thats great cause I wont run Vista tell they get it running right
Heh, i won't run Vista at all. Vienna is slated for 2009, I'll wait 'til then. Only way I'll look at Vista will be after SP2 and a huge price decrease. Even then, I doubt I'll get it.
I'm running Vista and wondered why I have not switched to it sooner!
I have had no issues with any MMO I'm playing atm or with any other software ect ect.
Vista is awesome, but it does hog alot of RAM so I made sure I had at least 4 gigs of Ram..Running Flawless.
I'm with you man, I like Vista very much. I won't banter on about how others are dumb for not switching, because there are still some reasons not to. Vista is still very new, and not every piece of software is configured to work very well with it, example www.ergodex.com check out their DX1 its not supported with Vista drivers yet. This makes me sad, but i switched to Vista none the less, hopefuly the Vista drivers are realeased befor AOC.
There is enough info out on DX10 (demos, open betas, previews, etc) to tell that at least at this point DX10 is an unrealized promise. And on the issue of Vista gaming, I won't try to argue whether Vista is good or bad but it is undeniably poor for any kind of performance based applications. It is consistently 25% to 40% slower same for same than XP. Will it improve, probably - but when is key. It is highly unlikely that SP1 will make it this year (rumors abound but it is not even in beta yet and typically MS SPs test for almost a year), and MS has said from day one that SP1 will release with Server 2k8 which has now been pushed back until Feb 2008. Driver support from ATI and NVIDIA is still incredibly poor and it isn't just their GPU drivers (although those are the worst especially SLi/Crossfire) but even chipset drivers and basic things such as SATA and such.
Undoubtedly, Vista will improve with time - but I see no way in hell it is going to come anywhere close to making up the ground it needs to (on XP) in time for the big fall coming of DX 10. And if things are as bad then as they are now in terms of Vista performance then it is goign to burn alot of bridges and possibly relegate Vista to Millennium II status.
Vista Ultimate is great. I don't have it on my machine currently, but I will by the time AoC hits I'm sure. Most the other versions are more buggy and have problems with a myriad of things. But Ultimate isn't to bad. There are some very nice features, and it isn't nearly as bugged out.
At the risk of bringing down the wrath of numbnuts above, I must again proclaim the quote above to be absolutely FALSE. There is no difference in stability, compatibility, performance, or any other measurable quality of an O/S between the various Vista flavors with the possibly consideration that 64bit versions are a bit more troublesome (due to software and hardware support issues) than are the 32 bit versions.
Originally posted by windsoul44
I'm running Vista and wondered why I have not switched to it sooner!
I have had no issues with any MMO I'm playing atm or with any other software ect ect.
Vista is awesome, but it does hog alot of RAM so I made sure I had at least 4 gigs of Ram..Running Flawless.
And at further risk I have to call BS on this post as well. What are these all Microsoft employees trying viral marketing? I know something in your statement is total BS because you simply cannot get that much RAM in 32bit addressing. At best, you can get 2.2 to 2.5 gigs available for the OS because the hardware addressing takes up a good bit of the 4G total available address space in a 32bit system. I know you are not running 64bit Vista and having no issues with games and software because 64bit Vista is even less supported than is 32bit and its issues are well known.
Vista Ultimate is great. I don't have it on my machine currently, but I will by the time AoC hits I'm sure. Most the other versions are more buggy and have problems with a myriad of things. But Ultimate isn't to bad. There are some very nice features, and it isn't nearly as bugged out.
At the risk of bringing down the wrath of numbnuts above, I must again proclaim the quote above to be absolutely FALSE. There is no difference in stability, compatibility, performance, or any other measurable quality of an O/S between the various Vista flavors with the possibly consideration that 64bit versions are a bit more troublesome (due to software and hardware support issues) than are the 32 bit versions.
And at further risk I have to call BS on this post as well. What are these all Microsoft employees trying viral marketing? I know something in your statement is total BS because you simply cannot get that much RAM in 32bit addressing. At best, you can get 2.2 to 2.5 gigs available for the OS because the hardware addressing takes up a good bit of the 4G total available address space in a 32bit system. I know you are not running 64bit Vista and having no issues with games and software because 64bit Vista is even less supported than is 32bit and its issues are well known.
Jeez, where is all this BS coming from.
Originally posted by windsoul44
I'm running Vista and wondered why I have not switched to it sooner!
I have had no issues with any MMO I'm playing atm or with any other software ect ect. Vista is awesome, but it does hog alot of RAM so I made sure I had at least 4 gigs of Ram..Running Flawless.
AgtSmith your always calling BS even when you can't prove any of it. Let me give you a quote from Vistaclues.com
"Sucks, eh? As you probably read in this post, the “4GB” maximum memory limit of 32-bit Windows is purely theoretical. In practice, the max memory is something significantly less, equal to 4GB minus your video card memory and the address space allocated to a couple other hardware resourcse. Typically, the realistic maximum memory is somewhere betwee 2.5GB and 3.5GB.
Unfortunately, a lot of people are discovering this AFTER they pay for 4GB of RAM. For the record, this limitation has always been there, including in Windows XP and earlier versions of Windows. However, nowadays, more computer hardware is designed to support 4GB or more of RAM, and memory is getting cheap enough that more people can afford the full 4GB."
I doubt hes using onboard graphics card, So he'l prolly getting 3-3.5 gigs, of it, but theres no reason why hes not telling the truth.
I've got two PC's running Vista Home Premium. I just reformatted and installed everything on my Desktop today, because I did an upgrade from XP on this one, and after reading about the Upgrade workaround, desided a clean slate would be nice, It took me about an hour, without any problems. I did have to go online to download new drivers from my SLI graphics cards, and Vista drivers for my Asus Mobo, but right now most popular hardware is supported by Vista. Some people have problems, some people don't. Go read neweggs.coms reviews on some hardware. Some people say a given motherboard is Flawless, Others claim its a piece of crap. This is life deal with it. Not everyone is going to share the same oppinion. Because somebody doesn't share your oppinion doesn't make them a liar. Goto dell.com or alienware.com They'll sell you a Vista Ultimate with 4gigs of ram.
I am sorry but you are just wrong - there is nothing theoretical about the 4G address space limitation - it is factual. 2 ^ 32 = 4,294,967,296 (or 4G) of address space. In the server world you can get around that with PAE (Physical Address Extension) or if your mission critical apps support the /3G switch but that is not applicable for a gaming or really anywhere out of the server role.
As for the other erroneous statements you made about how much you will actually get in use, one thing is for sure - using 4G is impossible in a 32 bit environment as you cannot run a computer with RAM only. I am completely accurate in saying that you are most likely limited to around a 2.2 to 2.5 G max when talking about a gaming rig. Consider the math for a sec - say it is an average single GPU system - the video card alone will take up from half a gig to 1 gig depending on how much RAM it has. If the system is PCI Express that consumes even more mapping as I recall from a white paper on the subject that PCIe bus can take as much as 512 M of address space itself (recalling that number so don't slay me if it is off a bit). So far, with just a video card we are easily at 1G for any average gaming rig and upwards of 1.5 G for a high end or dual GPU rig. Add in other hardware (anything that needs to communicate with other parts of the computer) and in most any rig, let alone a gaming rig, you will find that there is a very real practical limit of about 2.2 to 2.5 G RAM in a 32 bit OS (XP or Vista). Might someone get a bit more, 2.6 or 2.8 - sure - but that is easily to top end of a modern gaming rig.
I am sorry but you are just wrong - there is nothing theoretical about the 4G address space limitation - it is factual. 2 ^ 32 = 4,294,967,296 (or 4G) of address space. In the server world you can get around that with PAE (Physical Address Extension) or if your mission critical apps support the /3G switch but that is not applicable for a gaming or really anywhere out of the server role.
As for the other erroneous statements you made about how much you will actually get in use, one thing is for sure - using 4G is impossible in a 32 bit environment as you cannot run a computer with RAM only. I am completely accurate in saying that you are most likely limited to around a 2.2 to 2.5 G max when talking about a gaming rig. Consider the math for a sec - say it is an average single GPU system - the video card alone will take up from half a gig to 1 gig depending on how much RAM it has. If the system is PCI Express that consumes even more mapping as I recall from a white paper on the subject that PCIe bus can take as much as 512 M of address space itself (recalling that number so don't slay me if it is off a bit). So far, with just a video card we are easily at 1G for any average gaming rig and upwards of 1.5 G for a high end or dual GPU rig. Add in other hardware (anything that needs to communicate with other parts of the computer) and in most any rig, let alone a gaming rig, you will find that there is a very real practical limit of about 2.2 to 2.5 G RAM in a 32 bit OS (XP or Vista). Might someone get a bit more, 2.6 or 2.8 - sure - but that is easily to top end of a modern gaming rig.
That wasn't me saying it. If you don't like what it says argue that with the websites that say it. I'm done argueing with your Theories and crap, because you'll just say "Nah uh"
I have Vista Ultimate x64 and its running great without too many kinks, yes there are problems, such as older games not running KOTOR 2 won't run but other then minor hitches the operating system is excellent and much faster then my old xp setup but this could be due to my new hardware
As for DX10 for windows xp i wouldn't count on it, MS wants to force people off the old x32 systems and all future operating systmes are going to be x64 which is where the real magic of DX10 kicks in, I test a couple alphas (no i won't say which ones) that are dx10 games and they are absolutly amazing and coupled with my hardware...once these games hit the market on the DX10 platform and multi-gpu systems, a true revolution in pc gaming will occur and we will all benefit greatly.
My only concern though with the DX10 is in the area of mmo, due to the online nature and the amount of info the server's push out, keeping it properly sinked and the grahpics level on high is a hard thing to do. single playe fps adn rpg will blow your mind, but even with AoC I see DX10 only going so far due to server processer limitations even with the grahpics hosted on your machine
If AoC is truly going to be DX10 only that is gonna hurt this company just cause alot of people are not gonna fork out the what 300+ for vista just to play a game I personally think they should rethink that whole strategy you cant force people to just into the future "Vista" alot of companys are not even compatible with vista yet I know I had vista installed till some of my expensive software wouldnt work for it.
And yet one more person who goes off the rails ranting and raving about things they obviously haven't researched. AoC supports BOTH DX9 and DX10.
That wasn't me saying it. If you don't like what it says argue that with the websites that say it. I'm done argueing with your Theories and crap, because you'll just say "Nah uh"
ROFL - you post it in response to a comment I make and then when I point out the inaccuracy of it you act as if you where not using it to show I was wrong (when in fact you and it are wrong). You have issues man, seriously.
That wasn't me saying it. If you don't like what it says argue that with the websites that say it. I'm done argueing with your Theories and crap, because you'll just say "Nah uh"
ROFL - you post it in response to a comment I make and then when I point out the inaccuracy of it you act as if you where not using it to show I was wrong (when in fact you and it are wrong). You have issues man, seriously.
Once again your responces are, little more then "NO WRONG" You've never once quoted any type of decent literature to support a word you've said. Yes The OS Supports Physicaly 4 gigs, but you don't get 4 gigs, because the OS only supports mapping for 4gigs of memory TOTAL, Not just your RAM, and yes some of it get eaten up by other hardware. My expereinces with building PCs, is you get about 2.5-3gigs. I've heard of it being as low as 2.2 but never seen it myself. I states that you were doing your typical TROLLING when that guy said he said Vista Ultimate with 4gigs, and you called him a liar. There are Thousands of rigs out there with Vista, and 4 gigs INSTALLED. No they don't get to use all 4 gigs, but that doesn't change the fact that they've got it. Not like they'd say "I've got a Rig with 2.567gigs of ram. You AVOIDED the whole reason I posted.
Who are you to say that man doesn't have a Vista Rig, with 4gigs INSTALLED(However not Totaly Useable) and its running without problems. Just because you don't like Vista doesnt mean other people arn't having good exerpiences with Vista.
The guy clearly said that installing 4gs of RAM made Vista run oh so great for him, this is total BS as it cannot use 4G so in reality it runs the same as it would if he had 2.2 or 2.5 G. IN short, he made the claim that something impossible to do was the secret to Vista running great. As for your babble about posting source or whatever, again, I am not like you - I don't rely on others knowledge so I don't need to post sources as I know myself the facts. You should try learning about these things instead of just posting what others say.
The guy clearly said that installing 4gs of RAM made Vista run oh so great for him, this is total BS as it cannot use 4G so in reality it runs the same as it would if he had 2.2 or 2.5 G. IN short, he made the claim that something impossible to do was the secret to Vista running great. As for your babble about posting source or whatever, again, I am not like you - I don't rely on others knowledge so I don't need to post sources as I know myself the facts. You should try learning about these things instead of just posting what others say.
not quite true but close, here is a test report. I will cut to the chase and quote the conclusion > Just for the record I am not running out and buying Vista anytime soon myself.
Game
Memory Used on 2GB System
Memory Used on 4GB System
% Improvement
Operating System
784MB
1.11GB
-
Age of Empires 3
1.03GB
1.53GB
6%
Battlefield 2
1.89GB
2.17GB
2%
Battlefield 2142 Demo
1.85GB
2.71GB
18%
Call of Duty 2
1.77GB
1.86GB
19%
F.E.A.R.
1.76GB
2.10GB
11%
Ghost Recon: AW
1.56GB
1.85GB
13%
Half-Life 2: EP1
1.50GB
1.93GB
4%
Oblivion
1.31GB
1.69GB
4%
Tomb Raider: Legend
880MB
1.18GB
13%
Conclusion:
At the end of this article we have discovered a few things that are as sure and death and fuzzy kittens.
1) Windows Vista is coming and with it come higher system requirements if you want a smooth enjoyable experience.
2) 2GB of memory will be enough to keep all of today's games running quite smoothly. However, in light of Battlefield 2, and the Battlefield 2142 Demo taking up over 1.8GB of a 2GB system, there isn't much room left for other programs running in the background.
3) I honestly won't be rushing out and buying Vista as it uses way more resources that Windows XP.
4) Eventually hardcore gamers will all own Vista as DirectX 10 is only available for this platform.
Another thing to consider is this.If your video cards hav 768 MB each , your maximum memory is going to at most be 2.4 GB, because Vista has to use 1536MB of that address space to address your video memory. It’ll actually be lower than the 2.4 GB because there are other hardware resources that need address space, too. So, it never hurts to fill your computer with 4GB of RAM–you’ll definitely get the max, but you won’t be able to address it all. You probably won’t be able to address much more than 2GB, maybe less. I understand the 64 bit Vista can show you the full amount.
I love this, some newb comes in and starts a thread with less of a clue about WoC than my 5 year old and a huge debate follows. Notice how the OP has not said anything else
Heden
Heden __________________________________________ ***Just agree with me and we will get along fine***
The guy clearly said that installing 4gs of RAM made Vista run oh so great for him, this is total BS as it cannot use 4G so in reality it runs the same as it would if he had 2.2 or 2.5 G. IN short, he made the claim that something impossible to do was the secret to Vista running great. As for your babble about posting source or whatever, again, I am not like you - I don't rely on others knowledge so I don't need to post sources as I know myself the facts. You should try learning about these things instead of just posting what others say.
not quite true but close, here is a test report. I will cut to the chase and quote the conclusion > Just for the record I am not running out and buying Vista anytime soon myself.
...
Another thing to consider is this.If your video cards hav 768 MB each , your maximum memory is going to at most be 2.4 GB, because Vista has to use 1536MB of that address space to address your video memory. It’ll actually be lower than the 2.4 GB because there are other hardware resources that need address space, too. So, it never hurts to fill your computer with 4GB of RAM–you’ll definitely get the max, but you won’t be able to address it all. You probably won’t be able to address much more than 2GB, maybe less. I understand the 64 bit Vista can show you the full amount.
That test was with 64 bit Vista - I said I was pressuming the guy was not using 64 bit Vista because it is known to be even more problematic than 32 bit Vista in terms of gaming at least. No doubt that with a 64 bit OS you will get a differance in performance (notable one) between 2G installed and 4G - I was merely pointing out that in a 32 bit OS environment sticking in 4g isn't going to offer much help over even 2G or 2.5G as that is about all the OS can use, practically.
I know the test was using a 64 bit version, and it still does not giver enough bang for the buck and that is assuming you can find good 64 bit drivers for your hardware. Also showed a good example at he end of my post on why even with the 64 bit version you won't get much better performance. Anyway mark the date ad time, for once we agree on something Smith, I would not put Vista on my box if Bill Gates hand delivered a copy to me free.
I know the test was using a 64 bit version, and it still does not giver enough bang for the buck and that is assuming you can find good 64 bit drivers for your hardware. Also showed a good example at he end of my post on why even with the 64 bit version you won't get much better performance. Anyway mark the date ad time, for once we agree on something Smith, I would not put Vista on my box if Bill Gates hand delivered a copy to me free.
If AoC is truly going to be DX10 only that is gonna hurt this company just cause alot of people are not gonna fork out the what 300+ for vista just to play a game I personally think they should rethink that whole strategy you cant force people to just into the future "Vista" alot of companys are not even compatible with vista yet I know I had vista installed till some of my expensive software wouldnt work for it.
Which is the main reason I dont have vista at all on my rig. Vista is soo buggy, and XP professional is still the most stable Operating system available today. It would suck if AOC goes into dx10 exclusive route.
Linux is more stable. MS Operating systems are the less stable of all the OS. Seems this is because the people who desig the OS dont got "all the code", only "their part": I dont know if this is true, but if it is, explains why about all the bugs and crashes. Also, think that every designer get use of the dll and other internal of Windows, so, perhaps, if you install a soft that "manage" dll incorrectly, this is not windows fault, is your soft and its designer. In other way, we can talk about (and find more accurate info on the web that what Im telling) but the end is:
Games are for windows, not for linux, a bit for mac.
If Games need VIsta, gamers need vista, it sucks, really! but if they "impose it", like the did before, from MS-DOS, to Win95... etc... and every game designer works for vista, you have the option to buy it, or, no play nothing... in the last case, i recomend u to install linux instead, you will no need of XP then...
About conan, war and all this, about dx10 and dx9... I dont know what is the final state of all this BUT, taking a look to market we can see that vista didnt get a place in our homes, so, be sure that MS will do something about it, everything goes with --> $$$$$ <-- So if Aoc or other games cant be selled because they requiere VISTA and people, dont get vista, they will get them compatible, or some corportaions will ahve lot of $$$$ problems, and MS are not interested in this.
The guy clearly said that installing 4gs of RAM made Vista run oh so great for him, this is total BS as it cannot use 4G so in reality it runs the same as it would if he had 2.2 or 2.5 G. IN short, he made the claim that something impossible to do was the secret to Vista running great. As for your babble about posting source or whatever, again, I am not like you - I don't rely on others knowledge so I don't need to post sources as I know myself the facts. You should try learning about these things instead of just posting what others say.
You twist things around. You don't fully understand what I'm saying, or your pretending to so that you MAY avoid the fact that your wrong. He can have Vista, And he Can have 4 Gigs Physicaly INSTALLED. The OS may not recognise 4Gigs, but its Physicaly there, You can open the case and SEE it. So why can't he have Vista and it run Smoothly? You can buy a machine from any of the places that build to order, and get 4gigs in a Vista Ultimate 32 Bit.
It's not up for arguement that if you but 4 1gig sticks in a Vista machine it will run better then 1 gig. Microsoft will tell you this, Tom's Hardware Guild says so, FrozenPC Will agree, Gear Digest will also say the same, SmallPC Builder will tell you this. I don't understand why you don't get it. We're not reinventing the wheel here.
If AoC is truly going to be DX10 only that is gonna hurt this company just cause alot of people are not gonna fork out the what 300+ for vista just to play a game I personally think they should rethink that whole strategy you cant force people to just into the future "Vista" alot of companys are not even compatible with vista yet I know I had vista installed till some of my expensive software wouldnt work for it.
Which is the main reason I dont have vista at all on my rig. Vista is soo buggy, and XP professional is still the most stable Operating system available today. It would suck if AOC goes into dx10 exclusive route.
Linux is more stable. MS Operating systems are the less stable of all the OS. Seems this is because the people who desig the OS dont got "all the code", only "their part": I dont know if this is true, but if it is, explains why about all the bugs and crashes. Also, think that every designer get use of the dll and other internal of Windows, so, perhaps, if you install a soft that "manage" dll incorrectly, this is not windows fault, is your soft and its designer. In other way, we can talk about (and find more accurate info on the web that what Im telling) but the end is:
Games are for windows, not for linux, a bit for mac.
If Games need VIsta, gamers need vista, it sucks, really! but if they "impose it", like the did before, from MS-DOS, to Win95... etc... and every game designer works for vista, you have the option to buy it, or, no play nothing... in the last case, i recomend u to install linux instead, you will no need of XP then...
About conan, war and all this, about dx10 and dx9... I dont know what is the final state of all this BUT, taking a look to market we can see that vista didnt get a place in our homes, so, be sure that MS will do something about it, everything goes with --> $$$$$ <-- So if Aoc or other games cant be selled because they requiere VISTA and people, dont get vista, they will get them compatible, or some corportaions will ahve lot of $$$$ problems, and MS are not interested in this.
On game PC Stability only needs to be so good, its not a server. My vista machine has never crashed out on me after getting it set up with what I want, and settleing for the right overclock.. How much more stable do you need?
If AoC is truly going to be DX10 only that is gonna hurt this company just cause alot of people are not gonna fork out the what 300+ for vista just to play a game I personally think they should rethink that whole strategy you cant force people to just into the future "Vista" alot of companys are not even compatible with vista yet I know I had vista installed till some of my expensive software wouldnt work for it.
Which is the main reason I dont have vista at all on my rig. Vista is soo buggy, and XP professional is still the most stable Operating system available today. It would suck if AOC goes into dx10 exclusive route.
Linux is more stable. MS Operating systems are the less stable of all the OS. Seems this is because the people who desig the OS dont got "all the code", only "their part": I dont know if this is true, but if it is, explains why about all the bugs and crashes. Also, think that every designer get use of the dll and other internal of Windows, so, perhaps, if you install a soft that "manage" dll incorrectly, this is not windows fault, is your soft and its designer. In other way, we can talk about (and find more accurate info on the web that what Im telling) but the end is:
Games are for windows, not for linux, a bit for mac.
If Games need VIsta, gamers need vista, it sucks, really! but if they "impose it", like the did before, from MS-DOS, to Win95... etc... and every game designer works for vista, you have the option to buy it, or, no play nothing... in the last case, i recomend u to install linux instead, you will no need of XP then...
About conan, war and all this, about dx10 and dx9... I dont know what is the final state of all this BUT, taking a look to market we can see that vista didnt get a place in our homes, so, be sure that MS will do something about it, everything goes with --> $$$$$ <-- So if Aoc or other games cant be selled because they requiere VISTA and people, dont get vista, they will get them compatible, or some corportaions will ahve lot of $$$$ problems, and MS are not interested in this.
On game PC Stability only needs to be so good, its not a server. My vista machine has never crashed out on me after getting it set up with what I want, and settleing for the right overclock.. How much more stable do you need?
This is not the issue, but I need my so dont crashes when I change the application, or dont crashes randomly generating a dump that must be send, etc... windows is not as stable as you say, and no need to be a server, I played lot of games in lot of different machines, and almost one time, all the games, crashed, so, the problem comes from all the games? from all the machines? dont say about how I setted it up, I can assure you that is clean of trojans, virus, etc... and, also, is optimized, I work in the industry so... take this in account before you answer it.
Also, if there is never a problem, with any game, you never found anyone that the system reboot unexpectly? perhaps you can ask the support why they exist if the game, and the operative system is stable? you know. Windows is not stable, but, is a marketing thing, they come from an high extended ms-dos and put easy to acces windows (almost free for everyone that knew a bit of how to get software) with lot of marketing.
Almost, I was talking about the market, and, about the "poor" vista. Almost, noone I know uses it, and the people who get it, most of them, uninstalled it. Its performance sucks because it waste more system resources than xp and is more unstable than this last. So, if they launch a game ONLY for Vista, you will see how it goes, you can take a look to "shadowrun" meanwhile. So I was saying that a game like AOC will be ready for xp and/or vista or they will loose lot of money, and this world, sadly, moves around money, almost, a game that is an entertainement product, so be patient and wait, you wil play aoc, as long as you pay, they will take care of it.
Also, let me tell you last thing, if you overclock your system you will, rarely, notice any thing, but you will shorter the life of your machine, also, if you overclock it enought to get a really better performance from it, be sure, that you will burn it out too soon. But this is your decision, and this is, not stable.
You twist things around. You don't fully understand what I'm saying, or your pretending to so that you MAY avoid the fact that your wrong. He can have Vista, And he Can have 4 Gigs Physicaly INSTALLED. The OS may not recognise 4Gigs, but its Physicaly there, You can open the case and SEE it. So why can't he have Vista and it run Smoothly? You can buy a machine from any of the places that build to order, and get 4gigs in a Vista Ultimate 32 Bit.
I do not think I am twisiting anything. he clearly makes the implication that installing 4G of RAM in Vista (pressumably 32 bit as x64 is not realistically viable yet as a gaming rig) is the trick to getting it to run great The 4G installed has no bearing on Vista running poorly or great as it cannot address use anywhere from 1/2 to 1/3 of that RAM.
Originally posted by FE|Tachyon
It's not up for arguement that if you but 4 1gig sticks in a Vista machine it will run better then 1 gig. Microsoft will tell you this, Tom's Hardware Guild says so, FrozenPC Will agree, Gear Digest will also say the same, SmallPC Builder will tell you this. I don't understand why you don't get it. We're not reinventing the wheel here.
Certainly - 1G is better than 512M and 2G is better than 1G - but 4G is, practically, no better than 2 or 2 1/2 Gs (at most 3G but unlikely to get that much a a modern gaming rig) as it just sits there unused. So the claim is specious at best.
You twist things around. You don't fully understand what I'm saying, or your pretending to so that you MAY avoid the fact that your wrong. He can have Vista, And he Can have 4 Gigs Physicaly INSTALLED. The OS may not recognise 4Gigs, but its Physicaly there, You can open the case and SEE it. So why can't he have Vista and it run Smoothly? You can buy a machine from any of the places that build to order, and get 4gigs in a Vista Ultimate 32 Bit.
I do not think I am twisiting anything. he clearly makes the implication that installing 4G of RAM in Vista (pressumably 32 bit as x64 is not realistically viable yet as a gaming rig) is the trick to getting it to run great The 4G installed has no bearing on Vista running poorly or great as it cannot address use anywhere from 1/2 to 1/3 of that RAM.
Originally posted by FE|Tachyon
It's not up for arguement that if you but 4 1gig sticks in a Vista machine it will run better then 1 gig. Microsoft will tell you this, Tom's Hardware Guild says so, FrozenPC Will agree, Gear Digest will also say the same, SmallPC Builder will tell you this. I don't understand why you don't get it. We're not reinventing the wheel here.
Certainly - 1G is better than 512M and 2G is better than 1G - but 4G is, practically, no better than 2 or 2 1/2 Gs (at most 3G but unlikely to get that much a a modern gaming rig) as it just sits there unused. So the claim is specious at best.
But whos going to install 2.2 Gigs of ram? NOBODY. 4 Gigs of ram is a Cheap investment. If i had the money and I was building my machine I would go with 4gigs too. Because 4x1gig chips Dual Channel works better then 3 x 1 gig Chips. Thats why ... Its not rocket science.
THIS IS HYPOTETICAL I'M NOT MAKING ANY IMPLICATIONS HERE AT ALL.
Let me show you where your TWISTING this.
I have a Vista machine with 4 gigs of RAM installed, because Vista is a Memory Hungry OS, and it Runs great. If your going to Run Vista you need More Ram then your typical OS.
By your logic, I just said this, I NEED ALL 4 GIGS of Ram in my PC with Vista to run Great.
That is NOT what was stated. Simply the machine runs great, and there are 4, 1Gig Chips Installed. Thats all it means.
If I have 3 doors and I tell you there no lion behind 2 of them, that doesn't mean theres a lion behind the 3rd door. You cannot assume anything. Your always adding information, or leaving information out.
The man has a Vista PC, He installed 4 1 gig Memory Moduals. His machine runs great. The only reason your at odds with that is your own arguementative nature, and personal dislike for Vista. Nobody is taking anything away from XP. I may in fact Dual Boot XP when Vista comes out, but I hope I won't need to.
Comments
I'm running Vista and wondered why I have not switched to it sooner!Heh, i won't run Vista at all. Vienna is slated for 2009, I'll wait 'til then. Only way I'll look at Vista will be after SP2 and a huge price decrease. Even then, I doubt I'll get it.
I have had no issues with any MMO I'm playing atm or with any other software ect ect.
Vista is awesome, but it does hog alot of RAM so I made sure I had at least 4 gigs of Ram..Running Flawless.
I'm with you man, I like Vista very much. I won't banter on about how others are dumb for not switching, because there are still some reasons not to. Vista is still very new, and not every piece of software is configured to work very well with it, example www.ergodex.com check out their DX1 its not supported with Vista drivers yet. This makes me sad, but i switched to Vista none the less, hopefuly the Vista drivers are realeased befor AOC.
There is enough info out on DX10 (demos, open betas, previews, etc) to tell that at least at this point DX10 is an unrealized promise. And on the issue of Vista gaming, I won't try to argue whether Vista is good or bad but it is undeniably poor for any kind of performance based applications. It is consistently 25% to 40% slower same for same than XP. Will it improve, probably - but when is key. It is highly unlikely that SP1 will make it this year (rumors abound but it is not even in beta yet and typically MS SPs test for almost a year), and MS has said from day one that SP1 will release with Server 2k8 which has now been pushed back until Feb 2008. Driver support from ATI and NVIDIA is still incredibly poor and it isn't just their GPU drivers (although those are the worst especially SLi/Crossfire) but even chipset drivers and basic things such as SATA and such.
Undoubtedly, Vista will improve with time - but I see no way in hell it is going to come anywhere close to making up the ground it needs to (on XP) in time for the big fall coming of DX 10. And if things are as bad then as they are now in terms of Vista performance then it is goign to burn alot of bridges and possibly relegate Vista to Millennium II status.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
At the risk of bringing down the wrath of numbnuts above, I must again proclaim the quote above to be absolutely FALSE. There is no difference in stability, compatibility, performance, or any other measurable quality of an O/S between the various Vista flavors with the possibly consideration that 64bit versions are a bit more troublesome (due to software and hardware support issues) than are the 32 bit versions.
I'm running Vista and wondered why I have not switched to it sooner!Originally posted by windsoul44
I have had no issues with any MMO I'm playing atm or with any other software ect ect.
Vista is awesome, but it does hog alot of RAM so I made sure I had at least 4 gigs of Ram..Running Flawless.
And at further risk I have to call BS on this post as well. What are these all Microsoft employees trying viral marketing? I know something in your statement is total BS because you simply cannot get that much RAM in 32bit addressing. At best, you can get 2.2 to 2.5 gigs available for the OS because the hardware addressing takes up a good bit of the 4G total available address space in a 32bit system. I know you are not running 64bit Vista and having no issues with games and software because 64bit Vista is even less supported than is 32bit and its issues are well known.
Jeez, where is all this BS coming from.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
At the risk of bringing down the wrath of numbnuts above, I must again proclaim the quote above to be absolutely FALSE. There is no difference in stability, compatibility, performance, or any other measurable quality of an O/S between the various Vista flavors with the possibly consideration that 64bit versions are a bit more troublesome (due to software and hardware support issues) than are the 32 bit versions.
And at further risk I have to call BS on this post as well. What are these all Microsoft employees trying viral marketing? I know something in your statement is total BS because you simply cannot get that much RAM in 32bit addressing. At best, you can get 2.2 to 2.5 gigs available for the OS because the hardware addressing takes up a good bit of the 4G total available address space in a 32bit system. I know you are not running 64bit Vista and having no issues with games and software because 64bit Vista is even less supported than is 32bit and its issues are well known.
Jeez, where is all this BS coming from.
AgtSmith your always calling BS even when you can't prove any of it. Let me give you a quote from Vistaclues.com
"Sucks, eh? As you probably read in this post, the “4GB” maximum memory limit of 32-bit Windows is purely theoretical. In practice, the max memory is something significantly less, equal to 4GB minus your video card memory and the address space allocated to a couple other hardware resourcse. Typically, the realistic maximum memory is somewhere betwee 2.5GB and 3.5GB.
Unfortunately, a lot of people are discovering this AFTER they pay for 4GB of RAM. For the record, this limitation has always been there, including in Windows XP and earlier versions of Windows. However, nowadays, more computer hardware is designed to support 4GB or more of RAM, and memory is getting cheap enough that more people can afford the full 4GB."
I doubt hes using onboard graphics card, So he'l prolly getting 3-3.5 gigs, of it, but theres no reason why hes not telling the truth.
I've got two PC's running Vista Home Premium. I just reformatted and installed everything on my Desktop today, because I did an upgrade from XP on this one, and after reading about the Upgrade workaround, desided a clean slate would be nice, It took me about an hour, without any problems. I did have to go online to download new drivers from my SLI graphics cards, and Vista drivers for my Asus Mobo, but right now most popular hardware is supported by Vista. Some people have problems, some people don't. Go read neweggs.coms reviews on some hardware. Some people say a given motherboard is Flawless, Others claim its a piece of crap. This is life deal with it. Not everyone is going to share the same oppinion. Because somebody doesn't share your oppinion doesn't make them a liar. Goto dell.com or alienware.com They'll sell you a Vista Ultimate with 4gigs of ram.
I am sorry but you are just wrong - there is nothing theoretical about the 4G address space limitation - it is factual. 2 ^ 32 = 4,294,967,296 (or 4G) of address space. In the server world you can get around that with PAE (Physical Address Extension) or if your mission critical apps support the /3G switch but that is not applicable for a gaming or really anywhere out of the server role.
As for the other erroneous statements you made about how much you will actually get in use, one thing is for sure - using 4G is impossible in a 32 bit environment as you cannot run a computer with RAM only. I am completely accurate in saying that you are most likely limited to around a 2.2 to 2.5 G max when talking about a gaming rig. Consider the math for a sec - say it is an average single GPU system - the video card alone will take up from half a gig to 1 gig depending on how much RAM it has. If the system is PCI Express that consumes even more mapping as I recall from a white paper on the subject that PCIe bus can take as much as 512 M of address space itself (recalling that number so don't slay me if it is off a bit). So far, with just a video card we are easily at 1G for any average gaming rig and upwards of 1.5 G for a high end or dual GPU rig. Add in other hardware (anything that needs to communicate with other parts of the computer) and in most any rig, let alone a gaming rig, you will find that there is a very real practical limit of about 2.2 to 2.5 G RAM in a 32 bit OS (XP or Vista). Might someone get a bit more, 2.6 or 2.8 - sure - but that is easily to top end of a modern gaming rig.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
That wasn't me saying it. If you don't like what it says argue that with the websites that say it. I'm done argueing with your Theories and crap, because you'll just say "Nah uh"
I have Vista Ultimate x64 and its running great without too many kinks, yes there are problems, such as older games not running KOTOR 2 won't run
but other then minor hitches the operating system is excellent and much faster then my old xp setup but this could be due to my new hardware
As for DX10 for windows xp i wouldn't count on it, MS wants to force people off the old x32 systems and all future operating systmes are going to be x64 which is where the real magic of DX10 kicks in, I test a couple alphas (no i won't say which ones) that are dx10 games and they are absolutly amazing and coupled with my hardware...once these games hit the market on the DX10 platform and multi-gpu systems, a true revolution in pc gaming will occur and we will all benefit greatly.
My only concern though with the DX10 is in the area of mmo, due to the online nature and the amount of info the server's push out, keeping it properly sinked and the grahpics level on high is a hard thing to do. single playe fps adn rpg will blow your mind, but even with AoC I see DX10 only going so far due to server processer limitations even with the grahpics hosted on your machine
And yet one more person who goes off the rails ranting and raving about things they obviously haven't researched. AoC supports BOTH DX9 and DX10.
agreed...it supports both u retard
------------------------------
ROFL - you post it in response to a comment I make and then when I point out the inaccuracy of it you act as if you where not using it to show I was wrong (when in fact you and it are wrong). You have issues man, seriously.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
ROFL - you post it in response to a comment I make and then when I point out the inaccuracy of it you act as if you where not using it to show I was wrong (when in fact you and it are wrong). You have issues man, seriously.
Once again your responces are, little more then "NO WRONG" You've never once quoted any type of decent literature to support a word you've said. Yes The OS Supports Physicaly 4 gigs, but you don't get 4 gigs, because the OS only supports mapping for 4gigs of memory TOTAL, Not just your RAM, and yes some of it get eaten up by other hardware. My expereinces with building PCs, is you get about 2.5-3gigs. I've heard of it being as low as 2.2 but never seen it myself. I states that you were doing your typical TROLLING when that guy said he said Vista Ultimate with 4gigs, and you called him a liar. There are Thousands of rigs out there with Vista, and 4 gigs INSTALLED. No they don't get to use all 4 gigs, but that doesn't change the fact that they've got it. Not like they'd say "I've got a Rig with 2.567gigs of ram. You AVOIDED the whole reason I posted.
Who are you to say that man doesn't have a Vista Rig, with 4gigs INSTALLED(However not Totaly Useable) and its running without problems. Just because you don't like Vista doesnt mean other people arn't having good exerpiences with Vista.
The guy clearly said that installing 4gs of RAM made Vista run oh so great for him, this is total BS as it cannot use 4G so in reality it runs the same as it would if he had 2.2 or 2.5 G. IN short, he made the claim that something impossible to do was the secret to Vista running great. As for your babble about posting source or whatever, again, I am not like you - I don't rely on others knowledge so I don't need to post sources as I know myself the facts. You should try learning about these things instead of just posting what others say.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
not quite true but close, here is a test report. I will cut to the chase and quote the conclusion > Just for the record I am not running out and buying Vista anytime soon myself.
Conclusion:
At the end of this article we have discovered a few things that are as sure and death and fuzzy kittens.
the link
www.bcchardware.com/index.php
Another thing to consider is this. If your video cards hav 768 MB each , your maximum memory is going to at most be 2.4 GB, because Vista has to use 1536MB of that address space to address your video memory. It’ll actually be lower than the 2.4 GB because there are other hardware resources that need address space, too. So, it never hurts to fill your computer with 4GB of RAM–you’ll definitely get the max, but you won’t be able to address it all. You probably won’t be able to address much more than 2GB, maybe less. I understand the 64 bit Vista can show you the full amount.
I miss DAoC
Hehe,
I love this, some newb comes in and starts a thread with less of a clue about WoC than my 5 year old and a huge debate follows. Notice how the OP has not said anything else
Heden
Heden
__________________________________________
***Just agree with me and we will get along fine***
not quite true but close, here is a test report. I will cut to the chase and quote the conclusion > Just for the record I am not running out and buying Vista anytime soon myself.
...Another thing to consider is this. If your video cards hav 768 MB each , your maximum memory is going to at most be 2.4 GB, because Vista has to use 1536MB of that address space to address your video memory. It’ll actually be lower than the 2.4 GB because there are other hardware resources that need address space, too. So, it never hurts to fill your computer with 4GB of RAM–you’ll definitely get the max, but you won’t be able to address it all. You probably won’t be able to address much more than 2GB, maybe less. I understand the 64 bit Vista can show you the full amount.
That test was with 64 bit Vista - I said I was pressuming the guy was not using 64 bit Vista because it is known to be even more problematic than 32 bit Vista in terms of gaming at least. No doubt that with a 64 bit OS you will get a differance in performance (notable one) between 2G installed and 4G - I was merely pointing out that in a 32 bit OS environment sticking in 4g isn't going to offer much help over even 2G or 2.5G as that is about all the OS can use, practically.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
It comes in both dx9 and dx10. Seriously dude, do your homework first before posting random rumors.
I know the test was using a 64 bit version, and it still does not giver enough bang for the buck and that is assuming you can find good 64 bit drivers for your hardware. Also showed a good example at he end of my post on why even with the 64 bit version you won't get much better performance. Anyway mark the date ad time, for once we agree on something Smith, I would not put Vista on my box if Bill Gates hand delivered a copy to me free.
I miss DAoC
:-)
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
Which is the main reason I dont have vista at all on my rig. Vista is soo buggy, and XP professional is still the most stable Operating system available today. It would suck if AOC goes into dx10 exclusive route.
Linux is more stable. MS Operating systems are the less stable of all the OS. Seems this is because the people who desig the OS dont got "all the code", only "their part": I dont know if this is true, but if it is, explains why about all the bugs and crashes. Also, think that every designer get use of the dll and other internal of Windows, so, perhaps, if you install a soft that "manage" dll incorrectly, this is not windows fault, is your soft and its designer. In other way, we can talk about (and find more accurate info on the web that what Im telling) but the end is:
Games are for windows, not for linux, a bit for mac.
If Games need VIsta, gamers need vista, it sucks, really! but if they "impose it", like the did before, from MS-DOS, to Win95... etc... and every game designer works for vista, you have the option to buy it, or, no play nothing... in the last case, i recomend u to install linux instead, you will no need of XP then...
About conan, war and all this, about dx10 and dx9... I dont know what is the final state of all this BUT, taking a look to market we can see that vista didnt get a place in our homes, so, be sure that MS will do something about it, everything goes with --> $$$$$ <-- So if Aoc or other games cant be selled because they requiere VISTA and people, dont get vista, they will get them compatible, or some corportaions will ahve lot of $$$$ problems, and MS are not interested in this.
They've already stated they're going to release a DX9 version.
You twist things around. You don't fully understand what I'm saying, or your pretending to so that you MAY avoid the fact that your wrong. He can have Vista, And he Can have 4 Gigs Physicaly INSTALLED. The OS may not recognise 4Gigs, but its Physicaly there, You can open the case and SEE it. So why can't he have Vista and it run Smoothly? You can buy a machine from any of the places that build to order, and get 4gigs in a Vista Ultimate 32 Bit.
It's not up for arguement that if you but 4 1gig sticks in a Vista machine it will run better then 1 gig. Microsoft will tell you this, Tom's Hardware Guild says so, FrozenPC Will agree, Gear Digest will also say the same, SmallPC Builder will tell you this. I don't understand why you don't get it. We're not reinventing the wheel here.
Which is the main reason I dont have vista at all on my rig. Vista is soo buggy, and XP professional is still the most stable Operating system available today. It would suck if AOC goes into dx10 exclusive route.
Linux is more stable. MS Operating systems are the less stable of all the OS. Seems this is because the people who desig the OS dont got "all the code", only "their part": I dont know if this is true, but if it is, explains why about all the bugs and crashes. Also, think that every designer get use of the dll and other internal of Windows, so, perhaps, if you install a soft that "manage" dll incorrectly, this is not windows fault, is your soft and its designer. In other way, we can talk about (and find more accurate info on the web that what Im telling) but the end is:
Games are for windows, not for linux, a bit for mac.
If Games need VIsta, gamers need vista, it sucks, really! but if they "impose it", like the did before, from MS-DOS, to Win95... etc... and every game designer works for vista, you have the option to buy it, or, no play nothing... in the last case, i recomend u to install linux instead, you will no need of XP then...
About conan, war and all this, about dx10 and dx9... I dont know what is the final state of all this BUT, taking a look to market we can see that vista didnt get a place in our homes, so, be sure that MS will do something about it, everything goes with --> $$$$$ <-- So if Aoc or other games cant be selled because they requiere VISTA and people, dont get vista, they will get them compatible, or some corportaions will ahve lot of $$$$ problems, and MS are not interested in this.
On game PC Stability only needs to be so good, its not a server. My vista machine has never crashed out on me after getting it set up with what I want, and settleing for the right overclock.. How much more stable do you need?
Which is the main reason I dont have vista at all on my rig. Vista is soo buggy, and XP professional is still the most stable Operating system available today. It would suck if AOC goes into dx10 exclusive route.
Linux is more stable. MS Operating systems are the less stable of all the OS. Seems this is because the people who desig the OS dont got "all the code", only "their part": I dont know if this is true, but if it is, explains why about all the bugs and crashes. Also, think that every designer get use of the dll and other internal of Windows, so, perhaps, if you install a soft that "manage" dll incorrectly, this is not windows fault, is your soft and its designer. In other way, we can talk about (and find more accurate info on the web that what Im telling) but the end is:
Games are for windows, not for linux, a bit for mac.
If Games need VIsta, gamers need vista, it sucks, really! but if they "impose it", like the did before, from MS-DOS, to Win95... etc... and every game designer works for vista, you have the option to buy it, or, no play nothing... in the last case, i recomend u to install linux instead, you will no need of XP then...
About conan, war and all this, about dx10 and dx9... I dont know what is the final state of all this BUT, taking a look to market we can see that vista didnt get a place in our homes, so, be sure that MS will do something about it, everything goes with --> $$$$$ <-- So if Aoc or other games cant be selled because they requiere VISTA and people, dont get vista, they will get them compatible, or some corportaions will ahve lot of $$$$ problems, and MS are not interested in this.
On game PC Stability only needs to be so good, its not a server. My vista machine has never crashed out on me after getting it set up with what I want, and settleing for the right overclock.. How much more stable do you need?
This is not the issue, but I need my so dont crashes when I change the application, or dont crashes randomly generating a dump that must be send, etc... windows is not as stable as you say, and no need to be a server, I played lot of games in lot of different machines, and almost one time, all the games, crashed, so, the problem comes from all the games? from all the machines? dont say about how I setted it up, I can assure you that is clean of trojans, virus, etc... and, also, is optimized, I work in the industry so... take this in account before you answer it.
Also, if there is never a problem, with any game, you never found anyone that the system reboot unexpectly? perhaps you can ask the support why they exist if the game, and the operative system is stable? you know. Windows is not stable, but, is a marketing thing, they come from an high extended ms-dos and put easy to acces windows (almost free for everyone that knew a bit of how to get software) with lot of marketing.
Almost, I was talking about the market, and, about the "poor" vista. Almost, noone I know uses it, and the people who get it, most of them, uninstalled it. Its performance sucks because it waste more system resources than xp and is more unstable than this last. So, if they launch a game ONLY for Vista, you will see how it goes, you can take a look to "shadowrun" meanwhile. So I was saying that a game like AOC will be ready for xp and/or vista or they will loose lot of money, and this world, sadly, moves around money, almost, a game that is an entertainement product, so be patient and wait, you wil play aoc, as long as you pay, they will take care of it.
Also, let me tell you last thing, if you overclock your system you will, rarely, notice any thing, but you will shorter the life of your machine, also, if you overclock it enought to get a really better performance from it, be sure, that you will burn it out too soon. But this is your decision, and this is, not stable.
I do not think I am twisiting anything. he clearly makes the implication that installing 4G of RAM in Vista (pressumably 32 bit as x64 is not realistically viable yet as a gaming rig) is the trick to getting it to run great The 4G installed has no bearing on Vista running poorly or great as it cannot address use anywhere from 1/2 to 1/3 of that RAM.
Certainly - 1G is better than 512M and 2G is better than 1G - but 4G is, practically, no better than 2 or 2 1/2 Gs (at most 3G but unlikely to get that much a a modern gaming rig) as it just sits there unused. So the claim is specious at best.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
I do not think I am twisiting anything. he clearly makes the implication that installing 4G of RAM in Vista (pressumably 32 bit as x64 is not realistically viable yet as a gaming rig) is the trick to getting it to run great The 4G installed has no bearing on Vista running poorly or great as it cannot address use anywhere from 1/2 to 1/3 of that RAM.
Certainly - 1G is better than 512M and 2G is better than 1G - but 4G is, practically, no better than 2 or 2 1/2 Gs (at most 3G but unlikely to get that much a a modern gaming rig) as it just sits there unused. So the claim is specious at best.
But whos going to install 2.2 Gigs of ram? NOBODY. 4 Gigs of ram is a Cheap investment. If i had the money and I was building my machine I would go with 4gigs too. Because 4x1gig chips Dual Channel works better then 3 x 1 gig Chips. Thats why ... Its not rocket science.
THIS IS HYPOTETICAL I'M NOT MAKING ANY IMPLICATIONS HERE AT ALL.
Let me show you where your TWISTING this.
I have a Vista machine with 4 gigs of RAM installed, because Vista is a Memory Hungry OS, and it Runs great. If your going to Run Vista you need More Ram then your typical OS.
By your logic, I just said this, I NEED ALL 4 GIGS of Ram in my PC with Vista to run Great.
That is NOT what was stated. Simply the machine runs great, and there are 4, 1Gig Chips Installed. Thats all it means.
If I have 3 doors and I tell you there no lion behind 2 of them, that doesn't mean theres a lion behind the 3rd door. You cannot assume anything. Your always adding information, or leaving information out.
The man has a Vista PC, He installed 4 1 gig Memory Moduals. His machine runs great. The only reason your at odds with that is your own arguementative nature, and personal dislike for Vista. Nobody is taking anything away from XP. I may in fact Dual Boot XP when Vista comes out, but I hope I won't need to.