Memory / Vista

[ChrisIVX]

Hi,
So I'm making a new PC very soon. I was planning to get 4GB of RAM but I see, from these links: one, two, and Microsoft (half way down the page), that 4GB is an absolute limit in Vista 32, which can't be reached if you have a video card (with RAM).

I read this thread, and the links in it, but the above was not mentioned.

Anyway, that was just to point out the thread could be updated to mention that.

What I'm wondering if I might tap your knowledge for is: Is it worth going 64 bit OS to use 4GB in the interests of having a good gaming PC?

Thanks for any advice you can give,

Chris

 

[LNCPapa]

It really depends on if that last half-a-gig of RAM is going to make that big of a difference for your gaming. There are a few quirks with going 64-bit, but for the most part Vista has been pretty good in x64 land. I run Vista x64 for my primary gaming machine and the only issues I have are with Ventrilo - and I've read that there are other issues on my side causing this which I cannot part with.

 

[gbhall]

You may be a lot less happy with Vista-32 or 64 than you would be with XP pro 64. It appears that even MS is accepting that Vista is of limited acceptable performance, and a new O.S.Windows 7 is slated for 2009, so expect it the following year.

It will, of course, be the thing that Vista should have been, if they had not run off too much with the 'PC-as-toy' approach. If you were old enough to remember Windows 98me you would know exactly what I am talking about.

 

[ChrisIVX]

Very interesting. I actually had ME but wasn't any good at PCs back then. Still, XP will be unsupported soon enough. Do you suppose Windows 7 will be out by then?

The truth is I don't really know exactly how much 4 gig instead of 2 gig will do; I just wanted to be prepared. My current laptop with a 3dMark06 of 207 has 2 gigs, so I went and figured. This 4 year old desktop only has 1 gig, among other old parts. Maybe it'd be better to spend the money on something else, like the GPU. I'll think about this. Thatnks for the advice guys.

 

[gbhall]

Dont worry about XP support.

http://digg.com/microsoft/Microsoft_Extends_Windows_XP_Support_To_2014_2

 

[ChrisIVX]

Ooh. Now, if anyone could show something to suggest that Direct X 10.1 will be ported to XP, I might be sold.

 

[SNGX1275]

You can run Vista 32 with 4 gigs, it won't use all 4 though. You'll probably be fine though, if you want MORE than 4 gigs, then 64bit obviously is the only way to go.

And there is no way in hell MS is going to release Windows 7 next year. I think its already pushed back to 2010, and I'm betting on Q2 2011.

Vista is a fine OS. Everyone bitches because it doesn't run as fast on their computers as XP, when the truth is if you have a decent computer it will run fine. Everyone seems to forget that the time frame between Windows 95 and XP is the same as between XP and Vista, so OF COURSE it isn't going to run as fast on crap hardware. How many of you guys ran XP on the same machine you ran 95 on and were satisfied with its performance?

 

[gbhall]

All well and good, but you should hear the comments of those people who became disillusioned with Vista performance and re-installed XP on the same hardware - "staggeringly fast", "blinding speed" are typical. If XP can still do all that bloated Vista can do and do it much faster, in a familiar way, more reliably.......there's no contest really.

As for DirectX 10, no maybe MS chooses to force-feed you Vista as the only place for 'the full toy experience' but that wont stop other people from doing the same - or better http://www.technospot.net/blogs/download-directx-10-for-windows-xp-from-alky-project/

 

[SNGX1275]

Then run Windows 2000. I've got it on a modern machine right now and it works fine. There is absolutely nothing you can do in XP that you can't do in 2000. Well thats not entirely true, I think a couple games don't work, but some (all?) of those have workarounds.

2k takes up less hd space, uses less resources, and should outpeform XP.

There should be no 'illusions' to Vista. Nobody has ever said it was blindling fast compared to XP. It isn't, and if you are trying to put it on a P4 or an Athlon XP or a single core processor at all really then I don't think you are qualified to make a statement about Vista. It needs modern hardware, and it will run fast and fine on it. Which goes back to my 95-> XP = XP-> Vista in timespan between them statement.

 

[gbhall]

The best answer would be to split Windows into three - media centre edition, gaming edition and business edition. They might actually earn the gratitude and respect of just about everyone if they did that, instead of trying to produce some monolithic heap of untestable code 'jack-of-all-trades, master of none'.