djwilko6 Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 It should ask you if you want it to backup the old files to the new install by saving it to a folder called Windows.old so you can keep the files you have. I'd backup to DVD aswell tho. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tottenhamfmo7 Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 I've got Windows 7, works a charm with FM. Will be absolutely fine for FM10! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roy Race 9 Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 I am getting a new laptop next week ................and I am glad about all the feedback re Windows 7!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanq69 Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 You can grab 4GB Corsair Mini Voyagers on Amazon for about £5.00... I think the place was called 'Find Memory', one of the Amazon resellers. A decent 4GB SD card, Sandisk or Kingston, is also nice for laptops as they sit there snugly and don't protrude liek uSB. That said, thosze little Corsair Mini Voyagers are only about 2cm long anyway. Got a recommended 4GB card for this? Can you explain exactly how this would help/how much it would help? And would an 8GB (or larger) card help more? Also im for Windows 7 do you think there will be a performance boost for 64bit over 32bit for running FM10 even though it wont be a 64bit application? I have a Core 2 Duo 2GHz 64bit able chip, with 4GB of ram and a 300GB SATA HDD. Cheers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
samuelburrowsuk Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 I would say that if you have a Core2Duo processor then you should always install the 64 bit version anyway. Just because FM isn't a 64 bit application, you will see other benefits from running the 64 bit version of Windows anyway. I've been running 64 bit Windows 7 since June and delighted with the results, both in FM and in other applications. I got a 4gb stick off Amazon last week, haven't tried it as a Readyboost drive yet, not sure how much it will help but certainly will give it a go! Got 3gb of Ram at the moment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tlm_77 Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 How are people using Windows 7 already when it's not out? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
samuelburrowsuk Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 How are people using Windows 7 already when it's not out? See post 41 in this very thread! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tlm_77 Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 See post 41 in this very thread! Ah thanks.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indi75 Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Got a recommended 4GB card for this? Can you explain exactly how this would help/how much it would help? And would an 8GB (or larger) card help more? Have a look for a 4GB Sandisk SD Card or a Corsair Mini Voyager depending on which interface you are going to use. Both are small, cheap, and fast enough for RB. Readyboost multiplies the cache x 2 iirc so a 4GB should take you to the max 8GB cache. (I need to check the max readyboost size, but remember reading this during the beta on Vista) Also im for Windows 7 do you think there will be a performance boost for 64bit over 32bit for running FM10 even though it wont be a 64bit application? Yes, you've got a Core2Duo which is natively 64bit, and Windows 7 is also pure 64bit, let the O/S take advantage of the processor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMister Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Yes, you've got a Core2Duo which is natively 64bit, and Windows 7 is also pure 64bit, let the O/S take advantage of the processor. I don't know anything about the 'bit' relevance - is there a performance benefit, or is the difference in features/functions? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
samuelburrowsuk Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Readyboost info: Windows Vista x86 is limited to using 3.5GB (Vista x64 can support up to 16GB); this restriction has been removed in Windows 7. Windows 7 allows up to eight devices for a maximum of 256 GB of additional memory. Microsoft recommends the amount of flash memory for ReadyBoost acceleration be one to three times the amount of random access memory (RAM) in your computer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
samuelburrowsuk Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 I don't know anything about the 'bit' relevance - is there a performance benefit, or is the difference in features/functions? No difference in features but 64 bit is better than 32 bit - it takes advantage of the fact that the processor has more than 1 "core". In your case, you have 2 cores, so the 64 bit O/S can split tasks to run in parallell over both cores, in theory offering faster performance than the 32 bit version of Windows. As 64 Bit costs the same as 32 Bit Windows 7, there is no reason at all not to get the 64 bit version. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMister Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 No difference in features but 64 bit is better than 32 bit - it takes advantage of the fact that the processor has more than 1 "core". In your case, you have 2 cores, so the 64 bit O/S can split tasks to run in parallell over both cores, in theory offering faster performance than the 32 bit version of Windows. Thank you for explaining that. So does 32 bit not 'properly' utilise a dual core processor? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigdunk Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 There's no difference in 32-bit or 64-bit Windows ability to split programs over multiple cores. Both version will happily do it if the program itself supports it. Basically, provided you don't use any seriously old hardware or software, then there's no reason to avoid 64-bit. If you are planning on using more than 3GB or so of memory, then you absolutely need 64-bit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
samuelburrowsuk Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Thank you for explaining that.So does 32 bit not 'properly' utilise a dual core processor? It just doesn't utilise it in the most efficient manner. I guess a half decent analogy may be washing your car by yourself or taking it to the place down the road where 20 Kosovans clean it at the same time for £8. They get the job done much quicker because they're working parallel, it takes you far longer because you have to do each task in turn. The more Kosovans you have, the quicker the task gets done. You have a processor with two cores, but there are processors available with four or eight cores and it figures they are faster than single or dual core. Its a bit disappointing that FM2010 isn't going to be a native 64 bit programme as this would offer multi-core users an even faster experience (although according to one of the blogs, the game is up to 20% faster than last year anyway). I guess the SI team have data which suggests 64 bit users are in the minority still, although I expect that to change when Windows 7 becomes more prevalent. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMister Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 There's no difference in 32-bit or 64-bit Windows ability to split programs over multiple cores. Both version will happily do it if the program itself supports it. Basically, provided you don't use any seriously old hardware or software, then there's no reason to avoid 64-bit. If you are planning on using more than 3GB or so of memory, then you absolutely need 64-bit. At the moment I've got 32bit Vista, on dual core 2ghz T6400 with 4gb ram. I understood vista 32bit used all that 4gb? If I'd see a benefit of 64bit Windows 7 I'd go for it, but I'm worried about getting drivers (and all of them needing to be signed - is that a problem?), some of my devices not being 64 compatible, and existing programs not being 64 compatible. Am I worrying about nothing?? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indi75 Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 See post 41 in this very thread! We should sticky it , it's only gonna get worse as we approach the 22nd. At the moment I've got 32bit Vista, on dual core 2ghz T6400 with 4gb ram. I understood vista 32bit used all that 4gb?If I'd see a benefit of 64bit Windows 7 I'd go for it, but I'm worried about getting drivers (and all of them needing to be signed - is that a problem?), some of my devices not being 64 compatible, and existing programs not being 64 compatible. Am I worrying about nothing?? Windows Vista 64 and Windows 7 64 drivers are really not that much of an issue any more. Most of the hardware manufacturers have provided 64bit drivers for a while, and most Vista 64's will work on Windows 7. You'll find some, like HP, can be a little slow with printer drivers, but in fairness I've been running Vista 64 and Windows 7 64 since they beta'd and had very few issues. A lot of this spin comes from little Apple/Linux FanGirls* running around trying to disseminate crisis where there is none. *I don't like getting into this kind of terminology, but the vitriolic tinpot pish-willy suggestions being mischievously spread by some are just getting silly now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
samuelburrowsuk Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 At the moment I've got 32bit Vista, on dual core 2ghz T6400 with 4gb ram. I understood vista 32bit used all that 4gb?If I'd see a benefit of 64bit Windows 7 I'd go for it, but I'm worried about getting drivers (and all of them needing to be signed - is that a problem?), some of my devices not being 64 compatible, and existing programs not being 64 compatible. Am I worrying about nothing?? Obviously I don't know what your setup is, but, if its a commercial off-the-shelf PC / Laptop and it works ok with Vista32 I don't think you'd have anything to worry about with Win7 64. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMister Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Obviously I don't know what your setup is, but, if its a commercial off-the-shelf PC / Laptop and it works ok with Vista32 I don't think you'd have anything to worry about with Win7 64. Yeah, it is as you describe = Acer 6935G-644. Hmmm, ok, thanks. You've given me something to consider now Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
seagull84 Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Ok, I'm not really much good at this type of thing but.... If i buy windows 7 when it comes out ( i assume i can buy digitally from somewhere) and open it on my laptop which now has vista(horrible) will it wipe vista for me and change to windows 7 - or is it not that straightforward! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indi75 Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Ok, I'm not really much good at this type of thing but....If i buy windows 7 when it comes out ( i assume i can buy digitally from somewhere) and open it on my laptop which now has vista(horrible) will it wipe vista for me and change to windows 7 - or is it not that straightforward! You should preorder now while it's only £65 and then install from the disk. YOU WILL NEED TO BACK UP YOUR PERSONAL DATA FIRST. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigdunk Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 At the moment I've got 32bit Vista, on dual core 2ghz T6400 with 4gb ram. I understood vista 32bit used all that 4gb?If I'd see a benefit of 64bit Windows 7 I'd go for it, but I'm worried about getting drivers (and all of them needing to be signed - is that a problem?), some of my devices not being 64 compatible, and existing programs not being 64 compatible. Am I worrying about nothing?? Re the 4GB thing, Vista can address up to a maximum of 4GB of memory addresses, however that's accross your entire computer, so it includes any RAM on your graphics card (so if you have a 1GB graphics card, Vista can only see 3GB of your system RAM), plus some memory addresses are reserved for system use aswell, so these can't be used for system RAM. Re drivers, it depends how old your hardware is and how good the manufacturer is at releasing new drivers. You'll just have to check the manufacturers website. The same with software really, most decent software companies will list where a program is 64 bit compatible on their website somewhere, and some may have released compatibility patches. For some software you may have to upgrade to a more recent version. You'll just have to check each one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
samuelburrowsuk Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 You should preorder now while it's only £65 and then install from the disk. Don't forget, Windows 7 Professional is £30 for Students with a valid .ac.uk email address! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMister Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 so if you have a 1GB graphics card, Vista can only see 3GB of your system RAM Yeah, 1gb GPU. OK I understand. Re drivers, it depends how old your hardware is and how good the manufacturer is at releasing new drivers. You'll just have to check the manufacturers website. The same with software really, most decent software companies will list where a program is 64 bit compatible on their website somewhere, and some may have released compatibility patches. For some software you may have to upgrade to a more recent version. You'll just have to check each one. OK, I'll need to look into that. Thank you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indi75 Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Readyboost FAQ courtesy of Microsofts Tom Archer Q: What perf do you need on your device? A: 2.5MB/sec throughput for 4K random reads and 1.75MB/sec throughput for 512K random writes Q: What's the largest amount of flash that I can use for ReadyBoost? A: You can use up to 4GB of flash for ReadyBoost (which turns out to be 8GB of cache w/ the compression) Q: Why can't I use more than 4GB of flash? A: The FAT32 filesystem limits ReadyBoost.sfcache file to 4GB Q: 256M-4GB is a pretty big range... any recommendations? A: Yes. We recommend a 1:1 ratio of flash to system memory at the low end and as high as 2.5:1 flash to system memory. Higher than that and you won't see much benefit. Q: Isn't this just putting the paging file onto a flash disk? A: Not really - the file is still backed on disk. This is a cache - if the data is not found in the ReadyBoost cache, we fall back to the HDD. Q: Aren't Hard Disks faster than flash? My HDD has 80MB/sec throughput. A: Hard drives are great for large sequential I/O. For those situations, ReadyBoost gets out of the way. We concentrate on improving the performance of small, random I/Os, like paging to and from disk. Q: What happens when you remove the drive? A: When a surprise remove event occurs and we can't find the drive, we fall back to disk. Again, all pages on the device are backed by a page on disk. No exceptions. This isn't a separate page file store, but rather a cache to speed up access to frequently used data. Q: Isn't user data on a removable device a security risk? A: This was one of our first concerns and to mitigate this risk, we use AES-128 to encrypt everything that we write to the device. Q: Won't this wear out the drive? A: Nope. We're aware of the lifecycle issues with flash drives and are smart about how and when we do our writes to the device. Our research shows that we will get at least 10+ years out of flash devices that we support. Q: Can use use multiple devices for EMDs? A: Nope. We've limited Vista to one ReadyBoost per machine Q: Why just one device? A: Time and quality. Since this is the first revision of the feature, we decided to focus on making the single device exceptional, without the difficulties of managing multiple caches. We like the idea, though, and it's under consideration for future versions. Q: Do you support SD/CF/memory stick/MMC/etc.? A: Mostly. In beta2, we added support for a small number of SD/CF cards on internal USB2 & PCIe busses. RC1 has a much broader support range. Q: Why don't you support SD on my USB2.0 external card reader? A: We unfortunately don't support external card readers - there were some technical hurdles that we didn't have time to address. In general, if a card reader shows a drive without media in it (like a floppy drive or CD ROM does), we can't use it for ReadyBoost. Q: Will it support all USB drives, regardless of how they are ID'd to the OS ("hard disk drive" or "Device with Removable Storage")? A: We have no way to tell what is on the other end of a USB cable so we do some basic size checks (since no one has a 200GB flash device ;-) ) and then perform our speed tests. HDD will not, however, pass our speed tests, and there is no benefit to using a USB HDD for ReadyBoost. Q: Can you use an mp3 player to speed up your system? A: Not currently. MP3 players use the 'plays for sure' interfaces to expose themselves to Windows. We require that the device appear as a disk volume. These aren't currently compatible. Q: How much of a speed increase are we talking about? A: Well, that depends. On average, a RANDOM 4K read from flash is about 10x faster than from HDD. Now, how does that translate to end-user perf? Under memory pressure and heavy disk activity, the system is much more responsive; on a 4GB machine with few applications running, the ReadyBoost effect is much less noticable. Indi75 note: I'm running 8GB of DDR2 PC8500 @ 1111Mhz and taking the stick out gives a real loss of slickness. You be the judge. I'm sticking with my 4GB Readyboost device in there. Q: I can't get my device to work with ReadyBoost... can I lower the perf requirements? A: Unfortunately, no. We've set the perf requirements to the lowest possible throughput that still makes your system faster. If we lowered the perf requirements, then there wouldn't be a noticeable benefit to using ReadyBoost. Remember, we're not adding memory, we're improving disk access. Hope that helps those considering... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
samuelburrowsuk Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Readyboost FAQ courtesy of Microsofts Tom ArcherQ: What's the largest amount of flash that I can use for ReadyBoost? A: You can use up to 4GB of flash for ReadyBoost (which turns out to be 8GB of cache w/ the compression) Hope that helps those considering... I think this limit may have been removed in Windows 7. Do you know if the Q&A relates to Vista or 7? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spankie Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 I've got Win7 and a 16GB Flash drive and it'll only let me use 4GB of it. So I think that you're limited to 4GB per drive but can have more then one drive fitted at a time. So that's something to bear in mind if you're buying Flash for ReadyBoost, don't buy more then 4GB ones as they'll be a waste unless you intend to use the extra space on them as storage. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanq69 Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Thanks Indi75 Great Post and great info. Also thanks to the others who have contributed. Spankie - cheers I will just get the 4gb one for my SD reader then. Have a look for a 4GB Sandisk SD Card or a Corsair Mini Voyager depending on which interface you are going to use. Both are small, cheap, and fast enough for RB. What do you mean by interface? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xirtama Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 How many % FM is faster in W7's when XP's ? What would be good to migrate on the W7's with this rig: AMD Athlon 2500+/1GB RAM/6600GT ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanq69 Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 How many % FM is faster in W7's when XP's ? What would be good to migrate on the W7's with this rig: AMD Athlon 2500+/1GB RAM/6600GT ? I think you probably would need more RAM to run W7 smoothly, think a minimum of 2GB is needed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jase19 Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 speaking of windows 7 is there a 32 bit version of W7 ultimate? and is it a big disadvantage to be running 32 bit instead of 64 bit? i have 32 bit vista. i got it when vista first came out and ppl were having all sorts of issues with 64 bit so i opted out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
swisso Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 Don't forget, Windows 7 Professional is £30 for Students with a valid .ac.uk email address! Just to add, its the Upgrade version only. Might cause a few problems with Microsofts specified 'Upgrade Paths', which are basically: Windows Vista Home Premium -> Windows 7 Home Premium Windows Vista Business -> Windows 7 Professional Windows Vista Ultimate -> Windows 7 Ultimate But there is probably some work arounds. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neji Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 Having a 32 bit version is only really a disadvantage if you have 4GB or RAM or more. 32 bit will only recognise upto 4GB of RAM (that includes the amount of RAM on your graphics card). And yes, there will be a 32 bit version of W7. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jase19 Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Having a 32 bit version is only really a disadvantage if you have 4GB or RAM or more. 32 bit will only recognise upto 4GB of RAM (that includes the amount of RAM on your graphics card).And yes, there will be a 32 bit version of W7. Thanks Neji I have 4gb RAM, Core duo 2.66ghz. I knew there would be a 32bit W7 home type edition, but will there be a 32 bit version of W7 *Ultimate*? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spankie Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 There are 32 bit version of all of the W7 OS including Ultimate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
samuelburrowsuk Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Just to add, its the Upgrade version only. Might cause a few problems with Microsofts specified 'Upgrade Paths', which are basically:Windows Vista Home Premium -> Windows 7 Home Premium Windows Vista Business -> Windows 7 Professional Windows Vista Ultimate -> Windows 7 Ultimate But there is probably some work arounds. Yeah I did some reading on that, although the Win7 Professional Upgrade still requires a completely clean install so its a bit pointless. There a couple of legitimate workarounds, some easier than others. I had a preloaded copy of Vista Business on my laptop (wiped that within a few weeks, pig of an OS) but I still have the OEM sticker and serial number. Could be interesting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard76 Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 It just doesn't utilise it in the most efficient manner. I guess a half decent analogy may be washing your car by yourself or taking it to the place down the road where 20 Kosovans clean it at the same time for £8. They get the job done much quicker because they're working parallel, it takes you far longer because you have to do each task in turn. The more Kosovans you have, the quicker the task gets done. You have a processor with two cores, but there are processors available with four or eight cores and it figures they are faster than single or dual core. Its a bit disappointing that FM2010 isn't going to be a native 64 bit programme as this would offer multi-core users an even faster experience (although according to one of the blogs, the game is up to 20% faster than last year anyway). I guess the SI team have data which suggests 64 bit users are in the minority still, although I expect that to change when Windows 7 becomes more prevalent. Fabulous analogy. I've just spat my tea out chuckling at that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
samuelburrowsuk Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Fabulous analogy.I've just spat my tea out chuckling at that. Haha thanks! I used to take my car to this place in Leatherhead, it was absolutely mental, these guys worked in a swarm whilst they washed your car. Worth every penny of that £8! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard76 Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Haha thanks! I used to take my car to this place in Leatherhead, it was absolutely mental, these guys worked in a swarm whilst they washed your car. Worth every penny of that £8! It's just the same where I live. A pub on my way to work closed down a week or two ago. They've already moved in to the car park. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indi75 Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 7 is packaged with both 32 and 64 on the same disk. Where possible avoid the upgrade path, it never leads to anything good, and the workarounds alluded to above are somewhat illegal and likely to be frowned upon if discussed in here. (rightly so too) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
samuelburrowsuk Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 7 is packaged with both 32 and 64 on the same disk.Where possible avoid the upgrade path, it never leads to anything good, and the workarounds alluded to above are somewhat illegal and likely to be frowned upon if discussed in here. (rightly so too) Definitely NOT illegal if you own a license and legitimate product key for an eligible upgrade-path piece of software (eg Vista Business) but that software is no longer installed on the target computer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indi75 Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Definitely NOT illegal if you own a license and legitimate product key for an eligible upgrade-path piece of software (eg Vista Business) but that software is no longer installed on the target computer. And? There's an upgrade from Vista Business to 7's equivalent, of course, but the workarounds are for people trying to upgrade to a 7 equivalent they have not already got. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
samuelburrowsuk Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 And? There's an upgrade from Vista Business to 7's equivalent, of course, but the workarounds are for people trying to upgrade to a 7 equivalent they have not already got. Or for people who do not have their original, valid, OS still installed on the drive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.