32 bit is no longer valid

[TraumaRN]

Originally posted by: JustaGeek

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: DeathBUA
I'm running 64bit Vista and haven't had one problem yet. And to that end it feels faster than XP at this point and when I have to goto work and use XP Professional 32bit it just feels slow and clunky in comparison.

To be fair I did have my share of problems with Vista 64 and I still know of a few out there, but the vast majority of problems and especially the big ones have been fixed to the point I have no problems at all recommending it to anyone:

• 1. X-Fi problems. Worked fine on the same hardware in XP and Vista 64 with only 2 GB. Updated board BIOS to 4GB (poor performance with stock BIOS) which fixed performance but broke my X-Fi. Probably could've been solved on the BIOS or OS level but Creative's November driver fixed it and all works well again with 4GB+.
  2. 3-4GB+ problems. Numerous hot fixes have addressed issues with 4GB+, possibly with some of the X-Fi issues I had but clearly related to many of the MMIO/kernel-space/driver mapping problems discussed in this thread and various white papers. Two big hot fixes addressed installs with 2GB+ and a USB/DMA issue with 3GB+. I didn't have a problem installing Vista with 4GB, but I did have some flaky USB issues with my mouse and Plantronics BT headset when the headset wasn't active.
  3. NV 8-series cards. At least 2 big ones here, one covered with the 940105 hot fix for WDDM memory use and the other related to general compatibility and reliability. General user reports have been positive as these hot fixes have cut down complaints about TDM (driver stop/recover problems) along with driver updates. I had TDM problems on a few occasions but in every instance it turned out to be faulty RAM and not the video card.
  4. Some software incompatibility. Many older 32-bit PowerDVD versions do not work with Vista/64 and Cyberlink requires you to upgrade in order to get a working update. I just use MCE now and find it much better anyways. And yes, Flash Player doesn't work with IE64 but it works fine with IE32 which is also included by default with x64 Vista. FRAPs didn't work with Vista at first, patched since July I think.
  5. Hardware/driver incompatibility. Nostromo N52 recently got a patch. X-Fi as I mentioned. My 6 year old Asus TV tuner doesn't work with Vista, so I've heard, never tried myself as I have no need for it. Some older add-in RAID cards (my 3ware doesn't work), but again, no need for it in this build.

Some other things out there I know were problems but don't run into involve SLI. It looks like AA has been fixed with most games, but I also know there was a problem with overclocking in SLI in Vista.

So no, my run with Vista 64 hasn't been perfect, but as of today, I'm much happier with it compared to XP. The difference it makes in games and productivity/entertainment outside of gaming made dealing with the problems worthwhile. Does it make sense for someone content with 32-bit XP that's happy with their performance to upgrade? Probably not, that's up to each individual user. Is there a compelling reason not to go 64-bit if you're looking to build a 64-bit capable rig anyways with RAM being as cheap as it is? Nope.

Posts like that make me want to try it, as they are very informative, and seem objective and rational.

Thank you, Chizow.

You should try it. Sure it's not amazingly different, underneath it all it's still windows. But the changes they did make were for the better and I for one hope more applications go 64bit. And honestly you should try it. I think I was lucky that I didnt hit any major snags.

But speaking from personal experience if you try Vista and really try it for more than just a few hours, you'll really come to like it and will have a hard time going back to XP.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: apoppin
a "proven fact" in your own mind .. and possible only with major crap running in the background. *Current games* don't need over 3.3GB of System RAM [period] - they don't even get close to it - yet.

Ya....major crap like...2 instances of IE and all the services and drivers you need to make your system run..... I mean I guess I could shut down half my system and stop all those processes I'm not using for a specific game...like ethernet, print services, headset etc. etc. but that's just retarded lol. I already provided a SS with Resource Monitor open, back out IExplore and Resource Monitor and you're still at 3GB. Or simply take the 1-1.2GB you see when you boot up Vista and add the 1.6GB from Witcher.exe. And that's from a fresh save without any zoning lol.

Proven wrong? ... i am still waiting for *proof*
-games do not need 4GB of System RAM and 64 bit to make any practical difference over 3.3GB and 32bit

Since you're unwilling/incapable of making the connection, here's the *practical difference*:

From AT Messy Transition:

• Finally at 22 minutes in to the game, the game crashes as the virtual size has reached the 2.6GB barrier we have reconfigured this system for. Perhaps the most troubling thing at this point is that Supreme Commander is not aware that it ran out of user space in its virtual address pool, as we are kicked out of the game with a generic error message. Unfortunately Windows Vista reverted to a non-accelerated desktop at this point, preventing us from capturing a screenshot of the exact memory readouts or the error message.

I think the biggest problem is that you don't fully understand the limitations of 32-bit, you're just looking at the numbers and thinking "gee 3.25GB and 4GB, no biggy" even though you wouldn't know anyways since you haven't used either but to put it simply, you can't squeeze kernel-space outside of that 3.25GB address limitation, so unless you can somehow manage to shrink Vista's kernel and all your drivers down to nothing, you won't be seeing 3.25GB for user-space (games and apps) meaning you may see very little difference in RAM use and performance when you finally do upgrade. There are no such limitations for physical/virtual addressing on x64 up to 8 bajillion TB other than the ~3GB limitation on /largeaddressware 32-bit apps, which is still more than what you could address in a 32-bit OS when you factor in kernel-space.

no ... i am asking for more than NWN2's inefficient and buggy engine as an example ... or Gothic3's Memory Mismanagement Engine

Which again, will run better for longer on a 64-bit system with more RAM, buggy or not.

"... personally observed ... a few instances of IE open ... come close to 3GB ..." probably.. "
... um sure ... real scientific and unbiased
:roll:

Yep I run my games with a 2nd panel and various performance monitoring apps open so that I don't have to rely on hunches and emoticons for my answers. I'll provide more SS if that helps, but I doubt it will as you'll just claim 2 instances of IE discounts the results or every game that uses more than 3.25GB has a buggy engine LMAO.

 

[JustaGeek]

Originally posted by: DeathBUA
But speaking from personal experience if you try Vista and really try it for more than just a few hours, you'll really come to like it and will have a hard time going back to XP.

I have been running the 32-bit Vista on my laptop since March, as a result of the "free upgrade" from HP, so I know. Put the Vista "wallpapers" on my XP desktops, so they appear almost the same to me.

It seems much faster now than it felt in March, so the updates did their job.

And I am running it on the 2GHz Sempron Mobile, with 2GB of PC 2700 RAM and Radeon Express x200 with 128MB of shared Video Memory.

Hardly "high-end" setup, but perfect for everyday needs, including Aero.

I had a problem with my network printer, and HP said that they do not have a network driver for Vista, but manual settings did the job, so it is fully functional now.

And yes, it does have that "fresh, modern" feel to it.

In general, I do like it.

 

[JustaGeek]

BTW, do I need the Vista 64 Ultimate to run the XP and the apps on the Virtual Desktop, or will the 64-bit Home Premium suffice...?

EDIT: Assuming the dual-boot setup, so the files are accessible at all times.

And will it install with the 3GB of RAM, or I have to remove 1 gig...?

EDIT2: I think I found my answer about the Virtual Desktop:

Virtual PC 2007
http://www.microsoft.com/downl...40A73B6&displaylang=en

Supported Operating Systems: Windows Server 2003, Standard Edition (32-bit x86); Windows Server 2003, Standard x64 Edition; Windows Vista Business; Windows Vista Business 64-bit edition; Windows Vista Enterprise; Windows Vista Enterprise 64-bit edition; Windows Vista Ultimate; Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit edition; Windows XP Professional Edition ; Windows XP Professional x64 Edition ; Windows XP Tablet PC Edition

No Home Premium here - I need the Ultimate...

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: apoppin
a "proven fact" in your own mind .. and possible only with major crap running in the background. *Current games* don't need over 3.3GB of System RAM [period] - they don't even get close to it - yet.

Ya....major crap like...2 instances of IE and all the services and drivers you need to make your system run..... I mean I guess I could shut down half my system and stop all those processes I'm not using for a specific game...like ethernet, print services, headset etc. etc. but that's just retarded lol. I already provided a SS with Resource Monitor open, back out IExplore and Resource Monitor and you're still at 3GB. Or simply take the 1-1.2GB you see when you boot up Vista and add the 1.6GB from Witcher.exe. And that's from a fresh save without any zoning lol.

*all* i shut down is anti-Virus and stop d/ls and automatic updates while i am gaming - and that is for 2GB total system RAM. You are trying to make a point with the ridiculous

Proven wrong? ... i am still waiting for *proof*
-games do not need 4GB of System RAM and 64 bit to make any practical difference over 3.3GB and 32bit

Since you're unwilling/incapable of making the connection, here's the *practical difference*:

From AT Messy Transition:

• Finally at 22 minutes in to the game, the game crashes as the virtual size has reached the 2.6GB barrier we have reconfigured this system for. Perhaps the most troubling thing at this point is that Supreme Commander is not aware that it ran out of user space in its virtual address pool, as we are kicked out of the game with a generic error message. Unfortunately Windows Vista reverted to a non-accelerated desktop at this point, preventing us from capturing a screenshot of the exact memory readouts or the error message.

I think the biggest problem is that you don't fully understand the limitations of 32-bit, you're just looking at the numbers and thinking "gee 3.25GB and 4GB, no biggy" even though you wouldn't know anyways since you haven't used either but to put it simply, you can't squeeze kernel-space outside of that 3.25GB address limitation, so unless you can somehow manage to shrink Vista's kernel and all your drivers down to nothing, you won't be seeing 3.25GB for user-space (games and apps) meaning you may see very little difference in RAM use and performance when you finally do upgrade. There are no such limitations for physical/virtual addressing on x64 up to 8 bajillion TB other than the ~3GB limitation on /largeaddressware 32-bit apps, which is still more than what you could address in a 32-bit OS when you factor in kernel-space.

Yes i DO understand it ... SC has an "issue" and the problem lies with the game so that it needed workarounds

no ... i am asking for more than NWN2's inefficient and buggy engine as an example ... or Gothic3's Memory Mismanagement Engine

Which again, will run better for longer on a 64-bit system with more RAM, buggy or not.

How scientific ... "longer" ... if they fixed it, it would run indefinitely

"... personally observed ... a few instances of IE open ... come close to 3GB ..." probably.. "
... um sure ... real scientific and unbiased
:roll:

Yep I run my games with a 2nd panel and various performance monitoring apps open so that I don't have to rely on hunches and emoticons for my answers. I'll provide more SS if that helps, but I doubt it will as you'll just claim 2 instances of IE discounts the results or every game that uses more than 3.25GB has a buggy engine LMAO.

[/quote]
you don't rely on hunches ... you rely on how it "feels"

:roll:

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
You cant use punchcards in vista64 either. OMFG.

:laugh:

Damn! There goes my drive to x64.

 

[JustaGeek]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Acanthus
You cant use punchcards in vista64 either. OMFG.

:laugh:

Damn! There goes my drive to x64.

Well, don't you just love that good, solid "lifer" humor. :laugh:

Well, since I can't get any concrete answers regarding the Virtual PC 2007, I will assume that it will allow me to run my "tried, tested and true" XP on the Ultimate's 64 desktop.

Let me go and get it. Perhaps we'll be able to get a few good laughs together.

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: JustaGeekAnd at my work, we use RAM Structural System, AutoCAD, and several proprietary applications that have been around for over 10 years. And my P4 Dell with 1GB of RAM does surprisingly well, with sometimes 10 applications open.

Many of these applications are 16-bit.

Many of the installers are 16 bit.

The companies associated with my employer, and using our software, were cautioned about using it on Vista in general. And the 64-bit Vista would not install it at all, since the program uses the 16-bit installer.

The fact that people like Acanthus refuse to acknowledge that, and are ignorant about it means absolutely nothing to the corporate world, which is still mired in the mixture of old and new.

For 16bit installers (since those were in use long past their prime) Microsoft actually built in a workaround for that. Vista can recognize all of the popular 16bit installers, and replaces them with a compatible installer on the fly. So most (if not all) applications using 16bit installers should install just fine.

16bit apps of course are another beast. There will always be someone who wants to use that (just like you can still find people who want to use WordPerfect 5.1 for DOS), but they're certainly not the majority or even a sizable minority. These guys will either continue to keep around an old computer running an old OS to run their programs, or run them in a virtual machine (the recommended solution). It happens with every transition (DOS->3.1, 3.1->9x, 9x->2K/Vista) so there's nothing particularly new here. It's the cost of not modernizing.

 

[JustaGeek]

Originally posted by: ViRGE

Originally posted by: JustaGeekAnd at my work, we use RAM Structural System, AutoCAD, and several proprietary applications that have been around for over 10 years. And my P4 Dell with 1GB of RAM does surprisingly well, with sometimes 10 applications open.

Many of these applications are 16-bit.

Many of the installers are 16 bit.

The companies associated with my employer, and using our software, were cautioned about using it on Vista in general. And the 64-bit Vista would not install it at all, since the program uses the 16-bit installer.

The fact that people like Acanthus refuse to acknowledge that, and are ignorant about it means absolutely nothing to the corporate world, which is still mired in the mixture of old and new.

For 16bit installers (since those were in use long past their prime) Microsoft actually built in a workaround for that. Vista can recognize all of the popular 16bit installers, and replaces them with a compatible installer on the fly. So most (if not all) applications using 16bit installers should install just fine.
of
16bit apps of course are another beast. There will always be someone who wants to use that (just like you can still find people who want to use WordPerfect 5.1 for DOS), but they're certainly not the majority or even a sizable minority. These guys will either continue to keep around an old computer running an old OS to run their programs, or run them in a virtual machine (the recommended solution). It happens with every transition (DOS->3.1, 3.1->9x, 9x->2K/Vista) so there's nothing particularly new here. It's the cost of not modernizing.

Well, we've had people calling in with the software problems, that must have been caused by the OS, since the standard troubleshooting would not work.

And ViRGE, I appreciate your diplomatic approach and total avoidance of my request for recommending Vista 64. Guess it is "safer" this way, even though I generally do not blame anyone for their suggestions if something doesn't work out, since the final decision is always mine.

So I took the plunge.

Vista 64 Ultimate is on its way, in a form of a nice combo - the top one with the CoolerMaster Centurion 5 Case, for a little refresh of my 1.5 year old case with the window.

All that for $209.99 including shipping.

The final motivating factor was the Virtual PC 2007, that will allow me to run my XP applications from within Vista, in case of potential problems.

By the way, it is just incredible how strong the Vista 64 supporters defend this OS, and their arguments seem stronger than the opponents, since they are actually... using this system, and apparently love it!

It all comes down to the price that one is willing, or able, to pay. I am not certain if I belong to either category at the moment, but the curiosity was just too strong, and it prevailed.

And I think I am relatively safe, considering the Virtual PC for the apps that might not work. And it will give me much better idea why the opinions are so strongly divided.

Great thread.

Thanks guys. :thumbsup:

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: JustaGeek
And ViRGE, I appreciate your diplomatic approach and total avoidance of my request for recommending Vista 64. Guess it is "safer" this way, even though I generally do not blame anyone for their suggestions if something doesn't work out, since the final decision is always mine.

Nah, I'm not trying to play anything safe. It was clear you had already made up your mind, there wasn't anything I could tell you in terms of recommendations you didn't already know. I'm really only in this discussion since I had to do mountains of technical research on the matter already for my job, giving me access to a few extra insights on the matter that not everyone has.

If you end up not liking Vista64, it'll probably be because it's Vista, not because it's 64.

 

[Noema]

Originally posted by: XBoxLPU

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
1ManArmy, that's incorrect, it can see up to 4096mb of ram, but 512mb is lost because of the videocard, and some more ram is lost due to other expansion slots. People with a 768mb videocard will only see roughly 3gb. And 2gb is just fine for most if not all games, 3gb should cover ALL games, and 4gb is just overkill. Right now, I don't think it's necesary to benchmark using Vista 64x and 4gb of ram or more.

Uhm video card memory doesn't take away from system memory

But they do have to share addressing space, of which you only get 4GB in 32-bit Windows, so that makes 4096MB minus whatever hardware you've got in there, including the video card's on board RAM.

 

[wordsworm]

And I mentioned the 16-bit installers for the corporate software, so you go off on a tangent with the 8-bit in response.

Well listen, here you go off wanting to protect legacy software. But where is 8 bit software? I'll tell you where: in the history books, written off, which is where 16 bit is being written right now. I can't imagine anyone is writing software for 16 bit, and 32 bit is about to take its place.

I agree that it's going to take awhile for 64 bit to hit the mainstream. However, for the upper echelon of user, of which most of us account.

Heck, my father runs Windows 98, and I can't imagine he'll be upgrading in the near future. He might very well be running it for the next 10 years, because it suffices for what he wants.

When I buy a new computer, I want it to last 4-5 years. I bought it this past summer, and I knew that if I wanted it to survive that long, I had to make sure I could upgrade it. If I had chosen 32 bit, then I would have retarded that projection. I'm up to 4GB, and I'm limited to 8. Still, that 8GB ought to suffice for all applications for at least 3-4 years.

2GB is good enough, I figure, for 12-18 more months. 4GB will be good for 24-36. 8GB ought to go for a full 48 months. I don't want to change OSes in the middle of my computer's life cycle just to accommodate the 12-18 month cycle upgrade. I don't know about you, but I hate spending 6-10 hours setting up a system.

 

[JustaGeek]

Originally posted by: ViRGE

Originally posted by: JustaGeek
And ViRGE, I appreciate your diplomatic approach and total avoidance of my request for recommending Vista 64. Guess it is "safer" this way, even though I generally do not blame anyone for their suggestions if something doesn't work out, since the final decision is always mine.

Nah, I'm not trying to play anything safe. It was clear you had already made up your mind, there wasn't anything I could tell you in terms of recommendations you didn't already know. I'm really only in this discussion since I had to do mountains of technical research on the matter already for my job, giving me access to a few extra insights on the matter that not everyone has.

If you end up not liking Vista64, it'll probably be because it's Vista, not because it's 64.

Well, I know what to expect, since I've been running the 32-bit Vista HP on my (basic) laptop since March, and it is much smoother and responsive now, after all the updates.

I am excited about the Virtual PC - the possibility of running the XP applications in Vista environment is terrific. And that includes the 16-bit programs, and remote computers. I will never have to leave the house now. :laugh:

I will NOT call the 32-bit XP, and especially the 32-bit Vista obsolete though. It is a great stepping stone for the basic computers, and for the programmers and driver writers. Can you imagine the chaos if Vista was offered in 64-bit versions only, especially back in February...?

Even today, the 64-bit is too early for the general public, IMO.

Hope Newegg ships my OS and the case tomorrow, so I get it when I go back to work on Wednesday. (I always choose shipping to the office, so I don't have to "chase" my packages after hours).

Thanks again!

 

[JustaGeek]

Originally posted by: wordsworm

And I mentioned the 16-bit installers for the corporate software, so you go off on a tangent with the 8-bit in response.

But where is 8 bit software? I'll tell you where: in the history books, written off, which is where 16 bit is being written right now. I can't imagine anyone is writing software for 16 bit, and 32 bit is about to take its place.

.....

I bought it this past summer, and I knew that if I wanted it to survive that long,

.....

See, I built my computer in September 2006, with the MB upgrade in January 2007. One of the first things I did on the 775Dual-VSTA then, was to install Vista 64 RC1, and it ran great until December, when I had to remove the Boot Loader to prepare the XP for the motherboard upgrade.

Had I built it this summer, I would have most likely chosen the 64-bit Vista.

But as you know, my Ultimate 64 is on its way. And honestly, to call something that millions of people are still successfully using, as "no longer valid", is not right, IMO.

It's like you criticizing my 2003 Taurus, because you just got yourself a 2007 BMW this summer

People have priorities, you know...

 

[JustaGeek]

BTW, wouldn't that be funny if you DID get yourself a brand spanking new bimmer this summer... :laugh:

Did you...?

 

[wordsworm]

The reason I called 32 bit invalid is because of the tests being run. They were running 32 bit Vista on a machine with 4 GB of RAM which the computer wouldn't be able to address completely because of the video card. They're hitting a limitation of the software, and that's why 32 bit is no longer valid. It doesn't honestly test the equipment.

Although, what Mana said earlier I have confirmed by nVidia. SLI treats the RAM of all 2 or 3 cards as one. Just because you have 2.1 GB of video card memory, doesn't mean you have it to use. It's treated as its lowest common denominator. Sounds like high school. So, the only article that would have been compromised is the one that compared video cards with 256~768 MB of RAM. The 256 MB card would displace 256 MB of RAM, whereas the 768 would displace 768 MB of motherboard RAM. This I also confirmed by contacting nVidia. In this case, I was correct that there would be a problem with being absolutely objective.

What I said about 32 bit being invalid has to do with the fact that the reviews most often involve high end equipment which is being held back by a low end OS.

Now, you mentioned that my problem with TASCAM is proof that there are problems with peripherals. I can also tell you that my $600 sound card never got drivers for XP. It had drivers for 98 and Millennium, but never XP. So, this is a problem that's found whenever there's a new OS.

Some people have said that I'm an early adopter of 64 bit, and I'd disagree with that. The early adopters are the ones who ran 64 bit XP. In my opinion, that was adopting it before its prime time, which is just dawning now.

You are right about one thing: 64 bit Vista isn't being preinstalled with likely exceptions being out there. I had my computer custom built. I like it that way. I didn't do it perfectly, that's for sure. Still, it's doing most things well enough. I'll be upgrading the CPU as a Christmas present. The black edition AMD chips look pretty good to me right now, and will likely solve my crappy CPU problem - my motherboard doesn't support the CPU, despite the literature which suggested otherwise (thanks ASUS!) It's not really much of a problem, as it does work. It just doesn't work as well as it should.

High end equipment should be tested with a high end OS. That's my essential contention, and it remains so.

 

[JustaGeek]

Originally posted by: wordsworm
The reason I called 32 bit invalid is because of the tests being run.

............

High end equipment should be tested with a high end OS. That's my essential contention, and it remains so.

Absolutely - agreed 100%.

But that doesn't make 32-bit invalid in ANY way. Period.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: JustaGeek

Originally posted by: wordsworm
The reason I called 32 bit invalid is because of the tests being run.

............

High end equipment should be tested with a high end OS. That's my essential contention, and it remains so.

Absolutely - agreed 100%.

But that doesn't make 32-bit invalid in ANY way. Period.

i can't say 'absolutely agreed' that "High end equipment should be tested with a high end OS" as Vista32 bit is sufficient for a 4GB gaming "high end" rig.
... although i am also quite certain 64-bit is "the future".

i believe that SLI'd Ultras in a maxed-out OC'd QC rig with 4GB of RAM will have no practical advantage - except perhaps at the very highest resolutions - with a 64-bit OS over a 32Bit OS in today's games. +1% performance gain in synthetic benchmarks do not count nor should unpatched games with known memory issues be tested.

That said, i'd love to be proven wrong ... bring on the tests - not your "feelings"

... i am guessing that a patched Crysis will be the first game to show any difference between 32- and 64-bit OSes at all ... but then that is next year and '09 games - the new crop of games that are being developed right now.

 

[JustaGeek]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: JustaGeek

Originally posted by: wordsworm
The reason I called 32 bit invalid is because of the tests being run.

............

High end equipment should be tested with a high end OS. That's my essential contention, and it remains so.

Absolutely - agreed 100%.

But that doesn't make 32-bit invalid in ANY way. Period.

i can't say 'absolutely agreed' that "High end equipment should be tested with a high end OS" as Vista32 bit is sufficient for a 4GB gaming "high end" rig.

Yes you can.

Vista 32 today is as high end as Vista 64.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: JustaGeek

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: JustaGeek

Originally posted by: wordsworm
The reason I called 32 bit invalid is because of the tests being run.

............

High end equipment should be tested with a high end OS. That's my essential contention, and it remains so.

Absolutely - agreed 100%.

But that doesn't make 32-bit invalid in ANY way. Period.

i can't say 'absolutely agreed' that "High end equipment should be tested with a high end OS" as Vista32 bit is sufficient for a 4GB gaming "high end" rig.

Yes you can.

Vista 32 today is as high end as Vista 64.

that is what i thought i said


*today* ... for gaming

 

[JustaGeek]

Just wait until I get my Ultimate 64 - I won't be even talking to you then! :laugh:

I'll be so high (end, that is) that you won't even see me!!!!

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: apoppin
<*all* i shut down is anti-Virus and stop d/ls and automatic updates while i am gaming - and that is for 2GB total system RAM. You are trying to make a point with the ridiculous

Right, ridiculous as say, 2 instances of IExplore being "major crap" in order to push 3.25GB which is impossible in your mind.

<Yes i DO understand it ... SC has an "issue" and the problem lies with the game so that it needed workarounds

No you still don't understand. SC was crashing even with 2GB user-space and /largeaddressaware flagged off. They modified both so that the game could use more RAM, and it did because it CAN and it does benefit from more RAM. Problem is that it didn't realize it didn't have a full 3GB of user-space or 3GB of physical RAM and then it crashed. Games by necessity need to compensate for this continually, which leads to common performance problems like paging, HDD thrashing, stuttering/hitching and long load times and in cases where the game engine doesn't compensate, the game crashes. But again, if you don't understand this basic concept and benefit of RAM and addressable space, you might as well be arguing that a HDD page file is faster than SDRAM which wouldn't come as a surprise at all given your high praise for ReadyBoost and Flash Drives.

But honestly I think the bigger problem is you don't even understand the underlying issues when increasing game size/complexity while trying to keep it in the same 32-bit envelope. What exactly do you think is happening when a game that fills a 9GB dual-layer DVD has to find a way into a maximum 2GB package? Of course not all of that 9GB is needed at any given time, but there certainly are games that do take advantage of a bigger envelope, most notably /largeaddressaware titles like SupCom, CoH, LOTRO etc.

<How scientific ... "longer" ... if they fixed it, it would run indefinitely

You're claiming Gothic 3 (and every other game that breaks your imagined 3.25GB limitation) has buggy memory management. My point is that buggy or not, its going to run better for longer on a 64-bit OS. But that's clearly not the case in the games I listed as they can run on 32-bit machines with 2-3.25GB memory, they just don't run as WELL as a 64-bit machine with 4GB.

<you don't rely on hunches ... you rely on how it "feels"

No, I rely on what I observe, both in Task Manager/Resource Manager and the game itself. You rely on what? Nothing except for some flawed preconceived notion that its impossible for current games to benefit from 3.25GB or more. Not only is it something you can't say for any certainty (due to total ignorance and lack of any first-hand experience), you continually ignore evidence to the contrary in the form of both screenshots and published reviews. Bottom-line is this: if a game or your system is using more RAM, its performing better than a system running the same games/apps period. There's no arguing this. Arguing against this is arguing your HDD is faster than RAM, which again, given your views on ReadyBoost wouldn't be surprising in the least.

 

[wordsworm]

You rely on what? Nothing except for some flawed preconceived notion that its impossible for current games to benefit from 3.25GB or more.

I think they're just playing us. They know they're wrong, so now they're just mucking about. Windows 95 was superior to Windows 3.11 because it was 32 bit. Vista 64 is superior for pretty much the same reason. I wonder if they're going to argue that 65MB of RAM is enough for high end. After all, it would be enough to install those 16 bit applications that these guys find so important.

 

[JustaGeek]

Originally posted by: wordsworm

You rely on what? Nothing except for some flawed preconceived notion that its impossible for current games to benefit from 3.25GB or more.

I think they're just playing us. They know they're wrong, so now they're just mucking about. Windows 95 was superior to Windows 3.11 because it was 32 bit. Vista 64 is superior for pretty much the same reason. I wonder if they're going to argue that 65MB of RAM is enough for high end. After all, it would be enough to install those 16 bit applications that these guys find so important.

Sure it's "superior".

But unnecessary today for 99% of all the users, including gamers.

I will have more answers when I get my Ultimate 64.

BTW, you never told me if you got that bimmer this summer or not...???


And did you have your machine assembled for you, or you did it yourself...?

Why don't you put the specs in your signature.

What was your previous computer and the OS...?

And it seems to me that you are very young, since your opinions are so radical: "Out with the OLD, because the NEW is here and it RULES!" :laugh:

And wordsworm, the last, but not least: Who paid for your new system...?

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: Ares202
if they fixed 64 bit operating systems i would "embrace the 64 bit revolution"

64 bit xp has no drivers
64 bit vista is just crappy

and crysis works fine on 2gb, the max usage i get when running crysis is 1.3gb, that leaves me 700mb of memory doing nothing

im running xp 32 bit and a 512mb video card, theres also a good review of 64 bit vs 32 bit on crysis somewhere and it leads to no performance gain,

Plus why do you trust Nvidia they will want to everyone to move to new OS's as this will increase there graphics card sales as new OS usually means new system for alot of us

Speak for yourself only,personally I now have 49 games installed , all working fine and also with good performance/stability in Vista x64,so much for your comment on crappy .

I have nothing against 32 bit version but would like to see more Vista x64 benchmarks included in Anandtech reviews.

I've heard cases of people running Vista x64 flawlessly.

I'm ready and willing to embrace it. As soon as I get my 4GB kit (before year end).

Yep that's people like me,I only had one major game problem which I sort of fixed and even then is not Vista's fault,"The Witcher" kept randomly crashing when opening inventory/trading etc...running in windowed fixed the problem for me,I posted info in the official Witcher thread plus its a well known problem if you check here(both versions of Vista). .

I'm very happy gamer .

Side Note made Beta tester for Mythos few days ago and that game has been 100% stable so far in Vista x64 .