Prev: Hardware problem - RAM or MOBO?
Next: Molex to Sata power cable
From: Fishface on 23 Nov 2009 01:14
Paul wrote:

> SuperPI 23.375 sec, 1 million digits, Core2 2.6GHz (native, in WinXP)
>
> SuperPI 24.986 sec, 1 million digits, same processor (WinXP running VPC2007, Win2K guest OS)
>
> My virtual results show hardly any slowdown at all.

Ok, got it. I was running SuperPi Mod from my E: drive, and according to the
comment field of the drive in XP's My Computer window, it was described
as "Disk from Remote Desktop Connection." I copied the program to the
XP desktop and the time was 14.501 seconds. What a difference! On Win7-64,
it took 14.461-- not much of a slowdown at all. I'm not sure what exactly
this Remote Desktop connection was slowing it down so much. I'd have
thought the tiny program would just load into memory and run at full speed.
From: Paul on 23 Nov 2009 02:46
Fishface wrote:
> Paul wrote:
>
>> SuperPI 23.375 sec, 1 million digits, Core2 2.6GHz (native, in WinXP)
>>
>> SuperPI 24.986 sec, 1 million digits, same processor (WinXP running
>> VPC2007, Win2K guest OS)
>>
>> My virtual results show hardly any slowdown at all.
>
> Ok, got it. I was running SuperPi Mod from my E: drive, and according
> to the
> comment field of the drive in XP's My Computer window, it was described
> as "Disk from Remote Desktop Connection." I copied the program to the
> XP desktop and the time was 14.501 seconds. What a difference! On
> Win7-64,
> it took 14.461-- not much of a slowdown at all. I'm not sure what exactly
> this Remote Desktop connection was slowing it down so much. I'd have
> thought the tiny program would just load into memory and run at full speed.

I just read about that today. I have no idea why Remote Desktop
is associated with the WinXP mode on Windows 7. Whatever it is
for, it sounds like a dumb idea. Maybe it was treating that drive as
a "network share" and any I/O to the disk was going through
the network stack ?

Paul
From: Tim Mastrogiacomo on 24 Nov 2009 09:58
On Nov 21, 5:52 pm, Ron <rmoor...(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> For the first time in quite a while, I'm assembling a primary desktop
> strictly to run Win 7 Ultimate (32-bit). I acquired the OS when I was a
> Technet subscriber and hadn't worked with 64-bit systems much, so 32-bit
> was my first choice. After reflection, I may eventually go the 64-bit
> Win 7 Professional route, but that's not on the plate yet.
>
> As it sits, I have the following major components:
>
> Gigabyte GA EP45-UD3P mobo (Intel P45 chip)
> Powercolor AX 3650 1GBD2-V2 Radeon HD 3650 1GB video card.
> Antec Sonata 2 case
>
> Sometime in the next few days, I'm getting these components:
>
> Intel Core2 Duo E8500 Wolfdale CPU
> WD Caviar WD1001FALS 1TB Sata drive
> 4Gb (2x2GB) G.Skill PC2 8500 sticks
>
> Here's my thought: Instead the Core Duo E8500, would it make sense to
> get the E8400 Quad core on the possibility of switching over to 64-bit
> Professional. I guess what I'm really asking is a) is it possible to run
> 64-bit Win 7 on the Core Duo without a serious performance hit? From the
> other direction, will the Quad core run efficiently with 32-bit
> Ultimate? This is going to be what i call a "6-year" machine. No
> significant upgrades, other than more memory with a 64-bit CPU, until
> it's time to build another primary. (I already have machines dedicated
> to audio, graphic, photo workflow, etc.)
>
> Any thoughts? All input appreciated as to the new build.


I expect that you will be able to run Windows 7 64-bit with the Core2
Duo just fine. I have used less powerful dual-core AMD processors with
this OS and haven't had any problems. Going 64-bit will give you a bit
more use out of your 4 GB of RAM and will allow you to add more RAM
later on.


Tim Mastrogiacomo
From: Ron on 24 Nov 2009 11:04
Tim Mastrogiacomo wrote:
> On Nov 21, 5:52 pm, Ron <rmoor...(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> For the first time in quite a while, I'm assembling a primary desktop
>> strictly to run Win 7 Ultimate (32-bit). I acquired the OS when I was a
>> Technet subscriber and hadn't worked with 64-bit systems much, so 32-bit
>> was my first choice. After reflection, I may eventually go the 64-bit
>> Win 7 Professional route, but that's not on the plate yet.
>>
>> As it sits, I have the following major components:
>>
>> Gigabyte GA EP45-UD3P mobo (Intel P45 chip)
>> Powercolor AX 3650 1GBD2-V2 Radeon HD 3650 1GB video card.
>> Antec Sonata 2 case
>>
>> Sometime in the next few days, I'm getting these components:
>>
>> Intel Core2 Duo E8500 Wolfdale CPU
>> WD Caviar WD1001FALS 1TB Sata drive
>> 4Gb (2x2GB) G.Skill PC2 8500 sticks
>>
>> Here's my thought: Instead the Core Duo E8500, would it make sense to
>> get the E8400 Quad core on the possibility of switching over to 64-bit
>> Professional. I guess what I'm really asking is a) is it possible to run
>> 64-bit Win 7 on the Core Duo without a serious performance hit? From the
>> other direction, will the Quad core run efficiently with 32-bit
>> Ultimate? This is going to be what i call a "6-year" machine. No
>> significant upgrades, other than more memory with a 64-bit CPU, until
>> it's time to build another primary. (I already have machines dedicated
>> to audio, graphic, photo workflow, etc.)
>>
>> Any thoughts? All input appreciated as to the new build.
>
>
> I expect that you will be able to run Windows 7 64-bit with the Core2
> Duo just fine. I have used less powerful dual-core AMD processors with
> this OS and haven't had any problems. Going 64-bit will give you a bit
> more use out of your 4 GB of RAM and will allow you to add more RAM
> later on.
>
>
> Tim Mastrogiacomo

Thanks to all for the generous feedback. I'm looking forward to this
one. I decided to pick up another cooler to use instead of the stock
Intel, mostly to have on hand in case I want to.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835114073

With kind regards,
Ron
From: anamigan on 6 Dec 2009 13:52
My experience with Win7 64bit has been trouble free.

I automatically install Revo-uninstaller at the top of the food chain.
Then Comodo for my firewall.
Spybot, CCleaner and Defraggler follow. Then it's time for my first
system image.

The machine I ended up with was the result of two quadcore boxes, one
running XP by flinging it
around and the other Ubuntu 64bit.

I decided "more window" was what I wanted instead of "more windows". I
concentrated all resources
into the newer higher capacity case and motherboard. I sold the other
box minus RAM and HD to
purchase a second matching LCD 21.5" (1920x1080).

Now I run a quad (Q6600), 8G (4x2), 9400GT (1G DDR2) with Win7 64bit.
This is a consumer level
workstation knockoff. As such it only cost $800ish to build, the GFX
card was $69 on sale. I don't penny
count as I usually just go in to my preferred store after compiling my
list from what's in stock and as long
as the price/spec is close to what I've decided on I'll go with anything
they recommend as they
see hundreds of buys a week and are hardware enthusiasts themselves.

I've also read several of Paul's thoughtful and informative replies to
this group and can only
heap praise on his continued participation.

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Hardware problem - RAM or MOBO?
Next: Molex to Sata power cable