Win 7 or XP64 for Ram issue

[MrRiplEy[H]]

It's worth remembering that most people never past 2Gb limit even when doing heavy multitasking and certainly never during gaming. Again, unless the game is some very exotic 64-bit version.

There's so much misinformation around about memory and OS versions. People are falling for urban legends about ram and 64-bit systems. While they may be 'nice' to have, they're not necessary for the vast majority. Add in the few incompatabilities that do still exist it's a safer option to go 32-bit.

Having said that I don't see major problems with selecting x64 Win7. Unless you plan to run ati tray tools or other driver based overclocking / tweaking tool. Or watch any exotic codec videos. Or plan to buy cheap ram that will fail in dual channel mode / 4G+.

x64 will _not_ affect your gameplay in AH2 in any perceivable way if you count out 30% reduction in framerates. x64 will do nothing to AH2 that 32-bit Win7 won't do.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

only game I play specifically is AH2, and have only experienced Greater Improvement of Game play, Game features, etc....... with Win 7 64bit verses WinXPpro 32 bit

My Autocad MEP 2009 works significantly better in Windows 7 64 bit, than it ever did in Windows XP pro 32bit..........and when I upgraded to the 64bit version of Autocad it only got even better results......

What you've experienced is the memory management improvements inherent to windows 7, not x64. Gameplay or game features are the same in AH2 regardless if you play it on Win98 or Win7 x64.

[Ghastly]

It's worth remembering that most people never past 2Gb limit even when doing heavy multitasking and certainly never during gaming. Again, unless the game is some very exotic 64-bit version.

There's so much misinformation around about memory and OS versions. People are falling for urban legends about ram and 64-bit systems. While they may be 'nice' to have, they're not necessary for the vast majority. Add in the few incompatabilities that do still exist it's a safer option to go 32-bit.

I don't think it's urban legend so much as it is that we're approaching a crossroads where at times, it does make a huge difference - and sometimes not always where you'd expect (i.e. photoshop and video manipulation processes).  A current version of the Bloomberg terminal (for example) can utilize as much as 450 MB of available RAM under XP 32 Bit. Outlook can use another 150 MB, and Excel is pretty much open ended depending upon the spreadsheets you load.  And in the just totally ridiculous department, I've seen Chrome chew through another 500 MB of RAM with 6 to 8 tabs open on user's systems, depending upon the sites browsed to - and it's just a stinking browser, for goodness sake.

If we're speaking generalities, then I'd agree that changing a working XP installation from 32 to 64 bit "just because" isn't likely to be a good deal when evaluated on the effort/reward frontier.  But if you are building out a new system, and planning to do Win 7 - then I personally think that there's never been a better time to adopt a 64 bit OS.

To specifically answer Whels, I'd sit tight until after Win 7 is released, and if I was to make a change at all, I'd go Win 7 64 bit.  I'd not even consider XP 64 at this point. And Vista?  Vista anything right now is like counting to 5 with the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch - it's "Right Out".

The reality though is that unless you have a lot to gain from a 64-bit OS I'm in the leave it alone camp (or has been suggested, add another partition if necessary and dual boot) until and unless you have a problem that requires an OS reinstall.   (And even 600 to 700 MB of RAM is not "a lot to gain" unless you find yourself regularly using up all that's in the machine, which as MrRiplEy is pointing out, is generally not the case for most home users).

By the time you "need it", the world will be in an even better place for letting you use it hassle-free.

<S>

[Masherbrum]

I went from XP Pro 32 bit to Vista Ultimate 64 bit and I'm not looking back in regret.   I have a PC that can handle it.   FR's are still pegged at 60Mhz due to the DVI connection of my LCD.   

[MrRiplEy[H]]

I don't think it's urban legend so much as it is that we're approaching a crossroads where at times, it does make a huge difference - and sometimes not always where you'd expect (i.e. photoshop and video manipulation processes).  A current version of the Bloomberg terminal (for example) can utilize as much as 450 MB of available RAM under XP 32 Bit. Outlook can use another 150 MB, and Excel is pretty much open ended depending upon the spreadsheets you load.  And in the just totally ridiculous department, I've seen Chrome chew through another 500 MB of RAM with 6 to 8 tabs open on user's systems, depending upon the sites browsed to - and it's just a stinking browser, for goodness sake.

If we're speaking generalities, then I'd agree that changing a working XP installation from 32 to 64 bit "just because" isn't likely to be a good deal when evaluated on the effort/reward frontier.  But if you are building out a new system, and planning to do Win 7 - then I personally think that there's never been a better time to adopt a 64 bit OS.

To specifically answer Whels, I'd sit tight until after Win 7 is released, and if I was to make a change at all, I'd go Win 7 64 bit.  I'd not even consider XP 64 at this point. And Vista?  Vista anything right now is like counting to 5 with the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch - it's "Right Out".

The reality though is that unless you have a lot to gain from a 64-bit OS I'm in the leave it alone camp (or has been suggested, add another partition if necessary and dual boot) until and unless you have a problem that requires an OS reinstall.   (And even 600 to 700 MB of RAM is not "a lot to gain" unless you find yourself regularly using up all that's in the machine, which as MrRiplEy is pointing out, is generally not the case for most home users).

By the time you "need it", the world will be in an even better place for letting you use it hassle-free.

<S>

XP=700Mb max, Bloomberg 450Mb, Outlook 150Mb, AV 40Mb, Excel 200Mb (high estimate), browser with huge amount of tabs open 500Mb. Left from available 3.2Gb at this time: 1160Mb which is more than any mainstream game will demand. So you can have all that junk open and still play AH2 or COD4,5, Crysis ..?

The x64 hype is just that, hype.

[Getback]

Is AW still limited to 2 gigs of memory or did that change with the update?

[Ghastly]

AH (I presume you mean) is a 32 bit Windows application.  As such, it's limited to 2 GB of non-shared RAM, in addition to the 2 GB of Kernel "RAM" (or more technically, addressable space) that's shared by all 32 bit apps.

<S>

[mipoikel]

What you've experienced is the memory management improvements inherent to windows 7, not x64. Gameplay or game features are the same in AH2 regardless if you play it on Win98 or Win7 x64.

Well, Autocad mep (and other autodesk products too) is a native 64 bit software and works better in 64 bit environments.

[guncrasher]

So in other words what you guys are saying:

-is that more than 2 of ram is not need, but if its only a few bucks for 4 go for it. 

-If windows xp or whatever works well with AH then no need to get windows 7 for now, unless ur trying to dump vista for some specific reason and not just because its "the new thing that just came out"

-No need to switch to 64 bit because most games only use 32 bit and its not really an improvement

am I correct in these assumptions? or am I just as confused as when I started reading the thread.

semp

[Ghastly]

Exactly - or very nearly close enough.  With the addition of one more point, which is:

Going to 64 bit also increases the likelihood that you will experience more difficulties with drivers as one of the trade-offs.

<S>

[Chalenge]

Exactly - or very nearly close enough.  With the addition of one more point, which is:

Going to 64 bit also increases the likelihood that you will experience more difficulties with drivers as one of the trade-offs.

<S>

Not so much any more.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Well, Autocad mep (and other autodesk products too) is a native 64 bit software and works better in 64 bit environments.

Like I said only very rare programs that are 64-bit will benefit from x64. There are even a couple games that are coded 64-bit. But only a couple. They're lame attempts in selling x64 with completely artificial 'enhancements' in x64 mode. A bit like Crysis and DX10, all those fancy effects could be enabled in Dx9 and worked faster

People are victims of misinformation and marketing.

If for example have never used Autocad mep and I'm fairly confident I never will. Nor do I have a single 64-bit game. On linux side I do have 64-bit software, mainly database where the benefits are obvious. For gamers / regular users 32-bit is going to be the optimal solution for many years to come.

[Spikes]

IMHO, I use xp64 for my gaming computer and I'll stick with that until either I reinstall (for being too slow and making winblows happy) or I get some sort of Windows 7 legal CD and key.