win7 and P4's

On Sep 2, 3:52*pm, "Tom Lake" wrote:
"mc" wrote in message

...

On Sep 1, 1:13 pm, "Brian K" wrote:
mc,

My test computer is a P4 1.3 GHz. 384 MB RAM and 32 MB video card. Win7 runs
OK. A little slow of course but adequate for what I'm doing.

I forgot to ask, is better to try the 32 or 64 bit version of win 7?
mc

With anything less than 4 GB RAM, I'd stick with 32-bit.

Tom Lake

Ok I'll go with 32-bit.
What would be a good starting point for building something to handle
64 bit? What type of tower and motherboards are/would be compatible?
mc

On 9/3/2010 4:31 PM, mc wrote:
On Sep 2, 3:52 pm, "Tom wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Sep 1, 1:13 pm, "Brian wrote:
mc,

My test computer is a P4 1.3 GHz. 384 MB RAM and 32 MB video card. Win7 runs
OK. A little slow of course but adequate for what I'm doing.

I forgot to ask, is better to try the 32 or 64 bit version of win 7?
mc

With anything less than 4 GB RAM, I'd stick with 32-bit.

Tom Lake

Ok I'll go with 32-bit.
What would be a good starting point for building something to handle
64 bit? What type of tower and motherboards are/would be compatible?
mc

you should use the 32bit version (not the 64bit version) of windows 7 on
a dimension 8300 since the dimension 8300 can not support more than 4gb
of ram. the 64bit version can address memory over 4gb and when you have
memory over 4gb is when it pays to have the 64bit version, but with 4gb
or less it doesn't help and potentially hurts to have it.

On Sep 1, 12:13*pm, "Brian K" wrote:
mc,

My test computer is a P4 1.3 GHz. 384 MB RAM and 32 MB video card. Win7 runs
OK. A little slow of course but adequate for what I'm doing.

I'm very surprised...sounds like a Win2K rig!

"Christopher Muto" wrote in message
t...
you should use the 32bit version (not the 64bit version) of windows 7 on a
dimension 8300 since the dimension 8300 can not support more than 4gb of
ram. the 64bit version can address memory over 4gb and when you have
memory over 4gb is when it pays to have the 64bit version, but with 4gb or
less it doesn't help and potentially hurts to have it.

I'm not even sure the 64 bit version would install. I'm thinking that
processor isn't even 64 bit compatible.

Bob

"Bob Villa" wrote in message
...

I'm very surprised...sounds like a Win2K rig!


A mate gave me two of these. Gateways with RD-RAM. It has a Windows ME
sticker on the case. I removed one of the two optical drives and replaced it
with a third HD. It's good for testing multi-boots.

Interestingly, a standard Win7 DVD will not boot. I first installed Win7
from WinXP but later I found this Win7 DVD fix and now a custom Win7 DVD
boots. I didn't see an Error Code 5 message. The DVD just wouldn't boot.

http://www.unawave.de/windows-7-tipp...r.html?lang=EN

I use it as a test computer and it can even run Ghost 15. But slowly.

Hi!

you should use the 32bit version (not the 64bit version) of windows 7 on
a dimension 8300 since the dimension 8300 can not support more than
4gb of ram.

More importantly than that, there is no Socket 478 CPU that supports x86-64.

The Dim8300 should run Win7 just fine, hyperthreaded or not. I've run it on
a Compaq Deskpro EN SFF box and found the experience to be entirely
acceptable for light use and office-type programs. More RAM would have made
things better, but there can be no doubt that the processor was pretty much
up to it. I'm sure the built in nVidia AGP graphics also helped.

William

On Sep 5, 11:11*pm, "William R. Walsh"
m wrote:
Hi!

you should use the 32bit version (not the 64bit version) of windows 7 on
a dimension 8300 since the dimension 8300 can not support more than
4gb of ram.

More importantly than that, there is no Socket 478 CPU that supports x86-64.

The Dim8300 should run Win7 just fine, hyperthreaded or not. I've run it on
a Compaq Deskpro EN SFF box and found the experience to be entirely
acceptable for light use and office-type programs. More RAM would have made
things better, but there can be no doubt that the processor was pretty much
up to it. I'm sure the built in nVidia AGP graphics also helped.

William

So what would be the oldest MB that can handle 64 bit, preferably
something that would fit in a tower?
mc

Hi!

So what would be the oldest MB that can handle 64 bit, preferably
something that would fit in a tower?

I think your efforts here are moot, but whatever floats your boat.

First: there are two major forms of 64-bit computing available in the
PC world...Itanium, which never really caught on and saw very little
use outside of workstations and servers and AMD's x86-64T which is
what is used today and is 100% backward compatible so that 32-bit
software can run.

If you want the modern x86-64/EM64T platform, you'll be looking at
AMD. I'm not sure which AMD CPU offered it first, but it probably was
the Opteron. Intel didn't get around to using that implementation
until later, around the start of the LGA775 era. (I'm told some
1066MHz FSB S478 CPUs exist and have x86-64 instruction support, but I
have never seen one anywhere.)

But again I ask...why use an old board/processor? The processor I can
kind of understand, if you can pick one up cheap. An older
motherboard, on the other hand, will probably want older memory that
is more expensive and that's assuming that it can go beyond 4GB of
installed memory to start with.

William

On Sep 7, 4:12*pm, "William R. Walsh" wrote:
Hi!

So what would be the oldest MB that can handle 64 bit, preferably
something that would fit in a tower?

I think your efforts here are moot, but whatever floats your boat.

First: there are two major forms of 64-bit computing available in the
PC world...Itanium, which never really caught on and saw very little
use outside of workstations and servers and AMD's x86-64T which is
what is used today and is 100% backward compatible so that 32-bit
software can run.

If you want the modern x86-64/EM64T platform, you'll be looking at
AMD. I'm not sure which AMD CPU offered it first, but it probably was
the Opteron. Intel didn't get around to using that implementation
until later, around the start of the LGA775 era. (I'm told some
1066MHz FSB S478 CPUs exist and have x86-64 instruction support, but I
have never seen one anywhere.)

But again I ask...why use an old board/processor? The processor I can
kind of understand, if you can pick one up cheap. An older
motherboard, on the other hand, will probably want older memory that
is more expensive and that's assuming that it can go beyond 4GB of
installed memory to start with.

William

William you make a good point about the ram. I'm just doing this for
the fun of it. So I guess I'm looking for a board that can handle alot
of ram. Any idea for a MB after the LGA775 era? It would be fun to
have a machine that can do in one minute what our civilian pc's take
an hour to do.
mc

"Brian K" wrote in message
nd.com...

"Bob Villa" wrote in message
...

I'm very surprised...sounds like a Win2K rig!


A mate gave me two of these. Gateways with RD-RAM. It has a Windows ME
sticker on the case. I removed one of the two optical drives and replaced
it with a third HD. It's good for testing multi-boots.

Interestingly, a standard Win7 DVD will not boot. I first installed Win7
from WinXP but later I found this Win7 DVD fix and now a custom Win7 DVD
boots. I didn't see an Error Code 5 message. The DVD just wouldn't boot.

http://www.unawave.de/windows-7-tipp...r.html?lang=EN

I use it as a test computer and it can even run Ghost 15. But slowly.

Will Win 7 load and run on a P3 PC for example Dell Poweredge 2300 with 2 x
850Mhz Slot1 CPU's and 2Gb memory. I have tried to load it but get "A
required CD?DVD drive device driver is missing" message. Done a Google
search but nothing for a scsi based system. I am using an external scsi
DVD drive, which in my mind shouldn't make a difference as it is detected in
bootup and starts to load Win 7 from it until the above message appears.

Just wondering if it would run better than XP.

Bruce