32 bit is no longer valid

[chizow]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: apoppin

that doesn't leave you a whole lot of leftover if you're limited to ~3.25GB

who cares how much is "leftover"?


as long as there is sufficient

and for my very "average" system - and *most* gamers ... Vista32 and 2GB are usually "plenty" for today's games
-that said, i noticed i stopped my Anti-Virus and shut down running background programs to get the fullest out of Hg:L at maxed out DX9 16x10 so it IS time for me to spend $20 bucks [after MiR, of course ] on another 2GB of PC6400 so i can add another usable 1.3+ GB of system RAM

but please don't even bother to show me why i should bother to 'upgrade' from Vista32 to 64bit to get any *practical* advantage out of todays games


i won't listen
:roll:

That was just an example, but don't worry, you may still find yourself shutting down half your system when ready for "game mode" after you add that 1.3GB as your system miraculously finds use of that extra RAM and the games you thought were just fine with 1.5GB start sucking up more RAM. There's no need to try and explain practical advantages, they kind of take care of themselves as people try it out and see the difference for themselves (although I'd consider not having to close out all apps a practical advantage).

i didn't think you could give any practical advantage ... now
- in a year or two i will agree with you ... '09 games will probably get an advantage from 64-bit over 32 bit ... by THEN i will have upgraded [anyway]

You wouldn't need to wait until '09, there's plenty of in-depth reviews that show games today can and will use more than 2GB (again, just read over AT's 6-month old Messy Transition articles). Not sure why the 32-bit crowd refuses to acknowledge this fact. Probably because the limits placed on the game by 32-bit/2GB make them think the game is using all the memory it needs and there's no benefit from more I guess.

i am also waiting for my system to "miraculously" use up every bit of an additional 1.3+GB of RAM when i add another 2GB [shortly] [i am quite sure my 2GB flash drive will continue to sit useless, if i am to believe you]
:roll:

Your 2GB flash drive would be useless if you had more RAM, or at the most a last resort since ReadyBoost performance with flash drive pales in comparison to SuperFetch with DDR2. You do realize that 1) ReadyBoost only compensates for a lack of system RAM and 2) does what SuperFetch would do with much faster system RAM if you had it 3) has been shown to provide very little advantage over a fast HDD due to poor write speeds and random access times. So again, any perceived performance increase you're seeing from your flash drive would be much faster if you simply had excess system RAM.

But you do bring up a good point, since the Mtron SSD drives are essentially really fast, really big flash drives and they DO show a real, practical advantage in games. AT said in their preview they planned to do more in-depth testing, but I found this Mtron Review (go down to game loading times) to give you an idea. Now, imagine even faster random access times, sustained transfer rates and load times and you can see the benefit of more RAM given how much faster DDR2 is than even the fastest flash RAM.

Once again, if everyone had 8-16GB of RAM and a 64-bit OS, developers could simply code their engines to cache the entire game directory (I haven't seen many games take up more than 2 DVDs, which is about ~18GB for dual-layer). As it is now, they need to code for the lowest common denominator (32-bit/2GB is "enough" folks) so games don't do that, however as more game data is cached there's less need to flush the cache which leads to the same thing eventually. This is just related to load times, but also applies to common complaints like stuttering or thrashing as you move about and force the engine to flush/cache new data.

 

[apoppin]

Once again, if everyone had 8-16GB of RAM and a 64-bit OS, developers could simply code their engines to cache the entire game directory (I haven't seen many games take up more than 2 DVDs, which is about ~18GB for dual-layer). As it is now, they need to code for the lowest common denominator (32-bit/2GB is "enough" folks) so games don't do that, however as more game data is cached there's less need to flush the cache which leads to the same thing eventually. This is just related to load times, but also applies to common complaints like stuttering or thrashing as you move about and force the engine to flush/cache new data.

IF ... if ... if ...

they are coding right now for DX9
-don't blame the Vista32 crowd
:roll:

 

[Genx87]

64bit XP was a test platform for 64bit Vista. That said I think for the foreseeable future they should still use 32bit Vista as the majority of systems shipped out the door are using 32bit.

I for one have been using 64bit Vista business for a few weeks after using the 32bit version since May and have been pleased. Stable and fast. Really no complaints.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Once again, if everyone had 8-16GB of RAM and a 64-bit OS, developers could simply code their engines to cache the entire game directory (I haven't seen many games take up more than 2 DVDs, which is about ~18GB for dual-layer). As it is now, they need to code for the lowest common denominator (32-bit/2GB is "enough" folks) so games don't do that, however as more game data is cached there's less need to flush the cache which leads to the same thing eventually. This is just related to load times, but also applies to common complaints like stuttering or thrashing as you move about and force the engine to flush/cache new data.

IF ... if ... if ...

they are coding right now for DX9
-don't blame the Vista32 crowd
:roll:

What does DX9 have to do with anything? The games I'm referring to will use > 2GB in either DX9 or DX10 mode..

And I'm not blaming the Vista32 crowd, they're already at a disadvantage compared to 32-bit XP since they're already playing with a smaller deck.

But again, arguing against more RAM knowing games can use more than 2GB and overall system RAM use can exceed 3.25GB moderately loaded is like arguing a HDD is faster than RAM or agreeing with Bill Gates that it would be hard to imagine a PC ever needing more than 640KB.

 

[Griswold]

Originally posted by: taltamir
I would wait for SP1 if you are a regular user for one reason only... the original RTM release had a bug with handling 4GB of ram during install...

You have to remove 2 GB, install, run windows update, and then add the last 2GB to get a clean proper installation.

First time I heard this. Needless to say Vista64 installed just fine with 4GB here, so it cant possibly be a showstopping issue. Probably some rare or semi-rare hardware combination ...

How about you provide a source, preferably something directly from micrsosoft, so I can verify that claim.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Griswold

Originally posted by: taltamir
I would wait for SP1 if you are a regular user for one reason only... the original RTM release had a bug with handling 4GB of ram during install...

You have to remove 2 GB, install, run windows update, and then add the last 2GB to get a clean proper installation.

First time I heard this. Needless to say Vista64 installed just fine with 4GB here, so it cant possibly be a showstopping issue. Probably some rare or semi-rare hardware combination ...

How about you provide a source, preferably something directly from micrsosoft, so I can verify that claim.

KB929777 - BSOD with 3GB+

Just one of the many hot fixes that addressed pretty big problems with Vista 64 and 2GB+ RAM.

Also, here's another KB link that does a good job of explaining some of the problems with 32-bit addressable RAM, MMIO and 3.25GB limitations, and potential problems with devices/drivers.

KB929605

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: apoppin

Once again, if everyone had 8-16GB of RAM and a 64-bit OS, developers could simply code their engines to cache the entire game directory (I haven't seen many games take up more than 2 DVDs, which is about ~18GB for dual-layer). As it is now, they need to code for the lowest common denominator (32-bit/2GB is "enough" folks) so games don't do that, however as more game data is cached there's less need to flush the cache which leads to the same thing eventually. This is just related to load times, but also applies to common complaints like stuttering or thrashing as you move about and force the engine to flush/cache new data.

IF ... if ... if ...

they are coding right now for DX9
-don't blame the Vista32 crowd
:roll:

What does DX9 have to do with anything? The games I'm referring to will use > 2GB in either DX9 or DX10 mode..

And I'm not blaming the Vista32 crowd, they're already at a disadvantage compared to 32-bit XP since they're already playing with a smaller deck.

But again, arguing against more RAM knowing games can use more than 2GB and overall system RAM use can exceed 3.25GB moderately loaded is like arguing a HDD is faster than RAM or agreeing with Bill Gates that it would be hard to imagine a PC ever needing more than 640KB.

i mentioned DX9 to show how up-to-date most game Devs are
[not]

But if it makes you feel better about your upgrading early to 64-bit, it is OK with me

Just don't try to tell me that i *need* more than 3.3 GB of System RAM to play ANY '07 game ... that argument is beyond ridiculous

Besides, there is absolutely no practical performance difference in playing any current game in XP or Vista - and in general, Vista cancels it's need for a larger headroom over XP by being able to effectively use 4GB of Flash drive ...
---XP is SO primitive anyway

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: apoppin
Just don't try to tell me that i *need* more than 3.3 GB of System RAM to play ANY '07 game ... that argument is beyond ridiculous

Besides, there is absolutely no practical performance difference in playing any current game in XP or Vista - and in general, Vista cancels it's need for a larger headroom over XP by being able to effectively use 4GB of Flash drive ...
---XP is SO primitive anyway

Well if you're willing to admit that you need 3.3GB of RAM to play a game then you've already lost. You've hit the 2GB barrier for a single Win32 application under XP/Vista32.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: ViRGE

Originally posted by: apoppin
Just don't try to tell me that i *need* more than 3.3 GB of System RAM to play ANY '07 game ... that argument is beyond ridiculous

Besides, there is absolutely no practical performance difference in playing any current game in XP or Vista - and in general, Vista cancels it's need for a larger headroom over XP by being able to effectively use 4GB of Flash drive ...
---XP is SO primitive anyway

Well if you're willing to admit that you need 3.3GB of RAM to play a game then you've already lost. You've hit the 2GB barrier for a single Win32 application under XP/Vista32.

i don't
--but WtH, it's twenty bucks ... how much cheaper will it get?


... i'm *still* waiting to hit the 2GB limit with a game over here ...
... o' nine

 

[JustaGeek]

Originally posted by: ViRGE

Originally posted by: apoppin
Just don't try to tell me that i *need* more than 3.3 GB of System RAM to play ANY '07 game ... that argument is beyond ridiculous

Besides, there is absolutely no practical performance difference in playing any current game in XP or Vista - and in general, Vista cancels it's need for a larger headroom over XP by being able to effectively use 4GB of Flash drive ...
---XP is SO primitive anyway

Well if you're willing to admit that you need 3.3GB of RAM to play a game then you've already lost. You've hit the 2GB barrier for a single Win32 application under XP/Vista32.

I did.

With Quake 4 in Ultra Quality Settings, I would have 99% memory use (Logitech G15), and stuttery performance.

Adding 1 GB for a total of 3 solved the problem.

The memory use will now go up to 72%, which is ~2.18GB.

On the 32-bit XP.

 

[JustaGeek]

Originally posted by: taltamir
are you telling me vista 32bit uses unsigned drivers? unsigned drivers are NOT the same as not WHQL.. And as far as I know both vistas don't allow unsigned drivers unless you run it in test mode.

Also, way to go quoting some guy about how there aren't any 64bit programs (and bolding it so its clear this is your point)... The example 64bit programs and our reports of anywhere from 20% faster (7z compression) to several times faster (realVNC, firefox, IE) are obviously all our imagination since some guy said "there aren't any 64bit programs really"... *applauds in sarcasm*

Instead of being ignorant about "some guy", please dispute his statements.

And perhaps read more of his articles, to get yourself more familiar with him.

For your own benefit...

 

[wordsworm]

apoppinC2D E4300@3.150 Ghz | VisionTek HD2900xt | Gigabyte P35-DS3P | OCZ 850w | 2 x 250GB Seagate 'cuda SATA in RAID-0 & WD 120.0 GB IDE | Corsair XMS2 2 x 1GB PC6400 Lite-On DVD-RW48/48 | Thermalright Ultra-120/Scythe S-FLEX SFF21F | Logitech Wireless KB + Mouse | Lexmark x2580 all-in-1 | Audigy 2ZS | Klipsch 4.1 400w/Plantronics DSP-500 | Samsung 205BW 20" @ 1680x1050/ACER AL1917w | NetZero 56K | 2GB Flash |Sony MD| Vista 32-Bit Premium/WinXP | 10721 3DMark06

Often you have argued that 64 bit is problematic. Many people have said from personal experience that we have no real problems with it. You've contended that 4GB is overkill. But people have told you that it makes the game run more smoothly. What I can't understand is why you have such a nice system, spend all that money, and then not invest in a little bit more RAM, when it's fairly common knowledge that more RAM always means better performance. Your system doesn't come across to me as minimalist. Why would you look for a minimal configuration, which I consider 2 GB to be, when you have spent so much money building what is a fairly high end system. You have a 64 bit machine running a 32 bit OS. Another thing you mentioned is the extra money it would cost to get 64 bit. You're already running 32 bit Vista, upgrading to 64 bit is free. You can even get MS to send a disc to you for $10 that you can install. So, it's not expensive. I opted for 64 bit and skipped 32 bit altogether.

It's your system, but you seem to be trying to find arguments to motivate you to make the switch to 64 bit. There's no risk in trying, and the cost is low. Buying 2 more GB isn't very expensive these days. You might find that you like it a lot more than what you're using now already.

Anyways, the purpose of this thread was to demonstrate that Vista 32 isn't what should be used in testing 3 way SLI or the other video cards to compare the v90 to v92 with 4 GB of RAM, that the results would be skewed because of the way Vista 32 handles memory in excess of 4 GB.

 

[JustaGeek]

Originally posted by: wordsworm

C2D E4300@3.150 Ghz | VisionTek HD2900xt | Gigabyte P35-DS3P | OCZ 850w | 2 x 250GB Seagate 'cuda SATA in RAID-0 & WD 120.0 GB IDE | Corsair XMS2 2 x 1GB PC6400 Lite-On DVD-RW48/48 | Thermalright Ultra-120/Scythe S-FLEX SFF21F | Logitech Wireless KB + Mouse | Lexmark x2580 all-in-1 | Audigy 2ZS | Klipsch 4.1 400w/Plantronics DSP-500 | Samsung 205BW 20" @ 1680x1050/ACER AL1917w | NetZero 56K | 2GB Flash |Sony MD| Vista 32-Bit Premium/WinXP | 10721 3DMark06

Often you have argued that 64 bit is problematic. Many people have said from personal experience that we have no real problems with it. You've contended that 4GB is overkill. But people have told you that it makes the game run more smoothly. What I can't understand is why you have such a nice system, spend all that money, and then not invest in a little bit more RAM, when it's fairly common knowledge that more RAM always means better performance. Your system doesn't come across to me as minimalist. Why would you look for a minimal configuration, which I consider 2 GB to be, when you have spent so much money building what is a fairly high end system. You have a 64 bit machine running a 32 bit OS. Another thing you mentioned is the extra money it would cost to get 64 bit. You're already running 32 bit Vista, upgrading to 64 bit is free. You can even get MS to send a disc to you for $10 that you can install. So, it's not expensive. I opted for 64 bit and skipped 32 bit altogether.

It's your system, but you seem to be trying to find arguments to motivate you to make the switch to 64 bit. There's no risk in trying, and the cost is low. Buying 2 more GB isn't very expensive these days. You might find that you like it a lot more than what you're using now already.

Anyways, the purpose of this thread was to demonstrate that Vista 32 isn't what should be used in testing 3 way SLI or the other video cards to compare the v90 to v92 with 4 GB of RAM, that the results would be skewed because of the way Vista 32 handles memory in excess of 4 GB.

I assume that you are talking to me.

I have 3GB of RAM, not 2. And it has been demonstrated numerous times that it is more than enough, especially on a 32-bit system.

I have not argued that the 64-bit OS is problematic (even if it is).

I have "argued" (for lack of a better word), that it is unnecessary at this time.

There are no 64-bit applications that I would benefit from by using a 64-bit system.

Not a single game written as a true 64-bit app (my favorite, Far Cry, apparently could benefit from the 64-bit patch).

My 32-bit Vista is a laptop upgrade from HP. Attached to it. My XP was installed over 1 year ago - not upgradable.

System is perfectly stable, with ALL the current and upcoming applications guaranteed compatible.

Why would anyone, for that matter, use a 64-bit OS, just to run 99% of their applications in 32-bit mode?

If I find that the new games are designed for the 64-bit OS, DX10 (or 10.1, 10.2 or whatever) is ready, and delivers breathtaking graphics, I might give it a consideration.

If I see other 64-bit programs in stores, I will think again.

But I can almost guarantee that it is not going to happen for another 2 years.

What is holding it back is not a user like you or me. It is the corporate world, still using the 16-bit installers, and applications written in the past 10-15 years.

The only guarantee of total compatibility is to run it on 32-bit XP.

Not even 32-bit Vista.

They wait.

So do I.

And BTW, unfortunately, the 3-way SLI is probably not guaranteed to run on the 64-bit Vista. It is much harder to design a driver for this architecture. That's why they test it on a 32-bit platform.

Most likely, because this is the only way to make it run today.

And for another couple of years.

 

[Mana]

wordsorm, as I have said before. Testing a single 8800 GTX is the same as testing 3 8800 GTXs in SLI as far as memory is concerned. The frame buffer is duplicated on all 3 cards so they can each have access to it when needed. In short, the system sees only 768 MB of memory and if it needs to write to the memory on one videocard it writes to the same spot in memory on all three. Plus, as JustAGeek pointed out, drivers for 3-way SLI are probably problematic on 64-bit OSs right now.

As for whether or not a 64-bit operating system would be better to use over a 32-bit OS for benchmarking in general, who knows. It's somewhat subjective at this point because few games bump up against the 2 GB limit, and of those few games that do, they don't get terribly close to the 32-bit 'hard cap' of 3 GB. There's also the fact that the vast majority of people use 32-bit operating systems, and thus benchmarking on a 32-bit OS means that the benchmarks are in line with what the actual user will see in performance.

There are raw performance gains related to using 64-bit software, but it mostly relates to mathematics since you can now store numbers that are up to 64 bits in length in one register. Whereas before if you had a number larger than 32 bits you would have to store it in multiple registers, and to manipulate it, would have to perform additional instructions to deal with the fact that it was stored across multiple registers. Unfortunately I don't know the exact details of the extra steps, as I haven't had to deal with numbers larger than 32-bits when working in assembly on a MIPS processor in any of my courses yet.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: wordsworm

apoppinC2D E4300@3.150 Ghz | VisionTek HD2900xt | Gigabyte P35-DS3P | OCZ 850w | 2 x 250GB Seagate 'cuda SATA in RAID-0 & WD 120.0 GB IDE | Corsair XMS2 2 x 1GB PC6400 Lite-On DVD-RW48/48 | Thermalright Ultra-120/Scythe S-FLEX SFF21F | Logitech Wireless KB + Mouse | Lexmark x2580 all-in-1 | Audigy 2ZS | Klipsch 4.1 400w/Plantronics DSP-500 | Samsung 205BW 20" @ 1680x1050/ACER AL1917w | NetZero 56K | 2GB Flash |Sony MD| Vista 32-Bit Premium/WinXP | 10721 3DMark06

Often you have argued that 64 bit is problematic. Many people have said from personal experience that we have no real problems with it. You've contended that 4GB is overkill. But people have told you that it makes the game run more smoothly. What I can't understand is why you have such a nice system, spend all that money, and then not invest in a little bit more RAM, when it's fairly common knowledge that more RAM always means better performance. Your system doesn't come across to me as minimalist. Why would you look for a minimal configuration, which I consider 2 GB to be, when you have spent so much money building what is a fairly high end system. You have a 64 bit machine running a 32 bit OS. Another thing you mentioned is the extra money it would cost to get 64 bit. You're already running 32 bit Vista, upgrading to 64 bit is free. You can even get MS to send a disc to you for $10 that you can install. So, it's not expensive. I opted for 64 bit and skipped 32 bit altogether.

It's your system, but you seem to be trying to find arguments to motivate you to make the switch to 64 bit. There's no risk in trying, and the cost is low. Buying 2 more GB isn't very expensive these days. You might find that you like it a lot more than what you're using now already.

Anyways, the purpose of this thread was to demonstrate that Vista 32 isn't what should be used in testing 3 way SLI or the other video cards to compare the v90 to v92 with 4 GB of RAM, that the results would be skewed because of the way Vista 32 handles memory in excess of 4 GB.

actually, i DO think it is addressed to me .... it IS my system

*first of all* i AM getting another 2GB of PC-6400 [very soon] ... i have stated it in my posts over-and-over ... it is SO cheap - why not? However, when i built my rig in May it was over 3 times more expensive and i didn't need it for games


Up-till-NOW, i had no problems with maxed out DX9 games/Vista32/2GB system RAM ... AtM, i find it helps to have background programs shut down to play Hg:L smoothly so an additional +2GB of system RAM is a practical upgrade and it will give me a total of 3.3GB of addressable RAM - or about 70% more than i currently have [not counting +2GB flash drive]
--that 3.3+GB RAM will allow me to play ANY maxed out DX9 game on my rig [practically] just as well as 4.0 GB on a Vista 64 bit system - and i don't have to upgrade [very] expensive but usable old HW/programs.

So why should i bother to "upgrade" to 64-bit just so i can have more headroom?

 

[wordsworm]

You have made a few incorrect assumptions. #1, that I was addressing my comment to you. I edited my post so that it was obvious that I was addressing appoppin. However, it should have been obvious to you since the stats I was quoting weren't the same as yours. I have the feeling that you didn't look very closely. Second, you made the assumption that 3 way SLI in Vista 64 doesn't work. Well, this too is incorrect. I posted the article already, but I'll do so for you and Mana: 3 Way SLI (for Vista 64)

I think Crysis was constructed with future gaming machines in mind. I think they want to enjoy revenue for many years. They made it pliable for both 64 and 32 bit Vista. The future that some have mentioned is happening right now. My assumption: No gaming studio in its right mind is designing games without thinking of investing some of its work into 64 bit Vista. 64 bit Vista is future ready, and 32 bit Vista is not. It's low end, regardless of how you shake it. The gaming industry doesn't care at all about about what corporations are putting on their computers. Those machines aren't designed for games. In fact, they probably get upset if they find games on those machines. The other corporate type would be the designing community. Those who are working on MS OS will quickly find the value in 64 bit Photoshop. Apple users are already enjoying it. According to this Adobe forum, even 32 bit Photoshop runs better in Vista 64.

I'm sure 2008 will become known as the year of the 64 bit revolution. I think that 2007 is the year that it became possible to adopt 64 bit and benefit from it more than one is compromised. To me, it makes no sense as to why an enthusiast would hold back when they spend so much on the machinery that, by now, has actually been designed to run 64 and 32 bit software.

In any case, why would I really care if you believe me or not? The facts are what they are, and there are enough opinions to substantiate a positive experience. As you said, you'll know when you're ready to evolve.

 

[JustaGeek]

Originally posted by: wordsworm
You have made a few incorrect assumptions. #1, that I was addressing my comment to you. I edited my post so that it was obvious that I was addressing appoppin. However, it should have been obvious to you since the stats I was quoting weren't the same as yours. I have the feeling that you didn't look very closely. Second, you made the assumption that 3 way SLI in Vista 64 doesn't work. Well, this too is incorrect. I posted the article already, but I'll do so for you and Mana: 3 Way SLI (for Vista 64)

I think Crysis was constructed with future gaming machines in mind. I think they want to enjoy revenue for many years. They made it pliable for both 64 and 32 bit Vista. The future that some have mentioned is happening right now. My assumption: No gaming studio in its right mind is designing games without thinking of investing some of its work into 64 bit Vista. 64 bit Vista is future ready, and 32 bit Vista is not. It's low end, regardless of how you shake it. The gaming industry doesn't care at all about about what corporations are putting on their computers. Those machines aren't designed for games. In fact, they probably get upset if they find games on those machines. The other corporate type would be the designing community. Those who are working on MS OS will quickly find the value in 64 bit Photoshop. Apple users are already enjoying it. According to this Adobe forum, even 32 bit Photoshop runs better in Vista 64.

I'm sure 2008 will become known as the year of the 64 bit revolution. I think that 2007 is the year that it became possible to adopt 64 bit and benefit from it more than one is compromised. To me, it makes no sense as to why an enthusiast would hold back when they spend so much on the machinery that, by now, has actually been designed to run 64 and 32 bit software.

In any case, why would I really care if you believe me or not? The facts are what they are, and there are enough opinions to substantiate a positive experience. As you said, you'll know when you're ready to evolve.

LOL.

The stats could have been yours, for what I know. I don't keep track of everyone's systems. But now you have made it obvious.

apoppin - i feel better now that I have company...

At least in terms of 64-bit opinions... :thumbsup:

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: JustaGeek

Originally posted by: taltamir
are you telling me vista 32bit uses unsigned drivers? unsigned drivers are NOT the same as not WHQL.. And as far as I know both vistas don't allow unsigned drivers unless you run it in test mode.

Also, way to go quoting some guy about how there aren't any 64bit programs (and bolding it so its clear this is your point)... The example 64bit programs and our reports of anywhere from 20% faster (7z compression) to several times faster (realVNC, firefox, IE) are obviously all our imagination since some guy said "there aren't any 64bit programs really"... *applauds in sarcasm*

Instead of being ignorant about "some guy", please dispute his statements.

And perhaps read more of his articles, to get yourself more familiar with him.

For your own benefit...

I did dispute them in the EXACT SAME SENTENCE:

Also, way to go quoting some guy about how there aren't any 64bit programs (and bolding it so its clear this is your point)... The example 64bit programs and our reports of anywhere from 20% faster (7z compression) to several times faster (realVNC, firefox, IE) are obviously all our imagination since some guy said "there aren't any 64bit programs really"... *applauds in sarcasm*

Cant you see me disputing it there in that exact sentence you QUOTED and bolded again? here I bolded the part where I dispute it, maybe you will see it now.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: JustaGeek

Originally posted by: wordsworm
You have made a few incorrect assumptions. #1, that I was addressing my comment to you. I edited my post so that it was obvious that I was addressing appoppin. However, it should have been obvious to you since the stats I was quoting weren't the same as yours. I have the feeling that you didn't look very closely. Second, you made the assumption that 3 way SLI in Vista 64 doesn't work. Well, this too is incorrect. I posted the article already, but I'll do so for you and Mana: 3 Way SLI (for Vista 64)

I think Crysis was constructed with future gaming machines in mind. I think they want to enjoy revenue for many years. They made it pliable for both 64 and 32 bit Vista. The future that some have mentioned is happening right now. My assumption: No gaming studio in its right mind is designing games without thinking of investing some of its work into 64 bit Vista. 64 bit Vista is future ready, and 32 bit Vista is not. It's low end, regardless of how you shake it. The gaming industry doesn't care at all about about what corporations are putting on their computers. Those machines aren't designed for games. In fact, they probably get upset if they find games on those machines. The other corporate type would be the designing community. Those who are working on MS OS will quickly find the value in 64 bit Photoshop. Apple users are already enjoying it. According to this Adobe forum, even 32 bit Photoshop runs better in Vista 64.

I'm sure 2008 will become known as the year of the 64 bit revolution. I think that 2007 is the year that it became possible to adopt 64 bit and benefit from it more than one is compromised. To me, it makes no sense as to why an enthusiast would hold back when they spend so much on the machinery that, by now, has actually been designed to run 64 and 32 bit software.

In any case, why would I really care if you believe me or not? The facts are what they are, and there are enough opinions to substantiate a positive experience. As you said, you'll know when you're ready to evolve.

LOL.

The stats could have been yours, for what I know. I don't keep track of everyone's systems. But now you have made it obvious.

apoppin - i feel better now that I have company...

At least in terms of 64-bit opinions... :thumbsup:

you have lots of company ... just because the 64bit early-adopters are louder doesn't mean they are right

i will agree with the OP in a year or so when games start to really *use* more than 2GB and will start to eat into my [then] 3.3+GB of addressable RAM

i like to do things on a budget and my upgrades for "practical need" ... not just for a possible theoretical advantage and future headroom ... i am *planning* my next major upgrade in '09 - by then i will migrate to WinVista64 and get a new PCIe2-MB/QC-CPU/GPU/DDR3 as well as a brand new thermal printer.
--IF i went with Vista 64 i would have [had to] to spend $2,000 on another thermal printer and SW or dual-boot ... and my printer is still very usable ... and IF i "upgraded" to 4GB of PC-6400 6 months ago it would have cost me three times more than now and i would have seen no real advantage until now.

32Bit is still very valid ...


That said, imo there is nothing wrong with migrating early to 64 bit ... it depends on your needs and current HW

 

[JustaGeek]

If you need a 4 lane limited access highway (Vista 64) to go to work 5 miles away, go for it.

But I will use my regular city streets (XP 32), since there is no traffic anyway, and I am able to do it within the same time frame.

I will use the highway when it gets really congested here.

In a year or two...

EDIT: Made a "wild metaphor" clear.

 

[taltamir]

@apoppin: the fact you have a crappy 2000$ thermal printer that has no vista64 support is irrelevant for this discussion. In your specific case you should stick with XP.

@Justageek: wow... so you were completely and totally unable to respond to my query, so you just pretended it didn't happen and resort to wild metaphors... So wild in fact that I was unclear if you speaking against or for vista64 until I check your username.

 

[JustaGeek]

Isn't that funny how some people try to belittle others for making choices, and to get their point across...?

Every single person using the 64-bit Vista WILL, not just might, encounter a software problem that will prevent them from running an application, or make a new acquired peripheral not work.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: taltamir
@apoppin: the fact you have a crappy 2000$ thermal printer that has no vista64 support is irrelevant for this discussion. In your specific case you should stick with XP.

@Justageek: wow... so you were completely and totally unable to respond to my query, so you just pretended it didn't happen and resort to wild metaphors... So wild in fact that I was unclear if you speaking against or for vista64 until I check your username.

it is a professional thermal printer that suits my business needs perfectly
... i am just sticking with Vista32 for now with 4GB system RAM as there is ZERO advantage for me to "upgrade" to Vista 64 ... at least nothing you can show for gaming this year - or even next year
:roll:

if it make you feel superior having migrated early that is also OK with me

 

[JustaGeek]

Originally posted by: taltamir
@Justageek: wow... so you were completely and totally unable to respond to my query, so you just pretended it didn't happen and resort to wild metaphors... So wild in fact that I was unclear if you speaking against or for vista64 until I check your username.

Could you please give me some links, so i can either rebutt your query, or perhaps... agree with you...?

 

[JustaGeek]

Originally posted by: apoppin
if it make you feel superior having migrated early that is also OK with me

I do not think the "early adopters" feel superior.

From what I have gathered, they are slightly insecure about their decision, and need validation by either creating threads like this one, or seeking support for their "64-bit choice" in their posts.

They are, after all, entering and exploring an "unchartered teritory"...