Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Hardware and Software => Topic started by: alskahawk on August 29, 2008, 08:10:51 AM
-
Excellent article in Maximum PC on Vista. XP beats Vista(with sp1 and without) in most categories.
Couple of states from Gaming performance;(did not include any DirectX 10 games)
XP Vista(launch) Vista (SP1)
3dmark06 Game 1 (fps); 29 28 28
3dmark06 Game 2 (fps) 26 26 26
In Network transfer speed tests XP won all categories.
They (The author at Max PC) recommended sticking with XP until Windows 7 comes out(2010).
-
Yeah, we've known this for a while :)
-
Well I've suspected for awhile. I have Vista on a laptop and its all right. But obviously not for a gaming computer. Was a bit surprised how well XP did. Heres rest of stats;
Network transfer speeds;(time to transfer file from and to a NAS)
XP Vista Vista (sp1)
Network-sm to NAS(sec) 38 48 43
Network-sm from NAS(sec 39 68 42
Network-Lg to NAS(sec) 139 181 144
Network-Lg from NAS(sec) 140 271 142
Overall Sys Performance
Premeire Pro CS3(sec) 924 960 960
Photoshop CS3(sec) 133 136 139
ProShow (sec) 963 1214 1275
MainConcept(sec) 1881 1822 1814
Quake4(fps) 143.5 126.5 125.8
FEAR(fps) 65 65 65
-
Idiots, you telling me you can visibly see the difference between 1fps? And game two they are the same?
As for network transfer speeds that's even more ridiculous.
:rolleyes:
How about a test on stability? Guarantee my Vista box will outlast any XP box running a burn test.
<S>...-Gixer
-
Idiots, you telling me you can visibly see the difference between 1fps? And game two they are the same?
As for network transfer speeds that's even more ridiculous.
:rolleyes:
How about a test on stability? Guarantee my Vista box will outlast any XP box running a burn test.
<S>...-Gixer
I'd take ya up on that, I only reboot for installs.
-
Idiots, you telling me you can visibly see the difference between 1fps? And game two they are the same?
As for network transfer speeds that's even more ridiculous.
:rolleyes:
How about a test on stability? Guarantee my Vista box will outlast any XP box running a burn test.
<S>...-Gixer
For me the issue is; Am I going to pay more for a OS that is slower, even 1 fps slower than XP? No. XP is even better in the network tests. Network speeds ridiculus? Perhaps you read the chart wrong. In almost every network test XP was faster. As for stability. I have both systems. I'll stick with XP.
I'm not going to spend the money upgrading to Vista, or going to back to XP(on my laptop) . There is just no advantage to it. XP is solid. Vista is almost as solid.(now with SP1) But it cost more and there's just no advantage to move either way. Which is the author(of Maximum PC) point. Why spend the money if there is no advantage to changing. Either eye candy or perfomance.
-
I have yet to run across any IT administrator in favor of Vista.
-
I have yet to run across any IT administrator in favor of Vista.
That's because IT admins are the bottom of the pool when it comes to IT professionals. They are never happy. And neither would I if my professional career involved anything Microsoft including Vista.
I don't read charts that basic wrong. There is no visibile difference in speed between Vista and XP, I could pull tests and charts till hell freezes over and argue the same tiny differences for or against Vista.
<S>...-Gixer
-
That's because IT admins are the bottom of the pool when it comes to IT professionals. They are never happy. And neither would I if my professional career involved anything Microsoft including Vista.
I don't read charts that basic wrong. There is no visibile difference in speed between Vista and XP, I could pull tests and charts till hell freezes over and argue the same tiny differences for or against Vista.
<S>...-Gixer
I don't think these guys are at the bottom of he pool when they work for a fortune top 10 company as managers.
-
I don't think these guys are at the bottom of he pool when they work for a fortune top 10 company as managers.
You owe me for the cost of cleaning my monitor! :lol
It just dawned on me that the XP/Vista argument is like arguing over the B pony versus the D.
D has better visibility more guns but it cant turn as good and is slower down low but faster above 20k.
B pony has a sweet spot between 12 and 22k where it can beat up a D.
All that aside it really depends on what you intend to use your computer for and there are not a lot of good convincing arguments for Vista at all. I use it because I want the larger memory frame of a 64 bit OS and XP 64 was WAY over priced at more than $300. Right now if you want to use 8Gigs or more of RAM Vista is the way to go in the Windows family. If and when CrossfireX is available then Vista 64 will probably be the only way to use it (if I understood the facts behind it all). The point is do some research and know what your needs are.
-
I don't think these guys are at the bottom of he pool when they work for a fortune top 10 company as managers.
These guys? Which these guys are you talking about? Bill and his nerd mates? Hardly a snapshot of the 100,000s of MCP,MCSE certs out there. :lol
If ever there was a dime a dozen certification in IT MCP/MCSE is it.
<S>...-Gixer
-
Old news. General concession is Vista is slower than XP on the same hardware configuration. That starts with a default configuration. Of course, what is a default configuration? If you use OEM hardware, the default is quite a bit different from the OEM OS when purchased separately.
However, once you trim the fat from both operating systems, XP will be faster at most things. Stability wise, depends on the hardware, drivers, and the applications used. As an example, NVidia has had a hell of a time getting their Vista drivers stable.
There are functional differences between XP and Vista which contribute to more frustrations for many. As an example, Microsoft dropped the DirectSound API from Vista and DirectX 10. All sounds are now forced through the standard Windows sound API and Vista mixer. This added substantial overhead to all sounds being played in a game that depended on DirectSound, such as Aces High II. It contributes to poorer game performance on Vista.
The different configurations of hardware and software all lead to the wildly varying opinions on which is better. 'Better' being a very subjective term. XP can be screwed up by anyone and so can Vista. The people that feel Vista is a better choice normally come from XP installations that were borked up. People that claim XP crashed all the time had or have borked up installations. Unfortunately, it is easy to do.
The nature of Microsoft operating systems allows any application to screw up the operating system. The worst offenders of this are anti-virus programs. In Vista those programs finally got their own API so they should no longer have to replace system files in order to work. Those anti-virus programs probably contribute the most to the stability issues of any OS, but could have a higher impact on XP.
In our environment, XP is a far better solution. It is more stable and compatible. The Vista box we have, in its default configuration, is the most frustrating operating system I have ever dealt with. It starts with boot up times five times slower than XP, and goes downhill from there. Too many compatibility and stability issues. Even if the compatibility issues are solved, the general use of the OS is just frustrating and that is mostly due to UAC. Keeping in mind we have to run stock operating systems, we simply cannot turn it off as it is defaulted on by everyone.
My own experience has been less than stellar with Vista. In the last 5 years, or so, running Windows XP I have never had a lockup or blue screen or any other problem. It has been the most stable OS I have ever used from Microsoft. I worked with the Vista box fro about 6 months. During that time, I had to do a complete reinstall of the operating system three times due to corruption problems. Modern hardware and the same box ran XP just fine.
I have no doubt there are configurations of Vista running fine in the real world. I also have no doubt there are serious issues within the operating system simply because I had many serious problems and Microsoft says there are problems remaining they are working on.
-
The thing for me is that there's very little to nothing that Vista does that's better than or non-existant in XP. So then the question is... why should I buy it?
Vista is quite literally a waste of money. I run XP on my main PC and 2000 on my older one. Replacing one of those two operating systems would be like throwing $200 (or whatever Vista costs) away. That's why I don't "upgrade".
-
All that aside it really depends on what you intend to use your computer for and there are not a lot of good convincing arguments for Vista at all. I use it because I want the larger memory frame of a 64 bit OS and XP 64 was WAY over priced at more than $300. Right now if you want to use 8Gigs or more of RAM Vista is the way to go in the Windows family. If and when CrossfireX is available then Vista 64 will probably be the only way to use it (if I understood the facts behind it all). The point is do some research and know what your needs are.
The thing for me is that there's very little to nothing that Vista does that's better than or non-existant in XP. So then the question is... why should I buy it?
Vista is quite literally a waste of money. I run XP on my main PC and 2000 on my older one. Replacing one of those two operating systems would be like throwing $200 (or whatever Vista costs) away. That's why I don't "upgrade".
Thats about it right there. You might change your mind one day if and when you need more memory but hopefully by then another OS will come along.
-
Thats about it right there. You might change your mind one day if and when you need more memory but hopefully by then another OS will come along.
Why would he need more memory? 99.999% of all known apps, especially games, run 32-bit code. Therefore 3 gigs is more than plenty for home/gaming use.
Database servers etc. are a different story.
-
I remember a friend ordering a Dell computer circa the 90's and the sales rep telling him the 128mb of ram it came with is more than he'll ever need. And I'm sure there are plenty of other stories like this from years prior.
I remember the days I had a hard time filling 4gb on 2 hard drives.
-
Thats about it right there. You might change your mind one day if and when you need more memory but hopefully by then another OS will come along.
Another OS has already come along. If I ever need more than 4GB of system memory (and yes I know that XP doesn't let you use all of that 4GB) I'll either switch to a suitable version of Linux or get a Mac. No effing way will I buy vista. I gave it an honest tryout and it failed miserably for me. Plus they removed the "up one level" button in the file browser and tried to tell me I didn't need it... *finger*.
-
Another OS has already come along. If I ever need more than 4GB of system memory (and yes I know that XP doesn't let you use all of that 4GB) I'll either switch to a suitable version of Linux or get a Mac. No effing way will I buy vista. I gave it an honest tryout and it failed miserably for me. Plus they removed the "up one level" button in the file browser and tried to tell me I didn't need it... *finger*.
They also changed the browser bar so all you have to do is click on the parent directory to go up one level. :D
Each folder has a > after it seperating the levels so they are easy to select between. I gave it an honest tryout also testing for months alongside an XP setup on another hard drive and the only thing that let me down was the AMD cpu. I didnt really run into trouble until I tried Vista 64 but I absolutely have to have more than 4 Gigs of RAM now and there is no going back. Personally I didnt think I wanted to deal with learning how another OS 'thinks' so I wanted to stay in the Windows family (and my quote stated 'within the Windows family). Im not sorry.
Why would he need more memory? 99.999% of all known apps, especially games, run 32-bit code. Therefore 3 gigs is more than plenty for home/gaming use.
Database servers etc. are a different story.
I use my computer for a lot more then just playing games and if I could have chosen more RAM I would have. 8 Gigs is doing just fine though. What I like about having so much RAM is that the 32 bit game/app is given 4 Gigs to run in and to this point that has been nothing but good (and fast). If a program crashes (which seldom happens) Vista 64 reports the problem and closes the program. With XP the system would sometimes just start back into the bootstrap process after an illegal shutdown of its own. A few people have told me that I did something wrong in setting up the system. Okay but I setup Vista too and it doesnt do that. Im not trying to say Vista is all gravy because I am sure there are still a lot of people with problems with Vista. I have to say though that for me I needed more memory and memory is cheap and memory makes things hum and my applications that need more memory dont hit a wall anymore. Im happy.
-
Ram support over 4 GB (over 3 GB to be practical about it) is one of the few things Vista would be worth upgrading for, if you need that feature. The previous poster is right, for how cheap ram is right now, maxing out your MB's capacity isn't crazy expensive like it used to be. Most modern MBs support 8GB.
Play any multi-player games where the first to load a level has the advantage? Create a ram drive, install the game to it, back up the files to hard drive. Every time you play, copy the files back to the ram drive from your hard drive (presuming you've rebooted and lost the ram drive contents since last time). You'll load levels, textures, etc so fast the I/O won't be the bottleneck any more. Pretty friggen sweet.
I'm sure there's tons of apps, that even if they won't access more than 4 GB of ram (or more likely if they're written for XP, 2 GB) that would run a lot faster with a ram drive. Its an old concept that people have mostly forgotten about 'cause it hasn't really been needed or affordable for a while.
-
They also changed the browser bar so all you have to do is click on the parent directory to go up one level. :D
Each folder has a > after it seperating the levels so they are easy to select between. I gave it an honest tryout also testing for months alongside an XP setup on another hard drive and the only thing that let me down was the AMD cpu. I didnt really run into trouble until I tried Vista 64 but I absolutely have to have more than 4 Gigs of RAM now and there is no going back. Personally I didnt think I wanted to deal with learning how another OS 'thinks' so I wanted to stay in the Windows family (and my quote stated 'within the Windows family). Im not sorry.
I use my computer for a lot more then just playing games and if I could have chosen more RAM I would have. 8 Gigs is doing just fine though. What I like about having so much RAM is that the 32 bit game/app is given 4 Gigs to run in and to this point that has been nothing but good (and fast). If a program crashes (which seldom happens) Vista 64 reports the problem and closes the program. With XP the system would sometimes just start back into the bootstrap process after an illegal shutdown of its own. A few people have told me that I did something wrong in setting up the system. Okay but I setup Vista too and it doesnt do that. Im not trying to say Vista is all gravy because I am sure there are still a lot of people with problems with Vista. I have to say though that for me I needed more memory and memory is cheap and memory makes things hum and my applications that need more memory dont hit a wall anymore. Im happy.
I'm sorry but what exactly do you use your computer for if 3 gigs is not enough? A single 32-bit app is restricted to 2 gigs maximum ram at one time so you can still run 1 gig worth of other junk in the background while using your 'power' app at its maximum limit. Nothing changes about that fact when going to 64-bit OS and running a 32-bit app.
-
64 bit CADD.
-
That's because IT admins are the bottom of the pool when it comes to IT professionals. They are never happy. And neither would I if my professional career involved anything Microsoft including Vista.
I don't read charts that basic wrong. There is no visibile difference in speed between Vista and XP, I could pull tests and charts till hell freezes over and argue the same tiny differences for or against Vista.
<S>...-Gixer
are you dense?
Take my box runnin XP with a 32MB video card and 768MB PC133 ram. PROVE to me I can run vista on this as fast as XP.
IT Admin here at a small trucking company. Not all companies have the money to shell out thes of thousands of dollars for new hardware just so it can run vista similar to the XP machines we have going right now. Our main apps are a web based java run GPS locater for our vehicles, MS office, a legacy UNIX telnet based system, and a DB2 based ERP program that includes scanned in TIFF images of paperwork.
Simple interfaces, pure computing speed for the GPS and image viewer, and I can have stable, decent response PC's that all run less than 512MB and celeron processors for workstations. Until they stopped selling XP I could run a $300 bare bones system for every workstation... AND our main users all use 22" wide screen monitors for multiple windows open at a time.
show me an OEM on board graphic card that can handle that resolution in vista with the same components and price.
Otherwise you go prove to the owner of my company we have to shell out X $$$$ for 32 brand new vista capable PC's just because M$ says so when everything works perfectly fine as it stands.
-
They also changed the browser bar so all you have to do is click on the parent directory to go up one level. :D
Each folder has a > after it seperating the levels so they are easy to select between.
That's not the same as an "up" arrow. Sometimes I browse up to 10 levels down... putting all 10 levels in a place where I can go up one level with a single click would use up too much real-estate. In a file browser bar, I want to see the name of my current directory, the full directory path if possible, an "up" arrow, and a "back" arrow in case I've followed a symbolic link and going up would not get me back to the directory where I came from. Why can't MS give me the file system browsing functionality that I can get from a unix shell?
Once more, it's MS trying to impose a "solution" to a problem that didn't exist, and even worse trying to imply that there must be something wrong with me if I don't like their new way better. To hell with them.
-
I think its 'neat.' :D
There will be other things that come along and spoil our picnic on computers and that too will pass.
-
64 bit CADD.
Umm.. so you're bringing your power workstation to a gaming box discussion for what exactly? :salute
-
I dont believe you are considering that someone might play AHII on the same system they have to work on? I'm not going to change out my system every time I go from work to play. I doubt many other people would even have two systems and when it comes to considering what OS to buy they will feel the same way. One system one OS its pretty simple Ripley.
-
I dont believe you are considering that someone might play AHII on the same system they have to work on? I'm not going to change out my system every time I go from work to play. I doubt many other people would even have two systems and when it comes to considering what OS to buy they will feel the same way. One system one OS its pretty simple Ripley.
Well I have 5 computers in my house and two of them are used for work and work only. I wouldn't even want to compromise my system integrity by installing games on them.
Besides it's a moot point as games practically never even support 64-bits so nobody needs or should have a 64-bit os for gaming.
-
Well in my mind if a game is going to compromise system integrity it shouldnt go on any of my systems. Regardless of what you think/believe I already made the point that before moving into any system you should do some research and know what your real needs are. I chose Vista 64 for real and valid reasons that are not invalidated by your belief that 32 bit games wont use more then 2 gigs and my system works wonderfully for gaming and work. I will worry about 'system integrity' if and when it ever acts contrary to my desires/designs (shortly after the cows fly home from market).
-
Well in my mind if a game is going to compromise system integrity it shouldnt go on any of my systems. Regardless of what you think/believe I already made the point that before moving into any system you should do some research and know what your real needs are. I chose Vista 64 for real and valid reasons that are not invalidated by your belief that 32 bit games wont use more then 2 gigs and my system works wonderfully for gaming and work. I will worry about 'system integrity' if and when it ever acts contrary to my desires/designs (shortly after the cows fly home from market).
You chose Vista64 because you use one of the handful of special apps that support 64 bits known to man at this point. There's no point in going 64-bit for 99.9% of the population at the moment. All it brings is huge potential for driver trouble.
Oh, and Vista enuff said.
-
Thank you Ripley I always knew I was a cut above the rest! :D
Thats precisely what I did and there will be others that follow suit. Someone on this forum posted that salesmen in their area are pushing systems with Vista 64 and maybe their wrong for that maybe not. Sure it doesnt do anything for AHII but AHII runs just fine and at a blistering pace thank you very much!
Oh and Vista works just fine thanks.
Have a nice day!
-
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
-
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.
-
You said there werent but a handful of apps. You were wrong. You dont need to carry the argument any further.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Chalenge, I salute you sir.
:salute
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I would have thought this was a Mac vs PC battle here :rolleyes:
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
It has also been reported that even under Windows 2003 the /pae switch is unstable and presents more overhead then its worth (hindering any performance boost gained). Your argument that XP is 30% faster is untrue. It might have a 13% advantage in best case scenarios but for most users that translates to perhaps 1-3 fps.
At any rate the maximum memory any 32 bit OS can address even with the large memory address switches active is 3GB. On a 32 bit OS that means that with the OS able to 'discover' 3.5 GB and the OS squeezed into just 1 GB that the most any app (if the only one running) is 2.5 GB. With more then a single app running it has to share that memory and then the OS quickly starts resorting to swap/page filing and system performance starts to drop (perhaps only a little).
I am not a programmer and I cant tell you if any 32 bit app can or cannot address more then 2 GB of memory. I can only say that in my experience on machines with plenty of extra RAM that system performance almost never drops (I have seen some cases where IE or explorer.exe refuses to let go of resources even on XP). It would seem reasonable that an app designed to run on windows makes use of swap/page file and every other performance tool of windows since it is running under that OS. By giving an app unconstrained memory space you are limiting the potential for memory crashing which is something I do have experience with (on XP 32). Also in addressing large memory addresses while using high definition resolutions the potential for memory overruns is increased on any 32 bit OS. I had experienced all of this before deciding I wanted more RAM then XP 32 bit could offer. I considered XP 64 bit and found it too expensive compared to Vista Ultimate.
I discovered all of this on the web over the course of a months research before purchasing any of the elements of my current system. As I suggested earlier I recommend that anyone do the same thing. If they come to the conclusion that they must have the ability to make use of large memory addressing (64 bit) and wish to stay in the Windows family they will save money with Vista. XP Pro 64 bit was and still is over $300.
I also disagree with Kev that the ONLY reason for Vista is DX10 for reasons I just outlined.
-
Just some facts.
32 bit addressing gives 4GB of direct addressable RAM. Intel CPU's have never had a flat memory model. Even with 4GB of addressable space, it is still using an index register just like the old 16bit days. PAE extended the index register itself to allow more indices's with each segment being 4GB long and added 4 extra bits to the address/segment register (36 bit).
From a hardware perspective, it is not any more inefficient than the using the current single 4GB segment.
However, Microsoft's memory management is atrocious, thus leading some to believe PAE is the issue. Fact of the matter is, UNIX's have been using PAE for years before Microsoft and have never suffered a performance issue when using it. Only Microsoft operating system's suffer. Microsoft is also the one who arbitrarily limits how much RAM thier OS's will address, regardless of what the hardware is capable of.
With PAE, there is only one additional look-up (always an internal CPU cache hit) performed when it is enabled in the CPU, and that look-up occurs during time when RAM cannot be addressed. Due to the way it works, it will not have any visible impact on performance, from the hardware level.
Now PAE still does not allow an application to run outside of a single 4GB segment. Meaning the application still only has 4GB of RAM, at most, to use.
-
There's an interesting article about this here (http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64/archive/2008/03/18/32-bit-memory-in-x64-windows.aspx):
32-bit Memory in x64 Windows
Published 18 March 8 8:55 AM | Charlie Russel
In the public 64-bit Windows newsgroup, we often get questions about memory usage, and a recent post there made me realize that there are some basic misunderstandings about the relationship between memory, virtual memory address space, and RAM.
32-bit Windows uses a flat memory address space, thus is limited to 4 GB of memory addresses. This is divided up 2 GB for individual user programs, and 2 GB for the operating system. It doesn't matter if you have 4 GB of RAM, or 512 Mb of RAM, it's the same virtual memory address space. This means that in order to directly address the memory used by video cards, and other such things on your computer, the OS has to be assign those specific addresses to that memory, and it's locked away and can't be seen - effectively making your memory address space smaller. But each user program that runs gets its own 2 GB of virtual memory address space, regardless of the RAM in your machine.
-
Interesting how you quoted that but cut it short of the 64 bit part:
In 64-bit Windows, the memory address space is 16 TB. 8TB for user programs and 8TB for the operating system. 32-bit programs running in 64-bit Windows run in the WOW64 subsystem. Each 32-bit program is assigned a 4 GB virtual memory address space in the WOW64 subsystem - with no requirement for the OS which is still running in the 8 TB of virtual memory address space it gets.
So, if your 32-bit program is written to take advantage of >2GB of memory (using the LARGEMEMORYADDRESSAWARE compiler switch), it will automatically see a full 4GB.
-
Interesting how you quoted that but cut it short of the 64 bit part:
Note the big 'if' there. Most 32-bit apps are designed to be run in standard 32-bit OS.
-
@Chalenge
Irrespective of whether PAE causes instability or performance drops I used it as an example that 32 bit Microsoft 'Home Use' OS'es are not limited to 4Gb by hardware, but by an arbitrary limit chosen by Microsoft.
As for Vista -
It's the biggest piece of bloatware MS has EVER released.
Its slow penetration into the market has even dissapointed MS.
Dell has so many problems with it they STILL offer XP as an alternative on a lot of systems.
DRM in it is intrusive, no way to turn it off.
Incompatilities with existing software, especially those that access ring 0.
As a sytems administrator for a company, I will not recommend or buy any system with Vista on it.
If there is no alternative the first thing I do is to reformat and install XP.
Would be willing to bet that if MS had not withdrawn XP from general sale it would still be the OS of choice over Vista.
-
@Kev
Agreed on most counts and still Vista 64 satisfies my needs for a system without spending twice the cash! Everything you said has been stated before and I will stick by my guns in repeating... If you need a larger memory frame ...
Obviously you dont have to use 64 bit apps to get where you are going. There are people that do. Perhaps I am the only one that does and is playing AH but I wouldnt lay odds on it.
-
@Kev
Agreed on most counts and still Vista 64 satisfies my needs for a system without spending twice the cash! Everything you said has been stated before and I will stick by my guns in repeating... If you need a larger memory frame ...
Obviously you dont have to use 64 bit apps to get where you are going. There are people that do. Perhaps I am the only one that does and is playing AH but I wouldnt lay odds on it.
64-bits is cool if you happen to be one of the professional users who need uncommonly huge amounts of memory. For general home use it's still more trouble than anything else. I expect to move to 64 bits in 2-4 years timeframe when both hardware and software support gets matured.
-
All this back-and-forth reminds me of something Randy Pausch said, "the plural of anecdote is not data".
-
You guys are scaring me. I have a new system coming.
AMD Athlon 64x2 2.6, 2000MHz FSB
Amd 790x Phenom Spider platform
2GB Kingston DDR2 800 MHz mem
320BG S-ATA 7200RPM hard drives
ATI Radeon HD4850 512MB ddr3 625MHz
Vista home basic 32bit
Got it so I could join AH but is it going to run it?
-
The hardware is not a problem boatman. More than adequate to run the game at good detail levels. It just takes a little work tweaking Vista to get it to run the game smoothly.
You will have to run the game in "Windows 98/ME" compatibility mode due to the high resolution timer bug in the AMD multi-core family.
-
Thanks Skuzzy. Hope to have it next week. See ya then.
-
The bug affects also Intel motherboards with AMD 690 chipsets.