Questions Regarding Windows 7, 64bit

Hello everybody,

and I hope you'll bear with a newbie barging in asking dumb questions.

Since my old mainboard died, I'm now in the process of getting a new computer - and I finally agreed to go ultra-modern and change to Windows 7. (cough... I only changed from 98se to xp in 2010, don't ask any further...)

Since I drag some of my favorite programs along since win98 days, I was told and believed I'd have to get a 32-bit version of Win7. But now I'm reading in the internet that the 64-bit version can run the 32-bit programs just as fine. Of course I want the 64-bit version now, especially since I plan to run VirtualBox (or VMWare, not decided yet). My brandnew Win7-MAR dvd contains both 32-bit and 64-bit versions.

(Right now, I'm sitting on a borrowed laptop running a Win7 32-bit with 1 gb RAM and I suffer. At least I managed to test-install my beloved oldies there to see if they run. With one sad exception, they all did. I hope those articles I read were right and they'll run on 64-bit, as well)

One thing, though - I found one site explaining that on 64-bit-Win7, you'll have to sort programs into the x64 and x86 program folders, or else there'd be trouble. Other sites said it doesen't matter.

Now I have the habit to run all my programs in two folders I create myself:
Attached - for all programs that require an installation, and
Portable - for all portable programs (whenever I can, I prefer portable programs)

There also is a third folder for Games.

I do that because I want to have a clear view on what I have running on my machine, and because the Windows program folder is extremely bloated with its mess of programs. It was bad enough in 95/98, got even worse in xp and looks downright disastrous in Win7. I never know what needs to be there and what not. Also, I'm the proverbial DAU - I once deleted an installed program folder because I thought it was portable; and back in 98 I deleted a folder that was there for my graphic card. Since I didn't recognize it, I blissfully assumed I wouldn't need it. So, I do need my folder system for my own good.

Could I keep my own folders in a 64-bit Win7 or is that one website right and I shouldn't do it?

Many thanks,

Old Owl

(nomen est omen...)

 

Thank you!

I must admit it's not what I'd like to read, but I assume I need to be told...

But I just have a hopeful thought - could it be that the whole mess of Windows programs are all assembled in the regular program file folder and the x86 folder is empty?

Almost all of my installation programs are oldies, thus 32-bit - and the vast majority of my programs are portables, anyway.

That way, I could still keep some clarity and order and not get lost in the Microsoft swamp.

Old Owl

 

I know - but I was talking about the many program folders that come with Windows - that are there without me having installed anything. On a 64-bit Windows, they might all be in that default directory, or so I hope.

And since my own programs all come from a 32-bit computer, they would have the x86 folder for themselves.

 

Oh dear - as if Windows wasn't enough of a mess as it is...

A hypothetical question -

I know a 32-bit Windows can only use 4 gb of RAM (or rather 3.6 gb or so).

Now, if I put 8 gb of RAM into a 32-bit pc, Win7 will still only use those 3.6 gb. So far, so good - I'd have 4.4 gb of redundant RAM then.

Then I put in a VirtualBox and allocate it 2 gb of RAM.

Would the VirtualBox take its 2gb from the 3.6 gb Win7 has and leave Win7 with 1.6 gb and no more?

Or would it take its 2 gb from the whole 8gb and Win7 would still have its 3.6 gb?


I hope this doesn't sound too weird - it's complicated terrain for me.

Thanks!

 

Yes. VirtualBox would use the memory of the host operating system.

 

Drat!

Seems 64-bit is the way to go, then...

 

Ofcourse any VM will utilize both graphics, memory and CPU power from the physical host machine, but the main thing is you get to set how much!!...... when you configure it.
No issues there.

The main advantages of a 64bit OS would mainly be found in the latest software applications utilizing the latest os (win10)
as it facilitates the use of larger RAM capacities.
If your goal is to keep running the older software your fond of, I see no need to run an older os (win7) in 64 bit. Even on 64 hardware. 32 will cause you minimal issues.
But if your goal is to utilize more of your hardwares power on a newer box, then 64b is the way to go!

 

This is interesting problem that you face considering you would have just stayed with xp if you could have.

Personally, I've been well-versed in computers for decades now but never touched any of the virtualization stuff until I read that you may wish to do so.

And here's what I learned.

There's two types of virtualization--type 1 where the virtualization host is the first thing to load, and type 2 where your operating system loads first.

If your goal is basically to have an equivalent of XP (or even XP itself), you can get microsoft's hyper-v virtualization host and then just run winodows xp inside it just as you always have. It would work on the newer hardware since the virtualization host is actually connecting with the hardware and not XP (XP would be connecting with virtual hardware).

The thing I don't know how to do is set this up in detail...yet. I've found this interesting because I'm running XP on an older Dell PowerEdge 2950 server that's got 32GB of ram, but of course XP can only use 4GB. It would be nice to run 8 virtual XPs and use all the ram (4x8=32). I even have 8 Ethernet ports so each virtual XP could have its own ethernet card for network access. I just don't know how to do this yet.

The other thing that you can do is simply get a system that still has XP drivers, like an Intel q77 chipset based system. (I believe the q77 was one of the last chipsets with xp drivers.). You can find these systems very cheap in used form without a hard drive. Then you can just take your existing hard drive with xp install, move it to the new machine, update some drivers, and continue using what you've been using all along.

 

Thank you both!

I thought about keeping i.e. reinstalling xp/sp3, but after checking out Win7 on this laptop, I think I'd rather go with it. Even though I'm still crying for my old Sygate firewall (and still looking for a suitable replacement). Everything else works, though.

Also, xp already started to show first symptoms of the disease that killed my 98/SE in 2010 - you couldn't run newer browsers. The last (portable) Firefox for xp is Firefox ESR 52.3. My standard browser still is good old K-Meleon, but K-Meleon increasingly runs into difficulties with some websites which makes it necessary to call up Firefox.

As for the 64-bit version - if it only were my computer as I used to run it, I really wouldn't need it. I tend to keep my favorite programs for as long as they work. I hate change; and I'm not keen on updates. Actually, the only programs that get regular updates are my Fab Four (on demand virus/trojan/rootkit/whatever scanners), and Firefox with its stuff. And of course K-Meleon, once the developers come up with something new.
But with some programs, it's even better to avoid updates. Think Mailwasher (turned from a nifty little helper into a bloated suite), or even worse, CCleaner. I still use the portable v.4.06, and when I look at what it is like now... blech.

I also don't think a 64-bit system will make my exclusively 32-bit programs run any faster (I even heard they might run slower). Win7 itself might get a little boost. I don't care much, though. My new machine will likely be faster than the old one anyways. The old computer was an Intel Celeron CPU G1620 @ 2.70GHz with an nVidia GT 610 and the new one will be an Intel Core i5-3470 CPU @ 3.20GHz with an nVidia GTX 1050.

And last but not least, I absolutely HATE the idea of those blasted program files and that I will have to put my own programs into one folder with 50,000 pesky, ugly Windows folders. Damn!!


But - and that's a big but - I want to run virtual machines, either with VirtualBox or VMWare, depending on which I'll like best. I might even install both (if possible) to check them out. And that's why I think I might need 64-bit.

The virtual machines would likely profit from being 64-bit, and they could be allocated more RAM if there would be 8gb to spread around instead of 4gb.

I want to run at least two virtual machines with Linux, one with Linux Mint and one to play around with different distros. The Linux Mint will have to be able to go online with the latest Firefox (a notorious resource hog), and Thunderbird. I've read repeatedly that in order to do that, the virtual machine will need a good amount of RAM.

The idea behind it is that I feel my Windows online days are numbered. The day will come when Win7 simply won't be safe anymore to jump around in the net. I've been through that with Win 98/SE. I've read about Win8 and Win10 and simply don't want any part of that.

So I reckon I'll get used to Linux and if one day I feel Win7 isn't safe enough to go online anymore I simply use the virtual machine with Linux to do so. Also, going online in a virtual machine might be an additional layer of security.

Since I know doodlenothing about Linux, I've decided to start with the most often recommended 'Windows-like Linux for dummies' - Mint - and use the second virtual machine to find out if there might be another distro later on that I might like better.

And who knows? I might get along with Linux so well one day that I'll revert the whole thing, make some Linux my host system and put Win7 in a virtual machine. With 32-bit. And my own program folders....

But first I'll have to start somewhere, and since I have to install a new computer anyway, I think I'll better go with a 64-bit Win7.

Or so I think.

My thinking could be flawed, though...

Old Owl

 

Yes, not being able to run modern things is usually what makes systems obsolete. And the worst part is a lot of the new browsers like Chrome will make their older versions unavailable so you can't even run an older version if you want to. Luckily, most of my work is just looking PDFs so those tools haven't changed on XP at all and have no significant advantage of running in win7+, especially with all the pitfalls of a modern OS having a huge target on its back.

You and I have a very similar philosophy towards computing that can be summed up in one statement--if it isn't broken don't try to fix it. I'm still using Foxit v1.something for viewing PDFs because it's fast and a single exe file. Almost every other pdf viewer is slower, fatter, or both.

You're right that you're probably not going to benefit anything from 64-bit, at least for now. As programs start coming out in 64-bit only variants, it will prove handy. But that's only if you're going to change programs.

Your new system specs may still have no problem running XP since your old system was still decently quick. And with both having Nvidia video cards, I bet you wouldn't even need to update drivers if your old hard drive was installed on the new system. Personally, now after seeing the specs on both systems, I would simply just move your hard drive to the new system as it would probably boot on the first shot and take only minimal driver installation to get it back to 100%.

I'm sure you'll be able to install the software where you want it. The only issues I've really seen of software having issues with installation destination is when its on another drive letter, and that will typically only be because of bad coding that assumed it would be installed on C:.

Virtual machines will need lots of memory and storage to really work at near native speed, and from what I've read 64-bit is almost a must, and maybe even a requirement with Microsoft's Hyper-V.

Instead of the virtual machine route for Mint, you could just run it off a live cd whenever you wanted it--that's what I do. I have a handful of live cds I use for various purposes. And the nice thing about a live cd is the same as TimeFreeze--everything is gone with a reboot.

Because the current generations of Windows (7+) are basically offshoots of the same core (Windows 7), I think you have a bit of time before the day that Windows 7 won't be safe. 7 still runs most of the software and can be installed on a good chunk of the hardware (the newer NVME drives don't like it though, which are fast becoming standard), so I don't see it fading in less than 5 years. Remember, XP was the sucessor to Windows 2000 and it still able to be run today almost 20 years later.

The thing I see with Linux on the desktop is that once the target moves, so will the malware. And it's already started since the Macintosh moved to the unix-based OSX. The battle on their front has been heating up every since that platform has become popular. And those same exploits could exist on the other flavors of unix. I don't think anything Linux would be 100% safe short of a live cd or the Lightweight Portable Security platform.

The problem with virtual machines is that they're only as safe as the host OS, which unless is a type 1 hypervisor, is still reliant on the host OS and the security of it. Now, if you move to a type 1 hypervisor and then have a virtual machine, I think you're right that safety could be improved, but the question is how much would performance suffer, and as hypervisors become more popular (especially in server environments) they too will become targets--perhaps even bigger targets than the desktop. And then we're back in the same place again.

The one thing I've learned when thinking long-term strategies in computing is to take it only one step at a time as things get invented that you can't factor into a long-term plan.

Perfect example of this was my parent's house. It was wired with ethernet to every room, ports put in the most optimal of places for desktop computers to be placed. One of the primary reasons for this was to control winamp running on 3 computers upstairs that would be connected to a scsi raid 5 with all of the music in mp3 format to be outputted to the whole house speaker system. Fast forward 20 years and while the computers were purchased as well as the SCSI equipment, wifi came about and so did the advent of bluetooth speakers as well as vevo and youtube. When the amp running the whole house audio system died, it was never replaced. Today the music comes from wireless devices connected to bluetooth speakers--something almost impossible to fathom in the 1990s.

So my point from this ramling is to tell you to just worry about the move you need to make right now and the problem you need to solve in this moment--because the next moment will have its own challenges and solutions.

 

Thanks to TimeFreeze, I could at least try to install my old programs into my own folder - none of them requires a restart, and I could test whether anything makes trouble or not. If Windows starts spitting, I simply shut down.

Sadly, I've just found out that one of my oldies is 16-bit. I should have known, as it was one of my very first programs I've bought (and I started out with Windows 3.11). I still use it now and then and don't want to miss it. It's ancient, but it does its job.

From what I've gathered so far, there is no way I can run it in a 64-bit Windows. So I'd need yet another virtual machine to run xp. If only there wasn't that pesky telephone activation - last time I installed xp I had to call Microsoft to get it activated. And had to ask a friend to do it for me because I cannot press any numbers on my telephone (it has a rotary dial).

Maybe I should just make a virtual machine with Windows 98/SE... (and the demand for RAM keeps rising...)


As for Linux, I'm actually curious to try it out and see if I can 'make it my own' - i.e. customize it until no one but me recognizes it anymore. I also hope it's gotten easier and more dummy-friendly with the years. My first (and last) attempt to try Linux was a thing called Suse in 1997. I failed miserably, couldn't do anything with it and dropped it. It also was ugly as hell. Those new distros nowadays all look much more enticing.


As for the security - what if I simply start TimeFreeze before starting the virtual machine? I'm not sure yet if it works, but maybe one can allocate the space for the virtual machines to another drive? I always have a 'quarantine drive' next to my c:drive where I store all downloads etc so I can check them with the Fab Four before they got sorted onto the data drives. If I make it a little bigger it could store those virtual machines. I've got to think about that and read a little more.

My c: drive never contains anything more than merely the os and the programs - mail folders, bookmarks, txt notes etc. are all stored elsewhere. And my files all have yet other drives.

(Except on this laptop - the blasted thing has only 1 drive - the c:drive - and it drives me nuts. I have to save every little note I make while online on an external drive before I shut down. And I've come to hate this 'my documents' and 'library' crap everywhere. I never saw that nonsense on xp - I've customized it so long ago I've forgotten what it looked like before that)

WinAmp is great and I use it a lot - with lots of mp3 - but in the end, nothing beats a good turntable. There - I show my age again...

 

RAM is only used when the virtual machine, i.e. VirtualBox/VMware etc is opened and an operating system is loaded. Only one OS can be in use at a time and when it is closed the RAM it was using is released back to the host system. So it makes little difference to the RAM requirement however many OSs you set up. Their virtual disks are simply stored on the hard disk until called up.

 

Linux has come a long way since the 90's......drivers, software and hardware advancements have been astonishing. Its no longer the OS of the specialist geek, ma and pa kettle can use it with ease now, especially with the coming of age in GUI applications within Linux.
Its no longer a Command Line interface only OS.
I must say though, if you have to rely on a live USB distro for security purposes, your doing all things wrong!
The bad guys cant get into any system unless your clueless enough to let them in.

 

Wow!

So, if I understand this right, I could create 20 virtual machines on my 4-gb-RAM Windows host , allocate 2 gb of RAM to each of them and never run into any conflicts because there will only ever be just one of them open to use it?

Seems I had a fundamental flaw in my thinking... (told you guys I'm an idiot in these things...)

But what about the host os? From the images I saw, folks had their virtual machine windows open and their actual os visible in the background. Or is the host 'frozen' as long as the virtual machine is running?

I'm beginning to think I probably won't need 64-bit aka more than 4 gb of Ram, after all...

(Although, this laptop here has 1 gb of RAM. It's a terrible snail - K-Meleon with two tabs open and then calling up Firefox [which can be done from K-Meleon] and this thing crawls to a halt and freezes. And I kicked out and shut off as much as I could. It's an Intel Celeron, too, as my old computer was, only it is a "cpu 550 @ 2.00 GHz". But in comparison, it's slow as molasses.)

I never had a live distro on usb. I didn't even know you could actually work on such a thing - I always thought they were just there to click around and see what it looks like. Like a demo or something. I downloaded one a while ago but never got it to run (okay, it was an .iso on Virtual Clone Drive, which might have been the problem)

My idea of added security was that if I go online with a Linux in a virtual machine and it gets attacked, I'll shut it off, delete it and that's that. The point made above that the host would still 'get it' seems legit, so I might just do what I always do - put the c: drive under TimeFreeze. Probably would've done it, anyway.

But I really have to read more about it. And get one as soon as the new computer is here. Whatever bit it might have...

 

The host OS continues t0 be available when the VM is running. To the host, the VM is just another app using some of its memory. I used to run VMware on 4GB on a Win 7 32 bit machine with no issues at all. I'm now on 10 with 8GB available and all my VMs run fine except 98SE which is virtually unusable.

 

Thanks, Earthling. I reckon Windows 10 is a lot more resource-hungry than Windows 7.

The virtual machines were practically the sole reason I wanted 64-bit. With that argument off the table, everything speaks for keeping 32-bit. Better for my peculiar folder habits and better for my poor old 16-bit antique.

Still worry a bit that Win 7 will have only 1.6 gb left when a 2gb-virtual machine runs. I never thought much about my RAM before, but this laptop is an eye-opener. On the other hand, Win 7 probably is a hog compared to xp (as xp was a hog compared to 98/SE).

Maybe I can trim down Win 7 a little more.

 

p.s.

Looked at Process Explorer, though. Doesn't look too bad. I pretty much did clean it out. Maybe the laptop is simply too old. Or it's because it's a laptop. Never had one, seems logical that this little thing cannot have the power that my big, old machine had.

 

You don't have to allocate 2GB to the VM. VMware recommends an amount depending on the OS you are setting up. For my 32 bit Win 7 Ultimate VM it recommends 1gb, though I give it more just because I can.

 

Maybe that's one of the things I should simply try out once I have a VirtualBox or a VMWare. As I see it, Firefox will be the biggest resource hog (K-Meleon has no Linux version).

And as another poster above said, it will be some good time until Win7 gets inconvenient going online. That'll be time enough to learn and look around.

Funny, I'm much more relaxed now thinking that I might keep using 32-bit...

 

Not always the case, but possible only if that malicious code/hacker can exploit a vulnerability in the virtualization software your using which would allow him to escape the VM and begin to alter programs on the host.
This is quite an advanced attack, time consuming and not easy to implement, so unless your the Pentagon, or hold millions in Bitcoin, you should be fairly safe using virtualization as a security measure!

 

Yes, but it's still a nice feeling to feel safe.

I got infected with a virus only once - back in 2010 when I changed from 98/SE to XP. In spite of a rather bloated 'antivirus' suite XP came with, Norton or Avira or something like that. The antivirus beeped and blinged, but other than that it did nothing. I had to reinstall the system, threw everything out and copied my old security habits from 98/SE (including my Sygate). Never had a resident antivirus again.

And I never had a virus/trojan/whatever since as I never had had one before. (Only this laptop was infected like a leper colony but it isn't mine - and I cleaned it out).

I still like the idea of added security. Just makes me feel better.

 

For sure, good luck with the new project

 

Best policy would be to take a Snap-shot of your virtual machine once you have configured it to how you want it.
That way if you experience any issues with Malware or the likes of, you can revert back to the snapshot rather than deleting the whole install.

As an added protection for your host, make sure that 'Copy to Clipboard' & 'Drag n Drop' are disabled on the VM and not set to bi-directional (Do this under devices in your top menu).
Also, do not add any shared folders!

You should be solid now with your host machine well protected......good luck!

Rep

 

Thanks!

And I've changed my mind yet again... sort of.

I think I'll use the grace period of 29 days that Microsoft grants before requiring the activation and install the 64-bit version without activating it right away. Then I can take a week or two to check it out - hands-on-experience always beats thought up theories, after all.

If I find I don't like it I can always throw it out, reformat the drive and put up the 32-bit-version. In that case, at least I can say 'I have tried...'

Hope it works that way and they didn't shorten the grace period....

 

Hope it’s ok to post this here....I just installed timefreeze, to protect myself from the myriad of troublesome freeware around....unfortunately timefreeze has made a real mess of my pc....browsers ctrl alt del revo uninstaller, restore point refusing to run, saying this app needs a program to run or just refuses to run.......

Have a MR image before this so will restore my pc from this....wondered if timefreeze is not all it seems, downloaded from major geeks

Thanks

 

@Reddwarf4ever: Its never good to post in an old thread, started by someone else, for a new topic unrelated to the original. Your chances for effective responses to your need is much better if you create your own thread with a title that is catchy, concise, and precise to draw attention; e.g. TIMEFREEZE - Need help! See info post in the Welcome Center https://forums.majorgeeks.com/threads/asking-for-help-on-majorgeeks.315062/ Good luck

 

Thank you, have done as suggested