Windows XP or Windows 7


D

Dave C.

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
 
Ad

Advertisements

D

Daniel Prince

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.
 
M

Man-wai Chang to The Door (+MS=32B)

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.


--
@[email protected] 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
ä¸å€Ÿè²¸! ä¸è©é¨™! ä¸æ´äº¤! ä¸æ‰“交! ä¸æ‰“劫! ä¸è‡ªæ®º! è«‹è€ƒæ…®ç¶œæ´ (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa
 
S

Sleepy

Daniel Prince said:
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.

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.
 
M

Man-wai Chang to The Door (+MS=32B)

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!


--
@[email protected] 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
ä¸å€Ÿè²¸! ä¸è©é¨™! ä¸æ´äº¤! ä¸æ‰“交! ä¸æ‰“劫! ä¸è‡ªæ®º! è«‹è€ƒæ…®ç¶œæ´ (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa
 
J

Jon Danniken

Sleepy said:
Windows 7 does have some nice features but it also dumps some older
features (like the Classic start menu and the Shared folder icon).

No classic menu? How freaking hard would it have been for MS to keep the
interface the same for those people who are accustomed to using it that way.

It wasn't broke, why fix it?

Jon
 
Ad

Advertisements

F

Fishface

Sleepy said:
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.

Is the Classic start menu still available in Vista?
 
M

Michael Cecil

I tried Win 7 also and like you I went back to Vista Ultimate. The
lack of the quick start menu was a big deciding factor for me. And I
honestly don't think Win 7 once booted up is any faster than Vista.

Bob

It's simple to add the quick launch back to the taskbar, if that's what
you meant.

Restore the Quick Launch Toolbar
--------------------------------
Right click on the Taskbar and select Toolbars then select New Toolbar.
Copy the following text into the folder field, then click Select Folder:

%AppData%\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\Quick Launch

Next make sure to right click on the Taskbar and unlock it.
Remove the text by right clicking on the Taskbar and unchecking Show Text
and Show Title.
Right click on the Taskbar and select View then Large Icons to enable
large icons if you like.
Finally, adjust the Quick Launch toolbar location and size.
 
P

Pen

Bob said:
I tried Win 7 also and like you I went back to Vista Ultimate. The
lack of the quick start menu was a big deciding factor for me. And I
honestly don't think Win 7 once booted up is any faster than Vista.

Bob
It isn't except in some magazine/newspaper etc articles who run benchmark
tests to PROVE its faster by 2to5%.
 
P

PeterC

No classic menu? How freaking hard would it have been for MS to keep the
interface the same for those people who are accustomed to using it that way.

It wasn't broke, why fix it?

Jon

There's a bit of software that re-instates that Menu in W7. Sorry, can't
unforget where I saw it, but it's only a couple of days ago. Softpedia
might have it.
 
T

Tim Mastrogiacomo

You will still run into some hardware that has problems with the 64-
bit OS, but other than that I recommend it over XP.


Tim Mastrogiacomo
 
Ad

Advertisements

D

Dave C.

When I went from 4G to 8G on Win7 64bit I experienced a new crispness
or snappiness to general workings that I had not expected. Go figure.

That's called the placebo effect.
 
A

anamigan

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.

When I went from 4G to 8G on Win7 64bit I experienced a new crispness
or snappiness to general workings that I had not expected. Go figure.
 
J

John Doe

Windows 7 might be better if you can stand Microsoft removing
important features from the Windows Explorer file manager.
 
D

Dave C.

I could be wrong but, it seems to me that there must be situations
where having more ram would make a computer faster because Windows
is using the swap file much less. Suppose you are transcoding a
video file. It would be much faster if the whole file and most of
the Windows core could fit entirely in ram than if only a fourth of
it could fit in the system ram at one time.

Yeah, there are some situations where more RAM can help. The thing is,
within the past few years (or so) the price of RAM has gotten so cheap
that just about everybody can afford WAY more RAM than they would
typically use on a day to day basis. If computers were houses, just
about all computers come with 18 bedrooms now. That a good analogy, as
most users would never use more than 3-4GB of RAM (at most), just like
most families wouldn't need more than 3-4 bedrooms in their house.

Yet it's common to see a default configuration of 6-8GB of RAM in a
home computer now, and it's not unusual for people to build or upgrade
systems so that they are running with 12 or 16GB of RAM...or even more.

It's a frustrating thing to see a system with 12GB of RAM (3/4ths of
which will never be touched) with a video card that was state of the
art 3-4 years ago. (for example) Or a processor with an ultra-slow
~2GHz clock speed. System builders are trying to dazzle you with gobs
of RAM to distract you from other glaring weaknesses in their
systems. -Dave
 
D

Daniel Prince

Dave C. said:
That's called the placebo effect.

I could be wrong but, it seems to me that there must be situations
where having more ram would make a computer faster because Windows
is using the swap file much less. Suppose you are transcoding a
video file. It would be much faster if the whole file and most of
the Windows core could fit entirely in ram than if only a fourth of
it could fit in the system ram at one time.
 
Ad

Advertisements

A

anamigan

On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 07:03:03 -0800
Yeah, there are some situations where more RAM can help. The thing is,
within the past few years (or so) the price of RAM has gotten so cheap
that just about everybody can afford WAY more RAM than they would
typically use on a day to day basis. If computers were houses, just
about all computers come with 18 bedrooms now. That a good analogy, as
most users would never use more than 3-4GB of RAM (at most), just like
most families wouldn't need more than 3-4 bedrooms in their house.

Ya but a house analogy/metaphor isn't quite right until you factor in
all
the different rooms, a 3 car garage with a pit, a kitchen with two ovens
and a large centre island that is plumbed, two full bathrooms and two
half bathrooms, a large deck with an open plan family/games/dining area
that opens on to it. If you want to harp on a single use commodity then
I'd throw in the tennis court for an aspiring pro, an olympic sized pool

for a swimmer or a tri level dog training run not a bunch of little
rooms.
Yet it's common to see a default configuration of 6-8GB of RAM in a
home computer now, and it's not unusual for people to build or upgrade
systems so that they are running with 12 or 16GB of RAM...or even more.

It's common to see 4G of RAM in systems. Custom built rigs do tag in
with
8 to 16G's. But that is also connected to a slot issue and matching dual

channel 2x2G 4x2G and 4x4G but then price does become a factor.

An 8G memory card holds around 400 RAW format photos.
If you use picasa for jpegs that's one thing but if you use a database
image program for RAWS at 12-22M per that extra RAM is nice. Now
have a 22tab browser running, something like paint.net and inkscape
and a RAW editor but that's just me, other people have vast video and
audio collections and associated apps happening.
It's a frustrating thing to see a system with 12GB of RAM (3/4ths of
which will never be touched) with a video card that was state of the
art 3-4 years ago. (for example) Or a processor with an ultra-slow
~2GHz clock speed. System builders are trying to dazzle you with gobs
of RAM to distract you from other glaring weaknesses in their
systems. -Dave

Only amongst the uninformed Dave. By the time you've hung out in
pc-homebuilt for more than a couple of months and visited a few web
pages you should be getting the drift. It might not help that everyone
and their brother have a different opinion on everything from single
core speedsters through dual core out to quad cores that they insist
on mixing and matching with various GFX/MB/HD options.
 
Ad

Advertisements

J

John Doe

Daniel Prince said:
I could be wrong but, it seems to me that there must be
situations where having more ram would make a computer faster
because Windows is using the swap file much less.

Yes, of course.

I have 4 GB (3.4 GB used by Windows XP 32-bit) of RAM and nothing
yet that would use all of it. I always keep an eye on things like
CPU, disk, and Internet usage (and system/video RAM usage as
needed). Keeping an eye on system resource use can provide upgrade
information and help avoid common problems. Anyone who wants to
know whether they have enough RAM/whatever should just measure it.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Similar Threads


Top