Everything related to Windows 7 goes HERE

[nuclearcat]

Originally Posted by Red Phoenix

better smooth feel of hard disk cashing since in 64bit the windows OS doesnt seem to feel the urge to swap or remove data that quickly from mem after u run a certain program

64-bit system difference JUST in larger and more CPU registers and you can address more RAM. 32-bit Windows system usually limited to 1G, with some tricks can be extended to 4GB and even 64GB(PAE). But bad surprise for people who expects to use all 64-bit addressing. Microsoft limit Win 7 addresses memory artificially:
* Starter: 8GB
* Home Basic: 8GB
* Home Premium: 16GB
* Professional: 192GB
* Enterprise: 192GB
* Ultimate: 192GB
But for now it is more than enough.

u get more than 4gb of linear memory ram to play with, and each process is no longer limited to 2gb as is the case in normal 32 bit (max 3gb in 32bit if compiled as large address aware and the os is 32 bit tweaked to support it, and u dont need special memory segmentations schemes to run over 4gb)

Except databases and some professional apps (CAD, 3dmax and etc), who needs more than 3gb addressing for 1 process?

& chicks will dig u for going 64bit since now u got that extra geeky edge hehe

Chicks will dig if u have linux with compiz/beryl, or at least MacOS X, Windows 64-bit is usual this days.

and there is a 0.1% chance that u wont find a 64bit driver for some super shtty device u have ;)

A lot of devices. For example my business card scanner doesn't work. My USB microscope doesn't work.

[Frisbeetarian]

Mac fanboys, take your inferior and overpriced hardware outta here! Allez oust!

[Red Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Evolution

I did some research on youtube and google, it appears that Windows 7 use less RAM usage than Vista despite the higher system requirements on W7.
Also W7 has much faster boot-time than Vista



Vista looks like joke when compared to win 7, it is older, slower and more resource-hog

indeed, everyone needs to try it out

if it doesnt cause someone to completly move to win7, well at least it will sit next to trusty winxp as a happy dual boot couple hehe

win7 is what vista should have been

[Red Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Frisbeetarian

Mac fanboys, take your inferior and overpriced hardware outta here! Allez oust!

what about linux penguin fanboys?

[Frisbeetarian]

Originally Posted by Red Phoenix

what about linux penguin fanboys?

They are tolerated...as i am one of them

[Lallous]

I've got (2 X 1 GB) 2 GB of RAM. To upgrade to 4 GB (max supported by my mobo) to extensively use the 64 bits features, I will have to buy 2 sets of 2 GB sticks and I am not in need of such upgrade for now, but might do it in a distant future. Also, most probably once I'll buy a new laptop if needed (this one is 2 years old), it will definetly have Win7 and 4 GB of ram at least. However, Win7 32 bits could be always used for my desktop, a single core athlon 1.5 ghz with one 1gb of ram and geforce ti4200 (AGP ) running on XP. But when it crashes, it is most probably hitting the dump, no spare parts :D

I don't game neither on laptop nor on desktop, but I do multitask a lot (a lot of small programs). Also, I am a purist, I deactivate by using Tweak XP or smthg alike all the multimedia and flashy features that I hate so that should help with the ram used.

Conclusion: I'll get the win7 64 bits, not because it gets the chicks wet , but rather I could get the professional version for the same price avoiding me to pay more for my future laptop which will come with the home edition and the disadvantage of ram avalaible is compensanted by win7's lower use of ram.

P.S.: For MAC users, you enjoy your overpriced material. PC and windows problem by extension is 99% the user behind the screen. No need to waste money.

[Danny Z]

Originally Posted by Lallous

P.S.: For MAC users, you enjoy your overpriced material. PC and windows problem by extension is 99% the user behind the screen. No need to waste money.

Maybe that's their problem they sit behind the screen, it is much more helpful to use a PC sitting facing the screen.

[Red Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Lallous

I've got (2 X 1 GB) 2 GB of RAM. To upgrade to 4 GB (max supported by my mobo) to extensively use the 64 bits features, I will have to buy 2 sets of 2 GB sticks and I am not in need of such upgrade for now, but might do it in a distant future. Also, most probably once I'll buy a new laptop if needed (this one is 2 years old), it will definetly have Win7 and 4 GB of ram at least. However, Win7 32 bits could be always used for my desktop, a single core athlon 1.5 ghz with one 1gb of ram and geforce ti4200 (AGP ) running on XP. But when it crashes, it is most probably hitting the dump, no spare parts :D

I don't game neither on laptop nor on desktop, but I do multitask a lot (a lot of small programs). Also, I am a purist, I deactivate by using Tweak XP or smthg alike all the multimedia and flashy features that I hate so that should help with the ram used.

Conclusion: I'll get the win7 64 bits, not because it gets the chicks wet , but rather I could get the professional version for the same price avoiding me to pay more for my future laptop which will come with the home edition and the disadvantage of ram avalaible is compensanted by win7's lower use of ram.

P.S.: For MAC users, you enjoy your overpriced material. PC and windows problem by extension is 99% the user behind the screen. No need to waste money.

when u install 4gb, all 32bit windows might detect anywhere from 2.5 to 3.5 gb installed depending on some internal archaic device addressing schemes that map access to them in the upper 3gb linear memory region by their 32 bit drivers/bios-hooks effectively overloading themselves over the usable addresses of real ram and rendering access to them regions impossible since now that address refers to some virtual driver address in the linear memory map of 32bit systems with their 4gb for all combined limit. in the early days of 32bit that seemed sensible since accessing ur vga rams for instance by the OS/drivers/BIOS at address 3.5gb of the mutual linear memory map for all intents and purposes was quite a safe distance away from the real ram memory installed on a system with 4mb or even 64mb.

these days we have vgas with 512mb of ram that map themselves to this now limited shared 4gb 32bit space and eat up our available and accessible 4gb range quite vividly. internal mobo component drivers might do the same, such as our shtty intel built in vga reserving 1gb or 512mb from those 4gb even if we are using a stand alone vga. all components eat from that space even network cards so bad things tend to happen to ur 4gbs on 32bit systems

even if i remove my new geforce with 512mb from my mobo my 32bit windows can only see up to 3.2gb, and on my other pc with no built in vga and an old gf with 256mb i get 3.5 remaining. all those devices shadow themselves in the last parts of accessible ram so the pc can access them, but in turn make any real ram there above 3gb (if installed) inaccessible.

so that's another advantige of 64 bit since it's not limited to 4gb, devices can shadow themselves somewhere far far away

hence with only 4gb installed, in a 32bit os that can theoretically access them all, u seldom can find more than 3gb usable

while with 64 bit u can access all 4gb always

btw that ti4200 was quite a cuty although at that time all of us who had it were quite pssed off by anyone who was showing off his legendary and superior radeon 9700pro card hehe

[Jo]

computer news: Ubuntu 9.10 vs Windows 7

[Danny Z]

Mac has new very intuitive laptop