Prev: Interesting CreateEvent issue
Next: stcpy
From: Glyn on 25 Feb 2010 07:45
Windows 7 have completely reinvented by ageing laptop. It's now a dream to
use Visual Studio 2008 on.
From: Tom Serface on 26 Feb 2010 01:46
I have a similar experience with Windows 7. It is so much better than Vista
or XP it's not even funny. I'm happily updating all of my systems.

I'm also happy with the performance of Visual Studio 2010 RC1 on my Windows
7 machine.

Tom

"Glyn" <Glyn(a)discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:717D42A8-282D-4C96-AAED-F13AF2E32D39(a)microsoft.com...
> Windows 7 have completely reinvented by ageing laptop. It's now a dream
> to
> use Visual Studio 2008 on.

From: RB on 26 Feb 2010 20:09
Tom, what kind of system resources are required for Win7 ?

I'm running 32bit XP Pro sp3 on a AMD Turion 64x2 with 2 gig of ram.
Do you think I would notice any performance drop if I upgraded to Win7 ?


From: Tom Serface on 2 Mar 2010 22:40
I think that would work fine. You can download the Win7 compatibility tool
and try that out first, but I don't see why that wouldn't work. The only
think I'd suggest is perhaps upping the memory by 1GB (I think that's the
most that will be used on 32bit Windows). If you wan to go to Win7 64 I
would, for sure, get more memory.

One thing I found out when I started programming on Win 7 64 that I had
never thought of before. I have to specifically tell my projects to compile
in x86 mode since now the Any CPU option thinks they should be 64bit
instead. It's an easy property setting.

Tom

"RB" <NoMail(a)NoSpam> wrote in message
news:uetoQm0tKHA.3904(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Tom, what kind of system resources are required for Win7 ?
>
> I'm running 32bit XP Pro sp3 on a AMD Turion 64x2 with 2 gig of ram.
> Do you think I would notice any performance drop if I upgraded to Win7 ?
>
From: Tim Slattery on 3 Mar 2010 08:47
"Tom Serface" <tom(a)camaswood.com> wrote:

>I think that would work fine. You can download the Win7 compatibility tool
>and try that out first, but I don't see why that wouldn't work. The only
>think I'd suggest is perhaps upping the memory by 1GB (I think that's the
>most that will be used on 32bit Windows).

A 32-bit OS has 4GB (2**32) of address space. Some of that must be
used to access video RAM, BIOS, and a few other things. The result is
that there will be something like 3.2 to 3.5GB left over to access
system RAM. The rest of the 4GB you plugged in will not be used.

You're quite right that the 64-bit OSs blow this limit away.

--
Tim Slattery
Slattery_T(a)bls.gov
http://members.cox.net/slatteryt
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Interesting CreateEvent issue
Next: stcpy