Few doubts regarding OS. (Vista and 7)


Recommended Posts

My PC config is described in my Signature V

I want to know will vista sp2 serve me better or windows 7 in terms of gaming performance. With sp2 , i think vista is bit more stable and 7 on par to it looks bit fragile and delicate. Anyways , some benchmarks will do gr8 (Ati cards) comparing Vista Sp2 and Windows 7

Secondly and lastly i want some advice regarding the choice of OS version , should i use 32Bit OS or 64Bit OS if i have 2GB DDR2 ram and a quad core (supporting 64bit platform).Im talking with respect to gaming performance only.

Your kind help will be appreciated :)

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/862056-few-doubts-regarding-os-vista-and-7/
Share on other sites

you can only use 64 bit if you have 4 or more gb ram.

Absolutely wrong. As long as the hardware supports x64, you can run it with however much RAM you want.

https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=327145

I'd go for x64. Futureproof, and it is generally supported well at this time.

I don't think your gaming performance is going to be hurt by going 64bit as most games out there today are only 32bit, which can run perfectly fine on a 64bit OS. The only problem you will have is that if you play some really old games that were made only in 16bit, they will not work at all on a 64bit OS.

nono , i m not playing any old games now , have played enough on my Old nV FX5500.

But still im not yet convinced , i mean will i gain "performance boost" on switching to 64bit.

Next what i want to know is that is Vista SP2 better or Windows 7 , the benchmark given by above person is nice , but i need more , and my bad that i cant find enough in google , bing shows tests on Build 7022 or so!

Real life experience will tell better , so plz help

nono , i m not playing any old games now , have played enough on my Old nV FX5500.

But still im not yet convinced , i mean will i gain "performance boost" on switching to 64bit.

Next what i want to know is that is Vista SP2 better or Windows 7 , the benchmark given by above person is nice , but i need more , and my bad that i cant find enough in google , bing shows tests on Build 7022 or so!

Real life experience will tell better , so plz help

It's not such an easy question, because there are many factors here. First of all, the 64-bit version of Windows uses slightly more memory, meaning less will be available for your game. Now, it isn't a huge amount (the increased resource use (both memory and CPU) is a few percent at most), but 2GB is already pretty borderline when it comes to running modern games.

Second, a 32-bit game running on 64-bit Windows will be slightly slower than if it were running on the 32-bit version. The reason is because 64-bit Windows has to emulate a 32-bit environment. Again, it isn't much, but you can expect to lose a few FPS. In other words, the opposite of a performance boost.

With that said, some new games actually are 64-bit, and these might end up running slightly faster than the 32-bit version. The same goes for 64-bit applications, including the OS. Overall, it might even out, but generally not for individual applications/games.

As for Vista vs 7, well, most games in the last few years are designed for Vista. This doesn't mean they won't run on 7 (they probably will, although some DRM might give you problems), but it's not technically a supported platform. It's a nicer OS though, and since you already run it, I would just stick with it.

My PC config is described in my Signature V

I want to know will vista sp2 serve me better or windows 7 in terms of gaming performance. With sp2 , i think vista is bit more stable and 7 on par to it looks bit fragile and delicate. Anyways , some benchmarks will do gr8 (Ati cards) comparing Vista Sp2 and Windows 7

Secondly and lastly i want some advice regarding the choice of OS version , should i use 32Bit OS or 64Bit OS if i have 2GB DDR2 ram and a quad core (supporting 64bit platform).Im talking with respect to gaming performance only.

Your kind help will be appreciated :)

I'd personally suggest getting Windows 7 x64 and grabbing another 2 GB RAM.

Yep, go with 7. You may as well buy a new OS rather than upgrading later. I'm pretty sure gaming performance is much better in 7 (ok, much better is a little exagerated) compared to Vista. Doesn't matter if you go 32 or 64 bit, both versions come in the same box (mine did at least). I say stick with 32 bit if you don't want to upgrade your ram, 64 bit if you plan to go with 4gb and over.

In your sig, you already state that your running Win7 32-bit. Are you thinking of doing a clean install or something?

@ bogas04

1. Windows 7 runs faster and gaming performance should a better experience, Windows 7 RTM has yet to BSOD me or crash....its stable as long as you have the right drivers and a bit of common sense :)

2. With only 2GB of ram at 800Mhz, its not even worth switching to 64bit, ask yourself what are the benefits ? People use 64 bit because they need to utilise their resources to a greater extent, eg: getting more RAM for image/audio/video editing etc which can't be done on 32bit, so the answer really is -> don't waste your time, unless you plan on beefing up your hardware...

Hope that helps

when a users have <4GB ram and are considering using windows x64, my first question really is that do you have the drivers for all your hardware in 64bit (i.e. webcam, printer etc..) Windows 7 and indeed Windows Vista has done a lot to push 64bit to the masses however i have known printers and other required but small pieces of hardware not working due to a lack of drivers.

If the answer is yes, then if you have the media why not give x64 a try for a bit, if it doesn't work swap back to x86. Luckily enough Microsoft allows you to use the same S/N for both systems.

I don't think there is a definitive answer to your question as each person is different and uses their PC in a different way. I know you state games as being your primary concern, with that i would probably go for x86 as generally ive found it to be quicker.

The main thing is trial and error, personally at home i now use Windows XP for my gaming PC as i like to play a couple of older games, which XP allows me to play without much hacking around with patches as would be required by Windows Vista/7.

However for all of my PC laptops and Work PC's i use Windows 7 as i am more productive in this environment than i would be under Windows XP. All of this was really from trial and error.

If you have Windows 7 installed, just stick with that to be honest. You'd have to go and back everything up, wipe the drive then install Vista and everything, restore from backups.

Thats not a big deal as dont use many applications , and most of them are portable , but will it be worthy , like xp gives better performance than vista, will vista give better performance than 7?

Windows 7 will give you a better performance than Vista SP2 and equal, if not better performance than XP SP3 on your hardware.

Also don't forget the user interface improvements Windows 7 brings compared to XP in particular. Sticking to 7 is a no-brainer in my opinion.

Edited by Mephistopheles
  • 3 weeks later...
you can only use 64 bit if you have 4 or more gb ram.

http://gizmodo.com/5173392/windows-7-vs-vi...crysis-fasterer

try google maybe? No, use Biiiinnnnnnnnggggg!!!

Two words - horse puckey.

I've run XP64 in as little as 512 MB of RAM (it's stated minimum, by the way). Vista and 7 (both x64) will run in as little as 1 GB (7 x64 actually has the same minimum as XP64).

Quite frankly, whether or not *you* will benefit from x64 over x32 with less than 4 GB of RAM depends on your application/game mix (in most cases, the difference ranges from no difference to any difference is in x64's favor, even at the minimum). I do a lot of multitasking; for the increased stability doing so, x64 waxes x32, especially with under 4 GB. Also, in most cases, games will happily run in x64 flavors of Windows (every C&C from Generals up, including the expansions, every game from Valve, and most MMOs, including every MMO since Vista went RTM, runs happily in 7 x64, without hacks or mods). The biggest issue with games (recent ones, that is) is an issue with PunkBuster anti-cheat software (which is fixed in the latest patch).

I've been running Vista x64, followed by 7 x64, on this PC since I built it; the *only* way I'll run a 32-bit OS is in a VM.

(With Office 2010 x64, staying x64 became a bonafide no-brainer.)

It's not such an easy question, because there are many factors here. First of all, the 64-bit version of Windows uses slightly more memory, meaning less will be available for your game. Now, it isn't a huge amount (the increased resource use (both memory and CPU) is a few percent at most), but 2GB is already pretty borderline when it comes to running modern games.

2GB is the minimum where I would consider running 64-bit. If you ever plan to upgrade to 4GB, you may want to go 64-bit now and save yourself the hassle in the future. However, keep in mind that depending on your motherboard, you may not be able to use >3GB of memory even with a 64-bit OS.

Second, a 32-bit game running on 64-bit Windows will be slightly slower than if it were running on the 32-bit version. The reason is because 64-bit Windows has to emulate a 32-bit environment. Again, it isn't much, but you can expect to lose a few FPS. In other words, the opposite of a performance boost.

There is no emulation involved, 32-bit code is executed natively on the CPU. x64 CPUs natively support both 32-bit and 64-bit execution. In fact, some things will run faster because the OS code gets to take advantage of improvements in the AMD64 instruction set (additional registers, better compiler optimizations / default calling conventions, etc).

2GB is the minimum where I would consider running 64-bit. If you ever plan to upgrade to 4GB, you may want to go 64-bit now and save yourself the hassle in the future. However, keep in mind that depending on your motherboard, you may not be able to use >3GB of memory even with a 64-bit OS.

I think maybe you're responding to the OP here (I do run the 64-bit version, with both 2 and 6GB). My comment was regarding games, and there's no denying that these have gotten very memory-hungry.

There is no emulation involved, 32-bit code is executed natively on the CPU. x64 CPUs natively support both 32-bit and 64-bit execution. In fact, some things will run faster because the OS code gets to take advantage of improvements in the AMD64 instruction set (additional registers, better compiler optimizations / default calling conventions, etc).

I am aware of that. Executing instructions only takes a mode change, but you still have to emulate the 32-bit Windows environment (what you want to call it is meaningless semantics, Microsoft calls it emulation), and there is no way you can deny that this does have marginal overhead (both in CPU cycles and memory use). I personally don't think it matters, but I'm not convinced that the benefits elsewhere cancel this out, and I challenge anyone to find benchmarks of 32-bit games performing better or even equal under WOW than running natively on 32-bit Windows.

Now, considering how marginal it is, the discussion might border on silly, but still, if the goal is to squeeze every last FPS out of a fairly low-end system while maintaining as wide game compatibility as possible, then I don't think the 64-bit edition is necessarily the best choice.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Dude, im talking about simply disable it from settings app. Because of the eu regulation, you could disable it here for years.
    • One big question about Mars was answered thanks to Einstein's 100 year old theory by Sayan Sen Image via DepositPhotos Scientists at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have calculated how time passes on Mars compared with Earth, adding detail to how timekeeping would need to work beyond Earth’s orbit. The study, published in The Astronomical Journal, found that clocks on Mars run an average of 477 microseconds, or millionths of a second, faster per day than clocks on Earth. A microsecond is one millionth of a second, a very small unit used in precise scientific timing systems such as atomic clocks, which measure time using consistent atomic behavior. This difference is not constant. Because Mars moves around the Sun in a non-circular path (an eccentric orbit, meaning its distance from the Sun changes over time instead of staying fixed) and is affected by gravity from other bodies, the daily difference can vary by as much as 226 microseconds over a Martian year. The study also identifies smaller repeating changes of about 40 microseconds per day linked to synodic cycles (repeating periods that describe how planets line up with each other as they orbit the Sun from different positions). These longer patterns affect how time differences slowly rise and fall. To make these estimates, researchers compared Mars with Earth and the Moon. The work looks at relativistic proper time (the time actually measured by a clock depending on its speed and the strength of gravity where it is located, as described in Einstein’s relativity). This shows that each world has its own slightly different “rate” of time. This becomes more important as space missions expand into cislunar space (the region between Earth and the Moon) and toward Mars. On Earth, time systems rely on atomic clocks and satellites, which stay closely synchronized for navigation and communication. The study is based on Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, which shows that time is affected by gravity and motion. Stronger gravity makes clocks run slower, while weaker gravity makes them run faster. “The time is just right for the Moon and Mars,” said NIST physicist Bijunath Patla. “This is the closest we have been to realizing the science fiction vision of expanding across the solar system.” A day on Mars is about 40 minutes longer than on Earth, and a Martian year lasts 687 Earth days. But the main question is not just about days and years, but how fast time itself passes. An atomic clock placed on Mars would function normally, but compared with one on Earth, the two would slowly drift apart due to differences in gravity and motion. This requires careful calculation of what is similar to a time-zone difference across planets. Researchers modeled Mars using a reference surface and included gravitational effects from the Sun, Earth, the Moon, and other planets. This includes a multi-body gravitational system (often described as a three-body or four-body problem, where predicting motion becomes difficult because multiple large objects all pull on each other at the same time through gravity). Mars also follows a Keplerian orbit (an idealized elliptical orbit based on simple gravitational laws that assume smooth motion, before adding real-world disturbances from other bodies). In addition, the researchers accounted for solar tides (small changes in gravitational force caused by the Sun that slightly distort planetary motion and timing, especially in systems involving Earth and the Moon). These combined effects are described as relativistic proper-time offsets (small but measurable differences in elapsed time between locations caused by gravity and motion), which must be included when comparing clocks across planets. “But for Mars, that’s not the case. Its distance from the Sun and its eccentric orbit make the variations in time larger. A three-body problem is extremely complicated. Now we’re dealing with four: the Sun, Earth, the Moon and Mars,” Patla explained. “The heavy lifting was more challenging than I initially thought.” Although the differences are extremely small, they matter for navigation and communication systems that depend on precise timing. Even modern networks on Earth, such as mobile systems, rely on timing accuracy at very small fractions of a second. Communication between Earth and Mars currently takes about four to 24 minutes or more depending on planetary positions, meaning signals are not real-time. A shared and accurate time system could help future missions reduce confusion in navigation and data exchange. “If you get synchronization, it will be almost like real-time communication without any loss of information. You don’t have to wait to see what happens,” Patla said. Researchers note that fully developed interplanetary communication networks are still far in the future. However, understanding how time behaves across planets helps prepare for those systems. “It may be decades before the surface of Mars is covered by the tracks of wandering rovers, but it is useful now to study the issues involved in establishing navigation systems on other planets and moons,” said Neil Ashby. “Like current global navigation systems like GPS, these systems will depend on accurate clocks, and the effects on clock rates can be analyzed with the help of Einstein’s general theory of relativity.” Patla added that the results also help improve understanding of time itself under relativity. “It's good to know for the first time what is happening on Mars timewise. Nobody knew that before. It improves our knowledge of the theory itself, the theory of how clocks tick and relativity,” he said. Source: NIST, IOPscience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 by Razvan Serea TeraCopy is a compact program designed to copy and move files at the maximum possible speed, also providing you with a lot of features. Copy files faster. TeraCopy uses dynamically adjusted buffers to reduce seek times. Asynchronous copy speeds up file transfer between two physical hard drives. Pause and resume transfers. Pause copy process at any time to free up system resources and continue with a single click. Error recovery. In case of copy error, TeraCopy will try several times and in the worse case just skips the file, not terminating the entire transfer. Interactive file list. TeraCopy shows failed file transfers and lets you fix the problem and recopy only problem files. Shell integration. TeraCopy can completely replace Explorer copy and move functions, allowing you work with files as usual. TeraCopy is free for non-commercial use only. For commercial use you need to buy a license. The paid version of the program includes the following features: Copy/move to your favorite folders. Save reports as HTML and CSV files. Select files with the same extension/folder. Remove the selected files from the copy queue. TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 changelog: Added support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. Improved exception handling and automated bug report upload. Fixed several minor bugs and small memory leaks. Build 26 (June 24) Fixed a rare exception when a transfer completed. Features added since version 3.17: Enhanced speed graph. New multi-threaded copy engine. Support for copying to multiple targets. Queue system for managing multiple copy operations. Support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. TeraCopy entry in the modern Windows Explorer context menu. Integrated toolbar in the title bar. Why receive LocalSend transfers with TeraCopy? Handle file conflicts: Skip, overwrite, or rename files when a file with the same name already exists. LocalSend always creates another copy, which can waste time and disk space, especially when resuming an interrupted transfer. Filter unwanted files: Apply ignore lists or remove files manually before accepting a transfer, so unnecessary files are not downloaded. Better performance on fast networks: In tests over a 10 Gbps connection, TeraCopy received files several times faster than the standard LocalSend app on Windows. Download: TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 | 14.5 MB (Freeware, paid upgrade available) View: TeraCopy Website | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • Briefly used Turbo Pascal (and Turbo C++) in 97 and soon after that I bought PC magazine that included a full version of Delphi 2. I still use Delphi today, some 29 years later.
    • Age of Empires Mobile comes to PC, here's how to carry over progress from your phone by Ivan Jenic Image: YouTube/Microsoft Microsoft just released Age of Empires Mobile for PC. The game, officially called Age of Empires Mobile: PC Edition, is available for free on Steam and Microsoft Store, almost two years after its initial release for handheld devices. Age of Empires is one of those franchises that entire generations grew up with. The original came out in 1997, and immediately got people hooked to building civilizations and crushing their enemies on the battlefield. However, the franchise today is a far cry from its roots, as Age of Empires Mobile is, well, a game optimized for handheld devices, and not a classic RTS title we’ve all loved for years. And, of course, it includes in-game purchases. The PC version is still a mobile game at its core, but it’s been optimized for desktop play. There’s mouse control, full keyboard compatibility, and a refined UI. Microsoft also refreshed the visuals with some 4k textures, so the game should look better on larger screens. The game supports Crossplay, so you can switch between your phone, tablet, and PC without losing anything. But linked progress doesn’t come out of the box, as you have to enable it first. Here’s how to link your progress: On your mobile device, open Age of Empires Mobile. Go to Settings (Gear icon) > Account. Select Bind Account and choose a sign-in option. Once you enable account binding, sign in on PC using the same method, and your progress will be accessible across all your devices. Xbox Game Pass subscribers also get a bonus reward pack on PC, which includes: 1 Monthly Pass Token 1 Custom Resource Chest 10 Universal 60-Minute Speed-Ups 1,000 Empire Coins Exclusive Player Portrait Frame You can find more info about Age of Empires Mobile: PC Edition, as well as download links, on the Age of Empires official website.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      Philsl earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Dedicated
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      D0nn13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Rookie
      +ChiefOfNeo went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      458
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      177
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      124
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      79
    5. 5
      Xenon
      76
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!