Advantages W7-64 over XP-32

[Fokke Nauta]

Hi all,

Currently I have XP Pro 32-bits. Hardware is Intel I5-750 on a P55 chipset
with 4G memory.
I concider installing Win 7 Pro 64-bits, so I can use more memory.
Got a few questions here:
a. Are applications on W7-64 with 8G noticable faster then XP-32 with 4G?
b. Does W7-64 allow a multi boot environment?
c. Are there more advantages of Win 7 Pro 64-bits over XP Pro 32-bits?

Thanks in advance for your answers.

Best regards,
Fokke Nauta

 

[Paul]

Hi all,

Currently I have XP Pro 32-bits. Hardware is Intel I5-750 on a P55 chipset
with 4G memory.
I concider installing Win 7 Pro 64-bits, so I can use more memory.
Got a few questions here:
a. Are applications on W7-64 with 8G noticable faster then XP-32 with 4G?
b. Does W7-64 allow a multi boot environment?
c. Are there more advantages of Win 7 Pro 64-bits over XP Pro 32-bits?

Thanks in advance for your answers.

Best regards,
Fokke Nauta

If you use a 32 bit application, it might be a tiny bit faster.

http://blog.testfreaks.com/information/windows-xp-vs-vista-vs-7/

SuperPI-32m
WinXP 18 minutes 1 second = 1081 sec
Vista 18 minutes 4 seconds = 1084 sec
Win7 17 minutes 43 seconds = 1063 sec 1081/1063 = 1.017

If you have a program which uses lots of arithmetic,
such as an arbitrary precision numerics package,
and it is *compiled* for 64 bits (not limited by being a
32 bit program) and runs on a 64 bit OS, that is 65% faster
(it didn't make it to being twice as fast). GMP can be
compiled for 32 bits or 64 bits, and applications using
that package can be 65% faster when you use 64 bit compilation.

The speed is more a function of the characteristics of the
application, than anything else. Older 32 bit applications,
might see no perceptible difference (you'd need a stopwatch
to tell the difference).

*******

Windows 7 has a boot menu, like the other versions of Windows.
It is based on BCD rather than boot.ini. At the very least,
the boot menu may contain older versions of Windows. The only
bad part, is making changes to it. Third party tools are
available for editing the boot menu.

(An editing tool)
http://i51.tinypic.com/rs90yg.png

(Example of editing the hard way, with bcdedit)
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1...ta_and_xp_simple_multi_boot_guide/index5.html

(Typical boot menu on the screen during boot up)
http://images.tweaktown.com/content/1/7/1713_23.png

Paul

 

[Fokke Nauta]

If you use a 32 bit application, it might be a tiny bit faster.

http://blog.testfreaks.com/information/windows-xp-vs-vista-vs-7/

SuperPI-32m
WinXP 18 minutes 1 second = 1081 sec
Vista 18 minutes 4 seconds = 1084 sec
Win7 17 minutes 43 seconds = 1063 sec 1081/1063 =
1.017

If you have a program which uses lots of arithmetic,
such as an arbitrary precision numerics package,
and it is *compiled* for 64 bits (not limited by being a
32 bit program) and runs on a 64 bit OS, that is 65% faster
(it didn't make it to being twice as fast). GMP can be
compiled for 32 bits or 64 bits, and applications using
that package can be 65% faster when you use 64 bit compilation.

The speed is more a function of the characteristics of the
application, than anything else. Older 32 bit applications,
might see no perceptible difference (you'd need a stopwatch
to tell the difference).

*******

Windows 7 has a boot menu, like the other versions of Windows.
It is based on BCD rather than boot.ini. At the very least,
the boot menu may contain older versions of Windows. The only
bad part, is making changes to it. Third party tools are
available for editing the boot menu.

(An editing tool)
http://i51.tinypic.com/rs90yg.png

(Example of editing the hard way, with bcdedit)
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1...ta_and_xp_simple_multi_boot_guide/index5.html

(Typical boot menu on the screen during boot up)
http://images.tweaktown.com/content/1/7/1713_23.png

Paul

Thanks Paul, this makes sense. The link which shows the comparisons is very
interesting.
I use a wide variety of applications. Most of them won't be optimised for
64-bit code, I assume. Photoshop CS5 is an exception but the differences are
small and there are limitations. And some applications won't run at all.

I think it won't be an installation of Win 7 64-bits. Stick to XP 32-bits
for now.

Best regards,
Fokke

 

[Rob]

Thanks Paul, this makes sense. The link which shows the comparisons is very
interesting.
I use a wide variety of applications. Most of them won't be optimised for
64-bit code, I assume. Photoshop CS5 is an exception but the differences are
small and there are limitations. And some applications won't run at all.

I think it won't be an installation of Win 7 64-bits. Stick to XP 32-bits
for now.

Best regards,
Fokke

If you use 32-bit applications which benefit from using as much
memory as available, you will see a significant performance boost
when running them under Win7x64.
Each 32-bit application is allocated a full 4GB of RAM in x64,
instead of 3.something which is available under XP 32-bit.
If you had (say) 16GB of RAM, x64 would allow Photoshop to use
4GB, plus app2 using it's *own* 4GB plus app3 using it's *own*
4GB, all running simultaneously.
I can state from my own experience of using 32-bit image processing
(astronomy) software that using x64 is a huge advantage in my work.
HTH

 

[Fokke Nauta]

If you use 32-bit applications which benefit from using as much
memory as available, you will see a significant performance boost
when running them under Win7x64.
Each 32-bit application is allocated a full 4GB of RAM in x64,
instead of 3.something which is available under XP 32-bit.
If you had (say) 16GB of RAM, x64 would allow Photoshop to use
4GB, plus app2 using it's *own* 4GB plus app3 using it's *own*
4GB, all running simultaneously.
I can state from my own experience of using 32-bit image processing
(astronomy) software that using x64 is a huge advantage in my work.
HTH

Hi Rob,
I see your point. But I don't use a specific application that would benefit
of more memory.
One exception may be VMWare. Sometimes I use a situation where I have
multiple virtual machines running on a virtual network. In only that case I
would benefit from more memory. But this does not happen often.
On the other hand, I wont be able to use some applications as they won't run
on W 7 64-bit.

Fokke

 

[Rob]

Hi Rob,
I see your point. But I don't use a specific application that would benefit
of more memory.
One exception may be VMWare. Sometimes I use a situation where I have
multiple virtual machines running on a virtual network. In only that case I
would benefit from more memory. But this does not happen often.
On the other hand, I wont be able to use some applications as they won't run
on W 7 64-bit.

Fokke

Using x64.

Only x64 programmes will run in 64 bit mode. All other programmes will
run in 32bit. There are not many 64 bit programmes available.

Even 32bit programmes will benefit by accessing more ram and not be
restrained by the 3.3Gb limit of 32bit OS.

 

[Fokke Nauta]

Using x64.

Only x64 programmes will run in 64 bit mode. All other programmes will run
in 32bit. There are not many 64 bit programmes available.

Even 32bit programmes will benefit by accessing more ram and not be
restrained by the 3.3Gb limit of 32bit OS.

Correct.
IMHO that is the only advantage af W7 64-bits.

Fokke

 

[Tim Slattery]

Hi all,

Currently I have XP Pro 32-bits. Hardware is Intel I5-750 on a P55 chipset
with 4G memory.
I concider installing Win 7 Pro 64-bits, so I can use more memory.
Got a few questions here:
a. Are applications on W7-64 with 8G noticable faster then XP-32 with 4G?

The more RAM you have, the less you need to use the paging file.
Having more RAM means that you can run more programs and more
ram-hungry programs without having to read and write the page file
constantly. Will that make a difference to you? It depends on how you
use your computer.

b. Does W7-64 allow a multi boot environment?

As far as I know.

c. Are there more advantages of Win 7 Pro 64-bits over XP Pro 32-bits?

The ability to run more 32-bit programs while using the paging file
less, as discussed above. And, of course, the ability to use 64-bit
programs, which get a virtual memory space of 8TB. That would make it
simpler to program a system that edits really gigantic images, sound
files, whatever. AFAIK, there aren't very many 64-bit programs out
yet.

 

[Ken Blake]

Currently I have XP Pro 32-bits. Hardware is Intel I5-750 on a P55 chipset
with 4G memory.
I concider installing Win 7 Pro 64-bits, so I can use more memory.
Got a few questions here:
a. Are applications on W7-64 with 8G noticable faster then XP-32 with 4G?

That depends on the application on what you do with it. Three points:

1. It's being 64-bit makes very little difference.

2. Its having more memory available *could* make a difference, but
again it depends on what the app is. If it's the typical business
application, it will make little or no difference. If you are editing
a large photograph, yes it could make a big difference.

3. For most people, buying the extra 4GB of RAM would be nothing but a
waste of money.

b. Does W7-64 allow a multi boot environment?

Yes.


c. Are there more advantages of Win 7 Pro 64-bits over XP Pro 32-bits?

A 64-bit version of Windows lets you run 64-bit programs, and those
could potentially be significantly faster. At the moment, there are
few of those available, but that will change in the future.

 

[Mark F]

Hi Rob,
I see your point. But I don't use a specific application that would benefit
of more memory.
One exception may be VMWare. Sometimes I use a situation where I have

VMware definitely benefits from 64-bit, even when the virtual machines
are 32-bit.

Many new devices don't have XP support, so going forward you need to
move to Windows 7 (Windows 8, I suppose.)

Most programs that are for Windows XP can run on Windows 7 using an
XP virtual machine, even if you use Microsoft's free one. Some more
programs work if you use VMware Workstation.

Some old hardware doesn't work on Windows 7, some works on Windows
7 32-bit but not one Windows 7 64-bit. You have to see what
the case is for your hardware.

Much of the hardware with no Windows 7 drivers can work with a
virtual machine on Windows 7, but some old hardware can no longer
be installed on any new installations, even if they are working
on current Windows XP systems. Some of these might work if
you made a virtual machine out of your Windows XP system partition
and got the virtual machine XP "activated" by Microsoft.)

In some cases you might need new peripherals.

 

[Wolf K]

On 24/02/2012 12:57 PM, Mark F wrote:
[...]

Most programs that are for Windows XP can run on Windows 7 using an
XP virtual machine,

[...]

Most programs written for XP don't need a virtual machine in my
experience. DOS programs do, as do many written for W2000 and not updated.

Regards,
Wolf K.

 

[Ken Blake]

On 24/02/2012 12:57 PM, Mark F wrote:
[...]

Most programs that are for Windows XP can run on Windows 7 using an
XP virtual machine,

[...]

Most programs written for XP don't need a virtual machine in my
experience. DOS programs do, as do many written for W2000 and not updated.

Not really to disagree with what you say, but it's important to
realize that programs were not written *for* Windows XP or Windows
2000. They simply were written back in the days of Windows XP or
Windows 2000.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

On 24/02/2012 12:57 PM, Mark F wrote:
[...]

Most programs that are for Windows XP can run on Windows 7 using an
XP virtual machine,

[...]

Most programs written for XP don't need a virtual machine in my
experience. DOS programs do, as do many written for W2000 and not updated.

Not really to disagree with what you say, but it's important to
realize that programs were not written *for* Windows XP or Windows
2000. They simply were written back in the days of Windows XP or
Windows 2000.

Since they were written using an API, and possibly a development kit,
for the given version of Windows, I have to respectfully (but only
partially) disagree with you, but...

....but it's all implicit. The programmers were writing for what was
available, which worked on the current version of Windows, and no one
could tell them which parts of what they wrote would break in the
future. Or even if anything would break at all.

One could hope that the future would not break anything, but would only
add capabilities that the earlier versions lacked. And one would
probably be disappointed on occasion

 

[Yousuf Khan]

Hi all,

Currently I have XP Pro 32-bits. Hardware is Intel I5-750 on a P55 chipset
with 4G memory.
I concider installing Win 7 Pro 64-bits, so I can use more memory.
Got a few questions here:
a. Are applications on W7-64 with 8G noticable faster then XP-32 with 4G?
b. Does W7-64 allow a multi boot environment?
c. Are there more advantages of Win 7 Pro 64-bits over XP Pro 32-bits?

Thanks in advance for your answers.

Another advantage not mentioned here yet is that Win 7 (both 32-bit and
64-bit) allows you to use DirectX 10 through 11. Windows XP is stuck at
DX9. Important if you play games.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Fokke Nauta]

Hi all,

Currently I have XP Pro 32-bits. Hardware is Intel I5-750 on a P55 chipset
with 4G memory.
I concider installing Win 7 Pro 64-bits, so I can use more memory.
Got a few questions here:
a. Are applications on W7-64 with 8G noticable faster then XP-32 with 4G?
b. Does W7-64 allow a multi boot environment?
c. Are there more advantages of Win 7 Pro 64-bits over XP Pro 32-bits?

Thanks in advance for your answers.

Best regards,
Fokke Nauta

All of you thanks for your replies.
In the near future I will switch to W7-64. I only hope that W7 will be as
configurable as XP.

Best regards,
Fokke

 

[Wolf K]

On 27/02/2012 4:44 AM, Fokke Nauta wrote:
[...]

All of you thanks for your replies.
In the near future I will switch to W7-64. I only hope that W7 will be as
configurable as XP.

Best regards,
Fokke

W7's Control Panel is pathetic. It's someone's notion of how to make
settings easier for the "average user". Install Classic Shell (free) to
get the real Control Panel back.

OTOH, if you want to play with pretty desktops, W7 is superior. (I'm not
sure whether that's a compliment. ;-) )

HTH,
Wolf K.

 

[Gordon]

W7's Control Panel is pathetic. It's someone's notion of how to make
settings easier for the "average user". Install Classic Shell (free) to
get the real Control Panel back.

Why bother? Just display the control panel in Icon mode and get the
"old" control panel back. No need for any third-party app....

 

[Wolf K]

Why bother? Just display the control panel in Icon mode and get the
"old" control panel back. No need for any third-party app....

???? That wasn't the case when I first installed W7. I tried to find all
the "old" applets, and I couldn't find a way to do it. So I infer that
either your trick was too well hidden, or that it's been added recently.
Either way, too late. Not that I regret taking the time to find Classic
Shell, it also give you the XP style start menu, etc. FWIW, I don't like
Aero either, and would like to remove the Aero themes, I dislike wasting
space even in this age of 500GB drives. Just a quirk of mine. ;-)

The default W7 Control panel is just another example of a default change
that makes things worse. It's fine to add new tweaks to the UI, but
never make them defaults.

People get used to doing things a certain way, and most can't be
bothered to try to figure out how to get the old view (etc) back. Keep
in mind that UIs for technical devices are always more or less
arbitrary. A particular design becomes a convention. Conventions are
very useful: without them, you'd have to waste time learning more than
you need in order to make things happen the way you want. I've seen far
too many updates that made my wife (for example) wail "I can't find what
I want any more!" I got into a real slanging match with mozilla devs
about this: you can argue about how cool their improvements were, but
making them the defaults was not nice, to vastly understate the case.
They have since changed d the update process so that you keep your
current UI look.

HTH
Wolf K.

 

[Ken Blake]

Why bother? Just display the control panel in Icon mode and get the
"old" control panel back. No need for any third-party app....

Right. I agree completely, and I always display it as "small icons."

 

[Ken Blake]

???? That wasn't the case when I first installed W7. I tried to find all
the "old" applets, and I couldn't find a way to do it. So I infer that
either your trick was too well hidden, or that it's been added recently.

It's not hidden at all, and it hasn't been changed. Just click View,
and choose either Small Icons (my personal preference) or Large Icons.