• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

64 bit OS was born for 4 gigs

P

pcslookout

Lifer
Does anyone else feel this way that 64 bit OS's seem like they were born to run on 4 Gigs or more? They just feel so much more a live and not as laggy.
 
Well I think that the main point for running a 64-Bit version of Windows, either XP or Vista, is to actually be able to use more than 2GB of RAM properly, or perhaps I should say more than 3GB of RAM, more precisely. I myself am finalizing my XP back-ups as I type this using Nero, and I will install Vista 64-Bit in around one or two hours from now. Once the installation will be completed I will update everything I find at Microsoft.com and then I will install that extra 2GB of RAM that I've never bothered using in XP, for a total of 4GB of RAM. I can't wait to see how different it is, how different it feels, from XP. I've never even tried the Beta releases of Vista. It'll be my first time ever seeing and trying it. I'm kinda nervous right now, hehe.
 
Originally posted by: pcslookout
Does anyone else feel this way that 64 bit OS's seem like they were born to run on 4 Gigs or more? They just feel so much more a live and not as laggy.
Click to expand...
Can't say as I ever noticed a difference going from 2GB to 4GB.

Obviously some applications will take advantage of the ram, but I never felt the OS was any more alive or less laggy tbh.


Originally posted by: Zenoth
Well I think that the main point for running a 64-Bit version of Windows, either XP or Vista, is to actually be able to use more than 2GB of RAM properly, or perhaps I should say more than 3GB of RAM, more precisely. I myself am finalizing my XP back-ups as I type this using Nero, and I will install Vista 64-Bit in around one or two hours from now. Once the installation will be completed I will update everything I find at Microsoft.com and then I will install that extra 2GB of RAM that I've never bothered using in XP, for a total of 4GB of RAM. I can't wait to see how different it is, how different it feels, from XP. I've never even tried the Beta releases of Vista. It'll be my first time ever seeing and trying it. I'm kinda nervous right now, hehe.
Click to expand...
You might just be glad of those backups my friend. Driver support for Vista is pretty crap atm.
I certainly wont be letting Vista near my main rig until Nvidia and Creative get their act together.

 
Does anyone else feel this way that 64 bit OS's seem like they were born to run on 4 Gigs or more?
Click to expand...

That makes sense considering that the whole point of a 64-bit system is to allow single processes to address >4G of VM. But Windows' ability to use the full 4G in a system is only a side effect of XP64 and Vista64 not having the same artificial memory limitations as XP32 and Vista32.
 
Originally posted by: pcslookout
Does anyone else feel this way that 64 bit OS's seem like they were born to run on 4 Gigs or more? They just feel so much more a live and not as laggy.
Click to expand...

64 bit linux feels just as snappy with 512 mb as with 4gb. its only crappy memory hogging windows vista that need 4gb to feel ok
 
I've been running the free trial version of Xp 64 for a couple months and its been really interesting.

With just 2GB of memory installed it is way faster at opening apps and performing general day to day stuff.
Imagine it would be a real treat with 4GB +
 
Really with Vista, 4GB is the sweet spot for us enthusiasts. It's not just OS or for certain apps, but the OS+Apps. In other words, a game that looks like using 1.4GB of memory in XP could use 2.0GB+ of memory in Vista. There actually are a few games that run smoother on Vista (with 4GB) than on XP. Oblivion and COH being a couple of those. It means the OS uses available memory more effectively for the applications. (At least I'd like to think so. 😉 ) RAM prices are all-time low right now so there is no reason not to get more, either. For example,

http://shop4.outpost.com/product/5200607

These sticks (2GB sticks, that is) may not be the best overclockers, but then again Vista isn't really a benchmark OS, either.
 
I've been using Vista x64 on a system with 4GB of RAM for about four months, and it's [mostly] been great. The caching is good, and programs like Photoshop CS3 work as smoothly as I could hope (don't have a direct comparison to XP or XP x64, unfortunately). While 3GB would probably be enough, I believe that one can never have too much RAM, and 2GB just isn't quite enough for beefy programs plus Vista in my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top