OS question for a future build.

[keling]

First up, I would like to thank everyone who have commented on my build plan last year. You guys were right - I don't need to build a new one since my current PC is still good. It was a happy ending.

Now, the sequel.

So now I have the itch again. All those talks of the new i7s have gotten me scouring the net for research. Plus with two of my favourite games' sequels , Battlefield 3 and Arma 3, will be Windows 7 exclusives, I've been finally tempted to move on to that OS. So this will be primarily an OS question :

I want to buy Windows 7 64 bit so I can have more than 4 gbs of RAM. But after looking around the local stores, I don't see any mention of which version of the OS they are selling.

Is Windows 7 sold separately according to bit version or is that option become available during installation? Or did I missed something?

I know it's a naive thing to ask but this will be my first foray into the 64 bit universe so any advice would be appreciated.

 

[Kreij]

The retail version of Windows will contain both versions.
It's the OEM version that are one or the other (and are half the price).
If you only want the 64 bit version, OEM is the way to go.

 

[keling]

That was quick. Interesting.

OEM...I've seen it lying around in some stores.

That open up a new question (actually I've just remembered it) : Which version should I get?

Home Premium? Ultimate?

 

[Kreij]

There is really no good reason to get Ultimate for a home system.
I got it simply to check it all out, but I don't use any features that are not in Home Premium.

 

[newtekie1]

I'd go with Prefessional as a minimum, the features it contains are well worth the $30 extra over Home Premium.

Also, the OEM versions only come with either the 64-bit or the 32-bit disc, but the keys are universal so they can be used with either.

 

[Kreij]

Yeah, I guess having the ability to run in XP mode could be useful at times (Professional or Ultimate). Other than that, Professional doesn't add much value over HP.

 

[keling]

I suspected it to be like that. No use buying something shiny if it has to much flab. Unless you want to.

I've heard the pro and cons of both versions and my mind was actually set on Home Premium. But it's good to know some else's opinion.

I may be late in using Win 7 but patience is a virtue.

 

[Zyon]

If you want something that is definitely future proof, try Ubuntu, free updates on all packages.

 

[Kreij]

If you want something that is definitely future proof, try Ubuntu, free updates on all packages.

Good advice ! How do those Windows 7 exclusive game titles run on the "future proofed" Ubuntu?

 

[Zyon]

You could use wine (or struggling to get Windows 7 working on virtual box)

 

[Kreij]

Yeah ... I've found the performance of an emulator or a virtual box superior to a native running OS to be far superior. lulz

Just kicking your ass on that "future proof" comment for a gaming rig, Zyon.

 

[newtekie1]

Yeah, I guess having the ability to run in XP mode could be useful at times (Professional or Ultimate). Other than that, Professional doesn't add much value over HP.

The biggest problem I see with HP is the limit of 16GB of RAM. Yes, I know that is sort of a lot right now(though not really), but I expect Win7 to stick around at least a little while, and I see 24GB+ not being that extreme before the end of Win7. I know people are already talking about Win8, but I don't think it will be out any time soon, and I see Win7 being like WinXP(though not nearly as bad), where people kind of stick to it as the stable Windows OS that people stick with for a while. I mean, everyone want to talk about how important it is to future proof their rig, yet they recommend or go with an OS that limits them to 16GB, which IMO is no where near future proof. Especially for something that is probably going to be used for longer than any other part in the computer as it will likely get transfered to your next computer after the one you are building/have now.

Also the fact that Microsoft will end support for HP in 3 years time, while they will continue support for 8 years for Professional really seems worth it to me.

Plus I don't think I could live without gpedit or advanced user control under Computer Management. Plus once you have remote desktop access and get used to using it, you just can't live without it and the alternatives just aren't as good.

 

[keling]

Wow. Apparently I'm really really late for the party with Windows 7. I didn't realize there's a RAM limit per version of Win 7 and the rather quick support time limit for HP. I've been following the "wait and see" policy when it comes to core software so I'm not really interested with Win 8 (blame Microsoft for promising Alan Wake for Vista - I'm still slightly pissed at that). Micrososft said Win 8 will be great for gaming and then they talked about apps support - history repeating itself?.

I've always prefer something that is in the middle. I even still cling to Windows 98 SE when XP first came out and it wasn't until SP2 that when I started to use it. I completely forgotten about Win 7 Professional - could be the middle ground I'm looking for. I've only people talk about HP and Ultimate so Professional was below my radar.

I don't want a version that's not going to be supported in a couple of years and a version that's have too much things that I might never use but cost me a fortune. 16 gb RAM is my current objective for my future build but a possibility for a 27gb is tempting. I won't be immediately installing 16 or 27 gb when I start the build but having an OS that will allow it in the long run would be nice.

Professional...professional...professional....have a nice ring to it.

 

[Kreij]

Well, IMO you really are going to have more issues future proofing the rig hardware-wise than with the OS.
With the advent of constantly changing CPU sockets and hardware dependent API (like DX11) it''s more likely that you will have to update hardware to keep current long before you need another OS (as newt stated).

As far as Microsoft supporting their OS, look at XP. Due to the large number of corporations running huge XP installations, they keep pushing the EOL out farther. That could be the case with 7 also (although I do not know how distributed the OS is in the corporate world currently).

I'm also a bit leary about Win 8. We've seen some screens a bit of information, but we will not know the reality of the OS until it hits the streets. MS has been know to drop a few turds in the past. Think ME and Vista (although Vista's lack of adoption was not completely MS' fault).

Also, with the higher adoption of SSDs (and their being used to hold the pagefile), 16GB of RAM should be more than enough for quite some time. I've got 8GB on my rig and nothing I do even comes close to using it up (that of course would not be the case for heavy audio/video encoding or GA/Rendering). Don't forget that the Mobo you choose must also support greater than 16GB of RAM if you are aiming for a higher amount. For instance, My mobo will only support 8GB of RAM even though my OS will support more.

Okay ... I'll quit blathering. Just my opinion.

 

[keling]

Yeah. I'm well aware of the unpredictability of future proofing especially with hardware and ESPECIALLY with current trends. I was surprised to read about the ONE pin difference between Intel's LGA1155 and LGA1156 socket. And the K versions vs non Ks? Wasteful IMO.

Not to mention a number of tech sites promoting the tablet hardware for desktops. That's what they said about Intel's Atom and the netbook revolution. Then there's AMD's Fusion.

I leave the build world for a year and all these things happened. Confusing to say the least.

True that my RAM will be dictated by my mobo but that doesn't worry me. 16 or 27gb is tempting but not my true objective. It will ultimately come down to whether my applications or games demand those enormous number of RAM. I have set 8 gb as a realistic objective and 16 as the final prize. 27gb if I still use Win 7 in 10 years time when gaming and media are in the form of holographic projections with tactile properties.

There I go dreaming of the future again.

 

[Kreij]

There I go dreaming of the future again.

You dream small. I'm waiting for a 4THz processor, 2TB of RAM and a GC that will produce photo-realistic images that will fit in the arm of my eye glasses and display it like a heads-up display in real time.

I'm not holding my breath.

 

[newtekie1]

As far as Microsoft supporting their OS, look at XP. Due to the large number of corporations running huge XP installations, they keep pushing the EOL out farther. That could be the case with 7 also (although I do not know how distributed the OS is in the corporate world currently).

That is exactly why Professional is supported for 5 years longer than Home Premium. There isn't a large install base of Home Premium in corporations, they are using Professional. So Microsoft has learned from their mistake with XP and isn't supporting an entire product line just for the needs of one version.

Oddly, Ultimate has the same support cycle as Home Premium. Professional really is the way to go.

Also, with the higher adoption of SSDs (and their being used to hold the pagefile), 16GB of RAM should be more than enough for quite some time. I've got 8GB on my rig and nothing I do even comes close to using it up (that of course would not be the case for heavy audio/video encoding or GA/Rendering). Don't forget that the Mobo you choose must also support greater than 16GB of RAM if you are aiming for a higher amount. For instance, My mobo will only support 8GB of RAM even though my OS will support more.

I don't know, motherboard are already supporting 32GB of RAM, and I believe socket 2011 is supposed to support 64GB. I don't think that will be necessary soon, but it would be nice to not be limitted by the OS if you decide you want 24GB or 32GB. To me it is counter productive to move to a 64-bit OS with the only real advantage of supporting more RAM, and then artificially have a limit set by the OS.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

Also, with the higher adoption of SSDs (and their being used to hold the pagefile), 16GB of RAM should be more than enough for quite some time

i thought you were not supposed to use it as a pagefile due to wear?? ive moved any frequent written to folder off it , have i gone too far?

and also deffinately as stated prior different versions have different max capabillities ulty win7 ,which i got is the only one that allows different vendor gpu's to work afaik plus has no memmory cap and little else lol win7 is deff the next xp, mega corps are switching to it and wont change again quickly as its a massive expense to write and test new software control enviroments etc for that companies specific products

 

[Kreij]

i thought you were not supposed to use it as a pagefile due to wear?? ive moved any frequent written to folder off it , have i gone too far?

No. More access to your SSD will reduce the life span of it.
So will driving more miles on a set of tires on your vehicle.
What did you buy it for in the first place? To not use it much so it lasts longer, or to hammer it so you get the best performance you can in everything you do?

If I was paging a lot and could reduce the performance degredation by using a SSD, even if it meant I would have to replace it in a shorter period of time that a slower HDD, I'm good with that.

 

[keling]

Professional it is then. Glad I asked. Never knew about the time limit for support. The mobo that I have my eyes on does have support for a max 32 gb. Like newtekie said, if necesary.

Correct me if I'm wrong : 32 bit and 64 bit are at the same performance level in most applications? Their differences are the number RAM allowed and software compatibility. For example when running a game (with the same hardware), will either version play at roughly the same FPS? Or will the 64 bit be more of a performance hog?

This what I usually assume of those two versions differ in. An easy answer I used whenever a friend asked about it. I know I might be wrong somewhere there so I'm asking here.

Small dreams, big hope. It's been 5 years since I first heard the 3 ghz threshold achieved by a consumer cpu. I've only hear 4ghz only among overclockers and 5ghz by benchmark testers. I assumed 1 Thz would be achieved by 2010. Guess I was wrong.

 

[Kreij]

32 bit applications will show a slight decrease in performance when run on a 64 bit OS.
A natively compiled 64 bit application will perform far better than it's 32 bit counterpart in an 64 bit environment.
The advantages of a 64 bit OS outweigh the negatives unless you are specifically trying to get maximum performance on 32 bit applications.

 

[keling]

How about games? I know some were made to utilize or built primarily with Direct X 11 but I never heard of any promoted of using a 64 bit OS. With the age of multiplatform game development, how does PC ports fare in the 64 bit world?

 

[newtekie1]

How about games? I know some were made to utilize or built primarily with Direct X 11 but I never heard of any promoted of using a 64 bit OS. With the age of multiplatform game development, how does PC ports fare in the 64 bit world?

They run fine.

 

[Kreij]

If you run a 32 bit game on 32 bit XP you will see better performance that if you run it on 64 bit Win 7. But you will only really see this in benchmarks and your real world experience of the game will not suffer.

They run fine.

 

[keling]

Ok. I'm not a benchmark tester so I won't concern myself with that again. Slight is good enough for me. Enough about games.

So, how do you reduce the strain on SSD with the paging file problem? Put the paging file on a mechanical drive? Reduce the paging size? (I'm new to this SSD thing).