Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[talyn21]

Hello,

First, after initial testing MC is an awesome program.  So much so that I purchases parts to build a computer just to run MC and will be using it for a whole house audio server.  Since this is from scratch, what is the best Windows OS to use?  I am not sure if I can get XP but can look into it if there is a major benefit.  I have no desire to use Windows 8 or Vista.  So this would leave Windows 7 32 bit or Windows 7 64 bit.  This computer will really only run MC, period.

Thanks for any input.

[glynor]

There is no reason to use any version of Windows 7 other than 64-bit, unless the hardware doesn't support it.  If you're building something from scratch now, the hardware will absolutely support it.

[InflatableMouse]

+1 to what Glynor said.

[Vocalpoint]

This computer will really only run MC, period.

And other +1 to Glynor. Windows 7 Pro (64 bit) will serve you very well.

VP

[JimH]

I would use Win8.  Win7 is also fine.

[glynor]

I would use Win8.  Win7 is also fine.

He specified Windows 7.  He was just looking for 32 vs 64 bit, and that answer is easy.

[kstuart]

There is no reason to use any version of Windows 7 other than 64-bit, unless the hardware doesn't support it.  If you're building something from scratch now, the hardware will absolutely support it.

What about legacy software programs that have not been updated recently ?

[glynor]

What about legacy software programs that have not been updated recently ?

That isn't relevant.

If it will run on Windows 7 at all, it will run on the 64-bit version.

[BartMan01]

That isn't relevant.

If it will run on Windows 7 at all, it will run on the 64-bit version.

Agreed.  The ONLY reason to run 32bit would be for legacy hardware that does not have a 64bit driver, and with rare exception it would be better to just replace that with something more current anway.

[talyn21]

Thanks all for the feedback.  I use several programs for work that will NOT work at all in Windows 7 64 bit but work just fine in Win 7 32 bit.  This experience gives me pause from using the 64 bit version.  However as mentioned this is only for Media Center and thus I would like to use what ever MC plays best with.  I would be interested what Jim or Matt suggest.

[glynor]

I use several programs for work that will NOT work at all in Windows 7 64 bit but work just fine in Win 7 32 bit.

I'm very skeptical about this.

The only thing that doesn't work in Windows 7 64-bit that would work on 32-bit would be stuff that uses kernel-mode unsigned drivers.  Can you give examples?

In any case, for MC, unless they switched to Windows 8 recently, it is developed under Windows 7 64-bit.  If they switched, I'm sure they switched to Windows 8 64-bit, so that would be the best supported platform.

[talyn21]

Pretty much any program from Rockwell Software  (Allen Bradley) will not work in the 64 bit version.  A colleague just yesterday attempted to install some of their software on a notebook computer running Win 7 64 bit.  Still didn't work.  We use a data logging solution from Software Toolbox.  It also will not work properly. Although it has been aprox 9 months since our last project that used that.  There is a virtual ethernet driver we use that will not work in 64 bit.  A utility from InGear to allow pc's to communicate with AB PLC's does not work properly.  Again this one has been months since last used. 

Thanks again for the feedback.  As for Windows 8, I am never get anywhere near a new version of Windows until at least Service Pack 1 is out.  Prefer to wait for Service Pack 2. 

[glynor]

Pretty much any program from Rockwell Software  (Allen Bradley) will not work in the 64 bit version.  A colleague just yesterday attempted to install some of their software on a notebook computer running Win 7 64 bit.  Still didn't work.  We use a data logging solution from Software Toolbox.  It also will not work properly. Although it has been aprox 9 months since our last project that used that.  There is a virtual ethernet driver we use that will not work in 64 bit.  A utility from InGear to allow pc's to communicate with AB PLC's does not work properly.  Again this one has been months since last used.  

Thanks again for the feedback.  As for Windows 8, I am never get anywhere near a new version of Windows until at least Service Pack 1 is out.  Prefer to wait for Service Pack 2.  

With the possible exception of the Rockwell Software stuff you listed (which I'm not familiar with, but it does say it is Automation focused, so...), all of those types of things are pretty likely to require low-level drivers of some kind.  If they're unsigned, that would explain why they don't work.  Normal user-mode software that works well on Windows 7, will work fine in either the 32-bit or 64-bit flavors.

I'm pretty loathe to install any kind of low-level kernel mode driver from a developer who refuses to sign their code, but I know there are probably reasons (other than money, which is the big one).  Frankly, I wish Microsoft hadn't provided that loophole in 32-bit Windows (or, frankly, shipped a 32-bit version at all), but that ship has long-since sailed.

There are a few other exceptions to general rule that 32-bit Windows applications are always compatible, but they are almost all "system utility" type applications and driver-style things, and that switchover happened so long ago that any software that hasn't gotten its act together, is probably abandonware anyway.

In any case, I think you'd find that most of the "power users" here run MC under the 64-bit flavor of Windows 7, and as I mentioned, that's what it is (or was, maybe) developed under.  For MC-exclusive use, that would be the best supported.  So, you might as well use it and not otherwise cripple your hardware and enjoy the extra security benefits of the 64-bit version.

[DoubtingThomas]

Even a simple "hello world" program I compiled back in the 90's using Borland C++ will not run on Win7-64.

[yannis]

If it's urgent to keep using non compatible software in w7-64, you could try running it in a virtual machine; I'm not sure about low level drivers, but for simpler stuff it sure works. I've got a couple of dictionaries developed in the early 90's and they remain the best of their kind, though they aren't supported anymore. They ran fine in a VM when I had to use a 64 bit PC.

[BillT]

FWIW I use a pre 2000 version of Quicken, which I can't imagine uses low level drivers and that won't run on 64 bit W7, but does on 32 bit. I just use a virtual machine for that programme (running W2000!).

[glynor]

FWIW I use a pre 2000 version of Quicken, which I can't imagine uses low level drivers and that won't run on 64 bit W7, but does on 32 bit. I just use a virtual machine for that programme (running W2000!).

Hmmm... I wonder what it does?  It is certainly possible that Windows XP will run things that Windows 7 won't (easily), but since Windows 7 64-bit actually runs all 64-bit code in the WOW64 layer, it should be identical to Windows 7 32-bit in almost all cases.  Does it really not run at all, or did you not try playing with the compatibility mode stuff in Windows 7?

I'm sure there are probably a few other exceptions, but the kernel-mode drivers are the main thing.

In any case, MC runs great.

[MrC]

Some older programs require setting the execution runtime compatibility mode; give that a try too.

[glynor]

Some older programs require setting the execution runtime compatibility mode; give that a try too.

Right, and many older things require being run as an administrator (which can be set in the same place).

[JustinChase]

Rather than try to circumvent the problems, why not just install the 32 bit version of windows 7 and be done with it?  There's not a huge advantage to 64 bit at this point, and since Media Center and LAV and madVR are all 32 bit, and your other programs require 32 bit, it seems win7 x64 is an opportunity to 'pick your battles wisely' and avoid that one

[glynor]

There's not a huge advantage to 64 bit at this point

I disagree.  Just the RAM limits of 32-bit Windows are bad enough, but there are also security implications.  And some applications really benefit from having a 64-bit version (anything that does encryption and many compression applications, for example).  But, considering that 8GB of RAM costs $30 now, there's just no reason to limit yourself to 3.something GB total (often reduced below 2.5 in practice), and to also limit per-process usage even further.

And the applications he mentioned weren't going to be used on this system.

Again, unless you're using very old abandonware, or have old hardware, the best bet is almost always to select Win7/8 64-bit over 32-bit.

(Note:  Some of the examples given by others above may be things that won't run under Windows 7 at all, no matter what version.)

[kstuart]

But what do you need more than 3GB of RAM for ?

(Obviously, some professional applications do, like Photoshop or Video editing , but we are referring to either general use or media PCs in this context.)

[JustinChase]

Well, I guess "huge" can be argued, but my response was without re-reading the original post.  There was much discussion about programs that don't run on x64 and then some ideas on how to resolve those issues, so my point was 'why bother, just install what will be easier, and MC on32 bit will be fine anyway'

However, after re-reading the original post "...I purchases parts to build a computer just to run MC and will be using it for a whole house audio server", I retract my earlier statement and say install Windows7x64, without a doubt.

I run it on all my machines, and MC works flawlessly in a 64 bit OS.

sorry I confused the actual issue here, my bad.

Carry on 

[BartMan01]

But what do you need more than 3GB of RAM for ?

(Obviously, some professional applications do, like Photoshop or Video editing , but we are referring to either general use or media PCs in this context.)

On my main HTPC I have 8GB of ram.  Just sitting there doing 'nothing' it is already using ~2Gb.  If I have all 3 extenders running at once MS recommends 1GB of ram available for each, so that puts me at ~5GB as my baseline requirement - the extra 3 GB are for when the machine is actually doing something (like recording shows, playing back movies, watching Amazon/Netflix video, ingesting content, etc.).

On my main 'general purpose' machine I have 24 GB of Ram.  Under heavy use I have come close to using it all.

Once you have 'extra' RAM it also opens up the ability to run RAM drives to cache to, play back content from, or just put frequently used programs for instant access.

You can 'get by' with 3GB of RAM if all you are doing is email/web browsing, but I would want at least 8 on anything I was running today for actual productive use.  I would agree that if you have more than 8 with no specific use need you need to find a way to use it, or you are wasting it.

[kstuart]

On my main HTPC I have 8GB of ram.  Just sitting there doing 'nothing' it is already using ~2Gb.  If I have all 3 extenders running at once MS recommends 1GB of ram available for each, so that puts me at ~5GB as my baseline requirement - the extra 3 GB are for when the machine is actually doing something (like recording shows, playing back movies, watching Amazon/Netflix video, ingesting content, etc.).

On my main 'general purpose' machine I have 24 GB of Ram.  Under heavy use I have come close to using it all.

Once you have 'extra' RAM it also opens up the ability to run RAM drives to cache to, play back content from, or just put frequently used programs for instant access.

You can 'get by' with 3GB of RAM if all you are doing is email/web browsing, but I would want at least 8 on anything I was running today for actual productive use.  I would agree that if you have more than 8 with no specific use need you need to find a way to use it, or you are wasting it.

Entirely contradictory to my experience.

I have 32-bit Windows on my Home Theater PC (dual core 2.8ghz) with 4gb, so I have an 800mb RAM drive (using PAE to access the "unusable" space), and I put the Pagefile there for better performance, and to prevent writes to the SSD.

With the 3.2 gb, Process Explorer shows 1.5gb as Peak usage.  I use MC18 (and a few other players for uses that I have not yet finished shifting to MC18) and Firefox.  Firefox is the only program that goes over 100mb, and on that machine, I only use it for Youtube (which in theory can be done in MC18), and downloading new versions of MC18 and various utilities.   At the moment, a different music player is running on the PC and it is using.... gasp.... as much as 10mb of RAM.

I've noticed that MS installs a lot of things that are conceptually circular - processes that use a lot of RAM and resources to make your PC "faster".   Indexing Service is one, and I disable it as one of the first things I do with a new PC setup (I'm not alone in this).    And disabling all unnecessary Windows Services makes video and audio playback smoother, as well as lowering RAM use.  "Black Viper" web site has details on which services are unnecessary (often because they provide enterprise support that you will never use).

You can 'get by' with 3GB of RAM if all you are doing is email/web browsing, but I would want at least 8 on anything I was running today for actual productive use.

A few years ago, I remember seeing messaged in forumd saying roughly:

You can 'get by' with 512MB of RAM if all you are doing is email/web browsing, but I would want at least 2GB on anything I was running today for actual productive use.

[Jong]

Although there is no doubt I got by with 3GB on my last (Win 7 32-bit) HTPC, there was a noticeable improvement in general responsiveness when I upgraded from 2GB and with memory prices what they are now it was a no brainer to go for 8GB x64. Yes, it is a crime that Windows wastes so much and sure you could kill some services to save some, but for a modern system and with current costs I would not/did not waste my time.

[kstuart]

Although there is no doubt I got by with 3GB on my last (Win 7 32-bit) HTPC, there was a noticeable improvement in general responsiveness when I upgraded from 2GB and with memory prices what they are now it was a no brainer to go for 8GB x64. Yes, it is a crime that Windows wastes so much and sure you could kill some services to save some, but for a modern system and with current costs I would not/did not waste my time.

If I was buliding an HT-PC today I would certainly install 8gb due to the low price, and to be somewhat "future proof".

However, I would also kill unnecessary services to improve video and audio playback - regardless of how much RAM is available.   Before I started doing that, I would occasionally experience video glitches and noticed the HD light coming on at the same time.  Process Explorer pointed to Windows Services that were running, and disabling them removed the glitches.

There are also a variety of independent reports that - regardless of available resources - processes that run at the same time as audio playback can reduce sound quality (usually in subtle ways).  By the way, this is irregardless of "bit perfect" because it has to do with timing issues, and the fact that a PC motherboard is designed as a general purpose device, not an audio device.

[JustinChase]

Did you happen to keep a list of the services you stopped?  I've been getting glitches from time to time also, but don't want to just start randomly testing what to stop/turn off.  If you've got a 'proven' formula for success, I'd like to have a gander at it.

thanks.

[Jong]

Stopping some processes may help, but, provided your GPU is up to it (should be true of any new system) just turn on Videoclock, go for Red October HQ and make sure MadVR is using fullscreen exclusive mode.
As long as you don't try to use excessive MadVR settings for your GPU you should be golden. One of the main problems for most Windows players is they do not use exclusive mode and so can only present one frame in advance. Because Windows has so much going on and frame presentation is very tight in its timing requirements any Windows process holding on for too long can cause judder. Exclusive mode allows multiple frames to be presented in advance and the GPU can then handle them without relying on Windows. Videoclock addresses a different problem where your GPU is typically not operating at exactly the frame rate of your video which is another cause of, normally periodic, judder.

[kstuart]

What Jong just posted sounds pretty good to me.

The problem with a recipe for turning off services is that each person needs different ones.  On a couple of occasions, I have turned off services that I ended up turning back on.

http://www.blackviper.com

is the best web site I've found about disabling services.  (And also check the MS tasks in the Task Scheduler.)

[BartMan01]

Entirely contradictory to my experience.

So you ask why anyone would need more than 3 outside of content editing, I gave you two examples from personal experience and you just dismiss it because your experience differs?  Seems your question was purely rhetorical.  In MY experience, having used both 32 and 64 bit versions of windows with various amounts of RAM, Windows scales its use of RAM based on what is available up to a point.  I have found that having 32 bit and 3.x GB of ram vs 64 bit with 8GB of RAM on the SAME machine (my work laptop), the 64+8 is more responsive especially if you start multitasking.

Can you 'get by' with 3.x GB of RAM, shutting down processes and limiting use of the machine to a single task at a time, sure.   Does everyone need 8 GB of ram, no.  If you have an existing machine with 3.x GB and 32 bit and it is working for your needs, no need to change anything.  In this case, the OP is specifically asking for building a new machine in which case 64bit and 8GB of RAM would be my baseline recommendation.  More than 8 would require a specific need.

[JustinChase]

Yeah, i only asked because you reported that it made a difference for your stuttering, so I was hoping you knew/remembered what you turned off.  I've tried using his settings, but they seem to cause more problems than what they resolve.

I suspect my issues are coming from something else (network or server), so I'll keep looking.

[glynor]

But what do you need more than 3GB of RAM for ?

In addition to the things discussed above by others above, there are two additional issues to consider:

1. Not only does 32-bit Windows have a total addressable RAM limit of 4GB (usually reduced by onboard devices further), but it has a per-process limit of 2GB.  This is, honestly, quite easy to hit.  But the problem becomes much worse if you are doing any multitasking with your system (including system tray processes).  So, Windows itself often uses around 1GB of RAM while running.  So, if you're starting at 3.5GB available, that takes you down to 2.5 available.  Then, you run some system tray processes and you're down to below 2GB available.  In this instance, each application has a 2GB cap, but you don't have that much available, so if you launch two memory-hungry processes at the same time?  It swaps to disk.  Swapping to disk is TERRIBLE and should be avoided at all costs (even with the swap file on an SSD, the memory access latencies are an order-of-magnitude higher than accessing RAM).

Many applications are happy to use ~2GB, not just "pro" apps.  Microsoft Word and Outlook will certainly do it.  Heck, load a bunch of tabs in your browser that contain Flash, and look at the memory usage.

It is easy to get into a RAM limited state on a 32-bit version of Windows.  Even if no single application uses 2GB, if you run 3-4 of them at a time (maybe MC in the front, in Theater View, with a big library, while you have a browser open with 10 tabs, and some dumb weather-checking tray application that loads WAY more than it needs to...).  The problem is aggregate, not single applications.

2. Even if #1 never happens, Windows 7 has a great feature called SuperFetch.  This is a predictive algorithm that caches files you are likely to access in RAM before they are accessed.  This can have a fairly dramatic impact on everyday system performance (and it also helps with things like reboot speeds fairly dramatically).  It comes down to this:  Windows 7 will use the RAM you give it.  If not for actually running applications, then for SuperFetch.  Is 16GB total probably overkill for regular HTPC use for most people?  Certainly.  Is 6 or 8GB?  Not at all.  Even if everything you run on a daily basis never uses more than a few hundred MB of RAM (which is unlikely), SuperFetch will use the remainder of the available RAM to cache disk reads and writes, which is the primary "cause" of latency with modern PCs.

PS.  If you've read any guides that recommend disabling SuperFetch, they do NOT know what the heck they're talking about.  SuperFetch is a Very Good Feature of Windows 7, and provides easy-to-demonstrate performance enhancements.  Many of the "optimization" guides out there that recommend disabling services and whatnot are WAY off their marks.  Even the "good" sources of information, don't provide a lot of systematic evidence of improvement from their procedures, and can often cause more trouble than good if you aren't extremely judicious in what you follow.

With a modern Windows 7 PC, the two best things you can upgrade to improve everyday performance are (in order):

1. Get a SSD.
2. If you have less than 4GB of RAM, upgrade to 8GB.

If you have the 32-bit version of the OS, you can't do #2, and this is the cheapest option by far (since RAM is absurdly cheap right now).  And, since there is really no reason to worry about it otherwise, why limit yourself?

I've been using a 64-bit build of Windows 7 since it first came out in the Betas, and I've never, ever, hit an application that didn't work right on Windows 7 64-bit which worked right on Win7 32-bit.  Like I said above, there are examples, but they are edge-cases.  Even if you hit these, in most cases, it is because you are tying to use something incredibly old and abandoned (which could, very well, have its own set of issues, especially security-related).

(An ancient version of Quicken is a perfect example.  You really want to keep all of your financial information in an application that hasn't been updated in 12+ years?  An application that has system services and an online component?  Really?  You've read that there have been some changes in security procedures on Windows since Windows ME, right?)

[JustinChase]

PS.  If you've read any guides that recommend disabling SuperFetch, they do NOT know what the heck they're talking about.  SuperFetch is a Very Good Feature of Windows 7, and provides easy-to-demonstrate performance enhancements.  Many of the "optimization" guides out there that recommend disabling services and whatnot are WAY off their marks.  Even the "good" sources of information, don't provide a lot of systematic evidence of improvement from their procedures, and can often cause more trouble than good if you aren't extremely judicious in what you follow.

Not arguing, just throwing this out there.  The guide I've seen that recommends disabling this states that their recommendation is based on the fact that it writes a LOT to the drive, and an SSD only 'allows' so many writes, so it's slowly killing your SSD.  Simplified explanation, not totally accurate, I'm sure, and I know that SSD's allow millions of writes, so this is probalby not really a big 'problem' to be concerned about.  However, they go on to say that with the speed of an SSD, the advantage to the pre-fetching is negligible, so why bother risking any 'unnecessary' harm to the SSD.

I don't know enough about it to argue the case either way, I'm just throwing it out there as 'food for thought' as it were.

After writing all that, I realize it's totally off-topic, so sorry

[glynor]

That's a great example of a guide where they know enough to be dangerous, but not enough to make good recommendations.

SuperFetch is automatically disabled in Windows 7 when the boot disk is an appropriate SSD (where the costs outweigh the benefits):
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/e7/archive/2009/05/05/support-and-q-a-for-solid-state-drives-and.aspx

Microsoft actually tested it, and found with some first-gen SSDs, disabling SuperFetch actually degraded performance (many first-gen SSDs used controllers that were just repurposed "regular" spinning disk controllers, which are terribly optimized for NAND writes.  With these, writing would also block reads, just like it would on a spinning disk, which is counter-productive on NAND).  They do the right thing based on the performance characteristics of the drive installed.

Also, SuperFetch (and Prefetch and the rest) is a read-intensive operation, with only limited buffer flushing (to keep the disk data intact in the case of a power failure).  There is some additional writing due to the feature, but the total amounts written are incredibly low (and in small, easy-to-wear-level bits).  That and the fact that SuperFetch and Prefetch both have to maintain lists of what they've been doing (essentially a text file of filenames and LBA sectors).  Obviously, these writes are incredibly small.  The main reason that SuperFetch is disabled on SSDs has nothing to do with excessive writes, but is because part of the technology also sends a defrag command to the OS drive (roughly every three days), trying to move the most frequently accessed sectors to the "front" of the disk.

Defragging an SSD, even on the small scale done by SuperFetch, provides no performance benefit, and can actually degrade performance on older, dumber SSD controllers, so it shouldn't be done except for in special circumstances (if you are going to reduce a partition size, for example).

But, again, Windows 7 handles this automatically.  The only time you should have to manually disable it is if you installed an SSD and cloned an existing partition over to the SSD using an older "not-SSD-aware" cloning application.  Even then, most of the time, Windows 7 will detect the SSD and fix itself on the next boot, though this can vary depending on the model of SSD and whether you have proper storage drivers installed.

It is easy enough to check.  Open the Disk Defragmenter in Windows.  If your C drive is listed as available, and it is on an SSD, then Windows did not properly detect the SSD.  In this case, there are plenty of ways to "force" it, but you might be better off doing a clean install.

[kstuart]

Glynor, your analysis seems to be based on rounding each process up to 1gb !

Currently on my HT PC, MC18 is 135mb.   Catalyst Control is 65mb.   Explorer.exe is 27mb.   Everything else (tray icons, etc.) is way less -  7mb, 12mb, etc.

The summary of your argument for Superfetch is "use lots of RAM so that everything can be preloaded in RAM".  This is unnecessary if you have an SSD, and it is also largely unnecessary for a Media PC, which is the subject under discussion.

The whole point of a Media PC is to only run audio and video, because those run better on a dedicated machine, and also because you can hook it directly to the HDTV.

If there is 3gb of memory allocated on a Media PC, there is a memory leak.

[glynor]

There's no point in arguing with a snake oil salesman, and I'm done here.

I'll just reiterate... There is no benefit to going with a 32-bit OS for using MC, you miss out on the other benefits of the 64-bit OS, and it artificially limits your options for system RAM.  I would NOT argue that you need 8, 16, or 32 GB of RAM for your average "media only" HTPC (6 would probably be plenty sufficient, but you also don't want to use four sticks or unmatched RAM on regular consumer boards).  In any case, Windows 7 or 8 64-bit is what I'd recommend.

Manually killing background processes almost always causes more trouble than it is worth.
Fretting about regular writes to your SSD in a consumer system is absurd.
And intentionally picking a 32-bit OS when your motherboard, CPU, and everything else supports a better, more modern option is equally silly.

[kstuart]

There's no point in arguing with a snake oil salesman, and I'm done here.

Well I seem to be arguing with a RAM salesman.  

I've given you real examples of RAM usage on my HT PC as I type these messages.

You haven't given me any specific examples of what could possibly use 3gb on a Home Theater PC.

Again, a media player playing a .WAV file uses 10mb of RAM.

And BTW, stopping the services like Superfetch is not to save writes to the SSD, it's because they were designed for systems with spinning hard drives, and are simply no longer needed.

Manually killing background processes almost always causes more trouble than it is worth.

Except when you are running real-time for audio or video, when killing background processes for unneeded things like Enterprise System Administration almost always eliminates trouble.

[BillT]

(An ancient version of Quicken is a perfect example.  You really want to keep all of your financial information in an application that hasn't been updated in 12+ years?  An application that has system services and an online component?  Really?  You've read that there have been some changes in security procedures on Windows since Windows ME, right?)

Yes, I do actually. Quicken does what I want perfectly well, with no online usage. I've looked, but there don't seem to be any modern alternatives that don't use cloud storage and/or require mountains of work to convert the existing data to comply with the foibles of the developer of the new program. As Quicken doesn't access the internet I'm a bit at a loss to see how it's a security threat, especially as it's run in a virtual machine (also old and, no doubt insecure!). This is low grade domestic data, not enterprise level stuff.

I wasn't advocating 32 bit OS's by the way, just pointing out a program that won't work on W7 64 bit. Most of my machines run 64 bit OS's now.

[glynor]

I wasn't advocating 32 bit OS's by the way, just pointing out a program that won't work on W7 64 bit. Most of my machines run 64 bit OS's now.

Sorry, I wasn't actually trying to directly criticize you there (running it in a VM is certainly the best way).  FWIW, though, I was curious so I looked it up... Quicken 2000 won't run on either Windows 7 "versions" without tweaking it, so that isn't an example of what I was trying to point out.  My point was not that there aren't programs that won't run on Windows 7 at all, only that those that work right on Windows 7 32-bit, but do not work right on Windows 7 64-bit, are quite rare.  This isn't an example of that, because it has trouble with both versions.

Also, if you ever did want to get that running on Windows 7 64-bit (which I wouldn't do, the VM is a better choice), it does seem to be possible.  As is often the case, you apparently just have to copy the installer over to the hard drive (if the source is an optical disc) and then run the installer itself in compatibility mode.  There are tons of examples online if you care.

I, personally, still wouldn't trust it running directly.  In a VM you can control network access, of course, but be aware... Just because an application isn't designed to have an online component, doesn't mean it is invulnerable.  Especially with old applications, they can have faulty components that can provide an attack surface.  For example, many older applications still have "self-updaters" and whatnot.  They may use an old, out of date HTML rendering engine to display things like graphs and a "home screen", even when they don't access information from "the web".  Even if this particular application doesn't do either of those, it is entirely possible for it to still open you to a buffer overflow exploit while it is running.  Sometimes older applications that weren't "trying" to go online are actually the worst offenders, because the developers never considered online attacks (it doesn't go online, so I don't need to follow good practice).  Not saying any of this applies to Quicken 2000 (I don't know, and I don't care enough to look).

But it is an example of "excuses" people make to avoid modernizing (eg, not using a VM), which can lead to terrible results, and that was my point.

Sorry if it was poorly made.

[DwestSeattle]

I'm not going to get into the 32 vs. 64 bit, 3GB of RAM vs. 8GB of RAM debate. 

In response to the original question, my vote is for windows 8.

The ability to launch and use the new metro apps directly from theater view (see http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=76530.msg523064#msg523064) , and the better job windows 8 does of presenting text content on a big screen, make it work really well for me.

[Boltron]

I work in the software industry and was (a long time ago) developer for many years, before that I was in hardware. With the current generation of Operating Systems, software, hardware (CPU, SSDs etc…) and cost of RAM, it is nuts to go with anything less than a 64 bit O/S and 8 GB of memory. For example, my notebook has 16GB and my main desktop 64GB. Current generation operating systems (Windows, Linux etc…) will use any excess memory for caching (filesystem buffer cache for example) among other things.

In general, the more available RAM (within reason of course), the smoother things will run, period. Can you run Windows with 3GB of RAM? sure but why? Unless all you do is check email with a simple client and surf web text pages, you will benefit with more memory. Anyone who thinks otherwise does not understand the current state computer technology.

Bottom line, my time is valuable and I don't want to be slowed down O/S paging and subsequent disk thrashing.

[kstuart]

I work in the software industry and was (a long time ago) developer for many years, before that I was in hardware. With the current generation of Operating Systems, software, hardware (CPU, SSDs etc…) and cost of RAM, it is nuts to go with anything less than a 64 bit O/S and 8 GB of memory. For example, my notebook has 16GB and my main desktop 64GB. Current generation operating systems (Windows, Linux etc…) will use any excess memory for caching (filesystem buffer cache for example) among other things.

In general, the more available RAM (within reason of course), the smoother things will run, period. Can you run Windows with 3GB of RAM? sure but why? Unless all you do is check email with a simple client and surf web text pages, you will benefit with more memory. Anyone who thinks otherwise does not understand the current state computer technology.

Bottom line, my time is valuable and I don't want to be slowed down O/S paging and subsequent disk thrashing.

First, I'm also a software developer.

Second, all of these arguments make sense in principle.  But the problem is that technology is not a matter of principle, it is a matter of math.

Someone can also make your and Glynor's argument as:

Can you run Windows with 30GB of RAM? sure but why? Unless all you do is check email with a simple client and surf web text pages, you will benefit with more memory.

If someone says to you:

8GB of RAM ?  You can't be serious !  It will work so much better with 16GB of RAM !

then what is your reply ?

You can do that endlessly.

It's all a question of math.   If you are doing CAD/CAM or creating the next Gollum, you want far more memory than what we need for audio/video.

Here's my math:

4GB of RAM installed.

Using PAE, 800mb that is otherwise unusable goes to a RAM Drive, which is used for the pagefile.  Very responsive, and no "thrashing".

I just played a 1080p file full screen in MC18 with Red October STD, and the peak memory usage was 1.4GB.

Catalyst Control is using 130mb.  Explorer.exe is using 35mb.  Everything else is using less.  Most of the MS services are 16mb or 8mb, roughly.

I'm still waiting for anything in my Home Theater PC to cause it to use more than 2GB of available memory.

[Jong]

I think this has run its course! Kstuart, above you said above you would put 8GB in a new HTPC due to the low cost and others are really saying the same. No one has argued that it is essential. Everyone agrees that an HTPC will work with 3GB or even 2GB. The debate, such as it is, is whether anyone would now recommend building a new PC without an x64 variant of Windows and <8GB. I'm not sure anyone is. 

[talyn21]

I thought I would give an update.  I installed Windows 7 Professional 64 bit on my new computer and MC so far is working just fine.   

While researching a solution for my whole house audio I found several posts from people looking for the same solution but no real answers so I thought I would share what I have done.  As mentioned I built a new computer from scratch.  I am currently using six Creative USB sound cards, the outputs connected to a 12 channel (6 stereo) amp and my house was pre-wired for speakers in the future.  I have a USB 3 7 port hub which I tucked in inside the computer case so it is a fairly clean looking setup.  I purchased the JRemote app for my iPhone to control everything.  It all works pretty sweet and for a fraction of the cost of a similar Sonos setup would cost.  This is really the first day I have had it in it's final configuration so I still have a lot learning to do.

 

[csimon]

I am currently using six Creative USB sound cards, the outputs connected to a 12 channel (6 stereo) amp and my house was pre-wired for speakers in the future.  I have a USB 3 7 port hub which I tucked in inside the computer case so it is a fairly clean looking setup.  I purchased the JRemote app for my iPhone to control everything. 

Very interesting!  Do you have the same audio playing in all rooms or do you have them as individually controllable zones? If they are individual zones, JRemote won't allow zone linking so how do you synchronise the zones if you want the saem audio in more than one room?  Also, how do you control volume in each room - do you have one of those amps that has impedance-matching wall control in each room or do you use MC to control volume?

[talyn21]

I created a separate zone for each USB audio card.  I have currently only had a different audio source playing on all six zones at the same time.   Getting a "party" mode working was next on the list.  It is a bummer that JRemote does not control zone linking - I thought I had read that it would.  Maybe somebody was just asking for that feature.  At this time I only use the JRemote app to control the volume - so MC is doing that.  The amp I have also has volume controls for each channel so I can limit/scale how loud it can get.   

[csimon]

I think the zone linking is probably on the to-do list for JRemote, it has been mentioned. But the problem is how far do you go in creating a fully-fledged MC app with all the features of the main program! I think there's a a pretty strong argument for an MC client on a handheld device...

Anyway, I'm currently working out how to get whole-house audio. I'm in a 200-yr old house built of stone, therefore wiring things is a problem, whether it's speaker cable, audio cable, or network cable. Wireless is also a problem because of 2-foot thick stone walls!

By far the easiest solution from a usability point of view is a central amp like yours and passive speakers in each room, with local on-off and volume control. And a handheld app to control MC with easy to use and on-the-fly zone linking and unlinking, possibly with the ability to save and recall presets of combinations of zones.

At the moment, a central multi-channel amp with local volume control is probably out of the question for me, because of cost and because of wiring speaker cable.

Small DLNA media renderers in each room is not ideal either because of getting network into each room and because DLNA isn't good at synchronisation.

It is not a likely possibility that there will be a need for different music in each room in my case, so I think my choices are coming down to either a multi-way stereo audio distribution amplifier (these are fairly cheap) with powered speakers in each room, or a wireless audio transmitter with multiple receivers, again with powered speakers.