Replies to post #27682 on Dream Machine

[Chrisau]

I'd say it's probably worth the trip.

[PMS Witch]

I've been experimenting with a new (New to me) computer. It's a few years old, uses a P4 and has 512Meg of RAM.

I triple boot, XP, 7-32, and 7-64.

This machine falls well below the minimum hardware recommended for Windows 7. Still, With 7-32, there's 164Meg of RAM shown as FREE in Resource Monitor and hard faults run at zero!

XP runs well. So does 7-32. But 7-64 seems to be a bit too much for it -- I can detect a bit of sluggishness doing routine work.


For every-day "real" work, I use 7-32. All my software runs on it. For me, the 3.2GB "Windows Barrier" doesn't impact its utility negatively because I assign the "wasted" RAM to a RamDisk.


Ever notice that major computer manufacturers feature 7-64 for home use and 7-32 for business? I suppose it's harder to sell the guys in IT departments on the benefits of 7-64 when they'll be stuck dealing with the compatibility issues during legacy migration. Home users seem easier to push into the future, so it makes sense to let them lead the way.


Given the choice between driving 60 miles and wrestling with an un-cooperative system, I'll grab my purse and keys any day.

Cheers, PW.

P.S. Even Microsoft has been advising people who download the new Office 2010 Beta to get the 32-Bit version, even if they're using a 64-Bit Windows. Hmmmm?