Please Help - Which Windows Should I Buy?

1Time · Dec 4, 2009

This is for a new build for a client of mine.

He needs to run multiple incidents of MS Excel 2007 under one OS.

Processor: Intel Q9550 Quad

Which would run this software the best / fastest?

Win XP Pro 32 Bit - OR - Win XP Pro 64 Bit

EarthDog · Dec 4, 2009

Why would the number of occurences of Excel have any bearing on the choice of OS????

Also at this point, I would suggest Windows 7 32bit or 64bit. But going by both the client and the makers' technical level (no offense), I would just say 32bit just in case some odd program he may be using doesnt work under 64 bit and you cant trouble shoot it.

Daddyjaxx · Dec 4, 2009

MS Excel would run the same on any OS with any CPU. I found the only task that uses some CPU is subtotaling large spreadsheets. Unless going with more than 4 GB RAM, stick with 32 bit. XP 64 is not an official OS and you can find issues with XP64 that you would not find with Vista or 7 64 bit.

1Time · Dec 4, 2009

Thanks for the replies!

My thinking on this is Win XP Pro 32 has the best chance of being more stable (whether in Excel or other programs / hardware). It's the OS my client was formerly using. But XP64 seems like it may run multiple Excel 2007 faster, but at the expense of possibly causing problems. And so I'm about to pull the trigger on the 32 bit version, unless there's good reason to go for XP64.

EarthDog · Dec 4, 2009

Why not Windows 7? I dont understand on why you would buld a client's computer with XP unless he specifically stated he wanted it.

@ Daddy - Why is XP64 not an official OS???

1Time · Dec 4, 2009

A few other things that I considered...

I want minimal risk of problems with this build, no surprises. I'm a hobbyist, not a PC pro, which is why I post here for help. And I really do appreciate everyone's help. Thank you all.

Excel 2007 runs faster with a faster processor. And it makes use and runs faster with more processors, like a quad.

There are 6 gigs of memory that will be re-used from a previous build. May be upgrading memory later.

EarthDog · Dec 4, 2009

Ok......So again.... Why not W7????

Also, I would get Windows 7 64 over Vista 64 and especially XP 64 since you have 6GB of ram and 32bit OS's only show ~3.2GB available. It would be a waste of money and memory to go 32bit.

joedymueller · Dec 4, 2009

+1 for EarthDog ^

1Time · Dec 4, 2009

What the client wants is pretty much what I just stated in my previous post - speed - reliability - no problems.

I know little about Windows 7, and XP Pro is a known, proven solution. And so the choice seems obvious to me. I have no need for Win 7 unless someone convinces me otherwise. Simple. And if trying to do so, I suggest you start typing now, because I'm about to pull the trigger.

1Time · Dec 4, 2009

I think I have read this before somewhere. So let me get this straight. A 32 bit OS will only see less than 4GB of memory at a time? So If running multiple incidents of Excel 2007, all of them would run in less than 4 GB of memory. So if I go with a 64 bit OS, which one are you suggesting I get?
1st: Win 7
2nd: Vista
3rd: XP 64

EarthDog said:
Also, I would get Windows 7 64 over Vista 64 and especially XP 64 since you have 6GB of ram and 32bit OS's only show ~3.2GB available. It would be a waste of money and memory to go 32bit.

I will be back within an hour to follow up. Thanks

EarthDog · Dec 4, 2009

Quite simple my friend. The general feeling about 64 bits OS's is that XP's implementation is subpar compared to the others listed. And if I had a choice between Vista 64 and W7 64, I would get W7 64 b/c its more secure, just as fast as vista, and more reliable than your other choices.

If you dont go V64 or W764 you are, in my not so humble opinion, doing your client wrong. I apologize for stating such a strong opinion, thats just how I feel. I am a system builder myself and have built MANY PC's for clients for the past, wow nearly 10 years now!

1Time · Dec 4, 2009

Thanks for your strong and experienced opinion. Just what I needed. Check back later.

1Time · Dec 4, 2009

So I explained this limitation of XP Pro 32 Bit and how Win7 would be faster because of the extra memory.

However, 1) he's not wanting to deal with / learn a new OS, 2) believes problems can be minimized by not going with Win7, and 3) knows Win XP Pro 32 will be fast enough for his needs (as it was with his previous system).

I agreed with him. This system is to get the business off the ground. New and better systems will be built in the future for future needs.

EarthDog · Dec 4, 2009

Well, its not that Vista/7 would be faster its the fact that 64 bit OS's regardless of which one can allocate the 6gb you bought. Now its useless. I hope you returned the other 3GB of ram or went with 4GB total instead

!!!

1Time · Dec 4, 2009

Right. As I just posted, Win7 would be faster because of the extra memory. The 6GB is migrating from the previous XP system, which I did not build.

Two Possible Builds:

Current Choice:
OS: Win XP Pro 32 Bit
CPU: Q9550 Quad
Mobo: Gigabyte EP45-UD3P P45
RAM: 6 Gigs 667

2nd Choice (Less Expensive, but shot down because not as fast)
OS: Win XP Pro 32 Bit
CPU: Q6600 Quad
Mobo: Gigabyte EP45-UD3P P45
RAM: 4 Gigs 800

EarthDog said:
Well, its not that Vista/7 would be faster its the fact that 64 bit OS's regardless of which one can allocate the 6gb you bought. Now its useless. I hope you returned the other 3GB of ram or went with 4GB total instead !!!

EarthDog · Dec 4, 2009

Let me try saying this in a different manner...Im not sure you are understanding me.

W7/Vista/XP 32bit will only show about 3.2GB RAM available b/c they are 32BIT OS's. W7/Vista/XP 64bit will show all of it. You have not distinguished that above so Im not sure you understood what actually makes the difference.

So again, with your "current choice" 6GB is a waste b/c its on a 32bit OS and will only show 3GB. NOt to mention in order to get 6GB in anything but a socket 1156 PC (i7), you will have mismatched ram that could cause problems with 1GB and 2GB DIMMs.

1Time · Dec 4, 2009

Right, already understood.

EarthDog said:
Let me try saying this in a different manner...Im not sure you are understanding me.

W7/Vista/XP 32bit will only show about 3.2GB RAM available b/c they are 32BIT OS's. W7/Vista/XP 64bit will show all of it.

So again, with your "current choice" 6GB is a waste b/c its on a 32bit OS and will only show 3GB.

---

But I didn't foresee a possible problem with just sticking all 6GB in the new build (even though it will only use less than 4GB). So I should only migrate 2 x 2GB.

EarthDog said:
NOt to mention in order to get 6GB in anything but a socket 1156 PC (i7), you will have mismatched ram that could cause problems with 1GB and 2GB DIMMs.

EarthDog · Dec 4, 2009

Yes. I would only put the 2x2GB sticks in there and either sell the others or something.

Im not sure why you are insisting on putting in more ram than can be used. It cant help anything, I will put it that way.

Is this client overclocking? If not, why such a nice board that is one of the best overclockers? Why not save the guy some money (or get you more profit) with a micro atx board with integrated graphics?

johnz · Dec 4, 2009

In addition to what's already been said, I would STRONGLY suggest to the client that he goes with Win7-64. XP's coming up on 10 years old, and it really has nothing to offer other than familiarity. If the client isn't expecting to retire in the next couple of years, he's gonna have to change to a new O/S sometime, so now's as good a time as any.

Otherwise, Earthdog's on the right track. You don't have to overbuild such a pedestrian computer. I'd go with 4gb of memory, and a solid, but cheaper MB.

1Time · Dec 4, 2009

Yes, just what I have in mind.

EarthDog said:
Yes. I would only put the 2x2GB sticks in there and either sell the others or something.

If I had my way regarding the memory with either option, I would insist on 2 x 2GB of 800 or better so I could O/C it better. But my client is trying to save a few bucks by using the existing 667.

EarthDog said:
Im not sure why you are insisting on putting in more ram than can be used. It cant help anything, I will put it that way.

Was just about ready to buy this mobo, but decided to respond to your post instead. He wants to use 2 PCIe video cards from the previous system to power 4 monitors, so no onboard video. He doesn't O/C. I do and that's what I had in mind when he asked me to build him a fast machine. However, he recently made it known to me that he doesn't want the system "hot-rodded" lol. And he's wanting to save a few bucks more than before. So I now need to research / choose a less expensive mobo option. Thanks... and I thought I was almost done with this.

EarthDog said:
Is this client overclocking? If not, why such a nice board that is one of the best overclockers? Why not save the guy some money (or get you more profit) with a micro atx board with integrated graphics?

Please Help - Which Windows Should I Buy?

Member

Gulper Nozzle Co-Owner

Member

Member

Gulper Nozzle Co-Owner

Member

Gulper Nozzle Co-Owner

Member

Member

Member

Gulper Nozzle Co-Owner

Member

Member

Gulper Nozzle Co-Owner

Member

Gulper Nozzle Co-Owner

Member

Gulper Nozzle Co-Owner

Member

Member

Similar threads