# 64 Bit Fans: Windows 7 May Be the Key



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

In an interesting announcement, the Windows 7 branding program, i.e. the use of the Windows 7 logo on vendor products... will REQUIRE support of both 32 and 64 bit versions. This is the first time Microsoft has ever made this a requirement of the branding program. This showed up in the alpha version of the Windows 7 Logo Testing Kit.

If this holds up, it could be the breakthrough that 64 bit OS fans have been waiting for.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Debating whether or not to add more memory to my desktop so I can go 64-bit. Anyone know if I'll see a performance difference using a Core2 6600 C, running at 2.4 GHz?

TIA. /steve


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

Sounds good, although most good companies have been providing good 64bit support for Vista too.

I really have not had any major issues running it and have been on it for more than a year now both on the desktop and laptop.



Steve said:


> Debating whether or not to add more memory to my desktop so I can go 64-bit. Anyone know if I'll see a performance difference using a Core2 6600 C, running at 2.4 GHz?
> 
> TIA. /steve


You dont have to have more memory to go 64bit, it just can support more memory.

I run 2gb with Vista x64 on my laptop and desktop (e6600 OCed). Frankly you will not see a large boost in speed with 2gb + unless you are using things that use up the memory your currently have. Windows itself did not seem much faster when I had 4gb on similar setups.

I find the only time 2gb limits me right now is when messing with video encoding stuff, but I do that rarely anyways. I do a lot of multitasking as well, 2gb is just a lot for many things. Though these days it is so cheap you can go to 4gb or even 8gb relatively cheaply 

Soon I might throw another 2gb in my desktop just cause since it is so cheap.

BTW, Steve you might want to do a moderate OC depending on what board you have. The e6600 is really easy to push up to e6700 speeds (2.8ghz) with very little work in most cases. Mine was just a bump of the multiplier and a slight change to the voltage and all was good.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Grentz said:


> BTW, Steve you might want to do a moderate OC depending on what board you have. The e6600 is really easy to push up to e6700 speeds (2.8ghz) with very little work in most cases. Mine was just a bump of the multiplier and a slight change to the voltage and all was good.


Thanks, *G*! I have that Asus utility that allows overclocking, but never felt the need for more speed. I do occasionally transcode videos for my Zune, however, so maybe I'll give it a try! /steve


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

Most of the Asus boards work very well for a moderate OC at least. I have a P5B-E and it was very easy to get to 2.8ghz. Best is to actually do it right in the BIOS usually. I had mine at around 3.2ghz for awhile, but it was not 100% stable all the time so I backed down to 2.8ghz and have been very happy.

I do agree about the speed though, it gets to a point and all the Core 2 Duo processors are very quick. Only a few tasks make me wish I had more speed, but everything else runs like butter


----------



## Getteau (Dec 20, 2007)

Steve said:


> Debating whether or not to add more memory to my desktop so I can go 64-bit. Anyone know if I'll see a performance difference using a Core2 6600 C, running at 2.4 GHz?
> 
> TIA. /steve


I have 4G of RAM and I've run the 32b and the 64b versions of Vista on my Dell D630 (core 2 duo T7300 2.0 GHz). To me, 64b seems a bit quicker. Not just in Office 2007, but just in general. So I'd do it. I've got a few that I use pretty regularly and they don't have 64b versions and can't run as 32b apps (DVD 43 and the Cisco VPN client). So make sure all your apps will run on 64b before you invest the time to reload (no upgrade path is avail from 32b to 64b).


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

As we move beyond the 4GB memory and 2TB hard drive barriers (for 32-bit OSs), 64-bit support is going to be vital. Win7 is the logical time to move everything to 64-bit.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

We will be happy to switch to x64, but in-house and some other applications doesn't work on it ! So "_going to be vital_" is not for every business.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

Big business is typically several years behind big changes like this, so that isn't anything new. They will have a few units with new PCs and 64-bit, but most of the workers will continue with XP/Vista for a couple of years at least.

But for home users or "power users", Win7/64 will be quite common. Heck, most laptops are coming with 64-bit Vista right now, as they are being equipped with 3-4 GB of RAM. Granted, at that level, you could install 32-bit and be okay, but in a year, 8GB of RAM will be standard and all those folks will get 64-bit by default.


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

about time someone lit a fire under them.. Vista X64 has been out for how many years?


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

WinXP 64 was out for 5 years before Vista 64...


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

IIP said:


> WinXP 64 was out for 5 years before Vista 64...


 just another case in point...


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

and its not like 64bit is anything new....most servers have been 64bit for quite awhile now.

Frankly I love Vista x64, just adds a bit more pep to the OS itself and it works really well. Only have had issues with 1 or 2 poorly written programs not liking it, everything else has been a breeze. Also there are some low level programs that have a tough time as they need to get signed drivers to work, still the legit companies mostly get around that by getting signed! (so it helps keep out a lot of the crap)


----------



## steve053 (May 11, 2007)

LarryFlowers said:


> In an interesting announcement, the Windows 7 branding program, i.e. the use of the Windows 7 logo on vendor products... will REQUIRE support of both 32 and 64 bit versions. This is the first time Microsoft has ever made this a requirement of the branding program. This showed up in the alpha version of the Windows 7 Logo Testing Kit.
> 
> If this holds up, it could be the breakthrough that 64 bit OS fans have been waiting for.


Wonder if this will be the case with netbooks?


----------



## kevinwmsn (Aug 19, 2006)

Microsoft should have made Windows 7 64-bit only, being most new machines now have a 64 bit processor.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

kevinwmsn said:


> Microsoft should have made Windows 7 64-bit only, being most new machines now have a 64 bit processor.


They would shoot themselves in the foot if they did because no business would pick it up. Most large companies have customer programs written for them. Companies alone take the longest to change platforms and are the most profitable.

This is a long time coming though and I'm glad. Companies have "supported" 64 bit for awhile on the device side but programming has left it behind. Microsoft really needs to push people to make better coding to support multi core processors and to support 64 bit. They also need to lead the example though so others will follow.


----------



## CoriBright (May 30, 2002)

Just built myself a new testing platform.... Intel i7 920, 12gb Corsair RAM, Asus P6T motherboard, 2 x 1.5tb Seagate drives, 2 x Sapphire 3870 512mb graphics (in CrossfireX configuration). 

Wow is it fast with Windows 7 64bit! I'll have to start using it more, it beats my Quad Q9xxx (can't remember!) with 8gb RAM. Even starting up is quicker..... and right now they are side by side so it's a great way for comparison.


----------



## HDJulie (Aug 10, 2008)

CoriBright said:


> Just built myself a new testing platform.... Intel i7 920, 12gb Corsair RAM, Asus P6T motherboard, 2 x 1.5tb Seagate drives, 2 x Sapphire 3870 512mb graphics (in CrossfireX configuration).
> 
> Wow is it fast with Windows 7 64bit! I'll have to start using it more, it beats my Quad Q9xxx (can't remember!) with 8gb RAM. Even starting up is quicker..... and right now they are side by side so it's a great way for comparison.


Are you comparing the hardware (so different hardware running the same OS) or are you comparing the new hardware & OS to say Vista on the Quad machine. I'm curious because I too have a Quad machine & find it slow with Vista 64 bit. I expect to get some better response with Windows 7 but would also like to know if the i7 processors are a significant improvement over the 45ns Quad.


----------



## kfcrosby (Dec 17, 2006)

Shades228 said:


> Microsoft really needs to push people to make better coding to support multi core processors and to support 64 bit. They also need to lead the example though so others will follow.


i.e. 64 bit M$ Office !

When working for Carrier Air Conditioning we found that our internal people were usually the one behind in technology rather than our external customers. What amazes me is that I now have a customer that is being forced to use a 16 bit application and that company has no plans to update..... what a waste.
.


----------



## CoriBright (May 30, 2002)

HDJulie said:


> Are you comparing the hardware (so different hardware running the same OS) or are you comparing the new hardware & OS to say Vista on the Quad machine. I'm curious because I too have a Quad machine & find it slow with Vista 64 bit. I expect to get some better response with Windows 7 but would also like to know if the i7 processors are a significant improvement over the 45ns Quad.


The i7 seems definitely faster... both with encoding and with general stuff. My 775 is a 2.33Ghz, the i7 is the 2.66Ghz, but I honestly didn't think I'd see much improvement.... proved me wrong. The specs for W7 are lower than for Vista, I've know folks install it on notebooks that won't even take Vista and it runs fine!

And I'm pretty sure I paid more for the 775 than the i7!!!!! I got the whole (well almost) new rig from CompUsa for $999, everything except graphics card(s)... and I had a used 3870 512mb DDR4 left over from when I upgraded my other desktop with a 4870 with 1gb DDR5, so I just got a duplicate and crossfired them.

Obviously it's not a 'real' comparison, because the older one has 8gb DDR2 and the new one 12gb DDR3, and one is P35 chipset and the newer one is X58 but it's as close as I could go.


----------



## bleggett29 (Feb 2, 2008)

HDJulie said:


> Are you comparing the hardware (so different hardware running the same OS) or are you comparing the new hardware & OS to say Vista on the Quad machine. I'm curious because I too have a Quad machine & find it slow with Vista 64 bit. I expect to get some better response with Windows 7 but would also like to know if the i7 processors are a significant improvement over the 45ns Quad.


CoriBright doesn't really answer your question in regards to hardware vs. OS but I can guarantee you that if he/she had both Vista and Windows 7 on the i7 system both would fly---Windows 7 probably a bit quicker because it uses less resources. In regards to the i7 vs. Quad, a i7 920 would be at least comparable to a QX9770 Extreme. The key for the i7 is the 8 logical cores (Hyperthreading) and ability to use DDR3 in a Tri-Channel configuration. For the same, if not better, performance, a i7 920 is a quarter of the price than a QX9770 Extreme.


----------



## HDJulie (Aug 10, 2008)

bleggett29 said:


> CoriBright doesn't really answer your question in regards to hardware vs. OS but I can guarantee you that if he/she had both Vista and Windows 7 on the i7 system both would fly---Windows 7 probably a bit quicker because it uses less resources. In regards to the i7 vs. Quad, a i7 920 would be at least comparable to a QX9770 Extreme. The key for the i7 is the 8 logical cores (Hyperthreading) and ability to use DDR3 in a Tri-Channel configuration. For the same, if not better, performance, a i7 920 is a quarter of the price than a QX9770 Extreme.


Thanks. I build a new system for myself every couple of years using as close to the best hardware I can get for the processor, motherboard, memory, & video without spending a fortune & I'm always disappointed in how slow the system becomes, especially at boot up, after a month of use. I've got plenty of memory & I don't use any processor-intensive applications so it is too much to ask that my programs open instantaneously & my computer boots up in 10 seconds . I'll have to start saving for the i7 for next year.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Just use Standby mode for fast reboot.


----------



## Jerry 42 (Feb 25, 2003)

I got a I7 and Vista 64 w/ 12 gigs for my home video editing both SD & BR modes. Seems to be an improvement inspeed over Quad and Vista 32 w/4 gigs. For $ spent I would have been real unhappy if it wasn't.


----------

