It is retarded NOT to know that 16-bit apps do not work on Vista 64.
The fact that YOU would not "want to use" them means absolutely nothing.
Very impressive statement, lifer!
ViRGE
Elite Member, Moderator Emeritus
- Oct 9, 1999
- 31,516
- 167
- 106
Well your original statement was "Every single person using the 64-bit Vista WILL, not just might, encounter a software problem", the point is that most people will be like myself and do not have any 16bit applications to run. Hence I have not and do not expect I will have a software problem under Vista 64bit.
Do you have an OC'd Quad with 4 gigs of RAM and 8800GT at work...?
Wow, because at my work we use 2.8GHz P4 Dells with 1gig only...
I agree 100%. That was one of the major reasons I started this thread in the first place. Stop running tests on $5,000 machines running a vastly inferior OS.
If we are going to be that particular about it, you do have that problem now, as we speak, with Adobe Flash Player.
BTW, I have decided to get Vista 64, most likely Home Premium, but will wait for SP1 to resolve all the original release's "quirks".
Curiosity, curiosity...
But I still have not heard any compelling evidence that would suggest that Vista 64 is a "must have" for games or... anything, really...
And again... why would you call it a "vastly inferior OS" in December 2007, when 99% of all the people around the world do not have Vista 64...?
Are we all so... uneducated...?
Is Microsoft wrong, telling us to exercise caution...?
"The 64-bit editions of Windows Vista are not for everyone, and require a system with a 64-bit processor and 64-bit system drivers. Please confirm that your system, applications, and devices are compatible with a 64-bit edition of Windows Vista before installing."
And... are ALL the hardware vendors selling us a substandard product in stores today...?
Not on line, but stores and OEM hardware. Not a single 64-bit system in retail today...
Exactly, thanks for putting it in a more practical context. To further this, it also limits game developers in what they can accomplish when making/designing their games. Big, open-ended zones are typically a bad idea...unless you want to spend a year hearing about poor performance complaints. LOTRO is an excellent example of this, as they made some major changes that helped performance in both 32-bit (anyone who played at launch and went to Bree knows about this), but also enabled /largeaddressaware in 64-bit which made a huge difference.
For example, a major current complaint about COD4 is the multiplayer map-size...its very possible they can't make maps bigger without a major performance hit to the vast majority of systems out there. Typically, FPS games didn't run into as many problems with memory since they're limited to the current map and round changes take care of the transitions in a less obvious manner by flushing/loading new textures between rounds. But FPS games have also typically pushed the visual envelope and we're starting to see the result of that in games like Crysis and UT3 as Virge mentioned.
You can also see it though in the way current games are designed. Games now are becoming even more realistic and often play like a movie, but to get around current hardware limitations they have to use some creative techniques. One common thing you'll see is breaks in action, like a cut-scene or debrief where they play a FMV or unintensive sequence while the engine loads up the level textures/data in the background. They may also "funnel" you in terms of direction which has the obvious benefit of allowing them to "guess" and pre-load textures before you need them. Another thing you may see is more constant zoning, check points, chapters or missions instead of more contiguous gameplay.
Err? Flash player works fine.
I know 16 bit software doesnt work, its a given... no one uses 16 bit software.
You cant use punchcards in vista64 either. OMFG.
Grow up and stop making excuses for the OEMs and hardware makers for slacking on 64bit, your defense of 32bit isnt even rational.
TraumaRN
Diamond Member
- Jun 5, 2005
- 6,893
- 63
- 91
Originally posted by: JustaGeek
Do you have an OC'd Quad with 4 gigs of RAM and 8800GT at work...?
Wow, because at my work we use 2.8GHz P4 Dells with 1gig only...
No but we do have some nice computers at work. And they only run a few programs the main one being Citrix Desktop on top of Windows XP Pro, they are 1.8Ghz Dothan core laptops with 1Gb of ram and 80 gig 5400rpm HDDs. For their purpose they are quite great.
However I wish we had Vista because the superfetcher would help speed/loads tremendously. Most people at my job, myself included run the same 1-3 programs ALL day every day. Tell me thats not begging for Vista and its superfetching. I've tried talking to some of the IT people at work and they would like Vista for that reason as well but...other things need the money first unfortunately.
TraumaRN
Diamond Member
- Jun 5, 2005
- 6,893
- 63
- 91
2 game engines specifically like 64 bit, one is the Crysis engine, the other is actually the Source engine. Crysis sees a 10-15% performance increase going from 32bit to 64bit.
The source engine has been 64bit since November of 2005. And again you'll see a better, smoother gaming experience.
apoppin
Lifer
You are again speaking of the *future* ...
I'm sure you were speaking historically, not that it matters since I've already given a historical example of a game where 3.25GB isn't enough (Supreme Commander). Chances are XP will still try and cram all your apps and games into that 2GB of user-space while saving the rest for itself to avoid that dreaded page_fault_in_non_paged_area and you won't see much difference with 3.25GB in XP (I didn't).[/quote]again ... nonsense ... 2GB is not in my argument at all - i am speaking the "now" - '08 when 32Bit and 3.3GB of addressable RAM are plenty ... i was speaking 'history' when i said 2GB was sufficient - and i thought i made it rather clear [over-and-over]. As a matter of fact, i can *now* run all my background programs and Hg:L since they finally *patched* it yesterday and fixed the *memory leak* .
SC also *needs* QC according to some ... yet it still bogs with a maxed-out map at super-high resolutions with any amount of RAM
not the way you try to stuff words in my mouth
i have been consistently saying that ReadyBoost more than "equalizes" for its higher overhead over XP. That XP and Vista have nearly identical gaming performance. i am also saying that that "extra" 0.7 GB of addressable System RAM that 64-bit uses in a 4 GB system are not needed for gaming and will make no practical difference in my system.
1. ReadyBoost is a joke. Praising the merits of ReadyBoost while dismissing SDRAM and SuperFetch is just lol.
2. XP and Vista only have nearly identical gaming performance after the KB940105 hot fix but they're both still crippled when it comes to user-space apps that exceed ~2.5GB.
3. Its 0.7GB of addressable physical memory and about a bajillion GB more addressable virtual memory. If 0.7GB isn't a big deal, then I guess 1.25GB isn't a big deal. And that's before we even get into exponentially greater virtual memory addresses.
4. Once again, until you add more RAM to your system and allow it to use more than 3.25GB by going 64-bit, how would you know it wouldn't make any practical difference? Oh right, you don't.
AGAIN ... Show me *expert opinion* ... i don't care for your "personal testimony" very much
the Witcher is bugged - even with the 1.2 patch -and uses the NWN2 defective game-engine ... use a *stable* game. Hg:L also had a memory-leak problem - pre latest patch - ... no amount of RAM would fix it ... try a *good* exampleWitcher RAM usageyou could? ... well then show me some figures instead of talk. Show me how the move to 64 bit will benefit someone like me with 4GB of RAM and Vista 32.
-We'd all appreciate more than "personal testimonial" of how it "feels"
That's off a fresh load, barely anything cached, no zoning, minimal background apps running. After an hour or two of gameplay it steadily increases to just over 4GB. And The Witcher isn't even the most memory intensive game I run (LOTRO blows it away). Considering how much zoning and running around you do in TW, it does make a practical difference in gameplay, especially after yesterday's patch that addressed zoning times. SuperFetch uses any extra RAM to cache game data or other apps/games so that I don't have to worry as much about paging/swapping or the placebo effect of ReadyBoost. I'll be sure to update the SS after a few hours of playtime though np.
[/quote]If I had Photoshop open that'd tack on a healthy 1-2GB ya. Luckily I do have the RAM to open it up if I wanted to without coming out of "game mode". Why stop at 8GB? That's obvious. Hardware/cost limitations make it prohibitive. 8GB otoh is dirt cheap and can be had for less than what 2GB cost a year ago.no it certainly isn't needed except perhaps for a serious photoshopper
-but why stop with just 8GB ... the future is 16GB or more
If ... if ... if ... "if you"
Originally posted by: DeathBUA
Originally posted by: JustaGeek
Do you have an OC'd Quad with 4 gigs of RAM and 8800GT at work...?
Wow, because at my work we use 2.8GHz P4 Dells with 1gig only...
No but we do have some nice computers at work. And they only run a few programs the main one being Citrix Desktop on top of Windows XP Pro, they are 1.8Ghz Dothan core laptops with 1Gb of ram and 80 gig 5400rpm HDDs. For their purpose they are quite great.
However I wish we had Vista because the superfetcher would help speed/loads tremendously. Most people at my job, myself included run the same 1-3 programs ALL day every day. Tell me thats not begging for Vista and its superfetching. I've tried talking to some of the IT people at work and they would like Vista for that reason as well but...other things need the money first unfortunately.
And 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.
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.
LoL now you're just trolling. Even with a SS you claim every game is bugged if it goes over 3.25GB? LMAO. Bugged or not its going to run better for longer with more than 3.25GB whether you like it or not.
Posts like that make me want to try it, as they are very informative, and seem objective and rational.
Thank you, Chizow.
apoppin
Lifer
Originally posted by: chizow
LoL now you're just trolling. Even with a SS you claim every game is bugged if it goes over 3.25GB? LMAO. Bugged or not its going to run better for longer with more than 3.25GB whether you like it or not.
i think you are ... you actually agree with me ... it doesn't make sense for a 32-bit user to upgrade to 64-bit - <now ... for gaming
Compared to XP, i'm [also] "much happier" with WinVista32 ... and [way-way] happier then if i adopted Vista64 early
yeah, the *future* IS 64-bit ... and my thanks to you and the early adopters for pioneering and working its bugs out for us "mainstream" gamers
As to your "example" - the Aurora [NWN2's] engine is garbage ... and has known "issues" with RAM management ... find a *real* example in a stable game. Unpatched Gothic3 will eat up 16GB of RAM.
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: chizow
LoL now you're just trolling. Even with a SS you claim every game is bugged if it goes over 3.25GB? LMAO. Bugged or not its going to run better for longer with more than 3.25GB whether you like it or not.
i think you are ... you actually agree with me ... it doesn't make sense for a 32-bit user to upgrade to 64-bit - <<now ... for gaming
Compared to XP, i'm [also] "much happier" with WinVista32 ... and [way-way] happier then if i adopted Vista64 early
yeah, the *future* IS 64-bit ... and my thanks to you and the early adopters for pioneering and working its bugs out for us "mainstream" gamers
As to your "example" - the Aurora [NWN2's] engine is garbage ... and has known "issues" with RAM management ... find a *real* example in a stable game. Unpatched Gothic3 will eat up 16GB of RAM.
See, the consensus, even from the AT members (the ones that are not overly aggressive), is that the 32-bit XP or Vista is perfectly fine today.
I might give the 64-bit Vista a shot, primarily to see "what the fuss is all about", but I will definitely keep my perfectly stable XP, in order to run the apps that refuse to work in the 64-bit environment.
Uh no. Like I said, I'm not here to convince anyone to upgrade or not. There's obviously reasons for people not to upgrade, mainly compatibility and cost concerns which are both valid. My issue is with people who insist current games don't need 2GB or 3.25GB or whatever you want to claim next. My point is that current games/systems will push the 32-bit limit and that's a proven fact.Originally posted by: apoppin
i think you are ... you actually agree with me ... it doesn't make sense for a 32-bit user to upgrade to 64-bit - <<now ... for gaming
Compared to XP, i'm [also] "much happier" with WinVista32 ... and [way-way] happier then if i adopted Vista64 early
Future was 6 months ago when review sites started publishing reports of games exceeding 32-bit limitations. Early adopters were also 6-12 months ago, and as many in this thread have stated, going Vista 64 shouldn't be considered adopting it early at this stage in the game, especially with SP1 coming out next month. And technically we're in the future as you've been arguing for days how games/systems don't need 64-bit/4GB+ when you've already been proven wrong.yeah, the *future* IS 64-bit ... and my thanks to you and the early adopters for pioneering and working its bugs out for us "mainstream" gamers
I've listed more than TW as an example, as have others but I'm sure you'll just claim they're buggy engines yadayada which at the end of the day, doesn't discount the fact they will run better for longer on a system with a 64-bit OS and more RAM compared to a 32-bit system.As to your "example" - the Aurora [NWN2's] engine is garbage ... and has known "issues" with RAM management ... find a *real* example in a stable game. Unpatched Gothic3 will eat up 16GB of RAM.
But anyways, games I've personally observed use more than 3.25GB commit charge with a few instances of IE open include: CoH/OP, Titans Quest/IT (playing through acts 1-4 without closing the game), LOTRO (only need to port 2x or Bree 1x to hit 3.5GB+, gone as high as 5.5 commit). Games and demos that come close to 3GB include COD4 and Crysis Demo. BFG also mentioned STALKER got a /largeaddressaware patch so that'd probably break 3GB too.
And yes, all those games are perfectly "stable", provided your system doesn't run out of RAM and does the unthinkable, like page_fault_in_non_paged_area.
They're warning you because they know that $300 machines might have a hard time running it, not to mention using the OS as an upgrade. Vista 32 is vastly inferior. It's 32 bit. 32 bits is vastly inferior to 64 bit. Furthermore, if your computer doesn't have a 64 bit capable CPU, then you won't be able to run it. Seems like the warning is a disclaimer. There are some notes around the web about problems with peripherals. However, I haven't had any issues at all, except for a TASCAM 122-L. I keep getting drivers promised, but still nothing. I might very well have to install a copy of XP to run it. However, I've also considered just getting a cheap PIV computer which could simply control it.
You mentioned before that a downside to 64 bit is that it can't run 16 bit. Somehow, I didn't hear you complaining that it doesn't run 8 bit applications. This is also true. You can't run 8 bit software on Vista.
apoppin
Lifer
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.Originally posted by: chizow
Uh no. Like I said, I'm not here to convince anyone to upgrade or not. There's obviously reasons for people not to upgrade, mainly compatibility and cost concerns which are both valid. My issue is with people who insist current games don't need 2GB or 3.25GB or whatever you want to claim next. My point is that current games/systems will push the 32-bit limit and that's a proven fact.Originally posted by: apoppin
i think you are ... you actually agree with me ... it doesn't make sense for a 32-bit user to upgrade to 64-bit - <<<now ... for gaming
Compared to XP, i'm [also] "much happier" with WinVista32 ... and [way-way] happier then if i adopted Vista64 early
Proven wrong? ... i am still waiting for *proof*Future was 6 months ago when review sites started publishing reports of games exceeding 32-bit limitations. Early adopters were also 6-12 months ago, and as many in this thread have stated, going Vista 64 shouldn't be considered adopting it early at this stage in the game, especially with SP1 coming out next month. And technically we're in the future as you've been arguing for days how games/systems don't need 64-bit/4GB+ when you've already been proven wrong.yeah, the *future* IS 64-bit ... and my thanks to you and the early adopters for pioneering and working its bugs out for us "mainstream" gamers
-games do not need 4GB of System RAM and 64 bit to make any practical difference over 3.3GB and 32bit
no ... i am asking for more than NWN2's inefficient and buggy engine as an example ... or Gothic3's Memory Mismanagement EngineI've listed more than TW as an example, as have others but I'm sure you'll just claim they're buggy engines yadayada which at the end of the day, doesn't discount the fact they will run better for longer on a system with a 64-bit OS and more RAM compared to a 32-bit system.As to your "example" - the Aurora [NWN2's] engine is garbage ... and has known "issues" with RAM management ... find a *real* example in a stable game. Unpatched Gothic3 will eat up 16GB of RAM.
"... personally observed ... a few instances of IE open ... come close to 3GB ..." probably.. "
... um sure ... real scientific and unbiased
:roll:
Well, you seem totally "fanatical" and obsessed with your 64-bit Vista, so you don't seem to employ any rationality in your posts.
And I mentioned the 16-bit installers for the corporate software, so you go off on a tangent with the 8-bit in response.
There is a variety of different "caliber" computers sold at B&M stores, with high end more than capable of running any operating system.
If I have the money, and want to spend $5,000+ on the computer, I want to be able to walk in to the store and get exactly what I want.
But I can't.
They don't sell the 64-bit machines.
They watch. And learn. And then they will sell. Depending on demand, drivers and 64-bit software, practically non-existent today.
BTW, wordsworm, your problems with the TASCAM 122-L just confirm my statement that EVERY single user WILL encounter a problem with the 64-bit Vista.
But I have decided to try it nevertheless, in a dual-boot configuration.
Should I wait for SP1, or it will install fine on my 3GB of RAM...?
It's not a "trick question", I want to know if I have to pull 1gig, in order not to get installation errors.
But I have decided to try it nevertheless, in a dual-boot configuration.
Should I wait for SP1, or it will install fine on my 3GB of RAM...?
It's not a "trick question", I want to know if I have to pull 1gig, in order not to get installation errors.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter