[jaclaz]

5eraph, on 09 November 2012 - 08:13 AM, said:

There's no need to be defensive. I'm sure you have your reasons. Just don't dismiss me as a fanboy and we'll be peachy.

Never thought you were a fanboy, as said there is a number of people that actually needed to have the XP 64 (only they are much less than the actual XP 64 user base) you may well be one of the few, and, like everyone else migrating to the new platform you must have had the same driver issues everyone else had, or you were another lucky peep like JodyThornton is?
However, as said, no problem if you hadn't actually a need for it and just fancied it.

The usual comparison between Porsche 911 and Toyota Hi-Lux (and a wheelbarrow ) JFYI:
http://www.911cd.net...pic=24502&st=12


jaclaz

[5eraph]

I moved from 32-bit XP SP2 to XP x64 a few months after SP2 x64 was released, so I avoided the dreadful driver debacle associated with new operating systems. I got it cheap with a hardware purchase; wouldn't have been much of a loss if the OS was a dud. It grew on me and was far more stable than I had known 32-bit XP to be on my machine. So I stayed.

I would think this is the typical migration strategy of those that are not early adopters. I don't like paying to be a beta tester, and I'm not a tech addict that needs the latest bleeding edge gadget.

BTW, I do happen to own a wheelbarrow, and I like it too, but not because I'm a thief--I'm NOT a crook (and I'm not Nixon by saying so).

This post has been edited by 5eraph: 09 November 2012 - 09:25 AM

[jaclaz]

5eraph, on 09 November 2012 - 09:23 AM, said:

BTW, I do happen to own a wheelbarrow, and I like it too, but not because I'm a thief--I'm NOT a crook (and I'm not Nixon by saying so).

Well, BOTH a Toyota Hi-Lux and a Porsche 911 would be way faster than your wheelbarrow (because they have more wheels).

For NO apparent reason, but JFYI :

Spoiler

jaclaz

[5eraph]

LOL. Great pic.

jaclaz, on 09 November 2012 - 09:37 AM, said:

Well, BOTH a Toyota Hi-Lux and a Porsche 911 would be way faster than your wheelbarrow (because they have more wheels).

There you go with the assumptions again. Wheelbarrows are much faster than both your Porsche or your Toyota for moving dirt and yard waste across my property. At least when I'm pushing it.

Tell you what: You bring your Porsche and I'll bring my wheelbarrow. We'll race.

[submix8c]

How much can anyone bet that this topic by the OP is directly related?

One must "assume" that the OP is still intending an "upgrade" to Vista/7/8 x64 and can't stick to a single Topic...

[jaclaz]

5eraph, on 09 November 2012 - 09:47 AM, said:

Tell you what: You bring your Porsche and I'll bring my wheelbarrow. We'll race.

I don't have the Porsche and I quite frankly cannot see a single reason for using my Toyouta Hi-Lux for moving dirt and yard waste across your property.
Of course, if you come over here with your wheelbarrow, I will be glad to give you a chance of showing me how fast you are moving dirt and yard waste across my property.

jaclaz

[5eraph]

Race for pink slips?

Spoiler

[JodyThornton]

jaclaz, on 09 November 2012 - 08:07 AM, said:

Not at all.
Simply trying to have things called with their names .

• Is a 64 bit system more "capable" overall than a 32 bit system? Yes.
  
• Is a 64 bit system faster than a 32 bit system? Rarely.
  
• Is a 64 bit application running in a 64 bit OS faster than it's 32 bit counterpart? Rarely.
  
• Does everyone *needed* at the time of XP 64 a 64 bit system? No, only a very few people in the need of running very high end kind of apps might have actually *needed* one, and they would have had to be very careful in finding supported hardware and their drivers, at the time non-existing or rare or buggy.
  
• Does everyone *need* (now) a 64 bit system? No, only a few people in the need of running very high end kind of apps or however doing an "intensive" use of a PC may actually *need* one, the good news being that the issues with supported hardware and their drivers are not anymore a common problem.
  
• Is a 32 bit app running under a 64 bit faster than on a native 32 bit system? No.
  
• But 32 bit systems cannot access more than 3/4 Gb of RAM.... NO. The limit is given in some MS OS's by commercial/technical choices (NOT architecture limits) as - even without any technical knowledge easily verifiable by checking how most 32 bit Server edition support largely more that that, typically 64 Gb: http://msdn.microsof...y/aa366778.aspx
  
• But 32 bit systems running PAE are slower than 64 bit systems accessing memory. Not really, or the differences (comparing very similar hardware) are negligible.
  
• But I like to have a 64 bit system anyway. That's good :, and you can have one allright , only you should know how most probably you won't be going to use all the increased potentialities of it when compared to a 32 bit system, and you shouldn't say that you chose it because 32 bit OS does not support more than 3/4 Gb of memory, as this is not the case, an OS vendor has introduced some limits to some of the 32 bit OS's it sells for its own (perfectly logical) commercial or technical reasons.

jaclaz

Some good points jaclaz. I did want to challenge a couple of them with my experiences (not to be argumentative at all, but just to provide my own experiences.

For running a 64-bit app on a 64-bit OS, I would find it is usually snappier. I am running an experiental x64 build of Seamonkey, and it seems to render slightly more quickly than an x86 build on 32-bit XP.
Outlook 2003 (an x86 app) should be slower on WinXP x64 since it's running on WOW emulation. But I wonder if more memory access allows more cache allocation to a 32-bit app (perhaps that may offset the speed dcrease from running in an emulation layer, is that possible?)
I have found using PAE mode memory access on Windows Server 2003 creates a noticeable performance hit, compared to accessing more memory with an x64 OS.

Just some thoughts.

[jaclaz]

JodyThornton, on 09 November 2012 - 04:36 PM, said:

Some good points jaclaz. I did want to challenge a couple of them with my experiences (not to be argumentative at all, but just to provide my own experiences.

For running a 64-bit app on a 64-bit OS, I would find it is usually snappier. I am running an experiental x64 build of Seamonkey, and it seems to render slightly more quickly than an x86 build on 32-bit XP.
Outlook 2003 (an x86 app) should be slower on WinXP x64 since it's running on WOW emulation. But I wonder if more memory access allows more cache allocation to a 32-bit app (perhaps that may offset the speed dcrease from running in an emulation layer, is that possible?)
I have found using PAE mode memory access on Windows Server 2003 creates a noticeable performance hit, compared to accessing more memory with an x64 OS.

Just some thoughts.

As a matter of fact nothing really "challenging" .

The comparison between a Server 2003 32 bit using PAE with a (say) Server 2008 R2 64 bit is one of those "practical impossibilities" in the sense that I have never seen such a comparison done "properly" (if not for "research") i.e. on comparable hardware, usually you have a several years old machine running 32 bit 2003 Server, and you get a brand new machine, install to it 2008 R2 64 bit and this latter is actually much faster, but how much of it is due to the hardware and how much to the 64 bitness is normally to be seen.

I would go further affirming that - often - (and obviously I am making here a very generic statement ) servers need to have a very fast storage subsystem and their performance is rarely connected with how fast is their memory access, but rather on how fast is their storage subsystem.

When an actually memory intensive use of the server is needed, the advantage of the 64 bit memory addressing is seemingly more in the "capabilities" than in speed, see this as an example:
http://www.dell.com/..._em64t_6850.pdf
on page 9 there is a nice XY graph showing how the performance (until a "size limit" is reached) is substantially the same.

jaclaz

[colore]

hello

just installed Win7

can you explain me please the following:

1) i connected a hd and i was not able to run exe's in it, etc
i wonder, if i have logged in as administrator, why it still requires for permissions, since they are set as 'full' for admin accounts?
anyway, i set full permissions for all users and that fixed the problem

2) i disabled index service manually, but how do i stop notifications 'your search may be slow' ? also, how do i detele the data of indexing service that are stored and are now useless?

3) i am not sure if i use AHCI, and if yes, if i use it for all my drives and any drives i add in the future
in my BIOS i last time have set manually to IDE
i also, no longer get the bios notification to enable AHCI when i start my pc
please advise

4) i 've heard that aero is a resource hog, how do i disable it? i dont know if it is enabled atm

thanks!

This post has been edited by colore: 10 November 2012 - 12:56 PM

[jaclaz]

5eraph, on 09 November 2012 - 10:12 AM, said:

Race for pink slips?

Sure , no prob , only give me some time to overhaul my wheelbarrow, it needs some work to be ready for race:

Spoiler

I must have somewhere an old KTM 360 engine .... that should fit nicely ....

Spoiler

jaclaz

[5eraph]

LOL.

[Tripredacus]

colore, on 10 November 2012 - 12:50 PM, said:

1) i connected a hd and i was not able to run exe's in it, etc
i wonder, if i have logged in as administrator, why it still requires for permissions, since they are set as 'full' for admin accounts?
anyway, i set full permissions for all users and that fixed the problem

3) i am not sure if i use AHCI, and if yes, if i use it for all my drives and any drives i add in the future
in my BIOS i last time have set manually to IDE
i also, no longer get the bios notification to enable AHCI when i start my pc
please advise

4) i 've heard that aero is a resource hog, how do i disable it? i dont know if it is enabled atm

1. Windows 7 pays more attention to NTFS file permissions on foreign disks, so you may need to take ownership, or grant full access to the disk to your user account,.

3. I'm not sure what you are asking here. If you had installed your OS while in IDE mode, changing it to AHCI will likely cause a 0x7B STOP error. (vice-versa applies) AHCI is recommended if you have the option with a SATA disk, also if you have an SSD as your boot disk.

4. A true sign of Aero (aka Aero Glass) being enabled is that you have transparency in your GUI. Go into Personalize and there are 2 different theme groups, Aero and Basic and High Contrast. Pick one of the Basic ones to disable Aero.