"Is there someway to bookmark this thread for future use without having to do a search and I'll probably never be able to find it since I didn't start it?"

Sure. You can bookmark the thread in your browser. I never can find anything by doing a search on the forum either.

Gil.

You could include it in your Watched Topic list also.

Long story short, using a 32-bit operating system limits you to a maximum of 4 GB of RAM--and only 3.5 GB in Windows. You can HAVE more RAM, but a 32-bit operating system won't be able to do anything with it. A 64-bit OS theoretically allows billions of times more RAM to be addressed, (16 exbibytes,) but in modern versions of Windows it "only" allows it to address up to 192 GB of physical RAM (or less in the Home Premium, Home Basic and Starter editions.)

A 64-bit OS also allows you to run 64-bit software, which--if properly optimized--can run faster than 32-bit software, largely because it can use more RAM to avoid tripping over itself.

There are some drawbacks to a 64-bit OS: for example, 64-bit versions of Windows won't accept unsigned drivers, which is good for stability, but can make it hard to find drivers for old peripherals like printers and scanners.

Additionally, you can't run 16-bit software on 64-bit Windows, so old 16-bit software won't run natively and requires emulation (using DOSBox, for example, or XP Mode in the upper-tier versions of Windows 7.)

However, unless you're really attached to a particular 20-year-old printer, or you're running a business that really needs to run some ancient, custom-built 16-bit software, the drawbacks to 64-bit are negligible compared to its benefits.

Or to put it in a more non tech way - think of your car as a 'bit' of information on the road and then imagine all of the other vehicles on the road as 'bits' of information too. More vehicles can move around on a road that has 4 lanes than those on 2 lanes. Now imagine a road with 32 lanes and another with 64 lanes and you can see that more vehicles can travel on the 64 lane road.

So basically more data or 'bits' of information can move or process inside your machine with a 64 bit system than a 32 bit.

The other answers are correct but sometimes I feel using an illustration of something more familiar is helpful at times too!

If and when you purchase another computer you will likely want to 'future proof' having to upgrade it again sooner by having a 64 bit system. As mentioned you cannot run 16 bit stuff on a 64 bit system and that is how things are going to keep progressing as time goes on. Eventually 32 bit stuff will not be able to be ran, then 64 etc. . . . Granted this will take some time but it may help with deciding what to do when upgrading.

To have an idea of how technology keeps moving forward IBM has a new supercomputer model that will be able to do about the same number of calculations every second as every man, woman and child in the U.S. could do in one year if they were to do one calculation each second. Amazing isn’t it.

There's not much point in getting a 32-bit version of Windows 7. It's true some older games (from the 90's and earlier) won't work natively in 64-bit Windows 7 because they have 16-bit code. But such old games aren't likely to work natively in 32-bit Windows 7 either. You can probably get these old games to work on a Windows 7 computer using DOSBox or Virtual PC or VMware. But it won't matter to the game whether the computer outside the emulated environment uses 32-bit or 64-bit Windows.

Thanks all for your answers!!!

WllI think I've decided on this:

2.8Ghz Intel Core i5-760 8MB Cache Quad-Core
Stock Intel LGA1156 Heatsink and Fan
ECS H55H-CM (Intel H55 Video HDMI, PCI-E, 6xSATA2, 4xDDR3)
8GB (4GBx2) PC3 10666 DDR3 1333Mhz Memory Lifetime Warranty
22X LG SATA Dual Layer DVD+/-RW/CDRW w/Nero
1GB GeForce GTX 460 GDDR5 PCI-E Dual-DVI (Major Brand)
Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium 64bit
CoolerMaster Black Elite 310 (4 5.25, 4 3.5) Fan, Audio/USB
550watt Stock Supply
Onboard LAN included
Onboard Sound included
Wires and Cables neatly tied up away from fans
3 Year Parts and Labor Limited Warranty

Thee is an option for case fans; does that mean none are included or are these just extra?
Thanks for all your help!
caz

I'm not really sure.
You could email eCollegePC to see what they say.

Here is what you get in the stock CoolerMaster Black Elite 310:

Rear: 120 x 25mm fan x 1 / 1200 RPM / 17 dBA (pre-install) ; 80mm / 90mm (optional)
Front: 120 x 25 mm fan x 1(optional)
Side: 80 / 90 / 120 mm fan x 1 (optional)

So, maybe someone who knows way more than I do can tell you if the components you've selected need more cooling fans. If you do, they are pretty cheap - $8 for one and in the front and $15 for both front and side fans in addition to the stock rear fan.

I'd definitely lean towards at least one extra one in the front.

I definitely recommend a front fan in addition to the rear one for better airflow.

The side fan is optional: extra fans add noise, and the cabling on a side fan can get in the way if you decide to open up the case. On the other hand, it would give your video card a little extra ventilation, which might be useful on a very warm day. I don't think the third fan will make much difference either way, but it's probably worth the money.

First of all thank you everyone!
One last ? I promise.
Am I correct in thinking a higher end Dual Core processor would be better than a entry level Quad?
I hear a Quad doesn't help much with games anyway and runs hotter.
Thanks, caz

If you're talking about the Core i5 760 processor you selected in that last configuration, it's a different architecture that the Core 2 Duos or the Core 2 Quads. From what I read, that Core i5 760 is considered an excellent processor for the "middle-of-the-road" processors in it's class. If it were me, I'd get the current generation of Core i3/i5/i7 processors. Well, not quite "current" if you consider the 2nd Generation Sandy Bridge processors.

Probably doesn't answer your question, but I'll leave that to Inland or Jenny!

I'm not sure I understand the question.
Weren't you looking at an i5, Cazziejoe?
I don't think of that as entry level.

I guess it boils down to Dual Core vs. Quad or am I getting it wrong...
These are the 2 options I was looking at. They're both the same price ($99).

3.2 ghz Intel Core i5-655k 4MB cache Dual Core
2.8 ghz Intel Core i5-760k 8MB cache Quad Core

Not sure which would be better (or why).
Thanks, Caz

The i5-760k is a better choice.

In modern games Quad Core actually does make a significant difference. The 760 also has double the cache size, so its performance will be more even. The difference in clockspeeds is minimal, and with four cores, the 760 is going to beat the 655 in almost every game and application. I could probably dig up some benchmarks to demonstrate, but essentially the 655 is a budget processor with some overclocking potential, while the 760 is a faster quad core for a mid-range PC.

Plus, I think many people are still thinking of that 2.8 or 3.2 Ghtz number as the indicator of the speed of a processor. That's more back in the old Pentium days.

What Demosthenes said!

Wheeeeeee!
Just ordered my new computer. This what I ended up with:
2.8Ghz Intel Core i5-760 8MB Cache Quad-Core
Stock Intel LGA1156 Heatsink and Fan
GIGABYTE GA-H55M-UD2H (Intel H55 HDMI, 2xPCI-E, 6xSATA2, 4xDDR3)
4GB (2GBx2) PC3 10666 DDR3 1333Mhz Memory Lifetime Warranty
500GB 7200RPM 16MB Cache Serial ATA300 (Major Brand)
22X LG SATA Dual Layer DVD+/-RW/CDRW w/Nero
1GB GeForce GTS 450 GDDR5 PCI-E DVI/HDMI (Major Brand)
Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium 64bit
CoolerMaster Black Elite 430 (3 5.25, 6 3.5) Fan, Audio/USB
600watt OCZ ModXStream Pro OCZ600MXSP
Onboard LAN included
Onboard Sound included
120mm Case Fan
Wires and Cables neatly tied up away from fans
3 Year Parts and Labor Limited Warranty

And all for $825 and free shipping!
I'll be sending out birth announcements shortly.
Thank to everyone for they're input.
caz

Great choices! I know you will be very happy with your new computer!

i meant to ask this:
I still have my XP OS restore disc. Can I install it on my new computer in a partition or does an OS get to old for the processor? Pros and con? Thinking if I can't get an older game to run.
Actually did I need to purchase Win 7 at all?
You don't have to purchase an OS when you buy the computer.
Haven't gotten it yet; just curious.
Thanks, caz

Someone may correct me if I'm wrong, but a restore disk is not the same as a full installation disk. I believe you must have the existing OS on the hard drive before the restore disk will work.

And, yes, you did need to get that Windows 7 installation to get a working OS on the new computer. The nice thing about using a place like ecollecepc is that you will get the actual Windows 7 full installation disk plus all the other disks that go with the computer such as driver disks etc.

Hi Draclvr.
I thinK I wasn't clear. I do have the full installation disc so I was wondering if I actually needed to buy Win7 or could I just have installed XP on the new computer from my old installation disc.
And can I have both on one computer?
Thanks, caz

From the specs listed above your new computer will come with Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit. I don't think you want to go back to Windows XP, it won't be supported that much longer and 7 is much better. I know you can put both on a system, I don't know how but others here do. Anyway if your XP OS was put in your old computer as OEM, you legally can't put it in another computer. You would have had to have the "full" version of it.

It's true that if you have an OEM copy of Windows XP, you're not allowed to install it on a new computer.

Fortunately, there's really not much reason to use XP instead of Windows 7. There's a small group of XP-compatible programs that won't work under Windows 7, but almost everything can either be run natively or run using emulation. The few programs that can't run one way or the other often won't run under XP, either.

XP's extended support phase ends in 2014, and in the meantime it's less secure than Vista or Windows 7, needs to be manually configured to enable IPv6 support, doesn't support DirectX 10 or 11, and doesn't handle crashes well. Some new hard drives also use larger sectors which XP won't understand, requiring special installation and leading to degraded performance on XP. You might even have to re-jumper your hard drive to get it working. The 64-bit edition is esentially useless, so you'd be stuck using the 32-bit edition, which can't see more than 3.5GB of RAM.

If you still wanted it, and you have a non-OEM version of XP, you could theoretically install a XP on a second partition, but to do so you'd need to repartition the drive into two parts, wiping out your current installation of Windows, then install Windows XP under one partition (along with all the drivers, if available) followed by Windows 7 on the other partition (along with drivers.) Then you'd have to reconfigure Windows 7's BCD file (using BCDEdit or another program) to get the computer to ask you which OS you wanted to start during each boot process. Finally, you'd need to install separate installations of your software on each OS.

Since you have only one hard drive, you'd probably also want a third partition on which to keep data--otherwise things can become very messy. But on a 500GB drive, you'd have to be very careful figuring out partition sizes. Do you give the two OSes 100GB each, and leave 300GB for data? What if you want to install a bunch of large programs? Are you going to install them all on the data partition when you run out of room?

In my experience, a dual boot of the two OSes doesn't even work very well. Even from separate partitions, the two OSes have a tendency to stomp on each other's toes. You'd have to install programs on each OS separately, and if you make one or the other partition too small, you'd run out of room. Every time you want to switch between OSes, you'd have to reboot, and you'll have to keep redundant versions of certain software, like antivirus, browers, and any other software you want available on both versions of Windows.

The manufacturers of the individual parts for your computer may not even have drivers available for XP, so it might not work properly.

Basically I think the whole thing is just can of worms better left unopened.

Man, I couldn't have said it any better, Demosthenes. I love having my old XP drive to do certain things and as a backup, but that's all it'll ever be now. It's just time to move on...

It's possible to have both on one computer, and you may not even need to delete your current installation. If you are able to move all Windows 7 files so they are on the first half of the hard drive (using a defragging program), you can then boot from a Linux CD with gparted and shrink the Windows 7 partition. (***This site*** recommends using PerfectDisc to move files instead of the defragging program that comes with Windows). You can't shrink a partition while you're booted into the operating system that's on that same partition, which is why you have to use a boot disk.

After shrinking the Windows 7 partition, you have unallocated space in which to create a new partition for XP. After installing XP, you have to repair the Windows 7 boot menu because XP won't recognize Windows 7 and won't create a boot menu. The process of repairing the boot menu so you can access both XP and Windows 7 is explained ***here***.

Alternatively you could just wipe everything out, create the two partitions, and install both operating systems from scratch, but that means you'll have to install all the Windows 7 drivers as well as the XP drivers.

Although I've never shrunk a partition myself in order to dual boot, I've watched someone else do it. I was sure it wouldn't work and that they'd lose their original install, but it worked just fine.

Anyway, if you find that Windows 7 isn't working out for the games you're playing, it is possible to add a dual boot later. It takes a while and I'd recommend backing up all files you want to save ahead of time, but it's possible to do it.