Microsoft announces Windows 10
- Thread starter Candlelight
- Start date
A
Amaris
Guest
Thanks for the link! It looks like my next OS will be a 64 bit OS. Not this one, though, as I am too lazy and tired to reinstall it. 
Right now I'm on a 32-bit OS. At least I'm pretty sure it's 32-bit based on the memory of my last examination of my system specifications when I made an upgrade.
A
Amaris
Guest
It's easy to check, just go to Control Panel, and select the system icon. It will be in the details list.
Having read through RobMax's link, I do see the benefits of a 64 bit OS, I mean, damn, the sky's the limit when it comes to hardware! No more low level limitations, or memory issues, so what I'll probably do, given that I don't like running at suboptimal levels, is save up for some RAM while it's still cheap, and then when I add the RAM, go ahead and upgrade to the 64 bit version of 7, or I could just upgrade the RAM, and then wait for Windows 10 and get that.
Seriously, so far 10 looks fantastic. Once I hear they've added Cortana as an update, I'll reinstall the OS on a virtual machine. Anyhoo, now I regret not switching to 64 bit sooner. Normally I'm well informed on such things, but I kind of ignored it, figuring that I had no need for it, but man have things changed in the past 9... years. Eek.
Having read through RobMax's link, I do see the benefits of a 64 bit OS, I mean, damn, the sky's the limit when it comes to hardware! No more low level limitations, or memory issues, so what I'll probably do, given that I don't like running at suboptimal levels, is save up for some RAM while it's still cheap, and then when I add the RAM, go ahead and upgrade to the 64 bit version of 7, or I could just upgrade the RAM, and then wait for Windows 10 and get that.
Seriously, so far 10 looks fantastic. Once I hear they've added Cortana as an update, I'll reinstall the OS on a virtual machine. Anyhoo, now I regret not switching to 64 bit sooner. Normally I'm well informed on such things, but I kind of ignored it, figuring that I had no need for it, but man have things changed in the past 9... years. Eek.
Yeah, 32-bit. Thought so. I don't check my stats and specifications all the time so I probably forget a lot of little details that come naturally to other users.
A
Amaris
Guest
We all forget. I have to keep Speccy (great freeware diagnostic program) handy just so I can remember what some of my hardware settings are. That said, I just checked out the specs on my motherboard, a Pegatron Narra5, and I noticed that it's only expandable to 4GB of RAM, which would be a waste of money to go from 3GB to 4GB since I only have two slots and both are full. I could just buy a better motherboard, but then we're getting into a whole new level of investment that just isn't worth it at the moment.
I have 16GB of RAM in my desktop and you better believe it runs like a dream.
A
Amaris
Guest
It seems like the jump in RAM happened quickly. I remember back in 2001, when I worked for Sears, having a PC with 64 MB of RAM was standard. Then it was 128 MB, then 512 MB, and then everyone had to have at least 1 GB of RAM for things to work smoothly. The pace was somewhat consistent. Now it's 8 GB, 16 GB, 32 GB of RAM, and more. I figure it's partly based on the notion that the price of RAM has plummeted, followed by more resource intensive software applications.
The old "word processor" recommendation makes its way around again. 2 GB is now "basic", and is good for internet, email, and word processing. If you want to do anything else, it's 4 GB for "light image editing" and such (this is according to buildcomputers.net). Seriously? That's just wasteful. I do DVD authoring on my Athlon X2 and 3 GB of RAM. I convert videos from one format to another, I play modern games, and my computer doesn't whimper and cry. Is it showing it's age? Hell yes, my PC is 5 years old, but it's still a powerful machine far more capable than "light image editing" and "email."
Shit, I remember when I had a system with an 800 Mhz Celeron processor and 750 MB of RAM, and the local PC guy told me I could do basic word processing with it (this was about 8 years ago). I told him I did video authoring and he didn't believe me. I guess people get used to bloated specs, and figure anything less just can't hold up, and that's baloney. Sure, it would be awesome to have tons of RAM, and high end processors, but sometimes you have to work with what you have, and it's about being streamlined and efficient.
My favorite PC, that I ever owned, was an old Compaq with an AMD K6-2 350 Mhz processor. It had 128 MB of RAM, and a 10 GB HDD. It ran Windows 98SE, and I had Roadrunner installed. Every tech guy I knew told me Roadrunner was going to bog the system down, that I needed to upgrade everything (at the time, the standard was 2.4 Ghz processor with 512 MB of RAM), but the system performed flawlessly. Our hardware is far more powerful than people think it is, and far more capable, and they get thrown out before they ever reach their maximum potential. I'm no luddite, and I'm not saying don't upgrade, but I do believe in giving older hardware a chance.
I'm sorry, I seem to have went off on a tangent.
The old "word processor" recommendation makes its way around again. 2 GB is now "basic", and is good for internet, email, and word processing. If you want to do anything else, it's 4 GB for "light image editing" and such (this is according to buildcomputers.net). Seriously? That's just wasteful. I do DVD authoring on my Athlon X2 and 3 GB of RAM. I convert videos from one format to another, I play modern games, and my computer doesn't whimper and cry. Is it showing it's age? Hell yes, my PC is 5 years old, but it's still a powerful machine far more capable than "light image editing" and "email."
Shit, I remember when I had a system with an 800 Mhz Celeron processor and 750 MB of RAM, and the local PC guy told me I could do basic word processing with it (this was about 8 years ago). I told him I did video authoring and he didn't believe me. I guess people get used to bloated specs, and figure anything less just can't hold up, and that's baloney. Sure, it would be awesome to have tons of RAM, and high end processors, but sometimes you have to work with what you have, and it's about being streamlined and efficient.
My favorite PC, that I ever owned, was an old Compaq with an AMD K6-2 350 Mhz processor. It had 128 MB of RAM, and a 10 GB HDD. It ran Windows 98SE, and I had Roadrunner installed. Every tech guy I knew told me Roadrunner was going to bog the system down, that I needed to upgrade everything (at the time, the standard was 2.4 Ghz processor with 512 MB of RAM), but the system performed flawlessly. Our hardware is far more powerful than people think it is, and far more capable, and they get thrown out before they ever reach their maximum potential. I'm no luddite, and I'm not saying don't upgrade, but I do believe in giving older hardware a chance.
I'm sorry, I seem to have went off on a tangent.
Ha, I remember when I thought 500 GHz was really fast (I, too only had 350 MHz) and a 10 GB HDD really huge.
The advances in hardware over the last 15 to 20 years have been insane.
I agree that the run for more RAM is a bit esoteric. Most people don't need that much of it. I suppose the way memory is used by Windows (as Rob explained above) plays a part in it since it's the dominant OS. In my little bizarroworld people look at you kind of funny if you think you need 8 GB of RAM (I have 4).
What I think really speeds up things are fast HDDs. For my new install I got a new USB stick to boot the OS image and install from and the live system was quicker than the installed one because it was like using a SSD.
The advances in hardware over the last 15 to 20 years have been insane.
I agree that the run for more RAM is a bit esoteric. Most people don't need that much of it. I suppose the way memory is used by Windows (as Rob explained above) plays a part in it since it's the dominant OS. In my little bizarroworld people look at you kind of funny if you think you need 8 GB of RAM (I have 4).
What I think really speeds up things are fast HDDs. For my new install I got a new USB stick to boot the OS image and install from and the live system was quicker than the installed one because it was like using a SSD.
A
Amaris
Guest
Yeah, SSDs are awesome. I want one myself, but the price is just way too high for my storage needs. I have a live install of Ubuntu, for OS emergencies, and yeah, it loads up faster than Windows 7.
By the way, J., it seems Canonical made a release just for us. The next version of Ubuntu - to be released in about 2 weeks - is called Utopic Unicorn. 
A
Amaris
Guest
*makes note to update Ubuntu*
I'm already unreasonably excited myself. Originally, I wanted to stay on the Long Term Support release cycle but I simply can't not install an OS with that name.
Originally, I wanted to stay on the Long Term Support release cycle but I simply can't not install an OS with that name.
A
Amaris
Guest
Exactly. It will happen.
It seems like the jump in RAM happened quickly. I remember back in 2001, when I worked for Sears, having a PC with 64 MB of RAM was standard. Then it was 128 MB, then 512 MB, and then everyone had to have at least 1 GB of RAM for things to work smoothly. The pace was somewhat consistent. Now it's 8 GB, 16 GB, 32 GB of RAM, and more. I figure it's partly based on the notion that the price of RAM has plummeted, followed by more resource intensive software applications.
The old "word processor" recommendation makes its way around again. 2 GB is now "basic", and is good for internet, email, and word processing. If you want to do anything else, it's 4 GB for "light image editing" and such (this is according to buildcomputers.net). Seriously? That's just wasteful. I do DVD authoring on my Athlon X2 and 3 GB of RAM. I convert videos from one format to another, I play modern games, and my computer doesn't whimper and cry. Is it showing it's age? Hell yes, my PC is 5 years old, but it's still a powerful machine far more capable than "light image editing" and "email."
Shit, I remember when I had a system with an 800 Mhz Celeron processor and 750 MB of RAM, and the local PC guy told me I could do basic word processing with it (this was about 8 years ago). I told him I did video authoring and he didn't believe me. I guess people get used to bloated specs, and figure anything less just can't hold up, and that's baloney. Sure, it would be awesome to have tons of RAM, and high end processors, but sometimes you have to work with what you have, and it's about being streamlined and efficient.
My favorite PC, that I ever owned, was an old Compaq with an AMD K6-2 350 Mhz processor. It had 128 MB of RAM, and a 10 GB HDD. It ran Windows 98SE, and I had Roadrunner installed. Every tech guy I knew told me Roadrunner was going to bog the system down, that I needed to upgrade everything (at the time, the standard was 2.4 Ghz processor with 512 MB of RAM), but the system performed flawlessly. Our hardware is far more powerful than people think it is, and far more capable, and they get thrown out before they ever reach their maximum potential. I'm no luddite, and I'm not saying don't upgrade, but I do believe in giving older hardware a chance.
I'm sorry, I seem to have went off on a tangent.
The RAM jump happened almost entirely because of Windows 7. This article illustrates perfectly
The reasons are pretty straightforward: XP had a 64-bit version but it was poorly supported and, as it came late in the OS' lifecycle, it didn't receive wide attention. Vista, of course, was not well-received so that didn't help 64-bit adoption much (if at all.) By the time Windows 7 came out, 64-bit CPUs had come down in price enough to be used all over the place, so manufacturers were more than happy to put 64-bit CPUs in their machines and install Windows 7 64-bit. Suddenly, people could have more than 4GB of RAM, so almost overnight you saw a massive spike in demand for denser RAM.
A
Amaris
Guest
Ah, that makes sense. People will take every inch you give them when it comes to speed and power.
That said, next time I get a PC, I'll just build it myself. Looking around, I could get a motherboard that supports up to 8 GB of RAM, while also meeting the specs for my processor and RAM, so that I wouldn't have to replace them. I found one on Newegg for $58, so that's not bad. $58 is better than hundreds of dollars I don't have, and it would give me a significant performance boost once I installed the 64 bit version of Windows 10 when it comes out, and would extend the life of my PC at least a couple more years.
That's the last time I buy one instead of build one. That's what I get for being lazy.
That said, next time I get a PC, I'll just build it myself. Looking around, I could get a motherboard that supports up to 8 GB of RAM, while also meeting the specs for my processor and RAM, so that I wouldn't have to replace them. I found one on Newegg for $58, so that's not bad. $58 is better than hundreds of dollars I don't have, and it would give me a significant performance boost once I installed the 64 bit version of Windows 10 when it comes out, and would extend the life of my PC at least a couple more years.
That's the last time I buy one instead of build one. That's what I get for being lazy.
Dude, just use one of the online PC configurator sites. Then you can pick exactly what you want but someone else is doing the work of assembling it. There are really no cost savings in building your own anymore. Also, don't settle for a board that can handle less than 16GB of RAM. 8GB might sound like a lot right now but it won't be for long.
Similar threads
