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

    • Exactly, this is just the beginning. I hope that by that time, our inept politicians devise something like a Universal Basic Income, because unemployment and poverty rates will skyrocket otherwise. And believe me, robots that perform physical work aren't a matter of IF, but WHEN. No career is truly safe from AI/robots, it's just a matter of time.
    • Subtitle Edit 5.0.0 by Razvan Serea Subtitle Edit is a powerful, free, and user-friendly subtitle editing tool designed for creating, editing, and converting subtitles for videos. It supports a wide range of subtitle formats, including SRT, ****, and SUB, allowing users to easily modify and adjust subtitles for accurate timing and formatting. With its intuitive interface, Subtitle Edit provides a variety of features such as waveform audio display, spell-check, subtitle synchronization, and real-time video preview, making it an ideal choice for both beginners and professionals. The software also includes powerful tools for batch processing, translating subtitles, and converting between different subtitle formats. Subtitle Edit features: Create/adjust/sync/translate subtitle lines Convert between SubRib, MicroDVD, Advanced Sub Station Alpha, Sub Station Alpha, D-Cinema, SAMI, youtube sbv, and many more (300+ different formats!) Cool audio visualizer control - can display wave form and/or spectrogram Video player uses mpv, DirectShow, or VLC media player Visually sync/adjust a subtitle (start/end position and speed) Audio to text (speech recognition) via Whisper or Vosk/Kaldi Auto Translation via Google translate Rip subtitles from a (decrypted) dvd Import and OCR VobSub sub/idx binary subtitles Import and OCR Blu-ray .sup files - bd sup reading is based on Java code from BDSup2Sub Can open subtitles embedded inside Matroska files Can open subtitles (text, closed captions, VobSub) embedded inside mp4/mv4 files Can open/OCR XSub subtitles embedded inside divx/avi files Can open/OCR DVB and teletext subtitles embedded inside .ts/.m2ts (Transport Stream) files Can open/OCR Blu-ray subtitles embedded inside .m2ts (Transport Stream) files Merge/split subtitles Adjust display time Fix common errors wizard....and more. Subtitle Edit 5.0.0 changelog: Subtitle Edit 5 is a major new release and a big step for the project. For the first time, Subtitle Edit runs natively on Windows, macOS, and Linux from a single, modern, cross-platform codebase. The builds are self-contained, so no separate .NET installation is required, and on macOS and Linux the needed media components (mpv/ffmpeg) are bundled in. Please read before upgrading: Subtitle Edit 5 is a new application, not just an update of Subtitle Edit 4. It has been rebuilt from the ground up to be cross-platform, so: It is not 100% the same app. The look, layout, and some workflows have changed. Some things are in different places, and a few behave differently than in SE4. Not every SE4 feature exists in SE5 yet. SE5 covers all the core editing, conversion, sync, video playback, OCR, and online services, but some of the more specialized SE4 tools are not available yet. Features will continue to be added. If you rely on a specific SE4 feature that is missing, please keep SE4 installed alongside SE5. The easiest way to run both side by side is to use the Portable versions of SE4 and SE5, which keep their settings separate and do not interfere with each other. Which version should I use? Subtitle Edit 5: recommended for most users on Windows 10 (22H2) or newer, macOS 12+, and Linux. Subtitle Edit 4: please continue to use SE4 if you are on an older Windows version (Windows 7/8), or on older / slower computers where SE5 may not run well. SE4 remains available and is the right choice in those cases. To run SE4 and SE5 at the same time, use the Portable versions - you can try SE5 while keeping SE4 as a fallback. Download: Subtitle Edit 5.0.0 | ARM64 | ~60.0 MB (Open Source) Download: Subtitle Edit Portable | 103.0 MB View: Subtitle Edit Homepage | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • Google Pixel 11 series: Here's what to expect by Hamid Ganji Google Pixel 10 series In recent years, Google has successfully turned its Pixel devices into worthy contenders in the smartphone market. The search giant is now preparing to launch the Pixel 11 series in just a few months, and many Pixel fans are likely wondering what Google has in store for them this year. The next lineup of Google smartphones includes four devices: the Pixel 11, Pixel 11 Pro, Pixel 11 Pro XL, and Pixel 11 Pro Fold. This year, we don’t expect Google to bring revolutionary upgrades to its handsets, and the Pixel 11 series is likely to receive modest hardware improvements alongside a slew of AI-powered features. Here are the rumored specifications of the Google Pixel 11 series ahead of its official debut: When will the new Pixel phones be unveiled? The last two generations of Google Pixel phones (Pixel 9 series and Pixel 10 series) were launched in August, unlike the previous three generations that debuted in October. With that in mind, we expect Google to unveil the Pixel 11 series sometime in August 2026. The exact launch date has yet to be confirmed. Google Pixel 11 CAD renders - Image via AndroidHeadlines How much will the Pixel 11 series cost? Predicting the final price of upcoming smartphones has become increasingly difficult. As you may know, RAM and memory prices are rising sharply, leading to significant increases in the cost of consumer electronics. Recently, Apple CEO Tim Cook said that price increases for some future Apple products are unavoidable, suggesting that the iPhone 18 series could become more expensive. Google has remained tight-lipped about any potential price increases for the Pixel 11 series. If the company manages to maintain last year’s pricing structure, here’s what the lineup could cost: Pixel 11: $799 Pixel 11 Pro: $999 Pixel 11 Pro XL: $1,199 Pixel 11 Pro Fold: $1,799 Given current market conditions, it may be difficult for Google to avoid raising prices unless it adopts cost-saving measures, such as equipping the base model with 8GB of RAM. Google Pixel 11 series anticipated specs: We expect the Google Pixel 11 series to debut with a new Tensor G6 processor as well as an upgraded camera system. The overall design, however, is expected to remain largely unchanged across the lineup. Specifications Pixel 11 Pixel 11 Pro Pixel 11 Pro XL Pixel 11 Pro Fold Display 6.3-inch LTPO AMOLED / 120Hz refresh rate / up to 3100 nits of brightness 6.3-inch Super Actua LTPO OLED, 120Hz refresh rate, up to 3600 nits of brightness 6.8-inch Super Actua LTPO OLED, 120Hz refresh rate, up to 3600 nits of brightness 8-inch inner screen and 6.4-inch outer display, 120Hz refresh rate, up to 3600 nits of brightness RAM & Processor Tensor G6 / 8-12GB of RAM Tensor G6 / 12-16GB of RAM Tensor G6 / 12-16GB of RAM Tensor G6 / 16GB of RAM Storage options 128GB or 256GB 256GB, 512GB, 1TB 256GB, 512GB, 1TB 256GB, 512GB, 1TB Camera 50MP main sensor, 13MP ultra-wide, 10.8MP 5x telephoto, 10.5MP front camera 50MP main camera, 48MP ultra-wide, 48MP telephoto with 5x optical zoom, 42MP selfie camera 50MP main camera, 48MP ultra-wide, 48MP telephoto with 5x optical zoom, 42MP selfie camera 50MP main camera, 10.5MP ultra-wide camera, 10.8MP telephoto camera, 10MP front camera, 10MP inner camera Battery 4,840 mAh 4,707 mAh 5,000 mAh 4,658 mAh Software Android 17 Android 17 Android 17 Android 17 The Pixel 11 series won’t be a major departure from its predecessor, with Google instead focusing on subtle improvements and AI additions such as Gemini Intelligence. However, a patent filed by Google suggests the company is working on a removable battery for its smartphones, and we could see this feature make its way to the Pixel 11 Pro Fold. Given that nearly all smartphones today lack removable batteries, such a feature would be a welcome addition to future Pixel devices. That said, it may not arrive with this year’s lineup after all, and the final decision is yet to be made by Google. The Pixel 11 series could also face an uphill battle in the market. In the Android segment, Samsung is performing well with the Galaxy S26 series, while the Galaxy Z Fold 8 lineup is also expected to launch next month. On the other hand, Apple is preparing to unveil the iPhone 18 Pro and iPhone 18 Pro Max in September alongside its first foldable iPhone.
    • At least AMD is still taking Windows 10 seriously (after the oops) before it consumer extended support ends. @WaltC - Memories, 2x Voodoo in SLI with a Riva TNT with an Aureal A3D soundcard.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Month Later
      timbobit earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      nates earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Almohandis earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Rookie
      dorf went up a rank
      Rookie
    • First Post
      mike_rumble earned a badge
      First Post
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      475
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      172
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      105
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      88
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      70
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!