I didn't use any benchmarking method, just worked all day with Windows 7 32-bit or 64-bit depending on whether I was in the office or at home. 32-bit was better at running some old software, 64-bit could not run some old apps at all (even in XP mode), otherwise there was no practical difference. I would have switched the work computer to 32-bit if it would not have meant several days of downtime.
Years ago I ran benchmark tests and wrote hardware reviews for publications such as PC World and CNET. The guys who wrote the benchmarks kept making them harder to try to make the ever-faster computers sweat. The truth, which I was not usually allowed to write, was that for most users the "slowest" machines were still so fast that there were no performance bottlenecks. It's even more true today: there's no reason for most people to spend extra money for above-average specs. Compatibility and reliability are far more important. I haven't needed vendor support for any of my old applications in years. For that matter, when I need support for one of my current applications, I usually hit a dead end: either it's a bug or they tell me to file a feature request. On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 1:11 AM, Davis, David <[email protected]> wrote: > Robert, > You don't say what benchmarking method you used to compare 64 bit and 32 bit > Windows - > Generally, it will only manifest itself where one program (or a combination > of programs) want to access more than 2GB of RAM in one go - > it's always going to be faster to talk to RAM than to page things on and off > the pagefile.sys on your hard drive. > > I can't vouch for the ability of any modern OS to run "ancient DOS apps", but > in general I tend to find it's a risky strategy to use obsolete software for > things that you rely on to get your work done. > There'll be no vendor support. > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 10:02:18 -0800 > From: Robert Lauriston <[email protected]> > To: "Davis, David" <[email protected]>, > "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Compatibility of old(ish) Software with Windows 7 > Message-ID: > <can3yy4aazjqgvo3+rhrbvvwdwwofofnpghwihaphcvnnncc...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > The memory limit is per process. There are various ways that 32-bit > applications that need more than 2GB of memory (which few do) can use it in > 32-bit Windows. > > I worked for 18 months with 64-bit Windows 7 at work and 32-bit Windows 7 at > home. I saw no performance difference. I had both 64-bit and 32-bit Photoshop > on the work computer and the only difference I noticed was that it took much > longer for the 64-bit version to load. > > The only significant difference was that I could run things at home I could > not run at work. XP Mode had problems. 32-bit Win7 can run ancient DOS apps, > 64-bit can't. > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 12:52 AM, Davis, David <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Personally I wouldn't do it that way - as you then don't get the advantages >> 64 bit windows offers with being able to address more RAM - in 32 bit >> Windows you can only use a couple of GB. With a busy PC, big documents, big >> graphics, video etc you can easily use more than 2GB of memory. >> >> The pro editions of Windows 7 offer an "XP Mode" for running old >> applications (Basically it runs them inside a virtual machine of Windows XP >> - but transparently, once you've set it up, you just click the program's >> icon to launch it like any other, and it appears to be running in Windows 7, >> and can access your Win7 filesystem seamlessly). I've never yet encountered >> an application that couldn't work in XP mode like this, even 16 bit (!) ones >> designed to run on Windows 3.1. > >> From: Robert Lauriston <[email protected]> Install Windows 7 32-bit >> rather than 64-bit, fewer potential compatibility problems. > > > *** Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail, including any associated or attached > files, is intended solely for the individual or entity to which it is > addressed. This e-mail is confidential and may well also be legally > privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on notice of its > status. Please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and then delete > this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any > purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. This email comes from > a division of the Invensys Group, owned by Invensys plc, which is a company > registered in England and Wales with its registered office at 3rd Floor, 40 > Grosvenor Place, London, SW1X 7AW (Registered number 166023). For a list of > European legal entities within the Invensys Group, please select the Legal > Entities link at invensys.com. Invensys PLC is owned by the > Schneider-Electric Group. > You may contact Invensys plc on +44 (0)20 3155 1200 or e-mail > [email protected]. This e-mail and any attachments thereto may be > subject to the terms of any agreements between Invensys (and/or its > subsidiaries and affiliates) and the recipient (and/or its subsidiaries and > affiliates). > > > _______________________________________________ > > > You are currently subscribed to framers as [email protected]. > > Send list messages to [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe send a blank email to > [email protected] > or visit > http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/robert%40lauriston.com > > Send administrative questions to [email protected]. Visit > http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info. _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to framers as [email protected]. Send list messages to [email protected]. To unsubscribe send a blank email to [email protected] or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com Send administrative questions to [email protected]. Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
