|
Patch reliability is unclear, but widespread attacks make patching prudent. Go ahead and patch, but watch out for potential problems. |
‘m still unpacking from our move, and cannot lay my hands on my manual… I seem to recall that this machine can run in “either” 32-bit or 64-bit mode (?). When I got it, I wasn’t about to try 64-bit Vista, but I’m thinking of giving 64-bit Win-7 a shot — if this PC will run it. If it is possible, is it the Windows install that will control which mode it runs in?
I couldn’t seem to find anything o0n Google that directly answered this/these question(s).
Regards,
Chuck Billow
Chuck Billow
Looks like its a Q6600 processor so yeah, its been 64-bit ready for years and years…and years. 
Indeed, if you are not planning to get more RAM, so that you have at least 4 GB, there is no point in going the 64 bit OS route.
Rui, Chuck,
Hello… I have a slightly different experience …I have several OS’s and use them all.(same PC). Vista and “7” both 32 and 64 flavors..and only 3GB of Ram. They all use the same hardware (Hitachi Deskstar HD’s) and they all run the same programs …. (Also my main 3 have not one patch or update) Right now i am running Window 7 64…. and my RAM usage is typically at approximately 40% . “7 64” “blows the doors” of my Vista OS and seems slightly faster than my “7 32” So …if the choice “be mine” i would go with the “7 64 ” over the 32 bit flavors and upgrade the “RAM” later if you choose. 
Regards Fred
Rui, Chuck,
Hello… I have a slightly different experience …I have several OS’s and use them all.(same PC). Vista and “7” both 32 and 64 flavors..and only 3GB of Ram. They all use the same hardware (Hitachi Deskstar HD’s) and they all run the same programs …. (Also my main 3 have not one patch or update) Right now i am running Window 7 64…. and my RAM usage is typically at approximately 40% . “7 64” “blows the doors” of my Vista OS and seems slightly faster than my “7 32” So …if the choice “be mine” i would go with the “7 64 ” over the 32 bit flavors and upgrade the “RAM” later if you choose.
Hi Fred,
I think the questions lies with the “slightly faster”. How much is slightly? Is it worth the effort to upgrade and do a clean install and move programs by hand or buy PC mover to move them automatically? Regarding this very PC, I saw no drivers for Windows 7 64 bit on HP’s site, so that hardware support would have to be determined beforehand. It could be some effort just to do the upgrade. I know some members here wouldn’t mind doing it, but that surely is a matter of personal preference (and in some cases, of the person doing it being more or less proficient doing it all).
My laptop has 4 GB RAM and I am entertaining the idea of going from 7 x86 to 7 x64 and I am not yet convinced in doing it, just because of the effort to move all programs. I know it will take at least a day and possibly more to get everything as I need and I would have an immediate benefit – about 1.3 GB of extra RAM immediately available. For now, the allure of that hasn’t been enough to take the plunge. I know I will eventually do it, but for now the effort hasn’t been worth it. To end as I started, the benefit does not still outweigh the advantages, in my case, at least :).
Regards
Rui
I think the questions lies with the “slightly faster”. How much is slightly? Is it worth the effort to upgrade and do a clean install and move programs by hand or buy PC mover to move them automatically?
Rui,
Hello… Who knows? (slightly faster) My point being that the 3GB of RAM issue doesn’t seem to to be doing anything bad … My 64 OS after splash screen and password is “up” in the blink of an eye…With Vista 32 you could fall asleep waiting. (same start up stuff ) As far as doing the “reloading” programs thing …. I have done this so many times that i could “do it in my sleep” ( trying to get away from this) so for me no big deal ( masochistic behavior problem.. hope to get help soon 
) So in my “twisted opinion” yes if upgrading …go with the 7 64 …that is if your CPU will let you. Regards Fred
PS: How exactly do you pronounce your name? … Have never come across anyone else before.
Hi Fred,
My point being that the 3GB of RAM issue doesn’t seem to to be doing anything bad(…)
It shouldn’t do anything bad.
I guess the point of my not advising the move would be that without at least 4 GB RAM, it wouldn’t do anything meaningfully better .
As far as doing the “reloading” programs thing …. I have done this so many times that i could “do it in my sleep” ( trying to get away from this) so for me no big deal ( masochistic behavior problem.. hope to get help soon
I kinda suspected that .
PS: How exactly do you pronounce your name? … Have never come across anyone else before.
I guess you could start with Roy and add an o – Rooy. Not quite as in Portuguese, as we pronounce the Rs a bit differently, but close enough, I suppose 
.
Regards
Rui
I would NEVER consider going back to Vista or XP.
Well, Vista yeah, even though SP2 is pretty good, its just not good enough and the burn mark it left in early years is still touchy, but OMG, still love the heck out of XP, installations still going in as fast as Win 7 ones. Its eventually going to lose out to Win 7 now but I think only because nearly every new thing that comes along from Microsoft is denied to XP. Its like thery’re trying to starve the Grandmother slowly to death, but she keeps sneaking a potato from the burlap sack hidden under the floorboards in her room!! Sack is almost empty though. 
I would hope that Microsoft learned thier lesson and that the future OS incarnation will include the best of XP with the modernity of 7…OR maybe they won’t…exactly because XP has been so strong for a decade and they fear another product cycle stagnation.
No matter, as long as I have my XPs all in a row, me’s happy.
Hello… I have a slightly different experience …I have several OS’s and use them all.(same PC). Vista and “7” both 32 and 64 flavors..and only 3GB of Ram. They all use the same hardware (Hitachi Deskstar HD’s) and they all run the same programs …. (Also my main 3 have not one patch or update) Right now i am running Window 7 64…. and my RAM usage is typically at approximately 40% . “7 64” “blows the doors” of my Vista OS and seems slightly faster than my “7 32” So …if the choice “be mine” i would go with the “7 64 ” over the 32 bit flavors and upgrade the “RAM” later if you choose.
I no longer have Vista on any system, which is why I agree , it was like navigating the Queen Mary around on Walden Pond! I haven’t notices a tinker’s bell of difference between 7 32-bit and 7 64-bit, except asthetically I like 32-bit better because it doesn’t have the split personality when it comes to Programs, and because its ultra-compatible with shared devices on all my XP systems. When it comes to 7 and XP (dual boots abound as well as side by sides), I notice something slightly more than a tinker’s bell of difference, but not much…except in certain situations. Most times, if this makes sense, XP is a little bit more nimble, like its quick, gets the first half step, but 7 is more smooth, not falling behind, just more graceful. Maybe all that is just an impression from the dynamics of the GUI for each though, hard to say. Again, important thing is, don’t notice much difference…except in my case when it comes to processor intensive single app. operations. That’s when Windows 7 sometimes comes shooting out of the cup of blown away, like Indiana Jones came shooting out of the nuclear explosion in the lead-lined refrigerator!
For my money Windows 7 reserves too much processor time for multitasking (except in the case of single processors…then it behaves very much like XP) and leaves no compromise or remedy to that situation when single purposing a system to say, rendering. If I was trying to do eveything on the same system I’m sure I would feel a little differently cuz its nice not to lock up and stall while Windows trys to fit your “other” requests into the que for processor attention, but I still can’t find an option to go one way or the other. If we had Priority, Affinity,…and, Dedication, so I could set some systems to use 95% of the processor for such and such a task, I take full responsibility, blah blah blah, I think most of my argument would be gone. As it is, Win 7 is frustratingly underperforming in this respect from my perspective.
Now hopefully someone will blow me away and say, oh, didn’t you know about such and such? It fixes that problem, and actually, it outperforms XP now on single task processing. 
I no longer have Vista on any system, which is why I agree
, it was like navigating the Queen Mary around on Walden Pond! I haven’t notices a tinker’s bell of difference between 7 32-bit and 7 64-bit, except asthetically I like 32-bit better because it doesn’t have the split personality when it comes to Programs, and because its ultra-compatible with shared devices on all my XP systems. When it comes to 7 and XP (dual boots abound as well as side by sides), I notice something slightly more than a tinker’s bell of difference, but not much…except in certain situations. Most times, if this makes sense, XP is a little bit more nimble, like its quick, gets the first half step, but 7 is more smooth, not falling behind, just more graceful. Maybe all that is just an impression from the dynamics of the GUI for each though, hard to say. Again, important thing is, don’t notice much difference…except in my case when it comes to processor intensive single app. operations. That’s when Windows 7 sometimes comes shooting out of the cup of blown away, like Indiana Jones came shooting out of the nuclear explosion in the lead-lined refrigerator!
For my money Windows 7 reserves too much processor time for multitasking (except in the case of single processors…then it behaves very much like XP) and leaves no compromise or remedy to that situation when single purposing a system to say, rendering. If I was trying to do eveything on the same system I’m sure I would feel a little differently cuz its nice not to lock up and stall while Windows trys to fit your “other” requests into the que for processor attention, but I still can’t find an option to go one way or the other. If we had Priority, Affinity,…and, Dedication, so I could set some systems to use 95% of the processor for such and such a task, I take full responsibility, blah blah blah, I think most of my argument would be gone. As it is, Win 7 is frustratingly underperforming in this respect from my perspective.Now hopefully someone will blow me away and say, oh, didn’t you know about such and such? It fixes that problem, and actually, it outperforms XP now on single task processing.
Byron, I’m having a great time (and getting a good education) with all the banter my post started. I did notice in your post when you say “Dedication, so I could set some systems to use 95% of the processor for such and such a task…”
Have you looked at Process Lasso ( http://www.bitsum.com/ )?
Regards,
Chuck Billow
Chuck Billow
Donations from Plus members keep this site going. You can identify the people who support AskWoody by the Plus badge on their avatars.
AskWoody Plus members not only get access to all of the contents of this site -- including Susan Bradley's frequently updated Patch Watch listing -- they also receive weekly AskWoody Plus Newsletters (formerly Windows Secrets Newsletter) and AskWoody Plus Alerts, emails when there are important breaking developments.
