem.

If you are using a router, then it is being used an an Ethernet device. As
long as you have the drivers for your NIC, you will connect fine.

If you have important to you existing (maybe old)
Hardware Devices ....Modem....TV Card ...Scanner ...some Printers.

These will have 32bit drivers & should work on 32 Bit Vista or 32bit Windows
7.
may likely be unusable on 64bit.
Biggest problems with USB devices.
Except for the availability of extra memory beyond 4 Gig IMO there is no
meaningful discernible performance difference 32bit v 64bit.
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") mouse

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



If you are using a router, then it is being used an an Ethernet device.
As long as you have the drivers for your NIC, you will connect fine.


That was just the kind of answer I was seeking. Thank you!

Bill

"Bill" wrote in message
...

I'm planning to build a new system (Intel 860 CPU). I was sort of looking
for a reason to go with the 64-bit version of Windows7, since "they" say,
64-bit computing is where the future is. To me, it seems like it's going
to be a long time in coming. I mean, if MS Office-2010 is being sold as a
32-bit app, then what does that say about 64-bit computing at this
point.... I recall 4 years ago when I last built a system, Vista (64-bit)
was going to be "the thing"....I steered clear of that bandwagon and never
switched from XP. I think the problem is most (consumer) software
development companies don't have much incentive to build for both 32 and
64 bit platforms( why should they if people will still buy their 32 bit
product if that's all there is).

So that's why the road to owning a 64 bit system appears a bit rocky to
me. Any folks out there running 64-bit Windows7 systems that really like
them (besides ones that run programs like Photoshop), that would care to
share their experience? I would be curious to know the ratio of the
number of systems running 32-bit versus 64-bit versions of Windows7 (in
case anyone has one). At this point, I've never come very close to using
all 2GB of the
RAM that's on my current XP system.


Most modern OS' work better with more RAM. RAM is relatively cheap compared
to other components in the computer. RAM is almost always the least
expensive way to increase performance. 32 bit versions of Windows desktop
OS' are limited to 4 GB of memory of which somewhere around 1GB is usually
used by the motherboard and peripherals. It's getting rare to find a new
program or new hardware that doesn't work with 64 bit Windows. There is no
in place upgrade from 32 bit to 64 bit. This means if you install 32 bit now
then a year from now decide you want more speed and the cheapest speed
increase is RAM you are up the creek. You have to back everything up.
Install a 64 bit version of Windows. Install all your programs. Restore your
data. Very time consuming. On a new computer go 64 bit.

--
Kerry Brown

On Tue, 11 May 2010 18:50:09 +0200, Jackie wrote:

Starting to wonder if there's something wrong with my newsgroup client
(Thunderbird) as sometimes when I post replies, I don't actually get to
download it (no new messages).
Could someone please let me know if you actually see my message a few
minutes ago?

If not, here it is again...

On 05/11/2010 05:53 PM, Dominique wrote:
I cannot tell you what to do but I don't think it is a good idea to
disable
the pagefile, Windows uses it as needed and if there is enough RAM, it
won't use it much.

Oh yes, it can't be said to be a "good idea" to do this if you get what
I mean. (But I do it anyways)

You say in another post that sometimes you need to restart some programs
because they run out of memory, maybe that wouldn't happen if virtual
memory was enabled.

You are right. It probably would not happen even when apps like Firefox
doesn't seem to free memory that is not used any longer. It seems to
keep stuff I don't intend to use any more in memory for a long time. And
Adobe CS apps.. Phew.. (I don't really have real trouble though)

I don't think 2,5" hard disks add much strain to a laptop battery, the
heads movements are normal, those things are built to do that and I'm not
sure it's the pagefile that causes all this activities.

Let me add the technology is quite old and has proven its reliability.

some snipped

Your original message is time stamped as 11 May 2010 18:45:57 +0200
this message at 18:50:09.

Apparently it is your Usenet provider and most news services take some
time to make a new message available.


John B. Slocomb
(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

Jackie écrivait
:

Starting to wonder if there's something wrong with my newsgroup client
(Thunderbird) as sometimes when I post replies, I don't actually get
to download it (no new messages).
Could someone please let me know if you actually see my message a few
minutes ago?

If not, here it is again...

On 05/11/2010 05:53 PM, Dominique wrote:

snip

Yes, your two posts are there (your answer to my post), I am using Teranews
free as server (when it works) and Xnews as newsreader under Windows XP.

Have a good day

"Kerry Brown" *a*m wrote in message
...
Most modern OS' work better with more RAM. RAM is relatively cheap
compared to other components in the computer. RAM is almost always the
least expensive way to increase performance. 32 bit versions of Windows
desktop OS' are limited to 4 GB of memory of which somewhere around 1GB is
usually used by the motherboard and peripherals. It's getting rare to find
a new program or new hardware that doesn't work with 64 bit Windows. There
is no in place upgrade from 32 bit to 64 bit. This means if you install 32
bit now then a year from now decide you want more speed and the cheapest
speed increase is RAM you are up the creek. You have to back everything
up. Install a 64 bit version of Windows. Install all your programs.
Restore your data. Very time consuming. On a new computer go 64 bit.

--
Kerry Brown


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.

Thank you,
Bill

On 5/12/2010 03:18, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 11 May 2010 18:50:09 +0200, wrote:

some snipped

Your original message is time stamped as 11 May 2010 18:45:57 +0200
this message at 18:50:09.

Apparently it is your Usenet provider and most news services take some
time to make a new message available.


John B. Slocomb
(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

Thank you. It was the client as I could download the message with a
different one but still didn't get it in Thunderbird. Worked after
re-downloading and/or re-indexing the messages though. I am sorry for
the trouble.

On 5/12/2010 06:35, Dominique wrote:
[snip]

Thank you! Please see my previous reply.

Jackie wrote:

I replied to this but I don't see my own reply. Trying again by pasting
my old reply he

Predictably, they both arrived, thanks.

"Bill" wrote in message
...

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


I'm sorry, I should have added that I am talking about "Window7 Ultimate"--I
am not a big spender, I'm just elgible for academic pricing! : )

Thanks again!

I got both 32 and 64 bit DVD's in the 'backup media pack' M$ sent when I
purchased and downloaded Win 7 Pro from their online store. Took two
weeks to get to me, but they did get to me.
McG.

Did you buy the box edition or the OEM/System Builder one?

--
@~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.33.3
^ ^ 15:48:02 up 6 days 23:30 2 users load average: 1.09 1.05 1.00
�借貸! ��騙! ��交! �打交! �打劫! �自殺! 請考慮綜� (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa

On Wed, 12 May 2010 13:45:54 +1000, John Morrison
wrote:

On Tue, 11 May 2010 21:09:31 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

On Tue, 11 May 2010 04:37:17 -0400, "Bill"
wrote:

So that's why the road to owning a 64 bit system appears a bit rocky to me.
Any folks out there running 64-bit Windows7 systems that really like them
(besides ones that run programs like Photoshop), that would care to share
their experience? I would be curious to know the ratio of the number of
systems running 32-bit versus 64-bit versions of Windows7 (in case anyone
has one). At this point, I've never come very close to using all 2GB of the
RAM that's on my current XP system.

I wonder whether 64 bit systems aren't a bit over the top at the
moment. I just read an interesting report from some people that supply
an operating system as source code and you compile your own. They
recently compiled both the 32 and 64 bit versions of their software
and the 64 bit system was 9% larger then the 32 bit and ran 4% faster.
Hardly a great difference.

In addition, if the system is a pure 64 bit
system it will only run 64 bit applications.

That's not correct, a 64 bit system will run both 32 bit & 64 bit
applications. A 32 bit system can't run 64 bit applications.


Not Correct? I was repeating what the compiler of the system stated
regarding his system. Note that I said a "pure" 64 bit system, as that
was his definition and since I suspect that he did know what he was
talking about I believe that it is true, at least for his system. And
if it is true for one system it may also be true for others.

It has been years since I did any assembler but I would guess that the
application must handle addresses differently depending on whether
they are 32 bit or 64 bit.

I also suspect that it is possible to include either two applications
or use a header to identify the type application that wants to run and
then use one branch for 32 bit and a second for 64 bit apps.

John B. Slocomb
(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

I also support "if the system is a pure 64 bit system it will only run
64 bit applications".
64-bit versions of Windows includes an x86 emulator called WOW64 (also
32-bit versions of all the usual system DLLs as well). You can read more
here...

WOW64 Implementation Details:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...=VS.85%29.aspx
Running 32-bit Applications:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...8VS.85%29.aspx

On Wed, 12 May 2010 08:00:18 +0200, Jackie wrote:

On 5/12/2010 03:18, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 11 May 2010 18:50:09 +0200, wrote:

some snipped

Your original message is time stamped as 11 May 2010 18:45:57 +0200
this message at 18:50:09.

Apparently it is your Usenet provider and most news services take some
time to make a new message available.


John B. Slocomb
(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

Thank you. It was the client as I could download the message with a
different one but still didn't get it in Thunderbird. Worked after
re-downloading and/or re-indexing the messages though. I am sorry for
the trouble.


errr.... there are better news readers then Thunderbird :-)

John B. Slocomb
(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)