windows 7 64 bit? · DIGIT-ARC

I want to install windows 7 x64 ?but i don"t know difference between 32 bit & 64 bit?
my PC configuration is 2GB RAM,500GB hard disk,Core 2 duo processor (2.93Ghz),Intel G41 motherboard.my PC configuration meets minimum requirements for windows 7 64 bit?
and why 64 bit O.S. is better then 32 bit?

R

hirenjp said:
I want to install windows 7 x64 ?but i don"t know difference between 32 bit & 64 bit?
my PC configuration is 2GB RAM,500GB hard disk,Core 2 duo processor (2.93Ghz),Intel G41 motherboard.my PC configuration meets minimum requirements for windows 7 64 bit?
and why 64 bit O.S. is better then 32 bit?

32-bit and 64-bit Windows: frequently asked questions

1) in short 64 Bit OS is better than 32 bit ,can use more than 3.5gb of memory

2) U need 64 bit CPU to install 64 bit OS

Rajesh345 said:
32-bit and 64-bit Windows: frequently asked questions

1) in short 64 Bit OS is better than 32 bit ,can use more than 3.5gb of memory

2) U need 64 bit CPU to install 64 bit OS

how do i know that my CPU 64 bit or not?is there any method to check.

currently all processors support 64bit OS.

Sam said:
currently all processors support 64bit OS.

i have core 2 duo pocessor 2.93 Ghz & 2 GB RAM.shall it support win 7 64 bit.

Look in device manager.

1) Under processors, open properties > details > Hardware Ids.

It should be something like "ACPI\GenuineIntel_-_Intel64_Family_6_Model_42"
64 here proves that your CPU is 64 bit.

dashing.sujay said:
Look in device manager.

1) Under processors, open properties > details > Hardware Ids.

It should be something like "ACPI\GenuineIntel_-_Intel64_Family_6_Model_42"
64 here proves that your CPU is 64 bit.

when i checked as per your method processors, open properties > details > Hardware Ids in device manager then X86 family appear but when i checked windows 7 Advisor it says that its compatible with windows 7 x64.

I have a que. also ? {may be more than 1}
Why my 7 running Net without LAN driver?
and My mother board is also compatible with 7

But there is no Lan driver for windows 7 64 in Asus site

I have tikona connection and it gives me speed of 2 mbps for first 4 gbs, but it is giving me speed of 256 kb only . is it because there is no LAN driver?

NitrousNavneet said:
I have a que. also ? {may be more than 1}
Why my 7 running Net without LAN driver?
and My mother board is also compatible with 7

But there is no Lan driver for windows 7 64 in Asus site

I have tikona connection and it gives me speed of 2 mbps for first 4 gbs, but it is giving me speed of 256 kb only . is it because there is no LAN driver?

hi NitrousNavneet,
my configuration is almost same as you have.
are you running windows 64 bit really?if yes then positive signal for me?i also interested to install win 7 X64.
and as per your speed concern every internet service provide give 230-250 speed for 2mbps connection.

Current Speed is
*img830.imageshack.us/img830/5335/capturecr.jpg
But i get 260-270 at the place of 30.9

NitrousNavneet said:
Current Speed is
*img830.imageshack.us/img830/5335/capturecr.jpg
But i get 260-270 at the place of 30.9

hey navneet i think there is two steps which solve your problem.
1)virus problem in your PC.so update your antivirus & Scan your full PC.problem still then follow 2 step.

2)contact your tikona internet service provider & launch complaint they will change your network setting.(IP Address etc).

@NitrousNavneet that is Know As "F.U.P" after usage of 4GB you get only speed of 256kbps.. check ur plan on internet or call customer care . they will tell you more about F.U.P active on your Connection..

@hirenjp: your proccy supports 64bit OS.
for more details use speccy.

@NitrousNavneet: LAN driver is needed when u use LAN Card.

hirenjp said:
hey navneet i think there is two steps which solve your problem.
1)virus problem in your PC.so update your antivirus & Scan your full PC.problem still then follow 2 step.
.

Please suggest a good AV I have 1year net protector ,But topgear told me to
not install so i didn't install it in 7.

Zangetsu said:
@NitrousNavneet: LAN driver is needed when u use LAN Card.

How?? I mean that there is no Lan Driv. in support site and How my net and speaker are running without Drivers.?

NitrousNavneet said:
Please suggest a good AV I have 1year net protector ,But topgear told me to
not install so i didn't install it in 7.

AS per my Advice download & install kaspersky antivirus or ESET (NODE 32) Antivirus.if you do not want to install antivirus software then try kasper sky online scanner or eset online scanner.

ESET :: Get a FREE Online Virus Scan

or

Free Virus Scan - Kaspersky Lab
(service stopped because Coming soon:A new, improved version of the Kaspersky Online Scanner in few days)

N

hirenjp said:
i have core 2 duo pocessor 2.93 Ghz & 2 GB RAM.shall it support win 7 64 bit.

All CORE 2 DUO CPU are 64 bit. As you have 2 GB RAM, you won't see any difference in performance.

noob said:
All CORE 2 DUO CPU are 64 bit. As you have 2 GB RAM, you won't see any difference in performance.

thanks noob, now i am confident after listening from u all that my system is compatible with 64 bit OS.but there is some software which do not run in 64 bit OS.this information i got from windows 7 upgrade advisor.

is there any possibility to run these program in compatibility mode or In windows 7 there is XP mode is also there where we can use that 32 bit program?

and yes i have virtualization technology but XP mode feature required atleast 3GB RAM,but my system has 2 GB RAM(DDR2) is there any way to use 4GB (DDR3) in same machine or i have to buy DDR2 type only.

N

All 32 bit softwares are backward compatible. BUT dont install 64 bit OS as you wont be getting any performance improvement over 32 bit as you have only 2 GB RAM.

Also, make sure you have all the 64 bit drivers for your devices. Usually Windows installs it ..but still in some cases you might need to manually install 64-bit device drivers.

To run any application in XP mode , simply right click on that file/icon and set its compatibility level to 'Windows XP'

noob said:
All 32 bit softwares are backward compatible. BUT dont install 64 bit OS as you wont be getting any performance improvement over 32 bit as you have only 2 GB RAM.

Also, make sure you have all the 64 bit drivers for your devices. Usually Windows installs it ..but still in some cases you might need to manually install 64-bit device drivers.

To run any application in XP mode , simply right click on that file/icon and set its compatibility level to 'Windows XP'

ok so you have to say that upgrade of RAM Make performance better.so,please tell me that.my system will support 4GB RAM(DDR3)?as my 2GB RAM IS (DDR2).

N

if your motherboard supports DDR3 then no issues..else you need to get DDR2 RAM

Exactly which D41 model ? we have DG41WV(supports DDR3) , DG41RQ & DG41TY(does NOT supports DDR3)

noob said:
if your motherboard supports DDR3 then no issues..else you need to get DDR2 RAM

Exactly which D41 model ? we have DG41WV(supports DDR3) , DG41RQ & DG41TY(does NOT supports DDR3)

Ohh its my bad luck that i have DG41RQ.Ok no problem.is there 4gb,6gb and 8gb DDR2 all are available?how much cost for these all?which RAM Brand is best?

N

Corsair , Kingston , Transcend are good brands... Make sure that if you are going to use same old RAM then buy new one having same frequency..

noob said:
Corsair , Kingston , Transcend are good brands... Make sure that if you are going to use same old RAM then buy new one having same frequency..

To skip Compatibility issue i will buy Kingston only because i already have kingston 2GB RAM DDR2 RAM.thanks Noob.

You can install 64 bit Windows on 2 GB RAM too, just that it won't give any advantage. It will work like a 32 bit Windows.

Been tired of repeating this a thousand times.

AMD invented the 64-bit architecture which was backwards compatible with x86 or 32-bit. This architecture is known as 'amd64'. Intel because they are morons, on the other hand were pursuing a completely new 64-bit architecture named Itanium 64 or IA-64 which was NOT backwards compatible with x86 or 32-bit. This was to earn more money $$. IA-64 failed because of this reason. Then Intel licensed 'amd64' from AMD and calls it "Intel 64" now for obvious reasons.

amd64 is also called x86_64 or x64. Intel prefers calling it "Intel 64" because of obvious reasons.

So, every processor out there in the market now is an amd64 processor. This is the reason WHY you are able to use a 32-bit OS currently in your Core 2 Duo processor. And this is again the reason why you will be able to use 32-bit applications in a 64-bit OS if you install it.

Cleared?

Ignore what Windows 7 upgrade advisor says. Every 32-bit application works fine in Windows 7 64-bit.

There you go. See in the screenshot and see how many 32-bit applications I am running completely fine. example, Avast AntiVirus.

*i.imgur.com/XdRBQ.png

The only thing you need to take care of is, install 64-bit hardware drivers. That's it.

Intel because they are morons, on the other hand were pursuing a completely new 64-bit architecture named Itanium 64 or IA-64 which was NOT backwards compatible with x86 or 32-bit. This was to earn more money $$. This was to earn more money $$. IA-64 failed because of this reason

No.

The Itanium was targeted at servers. Not at consumers. Intel wanted to continue the 32-bit brigade for consumers & the IA-64 at the high-end server market.

AMD, however with their amd64 architecture hit the consumer market. IA-64 was massively delayed & Intel to had license it from AMD to remain in the consumer space.

J

pretty much the same thing...intel would have released ia-64 for consumers too for increasing their margins if any consumer wanted to use more than 3.5 gb ram. 3.5 gb ram bubble had to burst.

u can see what they do now....non-overclockable processors...overclockable processors....non-overclockable chipset...overclockable chipset. only to increase their margins.

meetdilip said:
You can install 64 bit Windows on 2 GB RAM too, just that it won't give any advantage. It will work like a 32 bit Windows.

ico said:
Every 32-bit application works fine in Windows 7 64-bit.

It makes no sense installing 32 bit apps on 64 bit, unless 64 bit is not available. Because 64-bit OS/apps give 30-40% performance increase (read as better execution of instruction set).

N

ico said:
Been tired of repeating this a thousand times.

AMD invented the 64-bit architecture which was backwards compatible with x86 or 32-bit. This architecture is known as 'amd64'. Intel because they are morons, on the other hand were pursuing a completely new 64-bit architecture named Itanium 64 or IA-64 which was NOT backwards compatible with x86 or 32-bit. This was to earn more money $$. IA-64 failed because of this reason. Then Intel licensed 'amd64' from AMD and calls it "Intel 64" now for obvious reasons.

amd64 is also called x86_64 or x64. Intel prefers calling it "Intel 64" because of obvious reasons.

So, every processor out there in the market now is an amd64 processor. This is the reason WHY you are able to use a 32-bit OS currently in your Core 2 Duo processor. And this is again the reason why you will be able to use 32-bit applications in a 64-bit OS if you install it.

Cleared?

Ignore what Windows 7 upgrade advisor says. Every 32-bit application works fine in Windows 7 64-bit.

There you go. See in the screenshot and see how many 32-bit applications I am running completely fine. example, Avast AntiVirus.

*i.imgur.com/XdRBQ.png

The only thing you need to take care of is, install 64-bit hardware drivers. That's it.

why this stupid KIES is still installed on your system ?

o

dashing.sujay said:
It makes no sense installing 32 bit apps on 64 bit, unless 64 bit is not available. Because 64-bit OS/apps give 30-40% performance increase (read as better execution of instruction set).

no. This is a complete myth. The difference is only in how much RAM they can utilize. Generally.video encoders are helped. Except those hardly 5% boost in general. And running 32-bit apps is also doesn't mean performance penalty.

noob said:
why this stupid KIES is still installed on your system ? o

To check firmware updates on a random day.

dashing.sujay said:
It makes no sense installing 32 bit apps on 64 bit, unless 64 bit is not available. Because 64-bit OS/apps give 30-40% performance increase (read as better execution of instruction set).

Think you missed this part

You can install 64 bit Windows on 2 GB RAM too, just that it won't give any advantage. It will work like a 32 bit Windows.

Even if you have 64 bit OS ( I have) many apps are still 32 bit and works normally.

J

dashing.sujay said:
It makes no sense installing 32 bit apps on 64 bit, unless 64 bit is not available. Because 64-bit OS/apps give 30-40% performance increase (read as better execution of instruction set).

that is not true. it is virtually the same performance. running 32bit apps is also the same performance on amd64. minor differences can be there.

if u run x86 32-bit application on itanium 64...then you have a point as those will be emulated and huge performance loss compared to itanium 64 apps.

OK guys if i want to install windows 7 64 bit with best performance then i want minimum 4GB of Ram.

I am using kingston 2GB RAM DDR2(800MHz).My Intel motherboard (DG41RQ) compatible with DDR2 RAM only.So,only option available to buy Kingston 4GB DDR2 or 8GB DDR2(because if i buy another 2GB RAM then it is useless after 2 year because latest technology comes in every year).

But i am little bit confused that my old RAM is 2GB DDR2 800MHz.So, if i buy 4GB DDR2 1066MHz then it will compatible with my old 2GB 800 MHZ RAM.

And other question i didn't found 8GB RAM information in KINGSTON site,Do they manufacturing 8GB or 1GB/2GB/4GB only?

first kingston does have 8Gb ram..

If you are Home or basic office user you don't need 4Gb Ram.. Listen

windows 7 64bit will run perfectly even with 2Gb Ram.. you don't need to add more.

Facts are

only 64bit version can utilize more then 4GB ram ..

windows 7 64bit will use this much ram only if any programme needs it..like 3D and designing apps. or say Games...

For normal use.. 2Gb is sufficient but ya windows 7 runs best with 4Gb any version (32bit or 64bit)

clmlbx said:
first kingston does have 8Gb ram..

If you are Home or basic office user you don't need 4Gb Ram.. Listen

windows 7 64bit will run perfectly even with 2Gb Ram.. you don't need to add more.

Facts are

only 64bit version can utilize more then 4GB ram ..

windows 7 64bit will use this much ram only if any programme needs it..like 3D and designing apps. or say Games...

For normal use.. 2Gb is sufficient but ya windows 7 runs best with 4Gb any version (32bit or 64bit)

my friend told me in this matter that 64 bit OS utilize full RAM otheside 32 bit OS utilize only 70-80% of total RAM.
Is it true?

Not at all ..32bit utilizes all available ram with max of 4Gb (3.7 - 3.8gb something) ram

here is the restriction 32bit can not use more then 4Gb (3.7 - 3.8gb something) ram..

Now people who use 64bit because they have need for more ram & fast calculations .. to use more ram they need to shift to 64bit..

uses of more ram:-

Games
3d apps
Designing tools
virtual netwrork (vmware and other apps)

even apps should be 64bit.. to utilize power of 64bit calculations..

clmlbx said:
Not at all ..32bit utilizes all available ram with max of 4Gb (3.7 - 3.8gb something) ram

here is the restriction 32bit can not use more then 4Gb (3.7 - 3.8gb something) ram..

Now people who use 64bit because they have need for more ram & fast calculations .. to use more ram they need to shift to 64bit..

uses of more ram:-

Games
3d apps
Designing tools
virtual netwrork (vmware and other apps)

even apps should be 64bit.. to utilize power of 64bit calculations..

I am playing High graphics game.so shall i go with 4GB of DDR2 Kingston or if i buy other brands then is it compatible with each other.The ram i have is 2gb Kingston ddr2 899MHz.

It will help in games only if you have good graphic card.. pls mention make and model of graphic card..

ico said:
no. This is a complete myth. The difference is only in how much RAM they can utilize. Generally.video encoders are helped. Except those hardly 5% boost in general. And running 32-bit apps is also doesn't mean performance penalty.

If you think what I'm saying is myth, then correct your knowledge man. What you've said is not even a myth, absolutely wrong.

*Due to wider registers, thus much more addressing of memory can be done, that's why 4GB gap is uplifted. This 4GB limit uplifting is just an added advantage of 64-bit.

*I don't stress over 30-40%, but at least 10% performance is gained on average, in execution of instruction sets and especially virtual memory gains from it.

*Though 32-bit apss are supported from ground, but in reality they have to go through a software simulation due to 64-bit memory referencing which creates the performance gap.

meetdilip said:
Think you missed this part

You can install 64 bit Windows on 2 GB RAM too, just that it won't give any advantage. It will work like a 32 bit Windows.

Click to expand...

Even if you have 64 bit OS ( I have) many apps are still 32 bit and works normally.

I didn't missed any part, and I haven't said 32-bit won't work normally. I just said if 64-bit is available then it makes no sense using 32-bit due to above stated reasons.

Joker said:
that is not true. it is virtually the same performance. running 32bit apps is also the same performance on amd64. minor differences can be there.

if u run x86 32-bit application on itanium 64...then you have a point as those will be emulated and huge performance loss compared to itanium 64 apps.

See, there is some "virtual" gain at root level (read execution of instruction sets). But yeah, no performance gain be seen "practically" by normal users. Yeah, that simulation plays a very imp role in degrading performance of a 32-bit app over a 64-bit app. Though, In case of Itanium its totally diff case. It has got a separate 32 bit core to handle that.

I accept my mistake of using the word "only" there. Replace it by "the main difference".

30-40% is certainly a myth.

Now coming to the point,

dashing.sujay said:
If you think what I'm saying is myth, then correct your knowledge man. What you've said is not even a myth, absolutely wrong.

*Due to wider registers, thus much more addressing of memory can be done, that's why 4GB gap is uplifted. This 4GB limit uplifting is just an added advantage of 64-bit.

*I don't stress over 30-40%, but at least 10% performance is gained on average, in execution of instruction sets and especially virtual memory gains from it.

*Though 32-bit apss are supported from ground, but in reality they have to go through a software simulation due to 64-bit memory referencing which creates the performance gap.

Point 2 is fine. 10% gain can be there because of being a x86_64 app. 30-40% was a pretty huge number you said. That kind of gain is mainly because because a process would be using more than 4 GB RAM or really high optimization. Run on 32-bit with PAE, it would see a similar gain because the process will be able to address more RAM.

Point 3 is wrong. NO SOFTWARE **SIMULATION**. Only compatibility. That was the _point_ why amd64 was created by AMD. That was the reason why they didn't choose Itanium 64. Performance gap is there...but it is 4-5% at max.

Quoting from Wikipedia itself:

Wikipedia said:
x86-64 is an extension of the x86 instruction set. It supports vastly larger virtual and physical address spaces than are possible on x86, thereby allowing programmers to conveniently work with much larger data sets. x86-64 also provides 64-bit general purpose registers and numerous other enhancements. The original specification was created by AMD, and has been implemented by AMD, Intel, VIA, and others. It is fully backwards compatible with 32-bit code.[1](p13) Because the full 32-bit instruction set remains implemented in hardware without any intervening emulation, existing 32-bit x86 executables run with no compatibility or performance penalties,[2] although existing applications that are recoded to take advantage of new features of the processor design may see performance increases.

J

dashing.sujay...u are completely wrong about any kind of performance degradation due to any kind of simulation/emulation while running x86 software on x86-64

dashing.sujay said:
Yeah, that simulation plays a very imp role in degrading performance of a 32-bit app over a 64-bit app. Though, In case of Itanium its totally diff case. It has got a separate 32 bit core to handle that.

dont know what u are talking here. separate 32 bit core..lolwut?

yup...'virtual' 10% gain is (can be) there because of x86-64..every poster is aware of that. 40% was a huge number you said. :lol:

I know 40% was much but I remember I read it somewhere

Wikipedia said:
Other software must also be ported to use the new capabilities; older software is usually supported through either a hardware compatibility mode (in which the new processors support the older 32-bit version of the instruction set as well as the 64-bit version), through software emulation, or by the actual implementation of a 32-bit processor core within the 64-bit processor (as with the Itanium processors from Intel, which include an IA-32 processor core to run 32-bit x86 applications)

Above quote made me confused about simulation though.

I don't understand why you guys are bringing IA-64 and IA-32 architecture here where we are discussing about X86-64 architecture. The software simulator for running 32 bit apps are required in IA-64 architecture which is completely different from X86-64 design.
For resolving that issue as well as some performance improvement, Intel sequentially included various IA-32 instruction supports directly to the IA-64 bt processors, they didn't include any separate 32 bit core for it.

As Joker said, there is no performance loss to run an existing X86 based programs to X86-64 architecture and it is the main reason that these approach has became the predominant 64 bit architecture now, because of the better adaptability with the existing architectur.