• Welcome to Tux Reports: Where Penguins Fly. We hope you find the topics varied, interesting, and worthy of your time. Please become a member and join in the discussions.

Win32 or Win64

S

Sunny Bard

Flightless Bird
Jackie wrote:

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

Predictably, they both arrived, thanks.
 
B

Bill

Flightless Bird
"Bill" <Bill_NOSPAM@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hsdesf030i6@news1.newsguy.com...

> 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!
 
M

Man-wai Chang to The Door (33600bps)

Flightless Bird
> 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
ä¸å€Ÿè²¸! ä¸è©é¨™! ä¸æ´äº¤! ä¸æ‰“交! ä¸æ‰“劫! ä¸è‡ªæ®º! è«‹è€ƒæ…®ç¶œæ´ (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa
 
J

John B. Slocomb

Flightless Bird
On Wed, 12 May 2010 13:45:54 +1000, John Morrison
<the_morrisons@com.invalid> wrote:

>On Tue, 11 May 2010 21:09:31 +0700, John B. Slocomb
><johnbslocomb@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 11 May 2010 04:37:17 -0400, "Bill" <Bill_NOSPAM@comcast.net>
>>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)
 
J

John B. Slocomb

Flightless Bird
On Wed, 12 May 2010 08:00:18 +0200, Jackie <Jackie@an.on> wrote:

>On 5/12/2010 03:18, John B. Slocomb wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 May 2010 18:50:09 +0200, Jackie<Jackie@an.on> 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)
 
J

Jackie

Flightless Bird
On 5/12/2010 13:36, John B. Slocomb wrote:
> On Wed, 12 May 2010 08:00:18 +0200, Jackie<Jackie@an.on> 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. :)
 
M

McG.

Flightless Bird
"Man-wai Chang to The Door (33600bps)" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote in
message news:hsdmgg$hk3$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> I got both 32 and 64 bit DVD's in the 'backup media pack' M$ 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?
>

Neither. I bought the Download version with media backup disks selected.
It isn't OEM, it is full retail.
McG.
 
K

Kerry Brown

Flightless Bird
"Bill" <Bill_NOSPAM@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hsdesf030i6@news1.newsguy.com...
>
> 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
 
C

Char Jackson

Flightless Bird
On Wed, 12 May 2010 01:38:16 -0400, "Bill" <Bill_NOSPAM@comcast.net>
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.
 
T

Trimble Bracegirdle

Flightless Bird
>>>"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 G8).

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

Bill

Flightless Bird
"Char Jackson" <none@none.invalid> wrote in message
news:domlu5dqulglsasi14rbh6e1m1875nk9vk@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 12 May 2010 01:38:16 -0400, "Bill" <Bill_NOSPAM@comcast.net>
> 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.
 
B

Bill

Flightless Bird
"Trimble Bracegirdle" <no-spam@never.spam> wrote in message
news:hseprl$ch8$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>"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 G8).
>
> 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
 
C

Char Jackson

Flightless Bird
On Wed, 12 May 2010 17:54:23 -0400, "Bill" <Bill_NOSPAM@comcast.net>
wrote:

>
>"Char Jackson" <none@none.invalid> wrote in message
>news:domlu5dqulglsasi14rbh6e1m1875nk9vk@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 12 May 2010 01:38:16 -0400, "Bill" <Bill_NOSPAM@comcast.net>
>> 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.
 
B

Bill

Flightless Bird
"Char Jackson" <none@none.invalid> wrote in message
news:liamu5dvd3sab224cmg3hnk80knb94i8it@4ax.com...
>>>>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
 
J

Jackie

Flightless Bird
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 M8). 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. :)
 
B

Bill

Flightless Bird
"Jackie" <Jackie@an.on> wrote in message
news:4beb325d$0$3186$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
> 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 M8). 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
 
K

Kerry Brown

Flightless Bird
"Bill" <Bill_NOSPAM@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hsfoqn01e26@news6.newsguy.com...
>
> "Jackie" <Jackie@an.on> wrote in message
> news:4beb325d$0$3186$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
>> 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 M8). 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=a:eek:ld1,a:eek:ld2

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
 
J

johnbee

Flightless Bird
"Bill" <Bill_NOSPAM@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hsck6r025um@news7.newsguy.com...
>
> "McG." <McGrandpaNOT@NOThotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4be9c71c$0$10519$ec3e2dad@unlimited.usenetmonster.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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top