OS effect on RAM?

[Astroluna]

The computer i use at work had 2gb of 667mhz ddr I think, we upgraded it yesterday to 4gb 800mhz DDR.

Bios shows 4gb 800mhz.

Windows shows 2.98gb 800mhz.

I think its because I use x82/32bit OS.

If we installed Vista Ultimate 64bit would it work? or upgraded to 64bit XP?

Thanks!

 

[Quiksilver]

Yes, if you upgrade to a 64-bit copy of windows it will see and use the full 4GB.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: Quiksilver
Yes, if you upgrade to a 64-bit copy of windows it will see and use the full 4GB.

Highly recommend Vista 64 over XP 64.

 

[Astroluna]

being that i mostly use creative suites and a few db apps, do you still recommend vista 64 over xp 64?

 

[bsobel]

yes

 

[Yellowbeard]

Originally posted by: Astroluna
being that i mostly use creative suites and a few db apps, do you still recommend vista 64 over xp 64?

I'll second this, YES!

 

[taltamir]

ill third this. vista 64bit. Also, install it with SP1, don't install the RTM and then upgrade to SP1.

 

[myocardia]

I'd be willing to bet that at least 99% of all of the people who say "pick Vista 64-bit over XP 64-bit" have never owned or used 64-bit XP, Astroluna. Sure, they'll now reply to this thread that every one of them switched directly from 64-bit XP, but don't believe it. If they had actually ever used XP64, they would have mentioned it in their first reponse.


edit: Okay, I guess I should have said the reason for my post, huh? If you need XP for whatever reason, the 64-bit version of XP is as good/stable as the 32-bit version. Some (especially older) software doesn't like Vista, and there's nothing end users like us can do about that, since it would require rewriting/slightly rewriting the software. Note, though, that no 64-bit Windows will work with 16-bit software, even just a 16-bit installer for a 32-bit app.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: myocardia
I'd be willing to bet that at least 99% of all of the people who say "pick Vista 64-bit over XP 64-bit" have never owned or used 64-bit XP, Astroluna. Sure, they'll now reply to this thread that every one of them switched directly from 64-bit XP, but don't believe it. If they had actually ever used XP64, they would have mentioned it in their first reponse.

You'd be wrong (at least in my case). XP64 is orphaned, Vista64 is the current mainstream OS release. Any new users should be on it.

 

[taltamir]

I used XP 64bit as well, a month after it was released, to 6 months after vista was released. It has all the issues of 64bit vista, with half the driver support and none of the new features.
Either use XP 32bit, or vista 64bit. The other two (64bit XP or 32bit vista) don't make any sense.

Also XP 64bit is actually based on windows 2003 64bit server editio, not windows XP.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: bsobel
XP64 is orphaned, Vista64 is the current mainstream OS release. Any new users should be on it.

In case you weren't aware of it, 64-bit XP is supported at least 20x better in the business world than either version of Vista. You might want to read the OP again. You aren't giving little Johnny advice about the new system his Mommy is buying him.

Originally posted by: taltamirl
It has all the issues of 64bit vista, with half the driver support and none of the new features.
Either use XP 32bit, or vista 64bit. The other two (64bit XP or 32bit vista) don't make any sense.

Also XP 64bit is actually based on windows 2003 64bit server editio, not windows XP.

Yes, I know that you like Vista. We've all been hearing you drool about it for a year now, starting from the day you installed it, 6 months before it went SP1. What exactly does that have to do with the OP? In case you weren't aware, 64-bit XP is based very closely upon Windows Server 2003. You know, one of the most widely used OS's in the business world today. If the OP happens to use any proprietary software whatsoever, there's at least a 90% chance that it, along with his hardware, will run XP64 just fine, and less than a 10% chance that it will run under Vista, whether the 32-bit version or the 64-bit version.

I've personally seen multiple people in the last 6 months tell you exactly that-- that their business software won't run under Vista. Would you like me to dig the threads up? Now, for your average AT'er, yeah, Vista makes more sense. That doesn't make it right for everyone, though.

 

[Nothinman]

In case you weren't aware of it, 64-bit XP is supported at least 20x better in the business world than either version of Vista.

20x zero is still zero. I have yet to see a single XP64 installation.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

First, to clear the air, I never tried XP 64-bit.

Second, much of the information I've seen suggests that there HAD been a dearth of working drivers for some hardware, and that XP-64 may -- I say MAY -- have been given less attention as developers attempt to provide those driver updates. But most of the driver sets I've seen at manufacturer web-sites sometimes have drivers proven for XP-64, VISTA-64, and sometimes both with the same driver download.

Third, if there are absolute priorities given MyCardia's fairly accurate assertions about XP, and given your need for certain software, go with XP-64-bit.

Fourth, I've only encountered a few minor programs that don't work properly with VISTA-64. Their updates never have compatibility specs that include VISTA -- either word-length flavor of it. I can't get serious with worries about 16-bit loaders and 16-bit software.

Fifth, I will say that 2 months into using it, VISTA-64 still gives me a warm feeling running up my pants-leg.

 

[taltamir]

please, if he has some specialty software, he should already know which versions of windows it supports. The vast majority works with all windows versions after XP (including vista64bit).
The supportedness of an OS right now is as following:
1. XP32bit
2. Vista64
3. Vista32bit
4. XP64bit.

And there are actually programs that are ONLY available as 64bit.

I've personally seen multiple people in the last 6 months tell you exactly that-- that their business software won't run under Vista

I haven't, I recall maybe one person who said that, and that is fine and dandy, if he has software that doesn't run on it, don't use it. OR upgrade to software that has kept up with the times.

You make it sound like I am trying to sell people on vista. I am not, it is just a better OS then XP64. Something you disagree with me on. I haven't accused you of trying to sell people XP64bit though.

 

[Denithor]

Originally posted by: BonzaiDuck
Fifth, I will say that 2 months into using it, VISTA-64 still gives me a warm feeling running up my pants-leg.

:disgust:

Ewww...

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: taltamir
please, if he has some specialty software, he should already know which versions of windows it supports. The vast majority works with all windows versions after XP (including vista64bit).
The supportedness of an OS right now is as following:
1. XP32bit
2. Vista64
3. Vista32bit
4. XP64bit.

Maybe in your world, but not in the business world. In the business world (the only thing that matters in this instance), 64-bit Vista is least supported, with 32-bit Vista bringing up a close second to least.

You make it sound like I am trying to sell people on vista. I am not, it is just a better OS then XP64. Something you disagree with me on. I haven't accused you of trying to sell people XP64bit though.

Actually, I don't disagree with you at all, for the vast majority of users, like I've already said. And I'm not trying to "sell" anyone on XP64, either. I just wanted to let the OP know that in the gaming world, Vista64 is supported very well now, but the business world is another matter entirely, and he needs to do his homework, before ordering/installing either of these 64-bit OS's on a business computer. Also, the fact that XP64 is more likely to be supported isn't because it's better than Vista64, it's just been around longer, besides it being based on Server 2003. If it were his home computer, I never would have posted in this thread.