 |
|
|
|
Welcome to the Invelos forums. Please read the forum
rules before posting.
Read access to our public forums is open to everyone. To post messages, a free
registration is required.
If you have an Invelos account, sign in to post.
|
|
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->General: General Discussion |
Page:
1 2  Previous Next
|
|
Windows 7 upgrade options |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 1,796 |
| | Posted: | | | | | | | We don't need stinkin' IMDB's errors, we make our own.
Ineptocracy, You got to love it.
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." - Abraham Lincoln |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | What's the question?
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 1,796 |
| | Posted: | | | | My question in moving from Vista Home Premium 32 bit that my computer came with,
to Windows 7 64 bit, how much memory am I going to have to add and do I have do a fresh install, etc, etc.
ZDNet and Amazon sites have good info also, Amazon has links to Microsoft. No one place seemed to
answer all my questions.
Microsoft has a program test your system, although in beta, for upgrading, all I need is more memory.
With Vista Home Premium 32 I can not use all the memory I could put in my PC.
I'm hoping with the Windows 7 and more memory and utilizing the 64 bit of my PC that
DVD Profiler will not take so long loading, switching lists, etc. I have over 11,000 profiles and it is slow. | | | We don't need stinkin' IMDB's errors, we make our own.
Ineptocracy, You got to love it.
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." - Abraham Lincoln | | | | Last edited: by Srehtims |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 27 |
| | Posted: | | | | Srehtims, You will need to do a fresh install of Windows 7 64-bit. Unless something drastic changes, an upgrade from 32-bit to 64-bit is not supported. I'll assume you do have a 64-bit processor in your system. With the 64-bit OS, you can use all the memory your system board supports. With the 32-bit OS, the max you could use is about 3.5GB. Reports that I've seen indicates that a machine runs Windows 7 better that the same machine runs Vista. Your milage may vary depending on the components installed and drivers needed. Quoting Srehtims: Quote:
My question in moving from Vista Home Premium 32 bit that my computer came with,
to Windows 7 64 bit, how much memory am I going to have to add and do I have do a fresh install, etc, etc.
ZDNet and Amazon sites have good info also, Amazon has links to Microsoft. No one place seemed to
answer all my questions.
Microsoft has a program test your system, although in beta, for upgrading, all I need is more memory.
With Vista Home Premium 32 I can not use all the memory I could put in my PC.
I'm hoping with the Windows 7 and more memory and utilizing the 64 bit of my PC that
DVD Profiler will not take so long loading, switching lists, etc. I have over 11,000 profiles and it is slow. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 103 |
| | Posted: | | | | First off you can't upgrade from 32bit to 64bit. They are different architectures. So you if you choose Win 7x64 you will need to perform a clean install. The next question you will need to answer is will all of your peripherals support x64. Printer, scanner, etc this of course is assuming your current pc is 64 bit capable. Make sure 64 bit drivers will be available for Windows 7. Drivers are the most important piece going from 32 to 64. You have to have 64bit drivers. Your question about memory is how much memory can your board support. 32bit OS has a maximum of 4gb*. I f your board only supports 4gb I don't think you will get much of a performance increase going to 64bit. Unless every app you run is 64bit I wouldn't run 64 bit OS with only 4gb. DvdP is only 32bit app. FYI Office 14 (2010) is will be available in 64 bit. Hopefully Adobe will follow suit as well.Yes 64 bit OS has better memory management, but if the app only uses a small amount of RAM then what's the point. For example, I have Vista x64 bit with 8gb of RAM. I have about 1700 profiles in DVDP and DVDP only uses about 25mb of RAM. looking at PerfMon, most of the activity is disk IO. I have multiple disks separating OS, Apps, and data. This gives me more spindles and helps increase speed. By the way Windows 7 is much more system resource friendly. You can run it on 1gb of RAM and have decent performance. I loaded 7 on my netbook with 2gb of ram and it boots up in less than 60 secs. Idle, it only consumes 630mb of RAM. I loaded Vista on it as a test and boot took about 2 1/2 mins. Idle, consuming 1.6gb of RAM. The performance with Vista was horrible and I put 7 back on it. I am guessing your db file is nearing the 2gb mark if not just over it. So even if DVDP uses 10 times the amount of RAM than mine you are still at 300mb.
Hope this helps.
*Server 2003 Ent utilizes AWE and can use more than 4gb of RAM. | | | | Last edited: by graymadder |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 1,946 |
| | Posted: | | | | I think you will not benefit from running DVD Profiler on a 64-bit system. DVDPro is a 32-bit application, and therefor will run in 32-bit emulation. And emulation is always slower. I like Windows 7, but remember it is still only a release candidate. I have installed build 7000, and upgraded every release up to build 7100. I had one major issue. Saving or opening a file often makes the explorer window hang upon opening it. The only thing you can do is kill your application  , so sometimes you lose data, since you can't save. I thought this had something to do with the multiple upgrades, so I did a fresh install. Sadly the problem is still there, so this must be an unfixed bug. If you really want to move to windows 7, you could upgrade to the 32bit version for the RC, and do a fresh install when the final becomes available. | | | View my collection at http://www.chriskepolis.be/home/dvd.htm
Chris |
| | Registered: May 19, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 5,917 |
| | Posted: | | | | I'm running Win7-64bit on my laptop and I had Win7-32bit on my main PC. I rather like Win7, the only drawback in my opinion is that they did away with the classic start menu.
Well, I had Win7-32bit on my main PC until a RAID issue corrupted my system drive (bad sata port). I wasn't sure if you could upgrade Win7-beta to Win7 so I went back and installed Vista which does support the upgrade. |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 |  Posts: 2,337 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Srehtims: Quote:
I'm hoping with the Windows 7 and more memory and utilizing the 64 bit of my PC that
DVD Profiler will not take so long loading, switching lists, etc. I have over 11,000 profiles and it is slow. Not a memory issue. Buy a SDD Drive. They are MUCH faster. |
| | Registered: May 19, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 6,730 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Kulju: Quote:
Quoting Srehtims:
Quote:
I'm hoping with the Windows 7 and more memory and utilizing the 64 bit of my PC that
DVD Profiler will not take so long loading, switching lists, etc. I have over 11,000 profiles and it is slow.
Not a memory issue. Buy a SDD Drive. They are MUCH faster. And much more expensive! For the same performance try a striped set of two SATA-HDDs (RAID 0) which gives a theoretical bandwidth of up to 3.5 GBit per second. | | | It all seems so stupid, it makes me want to give up!
But why should I give up, when it all seems so stupid?
Registrant since 05/22/2003 | | | | Last edited: by Lewis_Prothero |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 2,337 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting goblinsdoitall: Quote:
Quoting Kulju:
Quote:
Quoting Srehtims:
Quote:
I'm hoping with the Windows 7 and more memory and utilizing the 64 bit of my PC that
DVD Profiler will not take so long loading, switching lists, etc. I have over 11,000 profiles and it is slow.
Not a memory issue. Buy a SDD Drive. They are MUCH faster.
And much more expensive!
For the same performance try a striped set of two SATA-HDDs (RAID 0) which gives a theoretical bandwidth of up to 3.5 GBit per second. Same cost and not even close as reliable. I wouldn't recommend RAID 0 to anyone. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 3,197 |
| | Posted: | | | | Does Windows 7 require more or less resources than XP?
I'm asking because I have an ASUS Eee Box and running Windows XP on it is a bit slow. Would Windows 7 run faster? | | | | First registered: February 15, 2002 |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 |  Posts: 630 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Kulju: Quote:
Quoting goblinsdoitall:
Quote:
Quoting Kulju:
Quote:
Quoting Srehtims:
Quote:
I'm hoping with the Windows 7 and more memory and utilizing the 64 bit of my PC that
DVD Profiler will not take so long loading, switching lists, etc. I have over 11,000 profiles and it is slow.
Not a memory issue. Buy a SDD Drive. They are MUCH faster.
And much more expensive!
For the same performance try a striped set of two SATA-HDDs (RAID 0) which gives a theoretical bandwidth of up to 3.5 GBit per second.
Same cost and not even close as reliable. I wouldn't recommend RAID 0 to anyone. No, it's not the same price. Selecting a random hardware pusher, I do for example see the VelociRaptor at .61 euro per GB, while the cheapest SSD they have (Kingston SSDNow V) is at 1.55. If you want an SSD drive that can match the write speed of the VelociRaptor with large files, you need to pay a lot more, but even the cheap SSD will indeed outperform the VelociRaptor on reading small files due to the seek time. It all comes down to how you use your computer what's best. Currently it's not clearcut if you should go SSD or not. For most people, a mix might be the best option (a small fast SSD for booting, and a larger HDD or two for storage). In my case the disks can be moved to the server, but that's just logistics. I do not agree on not recommending RAID0 to anyone. If you have a proper backup scheme, there is a slight increased risk of downtime but for many people this is justified by the faster system (you certainly can't assume it isn't). If you do not have a backup scheme, you do indeed have a higher risk of data loss. Butyou will loose your data sooner or later anyway if you do not have proper backup, so it really doesn't matter if you loose it now or later... actually you can as well just delete anything you do not backup as it's just a question of time before it's lost.  | | | Regards
Lars |
| | Registered: May 19, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,730 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Patsa: Quote:
Does Windows 7 require more or less resources than XP?
I'm asking because I have an ASUS Eee Box and running Windows XP on it is a bit slow. Would Windows 7 run faster? Mininum requirements for Windows 7: 1 GHz CPU (32 or 64 Bit) 1 Gig RAM 16 Gig Free HDD-space Graphics with 128 MByte and DirectX9 DVD-drive Internet access Your Eee Box should match those requirements. Before buying it I would test it with the recent RC though. | | | It all seems so stupid, it makes me want to give up!
But why should I give up, when it all seems so stupid?
Registrant since 05/22/2003 |
| | Registered: May 19, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,917 |
| | Posted: | | | | My current plan is to replace my OS drive with a SSD and going for a RAID 10 for the main data. Since I had to reinstall Vista, I set my drives up to support easier migration with two mirrored RAIDS with 1 TB drives.
RAID 0 is safe for temporary data only where redundancy/recovery isn't an issue. Before restructuring my four 1 TB drives, I had it in a RAID 10 in which the stripped array is mirrored onto another pair of drives. When I had a drive fail, I just needed to swap out the bad drive with another and redundency was restored. I was able to operate normally the entire time.
Another tip to speed things up is to allocate up to 100 GB to a separate partition and set your temporary directories that Windows uses on it as well as your browser cache files. Since these directories contain a lot of small and temporary files, it helps to keep your OS and Data drives from fragmenting. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 1,796 |
| | Posted: | | | | I got a 64 bit PC and another SATA drive, just haven't got around to installing it.
Accoding to the upgrade test program all I need is more memory and I've got more slots for that,
but with Vista 32, I wouldn't being using them.
MS upgrade program says my drivers are good. I keep and user programs and their updates and documentation on external drives. So not problem doing a fresh install.
Internet Explorer 8, hangs on Vista occasionally, so that's not new. | | | We don't need stinkin' IMDB's errors, we make our own.
Ineptocracy, You got to love it.
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." - Abraham Lincoln |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 630 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Dr. Killpatient: Quote:
RAID 0 is safe for temporary data only where redundancy/recovery isn't an issue.
Almost, except you should leave out the word "temporary". For important data it obviously doesn't matter if it's on a single disk, RAID0, RAID10, RAID1, RAID5, whatever... the ONLY thing that matters is if you have backup (preferable offsite). If the (relatively) cheap speed increase RAID0 offers justifies that it is more likely you have to spend x hours (where x obviously is something only you can determine) reinstalling/restoring the data on the disk, then it is the right choice, no matter what people say about "only use it for x, never use it for y". When people say "only" and "never", they are generalizing - look at your own usage instead. Personally I classify my data into "who cares" (things I'll just reinstall from DVD or downloads etc), "would be convinient not loosing", and "critical". Anything in the critical section is obviouslly backed up offsite as well as on two external harddisks. At home I run a combination of RAID0, RAID10, and RAID5ish (a Drobo, doesn't use actual RAID5 but gets the same level of redundancy). At work we are using RAID0 on the workstations (with 15000 RPM drives) just to get speed out of them - they can be reimaged relatively fast, and the important data is on servers anyway. | | | Regards
Lars |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->General: General Discussion |
Page:
1 2 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |