Windows Vista vs Windows XP

[Chalenge]

You chose Vista64 because you use one of the handful of special apps that support 64 bits known to man at this point.

And this statement is just wrong (factually incorrect).

http://www.start64.com

[MrRiplEy[H]]

And this statement is just wrong (factually incorrect).

http://www.start64.com

That website contains 50% 64-bit linux apps and 50% business tools. 100% irrelevant for a gamer especially one looking to build an AH box.

I have one box with 64-bit Ubuntu too. I'm not going to recommend anyone to build one though as it brings zero benefit for anything I do. I built it for curiosity only.

[Chalenge]

You said there werent but a handful of apps. You were wrong. You dont need to carry the argument any further.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

You said there werent but a handful of apps. You were wrong. You dont need to carry the argument any further.

Oh no sir, 64-bit world contains less than .001 amount of the total software currently in use. So quit the bs while you're at it.

You shouldn't confuse your own enthusiasm and mainstream together so please don't do people misfavors by suggesting something they shouldn't be messing with yet. Not for 4-5 years most likely.

[Chalenge]

Ripley you are obviously having a hard time digesting the information I posted as simple as it was. I did not suggest anyone move to 64 bit Vista. I suggested only that people consider what is best for them and decide from there. You are trying to carry this argument on forever and you have gone beyond losing the argument to the point you now look rather foolish.

I am certain that there are millions upon millions of 32 bit applications. The site I posted has linked to many 64 bit applications that are not simply business applications and linux apps although there would be nothing wrong with that. If you purchase a computer merely for gaming then thats your right to do so. Dont think though that your limited ability to understand the written word gives you the right to dictate to me what I can share with someone or anyone. I think rather that you should keep your negative attitude out of discussion.

Once again: Have a nice day.

[Pudgie]

Chalenge, I salute you sir.

 

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Ripley you are obviously having a hard time digesting the information I posted as simple as it was. I did not suggest anyone move to 64 bit Vista. I suggested only that people consider what is best for them and decide from there. You are trying to carry this argument on forever and you have gone beyond losing the argument to the point you now look rather foolish.

I am certain that there are millions upon millions of 32 bit applications. The site I posted has linked to many 64 bit applications that are not simply business applications and linux apps although there would be nothing wrong with that. If you purchase a computer merely for gaming then thats your right to do so. Dont think though that your limited ability to understand the written word gives you the right to dictate to me what I can share with someone or anyone. I think rather that you should keep your negative attitude out of discussion.

Once again: Have a nice day.

I think your ability to understand what you wrote is the problem here. You were endorsing Vista64 usage on the basis of 'being able to allocate 4 gigs of ram to a 32-bit application/game' which is misleading and wrong. For a casual computer user (such as the OP) there's no valid argument for going 64-bit at this moment.

[Chalenge]

I think your ability to understand what you wrote is the problem here. You were endorsing Vista64 usage on the basis of 'being able to allocate 4 gigs of ram to a 32-bit application/game' which is misleading and wrong. For a casual computer user (such as the OP) there's no valid argument for going 64-bit at this moment.

Again this is factually incorrect.

From Microsofts website:

Running 32-bit applications
32-bit applications running in the WOW64 subsystem provide a highly-compatible, high-performance environment for the thousands of existing 32-bit applications. 32-bit applications are installed into the Program Files (x86) directory structure, and have separate hives in the registry to prevent problems.

Applications running in the WOW64 system on Windows XP Professional x64 Edition each have a full 4 GB of virtual memory space. Applications compiled to take advantage of the /3 GB switch will actually get 4 GB, without constraining the operating system at all, since it is running in the 8 terabytes of virtual address space that Windows XP Professional x64 Edition has for the system processes. This can have a substantial impact on memory-constrained applications, such as computer-aided design (CAD) and computer-aided manufacturing (CAM), even before a 64-bit version of the program is available.

Windows Vista x64 uses the same WOW64 subsytem (more or less).

I also know very very many 'casual computer users' that can/will/do play 64 bit games in a DirectX 10 environment which is only available on one Operating System.

Salutations have run dry.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Again this is factually incorrect.

From Microsofts website:

Windows Vista x64 uses the same WOW64 subsytem (more or less).

I stated the truth and then you lied to us all. I didnt point it out then because I was brought up with better manners then that thank you very much! I also know very very many 'casual computer users' that can/will/do play 64 bit games in a DirectX 10 environment which is only available on one Operating System.

Salutations have run dry.

Heh that documentation isn't worth the pixels it's written on as 32-bit apps are inherently limited to 2Gb per process addressable memoryspace. Therefore no 32-bit app by design can or should utilize more than that. And spare me with the DX10 everyone knows it was the biggest scam of the decade in gaming.

By the way, get off your high horse that arrogance doesn't suite you.

[eagl]

Ripley,

As a casual observer, I must say that Chalenge has been pretty clear on what he means, including posting links to examples of what he's talking about, and you've been deliberately argumentative in an attempt to crap on his perspective with nothing but your obviously biased and limited-scope opinion as justification for putting him down.

Yeh it's none of my business but you're being obtuse to try to make some sort of point here, and your quibbling approach is coming off as pretty rude and unnecessarily argumentative.

[Fulmar]

I would have thought this was a Mac vs PC battle here

[MrRiplEy[H]]

I don't mean to be rude I'm just sick of people who try to convince casual users into 64-bits (even by implying it's 'necessary to have more than 4 gigs' or it being 'trouble free on his/hers system) when there's no benefit in doing that and a lot of risks in return. They won't be fixing their driver / app compatibility problems etc. afterwards. The crap falls down the tube to the support personnel be that a familymember or some unlucky grunt at the helpdesk. Or worst case scenario a user ending up with a semi-functional system.

[Chalenge]

Again (and this is the last time I will respond to you Ripley as you are obviously on a tear without valid cause):

The limitation you speak of exists only in a 32 bit operating system. Windows XP 32 bit limits applications to 2GB. That limitation does not mean the application cannot reach more memory but it does mean that on Windows XP 32 bit that the memory space will be limited to ALL applications to run in. If you run two apps they will share that 2 GB. That isnt true on a 64 bit operating system. Even under XP 32 an application can access more memory by using AWE (address windowing extension) functions but because of the limitations on a 32 bit OS they must map that memory to the 2 GB virtual space allocated by Windows.  That isnt true on a 64 bit operating system where each 32 bit app gets its own 4 GB.

DX10? No complaints on my end except that hardware acceleration has been defeated in favor of DRM which should be outlawed.

... time to fly!

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Again (and this is the last time I will respond to you Ripley as you are obviously on a tear without valid cause):

The limitation you speak of exists only in a 32 bit operating system. Windows XP 32 bit limits applications to 2GB. That limitation does not mean the application cannot reach more memory but it does mean that on Windows XP 32 bit that the memory space will be limited to ALL applications to run in. If you run two apps they will share that 2 GB. That isnt true on a 64 bit operating system. Even under XP 32 an application can access more memory by using AWE (address windowing extension) functions but because of the limitations on a 32 bit OS they must map that memory to the 2 GB virtual space allocated by Windows.  That isnt true on a 64 bit operating system where each 32 bit app gets its own 4 GB.

DX10? No complaints on my end except that hardware acceleration has been defeated in favor of DRM which should be outlawed.

... time to fly!

Thanks for admitting my points as valid even though it seems you taught me something new about the memoryprocessing in Vista64.

By design no 32-bit app has been coded to need or use more than 2Gb of memory due to limitations set upon them and known on design time. And guess what? They (by design) run perfectly within those limits with no need for extra ram where 64-bit code bloats everything ending up needing more ram to do the same functionality as before. You're putting high priced 120-octane gas to the tank of a Pinto that utilizes only el-cheapo 95 octane regardless of the fact.

Now, I have no problem with you or other enthusiasts having 64-bit systems. The only problem I have is with giving information with 'rose colored glasses' about the true compatibility of Vista64. The probability for a non enthusiast (or even an enthusiast failing to research compatibility prior to hardware install) user to have problems with a 64-bit install is pretty high still at the moment even with 100% new hardware. That's why I consider recommending it very bad form especially on a board that contains total computer newbies.

I had a case where a small business owner was talked into installing a 64-bit OS by his son. It didn't matter that he used solely 16-bit or 32-bit code for his business (same applies for gamers). He was pretty badly surprised when he realized his legacy applications and hardware failed to start on Vista64. And it was very challenging to explain to him the decision was not wise (and that he needed to pay for another license) without embarrassing his son in the process.

[Kev367th]

Been demonstrated many times -

Take two identical machines.
Load Vista SP1 plus all the patches.
Load XP SP3 plus all the patches on the other one.

Do some benchmarking.

XP machine is approx 30% faster than the Vista one.

ONLY reason (and it's a stretch) for Vista is if you have a DX10 only game you just have to play it.


As for the memory limitation for 32 bit OS'es -
This was an arbitrary limit chosen by Microsoft after which you would need either a Server version or a 64 bit version.
Windows 2003 is 32 bit and supports much more than 4Gb using PAE.

For most people if you put 4Gb in the actual amout you will have available is approx -
4Gb - Video card memory - memory address table.

Roughly 3.25Gb ---> 3.5Gb available.