If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Ads |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Win32 or Win64
Or rather call it "Office 14 and ProductXX 1".
|
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Win32 or Win64
"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 |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Win32 or Win64
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. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Win32 or Win64
"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 .......) |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Win32 or Win64
"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. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Win32 or Win64
"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 |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Win32 or Win64
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. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Win32 or Win64
"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 |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Win32 or Win64
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. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Win32 or Win64
"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 |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Win32 or Win64
"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 |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
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). 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. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Win32 or Win64
"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. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Win32 or Win64
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? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|