Hello All:
Since I am about to purchase a new laptop, besides the manufacturer, brand and model..., I am also concerning the OS.
At this moment, the initial installed OS for new laptop will, most likely, be window7. As we know, not always the newer version is better than the previous one. MS's Vista is less welcomed than XP. How is Window7?? Comparing to WindowXP, what's it like? If you have the experience/idea, please tell me. --Zhao
There are a number of threads dealinng with WIndows 7 here, in PCHardware and in the Windows Support Forum so it might be a good idea to browse them too.
I think it is unanimous that it is better than VISTA ....
I like it and I appreciate some of the features that upset others .....
If you are buying a new computer, as you are, then no hesitation and get the Home Premium unless you absolutely have to have a couple of rather special features that are in Professional I believe.
I would not buy the 64 bit version unless you know that all your hardware peripherals -- printer, scanner .... -- have the drivers etc for 64 bit. If they don't you can't use them.
Applications are more flexible and you can run 32 bit applications on 64 bit Windows.
Hugh
I have Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit installed on a desktop with a dual boot with XP. I like Win 7 quite a bit and would most certainly not get XP instead.
If you get the 32-bit version, you can expect most of your software to run. The 32-bit software I've installed in Win 7 64 has worked, for the most part, unless the installer is 16-bit, as it is for some programs. If you get 64-bit Win 7, no 16-bit programs will run. You would have to install a virtual machine such as VirtualBox or Microsoft Virtual PC, install Win XP or other 32-bit operating system, and install your 16-bit programs in the virtual machine. Given how old these programs are now, I think it's probably time to move on to something else that will run under 64-bit Win 7.
The performance in my Win 7 installation is very good. I think the operating system has some very nice features.
I am primarily a Linux user and Linux will continue to be my main operating system, but when I have to run Windows for something not available in Linux, I much prefer to use Win 7 than XP. I don't dislike XP, though, and I have two other computers with XP and Linux that will not be upgraded to Win 7 because they are either incapable of running it or only marginally capable.
There are many Win 7 drivers available for hardware and more are becoming available every day. However, you should run the Windows 7 Compatibility Test to check your peripherals. Windows Vista drivers will often work if there is no Win 7 driver. XP drivers will not. --Judy M.
A bit more on 32-bit vs. 64-bit--
I chose 64-bit because the future lies in 64-bit computing--and probably sooner than we think. Just about every processor in a computer today is 64-bit. A 64-bit operating system can use much more RAM than a 32-bit OS, which is limited to less than 3.5 gigs. For future-proofing, I think 64-bit is the way to go.
However, some hardware does not have a 64-bit driver and may never have one. Without a 64-bit driver you can't use the hardware in 64-bit Win 7. If your hardware doesn't have a 64-bit driver and there is no indication on the manufacturer's Web site that a 64-bit driver will be forthcoming, you are faced with a decision. If the hardware in question is inexpensive, such as a cheap printer, you may do well to get rid of it and buy something for which there is 64-bit support.
If you plan to keep your computer for years, I'd go with 64-bit because you don't want to be unable to go forward as more and more software comes out for 64-bit unless you buy a copy of 64-bit Win 7. But if you might get a new computer in two or three years and you can't find 64-bit drivers for an important or expensive piece of hardware, go with 32-bit.--Judy M.
Hello Hugh and Judy and all:
Thank you for detailed reply.Thanksgiving day is coming, I decide to buy the new laptop at that time. It might save money. (I am living in Chicago)
It seems that this purchase has new problem: 32-bit or 64-bit windows7! Right now 64-bit is still a rather new feature, I think I'd better buy 32-bit version to avoid some software trouble.
Can I have the choice of the 32-bit or 64-bit version of the windows7? If it has already installed 64-bit window7, is it easy to change to 32-bit version?
By the way, my old laptop is 15 inches. There are 15.6 and 16 inches of the screen in the market. What is your experience about the screen? --Zhao
>> It seems that this purchase has new problem: 32-bit or 64-bit windows7! Right now 64-bit is still a rather new feature, I think I'd better buy 32-bit version to avoid some software trouble. >>
Oh dear. 64-bit is NOT new. Many copies of Vista 64 were installed on computers and as long as drivers for hardware were available, there were not a lot of unexpected problems. Windows XP also had a 64-bit version, but it was poorly supported as far as drivers go. 64-bit is the future of computing, which is why I installed 64-bit Windows 7.
32-bit software generally works fine on 64-bit Windows, as long as it has a 32-bit installer (some 32-bit software has a 16-bit installer and that won't work). 64-bit operating systems can use much more memory than 32-bit OSes, which are limited to 3.5 gigs of RAM or less.
You need 64-bit hardware drivers for 64-bit Windows. You should check with the manufacturer's Web site to see if there is a 64-bit driver for your printers, scanner, and whatever else you want to have working in Win 7 64. In addition to the manufacturer, Microsoft includes rather barebones drivers in Win 7 64 for some hardware. I have four printers; two are all-in-ones. The only printer that doesn't have a 64-bit driver right now is my 9-year-old Epson inkjet. It's possible a driver from Microsoft may be forthcoming, but I haven't been able to download the updated Windows Printers list. One piece of hardware I won't be able to use in Win 7 64 is my Sony Clie PDA. Palm did not and will not issue a 64-bit driver, so I can't sync my PDA to my Win 7 computer.
I suspect that if your 32-bit software would work under 32-bit Win 7, it will also work under 64-bit Win 7. However, while 16-bit software will most likely work under Win 7 32, it will not work under 64-bit Win 7. The solution would be to install a software virtual machine, install Win Vista or XP 32-bit in the virtual machine, and install the 16-bit software. Or just accept that 16-bit software is now beyond obsolete and it's probably time to move to something more up-to-date.
>> Can I have the choice of the 32-bit or 64-bit version of the windows7? >>
Windows 7 comes with two DVDs, one for 32-bit and one for 64-bit. So you don't have to choose at the time you're buying Windows 7.
>> If it has already installed 64-bit window7, is it easy to change to 32-bit version? >>
Easy? No! You would have to install Windows 7 32-bit fresh. You can't move Windows 7 for 32 to 64 or 64 to 32. I don't know whether the license would require you to pay for a copy of 32-bit Windows. Perhaps if you convince Microsoft that you're removing all traces of Win 64 you could legally install Win 32 without paying for another copy. But I don't know the answer. Perhaps you could find out at microsoft.com.
You do have a month from the time you install Win 7 before you need to activate Windows. So if you installed the 64-bit version and found it gave you problems with software or hardware, you could wipe it out (literally) and install 32-bit Windows 7 and activate that.
>> There are 15.6 and 16 inches of the screen in the market. What is your experience about the screen? >>
Also 17 inches. Your best bet would be to go to a store that sells laptops in various screen sizes and see what looks good to you. Generally, a larger screen size will make a laptop heavier, if weight is a consideration for you. But a larger screen at a certain resolution will be easier to read than the same resolution on a smaller screen.--Judy M.
>> 64-bit operating systems can use much more memory than 32-bit OSes, which are limited to 3.5 gigs of RAM or less. <<
Is that a "good thing" or a "bad thing?"
IOW, are you saying that 64-bit OS are capable of addressing and accessing more memory than 32-bit [something that is virtually self-evident], or are you saying that 64-bit OS consume more memory than 32-bit ones.
I suspect that you intended the former, but I am offering this opportunity to disambiguate.
Best regards, 4merCL
>> are you saying that 64-bit OS are capable of addressing and accessing more memory than 32-bit >>
Yes.
>> or are you saying that 64-bit OS consume more memory than 32-bit ones >>
I don't know for sure, but it's possible. Microsoft says 1 gig is the minimum memory for 32-bit Win 7 but 2 gigs is the minimum for Win 7 64.--Judy M.
Judy -
> Windows 7 comes with two DVDs, one for 32-bit and one for 64-bit. So you don't have to choose at the time you're buying Windows 7.
If I have read Zhao's question correctly, he is buying a new laptop, not just Windows 7. I'm not sure he'll have a choice between 32 and 64 after he places the order, and may not have a choice for a particular model beforehand. One version or another will be installed and activated before the system lands on his doorstep.
Kurt
I'm sure you're right. If someone is buying a new computer with Win 7 preinstalled, it will most likely come with one version and not the choice of two.--Judy M.
I'm judging mostly by the store flyers etc but there seems to be very much a trend to 64 bit on new laptops as well as on desktops. Possibly perhaps because RAM is relatively cheap and getting 6 or 8GB sounds wonderful!
Let's hope must people just buying a new WIN 7 machine because it's there will not have much in the way of peripherals and in particular not so old as just plain not usable ...
Very much a caveat emptor situation unless you know the pitfalls.
Kudos for you, Judy. You still do an outstanding job of describing complicated things. I wonder where you get the patience.
There's just one further item you might want to add to your excellent descriptions of 32- vs 64-bit Windows.
When 64-bit Windows encounters a 32-bit program, it needs to emulate a 32-bit environment by running Windows on Windows (wow64.exe).
Running 32-bit Applications
They will, of course, run slower - but not much. See KB906892 for an extreme example.
(In a similar fashion, 32-bit Windows provides an environment for DOS programs with ntvdm.exe and 16-bit Windows programs with wow.exe.)
Hugh -
> there seems to be very much a trend to 64 bit on new laptops as well as on desktops. Possibly perhaps because RAM is relatively cheap and getting 6 or 8GB sounds wonderful!
Keeping in mind that most notebooks have only two memory slots, going past 4GB gets pretty expensive. Some sample prices (for my Dell notebook): Kingston 2GB: $108 Kingston 4GB: $339 Crucial 2GB: $55 Crucial 4GB: $189If you want to maintain dual channel operation, the modules have to be the same size, so you have to go to 8GB. Using the numbers above, I get $678 for memory from Kingston and $378 from Crucial. otoh, if you stay with the 32 bit system and buy only 4GB, it's $216 from Kingston and $110 from Crucial.
As for prices dropping, the Kingston 2GB module was $26 on January 22 of this year, and the Crucial 2GB module was $28 on August 5 of this year. That's a pretty big jump in pricing - maybe because everybody is being seduced into 6/8 GB?
> Very much a caveat emptor situation unless you know the pitfalls.
There's another pitfall. Suppose you have an app that was designed for Win 32. That app will not have access to any more memory under Win 64 that it did before. It has to be recompiled with a 64 bit compiler to make use of the larger address space under Win 64. btw, afaik, versions of Office prior to Office 2010 are all compiled for Win 32 (or Win 16[g]). From an application (not operating system) pov, the only thing you get with Win 64 (and 4+GB of memory) is the ability to have more applications in physical memory at once and not have to go to the paging file.
None of this should be taken as a criticism or put down of Win 64. That itself has some additional protection and security that may make it worthwhile on its own. But I suspect users' expectations may exceed reality, at least for the next year or two.
For the reason you mention I may well have been wrong for laptop on the extra memory but certainly on desktops 6 - 8 GB is almost commonplace on quite cheap machines.
You give a few more why bother reasons for sticking with 32 bit except for specialized circumstances and people who know what they are doing!
I'll continue to give Noel Coward's advice to Mrs Worthington .....
Hi All:
Today I went to market to do practical investigation. I viewed Costco, Best Buy, Walmart, Offrice Depot, and Sam Club.
Part laptops are still installed with Vista as the OS. All the products installed with windows7 are Home Premium 64-bit version. Talk about the RAM, they arranged from 1-4 GM. Hugh said to buy 6-8 GB memory, it is not reallistic at present I think.
It seems one needs to consider how, after buying, install all the hardwares and softwares you are using and going to use. --Zhao
>> Some sample prices (for my Dell notebook):Kingston 2GB: $108Kingston 4GB: $339 Crucial 2GB: $55Crucial 4GB: $189 <<
Is Kingston really better, or that much better, than Crucial?
Sorry if you misunderstood my reference to 6 - 8 GB of RAM. When I wrote:
<< Possibly perhaps because RAM is relatively cheap and getting 6 or 8GB sounds wonderful! >>
I meant "sounds wonderful" in marketing speak and to the customer who is not well informed. But in any case I was corrected so far as laptops are concerned because of the higher cost of high value RAM strips needed in laptops.
For most people there is no need for more than the 3 or 4GB that is more likely to come in laptops.
As you can see there seems to be a concensus to avoid 64 bit unless you are certain that all your peripheral hardware and software will work with it.
>> None of this should be taken as a criticism or put down of Win 64. That itself has some additional protection and security that may make it worthwhile on its own. But I suspect users' expectations may exceed reality, at least for the next year or two. >>
Your points lead to a couple more considerations. Right now most of us don't have applications written to take advantage of 64 bits. But this will change soon as nearly all computers of the past couple of years have 64-bit processors, many computers are running a 64-bit OS, and Win 7 64 is a viable system with many 64-bit hardware drivers available. If someone buys a computer with 32-bit Win 7, they'll be unable to take the next step in computing, namely the move to 64-bit software.
This also hinges on how long someone expects to keep a computer bought now. If it's three years or more, I wouldn't want to be locked into a 32-bit system while the computing world around me was going to 64-bit unless I bought a new computer. If I were someone who bought a new computer every year or two, I could safely stay with 32-bit while the transition to 64-bit was happening. My next computer would have a 64-bit OS.
It also makes a difference whether the new computer is your only computer or you're also keeping the old one. Loss of a peripheral or software item may not matter much if you can run the old system when you need it. But if the new computer is your only one, expensive hardware that has no driver for the new system is probably a deal breaker.--Judy M.
Thanks for the links, Jerry. I'm always happy to learn more about what's going on in an operating system.
I don't think a home or small business user will notice any slowdown. I haven't. I figure if you can't notice it without a stopwatch, it's not worth worrying about.
The applications mentioned in the links are not ones that a typical home user would be running (SQL Server tools?). And I don't think many home users have an Itanium processor, mentioned in "Performance and Memory Consumption Under WOW64."--Judy M.
> Is Kingston really better, or that much better, than Crucial?
Not in general. Both companies offer a lifetime warranty and compatibility guarantee on their products. Some notebooks (Toshiba in particular) are very finicky about memory, and Kingston is the only recommended third party for memory on those systems. But I've used both Kingston and Crucial memory on Dell systems with nary a problem.
Given the wide disparity in current pricing, I have to suspect Kingston is having a temporary sourcing problem, and either Crucial will be raising their prices or Kingston will be lowering theirs.
