Having some stupid problems regarding 32/64 OSes

[Mutta Bones]

kay, SO I currently run a i5-3300,which I felt was wayy too less when i started watching LTT, but when I came here, 3rd gen core is like half the people I met here.

When I got it in like '14 or smth, it had a pirated version of win 7. I took a little time and I tried installing win10. The upgrade doesn't happen automatically unfortunately, as the version was pirated and for upgrading to win 10, it asked me to buy a license, (idk whether it was pirated since it asked for a license, but dont care.)

everytime I try to upgrade with a fresh install and a usb boot drive, the drive doesn't boot. it just shows to connect a boot drive. One day, after being fed the fuck up, I just got high and tried a bit 32 install, and wouldn't ya know, it worked. I figured the CPU was 32 bit and didnt think twice. got it all set up until 2 months later when I got high again watching linus (torvalds) say " nvidia, fuck you " and repeating after him even though I didn't have a " discrete GPU ".

I just went after the next big tech- windows. Unfortunately any option was 64 bit, that was easy to setup, while having features. Left it at that point when I became high again a month later, and tried to install pop-os, even though it said64 bit was required, and wouldn't ya know again, it worked. got it all setup which made me think why the hell it was possible to run 32 and 64 bit together. Googling showed the "architecture" to be " x64 " which means it can run both 64 and 32 bit. but here's the problem, it ran 32 bit win 10, but not 64 bit, while able to run a friggin 64 bit puppy (not puppy linux, puppy -> linux). So did windows cheat on me, without knowing my deeper emotions, while linux took time understand my problems and became my soul mate?

[Mojo-Jojo]

Not to be a dick man but your post makes no sense to me.

[Mutta Bones]

okay buddy, TLDR- I could run 64 bit pop OS, but not 64 bit windows. only 32 bit windows

Running an i5- 3300 ( a x64 architecture based processor that is supposed to run both 32 bit AND 64 bit OSes and apps.

[Chiyawa]

Actually, if I remember correctly, Core 2 Duo era processors can run 64-bit OS. Your system certainly capable of running 64-bit Windows. There could be a lot of factor why your bootable USB couldn't show up:

 

1. Using UEFI bootable USB on Legacy mode BIOS and vice versa. Make sure you set the BIOS correctly.

2. In some strange cases, the system couldn't detect the bootable USB even in the BIOS the setting was correct. If that's the case, you need to manually add the bootable USB to the UEFI boot option. That's going to be tricky.

 

So, you might want to check this before you conclude that your system can't run Windows 64-bit. I'm able to get Windows 64 bit installed in a laptop that has Core i5 2520M processor, a generation older than yours.

 

Well, Pirated OS is pretty common in many places because at most places, we couldn't afford Windows. But since Windows comes pre-installed in most laptops, this is mostly a thing of the past. The problem is that either your system doesn't come pre-installed with Windows, or that user wants to use Windows 7 Pro.

 

Actually, OS design to run x86_64 (or 64 bit) will not run in processor that doesn't support x64 architecture, even most of the command are 32-bit. That's why we still have x86 and x86_64 OS. Your system can still run 32-bit OS, but there are many limitation, one notable limitation is that your system couldn't utilised more than 4GB of RAM, even if you have 8GB RAM installed. Another limitation is that software will mostly be hard limited to 2GB RAM usage, which if you are doing a spreadsheet with extreme numbers of values and calculation, you'll going to run out of memory your OS allocated to the software.

 

Anyway, this is purely on my opinion, but I felt Ubuntu are much better than Pop OS. Ubuntu sure has its ups and downs, but it is more GUI friendly and still maintain a robust Linux terminal, but many old school Linux users will have a hard time to adapt it because rather than using Gnome or KDE or Xorg Desktop Environment, Ubuntu uses Unity Desktop Environment, and although it was built using Gnome, it is very different.

[Mojo-Jojo]

13 minutes ago, Mutta Bones said:

okay buddy, TLDR- I could run 64 bit pop OS, but not 64 bit windows. only 32 bit windows

Running an i5- 3300 ( a x64 architecture based processor that is supposed to run both 32 bit AND 64 bit OSes and apps.

Oh actually, I think I get what you mean now. I used to have the exact opposite on a system - Would run 64-bit Windows just fine, but could not get it to run 64-bit Linux distros. Turns out even though it had a 64-bit processor, the UEFI was 32-bit. This prevented it from correctly loading the linux kernel for a long time.

 

Eventually distros caught up and GRUB matured as well. UEFI can be a beast and can easily throw a wrench in the works due to some obscure setting.

[xAcid9]

Is this a surface tablet or some kind of tablet? 

52 minutes ago, Mutta Bones said:

everytime I try to upgrade with a fresh install and a usb boot drive, the drive doesn't boot. it just shows to connect a boot drive.

Maybe your bootable usb drive failed or the image you use is non-bootable. 

 

52 minutes ago, Mutta Bones said:

One day, after being fed the fuck up, I just got high and tried a bit 32 install, and wouldn't ya know, it worked.

You install by running the executable (Setup.exe)?

[Vishera]

59 minutes ago, Mutta Bones said:

So did windows cheat on me, without knowing my deeper emotions, while linux took time understand my problems and became my soul mate?

A clean install of Windows would have solved the issue you had...

Anyway all Intel/AMD modern desktop processors are X86_64 meaning they can execute both X86 instructions (32-bit),and X64 instructions (64-bit)

32 bit versions of Windows were cheaper back in the day so a lot of people bought them.

[Mutta Bones]

ok I was SERIOUSLY high when I made this post. I still am, but to a much lesser extent. So giving out replies one or two replies at a time

@Chiyawa

Ok, so the entire point I tried to convey is that I was not able to use a 64 bit OS on the DESKTOP PC for some unknown reason. I didn't want to come to the conclusion that it cannot run, as it ran 64 bit Pop OS perfectly fine. I have no idea on different distros, but pop OS came with Nvidia drivers which a lot of people said it to be a plus point. I was like, eff it, Let's also look for some kinda quadro for this setup.

exactly what you meant in point 1, feels like the solution so I would appreciate something deeper on the steps to do.

Also, I know only 4Gigs of ram is usable. guess what? your boy can't afford 8 gigs. when I got it, this was the sub 200$ setup, when windows wasn't free, and dd4 was just on the rise. which means that 4 gigs is dd3, stock speed of 1333hz. vErY pOwErFuL. When we(my parents actually, I was prolly 8 at the time when we got it in i think in '14)

We didn't get it for " gaming " btw, so it don't matter. Obviously I was overjoyed at the desktop because it was the first PC i read about in my CS classes, (we learnt to type and notepad tutorials). It was better than the laptop cause well, it was bigger in terms of cabinet and monitor.

@Mojo-Jojo

Yeah, that might be a problem, I would check it up, and try to update the bios since well, I never did in the last 8 years. But STILLL? how did 64 bit linux boot up when windows did not? that is downright illogical for such an absurd problem.

@Vishera @xAcid9

Ya seriously think I tried only once ?

I first tried to flash via etcher on mac, when it prompted to use rufus, I shrugged off. When the flash didn't work the first time, I flashed two more time just to be sure. the last time on a completely new stick. I used rufus on another dell laptop hanging around, the same procedure. it never booted up. I used the windows tool again to flash it. no luck. Only when I selected 32 bit, it booted up. Tbh, windows 7 from windows 10 feels like breathing fresh air, until I was fed up with MS's BS and tried to switch to linux. tried pop OS and it worked.  pop os officially is 64 bit, which made me come here.

 

[Kilrah]

1 hour ago, Mutta Bones said:

ok I was SERIOUSLY high when I made this post. I still am, but to a much lesser extent.

You might want to edit the title as it makes no sense at all.

 

There have been laptops in this era with a 32-bit only UEFI indeed and that was causing all kinds of trouble but not aware of that on desktop mobos. And it usually mostly causes trouble with linux, so if that works it's most likely not the issue.

 

Anyway I'm also mostly for install media issues since Windows should just work straight. Win11 64bit media will still boot just fine on my 2008 core 2 quad. BIOS reset might help in case some weird option is enabled.

 

Another solution is to install Ventoy on the USB drive and then copy the ISO to it. 

[BahnStormer]

4 hours ago, Mojo-Jojo said:

Not to be a dick man but your post makes no sense to me.

I did notice multiple references to getting high... which may explain a lot! LOL!

 

TLDR summary would be that he managed to be given a PC with a pirated version on win10, which was 32 bit... when Microsoft caught up with him and made him pay for it, they didn't force him to re-install, so it stayed 32bit, even though he purchased both 32bit+64bit licenses... it sounds like it won't let him install 64bit - but if it's not a clean install, it will detect the 32bit and push him to create the new install media as 32bit - if you don't over-ride it at that point, you are stuck on 32bit.

 

No surprise, but when he did a clean install of a new OS: pop_OS! (Linux), it was installed as 64bit (Linux also has lower memory footprint, so less incentive to avoid 64bit).

 

For anybody confused by the 32bit/64bit muddling above: 64bit has been around for AGES!!! I'm running win10 64bit on a Core2Duo netbook (IBM X61 from 2007!) that I use in the workshop - for linking to my cars.... so four generations of CPU before the OP's CPU.

 

@Mutta Bones

TBH - sounds like you're happy with Linux, so you may not want to bother - but I normally have my Linux devices dual booting with win10 - just for flexibility and convenience: Linux is great in a lot of ways and WELL worth sticking with and learning, but I still like to keep Windows around as I want to be able to run certain games and MS Office too. 

IF you're interested in getting win10 64bit working, then make sure you create 64bit boot media using the MS Media Creation tool (by default it will force you to use the 32bit version) - then use a friend's PC/laptop to test it and make sure it is actually bootable and not a faulty Pen drive with incompatible boot partition... then check your BIOS - you may need to toggle between UEFI/BIOS boot modes.

[BahnStormer]

33 minutes ago, Kilrah said:

There have been laptops in this era with a 32-bit only UEFI indeed and that was causing all kinds of trouble but not aware of that on desktop mobos.

Good point - there were some 64bit Atom processors (Z3735) where the memory was so low (2Gb DDR3) and not upgradable, so they assumed nobody would ever want to run 64bit and UEFI just didn't support ANY sort of 64bit booting - which caused problems with the windows installer.

[xAcid9]

3 hours ago, Mutta Bones said:

Ya seriously think I tried only once ?

What is your mainboard model? Or is this a pre-built?

[Mutta Bones]

35 minutes ago, BahnStormer said:

 

 

TLDR summary would be that he managed to be given a PC with a pirated version on win10, which was 32 bit... when Microsoft caught up with him and made him pay for it, they didn't force him to re-install, so it stayed 32bit, even though he purchased both 32bit+64bit licenses... it sounds like it won't let him install 64bit - but if it's not a clean install, it will detect the 32bit and push him to create the new install media as 32bit - if you don't over-ride it at that point, you are stuck on 32bit.

ok you went south at 32 bit win10, because honestly this STILL confuses me so stay with me.

 

I got a PC about 10 years ago, with a pirated version of win 7. I was 8 at the time, so the PC was much more than I could ever need. (I bought this PC JUST before win10 rolled out. not that  would buy it, rather pirate that.) win 7. Now fast forward to about '19, or the lockdown when I pulled the trigger and subbed to LTT. I finally came to know how to install a legit free copy of windows freshly. I tried that, and when I did so, it never happened. the USB wouldn't boot at all. I tried this multiple times, with different drives, until I made a 32bit copy of windows installation. I just tried it, as I didn't know shit about 32/64 bit and when I did, it worked.

Remember, I did all the usb flashing from another XPS 13' 9330 smth that came out in 2015 with win10. Till I flashed, my PC still ran a pirated copy of win7. I was happy to move on from win7 to win10 so I got all the setup done. I installed 32 bit win10. catch me till here?

 

 

Then I wanted to give a finger to the windows and gates to invite my puppies.

              TLDR, I tried to install linux.

a lotta distros were 64 bit, and since I was not able to download 64 bit windows, I, at that time, thought this was a 32 bit processor. Which again made me doubt whether I coudl install a 64 bit OS. I tried it, and it worked!. which made me rise to this question. How did a 64 bit linux os run while 64 bit windows failed to.

[Mutta Bones]

1 minute ago, xAcid9 said:

What is your mainboard model? Or is this a pre-built?

Please nah, I can't do this. I tried as hard as I can to find a part number but it was honestly impossible. it is a FCLGA 1155 socket, intel desktop boad. it was a prebuilt, I was like 8 when we bought it.

[BahnStormer]

7 hours ago, Mutta Bones said:

Please nah, I can't do this. I tried as hard as I can to find a part number but it was honestly impossible. it is a FCLGA 1155 socket, intel desktop boad. it was a prebuilt, I was like 8 when we bought it.

search for CPU-Z: https://www.cpuid.com/softwares/cpu-z.html

 

Download and run that....

 

There are a bunch of tabs along the top - not the kind you put in your mouth, the computer ones.... move along to the one called "Mainboard" - that will tell you the details you need... should look like the attached picture.

 

 

 

 

[Mutta Bones]

FINALLY!! thanx Bro .

 

[Mutta Bones]

Just one more thing.

I've seen a lotta guys comment as if 1440p is something that made them attain nirvana. Is it true, as it looks thaaat much better than 1080p?

And even if it does,for what size ? I got a 24' 1080p, and obviously 1080p 27' would look less sharper. Do you say 1440p on a 27' is as sharp as 1080p on a 24? or is it more sharp or smth

[BahnStormer]

3 hours ago, Mutta Bones said:

FINALLY!! thanx Bro .

 

Good answer  (all the detail I needed to give you a proper reply)

 

I know this sounds like I'm just reading two lines off your screenshot, but it is as simple as that  It is a "Intel® Desktop Board DH61CR".

 

It's a pretty standard board for office PC's, but not very popular with enthusiasts because  - just because they are only normally used in pre-built systems, the motherboards aren't normally sold separately.

 

The good news is that it should be very decent quality... and very standard spec (i.e. NOT one of those Dell/HP custom ones) - so if you ever needed to upgrade/replace the motherboard, the dimensions SHOULD be a standard microATX board (the second smallest out of the standard shapes: mITX, mATX, ATX, EATX).

 

The bad news is the H61 chipset, so only two memory slots and 3 PCIe slots and it won't allow any overclocking. Being the Intel's build, it will be VERY standard, so I assume there's no USB3 or anything like that - which I have seen on some Asus/Gigabyte H61 motherboards.

 

Here's the details on your motherboard: https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/51857/intel-desktop-board-dh61cr.html

 

 

[BahnStormer]

TL:DR = yes, 1440P has a higher pixel density ("sharper") than a 24" 1080P, but proceed with caution.

 

4 hours ago, Mutta Bones said:

Just one more thing.

I've seen a lotta guys comment as if 1440p is something that made them attain nirvana. Is it true, as it looks thaaat much better than 1080p?

And even if it does,for what size ? I got a 24' 1080p, and obviously 1080p 27' would look less sharper. Do you say 1440p on a 27' is as sharp as 1080p on a 24? or is it more sharp or smth

 

I can give you a good comparison as I have a 27" 1440P and a couple of 24" 1200P screens: 1200P = 1920x1200, so the same width as a 1080P, which is 1920x1080.

 

Note that you will find a LOT of screens that are sold as "1080P" aren't actually the same as TV's - they're not 16:9 ratio, they're 16:10 and technically the 1200P... most consumer brands will still use the "1080P" label as everybody knows that marketing name means "Full HD"... this is only a problem if you were only going to use the screen for watching movies as they are in the 16:9 ratio.... normally it is a benefit as it means you can edit photos/videos that are in that 16:9 ratio and still have a ribbon for tool buttons.  

 

The reason why I highlight that the widths are comparable is that I have one of the 24" 1200P screens mounted on the wall almost directly above my main 27" screen. 

 

See the screenshot below, that white window is 20cm (8") wide on the 24", but only 17.5cm (7") on the 27" screen. The white frame is the same window (despite the slightly different colour setup) so EXACTLY the same width.... yes... the pixel density is higher so it will give you a "sharper" picture as you describe it. 

 

I've got a lot of advice I could give for people wanting to step up a resolution band (from 1080P to 1440P), but given you've just opted for Linux, I assume gaming is NOT a high priority? Just make sure that your graphics card has DisplayPort out... as VGA is not an option and I think even the best DVI cables will struggle to deliver 1440P, even at 60Hz. 

 

[BahnStormer]

And yes... I know the colours on the top screen appear too "blue" in that picture, but it is a nuisance to calibrate properly and it was only £20 on GumTree (think "$25 on Craigslist"), so I wasn't going to complain... the other two are my main screens and it's still useful to have the third screen for work

[BahnStormer]

4 hours ago, Mutta Bones said:

made them attain nirvana. Is it true, as it looks thaaat much better than 1080p?

... and no - not "Nirvana" levels of improvement... lots of people prefer to game on 1080P as you can get some REALLY good quality, high refresh screens at 1080P and it is easier for a LOT less money than the same quality/refresh rate 1440P screen... plus the graphics card to provide smooth gaming at 1080P as the graphics card has to work nearly twice as hard for 1440P...

 

That said, if you're not really gaming at all and you have a DisplayPort coming out of your graphics card, then I'm sure there are some reasonably cheap 1440P 60Hz screens out there that will give you an improved picture.

 

You mentioned "nVidia" earlier, so I assume you have a graphics card - not using the onboard graphics? Just check you have DisplayPort (ideally) or HDMI (as a backup option)... DVI is not really recommended for more than 1920x1080... 1920x1200 at a stretch... 

[cretsiah]

@Mutta Bones because you only have 4 gig of ram running on that system its going to be pushing hard....

 

this article from from 2019 tells you how much 64-bit windows needed BUT it doesnt account for windows upgrades since 2019 which usually means you need a lot more now...

https://www.zdnet.com/article/how-much-ram-does-your-windows-10-pc-need-2019-edition/

 

hell if i was trying to run windows now i wouldnt even look at a computer with less than 16gig of ram ( if it has a dedicated graphics card in it )......

if its an APU  i would be looking for 32gig as my minimum

 

with your linux system 4 gig of ram still gives you play room, but i would opt for at least 8 (mainly because of stupid browsers and websites over the Operating System )

[Mutta Bones]

As pointed out, This PC isn't for gaming. But i assure you, this wasn't done out of preference. Idk if I mentioned in this post, but I got this for maybe 200$. max. This thing came with NO GPU. onboard graphics, which (" does the job " - my mom)(no nvidia card.)

ships with a random Power SUpply, whose brand I am not able to find ( there an app to find that?? ) and hasn't burst due to some miracle. For god's sake the power supply doesn't even have the wattage rating for me to replace it. I'm not.. that's a different story.

@BahnStormer

I have a 1200p monitor, so DVI rocks. a " DVI to HDMI cable "

I got this monitor just a year ago, befor the pandemic. Oh shit, the pandemic has been goin on for 2 years.

kinda off topic, but a I gotta a say this I guess. I'm not STILL using linux. I switched back to windows out of pure need (kinda)

I have a lot of movies and shows, and used plex to stream it over. When I had windows, it worked just fine. No problem in any way. But the moment I switched to linux, I was not able to excess other internal drives from plex. I tried every youtube tutorial fr about 19 hours, at which I called it quits and switched to windows. Currently answering you from windows 10.

 

[Mutta Bones]

and another problem has cropped up a few weeks back. My CPU doesn't boost at all while transcoding. Intel's page seems to show it to upto 3 Ghz, but I see it barely cross 2Ghz. This makes it impossible to view transcoded streams, I mostly use 1-2 streams at max, so this was fine. I don't even transcode honestly, I just direct play most of the time. I only transcode like HEVC which again makes it barely cross 2Ghz at any given point. IT used to go upto 2.7-2.9, which I accepted as it was an old APU with maybe outdated drivers. But less than 2 GHz is impossible, any reason you may wanna point out?

[BahnStormer]

Check the temps - might be thermal throttling? Or the PSU might be struggling (old age), but that would be more likely to be crashing....

 

I'm guessing dusty cooler + old, dry thermal paste = thermal throttling....