+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: The Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Real Life Discussion (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=16)
+---- Forum: Software & Hardware (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=17)
+---- Thread: Changing Win XP to 7 (/showthread.php?tid=32563)
Changing Win XP to 7 - Raiyushi - 01-11-2010
' Wrote:64 bit OS is more powerful than its 32bit counterpart and in THEORY its almost, but not quite double the performance of the 32 bit system. 64 bit does make better use of its resources if given enough for the OS to manage with.
64 bit processors with 2+ Gb minimum I would suggest, but for now, not too many programs make full use of a 64 bit processor. Yet. It is the future, but will developers use it?
For now...I'll have to say it makes NO difference. Even with 64-bit applications there's NOMIMAL DIFFERENCE!!
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2280808,00.asp
I would like to quote from the article.
Quote:Running 64-bit applications on a 64-bit OS doesn't yield clear cut results in these types of benchmarks. Part of the problem is the relatively small data sets used in the 3D rendering tests, where most of the pure 64-bit benchmarks were run. We'll be looking into larger data set rendering tests for future use. If anything, the Cinebench 10 test indicates what moving to 64-bit can do, under the right conditions.
On the other hand, 32-bit apps running on Vista 64 have to "thunk" through the WoW64 (Windows on Windows") subsystem, which is how 32-bit Windows apps run on Vista 64-bit. With games, at least, it seems that having that extra bit of space in the memory partition helps more than the thunking hurts.
The Cinebench 10 Test mentioned that indicates what "64-bit can do" Yeah...I see "not quite double"
And yes...I am aware that it's Vista... However, we're still talking about a 64-bit program on a 64-bit operating system with a 64-bit processor... There might be a bit of translation error if we took the benches in Windows 7, but there's not going to be a huge difference.
Changing Win XP to 7 - Fenikss74 - 01-11-2010
If I'm upgrading my ram to 4gb I'lll definietly go for 64. Also, there is no diference in price.
And what is the biggest diference between ultimate and home editions?
Changing Win XP to 7 - Fletcher - 01-11-2010
' Wrote:If I'm upgrading my ram to 4gb I'lll definietly go for 64. Also, there is no diference in price.If I remember right its to do with some security and design features. I've got the Professional myself and I like it. If you can go for Ultimate, go for it.
And what is the biggest diference between ultimate and home editions?
Changing Win XP to 7 - Raiyushi - 01-11-2010
' Wrote:If I'm upgrading my ram to 4gb I'lll definietly go for 64. Also, there is no diference in price.
And what is the biggest diference between ultimate and home editions?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7_edi...omparison_chart
Changing Win XP to 7 - Fenikss74 - 01-11-2010
Ok, thanks. And last thing what I want to know how does 7 work with older applications? I want to know exatly your experiance, because I have read some guys writing that 7 sux with older app and some guys says that it is the best thing on the WORLD! Might it be because of those 64 and 32 bit versions? Yea, I understand that 32 bit version works better with older programs... if the 64 bit version works like crap with the older programs it is just dumb. And I hope there is no matter what 7 you are using (I mean home, profi, ultimate), is it?
Changing Win XP to 7 - Fletcher - 01-11-2010
The only problems I've has is with old programs from prior Windows 98. The compatibility mode is a bit better than the XP version, but not by much in my experience. But its a damned side more compatible than Vista with older programs.
Changing Win XP to 7 - FooFighter - 01-11-2010
Bad idea. Baaaad idea.
XP is still superior to 7, no matter what they say. Yes, 7 is less annoying than Vista, that's true, and yes, it also allows you to play DirectX10 games and add more RAM to your rig. But - ignoring the fact that you don't really need more than 2 gigs of RAM for gaming - you can emulate DX10 pretty nicely under XP already, and if you switch to XP 64, you can also pop in more RAM without having to put up with an extremely annoying, insecure, phoning-home OS like 7.
If you want better performance in games, I recommend going for a better GPU instead. Check out the GeForce 8800 - it's a bit pricey, but an extremely good graphics card and one you can trust to last for a while.
Changing Win XP to 7 - Fenikss74 - 01-11-2010
Ok, thanks for the help, I will soon decide about that 7.
P.S.
Fletcher you made the 8'000th post in this forum!!!!
Changing Win XP to 7 - Fletcher - 01-11-2010
' Wrote:Ok, thanks for the help, I will soon decide about that 7.Wha? I got 2750, well 2751 now...:unsure:
P.S.
Fletcher you made the 8'000th post in this forum!!!!
Changing Win XP to 7 - Fenikss74 - 01-11-2010
' Wrote:Bad idea. Baaaad idea.
XP is still superior to 7, no matter what they say. Yes, 7 is less annoying than Vista, that's true, and yes, it also allows you to play DirectX10 games and add more RAM to your rig. But - ignoring the fact that you don't really need more than 2 gigs of RAM for gaming - you can emulate DX10 pretty nicely under XP already, and if you switch to XP 64, you can also pop in more RAM without having to put up with an extremely annoying, insecure, phoning-home OS like 7.
If you want better performance in games, I recommend going for a better GPU instead. Check out the GeForce 8800 - it's a bit pricey, but an extremely good graphics card and one you can trust to last for a while.
I will consult some PC specialists about DX10 inside the store. And yes, I got the main idea about this Ox, horse, whatever:D
' Wrote:Wha? I got 2750, well 2751 now...:unsure:
no, check the posts in forum and you wil understand:P.