Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

Any XP users switching to Windows 7 yet?

<< < (14/26) > >>

superboyac:
i see, I understand.  I'll keep an eye out and report if I notice anything as I try out these 64-bit OS's.

MilesAhead:
For just about every normal game and application, I haven't been able to feel a speed hit when running 32bit applications under a 64bit OS (this is perceived speed, I haven't bothered to run anything resembling a scientific benchmark) - and things in general has felt a bit smoother running 64bit.
-f0dder (November 19, 2009, 04:23 PM)
--- End quote ---

That was my feeling when I got my quad with Vista64 SP1 8 GB ram.  I wish there were more 64 bit apps around so I could look at memory consumption and other factors.  I noticed when I compiled my AHK scripts as 64 bit the working set was much larger.  Maybe page size issues or perhaps it's just a quirk of the AHK compiler.  I have no quibbles with this OS other than I set Superfetch to only cache system boot files in order to minimize HD running on.

edit: btw I haven't noticed any issues with Vista64 with SP1.  I use the shell copy.  I found no need to use dedicated copy apps for general purpose copy.  Unfortunately I can't get Vista 32 bit pre SP1 to take the service pack so it looks like I'll wait for W7 SP1 to put on that machine.  Unless I hit the lottery and get one of those Intel i7 things with TB ram LN2 cooled or something. :)

f0dder:
MilesAhead: IMHO there's no reason to go compiling everything as 64bit, unless you know for certain that the application can take advantage of the extra (and wider) general-purpose registers, or the much larger address space. For a lot of things, you might as well stay 32bit and enjoy the somewhat smaller executable images and memory consumption.

I love SuperFetch, and have left it at default settings. Yes, you might get some additional harddisk access early after system start, but the launch speed of applications after that far outweigh this "annoyance"; my laptop running Vista64 starts Visual Studio faster than my workstation running XP64 (with quadcore, 8 gigs of RAM, and (back then) 10k-rpm Raptor drives...) :)

MilesAhead:
There isn't that much option to compile things 64 bit.  The software development environment hasn't caught up to 64 bit yet.  At least not for people who don't have $1000+ to shell out for development tools.  64 bit has been lurking in the background, then all of a sudden when Vista went SP1 it exploded.  Even $500 systems are coming with 6 GB and 64 bit OS now.  I think it took the software development makers by surprise.  Seems they are one step behind.

afa Superfetch goes, running locate32 was likely the culprit for most of the drive run-on.  I switched to Everything Search and turned as much indexing off as I could.  I don't cache or shadow network shares, don't index for faster searching, etc.. I tried Superfetch fully enabled, then with the setting I use.  I couldn't detect a difference so why keep gathering stats for no gain?  Runs fine as it is.  No annoyance no strain. :)

f0dder:
You don't have to shell out $1000 to do 64bit development - Visual Studio Express is free... only produces 32bit executables, but you get the 64bit compiler for free from the PlatformSDK, and with a bit of hacking you can integrate it into the VSE IDE. You probably can't debug those executables from the IDE though, which will make it hard to trace 64bit related issues; but you can do your main development+debugging for 32bit, and produce (possibly even working :P) 64bit output for free :)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page