Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Best OS for PC


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 djdelarosa25

djdelarosa25

  • Members
  • 19 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:06:21 PM

Posted 08 January 2016 - 10:07 PM

Specs:

 

Intel Core 2 Duo E7400

NVIDIA GeForce 9400GT 1GB

4GB RAM

ASUS P5KPL-AM EPU

 

Mobo supports only a max of 4GB of RAM.

 

Windows 7 - 10 OSes only please. Please specify whether 32 or 64-bit.

 

No suggestions of upgrading, please.


Edited by hamluis, 12 January 2016 - 03:10 PM.
Moved from Crashes/BSODs to Internal Hardware - Hamluis.


BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 richcbro

richcbro

  • Members
  • 375 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:06:21 PM

Posted 09 January 2016 - 02:31 AM

Windows 7, 8, 8.1, 10 will work well on your system, it just depends on what you want. If you like the familiar Windows 7 start menu, then use W7. If you would like to use the Store apps, or want some new features like UEFI supports, ability to mount ISO without third party softwares, then Windows 8 or 10 is a good choice.

 

Based on the specs of your PC I would choose a 32-bit OS, I would run faster than 64-bit Windows because of lower system requirement.


CPU: Intel i7-8700K 5.3 GHz ------ RAM: 32GB TridentZ 3600 MHz CL16 ----- Motherboard: Asus ROG Maximus X Formula ----- GPU: Zotac GTX 1080 Ti Amp! Extreme ----- Storage: Samsung 960 Pro 1TB -- Samsung 850 Pro 2TB x4


#3 djdelarosa25

djdelarosa25
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 19 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:06:21 PM

Posted 09 January 2016 - 04:28 AM

Based on the specs of your PC I would choose a 32-bit OS, I would run faster than 64-bit Windows because of lower system requirement.

 

But I thought that if you have 4 GB or more of RAM, it wouldn't be fully recognized by 32-bit. Why go that way? Wouldn't it be just a waste of RAM?



#4 Platypus

Platypus

  • Moderator
  • 14,691 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia
  • Local time:08:21 PM

Posted 09 January 2016 - 05:37 AM

But I thought that if you have 4 GB or more of RAM, it wouldn't be fully recognized by 32-bit. Why go that way? Wouldn't it be just a waste of RAM?


Yes, I agree with your concern. It's unfortunate that the G31 chipset on that board can only support 4GB of physical RAM, but it does implement 36 bit PAE and the BIOS allows memory remapping. So that fulfils the conditions to allow the full 4GB to be made available to a 64 bit OS, and you will also have the option of running 64 bit applications.

Make sure in the BIOS that the option called Memory Remap Feature in the Chipset menu is at its default Enabled setting.


Top 5 things that never get done:

1.


#5 richcbro

richcbro

  • Members
  • 375 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:06:21 PM

Posted 10 January 2016 - 04:50 AM

32 bit OS can only support max 4GB RAM, and if you have 4GB it can't use all, you will lost more than 500MB RAM normally. But 32 bit OS might run faster because of the specs of your PC.


Edited by batman1234, 10 January 2016 - 04:53 AM.

CPU: Intel i7-8700K 5.3 GHz ------ RAM: 32GB TridentZ 3600 MHz CL16 ----- Motherboard: Asus ROG Maximus X Formula ----- GPU: Zotac GTX 1080 Ti Amp! Extreme ----- Storage: Samsung 960 Pro 1TB -- Samsung 850 Pro 2TB x4


#6 MadmanRB

MadmanRB

    Spoon!!!!


  • Members
  • 3,073 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:No time for that when there is evil afoot!
  • Local time:06:21 AM

Posted 10 January 2016 - 05:48 AM

Linux :P


You know you want me baby!

Proud Linux user and dual booter.

Proud Vivaldi user.

 

ljxaqg-6.png


#7 usasma

usasma

    Still visually handicapped (avatar is memory developed by my Dad


  • BSOD Kernel Dump Expert
  • 25,091 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southeastern CT, USA
  • Local time:06:21 AM

Posted 10 January 2016 - 05:52 AM

The chipset support of RAM is different from the Windows support of RAM

Also, if the chipset can only handle 4 gB, then Windows can't improve upon that.

So, if the chipset says it can only handle 4 gB, then that's what you get in Windows.

 

Now, there's a slight difference in Windows in that it'll recognize the entire 4 gB, but may not show it all to you.
32 bit Windows will show you a 4 gB memory space.  But some of that space is dedicated to other hardware (such as video), so you may not get to see (or use) the entire 4 gB.

See this link for a bit more discussion:  http://www.carrona.org/4gblimit.html

 

As for the 32 bit vs 64 bit question.  There's a bit more overhead in running 64 bit rather than 32 bit (for example, the longer address identifiers) - so it's beneficial to use 32 bit for 4 gB and under, but not by a whole lot.

Finally, as Platypus has stated, if you want to use 64 bit applications, then you'll have to have a 64 bit OS installed.


My browser caused a flood of traffic, sio my IP address was banned. Hope to fix it soon. Will get back to posting as soon as Im able.

- John  (my website: http://www.carrona.org/ )**If you need a more detailed explanation, please ask for it. I have the Knack. **  If I haven't replied in 48 hours, please send me a message. My eye problems have recently increased and I'm having difficult reading posts. (23 Nov 2017)FYI - I am completely blind in the right eye and ~30% blind in the left eye.<p>If the eye problems get worse suddenly, I may not be able to respond.If that's the case and help is needed, please PM a staff member for assistance.

#8 usasma

usasma

    Still visually handicapped (avatar is memory developed by my Dad


  • BSOD Kernel Dump Expert
  • 25,091 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southeastern CT, USA
  • Local time:06:21 AM

Posted 10 January 2016 - 05:59 AM

We're talking about standard computing here - not the special tablets/mini systems that are scrambling to occupy niches in the hardware eco-system.
So my comments are directed at desktop/laptop systems.

 

When XP came out it was primarily 32 bit (yes there was a 64 bit version, but it wasn't well-known and wasn't used much).

When Vista came out, it was still primarily 32 bit - but the push for 64 bit was on.

When 7 came out, it was primarily 64 bit - but you still had to be careful to check if it was 32 or 64 bit

When 8 came out, it was primarily 64 bit - and there really wasn't much available in 32 bit

W10 continues this trend, being primarily 64 bit - and there being very little installed in the way of 32 bit

 

My point here is that we don't know when the driver developers are going to stop developing drivers for 32 bit devices.

And when are manufacturer's going to start devoting their efforts to only creating 64 bit devices (leaving 32 bit support out because it's not profitable)?

I think that this trend is coming, and wouldn't be surprised to see manufacturer's start offering only 64 bit drivers in the near future.

How "near" - well, that's a good question.  And one that I don't even have a guess at when :(


My browser caused a flood of traffic, sio my IP address was banned. Hope to fix it soon. Will get back to posting as soon as Im able.

- John  (my website: http://www.carrona.org/ )**If you need a more detailed explanation, please ask for it. I have the Knack. **  If I haven't replied in 48 hours, please send me a message. My eye problems have recently increased and I'm having difficult reading posts. (23 Nov 2017)FYI - I am completely blind in the right eye and ~30% blind in the left eye.<p>If the eye problems get worse suddenly, I may not be able to respond.If that's the case and help is needed, please PM a staff member for assistance.

#9 Platypus

Platypus

  • Moderator
  • 14,691 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia
  • Local time:08:21 PM

Posted 10 January 2016 - 07:23 PM

usasma has a very good point about the probability of declining 32 bit device driver support. Personally I see little value in persisting with the 32 bit OS unless you have an important application that you know works better in the native 32 bit environment. Testing has shown that there is a mix of results benchmarking the same applications between native 32 bit and WOW64. For example one I saw found that for memory data transfer, the number of operations per second (IOPS) fell under WOW64, but because the operations were occurring on the 64 bit subsystem, the memory bandwidth increased. That could be useful on an older system if memory bandwidth was bottlenecking a 32 bit application.

 

Another useful aspect of a 64 bit OS is that if a 32 bit application is Large Address Aware (e.g. Photoshop) it can have more than the 2GB of memory space that can be provided under a 32 bit OS. This used to be only possible using the kludge of PAE with the /3GB switch, but this stressed the OS kernel by restricting it to 1GB of memory and not all 32 bit drivers supported necessary 64 bit PAE addressing, so the option became unsupported in later Windows versions. A 64 bit OS makes the memory allocation available, and could be helpful for someone struggling with something like the 2GB limit in Photoshop.

 

The benefits may be limited on a board restricted to 4GB of physical RAM, but at least you can use all of the 4GB, whereas with the 32 bit OS you can't.


Edited by Platypus, 10 January 2016 - 07:27 PM.

Top 5 things that never get done:

1.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users