Windows 7 64bit

[leestudd30]

Is there any difference between 32 and 64 bit versions of windows? I understand you need 64 bit so you can run more than 4GB of memory but is that it?

[sirwiggum]

If you use your computer for computing very large integers there is some performance increase.

But mostly it is to get around the 4GB RAM limit.

You can still run 32 bit applications, it has a Windows on Windows 32-64 subsystem, but 16 bit apps such as Windows 3.1 / some Win95 applications may not run (though should run under XP in virtualPC).

[steve_earwig]

I've just been having a squint on the Cnet forums because I'd like to know too. There's lots of superlatives ("it's soo much better!") but not much solid info. However, the word seems to be get 64 bit if you use lots of high-end art programs, don't expect all of your 32 bit programs to work (even in compatability mode), you won't be able to get drivers for older bits of kit (printers etc.) but... it's the way forward and 32 bit programs will eventually go the way of 16 bit ones.

Anyway, where's Highlander?

[sirwiggum]

I've just been having a squint on the Cnet forums because I'd like to know too. There's lots of superlatives ("it's soo much better!") but not much solid info. However, the word seems to be get 64 bit if you use lots of high-end art programs, don't expect all of your 32 bit programs to work (even in compatability mode), you won't be able to get drivers for older bits of kit (printers etc.) but... it's the way forward and 32 bit programs will eventually go the way of 16 bit ones.

Anyway, where's Highlander?

I haven't had a problem with any 32 bit apps. They install happily to \program files x86\ and execute without issue.

Drivers are an issue however, so if you have an ancient digital camera or awkward old printer it may not work.

[steve_earwig]

Is there any way to check first? I have a few ageing bits of kit here and I know this pc wouldn't cut the mustard but one day it will go pop!, forcing me to stump up the cash to replace it and my wife has a copy of Windows 7 64 sitting on her desk, plus Linux comes in 64 bit flavours too

[sirwiggum]

The upgrade advisor may be of use

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/wind ... de-advisor

But it may only advise on 32 bit drivers.

[gumby6371]

If your machine has a 64 bit compatible cpu it should run 7 and considering the difference price wise is pennies go for 64 bit.

For basic tasks, web browsing etc you won't notice the difference but 64 bit software won't run on 32 bit windows but is 99% compatible the other way around.
Plus the advantage of being able to use more memory if needed is handy if you're a video editor, cad user, gamer etc...

You can always 'upgrade' components as you go and keep the same OS so it's no loss financially

[steve_earwig]

The upgrade advisor may be of use

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/wind ... de-advisor

But it may only advise on 32 bit drivers.

"While we're checking your pc, you can... read War and Peace, invade Poland, discover a new planet..."

I'm afraid after watching the green snot going from left to right for 15 minutes my patience came to an end and I killed it

[steve_earwig]

Oh great, it's got no uninstall too. Bluddy Microsoft

[highlander]

Anyway, where's Highlander?

Present!

As Sir Wiggum and Gumby mentioned, using a 64-bit operating system is required if you want to use more than 4 GB of RAM. 32-bit versions of Windows are only able to address up to 3.2 GB of RAM, the rest is completely unusable. If you have a 64-bit operating system, then your machine will be able to address significantly more.

Here are the limitations on the various 64-bit editions of Win7:

Win7 Home Basic = 8 GB
Win7 Home Premium = 16 GB
Win7 Professional = 192 GB
Win7 Enterprise = 192 GB
Win7 Ultimate = 192 GB

(Win7 Starter is only available in 32-bit)

You will require a processor equipped with the X86-64 instruction set in order to use a 64-bit OS. This includes ALL Intel Core i3, i5, and i7 processsors, all Intel Core 2 Quad processors, most Intel Core 2 Duo processors, some Intel Pentium 4 Dual Core processors, some Intel Atom (netbook-type) processors, all AMD Athlon 64 processors, and some AMD Athlon II, Opteron, and Phenom processors. (phew).

The easiest way of testing if Win7 64-bit will install on your machine is to pop the disc in and try to install it. If it doesn't detect the X86-64 instruction set on your processor, it'll stop dead in its tracks.

[steve_earwig]

I know you'd have something to add

Win7 Professional = 192 GB
Win7 Enterprise = 192 GB
Win7 Ultimate = 192 GB

Stonking!! Do they make boards that hold dozens of memory cards yet, or is that "potentially"?

The easiest way of testing if Win7 64-bit will install on your machine is to pop the disc in and try to install it. If it doesn't detect the X86-64 instruction set on your processor, it'll stop dead in its tracks.

But you'd be building a pc around a 64 bit processor anyway, the question is old programs and periffafurries. Np I have 3 old digital cameras, a fairly old printer (getting hard to find ink for it) and a geriatric scanner.

Besides, if you were going to try a 64-bit os it'd be cheaper to download a 64 bit Linux (what are they again? Bendix? Rotisserie? Ah yes) distro, burning a live DVD and seeing what happens when you boot from it.

[sirwiggum]

I know you'd have something to add

Win7 Professional = 192 GB
Win7 Enterprise = 192 GB
Win7 Ultimate = 192 GB

Stonking!! Do they make boards that hold dozens of memory cards yet, or is that "potentially"?

People said the same when the issue of addressing > 3.2 / 4 GB of RAM with a 32 bit OS came up.

More than 4GB of RAM! Surely not!

Machines have been sold for a few years now that can support 192GB of RAM, or more. Usually very high end workstations or servers. If you are working with, or serving, real time HD video, then this amount of RAM can be used up in no time.

We have Win7 Starter on a Toshiba netbook, it is useless. Can't even change the wallpaper! They only brought it out because Linux was cleaning up on the Netbooks. The reason netbooks were selling was because they were a cheap highly portable laptop. They were cheap because being lower spec than a full sized laptop they couldn't handle Vista and so had to come with Linux and therefore there was no windows tax to pay, and the RAM etc, could also be slghtly lower. Then MS came along and said if you don't install Windows 7 starter we wont supply you as an OEM anymore, so then they had to upspec the RAM to handle Win7 starter and you have to pay a Windows tax. This is what killed off the netbook.

[leestudd30]

My laptop came with 4GB but information printed on the box talks about having a 64 bit operating system. I was lead to believe it had 64 bit Windows installed but when I went into system properties it says 32 bit operating system installed. I have a copy of Windows 7 on disc somewhere, just need to find it or re-download it lol. And while I think of it, when I do install it, will it delete any files/software etc off my laptop? Should I copy everything to my ext hard drive?

[steve_earwig]

We have Win7 Starter on a Toshiba netbook, it is useless. Can't even change the wallpaper! They only brought it out because Linux was cleaning up on the Netbooks. The reason netbooks were selling was because they were a cheap highly portable laptop. They were cheap because being lower spec than a full sized laptop they couldn't handle Vista and so had to come with Linux and therefore there was no windows tax to pay, and the RAM etc, could also be slghtly lower. Then MS came along and said if you don't install Windows 7 starter we wont supply you as an OEM anymore, so then they had to upspec the RAM to handle Win7 starter and you have to pay a Windows tax. This is what killed off the netbook.

Oddly enough http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/m ... ktop/11234

I'm expecting Linus Torvalds to die in mysterious circumstances...

Can you not just strip Window$ off it & stick the right os in its place?

[Doggy]

People said the same when the issue of addressing > 3.2 / 4 GB of RAM with a 32 bit OS came up.

More than 4GB of RAM! Surely not!

If you cast your minds back far enough, you may recall a certain Mr Gates concluded we would never need more than 640k.