Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 26 of 26
  1. #16
    2 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    162
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeP View Post
    Windows/Microsoft update will NOT offer you patches that are inappropriate for your operating system. Since you are running a 64-bit OS, even though a patch may be for 32-bit or 64-bit Windows Update will only apply the 64-bit version for your PC. The only time you have to worry about "bitness" is if you download an operating system patch yourself. Even if you download the wrong version Windows will NOT apply it.

    Joe
    If you click more information on the updates when it tells you which is way I have it set it give's you this 32 bit page even on 64
    http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en
    I scroll down and see this 'What Others Are Downloading' is where I find
    Microsoft® Windows® Malicious Software Removal Tool (KB890830) x64
    it's minor to me since I am savvy enough to know but it will offer wrong. I mean MS is not perfect and I think we all know that

  2. #17
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    St Louis, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    20,543
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 614 Times in 550 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by veegertx View Post
    If you click more information on the updates when it tells you which is way I have it set it give's you this 32 bit page even on 64
    http://www.microsoft...&displaylang=en
    I scroll down and see this 'What Others Are Downloading' is where I find
    Microsoft® Windows® Malicious Software Removal Tool (KB890830) x64
    it's minor to me since I am savvy enough to know but it will offer wrong. I mean MS is not perfect and I think we all know that
    I'm not saying Microsoft is perfect, far from it. However, using Windows/Microsoft update I've never seen a fix downloaded that will not apply to the architecture for a particular PC. If you let Windows Update download the fix for KB890830 it will download the correct version for your architecture. I have never done anything out of the ordinary for that hotifx and the correct version is on all the machines that I can check.

    Joe

  3. #18
    Plutonium Lounger Medico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    12,625
    Thanks
    161
    Thanked 930 Times in 851 Posts
    I've also received ALL my updates to MS products, both Windows and Office, thriugh MS Updates and have never had problems. Always loaded correct Bitness versions.
    BACKUP...BACKUP...BACKUP
    Have a Great Day! Ted


    Sony Vaio Laptop, 2.53 GHz Duo Core Intel CPU, 8 GB RAM, 320 GB HD
    Win 8 Pro (64 Bit), IE 10 (64 Bit)


    Complete PC Specs: By Speccy

  4. #19
    Lounge VIP bobprimak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Hinsdale, IL, USA
    Posts
    2,306
    Thanks
    138
    Thanked 113 Times in 97 Posts
    Two different replies to two sub-topics in this thread.

    x86 (32-bit) versions of programs and components are frequently present even in x64 (64-bit) versions of Windows. This includes Internet Explorer, for which some patches need to be applied twice -- once for x86 IE8 (32-bit), and once more for x64 IE8 (64-bit). and the same can apply to Java JRE and other components which occur in both the x64 and the x86 sections of the Windows Programs or components lists. The same applies to the Windows Registry. There are both x86 and x64 sections. Confused enough yet? Well, MS Updates does sometimes offer x86 patches if you have x86 versions of programs or components (including .NET Framework) and you usually need to apply both versions to be fully patched. When in doubt, download and install Secunia PSI, and it will detect and report any instances where there are both 32-bit (x86) and 64-bit (x64) versions of the same component which need to be updated.


    Now for the Windows Experience Index. This is a great tool for comparing different computers and assessing the upgrade readiness of older hardware. But for those who have discreet graphics or other added components, beware. Windows does not detect all hardware, and this is certainly true of my Toshiba Satellite with a core i5 processor and discreet nVidia graphics. The 512MB of nVidia vRAM is not detected by WEI on my laptop, and this crashes the graphics performance score way down, compared with the processor score. This is an error in WEI. My graphics should be rated somewhere around 5.7 to 6.0, but due to this detection failure, WEI rates the performance as 4.7 or thereabout. This is pure nonsense. So, take the WEI with a grain of salt, and run the Device Manager or some similar tool to see what Windows actually is detecting. Then make adjustments in your mind by adding in the components which WEI misses. It isn't an exact mathematical process (unless you know a Microsoft developer who can give you their Secret Formula) but a rough estimate can be interpolated.
    -- Bob Primak --

  5. #20
    5 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    793
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 27 Times in 25 Posts
    One time I let Windows 7 update my video driver. After that my experience index fell, with the video being the low numbers. I downloaded the latest driver from the nVidia site, installed it, and my experience index went back up to the prior value (with my disk once again being the low value). Moral of the story: while Win 7 Update does a decent job of installing hardware drivers, you are still better off getting the driver from the manufacturer (if you can find one - some manufacturers webs sites make it as difficult as possible to get drivers).

  6. #21
    Plutonium Lounger Medico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    12,625
    Thanks
    161
    Thanked 930 Times in 851 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Johnson2191 View Post
    One time I let Windows 7 update my video driver. After that my experience index fell, with the video being the low numbers. I downloaded the latest driver from the nVidia site, installed it, and my experience index went back up to the prior value (with my disk once again being the low value). Moral of the story: while Win 7 Update does a decent job of installing hardware drivers, you are still better off getting the driver from the manufacturer (if you can find one - some manufacturers webs sites make it as difficult as possible to get drivers).
    Graphics drivers are one of the few areas where if it works (ain't broke) don't fix-it (update). Graphics drivers are very fickle. This is one area where the general concensis is leave well enough alone.
    BACKUP...BACKUP...BACKUP
    Have a Great Day! Ted


    Sony Vaio Laptop, 2.53 GHz Duo Core Intel CPU, 8 GB RAM, 320 GB HD
    Win 8 Pro (64 Bit), IE 10 (64 Bit)


    Complete PC Specs: By Speccy

  7. #22
    Bronze Lounger
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Peterborough, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,450
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Primak View Post
    Two different replies to two sub-topics in this thread.

    Now for the Windows Experience Index. This is a great tool for comparing different computers and assessing the upgrade readiness of older hardware. But for those who have discreet graphics or other added components, beware. Windows does not detect all hardware, and this is certainly true of my Toshiba Satellite with a core i5 processor and discreet nVidia graphics. The 512MB of nVidia vRAM is not detected by WEI on my laptop, and this crashes the graphics performance score way down, compared with the processor score. This is an error in WEI. My graphics should be rated somewhere around 5.7 to 6.0, but due to this detection failure, WEI rates the performance as 4.7 or thereabout. This is pure nonsense. So, take the WEI with a grain of salt, and run the Device Manager or some similar tool to see what Windows actually is detecting. Then make adjustments in your mind by adding in the components which WEI misses. It isn't an exact mathematical process (unless you know a Microsoft developer who can give you their Secret Formula) but a rough estimate can be interpolated.
    Whoops. I will add this to the thread even though it is probably a two-party conversation, but I have two Toshiba Satellites, one an originally top-of-the-line Sat Pro M10 which is now seven years old and which matters a lot to me. It originally had 512 but now has 1 GB in RAM, and I was considering adding another GB and running Win 7x32. Office 2007 is smooth as silk under XP Pro, and that's all I really wanted it for. Under Win 7x32 with 1 GB I get the sort of ghastly reaction that you report, to the effect that the graphics are intolerable, there is no 3D, and all the rest of it.

    At the same time, and independently of that on a different computer, I have been playing with turning the eye candy (Aero) off, since it does nothing to contribute to the computing end of things and is arguably a resource hog to no end other than the possibly-enhanced ergonomics at a very high price. There is a multitude of sources of advice in this regard, which we might exchange links to.

    Another gig is a fortune in that I have to have a matched pair and 'throw away' the existing perfectly good module I already have, and the computer does run Win 7, in spite of all the complaints. If you have any Toshiba-specific advice or links in that respect, I would be interested to hear of it

  8. #23
    Bronze Lounger
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Peterborough, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,450
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    To answer my own question, I have my Toshiba up and running with Aero and assorted other things turned off, and yes, it is fine and dandy, and no, another GB would be a bad investment especially if the only problem is with the graphics. (The SD slot doesn't work either, but I gather there may be a cure for that available.) I am very happy to have it running Win 7, even if it is no more than a (thoroughly) glorified typewriter.

  9. #24
    Plutonium Lounger Medico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    12,625
    Thanks
    161
    Thanked 930 Times in 851 Posts
    peterg,

    I'm glad you had success in loading Win 7 on the older laptop. I find Win 7 far superior to XP and have upgraded all my PCs and families PCs to Win 7. I would not go back.

    One other possibility I have read about and did some experimenting with was to load Linux in a partition of my PC for a while. I have also read that many are using Linux on older, less powerful PCs as it does not have nearly the resource requirements. This sounds like an excellent PC to try this on. If you wish to ever change from "no more than a (thoroughly) glorified typewriter." to a more useful PC, this might be a possibility. A thread I started in Non-MS OSes shows how I solved some of the problems encountered. Linux ended up not being my cup of tea at this time, but I was using my main PC for the experiment. It may be something you want to consider.
    BACKUP...BACKUP...BACKUP
    Have a Great Day! Ted


    Sony Vaio Laptop, 2.53 GHz Duo Core Intel CPU, 8 GB RAM, 320 GB HD
    Win 8 Pro (64 Bit), IE 10 (64 Bit)


    Complete PC Specs: By Speccy

  10. #25
    Lounge VIP bobprimak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Hinsdale, IL, USA
    Posts
    2,306
    Thanks
    138
    Thanked 113 Times in 97 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by peterg View Post
    To answer my own question, I have my Toshiba up and running with Aero and assorted other things turned off, and yes, it is fine and dandy, and no, another GB would be a bad investment especially if the only problem is with the graphics. (The SD slot doesn't work either, but I gather there may be a cure for that available.) I am very happy to have it running Win 7, even if it is no more than a (thoroughly) glorified typewriter.
    I think the Linux partition is a good answer, and I would recommend using the method of a third-party boot manager, such as the Acronis OS Selector, included with their Disk Director. This method allows you to keep the boot sector (MBR) free of interferences which can cause Windows to fail to launch. And if you ever decide to remove either Linux or Windows from the computer, you won't have to repair the MBR.

    As for the SD Slot, probably there is a driver update which would take care of that. Check with the manufacturer's web site.

    I would not upgrade a working Windows XP computer to Windows 7 if it does not support the Aero graphics. Probably it won't have enough RAM for full Windows 7 functionality either. Consider also the requirements of Windows 7 versions of your application softwares -- they also tend to add resource requirements as you upgrade.
    -- Bob Primak --

  11. #26
    Star Lounger bobdog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    83
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    It's easier than that, Frank. You have the 64 bit version of Windows 7. That means you can run more than 3GB of memory. That's the main difference you'd notice. More memory, faster machine. Is good.

    Whenever you look for updates, always choose the 64-bit version if one is offered, because there will be a reason it was offered in the first place. If none is offered, it probably doesn't matter, so use the unisex version.

    That help?

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •