32 bit is no longer valid

[JustaGeek]

Originally posted by: taltamir
If you have XP on a current machine than keep it... the benefit hardly justifies the work and 200$ price tag. But if you make a new machine and can use which ever you want then get 64bit for the exact same price.

Thank you.

That's exactly my point.

 

[1Frothy]

I'm thinking about running Vista x64 Ultimate. What are AT's user experiences with application and game compatibility? Or maybe it's best to wait for SP1 which seems to be almost done?

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: 1Frothy
I'm thinking about running Vista x64 Ultimate. What are AT's user experiences with application and game compatibility? Or maybe it's best to wait for SP1 which seems to be almost done?

No issues with anything that runs in XP as far as games go. Apps that need drivers like burning programs and things like that need new versions, but most companies have released such updates already.

 

[1Frothy]

I'm going to go 64bit when Vista reaches SP1 release then.

 

[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.

The SP1 would integrate that fix unto the install CD.

There are some packages available at dubious sites containing "roll ups" of all the hotfixes (or you can make on yourself using vlite.net). But the "make one yourself" is too much of a pain... and the premade ones are all pre-cracked AND have some issues arising from rolling up too many things that weren't meant to... (so no good for a legitimate user).


Aside from that, I don't know of even a SINGLE program thats vista 32bit compatible and not vista 64bit compatible... so either their problem is with vista, or not at all... no problems with 64bit...
And even those programs are rare, and you are better off without them...

For example quickbooks prior to 2007 version (ie, 2006, 2005, etc) used the registry as a scratchpad for different modules in the program to connect to each other. This is a technique that microsoft BANNED in 2001 saying doing so makes you incompatible with windowsXP... It sorta worked with windowsXP because thats what they programmed it for, but it no longer works with vista, probably because vista security blocks it as a harmful process (IT IS A VERY HARMFUL PROCESS)... the rational behind quickens refusal to comply with microsoft demands was "we never actually sought to be windowsXP certified"...



Speaking about the original poll here... Anand is the ONLY review site I know that uses 64bit vista as a STANDARD... and has been for a while... most places review on 32bit XP vs 32bit vista... or just use XP only... Anand is also the only site I know that tests all their games with 4GB of ram...

Thats part of why I consider their results the most reliable...

So the whole poll to get anand to start using 64bit seems a bit superflous to me.

 

[wordsworm]

Speaking about the original poll here... Anand is the ONLY review site I know that uses 64bit vista as a STANDARD... and has been for a while... most places review on 32bit XP vs 32bit vista... or just use XP only... Anand is also the only site I know that tests all their games with 4GB of ram...

You must have missed the following articles then:
3 way SLI, NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS 512 & GeForce 8800 GT 256MB: Playing with Memory and G92

In both articles I was, and am, contesting the validity of the results due to the limitations of 32 bit with memory. In the article showing 3 way SLI, we see an OS limited to 4.2 GB of RAM (32 bits) trying to run a rig with 6.1 GB of RAM. In the article comparing nVidia flavors a comparison is made between video cards ranging in memory from 256 MB to 768 MB on a board that has 4 GB of total memory. This was the reason I wrote the article in the first place.

I did find an article showing 3 way SLI on a 64 bit OS. NVIDIA 3-Way SLI Technology Review - 8880 Ultra x 3
This system has 4 GB of RAM and 64 bit Vista.

Some others have suggested that only 2 GB is necessary. Well, if that's the case, I think to provide true objectivity, it would have been more consistent to test the system with 2 GB of motherboard RAM. Also, I'd like to point out that while my system (4 GB of RAM, 64 bit Vista) has 4.093 GB showing on Task Manager, it's using only 1.54, and rarely goes up past 2.1 GB, I can also see that there is 2.8 GB of RAM cached, leaving me with 3 MB of unused RAM.

Furthermore, if I understand correctly, it's not good to run a machine whose apps eat up more than 60% of the onboard RAM on a consistent basis. So, if I'm consistently using 1.5-2.0 GB, then I should have 3-4 GB of onboard RAM.

In any case, you're right about me trying to influence the testing method that is used by Anandtech. I don't think it was accurate because of the problem mentioned. But, I don't think they really care that much. There's a new platform being pushed, a new video card is being sold, and that's what's being promoted by the website. Maybe that's pushing it a bit too far. I don't really think there's a video card conspiracy at Anandtech. I just thought it would be funny to suggest it.

 

[taltamir]

Oh, I didn't catch that... what happened, anandtech is slipping if they suddenly went BACK to 32bit vista on 2GB of ram... In fact, I am looking at the last few results and they have done the same in all of them, 32bit vista with 2GB of ram... worst combination you can have (with XP + 2GB being better, and 64vista + 4GB being best)

Besides, even if 4GB of ram isn't helping it isn't HURTING... removing a potential bottleneck that might disrupt the testing is more important that "proving" your claim that it doesn't matter by testing only WITHOUT that... in fact, that only serves to discredit your methology and prove otherwise.
Now that I think about it the last few tests weren't very forthcoming about the exact settings used in each game tested either...

 

[wordsworm]

Besides, even if 4GB of ram isn't helping it isn't HURTING... removing a potential bottleneck that might disrupt the testing is more important that "proving" your claim that it doesn't matter by testing only WITHOUT that... in fact, that only serves to discredit your methology and prove otherwise.

You're missing the original purpose of my post. If you test 256 MB cards alongside 768 MB cards on a testbed having 4 GB of RAM, then you end up crippling the one with 768 MB more than you are the one with 256 MB, which in turn would skew the results. The tests need to be conducted again under 64 bit Vista in order to produce reliable results. The alternative is to test them with 2 GB of RAM under 32 bit Vista.

The 3 way SLI under 32 bit Vista was completely off the wall as far as I can tell. What would be even more interesting is to rerun those results against 64 bit Vista to see if there would be a discernible difference.

 

[Mana]

There won't be any discernable difference between Vista 32-bit and 64-bit with 3-way SLI because if I remember correctly, the memory on all three videocards is addressed as the same. Meaning, the system still only sees 768-MB, despite there being an 'extra' 1536 GB of RAM. If the CPU wants to put a piece of information at block XXX of the memory on videocard 2, then that information is also put at block XXX of videocards 1 and 3 at the same time.

Originally posted by: wordsworm

Besides, even if 4GB of ram isn't helping it isn't HURTING... removing a potential bottleneck that might disrupt the testing is more important that "proving" your claim that it doesn't matter by testing only WITHOUT that... in fact, that only serves to discredit your methology and prove otherwise.

You're missing the original purpose of my post. If you test 256 MB cards alongside 768 MB cards on a testbed having 4 GB of RAM, then you end up crippling the one with 768 MB more than you are the one with 256 MB, which in turn would skew the results.

How are the results of a 768 MB card crippled compared to a 256 MB card under 32-bit Vista with 4 GB of RAM?

 

[Avalon]

Originally posted by: JustaGeek
Look, guys - if you are trying so hard to convince me, and perhaps the others, to spend ~$200+ (or ~$110 for OEM HP), you have to do a better job than that.

*snip*

Just give me a good reason... I have not heard a single one yet.

We're not trying to convince you to drop money down on Vista x64. We're trying to show you that it's better in many ways, and there's a difference. Just like I wouldn't advocate someone with an HD3870 to upgrade to an 8800GT, I wouldn't tell you to upgrade to Vista x64 from XP. But I still find the OS superior.

I've already posted at least once citing features I found that were vastly improved over XP.

Search is improved, the widget ability can provide a few helpful tools, tabbing is much more helpful, directory layout is superior, and you are given many more tools and controls over the system. I also find Vista to be a more stable OS.

Programs that can make use of 64-bit addressing provide a very tangible boost. Even a few games have been optimized for increased performance under 64bit mode. You can also address more than 3ish GB of RAM, for those people running games like WiC and Crysis under high quality that take up over 2GB of RAM. This is also useful for modeling and other similar work applications.

If you were into marketing, you could also cite Readyboost, DX10, etc. but I haven't made extensive use of these yet.

 

[cputeq]

Some of you are making much ado about (potentally) nothing.

You're missing the original purpose of my post. If you test 256 MB cards alongside 768 MB cards on a testbed having 4 GB of RAM, then you end up crippling the one with 768 MB more than you are the one with 256 MB, which in turn would skew the results. The tests need to be conducted again under 64 bit Vista in order to produce reliable results. The alternative is to test them with 2 GB of RAM under 32 bit Vista.

The only time results will be skewed is if hard drive thrashing affects the FPS scores. Whether this is true I don't know, and don't really care (since I'll never run 3xSLI), but automatically discounting the results because of the test environment might not be the best thing.

You are bringing up a legitimate point, though, so one should probably investigate if the benchmarks ran would yield better results with the additional RAM.

Crysis benchmark, for instance, completely leaves the hard drive alone after the first loop of the benchmark on a 2GB system.

As long as the testing methodology remains the same (discard 1st run, average the rest), there should be no appreciable difference between a 2GB and 4GB system. Of course, 64 bit environments / drivers will change the numbers, but it's folly to automatically assume the 32bit/4GB system will yield smaller numbers just because it's total usable RAM is being penalized.

Furthermore, if I understand correctly, it's not good to run a machine whose apps eat up more than 60% of the onboard RAM on a consistent basis. So, if I'm consistently using 1.5-2.0 GB, then I should have 3-4 GB of onboard RAM

Define "not good". I hate to tell you, but system RAM is meant to be used, not sit there empty making the user feel better that he/she has all this free RAM!

Windows dynamically caches things to virtual memory dependent on how much system RAM you have installed.

I just got my 2GB in yesterday, going from 2 to 4GB on Home Premium 64. Without changing *any* programs or configurations, my system usage at idle went from about 750MB to 1.2GB. Windows notices the additional ram and doesn't need to write so much stuff to virtual memory (because Windows tries like hell to keep free RAM open to help responsiveness).

Frankly, if I'm doing something like working with large images in Photoshop or other RAM-intensive tasks, I'd be highly pissed if the app (if capable) didn't make use of the RAM "above 60%". I don't understand the logic of it being "good" to not use your RAM. Maybe system responsiveness would take a nosedive because you're running 18 apps at once, but it's not inherently "bad" to do so.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: cputeq
Some of you are making much ado about (potentally) nothing.

The only time results will be skewed is if hard drive thrashing affects the FPS scores. Whether this is true I don't know, and don't really care (since I'll never run 3xSLI), but automatically discounting the results because of the test environment might not be the best thing.

You are bringing up a legitimate point, though, so one should probably investigate if the benchmarks ran would yield better results with the additional RAM.

Crysis benchmark, for instance, completely leaves the hard drive alone after the first loop of the benchmark on a 2GB system.

As long as the testing methodology remains the same (discard 1st run, average the rest), there should be no appreciable difference between a 2GB and 4GB system. Of course, 64 bit environments / drivers will change the numbers, but it's folly to automatically assume the 32bit/4GB system will yield smaller numbers just because it's total usable RAM is being penalized.

Not necessarily addressed to you, but there are going to be some differences with 32-bit vs. 64-bit or 2GB vs. 4GB, especially at the resolutions tested in that Tri-SLI review. We've consistently seen that higher resolutions and increasingly large/detailed textures in games have continued to push the perception of "how much RAM do you need". There's always going to be the minimalists who insist lower bounds are "fine" or "enough" even in the face of evidence to the contrary.

One of the big things the 32-bit people are going to constantly say is "I only see a game using 1.5GB max, so 2GB and a 32-bit OS is enough for me." This argument is inherently flawed though, as the game must limit itself from using more RAM otherwise it will crash. Its not so much that the game can't use more RAM, its that it can't use more RAM before you're staring at a BSOD. To get around this the game/program will simply limit RAM use and flush its cache more frequently. Some games will continue to eat RAM though until there's nothing left to eat and the program will crash (as seen in the Supreme Commander tests done in AT's article). Others might not flush/reallocate their cache efficiently and crash after extended periods of play (the dreaded "memory leak").

But in the grand scheme of things, arguing against more RAM and 64-bit is tantamount to saying HDD paging/thrashing doesn't decrease performance and loading screens don't adversely impact your gaming experience. In reality, gaming would be SOOOO much better if everyone had 8-16GB of RAM and a 64-bit OS and you cached the ENTIRE game (similar to early cartridge vs. CD-ROM platform arguments). Can games today use more than 2GB? Yes. If games are using 2GB or more by themselves and your OS and background apps are using another 700MB-1.2GB, that doesn't leave you a whole lot of leftover if you're limited to ~3.25GB.

 

[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:

 

[JustaGeek]

Originally posted by: Avalon

Originally posted by: JustaGeek
Look, guys - if you are trying so hard to convince me, and perhaps the others, to spend ~$200+ (or ~$110 for OEM HP), you have to do a better job than that.

*snip*

Just give me a good reason... I have not heard a single one yet.

We're not trying to convince you to drop money down on Vista x64. We're trying to show you that it's better in many ways, and there's a difference. .......... But I still find the OS superior.

Sorry - you have failed to demonstrate Vista 64 superiority so far.

I've already posted at least once citing features I found that were vastly improved over XP.

Search is improved, the widget ability can provide a few helpful tools, tabbing is much more helpful, directory layout is superior, and you are given many more tools and controls over the system. I also find Vista to be a more stable OS.

I know the features - I am running Vista 32 HP on my laptop. And yes - it is neat. Cool. Pretty. "Gadgety". Aero.

All the above are not overly useful for anything I do everyday, including gaming. Now - 64bit Vista. What's better here compared to my "pretty looking" 32-bit laptop...?

Programs that can make use of 64-bit addressing provide a very tangible boost. Even a few games have been optimized for increased performance under 64bit mode. You can also address more than 3ish GB of RAM, for those people running games like WiC and Crysis under high quality that take up over 2GB of RAM. This is also useful for modeling and other similar work applications.

If you were into marketing, you could also cite Readyboost, DX10, etc. but I haven't made extensive use of these yet.

Examples please.

Address more than 3GB of RAM? Who needs that today? Future - yes, but not for another 2 years (besides selected few, of course.)

Games? It is well documented that they run WAY faster on XP.

Readyboost...? It is a workaround, to make otherwise sluggish Vista more responsive on slower computers. Even my Sempron laptop doesn't need it.

DX10? Don't even get me started here :laugh:

Again: 64-bit Windows is not ready for prime time yet, nor is it necessary for productivity or efficiency/speed.

32-bit XP, and even 32-bit Vista are just fine.

But...

I'll watch. And learn. And then buy.

 

[Avalon]

Originally posted by: JustaGeek

Sorry - you have failed to demonstrate Vista 64 superiority so far.

No I didn't, you just refuse to accept other's reasonings.

I know the features - I am running Vista 32 HP on my laptop. And yes - it is neat. Cool. Pretty. "Gadgety". Aero.

Except that I wasn't just listing features. I also listed OS structure, layout, design, and administrative preferences.

All the above are not overly useful for anything I do everyday, including gaming. Now - 64bit Vista. What's better here compared to my "pretty looking" 32-bit laptop...?

You seem to be fixated on the idea that Vista is just there to be pretty, and nothing else. That's fine with me.

Examples please.

If you want examples of native 64 bit programs running faster than 32 bit variants, do a search on the home site of these forums you're posting on. They have tons of articles showcasing 64bit/32bit performance comparisons, and there are even one or two examples in the latest QX9650 overclocking article on the front page.

Address more than 3GB of RAM? Who needs that today? Future - yes, but not for another 2 years (besides selected few, of course.)

I already told you. BTW, my system makes use of more than 3GB of RAM while playing Crysis and WiC and running background processes. I don't "need" it for them, but the system can make use of it.

Games? It is well documented that they run WAY faster on XP.

Wrong.
http://firingsquad.com/hardwar...nce_update/default.asp
Vista performance is for all intents and purposes identical to XP in games.

Readyboost...? It is a workaround, to make otherwise sluggish Vista more responsive on slower computers. Even my Sempron laptop doesn't need it.

That's fine, I was merely listing it as a useless marketing feature just in case you cared. Obviously you don't.

DX10? Don't even get me started here :laugh:

Again, just throwing out another useless marketing feature. But if it gets a laugh out of you, let's get this party started. We all need a good laugh once in a while.

Again: 64-bit Windows is not ready for prime time yet, nor is it necessary for productivity or efficiency/speed. 32-bit XP, and even 32-bit Vista are just fine.

Says who? The guy running XP on his desktop and 32bit Vista on his laptop? Sorry, but the majority of non-launch reviews out there and users actually running 64bit Vista disagree with you. Vista 64 is more than ready for the majority of today's users.

I'll watch. And learn. And then buy.

Good, that's the idea. And I'm not rushing you either. Take your time.

 

[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).

 

[LittleNemoNES]

Vista 32 is a hog.

Vista 64 is also a hog BUT it can use more than 3GB of ram so it even out

I regret getting another 2x 1GB sticks...
Should have gone for 8GB!

 

[JustaGeek]

Ask Dan: 32 or 64 bit Vista?
Date: 9 February 2007
Last updated 13-Nov-2007.

http://www.dansdata.com/askdan00001.htm

"There's really very little reason for home and small business users to upgrade to Vista at all at the moment (February 2007). Yes, it has some nifty new features, but DirectX 10 games aren't quite here yet, and there are still far too many compatibility problems with existing hardware, many of which will be ironed out in the coming months.

There's even less reason for normal users to get 64-bit Windows. Compatibility is even worse, it isn't (overall) any faster for 32-bit software, and unless you already know of some piece of 64-bit software that you really want to run, I can fairly confidently state that there isn't any."


"The four things that make 64-bit Vista inadvisable for ordinary users are:

1: No compatibility with old 16-bit Windows apps. This means ancient Windows 3.x software, which most people don't run any more, but 16-bit code can still pop up in the darndest places. Like, for instance, in the installer programs for other apps.

2: No automatic registry and file redirection, which is what 32-bit Vista uses to allow existing software to work with Vista's better user account security, even if the software wants to do admin-rights stuff to the registry and Program Files directory. Many apps still break in 32-bit Vista, but many more break in the 64-bit version.

3: No compatibility with existing 32-bit drivers. Everything on your computer will need a new driver. 64-bit WinXP is the same, and there aren't many 64-bit computers on which Vista won't at least install, but 64-bit Windows also has...

4: No support for unsigned drivers."

 

[JustaGeek]

Originally posted by: Avalon

Originally posted by: JustaGeek

Again: 64-bit Windows is not ready for prime time yet, nor is it necessary for productivity or efficiency/speed. 32-bit XP, and even 32-bit Vista are just fine.

Says who? The guy running XP on his desktop and 32bit Vista on his laptop?

LOL.

That's really funny

 

[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*

 

[cputeq]

I'm pretty sure Vista 64 runs unsigned drivers. I'm running a hacked copy of Creative Audigy 2 ZS drivers as we speak (because Creative software has, and always will, suck total ass), and I definitely got a big ole' red window pop up warning me Windows couldn't verify the driver certificate (or whatever).

Maybe I'm confusing things, meh who knows, but I clicked "install anyway" and my sound magically works. yay me.

 

[wordsworm]

Frankly, if I'm doing something like working with large images in Photoshop or other RAM-intensive tasks, I'd be highly pissed if the app (if capable) didn't make use of the RAM "above 60%". I don't understand the logic of it being "good" to not use your RAM. Maybe system responsiveness would take a nosedive because you're running 18 apps at once, but it's not inherently "bad" to do so.

I think the idea is that if you're running your system at 80-90% on a regular basis, you should look into getting additional RAM. Right now I rarely see my system go over 2.5 GB of active use, while I often see the rest of it tied up in cache. That's a pretty healthy ratio in my opinion. My last machine, a PIV, ran XP beautifully on 768MB of RAM. At 512 it was good. At 256, it ran almost always at 100% and it's a pain I kid you not. That extra RAM really made a huge impact over the performance, even though I only used 400-500 MB for the most part (exception being when I used Photoshop).

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: cputeq
I'm pretty sure Vista 64 runs unsigned drivers. I'm running a hacked copy of Creative Audigy 2 ZS drivers as we speak (because Creative software has, and always will, suck total ass), and I definitely got a big ole' red window pop up warning me Windows couldn't verify the driver certificate (or whatever).

Maybe I'm confusing things, meh who knows, but I clicked "install anyway" and my sound magically works. yay me.

That red warning is the lack of WHQL... which is signing by mircosofts "windows high quality labs"...
Driver signing can be done by anyone, not just microsoft.

1. A driver can be unsigned, and it wouldn't work with vista unless it is running in test mode.
2. A driver can be signed, but without WHQL certificate, in which case you will have to click that red warning box when installing it, and if windows finds a WHQL driver (even an older one) it will automatically install the WHQL one instead (and will never again detect the non WHQL one until you run the installer again), as well as give you some other problems... Certain drivers which are considered "critical" would be downloaded through windows update and replace a newer non WHQL driver with an older WHQL one.
3. A driver can be signed AND have a WHQL certificate. Which means the company paid off microsoft for the WHQL certification (well, they "test" it, but that test means little)

 

[cputeq]

I think the idea is that if you're running your system at 80-90% on a regular basis, you should look into getting additional RAM

Again, I would have to disagree this point, if and only if the user is simply doing 1 task and isn't worried about multi-app performance.

If you're multi-tasking, then of course 90% RAM usage is probably not the best thing to have, unless all your normal multi-tasking, on a regular basis, simply happens to take up 90% RAM. Sure, Windows might be a bit more sluggish because it's got to cache all it's DLLs, etc, but if you're a person that only runs Xvid4PSP while playing TF2 (yours truly!), then having full RAM in that situation isn't inherently "bad", as long as you don't expect the system to be snappy when you open up other large apps.

The only time you're in trouble is when you have misbehaving apps (like someone mentioned), that don't properly allocate and release memory, or work poorly when forced to use virtual memory (even with lots of RAM)...or too small of a swap file, which is pretty rare.


Also, I think many times people equate unresponsive system or "app stopped reponding" to a crash, which isn't neccesarily the case.

Many times I've seen just "hiccups" or windows say they're not responding...give them an extra few seconds, and often everything reverts to normal (not sure what causes this).

Even TF2 does this now -- I open it up and hit ESC to get past the valve logo, and immediately it looks like I crashed it "Team Fortress 2 (not responding)".

I wait a bit more and it loads just fine.
I know it's a totally tangent point, but since we're diverting way from the thread topic anyway....


------------------------------------

Really, I think the OP should have titled his thread this way:

"32 bit will soon no longer be valid"

as I can see games coming out with 64bit .exes just to take break the 2GB app barrier of 32bit Windows and/or with /3GB switch support, which lowers kernel space to 1GB but gives apps 3GB IIRC.

 

[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]

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: