ติดตั้ง Steam
เข้าสู่ระบบ
|
ภาษา
简体中文 (จีนตัวย่อ)
繁體中文 (จีนตัวเต็ม)
日本語 (ญี่ปุ่น)
한국어 (เกาหลี)
български (บัลแกเรีย)
Čeština (เช็ก)
Dansk (เดนมาร์ก)
Deutsch (เยอรมัน)
English (อังกฤษ)
Español - España (สเปน)
Español - Latinoamérica (สเปน - ลาตินอเมริกา)
Ελληνικά (กรีก)
Français (ฝรั่งเศส)
Italiano (อิตาลี)
Bahasa Indonesia (อินโดนีเซีย)
Magyar (ฮังการี)
Nederlands (ดัตช์)
Norsk (นอร์เวย์)
Polski (โปแลนด์)
Português (โปรตุเกส - โปรตุเกส)
Português - Brasil (โปรตุเกส - บราซิล)
Română (โรมาเนีย)
Русский (รัสเซีย)
Suomi (ฟินแลนด์)
Svenska (สวีเดน)
Türkçe (ตุรกี)
Tiếng Việt (เวียดนาม)
Українська (ยูเครน)
รายงานปัญหาเกี่ยวกับการแปลภาษา
กฎและแนวทางปฏิบัติในกระดานสนทนา
รายงานโพสต์นี้
Maybe theoretically you can get a better performance on win 8
Here's the situation as I see it:
- you have 4GB of ram
- from that 4GB, you need to deduct your video memory (that's how APUs work, and the A6-5200 is an APU). That can be any amount from 256MB to at least 1GB, possibly 2GB (based on other APUs I have owned).
- The actual amount of ram available to your system will be less than 4GB. It could be 3.7 GB, it could be 3GB.
- Windows 10 Home x64 uses between 2 to 3GB of ram at idle (my experience).
- Windows 10 Home 32-bit (referred to as Win10 x86) uses about 1GB at idle (Hawkens' video).
- If you install Win10 x64 (64 bit) on your machine (which is I assume the version you downloaded & installed when you tried it), it was probably using between 2-3GB of ram at idle. That doesn't leave you a lot of ram for actually running applications and using your computer, which is why it ran slowly.
- Installing Win10 x86 (32-bit) would use around 1GB of ram at idle, leaving you about 2GB free for you to run programs (including playing games).
- Windows 10 x86 (32 bit) can only address 3.3 GB of ram. Normally, running Win10 x86 (32 bit) on a system with 4GB of ram would result in any additional ram being "wasted" (ie unused). That is not the case here, since your system ram is used for video memory.
So when Hawkens says
he is wrong. The additional ram space made available by running 32-bit Windows should allow you to run Win10 32-bit with few if any problems. They won't "feel" the same on your computer (since you have said several times that your computer ran slowly with Win10 x64).
Would my recommendation be different if you had more ram? Sure. But you don't. And frankly I wouldn't spend any money upgrading that laptop to add more ram (if it were even possible). Something that old simply isn't worth the investment.
I don't recommend Windows 7 in any form. There are no more security updates. You'll be at risk in any online activities you take.
Depending on what sort of games you like to play, you might consider Linux, which is much lighter on system resources than Windows. But the problem with any Linux distro is that, while gaming on Linux has massively improved in recent years (thanks largely to Valve's efforts), it's still not a plug 'n play experience. So if you're looking to install your operating system & drivers, then install some games and expect them to play w/o issue, Linux is probably not the right choice for you.
The memory compression which I gave as an example will quite heavily affect RAM usage comparisons. So comparing Windows 7 vs 8 vs 10 isn't as simple as just putting the big numbers next to eachother.
Generally speaking, when a flame war starts, the ones who are *not* bakcing themselves up are the ones to blame. How about you all link to some verifiable testing to back up your claims...
FACT: Windows 10 boots and operates on less resources than 8 or 7.
FACT: Windows 10 will operate just as fast as 8 on an identical system and *nearly* as fast as 7 while having all the modern features and updates.
FACT: Windows 10 runs as good or better than either on legacy hardware.
All three of those facts are widely supported by testing done by people toher than myself, and people with WAY more credibility in the PC world than any one in this forrum.
If you *make* me I can and will gladly bury you in links to page after page or video after video proving this to you and showing all of you how false you seem to be in your assumptions of windows and its requirements. Though I would rather not waste my time, as I doubt it will change youe mind even if I back up my statements. So far it seems that way.
Even MS themselves know this, which is why window 10 and windows 7 have basically the same minimums.
They will feel the same on the same system. RAM overhead on 64 vs 32 bits is miniscule and *not* enough difference on any system of modern types to make an impact on performance.
I said old computers run windows 10 sloe, but thats not cuz its 10, they run 7 or 8 just as slow, its b/c the systems are old and slow. Doesnt mean 10 is *slower* its about the same as any other OS on the given systems.
Most of you speak from what appears to be blatant book knowledge on this exact issue. You all seem to know computers well (I know most of you do) but I doubt many of you have *actualy tested this stuff (windows on legacy slow hardware) yourself*. I do. I collect old hardware. I have a 32bit dualcore L2500 @ 1.8Ghz lenovo running windows 10 32bit (due to lacking x64) with 3GB ram. I have an older Athlon 64 x2 4800+ build running DDR-400 ram and limited to 3.25GB Ram due to chipset limitations, but still running 10-x64. I have run 10 on pentium 4's and early core 2 duos, and support a machine at work that runs 10 on an E1-1500 APU with 4GB ram single chanel.
Every one of ^^those^^ systems is slower and worse performing than the OP's, and every one of them runs 10 just as well as they do 7, but with far more compatibility in todays world running 10 than 7.
Fact is 10 is just as light as 7 or 8 on hardware, runs just as good as 8 for sure on any legacy hardware, and should be the de-facto choice for install in this day and age. Only reason to go for 32 bit is if you lack the instruction sets needed *OR* if you are on LOW ram (ie less than 2GB). With 3+ the few hundred megs you gain or lose are unnoticable, but if you are trying to run 10 on say 1GB ram then yes, you will notice the ~200mb saves on an x86 install.
Everyone calls flame war then the reality is you are all spewing BS and failing to back it up, I am backing up my statments and trying to set the record straight for the OP. His system will run just as fast (or just as slow) with 10 as it does with 8, and 7 is a non-contender at this point due to lacking updates. Even if it were the potential benefit on 7 would be so minor that the cons of the OS would outweight the (maybe) 3-5% imptovmernt in *some* cases. More often than not it would also be just as slow.
So much time has spent arguing about it OP could have tried it and been underwhelmed for for hours and hours by now, and announced he's just going to risk going to Windows 7 or back to 8.1.
He won't lose it in this case, since it's lost to the APU video memory anyway.
See, I did this comparison with my P4 system and Windows 7. There was a difference in system load, which was the difference between the system being usable for everyday tasks and being completely unable to function. Win10 could obviously be different.
Unknowledgeable and not very tech savvy people complain Linux can't run anything. Well I say Windows 10 32bit runs even less so just go Linux. Pretty much everything is 64bit nowadays, especially when talking about games.
Do it, dump the max amount of RAM it can take in it and watch it struggle for 2 hours after boot.
my2ct
DDR2... pshhh... Too new...
Firestrike on DDR-400 and a socket 939 athlon...
https://www.3dmark.com/fs/18483722
Back when Nvidia still made chipsets...
(in that test it *is* on 7 though, that was more b/c it was simply what I had on had and not due to windows 10 being not good enough, though I have heard rumors that window 10 doesnt work well with NV chipsets as there is no driver support for such a niche piece of legacy hardware at this point (AMD/Intel chipsets are fine)).
I could try and stick 10 on that machine and see hwo it does, though now days the 670 has been pulled and replaced with a far weaker but better ballanced (for the system) quadro.
Seriously though, you should be able to run 10 just fine on that system. I initially ran 10 on a pentium 4 (socket 478 prescot, DDR Ram) for testing it when it was still in RC stages as I didnt want to risk screwing up my (then) current install of windows 7 with a release client.
Windows 10 will work just fine, but my recommendation is upgrade your ram too 8 gigs.
probably cuz u didnt let it finish updating?