# Windows 7 64-bit.



## Shino (Mar 11, 2009)

Not a help request, but a question: is anybody else using the 64-bit version of the Windows 7 beta? Or just using 64-bit OS at all?

I'm amazed with how much better CS:S and my other programs run, versus the 32-bit OS, even though it's a 32-bit program. (Valve has already made a 64-bit build of HL2, I wish they'd update CS.)
Up to this point, I had wiped my Vista Ultimate x64 install for a x32 install, because almost nothing would run on it. They seemed to have fixed that with 7.

Granted, I'm a computer engineer, so I've got the expertise to go with it, but I'd be intrested to know if anybody else out there has gone 64.


----------



## Kryn (Mar 11, 2009)

I've been using Vista Home-Premium 64bit since last June. It's definitely much faster than 32bit when using basic stuff. Honestly I don't have much to compare it too since while my last computer was 32bit windows xp, my new computer is just so much faster I've never been able to see the "slower" performance everyone claims vista produces. Also 4GB of ram helps


----------



## An Theris (Mar 11, 2009)

I'm running XP 64 on my Desktop, mainly because of the 4GB RAM. Performance is ok, so I'm satisfied. Compatibility issues are quite seldom, and when they occur, there's always VirtualBox ^^.

Might update to Windows 7 x64, once it is available on MSDNAA...


----------



## ToeClaws (Mar 11, 2009)

Not that Windows is really much of a _real_ OS, but I'm running 32-bit XP on the laptop and main.  

The laptop, a Compaq R3000 cannot properly run anything but XP (trust me, I've tried every Linux and BSD, and even Windows 2000 doesn't work properly on it).  XP 64 bit is garbage, so I'm stuck with 32 bit.

On the main, I had 64 bit Ubuntu, but the AGP Radeon HD8350 I stuck in about a year ago is not properly supported by the Linux ATI drivers.  Hell, it's not even "officially" supported by the Windows drivers. :/  Since the system is used 90% of the time for games, it's been relegated to 32-bit XP.

At work, I'm running 32-bit Linux and Windows because 2 of the 3 systems I have aren't 64 bit.  The one that is I need to convert to 64 bit if I ever get some spare cycles at work.


----------



## net-cat (Mar 11, 2009)

On the Ubuntu video drivers thing: They don't update them unless there's a security flaw discovered. You have to wait for the next version of Ubuntu, or figure out how to install the driver package yourself.

As for the question...

The computer I'm on now has always had 64-bit. XP x64 originally, Ubuntu x64 now.

For a long time, my server ran FreeBSD x64. But that system died, so now it runs FreeBSD 32-bit. (P4...)

Other computers are 32-bit because they don't have the processor.


----------



## feilen (Mar 11, 2009)

Isn't minumum ram for 64 bit 8 GB? I could buy that, but then I wouldn't be able to do my favored quad-boot.


----------



## Rayne (Mar 11, 2009)

feilen said:


> Isn't minumum ram for 64 bit 8 GB?



No.


----------



## net-cat (Mar 11, 2009)

No... I did XP x64 with 2GB RAM just fine.


----------



## ToeClaws (Mar 11, 2009)

net-cat said:


> On the Ubuntu video drivers thing: They don't update them unless there's a security flaw discovered. You have to wait for the next version of Ubuntu, or figure out how to install the driver package yourself.



Aye, I know - which is frustrating.  But given the lack of support and updates for even the XP drivers, I wouldn't have dreamt they'd ever make a Linux fix anyway.  The Radeon 3850 was both a good and bad thing - good in that it is very powerful and very overclockable, giving my ageing AGP platform one last lease on life, but it's also a bastard child in ATI's eyes in that it was never meant to exist.  Had I known I'd run into all the issues I did, I probably wouldn't have gotten it. :/

I know with the right amount of tweaking, I might be able to get the fglx and stuff to work, but it comes purely down to time - I don't have a lot to spare.  The main PC's primary function is games, secondary is photoshop, so it's just not worth the effort to spend a lot of time trying to make it work when it's just gonna get booted into XP to play a game or fix up some pictures from the camera. 

Pitty too 'cause Ubuntu x64 ran SO good on it.  Ah well, whenever I build a replacement, I can go back (or with luck, maybe Ubuntu 9.04 will support the HD3850).   Will probably also buy a new laptop in a year or less, and just gonna go straight for a Linux model.


----------



## dietrc70 (Mar 11, 2009)

I have 8GB and Vista 64 and Windows 7 64 on another partition.

I have noticed that Windows 7 seems noticeably faster than Vista.  I've not going to actually switch now because some of my software doesn't like W7.


----------



## Irreverent (Mar 12, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> Will probably also buy a new laptop in a year or less, and just gonna go straight for a Linux model.



Define that.  Do you mean a LT that is actually vendor certified to run linux?


----------



## ToeClaws (Mar 12, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> Define that.  Do you mean a LT that is actually vendor certified to run linux?



Aye sir.  There are a number of vendors that sell'em running Linux right from the shop.  Most laptops will run Linux fine, but there has always been the issue of some being such an oddball proprietary design that alternate OS's are problematic (like my old laptop), so would much rather avoid that and get something I know works 100% from the start.

Some Linux Laptop vendors:

http://system76.com/

http://eracks.com/

http://laclinux.com/en/Linux_Computers

http://www.linuxcertified.com/linux_laptops.html

http://www.eurocom.ca/


----------



## Irreverent (Mar 12, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> There are a number of vendors that sell'em running Linux right from the shop.  Most laptops will run Linux fine, but there has always been the issue of some being such an oddball proprietary design that alternate OS's are problematic (like my old laptop), so would much rather avoid that and get something I know works 100% from the start.



Yeah, that was sort of my impression too....that most LT's would run a disti out of the box.  Interesting links by the way.  The e76 pangoline looks interesting.


----------



## Shino (Mar 12, 2009)

feilen said:


> Isn't minumum ram for 64 bit 8 GB? I could buy that, but then I wouldn't be able to do my favored quad-boot.


 
No, there's no minimum RAM requirements besides what the OS needs itsself.

The RAM thing springs from the fact that the maximum amount a 32-bit OS can handle is slightly less than 4GB, whereas the theoretical maximum for a 64-bit OS is 2 TB. (<-- That's Terrabytes, 1024GB. Yeah, it's a lot.)

I'm running my system on 2GB. Actually I'm dualbooting Vista Ultimate 32-bit (also known as x86) and Windows 7 64-bit. I haven't booted to my Vista drive in almost 2 months, though, since I can't find a reason to. 7 is infinitely faster (even with the 32-bit version I tried), and all of my software works just fine (if not works better) on 7 than Vista.

Don't get me wrong, being the MS whore I am, I loved Vista, but 7 is better. Hands down. I just hope MS is smart enough to actually *not* release 5 different flavors.


----------



## net-cat (Mar 12, 2009)

Shino said:


> The RAM thing springs from the fact that the maximum amount a 32-bit OS can handle is slightly less than 4GB, whereas the theoretical maximum for a 64-bit OS is 2 TB. (<-- That's Terrabytes, 1024GB. Yeah, it's a lot.)


Uh, that might be the maximum Microsoft has imposed on Windows, but the maximum theoretical address space for 64-bit architecture (without bank switching) is 16 EB. (16,777,216 TB)



Shino said:


> I just hope MS is smart enough to actually *not* release 5 different flavors.


They will. Microsoft has said they will and I have no doubt in my mind that they will follow through. Why sell the same thing to everyone for $150 when you can sell it to a few people for $400?

To their credit, though, they're downplaying the versions that aren't "Home" and "Professional," just like they did with XP. (Have you ever seen XP Starter Edition, Tablet PC Edition, Media Center Edition or Professional x64 Edition marketed aggressively?)


----------



## Shino (Mar 12, 2009)

net-cat said:


> Uh, that might be the maximum Microsoft has imposed on Windows, but the maximum theoretical address space for 64-bit architecture (without bank switching) is 16 EB. (16,777,216 TB)


 
Exobytes? Really? Wow. My bad. Don't feel like seding a TB or two my way, do you?

Anywho, I did a little bit of digging, and while there are going to be many versions, this time they're simplifing it (sort of). Most of the flavors are going to be enterprise and application-specific versions. The two that the public will see is something along the lines of Home Basic, and something roughly equivalent to Ultimate, as Home premium, business and ultimate should really all be the same thing. I hope they stick with that (remember XP home and Pro?) and not muddy the waters like they did with Vista.
Hell, the Signature edition of Ultimate I got didn't even say upgrade on the box, though it was.


----------



## net-cat (Mar 12, 2009)

Shino said:


> Exobytes? Really? Wow. My bad. Don't feel like seding a TB or two my way, do you?


Yes, exobytes. 2^64 bytes. Though modern x86-64 processors are only implementing a 48-bit address space (256 TB) in order to save a few million transistors because their designers know we won't be getting anywhere near the 16EB for a decade or two. The x86-64 spec actually takes this into account, incorporating a standard way to specify invalid addresses in the 64-bit address space.

But that's virtual address space, anyway. The x86-64 spec is limited to 4 PB of RAM, with current implementations generally being limited to 1 TB.

The 2 TB thing isn't a terrible limit to impose, though I hope it was one imposed by the marketing guys rather than the engineers. (Maybe I can drag nrr or Pi in here to answer that for me...)




Shino said:


> Anywho, I did a little bit of digging, and while there are going to be many versions, this time they're simplifing it (sort of). Most of the flavors are going to be enterprise and application-specific versions. The two that the public will see is something along the lines of Home Basic, and something roughly equivalent to Ultimate, as Home premium, business and ultimate should really all be the same thing. I hope they stick with that (remember XP home and Pro?) and not muddy the waters like they did with Vista.


Yeah. "Home Premium" and "Professional" are going to be the editions they market, from what I've heard. 7 Home Premium is basically still Vista Home Premium and 7 Professional is that plus everything Vista Business had. (Unlike Vista Business, which stripped out all the Media Center components.) That should cover the vast majority of consumer usage cases, too. 

I propose the following renames for the other editions:
7 Starter: 7 Funny Joke Edition
7 Home Basic: 7 XP Home Edition.
7 Enterprise: 7 Pirated Edition
7 Ultimate: 7 Bragging Rights Edition or 7 "Bling" Edition


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 12, 2009)

Right now I'm using Vista Premium x64, I will be swapping to Windows 7 x64 not long after release, depending on how it goes.


----------



## hollowx64 (Aug 7, 2009)

win7 7600 x64 (I used 7000,7077,7264 also in x64 edition ^^)

a lot better than xp x64 and vista x64


----------



## xjrfang (Aug 10, 2009)

used to use xp pro 64 bit, but updated to vista 64 for dx10

for a while i was dual booting vista and xp, using vista only for dx10 games

but now that vista has actually become more stable and less of a hassle, its the only OS i have installed now.

im not ready for an other POC windows (7), all they need to do is make a dx10 for windows xp 64 bit and id be the happiest pc gamer in the world


----------



## Aurali (Aug 10, 2009)

Shino said:


> Not a help request, but a question: is anybody else using the 64-bit version of the Windows 7 beta? Or just using 64-bit OS at all?
> 
> I'm amazed with how much better CS:S and my other programs run, versus the 32-bit OS, even though it's a 32-bit program. (Valve has already made a 64-bit build of HL2, I wish they'd update CS.)
> Up to this point, I had wiped my Vista Ultimate x64 install for a x32 install, because almost nothing would run on it. They seemed to have fixed that with 7.
> ...



I am on Win7 64bit. Won't be going back any time soon nope.


----------



## Duality Jack (Aug 10, 2009)

64 bit Graphics based version of Ubuntu modded to the fucking hell, I ahve been busy Its a audio studio build


----------



## CyberFoxx (Aug 10, 2009)

I used to run Gentoo/amd64, but since I couldn't get my "new" Radeon X1600XT to work in it, closed or opensource drivers, I killed it and my XP install and switched to Server 2008. I did originally do a 64-bit install, but since 64-bit, TV cards and IRBlasters don't get along, I had to switch back to 32-bit.

I haven't noticed a speed difference at all though. (With Gentoo/amd64, it was quite noticeable with some stuff.) I don't really need 64-bit anyway, only got 1.5GB of RAM and a Celeron D 360 (3.46Ghz).


----------



## Internet Police Chief (Aug 10, 2009)

I'm on Win 7 x64. Couldn't be happier with this OS.


----------



## Sassy (Aug 10, 2009)

Nowadays you'd pretty much need to be a retard to not run a 64bit OS on any current computer. And given CPU's as far back as the original Athlon 64 support 64bit; there's really not much excuse *not* to


----------



## AshleyAshes (Aug 10, 2009)

Shino said:


> The RAM thing springs from the fact that the maximum amount a 32-bit OS can handle is slightly less than 4GB, whereas the theoretical maximum for a 64-bit OS is 2 TB. (<-- That's Terrabytes, 1024GB. Yeah, it's a lot.)


 
the 4GB thing is a Windows XP and other OS thing. However it is not a limitation of a 32Bit CPU. Since the introduction of the Pentium Pro CPU, the physical memory address space has been 36 bits. This means that any 32bit OS pretty much since 1995 could have addressed up to 64GB, not 4GB. However every individual process would be limited to a maximum of 4GB individually.

This is why there are plenty of 32bit OS's that support physical memory up to 64GB.

Are you SURE that you're a computer engineer?


----------



## Sassy (Aug 10, 2009)

Axshually; some 32bit OS's support up to 128GB of memory~


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 10, 2009)

Sassy said:


> Nowadays you'd pretty much need to be a retard to not run a 64bit OS on any current computer. And given CPU's as far back as the original Athlon 64 support 64bit; there's really not much excuse *not* to



there are still lots of CPUs that dont support 64bit, like most netbook CPUs. the intel atom N270 in my ideapad S10e for example has no intel 64 support. not that that verion of windows 7 x64 would run on it but you know what i mean


----------



## Sassy (Aug 10, 2009)

CaptainCool said:


> there are still lots of CPUs that dont support 64bit, like most netbook CPUs. the intel atom N270 in my ideapad S10e for example has no intel 64 support. not that that verion of windows 7 x64 would run on it but you know what i mean


Well; true ~ but the Atom N and Z series are being phased out in favour of the 200/300 which are all x64 compatible :3


----------



## ToeClaws (Aug 10, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> the 4GB thing is a Windows XP and other OS thing. However it is not a limitation of a 32Bit CPU. Since the introduction of the Pentium Pro CPU, the physical memory address space has been 36 bits. This means that any 32bit OS pretty much since 1995 could have addressed up to 64GB, not 4GB. However every individual process would be limited to a maximum of 4GB individually.
> 
> This is why there are plenty of 32bit OS's that support physical memory up to 64GB.
> 
> Are you SURE that you're a computer engineer?



Not sure that's entirely true.  The 36 bit memory extensions were originally only given to the Pentium Pro and later the "Xeon" versions of the P6 architecture.  I thought they continued that with the Netburst architecture as well.


----------



## Sassy (Aug 10, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> Not sure that's entirely true.  The 36 bit memory extensions were originally only given to the Pentium Pro and later the "Xeon" versions of the P6 architecture.  I thought they continued that with the Netburst architecture as well.


"PAE is provided by Intel Pentium Pro (and above) CPUs - including all later Pentium-series processors except the 400 MHz bus versions of the Pentium M, as well as by other processors such as the AMDAthlon and later AMD processor models with similar or more advanced versions of the same architecture."

>*including all later Pentium-series processors*


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 10, 2009)

Sassy said:


> Well; true ~ but the Atom N and Z series are being phased out in favour of the 200/300 which are all x64 compatible :3



indeed^^ but i dont think a x64 OS is really necessary on a netbook. its not like you use it as your main computer and run multiple programs on it at once. im more than happy with the x86 version^^ it needs less space and less RAM, i think its pretty ideal for netbooks :B


----------



## ToeClaws (Aug 10, 2009)

Sassy said:


> "PAE is provided by Intel Pentium Pro (and above) CPUs - including all later Pentium-series processors except the 400 MHz bus versions of the Pentium M, as well as by other processors such as the AMDAthlon and later AMD processor models with similar or more advanced versions of the same architecture."
> 
> >*including all later Pentium-series processors*



Sweet.   I had no idea.


----------



## net-cat (Aug 10, 2009)

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/pae_os.mspx

Oh, look. PAE kind of sucks.


----------



## Irreverent (Aug 10, 2009)

net-cat said:


> http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/pae_os.mspx
> 
> Oh, look. PAE kind of sucks.



In the sense that its pretty much the 2009 version of HIMEM.SYS, yes. Yes it does.


----------



## ToeClaws (Aug 10, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> In the sense that its pretty much the 2009 version of HIMEM.SYS, yes. Yes it does.



*laughs* Hey now, that was the only hope for using the extra 384K of RAM in my 286 back in the day.


----------



## net-cat (Aug 10, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> In the sense that its pretty much the 2009 version of HIMEM.SYS, yes. Yes it does.


Ah, but it's implemented in hardware now! That makes it _so_ much better.


----------



## Irreverent (Aug 10, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> *laughs* Hey now, that was the only hope for using the extra 384K of RAM in my 286 back in the day.



I only glanced at the PAE spec, but its pretty much the same thing, just bigger memory spaces mapped by an OS API/driver/shim that can access the hardware to "fool" the application.  



net-cat said:


> Ah, but it's implemented in hardware now! That makes it _so_ much better.



Quicker.....not better!


----------



## net-cat (Aug 10, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> I only glanced at the PAE spec, but its pretty much the same thing, just bigger memory spaces mapped by an OS API/driver/shim that can access the hardware to "fool" the application.


The spec contains something called "TLB shootdown."

Which does exactly what you think it does. It marks your entire cache as invalid when you switch pages.

PAE is a horrible, performance murdering hack that should only be used if you have no other option. (Doesn't matter the OS.)



Irreverent said:


> Quicker.....not better!


So, you're telling me that a 3.8 GHz Pentium 4 _isn't_ better than a 2.13 GHz Core 2 Duo? MAH WORLD VIEW.

(And yes, I _still_ get people coming into the shop asking for Pentium D over Core 2 Duo because it has a higher clock speed. Way to dig your own grave, Intel.)


----------



## Aurali (Aug 10, 2009)

net-cat said:


> (And yes, I _still_ get people coming into the shop asking for Pentium D over Core 2 Duo because it has a higher clock speed. Way to dig your own grave, Intel.)



Bwahahah.. your not the only one.


----------



## WarMocK (Aug 10, 2009)

net-cat said:


> So, you're telling me that a 3.8 GHz Pentium 4 _isn't_ better than a 2.13 GHz Core 2 Duo? MAH WORLD VIEW.
> 
> (And yes, I _still_ get people coming into the shop asking for Pentium D over Core 2 Duo because it has a higher clock speed. Way to dig your own grave, Intel.)



*mount /dev/head /mnt/desk -o force*
xD xD xD


----------



## ToeClaws (Aug 10, 2009)

net-cat said:


> PAE is a horrible, performance murdering hack that should only be used if you have no other option. (Doesn't matter the OS.)



Aye - and back when it was paired with the P6 architecture, it was even worse when you went dual processor.  The bus was never properly designed to use multiple processors and only ever got about 40% efficiency out of the second one once you took into account all the bus, memory and IO slowdowns.  Pair that with going over 4 gigs of RAM and you had a very expensive waste of hardware in your rack.  Crazy thing though is that they still sold because people saw big numbers and were too bedazzled to check out the actual performance which brings me to your next point...



net-cat said:


> So, you're telling me that a 3.8 GHz Pentium 4 _isn't_ better than a 2.13 GHz Core 2 Duo? MAH WORLD VIEW.
> 
> (And yes, I _still_ get people coming into the shop asking for Pentium D over Core 2 Duo because it has a higher clock speed. Way to dig your own grave, Intel.)



Oh man, yes - even after YEARS of CPU evolution and changes, people still can't grasp the simple concept that MHz or GHz is really nothing to do with the overall performance of the system.  They just can't wrap their heads around the concept of operations per second.  I try to explain it in terms of simple things people can relate to like "Imagine a runner with short legs and he's moving them really really fast - that's the Pentium D.  Now imagine another guy who's like 3 times the height of the first one with big, long legs.  He's not moving them very fast by comparison, but he's striding easily past the other guy.  That's the Core2 Quad, get it?"  Sometimes even that doesn't work. >_<


----------



## Irreverent (Aug 10, 2009)

net-cat said:


> The spec contains something called "TLB shootdown."
> 
> Which does exactly what you think it does. It marks your entire cache as invalid when you switch pages.



Yeah, I saw that.  It seems a rather simplistic approach, sort of Gordian-knot.



> So, you're telling me that a 3.8 GHz Pentium 4 _isn't_ better than a 2.13 GHz Core 2 Duo? MAH WORLD VIEW.



:shock: What is this Intel thing you speak of?  In my world, its all NetLogic, SpansLogic, Broadcomm.....ASICS rock!


----------



## ArielMT (Aug 10, 2009)

WarMocK said:


> *mount /dev/head /mnt/desk -o force*
> xD xD xD



sync; sync; sync


----------



## net-cat (Aug 10, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> :shock: What is this Intel thing you speak of?  In my world, its all NetLogic, SpansLogic, Broadcomm.....ASICS rock!


Can it run Pong?


----------



## Irreverent (Aug 10, 2009)

net-cat said:


> Can it run Pong?



It'll run PONG-packets.....

(we really should find a mod or admin to clean up this totally derailed thread, eh?  Carenath!  )


----------



## Carenath (Aug 10, 2009)

Sassy said:


> Nowadays you'd pretty much need to be a retard to not run a 64bit OS on any current computer. And given CPU's as far back as the original Athlon 64 support 64bit; there's really not much excuse *not* to


32bit still 'just works' so people stick with it, as the OS goes. Give people a strong reason to upgrade, taking into account your average joe-soap computer user, and people will switch eventually.

Most of the applications I use, can't take advantage of a dual-core CPU, let alone a QuadCore one, making the purchase of a QuadCore system a little redundant for the moment, to say nothing of the fact that my applications are all 32bit, and the vendors dont feel the need to rebuild them as 64bit apps. About the only thing I do have, that can take good advantage of 64bit, is the MySQL database server.



WarMocK said:


> *mount /dev/head /mnt/desk -o force*


wash, rince, repeat.



ArielMT said:


> sync; sync; sync






Irreverent said:


> It'll run PONG-packets.....
> 
> (we really should find a mod or admin to clean up this totally derailed thread, eh?  Carenath!  )


Says the Supermoderator, replying to the Administrator


----------



## net-cat (Aug 10, 2009)

And this thread was a necromancy thread to boot!

There is, however, some relevant information (32-bit vs 64-bit) being posted, so I'll let it live.


----------

