Windows XP or Windows 7
in [Home Built PC]
|
Prev: Uninstalling Drivers?
Next: PLEASE HELP:Need Help Building Modest System for poerson mainly Web Browsing=Low-End, no big demands?
From: Daniel Prince on 10 Nov 2009 07:07 Which would be faster on a 64 bit processor with 4 gigs of ram, Windows XP that can only use about 3 gigs of ram or Windows 7 that can use the full 4 gigs but would use more ram for the OS? Thank you in advance for all replies. -- Whenever I hear or think of the song "Great green gobs of greasy grimey gopher guts" I imagine my cat saying; "That sounds REALLY, REALLY good. I'll have some of that!"
From: Man-wai Chang to The Door (+MS=32B) on 10 Nov 2009 07:51 I would stay away from 64-bit WinXP as it's old-hat and was more like a quick-and-dirty patch than a real OS like Vi$ta if not Win 7! > Which would be faster on a 64 bit processor with 4 gigs of ram, > Windows XP that can only use about 3 gigs of ram or Windows 7 that > can use the full 4 gigs but would use more ram for the OS? Thank > you in advance for all replies. -- @~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY. / v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you! /( _ )\ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.31-14-generic ^ ^ 20:50:02 up 11 days 2:31 2 users load average: 5.30 4.74 4.68 不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA): http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa
From: Dave C. on 9 Nov 2009 20:11 On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:07:41 -0800 Daniel Prince <neutrino1(a)ca.rr.com> wrote: > Which would be faster on a 64 bit processor with 4 gigs of ram, > Windows XP that can only use about 3 gigs of ram or Windows 7 that > can use the full 4 gigs but would use more ram for the OS? Thank > you in advance for all replies. The answer is that neither one would be faster. Both will run fast on 3GB of RAM. If you upgrade from 3GB to 4GB of RAM, you will notice no difference in performance. Yes, I'm aware of the restrictions of 32-bit operating systems in addressing larger amounts of RAM. But if you upgrade from say, 3GB to 8GB of RAM, you will STILL notice no difference in performance, even assuming that your OS is 64-bit. People are building with insane amounts of RAM these days, partly because RAM is (relatively) cheap and partly because the hardware has advanced to the point where it is easy to add 8, 12, 16GB or even more of RAM, in some systems. But it is highly unlikely that the average user will benefit from more than 3GB of RAM, and modern operating systems run just fine on 1.5-2GB of RAM. 4GB of RAM is a reasonable amount, more than you probably need, but not outrageous, based on hardware capability and cost. -Dave
From: Sleepy on 13 Nov 2009 06:45 "Daniel Prince" <neutrino1(a)ca.rr.com> wrote in message news:rjlif59q6dp7a1g38k7poej0kui30979li(a)4ax.com... > Which would be faster on a 64 bit processor with 4 gigs of ram, > Windows XP that can only use about 3 gigs of ram or Windows 7 that > can use the full 4 gigs but would use more ram for the OS? Thank > you in advance for all replies. > -- > Whenever I hear or think of the song "Great green gobs of greasy > grimey gopher guts" I imagine my cat saying; "That sounds REALLY, > REALLY good. I'll have some of that!" People saying Windows 7 is faster are generally comparing it with Vista which was much slower on release but is fine now. Windows 7 does have better multicore support so if your CPU is dual or quad core then its a consideration but if its only single then stick with XP. Windows 7 does have some nice features but it also dumps some older features (like the Classic start menu and the Shared folder icon). I tried Windows 7 and went back to Vista because I'm on a home network and share folder with my sisters XP machine and also a printer. I had problems sharing the printer - I like to see at a glance what folders I have shared - I record TV programs and share them but XP cannot handle WTV files which are hugely bloated compared to DVR-MS. If you're happy with XP - stick with it and ignore the hype surrounding Windows 7.
From: Man-wai Chang to The Door (+MS=32B) on 13 Nov 2009 07:14
BTW, when you asked this question, it indirectly indicated that you have no urgent/dire need for Win 7! So stay with 32-bit WinXP until there was no choice but to go Win 7! > I would stay away from 64-bit WinXP as it's old-hat and was more like a > quick-and-dirty patch than a real OS like Vi$ta if not Win 7! -- @~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY. / v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you! /( _ )\ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.31.6 ^ ^ 20:13:01 up 9:18 1 user load average: 1.06 1.10 1.04 不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA): http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa |