for dell optiplex gx620, pentium d, which windows version is better? 32x or

[moghbr]

I do not have any special applications that is requiring windows 64x to be installed under it.

All applications are 32x.

But I am asking for which one is more stable for the long run usage?

[manroweb]

How much RAM does it have installed? and please give details of the exact CPU.

[ahhell]

I don't think that the Pentium D is a 64bit processor.

[moghbr]

It is including 3 GB Ram DDR2 and yes it has the ability to install 64x.

But I do not know which windows is better for the long run usage because I hate windows when it is starting to crash or machine became slow and need a fresh windows installation.

Processor Intel® Pentium® D CPU 2.80GHz, 2793 Mhz, 2 Core(s), 2 Logical Processor(s) 
BIOS Version/Date Dell Inc. A11, 11/30/2006 
SMBIOS Version 2.3 
Installed Physical Memory (RAM) 3.00 GB 

[majortom1981]

I would install 64 bit version of windows 7 . I would only install the 32bit version if you have 16 bit programs that need to be run.

[Xerino]

The Pentium D doesnt have the 64 support, that started with the Core 2 Duo I believe, stick with 3GB of RAM and 32 bit applications for now.

[Roger H. Veteran]

The Pentium D doesnt have the 64 support, that started with the Core 2 Duo I believe, stick with 3GB of RAM and 32 bit applications for now.

That makes no sense as what's when he wants to put some more RAM in there which will require a reinstall of the OS?

 

Just use 64bit now and you'll be better off. There's no benefit to using 32bit now especially since your CPU supports 64bit.

[Xerino]

That makes no sense as what's when he wants to put some more RAM in there which will require a reinstall of the OS?

 

Just use 64bit now and you'll be better off. There's no benefit to using 32bit now especially since your CPU supports 64bit.

 

Technically it can support 64 bit, but in reality, its a 32 bit CPU that emulates 64 bit (EMT64 Instructions) its like people who call old pentium 4 HT a dual core CPU, but another problem he might face is finding 64 bit drivers for a system that old (yes the pentium D is an old CPU) and unless he wants to run more than 3.25GB if RAM, 32 bit is the way to go, its supported, and will be supported for a long time (atleast in the PC market, Apple killed it with Lion)

 

But in all reality, if you want to run a 64 bit system, I recommend hitting up eBay for a cheap Core 2 Duo CPU, then a 64 bit O/S might be a little more viable

[moghbr]

 

This is the cpuz result.

[moeburn]

Technically it can support 64 bit, but in reality, its a 32 bit CPU that emulates 64 bit (EMT64 Instructions) its like people who call old pentium 4 HT a dual core CPU, but another problem he might face is finding 64 bit drivers for a system that old (yes the pentium D is an old CPU) and unless he wants to run more than 3.25GB if RAM, 32 bit is the way to go, its supported, and will be supported for a long time (atleast in the PC market, Apple killed it with Lion)

 

But in all reality, if you want to run a 64 bit system, I recommend hitting up eBay for a cheap Core 2 Duo CPU, then a 64 bit O/S might be a little more viable

I don't think so... Where did you hear that EMT64 is an emulation of 64-bit?  According to Wiki, it's just Intel's old name for x86-64:

 

"Intel's name for this instruction set has changed several times. The name used at the IDF was CT (presumably for Clackamas Technology, another codename from an Oregon river); within weeks they began referring to it as IA-32e (for IA-32 extensions) and in March 2004 unveiled the "official" name EM64T (Extended Memory 64 Technology). In late 2006 Intel began instead using the name Intel 64 for its implementation, paralleling AMD's use of the name AMD64.^[26]"

 

The following processors implement the Intel 64 architecture:

• NetBurst microarchitecture
  • Xeon (all models since "Nocona")
  • Celeron (some models since "Prescott")
  • Pentium 4 (some models since "Prescott")
  • Pentium D
  • Pentium Extreme Edition
• Core microarchitecture
  • Xeon (all models since "Woodcrest")
  • Core 2 (including Mobile processors since "Merom")
  • Pentium Dual-Core (E2140, E2160, E2180, E2200, E2220, E5200, E5300, E5400, E6300, E6500, T2310, T2330, T2370, T2390, T3200 and T3400)
  • Celeron (Celeron 4x0; Celeron M 5xx; E3200, E3300, E3400)
• Atom microarchitecture
  • 200 series (not to be confused with the N200 series, widely used in netbooks)
  • 300 series
  • N4xx, N5xx series
  • Dxxx series
• Nehalem, Sandy Bridge, Ivy Bridge and Haswell microarchitectures
  • Core i3
  • Core i5
  • Core i7

 

@moghbr - 

 

"In CPU-Z, on the CPU tab, under the Instructions field, if any of the following are listed: AMD64, x86-x64 or EM64T, you have a 64-bit capable processor. "

 

OR

 

(In Windows 7) Press winkey+pause/break, or right click on My Computer and click properties.  Under "system type", it should tell you if you have a 32bit or 64bit capable processor (as well as whether your current OS is 32 or 64bit)

So yes, you have a 64-bit CPU.  I would recommend you install 64-bit, if for no other reason than because it is 32-bit plus a few extra features, that you might never use, but will not slow down your system whatsoever (if anything it will be slightly faster).  I have a netbook with only 1GB of RAM, but I chose to install the 64-bit version of Ubuntu, simply because I can.

 

[vcfan]

windows 8 64bit, you cant do better.

[moeburn]

windows 8 64bit, you cant do better.

 

Yeah, I gotta agree on that one.  Windows 8 is so damn fast and efficiently coded, its now competitive with the Linux distros designed for older hardware.  If your PC wasn't powerful enough to run Windows 7 without being sluggish, you should give Windows 8 a try anyway, since they actually made windows FASTER this version, not slower!

[moghbr]

 

This is a one of the computers of the dell gx620 set.

 

regarding windows 8 suggestion:- is it really that stable and fast because i was afraid to touch it or try it because it may screw my computers.

 

[Ulpian]

Use 32-bit, Win8 I suggest,

 

I heard, that 32bit apps, under Win 64bit, use 10% more memory.

[REM2000]

i would go for 32bit, youre not going to use more than 3GB RAM, 64bit does use slightly more memory and 32bit might have better supported drivers for your system (unless of course Dell have the x64 drivers on their web site). 

 

All of the apps you're going to run on the computer will be 32bit, 

[majortom1981]

I am running windows 7 64 bit on those same machines with no problem.

[moghbr]

actually i did not installed any drivers for the dell but just windows 7 and then windows updates go and update and setup all drivers and then you can see the full device manager like this:-

[Raa]

We've got a pile of those machines at work. They really do need to go out to pasture.

 

32bit if you must, but they won't perform "great" with Vista or above.

[majortom1981]

We've got a pile of those machines at work. They really do need to go out to pasture.

 

32bit if you must, but they won't perform "great" with Vista or above.

 

They need to go out because of the eventual motherboard capacitor issue, power supply dying issue, or horrid oem wd raptor drive problems but performance under windows 7 is not one of them.

[adam.mt]

There is no right or wrong answer.

 

64-bit is now the mainstream so you may wish to install due to that, but it doesn't really have any advantage that you will make use of due to just 3GB RAM. Performance wise isn't a differential. You may encounter slightly better driver support with 32-bit.

 

I'd say 32-bit since it has slightly lower memory use, but if you've gone with 64-bit then don't bother changing it now.

 

...But I am asking for which one is more stable for the long run usage?...

 

Stability is down to the drivers installed and not necessarily the bit-ness of Windows; if there is no driver problems with inbox (and Windows Update) drivers then it means the drivers will be better tested than if you had to hunt down working ones from random places on the web*. This will (in most situations) make your machine as stable as it can be. With a full driver set it makes no difference whether you run 32-bit or 64-bit.

 

...But I do not know which windows is better for the long run usage because I hate windows when it is starting to crash or machine became slow and need a fresh windows installation...

 

 

This again has nothing to do with the bitness of Windows. It will be due to some piece of software/device that you have installed (and/or badly removed). It is not a core problem of the Windows install - basically, what I'm saying is that if you have a setup that works well then it won't suddenly start crashing or running slow due to time passed or user level interaction. Any differential in how it runs will be down to what you've installed over time.

 

[* - if being pedantic then inbox and Windows Update drivers aren't always the best for every system; those by the system/chipset manufacturer may be. But for those not hugely technically like the original poster then it makes sense to stick to them]. 

[Raa]

They need to go out because of the eventual motherboard capacitor issue, power supply dying issue, or horrid oem wd raptor drive problems but performance under windows 7 is not one of them.

Caps is the main issue, most of ours are going/gone because of that. A few PSUs have died, but not a biggie. Didn't get raptors with ours and probably a good thing, way too much heat from that sort of drive to be putting in there anyway.

 

As for performance in Win 7? Average, at best. Fortunate that most of those are almost gone, with 745's being the bottom end - and acceptable performance with them.

[jonbjerke]

Unless you're planning to add more memory, I recommend staying with 32 bit. 

[PGHammer]

The Pentium D doesnt have the 64 support, that started with the Core 2 Duo I believe, stick with 3GB of RAM and 32 bit applications for now.

Wrong - x64 support started with the Prescott (which preceded the entire Core architechure).  I'd know - my Mom has one that is currently running 7 x64 (HP DC7600).

 

Unless you MUST run 32-bit (for application or driver reasons), there is absolutely no reason to run a non-x64 flavor of Windows IMHO.  (None whatever - not even low amounts of RAM unless you have less than 1 GB *and* the computer in question is portable.)

[moeburn]

Well, if it turns out that your system is too slow for Windows 8, then next step to try is Lubuntu.  It's incredibly lightweight, and yet still very simple and easy for linux-n00bs.  Made my netbook about 4 times as fast as Windows 7 :D

[moghbr]

Well, if it turns out that your system is too slow for Windows 8, then next step to try is Lubuntu.  It's incredibly lightweight, and yet still very simple and easy for linux-n00bs.  Made my netbook about 4 times as fast as Windows 7 :D

i can not use ubuntu because my software is windows based only.