Living with Windows 7: Part 3

from JoeUser Forums

Since 2001, when Windows XP shipped, most users have hovered between 1 and 2 gigabytes of memory.  That’s because 32-bit Windows really can’t use more than 2 gigs (technically 3 gigs).

With 64-bit Windows, however, there’s no real limit any time soon.  I predict that within the next couple of years you’ll see 16GB machines become pretty common and when that happens, lots of interesting things will start to happen again for PCs.

One interesting thing will be virtual machines. 

image

Running Windows XP within Windows 7 has a lot of utility to it as a developer but for most users, it’s largely meaningless. That will change as applications themselves start to be able to specify the conditions in which they run under. 

One of the things that has held Windows back has been backwards compatibility. But virtualization largely eliminates that issue because you could simply have programs run in their own VM.

image

It’s a real shame that Microsoft is even making Windows 7 in a 32-bit form because it just delays the migration to 64-bit computing.  The reason this is important is almost totally based on RAM.  This sort of virtualization isn’t cheap when it comes to RAM usage. But virtualization will free Windows to go in many different directions at once.  It’s the next big thing.

 

Related:

61,644 views 25 replies
Reply #1 from Stardock Forums Top

I am using the 32 bit version of win7, but I will be happy to migrate to 64-bit once I upgrade my main rig. My ddr2 memory, core 2 chip, and motherboard are now all made obsolete by the I7, ddr3 ram, and 64 bit operating systems.

Reply #2 from Stardock Forums Top

I tried the Vmware workstation and was not too impressed... it didn't run a secondary OS better than the dual boot option.

Sins of a Solar Empire II
Reply #3 from Sins Forums Top

I wouldn't say your Core 2 Duo is obsoleted by the i7, especially depending on what your main computer usage is.  Core 2's stand up quite well in gaming.

Frogboy, I agree it's disappointing that MS is still supporting 32-bit in Windows 7.  For the latest and greatest OS, there's really no need to keep supporting an ancient architecture.  If people want to run 32-bit, XP does a very, very good job of it already.

64-Bit has been around for years and years.  It's time to pull the plug on 32-bit.

Reply #4 from WinCustomize Forums Top

I would think there are just far too many 32-bit pc's laying around worldwide for MS to realistically think about moving exclusively to 64-bit.

 

I'd be willing to bet at least 65% of all the pc's that have had 7 beta installed on them are 32-bit.

Reply #5 from WinCustomize Forums Top

I tried the Vmware workstation and was not too impressed... it didn't run a secondary OS better than the dual boot option.
End of quote
Try VirtualBox.  I'm much happier with it than VMWare and MS VirtualPC.

Reply #6 from Elemental Forums Top

Anthony, you confuse the point of a virtual machine.  Dual booting gives you one or the other, not both at the same time.  You use a virtual machine when you need two machines at the same time.  In a perfect world with 16 gigs of ram to play with, you could run a Windows Server with an Oracle database, a clean workstation with your run time development environment, another clean workstation with a compiled testing environment, all on the same system you play games on and litter with crappy software from this or that asshole company with their own proprietary garbage.  Like Apple and their hell spawn, QuickTime.

 

No multiple computers, no rebooting, no messy environments.

Reply #7 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting vStyler, reply 4

I'd be willing to bet at least 65% of all the pc's that have had 7 beta installed on them are 32-bit.
End of vStyler's quote

Oh, I have to completely disagree with you there.  I can't even remember the last time I owned a 32-bit CPU, I don't think I've ever owned one in the past 5 years.

64-bit CPUs were introduced into the mainstream in what, 2003?  I really doubt the majority of Windows 7 beta users are running such ancient (in computer terms) hardware.

Reply #8 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Oh, I have to completely disagree with you there.
End of quote

 

I'm sure someone can dig up a stat... I personally know maybe 2 people on 64 bit...one is me.

Reply #9 from WinCustomize Forums Top

http://daringfireball.net/linked/2008/04/03/w64

4% in a survey done in 08 by adobe. :|

 

Considering the massive number of people hanging on to XP long after Vista has been released, you can be sure many of those pc's are 32-bit too.

Reply #10 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Quoting vStyler, reply 4
I would think there are just far too many 32-bit pc's laying around worldwide for MS to realistically think about moving exclusively to 64-bit.

 

I'd be willing to bet at least 65% of all the pc's that have had 7 beta installed on them are 32-bit.
End of vStyler's quote

I bet that's not the case.

It's been years since PCs shipped with CPUs that could only do 32bit OSes.

Reply #11 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Quoting vStyler, reply 9
http://daringfireball.net/linked/2008/04/03/w64

4% in a survey done in 08 by adobe.

 

Considering the massive number of people hanging on to XP long after Vista has been released, you can be sure many of those pc's are 32-bit too.
End of vStyler's quote

That doesn't mean anything. That's only what % of the market is running a 64-bit OS.

My 3 year old box at work runs 32-bit Windows but the CPU could do a 64-bit OS too.

Reply #12 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Well, I'd be interested for sure in seeing some authentic numbers on marketshare as of 1-09 maybe.

 

Also, don't get me wrong, I much prefer 64-bit and use it (OS) on Vista. 32-bit OS on XP (64-bit CPU)

I just don't think as widely used yet as you guys.

Reply #13 from WinCustomize Forums Top

+1 here for 64 bit. +3 if you count my dogs  O:)

Reply #14 from Sins Forums Top

of my  20 computers I have the nine computers built in the last 4 years are 64bit capabable but only three are running with a 64bit os as I require app compatibility with the os and some of the apps get confused with 64bit os's, and the two are for TESTING app compatibility, with w7 being almost zero dificulties.

harpo

Reply #15 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Well, my 4 and a half year old laptop is running Windows 7 32-bit perfectly here.

Reply #16 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting vStyler, reply 9
http://daringfireball.net/linked/2008/04/03/w64

4% in a survey done in 08 by adobe.

 

Considering the massive number of people hanging on to XP long after Vista has been released, you can be sure many of those pc's are 32-bit too.
End of vStyler's quote

 

Ahh, I think we're talking about two different things.  I'm talking about 64-bit architecture CPUs.  The stats above are regarding 32-bit vs 64-bit OS.  If we're talking about OS, I'd be inclined to agree with you that there's a lot of people out there running 32-bit operating systems, but their CPU is more than likely x64 if the computer is 4-5 years old or newer.

 

Reply #17 from Sins Forums Top

All Core 2 (and better) are 64 bit...

All AMD processors for the past 6-7 years are 64 bit...

Reply #18 from Sins Forums Top

jeremyshaw the amd 64 bitters are tha amd64 amd64x2 socket 754,939am2,am2+,am3 940 and the semprons for these sockets

 

Reply #19 from Demigod Forums Top

Wow thanks!   I actually now have my win 98 emulator that I was looking for.

+1 Loading…
Reply #20 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

Quoting Zubaz, reply 5
Try VirtualBox.  I'm much happier with it than VMWare and MS VirtualPC.
End of Zubaz's quote

OH I have to soooooo agree...!

I have an USB stick with a Portable VirtualBox Version from which I can boot an XP version on every rig I want to.

Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top

Try VirtualBox. I'm much happier with it than VMWare and MS VirtualPC.
End of quote

Thanks zubaz. I'll have to check it out. I'll start with an ancient XP install to test it.

Reply #22 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Rather then focusing on virtual machines, i think if i had a super computer, i'll rather have a virtual experience with the PC, as much as possible i guess..

 

appart from movies like minority report, i think a super cool Desktop interface would be nice. One that's virtual and 3D.

 

Last time the PC's can't do virtual desktops that smoothly is largely due to lack of CPU and Graphics processing power. Now with the abundant in supply of raw power of both CPU and Graphics + the insane amount of ram available. Why not make a 3D gui desktop that's cool yet user friendly.

Reply #23 from Stardock Forums Top

I'm fully for supporting older software/OS through virtulization but the biggest problem I've run across has been the virtualized video card. Typically they are based on older hardware that dosen't support much in the way of 3D and effects. This isn't a problem until you start looking at somewhat newer games. Lots of the old school ones shouldn't be much of a problem though.

I haven't tried VirtualBox but with the kudos its getting above I think I'll have to - Thanks! :D

Reply #24 from Elemental Forums Top

This seems like the best thread to post the following information in...

 

Frogboy's recommendation for people to use W7 has just been published on Gamasutra. You can read the article here.

Reply #25 from Sins Forums Top

But virtualization largely eliminates that issue because you could simply have programs run in their own VM.
End of quote

What virtualization really does is removes any incentive to run windows on windows? Why do it? There are other, cheaper options-- and since it's only being virtualized anyways-- why pay extra to do it? Does Windows virtualize Windows better than other Operating Systems? This has never made any sense to me--

Where's WinFS?

How about a DirectX that's Direct again...?

Nope-- same BS... different name.

Congratulations, you're all victims of the mojave experiment.

 

Dr.Gonzo