OT: Upgrading to Windows 7

I'm posting this here since I trust your input the best when it comes to PC decision making.

I'm upgrading my PC's to Windows 7 Home Premium. I've pre-ordered the upgrade. My question is, which version should I install this time? 32 bit or 64 bit? I'm running 64 bit CPU's. Also, if I've preordered Windows, how do I request a 64 bit version after I receive my upgrade? And would I be able to upgrade over my existing 32 bit copy of Vista or would it require a clean install.

Thanks!

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Jim Dean

If you plan to have more than about 3.5G of RAM, then you'll HAVE TO use 64-bit.

64-bit is rapidly becoming the standard. OS's supporting it from MS have been around for many years, notably including XP and Vista.

I'd suggest that you start with that. Besides, as software comes out which has 64bit optimization avail (hopefully L4 will), you'll benefit from improved performance.

Nathan Parker

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/4300#Comment_4300

If you plan to have more than about 3.5G of RAM, then you'll HAVE TO use 64-bit.

64-bit is rapidly becoming the standard. OS's supporting it from MS have been around for many years, notably including XP and Vista.

I'd suggest that you start with that. Besides, as software comes out which has 64bit optimization avail (hopefully L4 will), you'll benefit from improved performance.

I'll have 4GB of RAM, so I probably qualify for it. Thanks for the info!

Dave Hooton

And would I be able to upgrade over my existing 32 bit copy of Vista or would it require a clean install.

You can't upgrade from 32-bit to 64-bit. The only consideration for not doing a clean install is whether you have, or can obtain, the drivers for all devices on the PC e.g. webcam, PC card, sound card, video card, particularly for 64-bit Win7. Because you may end up with no device or Standard VGA! I had to purchase new sound and video cards for my desktop.

Don Awalt

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/4381#Comment_4381

I am running Windows 7 Release Candidate on a laptop and desktop and it is worlds better than Vista. I definitely concur that 64 bit is the way to go, the server version of Windows 7 (which is called Windows Serer 2008 R2) is only being issued as 64 bit so the writing is on the wall that 32 bit will be very obsolete.

Where 64 bit will really be almost necessary is on the multi-core systems. I don't know what your computer specs are or how old your computer is, but if for example it is a Core 2 Duo there are actually 2 CPU "cores" in the system, so two threads, or execution paths, can execute at the same time. I have a 4 core desktop and an 8 core desktop, you will see 16 and more in the next couple of years, as the industry can no longer increase the speed of CPU chips like they have in the past, so processing capability will be increased through multi-core systems. In 10 years we will all likely have 64 core systems on our desktops!

Anyway - if for example you have a 4 core system, each core can run it's own "program" simultaneously. That means each core will be consuming a lot of its own memory (will be sharing some memory too, that's another complicated story). So if today 1 CPU could use 4 GB of memory, what do you need for a 4 core system? Yep - 16 GB. If you have a 4 core system and really expect it to perform well, it won't with minimal memory as all 4 cores will use up that pittance of memory.

And you have a lot going on in your computer - on my laptop right now I hit Ctrl-Shift-Esc and I see at the bottom of the dialog box I have 75 processes running right now! So there will be things to run on each core.

32 bit computers can only address 4 GB of memory maximum, so now you can see why, with the direction of multi-core CPUs, 32 bit will be soon dead as the architecture will no longer be able to support the memory needed.

In general, get as many cores on a computer as you can afford. Try to buy about 4GB of memory per core (memory prices are coming down). Is your 64 bit computer multi-core? If so can you increase the memory?

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/4405#Comment_4405

Anyway - if for example you have a 4 core system, each core can run it's own "program" simultaneously. That means each core will be consuming a lot of its own memory (will be sharing some memory too, that's another complicated story). So if today 1 CPU could use 4 GB of memory, what do you need for a 4 core system? Yep - 16 GB.

That's a little misleading as cores do not "consume" main memory. They need to address main memory during execution of a process or thread but only consume the amount of data and/or set of instructions being held in a L2/L3 cache of 1 MB to 8 MB or more. So 4 cores can execute 4 processes simultaneously provided they fit in main memory of whatever size the user can afford - say 6 GB for a 64-bit OS. If you run large processes then 4 may require 16 GB or more (a 32-bit process in a 64-bit OS is allocated a maximum of 4 GB but 64-bit processes can be much larger).

There's little use getting an 8 core processor if you only execute 4 processes simultaneously unless you know that they are multi-threaded and can occupy 8 cores! And its doubtful that the average user would have multiple processes larger than 2 GB.

(‾◡◝)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/4414#Comment_4414

Just some quick observations re: Win7 and multiple cores:

1) I read somewhere that MS expects that more 64 bit installations will be made for Win7 than 32. Can't cite the source ... it was just an offhand comment in the article that I read. Nevertheless, I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be true.

2) I believe that the Win7 DVD for consumers will contain both 32 and 64 bit versions and that you can jump back and forth (with a fresh install, of course). Again, I cannot cite the source for this but I do know that when I placed a pre-order for Win7 from Newegg there was absolutely no 32 v. 64 bit selection criteria.

3) FWIW: On the current Intel desktops 8 cores are "created" by invoking Hyper-Threading in the BIOS (if it is available). I have seen several forum posts that suggest that switching HT on actually slows down the processor throughput slightly. Since only the very top end, professional types of software (typically graphics, rendering, etc.) are currently making any use of 8 cores, I would be inclined to leave HT off. If I were buying a new system and money was tight, I would opt for a fast hard drive(s) instead of spending the $$ on a CPU with 8 core capability.

Don Awalt

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/4430#Comment_4430

FYI Hyper threading and multi core are NOT the same thing. While both give the ability to execute mutliple programs simultaneously, hyperthreading does so by creating a virtual second processor - resources are shared between the two processors, 1 being real and one being virtual. In this scenario, cache, registers, and execution units to execute two separate programs are shared resources, so depending on the characteristics of the program you are running, performance could suffer as 1 CPU waits for the other. Hyper threading is an older technology that I am pretty sure has gone away for new CPU motherboards.

Multi-core however are truly complete separate processing units, with nothing shared that is intrinsic to the CPU (of course they could compete for disk accesses, memory accesses, etc.) Multi-core gives much closer to full 100% scalability where HT does not.

Don Awalt

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/4414#Comment_4414

My point on memory Dave was more processes running simultaneously will use more memory - and there will be more swapping to disk and memory starvation otherwise. I didn't suggest buying an 8 core system, I said they are coming and that, and the proper sizing of their memory requirements, is the reason the industry is moving to 64 bit and 32 bit will be gone.

I will say even the OS is getting much more aggressive in its use of memory, with the 70-90 processes running on EVERY computer running a later version of Windows, there is lots of need for memory (especially with anti-virus scanning, anti-spam, personal firewalls, and the like). You can do a Google search and see all the hits on Vista and its "large" memory usage, in reality it's caching a lot of stuff in memory that may be needed by all these processes. Peole are seeing 8GB and more being used by Vista if they have the memory installed. That's just making good use of memory if it's not needed for anything else, and all future versions of Windows will continue to do this.

People assume that only 3-4 things are running because that's what THEY have running. Nothing could be further from the truth.

(‾◡◝)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/4454#Comment_4454

Don,

Not to be contentious (I would have asked if you were KJVO/TR if I wanted to be that way [;)]), you are correct except that HT is back on the new i7 cpu's ...

Don Awalt

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/4468#Comment_4468

No problem, I said I wasn't sure. But it's not a true second processor like multi-core is. Shared resources internal to the CPU will decrease the scaling (I think I read somewhere that 2 hyperthreaded CPUs are something like 1.4 CPUs in actual performance).

Here's a recent article on whether to go 64 bit with Windows 7...

http://www.techspot.com/guides/177-windows-install-32bit-64bit/

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/4456#Comment_4456

My point on memory Dave was more processes running simultaneously will use more memory - and there will be more swapping to disk and memory starvation otherwise. I didn't suggest buying an 8 core system, I said they are coming and that, and the proper sizing of their memory requirements, is the reason the industry is moving to 64 bit and 32 bit will be gone.

OK, use vs consume. But I was suggesting that 8 cores can be OTT for the average user even if they can afford it!

People assume that only 3-4 things are running because that's what THEY have running. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Yes, but we had to simplify our arithmetic somewhere! I've got 52 processes running 690 threads in Windows 7 64-bit RC1. I'm running 5x 32-bit applications but only AVG, Libronix, Firefox, and Live Mail could be accused of doing simultaneous background processing whilst I'm writing this and consuming no more than 8% of my dual-core CPU. Of the 2 GB installed memory nearly 1 GB is available (not being used) - not bad eh!? 4 cores could be an advantage when I start heavy searches in Libronix.

Don Awalt

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/4487#Comment_4487

"640K ought to be enough for anybody."

-Attributed to Gates in 1981. Gates considered the IBM PC's
640kB program memory a significant breakthrough over 8-bit systems that
were typically limited to 64kB

"I have to say in 1981 making those decisions I felt like I was
providing enough freedom for ten years, that is the move from 64k to
640k felt like something that would last a great deal of time"

-Bill Gates, 1999

The industry has proven that if hardware exists software will use it and average consumer will buy it. The computing performance has more than doubled on average per year since 1981. Similar growth has occurred in disk space, memory usage, network bandwidth, and display resolution/speed. At no time did we experience a glut of hardware capacity that was not used, people buy at the optimum price point and that price point has continued to buy more and more capacity.

History teaches us that "I can't see much more use for my computer than what I do today" is short-sighted and largely incorrect.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/4508#Comment_4508

History teaches us that "I can't see much more use for my computer than what I do today" is short-sighted and largely incorrect.

Don,

I would appreciate that you clearly indicate which response your statement applies to. As it stands you seem to be taking a remark of mine totally out of context.

Thanks,

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/4508#Comment_4508

The industry has proven that if hardware exists software will use it and average consumer will buy it. The computing performance has more than doubled on average per year since 1981. Similar growth has occurred in disk space, memory usage, network bandwidth, and display resolution/speed. At no time did we experience a glut of hardware capacity that was not used, people buy at the optimum price point and that price point has continued to buy more and more capacity.

History teaches us that "I can't see much more use for my computer than what I do today" is short-sighted and largely incorrect.

So very true. It was't very long ago I would start a search in Logos and go to the kitchen for another cup of coffee and a "howdy" to my wife. [C] Now I actually call her on my cell phone and she delivers my coffee to me -- How she fondly remembers the old days.

My difficulty is keeping up with the technology. I've just lost interest in the hardware and tweeking. I'm grateful to JimDean & the rest of you guys for sharing these details and helping me avoid uneducated expenditures.