Operating System

[saturation]

Hi polossatik,

Cheers too.  I agree 100% with your point of view here.  I have the same problem with very large apps that run in 32 bit environments in Win 64 Vista or 7, and yes, the more pure the app is, just running in a 64 bit space, the better off it is.  32 bit runs in emulation in 64 bit Vista, and if there is i/o of any sort, the more intensive it is, the worse the performance is.  Some don't work at all.  Some large apps, like Peoplesoft, are so legacy heavy, I'd be very scared running that in 64 bit without extensive testing, then again why bother, when you can just get a 32 bit OS and not worry.

But for EE purposes with apps that do only mostly disk and net access for i/o, i.e., running Spice, other calculators, and other support software like Openoffice or Micro$oft Office 64 bit, you can get performance gains.

cheers,
if it's 2 times fast for you, glad to hear it.... < snip>

[DJPhil]

What does Win 7 Pro have the Win 7 Premium does not?
I have XP pro now, and was considering the upgrade.

Free Windows XP virtual machine, which migsantiago mentioned, if you plan to use it. Not many other features that are useful for typical home use, I believe. I'm sure it's not hard to find comparison tables.

Sorry it took me so long to get around to posting this.
Point of note:
If you have a valid XP key (or don't care about doing it on the up and up) you can use Virtualbox or VMWare to run a virtual machine with XP for free. I'm not sure about how tight the integration is between Win7Pro and it's virtual XP machine, but it's really easy to set one up yourself. If that's all you're after, you might be able to save some money.

Just wanted to add that in case it mattered to someone. I just recently set up a Virtualbox XP machine on Ubuntu and it was easy peasy so I'd hate to see someone waste the money if they didn't have to.

[GeoffS]

As an alternative to Virtualbox, you can also use VMware player to run a virtual machine. It's free also.

VMware player will only run precreated virtual machines but you can create your own using an online tool EasyVMX

I run both Virtualbox and VMware Workstation but having been a VMware user for a number of years, prefer that product.
I mostly various flavours of Linux as guests but have  an XP guest for those software packages that require it (Alibre CAD) . All of these are in 32bit mode although the host runs 64bit.
Both are installed on a Linux host (Centos 5.5, AMD Phenom II 1090t, 12GB memory)

[migsantiago]

If you have a valid XP key (or don't care about doing it on the up and up) you can use Virtualbox or VMWare to run a virtual machine with XP for free. I'm not sure about how tight the integration is between Win7Pro and it's virtual XP machine, but it's really easy to set one up yourself. If that's all you're after, you might be able to save some money.

Just wanted to add that in case it mattered to someone. I just recently set up a Virtualbox XP machine on Ubuntu and it was easy peasy so I'd hate to see someone waste the money if they didn't have to.

If you use the virtual XP machine offered with Win7 Pro or Ultimate, you can actually use an XP virtual software on your Win7 desktop. As if it was not running on a virtual machine, the software window actually runs on the same win7 desktop, occupying a place in the windows bar, sharing the clipboard and the host hard drive visibility.

Those are the advantages of the optimized Win7 XP virtual machine.

If you're using a normal virtual machine, you cannot share the clipboard or the full hard drive.

[SuperMiguel]

was also looking at http://www.win2008r2workstation.com/ i have a valid 2008 r2 licence.

[anothermort]

As an alternative to Virtualbox, you can also use VMware player to run a virtual machine. It's free also.

I use VMware on Windows 7, as I dont have Pro only the home edition
Works very well.

Dont want to pay, the same again to "upgrade to pro", as its a rip off.

[Mechatrommer]

Windows XP SP2 Pro Rocks!

[migsantiago]

Windows XP SP2 Pro Rocks!

You should update to SP3. Recent software requires the latest Windows Installer.

[Mechatrommer]

You should update to SP3. Recent software requires the latest Windows Installer.

nop! i heard/read it will crash xp. and again nop! i'm happy with sp2 and run decades old softwares . i dont care! until then...
edited: thanx for your advice though, will keep it in mind

[Veramacor]

AtariDOS Baby!

[DJPhil]

Bah, Atari DOS is command line only.
Upgrade to the late '80s and get GEOS!

[dengorius]

You should update to SP3. Recent software requires the latest Windows Installer.

nop! i heard/read it will crash xp. and again nop! i'm happy with sp2 and run decades old softwares . i dont care! until then...

That was a long time ago, SP3 is fine. Anyway I would advise to move to Win7. Support for XP is due to cease on 2014 (and support for XP SP2 already has)

[Mechatrommer]

That was a long time ago, SP3 is fine. Anyway I would advise to move to Win7. Support for XP is due to cease on 2014 (and support for XP SP2 already has)

i agree about win7. if you are starting from the beginning, then pick the latest OS, ie win7 if its from microsoft. for the older guy like me, i already married to the xp, only incompatibility with the new peripherals will do us part .

ps: AFAIK, device manufacturer still providing driver compatibility up to as earliest as win98. so xp is still quite comfortably in the middle of the timeline.

[dengorius]

That was a long time ago, SP3 is fine. Anyway I would advise to move to Win7. Support for XP is due to cease on 2014 (and support for XP SP2 already has)

i agree about win7. if you are starting from the beginning, then pick the latest OS, ie win7 if its from microsoft. for the older guy like me, i already married to the xp, only incompatibility with the new peripherals will do us part .

Well it's not like you're starting over, it's still Windows. On the other hand you get better support for latest hardware and software and bla bla bla

ps: AFAIK, device manufacturer still providing driver compatibility up to as earliest as win98. so xp is still quite comfortably in the middle of the timeline.

Yep manufacturer will probably keep that up for a while, the drivers are already there no point in removing them. I was talking about Microsoft's support, security updates, system updates etc.

That's just IMHO

[saturation]

The key problem is while Win7 can run in an old box well with 1-2GB RAM, if you have peripherals in the hardware that are no longer supported you could be in for a wild ride.

Thus, If you do upgrade a box OS alone, it may not be worth it, but Win7 is good bet.  Better if you get it with a new box.

Know there are some very quietly kept interactions with hardware and drivers that can be difficult to diagnose and fix.  

The most heinous is SYSTEM INTERRUPT based driver issues causing CPU cycles to run high while the machine is doing nothing.  This doesn't slow down the machine noticeably because the interrupt can be given low priority when the CPU is given a priority task, but it keeps the CPU running hot because its always running, when you are idle, it will take all the available cycles.  

You can google it to find more about it.

This is often caused by USB, audio card, video driver, disk drive etc., drivers and worse BIOS based issues.  Some of those peripherals are built into the Mobo by companies that have been absorbed by bigger ones, or simply no longer exist or not supported, such as Award BIOS, which is now part of Phoenix.

[Mechatrommer]

Well it's not like you're starting over, it's still Windows. On the other hand you get better support for latest hardware and software and bla bla bla
Yep manufacturer will probably keep that up for a while, the drivers are already there no point in removing them. I was talking about Microsoft's support, security updates, system updates etc.
That's just IMHO

its not just a Windows. its a combination setup of OS, softwares and hardwares. drivers tend to be backward compatible, but not forward (so i guess i prefer/comfort to be at the back ). ms support and security update? i disabled it, it will just make my machine slower, i have Avast with me now. there are still hundreds of kbfixes out there, but i only bother with 1 or 2. i know its just IYHO, but its also IMHO, its good to change thoughts. i know, i was a person who keep updating things up. Cheers

[dengorius]

I was actually talking about the user experience. If you really need a specific piece of software or hardware that only runs on older versions you can always use a virtual machine. And don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to push Windows at every cost (I am mostly a Linux guy myself). I think that innovation and updates are always welcome, when they're done by somebody who knows what he's doing. Anyway I am going OT, so I'll stop here

[Mechatrommer]

I was actually talking about the user experience as well... from different point of view. dont be too serious pal! Cheers
and i was just posting my 2cnts experience. I'm a window guy, but i dont hate linux'ers and mac'ers for any reason. I wish i just have time for those ...and err.... money to buy the MacBook

[RayJones]

Obviously if you are talking XP these days for a new machine you must be using pirated versions.

We have not been able to legitimately purchase XP for many months now via any of our work connections, and service pack support/updates for XP is due to expire next year.

Win7 x64 FTW if you are after a Windows box. However the XP virtual machine will not solve any "XP only" driver issues.

[NiHaoMike]

sorry, that is not true at all, 64 bit application will NOT run twice as fast . this is a common misunderstanding

Assuming the app does not need more than 2 Gb address space (=most common applications), If you install on a certain system a 32bit Operating system and use a 32bit application then this will run just as fast (and maybe even a tiny little bit faster) as the 64 bit version of that application on the 64 bit operating system system. This is true for linux, windows, etc etc

32 bit applications on a 64bit windows system take NO advantage of the 64 bit windows os besides a better memory management allowing 32bit apps to use up to 4gb address space (in most cases) .
Running 32 bit windows applications (who need less than 2gb address space) on a 64 bit windows system will often be (a bit) slower than running the same 32 bit application on a 32 bit windows.


Only when the application actually needs more than (on windows) 3 gb of address space (= not the same as ram) then 64 bit windows is needed (assuming your application is than also a 64 bit application). By default you can go only up to 2b address space on 32bit windows, but you can up this to 3gb in most cases who need this.

On linux there is mainly a performance gain by using 64 bit linux and 64 bit applications when your application uses more than 3gb (or 4 - depends on the distro) Gb of address space because the memory management will be simpler, but it will also not run 2 times faster than a 32bit app on a 32bit Linux.

bottom line: for apps that do not need several gigabytes of address space 32bit is fine, if you use 64 bit OS then make sure you use also 64bit windows applications for the best result.

the only real BIG advantage of using 64 bit OS and applications (!) is that your application can address lot's of GB's of address space . On windows you NEED to use 64 bit for above 3gb (there is one exception - PAE but I wont go into that here) and Linux full 64 bit will be having faster/better memory management above x GB.

Edit: above a summary, there is a huge difference between OS's and there is stuff I left out to avoid more confusion and note that address space of a process (!) is the real limit here and this is not the same as ram.

32bit windows as a system can in general (there are exceptions) not use more than 4Gb of ram, 32 bit Linux can in most cases use more than 4gb of ram
If you need to buy a new windows license then get 64 bit win 7, if you have a 32bit XP license already then this is fine in most cases and buying a 64 bit windows will not bring huge benefits for most tasks.

Even without the expanded address space, there are advantages to 64-bit. Most significant are the additional registers. Another is that 64-bit integer operations can be done natively in hardware instead of emulation. Granted, you don't see 64-bit integer operations very often, but the few times you do are the times when 64-bit really shines. Back in the days, a 3000+ Athlon 64 and 2.8GHz Pentium 4 were similar performance for 32-bit tasks, but in a 64-bit program like the distributed.net client, the Athlon 64 can be over 3 times as fast.

And more applications can use 64-bit addressing than you think - basically anything that needs to work with files above 4GB. It's definitely uncommon in EDA software, but it's something to consider if you do something else like video editing.

And note that 4GB and more of RAM is very common now. 64-bit is the way to go for that. And really, why buy a car with a 6 speed transmission and only use 3 of the gears? Using a 64-bit CPU for 32-bit only is the same. You'll be wasting half the logic you paid for. (My ECEN 350 instructor said that 64-bit x86 is a lot "cleaner" in design than 32-bit x86, but I'm not sure how valid that is.)

I personally use 64-bit Gentoo. I like being able to customize almost everything.

[.o:0|O|0:o.]

Obviously if you are talking XP these days for a new machine you must be using pirated versions.

If you already had a non-OEM XP installation disc, you can use it on any PC you build (provided you also have the necessary drivers for your new hardware, like SATA). Some later versions apparently required the product to be activated making this more difficult. One way around this was, apparently, to remove the service packs using nLite and then install them seperately after the intallation (though I vaguely remember there being problems with SP3).

I had a copy of XP on my old PC, now I have a customized version with updated drivers specifically for my new system, which I created using nLite.

.o:0|O|0:o.

[Mechatrommer]

Obviously if you are talking XP these days for a new machine you must be using pirated versions.
We have not been able to legitimately purchase XP for many months now via any of our work connections, and service pack support/updates for XP is due to expire next year.

if the xp is due to expire and cannot get the license, then how the new people get it? if they really want it? other than piracy? if its really hard, you can get a copy of mine (for half the price ), they shouldnt be bothering anymore, its expired anyway?

ps: they should and must! publish the open source code too!

[GeoffS]

if the xp is due to expire and cannot get the license, then how the new people get it? if they really want it? other than piracy? if its really hard, you can get a copy of mine (for half the price ), they shouldnt be bothering anymore, its expired anyway?

ps: they should and must! publish the open source code too!

I think Microsoft's answer is you don't get it - XP that is.
XP is no longer offered for sale but if you have Windows 7 Professional or Ultimate, you are allowed to download the license and install XP. This is according to the Microsoft website. The assumption is (I'm guessing) that you already have a copy of XP you can use for this.

A quick web search shows that XP is only offered for sale from some of the less reputable online sellers -  the ones that sell you 'OEM" software for a few dollars  
The official Microsoft line is that XP is not available for sale any more.

[DARKHORSE]

Double partition your drive throw Linux on one partition and windows 7 645bit on the other and you will be set. I recommend the Linux partition for running all of the gEDA software.

[Polossatik]

sorry, that is not true at all, 64 bit application will NOT run twice as fast . this is a common misunderstanding
----
bottom line: for apps that do not need several gigabytes of address space 32bit is fine, if you use 64 bit OS then make sure you use also 64bit windows applications for the best result.

the only real BIG advantage of using 64 bit OS and applications (!) is that your application can address lot's of GB's of address space . On windows you NEED to use 64 bit for above 3gb (there is one exception - PAE but I wont go into that here) and Linux full 64 bit will be having faster/better memory management above x GB.

Edit: above a summary, there is a huge difference between OS's and there is stuff I left out to avoid more confusion and note that address space of a process (!) is the real limit here and this is not the same as ram.

32bit windows as a system can in general (there are exceptions) not use more than 4Gb of ram, 32 bit Linux can in most cases use more than 4gb of ram
If you need to buy a new windows license then get 64 bit win 7, if you have a 32bit XP license already then this is fine in most cases and buying a 64 bit windows will not bring huge benefits for most tasks.

---

And note that 4GB and more of RAM is very common now. 64-bit is the way to go for that. And really, why buy a car with a 6 speed transmission and only use 3 of the gears? Using a 64-bit CPU for 32-bit only is the same. You'll be wasting half the logic you paid for. (My ECEN 350 instructor said that 64-bit x86 is a lot "cleaner" in design than 32-bit x86, but I'm not sure how valid that is.)

I personally use 64-bit Gentoo. I like being able to customize almost everything.

the only point I was trying to make is that a lot of people think 64 has to be much better than 32 because 64 is a bigger number than 32.
It's not, it depends.

If you buy a new windows pc with a windows 7 license then of course there are few reasons to install 32bit windows 7 (or XP), 64 bit is then in general the best thing to use.

But for example a lot of second hand pc's with "64 bit cpu's" still come with 32bit xp license , in most cases buying for those pc's a 64 bit windows will not make a huge difference. (yes, I know, it will if you use 64bit optimized software or software that uses huge datasets etc etc)

If all you do is drive around in town at 50Km/h , where all you need is 3 gears, then if you need to fork out extra $$$ to use all the 6 gears (=buy windows 64) then you're wasting your money and that money is IMHO better invested in a nice sunroof

Seen Linux is "free" there of course there is no $$ involved in getting the 64 bit version, so the point is indeed less valid.