Author Topic: Operating System (Read 19612 times)

SuperMiguel · « **on:** November 10, 2010, 09:00:29 pm »

So for my new build which operating system should i use? WinXP 32 or 64? or Win7 32 / 64?

This is a specific workbench system, ill be running electronics emulator, and programs to program chips like avr studio or arduino IDE

migsantiago · « **Reply #1 on:** November 10, 2010, 09:13:16 pm »

I'd recommend Windows 7 Professional or Ultimate Edition (64 bits) with a Windows XP Virtual Machine (32 bits).

You could run any software/hardware by using that combination.

Kiriakos-GR · « **Reply #2 on:** November 10, 2010, 09:25:41 pm »

I do not think that you have so many options today ... Legal OS

But, I bet that you can buy XP-Pro 32bit , on ebay .

My vote goes to XP-Pro .

Simon · « **Reply #3 on:** November 10, 2010, 09:46:49 pm »

if it is just for electronics and it's not the most powerful 64 bit system with over 3.5 GB of RAM I'd go for XP 32 bit, from what I hear xp 64 bit was a bit of a fars because by then Vista was on the way and the driver coverage for XP64 was not great as manufacturers turned to vista.

many slight older and freeware programs are more likely to work on XP than vista/7

SuperMiguel · « **Reply #4 on:** November 10, 2010, 09:53:05 pm »

I have a Q8300 cpu, with 4gb of ram, and ASUS MB and 128GB SSD

migsantiago · « **Reply #5 on:** November 10, 2010, 09:57:22 pm »

I work on Win7, 64 bit, 2GB ram, 500GB HD... it's a very reliable OS. Don't think Win7 is as bad as Vista, you should try it before discarding it.

Vista is a RAM eating monster. Win7 is not.

If you have 4GB, you will barely use virtual memory on 7.

I run heavy software such as Matlab, Labview, Altium, MPLAB, Full HD video playback, etc.

Simon · « **Reply #6 on:** November 10, 2010, 10:01:12 pm »

7 is ok but to be honest neither 7 or vista have brought anything more than XP apart from 64 bit support, if you want a snappier system and don't mind loosing 1/2 - 3/4 GB of ram go XP, if you want all the flashy stuff and the ultimate windows ad-ons like their new messenger that will "only work on 7" (so that you are forced to buy 7) go for 7

SuperMiguel · « **Reply #7 on:** November 10, 2010, 10:02:33 pm »

Quote from: Simon on November 10, 2010, 10:01:12 pm

7 is ok but to be honest neither 7 or vista have brought anything more than XP apart from 64 bit support, if you want a snappier system and don't mind loosing 1/2 - 3/4 GB of ram go XP, if you want all the flashy stuff and the ultimate windows ad-ons like their new messenger that will "only work on 7" (so that you are forced to buy 7) go for 7

xp has a 64bit edition

Simon · « **Reply #8 on:** November 10, 2010, 10:07:14 pm »

Quote from: SuperMiguel on November 10, 2010, 10:02:33 pm

Quote from: Simon on November 10, 2010, 10:01:12 pm
7 is ok but to be honest neither 7 or vista have brought anything more than XP apart from 64 bit support, if you want a snappier system and don't mind loosing 1/2 - 3/4 GB of ram go XP, if you want all the flashy stuff and the ultimate windows ad-ons like their new messenger that will "only work on 7" (so that you are forced to buy 7) go for 7

xp has a 64bit edition

and I hear it has poor driver support although that may be untrue. if it is good then go for XP64 why bother with 7?

alm · « **Reply #9 on:** November 10, 2010, 10:10:52 pm »

Quote from: SuperMiguel on November 10, 2010, 10:02:33 pm

xp has a 64bit edition

Which is basically Windows 2003 server with the server parts removed, and never had much hardware or software support. It was an OK solution when it was the only 64-bit desktop Windows version, but not today. I don't like to roll out any new Windows XP 32-bit systems either, but at least that's acceptable for old hardware or supporting legacy software. Anything needing a 64-bit OS should have no problems with Windows 7, however.

PetrosA · « **Reply #10 on:** November 10, 2010, 11:14:28 pm »

I ran XP Pro on my old box and, after some minor upgrades (very minor) I got 7 32 bit. It starts and shuts down waaaaay faster than XP and seems very stable. The difference in my CPU isn't big enough to explain the start and shutdown times, so it has to be the system. There are some drivers I haven't found yet (old Adaptec SCSI card for scanner, Fire GL 3300 GFX card, but the system has an ok driver for that) but other than that all my software has installed and run without major issues.

JohnS_AZ · « **Reply #11 on:** November 10, 2010, 11:27:11 pm »

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

alm · « **Reply #12 on:** November 10, 2010, 11:51:27 pm »

Quote from: JohnS_AZ on November 10, 2010, 11:27:11 pm

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.

Zero999 · « **Reply #13 on:** November 10, 2010, 11:54:50 pm »

I have XP Home and have 1GB. It hardly ever uses virtual memory. I have to load lots of large image files and have lots of browser tabs open before it uses any VM.

.o:0|O|0:o. · « **Reply #14 on:** November 10, 2010, 11:58:33 pm »

You could partition your disk space and have both or run XP SP3 from within W7, for older programs that don't like W7.

.o:0|O|0:o.

Kiriakos-GR · « **Reply #15 on:** November 11, 2010, 02:36:20 am »

Its rare to find an very passion-ed with electronics , to be also passion-ed with computing.

Most of them use light weight ( CPU power) PC boxes , and 2D graphics.
In this scenario , the lightweight OS , its an must have too.
Simple as that.

Personally, I had build my Quad core Q6600 box, before 48 hours ( hardware part) , and still I am with the installation CD's at hand, and I spent my time , to run all those web updates , all my software are legal.

Well Its hard to express with words my feelings , all this computing power, and the amazing 3D graphics with the HD5770 , it gives you the feeling, that you are ready to explore and enjoy just anything in the modern world of computing.
My XP-Pro Box runs faster than ever. The new CPU drops down MHz at idle , saves energy and stays ultra cool.
My point are , that I vote the hardware, as source for real improvements than the software.

Hewitson · « **Reply #16 on:** November 11, 2010, 03:55:57 am »

Quote from: SuperMiguel on November 10, 2010, 09:00:29 pm

So for my new build which operating system should i use? WinXP 32 or 64? or Win7 32 / 64?

This is a specific workbench system, ill be running electronics emulator, and programs to program chips like avr studio or arduino IDE

Neither. Use an OS that actually works properly and doesn't need constant reboots and reinstalls, eg Linux/FreeBSD.

Murphy · « **Reply #17 on:** November 11, 2010, 06:08:29 am »

Hard to say since you didn't specify what hardware it's running. If it's older scavenged hardware just to get you internet and program some chips I would use XP. If you're buying legit licenses it'll save you some cash too.

On modern hardware that's going to see heavy use go with Win7 x64. It's a really solid OS with a ton of backend improvements over XP and Vista. Using XP on a new machine is dumb unless you have a specific and good reason to do so.

Linux only really works if you're comfortable with it and the software you need is Linux compatible. Needing to find crappy hacks and half finished open source projects just to get some work done is annoying and unproductive. Then again if the desired software is available it works great and costs nothing.

Polossatik · « **Reply #18 on:** November 11, 2010, 01:17:45 pm »

64 bit OS'ses are only usefull when you're dealing with huge memory , like for example for databases, hughe photo editing or 3D modelling etc
there is no advantage in using 64bit otherwise and 64bit is in most cases even slower than 32bit

If you're used to windows then use windows a base system , otherwise use a Linux distro - you just want to get work done,

I can recommend http://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/VirtualBox (it's free) , it allows you to run OS's in a virtual pc, so you can for example run Windows XP in a virtual env on a linux box (or Linux on a windows box).

Simply install the OS in the virtual pc, configure it to your liking and then take a backup of the "virtual disk" , if you screw up or have to much stuff installed simply start/restore the backup. I use this extensivly to "test" things out, to avoid a bloothed windows env.

note that with windows make sure you configure the env as you want (RAM size and so) before activating to avoid that annoying re-activation based on hardware changes

It's especially good when using different usb to serial drivers who sometimes screw up windows if all installed on the same windows install, just make a separate virtual pc for each env.

in theory virtual pc's are a bit slower, in practice - as long as you don't run heavy graphic stuff you don't see the difference, on cpu level the difference is almost zip.

saturation · « **Reply #19 on:** November 11, 2010, 01:53:49 pm »

Use the PC OS the software recommends you run.

If you have a choice between XP, Vista and Win7, choose 7 because its simply an updated Vista with all the annoyances removed. Its also more efficient with memory.

If you have a choice between 32 and 64 bit, choose 64 bit; native 64 bit applications do run 2x faster without tweaking, and 64 bit systems can address large blocks of RAM to do large dataset processing.

Polossatik · « **Reply #20 on:** November 11, 2010, 02:31:23 pm »

Quote from: saturation on November 11, 2010, 01:53:49 pm

native 64 bit applications do run 2x faster without tweaking,

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.

saturation · « **Reply #21 on:** November 11, 2010, 04:11:59 pm »

Thanks for your opine, polossatik , but that's my benchmarks for apps I use, twice is typical, its often far more. Anyone can see for themselves and see the differences using available opensource or freeware.

Maybe the compile optimization is better on apps I use for 64, I dunno. Maybe such a comparison is different on Linux vs Vista or Win7 multios apps that have varying optimizations, say Firefox. Maybe its wholly per application based. But speed is speed.

In my case, I use Vista SP2, as I have 32 and 64 bit versions. For testing, you can use 7.zip which is available free on both 32 and 64 bit and compress something huge that is already heavily compressed so it won't be easy to do and it'll take a lot of time, like a 1GB MKV video file, then use the most CPU intensive mode: ultra. Also, if you have a multithread CPU make sure you use the same number of threads or it will be misleading.

You can set the word size on any application to see how it affects speed: 32 bits for 32 bit OS, 64 on 64, then try 32 bit on 64 bit OS etc.,

http://www.7-zip.org/

Test run 32 bit version on a 64 bit system, then run the 64 bit version on 64 bit OS. Now run the 32 bit version on a 32 bit OS, and compare. Note, you'll have to make corrections for the clock speed and any speed optimizations such as cache's you have on your boxes to normalize the operational times.

Note, on RAM usage and Pagefile, choose a test file small enough not to cause pagefile disk swap but big enough to fill physical RAM, as times may seem slower on 32 bit. But, Z.zip will report raw compression times based on CPU times alone, so you can control against the effects of having different caches, RAM, disk speed etc., if per chance its used.

Quote from: polossatik on November 11, 2010, 02:31:23 pm

Quote from: saturation on November 11, 2010, 01:53:49 pm
native 64 bit applications do run 2x faster without tweaking,
sorry, that is not true at all, 64 bit application will NOT run twice as fast . this is a common misunderstanding

saturation · « **Reply #22 on:** November 11, 2010, 04:47:42 pm »

Quick test of 7.zip:

compressing a 160MB video file, on Vista SP2, z.zip version/Vista version:

32/32 = 998KB/sec
32/64 = 2300KB/sec
64/64 = 4355KB/sec

Optimized Z.zip features for 64 bit:

64/64= 6800KB/sec

Polossatik · « **Reply #23 on:** November 11, 2010, 05:02:34 pm »

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

My main benchmarks are systems like Oracle RDBMS servers , web servers etc (= daily job) and there I can say the difference of speed/response of the whole system is most of the time rather small and sometimes even in favor of the 32bit env, all depending on the type of load of course. so I'm not saying there ARE no cases when 64 bit is (much) faster.

There are exceptions, Java is for example also an env where 64bit gives most of the time a better application throughput , if you will actually see this for a simple deskop Java app is another thing.

And of course with one big limitation for 32bit- scalability (= mainly due the process address size) where 64 bit is really "the way to go"

I'll have a look at 7zip and do some tests (but that will be on Linux ), most likely is is due the fact this "extreme" compression must be a heavily memory bound application and the lookup of large compression matrixes or the used register access should be faster under 64 bit .

I doubt that when using "normal" compression the difference is that huge, simply because I/O is there a more limiting factor , which will stay the same on 32 and 64 bit (unless you have a crappy driver).

But, IMHO, the whole 32bit vs 64 bit is rather academic for most desktop users. I'm not against using 64 bit or so, but it has , on the same hardware,IMHO in general much less impact than people expect.

I see no point (unless you need the memory for some applications - applications most desktop users do not use) to shelf out extra $$ to go to 64bit if you have for example 32bit XP now. You better get a faster disk , better disk controller or upgrade the cpu or so for that $$.
with Linux of course you can simply install a 64 bit version, but again, i'm skeptic about that your whole system will be twice as fast.

baljemmett · « **Reply #24 on:** November 11, 2010, 05:04:00 pm »

Quote from: saturation on November 11, 2010, 04:11:59 pm

Maybe the compile optimization is better on apps I use for 64, I dunno.

Might well be; the AMD64/EM64T architecture has twice as many general-purpose registers as the i386 architecture, and it's just generally rather less 'warty'. Gives compilers a bit more breathing space.

saturation · « **Reply #25 on:** November 11, 2010, 06:14:58 pm »

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.

Quote from: polossatik on November 11, 2010, 05:02:34 pm

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

DJPhil · « **Reply #26 on:** November 11, 2010, 07:43:04 pm »

Quote from: alm on November 10, 2010, 11:51:27 pm

Quote from: JohnS_AZ on November 10, 2010, 11:27:11 pm
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 · « **Reply #27 on:** November 12, 2010, 01:39:20 am »

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 · « **Reply #28 on:** November 12, 2010, 02:05:41 pm »

Quote from: DJPhil on November 11, 2010, 07:43:04 pm

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 · « **Reply #29 on:** November 12, 2010, 02:58:09 pm »

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

anothermort · « **Reply #30 on:** November 12, 2010, 03:19:46 pm »

Quote from: GeoffS on November 12, 2010, 01:39:20 am

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 · « **Reply #31 on:** November 12, 2010, 03:38:34 pm »

Windows XP SP2 Pro Rocks!

migsantiago · « **Reply #32 on:** November 12, 2010, 04:03:41 pm »

Quote from: shafri on November 12, 2010, 03:38:34 pm

Windows XP SP2 Pro Rocks!

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

Mechatrommer · « **Reply #33 on:** November 12, 2010, 07:24:02 pm »

Quote from: migsantiago on November 12, 2010, 04:03:41 pm

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 · « **Reply #34 on:** November 12, 2010, 09:09:41 pm »

AtariDOS Baby!

DJPhil · « **Reply #35 on:** November 13, 2010, 03:40:04 am »

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

dengorius · « **Reply #36 on:** November 13, 2010, 03:47:17 pm »

Quote from: shafri on November 12, 2010, 07:24:02 pm

Quote from: migsantiago on November 12, 2010, 04:03:41 pm
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 · « **Reply #37 on:** November 14, 2010, 12:50:53 am »

Quote from: dengorius on November 13, 2010, 03:47:17 pm

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 · « **Reply #38 on:** November 14, 2010, 02:04:44 am »

Quote from: shafri on November 14, 2010, 12:50:53 am

Quote from: dengorius on November 13, 2010, 03:47:17 pm
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

Quote from: shafri on November 14, 2010, 12:50:53 am

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 · « **Reply #39 on:** November 14, 2010, 11:08:35 am »

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 · « **Reply #40 on:** November 14, 2010, 02:57:44 pm »

Quote from: dengorius on November 14, 2010, 02:04:44 am

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 · « **Reply #41 on:** November 14, 2010, 03:47:32 pm »

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 · « **Reply #42 on:** November 14, 2010, 04:05:17 pm »

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 · « **Reply #43 on:** November 14, 2010, 06:55:18 pm »

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 · « **Reply #44 on:** November 14, 2010, 08:41:23 pm »

Quote from: polossatik on November 11, 2010, 02:31:23 pm

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. · « **Reply #45 on:** November 14, 2010, 08:48:00 pm »

Quote from: RayJones on November 14, 2010, 06:55:18 pm

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 · « **Reply #46 on:** November 15, 2010, 02:11:19 am »

Quote from: RayJones on November 14, 2010, 06:55:18 pm

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 · « **Reply #47 on:** November 15, 2010, 03:02:49 am »

Quote from: shafri on November 15, 2010, 02:11:19 am

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 · « **Reply #48 on:** November 15, 2010, 04:34:26 am »

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 · « **Reply #49 on:** November 15, 2010, 11:34:22 am »

Quote from: NiHaoMike on November 14, 2010, 08:41:23 pm

Quote from: polossatik on November 11, 2010, 02:31:23 pm
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.

Mechatrommer · « **Reply #50 on:** November 15, 2010, 12:04:05 pm »

64bit windows is... 64bit capabled working operating environment. i mean, it can support softwares with 64bit operation. if you are running 32bit softwares on 64bit windows, then its like giving an old folk with a ferrari. so... its not an OS alone that you should take care, but the whole business

and 64bit operation capabled of calculating greater range of integer/floating values, along with addressing greater range memory/ram location as other mentioned, xp is 3-4GB ram limit coz the 2^32bit = 4294967296 bytes including all those special windows stuffs, with 64bit, the limit will be 2^64 = 18446744073709551616 bytes = 18ExaBytes of ram!. but 64bit will not makes it any faster for the operation, 32bit of a math operation/algorithm will run just the same speed as 64bit version on the same processor clock MIPS. just in case someone misunderstand it that way.

so... when will you be needing the more than 3GB of RAM? up to the exa value of calculation? you must be a scientist running a "theory of everything" simulation on your pc or a hollywood 3D Animation reality rendering business or just simply a 3d gaming nuts. running a EE sim and Arduino IDE? win98 can do that easily (well, except the USB compatibilty which is the reason i upgraded to xp). i myself never hit my 3GB RAM limit with all the fancy stuffs that i have. the only reason that people upgrade to win7 i think is because the fancy support, coloring and those special effex things (personal user, not business) and no real commitment to something, no offense, just my thinking from a remote place here.

and personally... i really hates win7 start menu, its a backward in term of user friendlyness (menu and sub menu)

just my 2cnts.

Mechatrommer · « **Reply #51 on:** November 15, 2010, 12:27:29 pm »

well... the reported increase in efficiency of 64bit is due to some advantage of 64bit, ie for 32bit machine it will/can treat an RGB data in one memory space where as in 64bits we can store 2 pixels of rgb in one memory space and do the operation/compression at once, hence doubling the speed. but its only application specific. AFAIK, compiler based, math, sim, even the 3d game cannot takes advantage of that except rendering rgb to monitor plane. or at least the algorithm is optimized/tuned to take advantage of 64bit, and hence improving the performance, but it will be hardly twice the speed i doubt, and again it depends on what type of application you are running. just dont expect it to be doubled speed for everything. and again you need a 64bit softwares on 64bits OS to take the full advantage.

House91320 · « **Reply #52 on:** November 22, 2010, 06:47:46 am »

win7 and 2000 are the only good micro soft oss

Mr J · « **Reply #53 on:** November 25, 2010, 06:57:14 pm »

Been using Ubuntu (yes it's free) http://www.ubuntu.com/ . Been using it for the past three years and really like it. It was a little bit of a learning curve in the transition but not to horrible. Absolutely love it now. I use the Arduino (ver0021), gEDA, Eagle Cad, open office and i can still run my "windows only" Circuit/Traxmaker 2000 and NI Mutisim 10 under WINE.

Also been crash free ever since the change, with windows I was alway fixing virus or had hardware problems, spent more time fixing the bloody computer than using it.


EEVblog Main Site	EEVblog on Youtube	EEVblog on Twitter	EEVblog on Facebook	EEVblog on Odysee

Author Topic: Operating System (Read 19612 times)

alm

alm

Share me