Upgrading OS

Cam42 · 02-02-2010, 06:00 AM

yeah, the more RAM the better, but you should be fine with 2GB

NoMoreSilence · 02-02-2010, 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scared2mosh

Ok so here is the deal. I can get Windows 7 for 10$ (seriously) thanks to certain computer classes I'm taking at the college.

My question is if it will work with my computer which currently runs on XP. Someone told me that XP runs on a 32 bit processor and 7 runs on a 64 bit so all my programs would become unusable and I would have to upgrade my processor in order for it to even work.

Being that I'm clueless I could really use some help

First off, if you have a laptop, don't use the 64-bit version. You'll blow your laptop. Period. Even if you have a 64 bit processor, laptops don't have much ram. They claim to have "4 GB RAM" but that's SD RAM, which has a slower transfer rate than regular RAM. Trust me, just do the 32-bit version. The only thing that would make the 64-bit version worthwhile is a 64-bit quad core processor and 8GB RAM. Period. That's the only thing that would make it perform better.
32-bit is perfectly fine.
I remember when windows 95 was the first 16-bit OS. it was pretty sweet at the time :P

Bryan · 02-02-2010, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoMoreSilence

First off, if you have a laptop, don't use the 64-bit version. You'll blow your laptop. Period.

no it won't.

Quote:

Even if you have a 64 bit processor, laptops don't have much ram. They claim to have "4 GB RAM" but that's SD RAM, which has a slower transfer rate than regular RAM.

um, no, you're wrong. most laptops these days come with DDR2 or DDR3 RAM, not SD RAM. The physical dimensions of the chip are smaller, but they are the same tech and often the same speeds (800mhz or 1066mhz).

Quote:

Trust me, just do the 32-bit version. The only thing that would make the 64-bit version worthwhile is a 64-bit quad core processor and 8GB RAM. Period. That's the only thing that would make it perform better.32-bit is perfectly fine.

64bit won't cause you any problems.

**Gustin** · 02-02-2010, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoMoreSilence

First off, if you have a laptop, don't use the 64-bit version. You'll blow your laptop. Period. Even if you have a 64 bit processor, laptops don't have much ram. They claim to have "4 GB RAM" but that's SD RAM, which has a slower transfer rate than regular RAM. Trust me, just do the 32-bit version. The only thing that would make the 64-bit version worthwhile is a 64-bit quad core processor and 8GB RAM. Period. That's the only thing that would make it perform better.
32-bit is perfectly fine.
I remember when windows 95 was the first 16-bit OS. it was pretty sweet at the time :P

Sorry, but you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

Also, Win 95 was 32bit.

**scared2mosh** · 02-02-2010, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gustin

Sorry, but you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

Also, Win 95 was 32bit.

I kinda thought what he said seemed wrong. Glad to know I was right...

Andrew · 02-02-2010, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoMoreSilence

First off, if you have a laptop, don't use the 64-bit version. You'll blow your laptop. Period. Even if you have a 64 bit processor, laptops don't have much ram. They claim to have "4 GB RAM" but that's SD RAM, which has a slower transfer rate than regular RAM. Trust me, just do the 32-bit version. The only thing that would make the 64-bit version worthwhile is a 64-bit quad core processor and 8GB RAM. Period. That's the only thing that would make it perform better.
32-bit is perfectly fine.
I remember when windows 95 was the first 16-bit OS. it was pretty sweet at the time :P

I am not opposed to you sharing opinions or learning about computers, but this is the third time today that I have seen you post something that is just horrifically and insanely false. Please stop spreading bullcrap and actually read books and experiment with these things. You give the rest of us who actually know about computers a bad name, and make us look like confused liars.

That said, I THINK 768mb should run Win7 okay. In my fairly extensive experience with it it does not require too much more RAM than Windows XP to run decently. A better CPU helps. That said, my computer is a monster that eats entire solar systems for its meals, so I can't really relate.

(seriously, I can run a near full speed virtual machine of ubuntu under Windows 7 while running Mass Effect 2 with no real problems at all.)

**SporkV** · 02-02-2010, 01:20 PM

I believe when the beta came out they said 768mb would work, but at least 1gb is best.

Plus, moar RAM doesn't really make ur comp run faster, it just allows it to have more open at once, 4GB might be overkill, I have 2GB in my xp box, and it's fine.

Andrew · 02-02-2010, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TFK14

I believe when the beta came out they said 768mb would work, but at least 1gb is best.

Plus, moar RAM doesn't really make ur comp run faster, it just allows it to have more open at once, 4GB might be overkill, I have 2GB in my xp box, and it's fine.

RAM speed is crucial in determining how useful it is in improving speed, for the record.

**SporkV** · 02-02-2010, 01:27 PM

Yes, but simply adding more ram won't speed up your computer unless you have alot open at once.
A 3GHz quad-core proc with 2 GB of RAM will run much faster than a 2.66GHz Pentium D with 4 GB of RAM.

Andrew · 02-02-2010, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TFK14

Yes, but simply adding more ram won't speed up your computer unless you have alot open at once.
A 3GHz quad-core proc with 2 GB of RAM will run much faster than a 2.66GHz Pentium D with 4 GB of RAM.

In practice, yes, but in theory I would have to ask you what the FSB speed is on the generic quad core to decide if your statement is true.

A 400mhz FSB speed will not compete with the Pentium D, which is 1066mhz if I remember correctly.

EDIT - Really I am nitpicking for fun, don't be offended.

Bryan · 02-02-2010, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TFK14

Yes, but simply adding more ram won't speed up your computer unless you have alot open at once.
A 3GHz quad-core proc with 2 GB of RAM will run much faster than a 2.66GHz Pentium D with 4 GB of RAM.

everytime I've added RAM to my computer it has improved performance of the whole thing.

***BillSPrestonEsq*** · 02-02-2010, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gustin

Sorry, but you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

Also, Win 95 was 32bit.

Didn't 3.11 have a 32 bit mode of sorts? I seem to recall that. But really, it has been a while since I used a 3.11 machine. I remember 16 bit being standard, but there was a way to run some 32 bit programs I think...

Just for the record I have been running vista and 7 on a 64 bit laptop. (And XP Gold was a 64 bit version of XP) That said, I really haven't had any major benefits from a 64 bit os over 32 and occasionally some frustrations as some programs do not run right. (Generally ones required by my school's IT department.)

I have 4 gig of ram, and I tax my laptop fairly heavily. While my laptop is set up fairly beefy, my desktop dvr could take out a planet or two.

I have never had anything but heat issues with my laptop and probably the video cable in the hinge will be the first thing to go. (isn't it always?)

Bus speed, ram, etc are all useful in guessing at speeds, but really, your slowest component is what determines the overall speed.

And aren't DDR 2 and 3 subtypes of SDRAM?

I seem to remember theoretically you used to be able to bog a machine down with enough ram, but that was with immense amounts when processors were less powerful than most of our phones. I am not sure it is even possible anymore. Also, in my experience, the usual bog of a laptop is in the 5400 rpm hdd that it often comes with, with usually a fairly slow read speed.

My next laptop I think I will put an SSD drive in a loaded laptop.

Bryan, once or twice I have seen a machine where adding ram didn't help. Mostly in the win2k days. IIRC, the amount of ram it actually used maxed out at 256 or 512 meg. Thus, putting in 2 gig really didn't help, and I saw people do that. In some cases it slowed the machines a little. But then, that is essentially running an obsolete os on too modern hardware, and things start to act weird then.

I doubt I would notice a speed increase on my desktop if I went from 8 gig of ram to 16. I very rarely max the ram out. (I am not sure if I have) Thus, you do reach a point of diminishing return, where the benefits are in a set of circumstances that you may never cause. In my mind at least, that is when you will not see an increase.

**Gustin** · 02-02-2010, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

Didn't 3.11 have a 32 bit mode of sorts? I seem to recall that. But really, it has been a while since I used a 3.11 machine. I remember 16 bit being standard, but there was a way to run some 32 bit programs I think...

Yeah 3.11 had support for certain 32 bit functions (I think they had something to do with file management, but I'm not really sure).

Andrew · 02-02-2010, 03:33 PM

I am far too young to weigh in on windows 3.11 discussion. While that was my first OS, I was 5 at the time.

Cam42 · 02-02-2010, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoMoreSilence

First off, if you have a laptop, don't use the 64-bit version. You'll blow your laptop. Period. Even if you have a 64 bit processor, laptops don't have much ram. They claim to have "4 GB RAM" but that's SD RAM, which has a slower transfer rate than regular RAM. Trust me, just do the 32-bit version. The only thing that would make the 64-bit version worthwhile is a 64-bit quad core processor and 8GB RAM. Period. That's the only thing that would make it perform better.
32-bit is perfectly fine.
I remember when windows 95 was the first 16-bit OS. it was pretty sweet at the time :P

It's been said, but this is complete BS. 64-bit laptops are completely possible, and you can get laptops with 8GB of DDR3 RAM (Macbook pro) and 64-bit core2duos.