wht ive always wondered if its possible is to do a upgrade shell instead of a downgrade shell. The example of this would be something like a DOSbox to run old dos based programs. If one could make the same with with a vista shell, it might be illegal but one could in theory run DX10.
That probably could be done, but considering how much everyone whines and cries about the resources Vista uses, they would likely shit their pants if they saw the resources that would be required to actually pull it off.
Hell yeah XP ftw!!! Feel sorry for anyone who bought Vista (gimmick), have fun playing one or two games with DX10 and having that ram hog vista running in the background. I'll just wait 2 years for the next version of windows to come out.
You do realize that other than the superfetch the two os's use almost identical amounts of ram. Vista manages is way better as well.
Windows XP SP3 will start shipping to manufacturers and IT workers next Monday, 4/21. The Following Tuesday, 4/29, it will be made available for download over Windows Update. This is the final version of SP3, following the RC1 and RC2 builds offered earlier in the year, which promises to boost performance by 10% and network access protection.
Only problem i have with Windows XP is that i can only run 2 GB of ram. Also i cant get the full performance out of a quadcore processor with XP. And the fact that XP doesnt have DirectX10 is a probem. Dont want something that recomends you have 2 GB of ram just to run it.
1) 32 bit XP can run up to 4 gig and 64bit XP can run up to 128gig
2) The only people that recomends 2 gig of ram for Vista are idiots. It runs beautifully on 1 gig (what is actually recommended) and even works well on 512mb as long as you're not using a ram intensive application. Just because people like to advertise their stupidity by greatly exagerating Vista's resource usage doesn't mean you have to believe it.
No, we're not idiots. But you go ahead and run Vista with only 1 gig of ram while using it to play games. If you're only using it to surf the net, your 1 gig is fine.
Windows XP SP3 will start shipping to manufacturers and IT workers next Monday, 4/21. The Following Tuesday, 4/29, it will be made available for download over Windows Update. This is the final version of SP3, following the RC1 and RC2 builds offered earlier in the year, which promises to boost performance by 10% and network access protection.
Only problem i have with Windows XP is that i can only run 2 GB of ram. Also i cant get the full performance out of a quadcore processor with XP. And the fact that XP doesnt have DirectX10 is a probem. Dont want something that recomends you have 2 GB of ram just to run it.
1) 32 bit XP can run up to 4 gig and 64bit XP can run up to 128gig
2) The only people that recomends 2 gig of ram for Vista are idiots. It runs beautifully on 1 gig (what is actually recommended) and even works well on 512mb as long as you're not using a ram intensive application. Just because people like to advertise their stupidity by greatly exagerating Vista's resource usage doesn't mean you have to believe it.
No, we're not idiots. But you go ahead and run Vista with only 1 gig of ram while using it to play games. If you're only using it to surf the net, your 1 gig is fine.
Windows XP SP3 will start shipping to manufacturers and IT workers next Monday, 4/21. The Following Tuesday, 4/29, it will be made available for download over Windows Update. This is the final version of SP3, following the RC1 and RC2 builds offered earlier in the year, which promises to boost performance by 10% and network access protection.
Only problem i have with Windows XP is that i can only run 2 GB of ram. Also i cant get the full performance out of a quadcore processor with XP. And the fact that XP doesnt have DirectX10 is a probem. Dont want something that recomends you have 2 GB of ram just to run it.
1) 32 bit XP can run up to 4 gig and 64bit XP can run up to 128gig
2) The only people that recomends 2 gig of ram for Vista are idiots. It runs beautifully on 1 gig (what is actually recommended) and even works well on 512mb as long as you're not using a ram intensive application. Just because people like to advertise their stupidity by greatly exagerating Vista's resource usage doesn't mean you have to believe it.
No, we're not idiots. But you go ahead and run Vista with only 1 gig of ram while using it to play games. If you're only using it to surf the net, your 1 gig is fine.
in that case I must commend you, you're an excellent actor
Philly, first up, quit the insults, it doesn't make you big, and it doesn't make you clever. If anything it makes you look like more of an idiot than the people you're talking to, whether they're wrong or not. Secondly then, LEARN TO MULTIQUOTE. Couldn't care less if it takes longer (it doesn't tbh)... Seeing 5 of your posts in a row is not cool
Now to the issue at hand, no 32bit XP cannot run 4gb of RAM. I've now made 4 machines with 4 gig on 32, and I assure you you can't do it. They utilise 3.5gb of the RAM. Also, Vista does NOT run 'beautifully' on 1gig of RAM, purely because it doesn't run beautifully at all. It's seriously a flawed OS, with way too many 'features' and not enough actual abilities. I don't understand why we've been putting up with microsoft throwing more 'features' into their OSs, which none of us want, instead of actually making them better (better meaning more efficient and reliable). Insults to Vista aside, 1 gig for surfing alone is pushing it; it still has horrible load times once you get a few different apps going (music, msn with a cam feed, maybe vent/ts and a few different web pages, for example), and it really unpleasant to use compared to an identical machine running XP (for comparitative purposes, I have two identical computers; one on Vista and one on XP. Both 1gb RAM as it happens, and I can tell you there's a HUGE difference).
Windows XP SP3 will start shipping to manufacturers and IT workers next Monday, 4/21. The Following Tuesday, 4/29, it will be made available for download over Windows Update. This is the final version of SP3, following the RC1 and RC2 builds offered earlier in the year, which promises to boost performance by 10% and network access protection.
Only problem i have with Windows XP is that i can only run 2 GB of ram. Also i cant get the full performance out of a quadcore processor with XP. And the fact that XP doesnt have DirectX10 is a probem. Dont want something that recomends you have 2 GB of ram just to run it.
1) 32 bit XP can run up to 4 gig and 64bit XP can run up to 128gig
2) The only people that recomends 2 gig of ram for Vista are idiots. It runs beautifully on 1 gig (what is actually recommended) and even works well on 512mb as long as you're not using a ram intensive application. Just because people like to advertise their stupidity by greatly exagerating Vista's resource usage doesn't mean you have to believe it.
No, we're not idiots. But you go ahead and run Vista with only 1 gig of ram while using it to play games. If you're only using it to surf the net, your 1 gig is fine.
in that case I must commend you, you're an excellent actor
Philly, first up, quit the insults, it doesn't make you big, and it doesn't make you clever. If anything it makes you look like more of an idiot than the people you're talking to, whether they're wrong or not. Secondly then, LEARN TO MULTIQUOTE. Couldn't care less if it takes longer (it doesn't tbh)... Seeing 5 of your posts in a row is not cool
Now to the issue at hand, no 32bit XP cannot run 4gb of RAM. I've now made 4 machines with 4 gig on 32, and I assure you you can't do it. They utilise 3.5gb of the RAM. Also, Vista does NOT run 'beautifully' on 1gig of RAM, purely because it doesn't run beautifully at all. It's seriously a flawed OS, with way too many 'features' and not enough actual abilities. I don't understand why we've been putting up with microsoft throwing more 'features' into their OSs, which none of us want, instead of actually making them better (better meaning more efficient and reliable). Insults to Vista aside, 1 gig for surfing alone is pushing it; it still has horrible load times once you get a few different apps going (music, msn with a cam feed, maybe vent/ts and a few different web pages, for example), and it really unpleasant to use compared to an identical machine running XP (for comparitative purposes, I have two identical computers; one on Vista and one on XP. Both 1gb RAM as it happens, and I can tell you there's a HUGE difference).
XP can address a full 4 gigs of ram, it just can't show it all. some of the ram is used for things like drivers etc, but all is used.
Funny, I've worked on numerous Vista computers and I have yet to run into one yet that hasn't run as fast or faster in general use than the same system running xp. If there are so many things running that you don't need, shut them off. Not exactly brain surgery.
Comments
That probably could be done, but considering how much everyone whines and cries about the resources Vista uses, they would likely shit their pants if they saw the resources that would be required to actually pull it off.
member of imminst.org
You do realize that other than the superfetch the two os's use almost identical amounts of ram. Vista manages is way better as well.
member of imminst.org
2) The only people that recomends 2 gig of ram for Vista are idiots. It runs beautifully on 1 gig (what is actually recommended) and even works well on 512mb as long as you're not using a ram intensive application. Just because people like to advertise their stupidity by greatly exagerating Vista's resource usage doesn't mean you have to believe it.
No, we're not idiots. But you go ahead and run Vista with only 1 gig of ram while using it to play games. If you're only using it to surf the net, your 1 gig is fine.Muirin,
try this mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/170670 to help with running your quadcore on xp.
2) The only people that recomends 2 gig of ram for Vista are idiots. It runs beautifully on 1 gig (what is actually recommended) and even works well on 512mb as long as you're not using a ram intensive application. Just because people like to advertise their stupidity by greatly exagerating Vista's resource usage doesn't mean you have to believe it.
No, we're not idiots. But you go ahead and run Vista with only 1 gig of ram while using it to play games. If you're only using it to surf the net, your 1 gig is fine.Muirin,
try this mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/170670 to help with running your quadcore on xp.
in that case I must commend you, you're an excellent actor
member of imminst.org
2) The only people that recomends 2 gig of ram for Vista are idiots. It runs beautifully on 1 gig (what is actually recommended) and even works well on 512mb as long as you're not using a ram intensive application. Just because people like to advertise their stupidity by greatly exagerating Vista's resource usage doesn't mean you have to believe it.
No, we're not idiots. But you go ahead and run Vista with only 1 gig of ram while using it to play games. If you're only using it to surf the net, your 1 gig is fine.Muirin,
try this mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/170670 to help with running your quadcore on xp.
in that case I must commend you, you're an excellent actor
Philly, first up, quit the insults, it doesn't make you big, and it doesn't make you clever. If anything it makes you look like more of an idiot than the people you're talking to, whether they're wrong or not. Secondly then, LEARN TO MULTIQUOTE. Couldn't care less if it takes longer (it doesn't tbh)... Seeing 5 of your posts in a row is not cool
Now to the issue at hand, no 32bit XP cannot run 4gb of RAM. I've now made 4 machines with 4 gig on 32, and I assure you you can't do it. They utilise 3.5gb of the RAM. Also, Vista does NOT run 'beautifully' on 1gig of RAM, purely because it doesn't run beautifully at all. It's seriously a flawed OS, with way too many 'features' and not enough actual abilities. I don't understand why we've been putting up with microsoft throwing more 'features' into their OSs, which none of us want, instead of actually making them better (better meaning more efficient and reliable). Insults to Vista aside, 1 gig for surfing alone is pushing it; it still has horrible load times once you get a few different apps going (music, msn with a cam feed, maybe vent/ts and a few different web pages, for example), and it really unpleasant to use compared to an identical machine running XP (for comparitative purposes, I have two identical computers; one on Vista and one on XP. Both 1gb RAM as it happens, and I can tell you there's a HUGE difference).
2) The only people that recomends 2 gig of ram for Vista are idiots. It runs beautifully on 1 gig (what is actually recommended) and even works well on 512mb as long as you're not using a ram intensive application. Just because people like to advertise their stupidity by greatly exagerating Vista's resource usage doesn't mean you have to believe it.
No, we're not idiots. But you go ahead and run Vista with only 1 gig of ram while using it to play games. If you're only using it to surf the net, your 1 gig is fine.Muirin,
try this mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/170670 to help with running your quadcore on xp.
in that case I must commend you, you're an excellent actor
Philly, first up, quit the insults, it doesn't make you big, and it doesn't make you clever. If anything it makes you look like more of an idiot than the people you're talking to, whether they're wrong or not. Secondly then, LEARN TO MULTIQUOTE. Couldn't care less if it takes longer (it doesn't tbh)... Seeing 5 of your posts in a row is not cool
Now to the issue at hand, no 32bit XP cannot run 4gb of RAM. I've now made 4 machines with 4 gig on 32, and I assure you you can't do it. They utilise 3.5gb of the RAM. Also, Vista does NOT run 'beautifully' on 1gig of RAM, purely because it doesn't run beautifully at all. It's seriously a flawed OS, with way too many 'features' and not enough actual abilities. I don't understand why we've been putting up with microsoft throwing more 'features' into their OSs, which none of us want, instead of actually making them better (better meaning more efficient and reliable). Insults to Vista aside, 1 gig for surfing alone is pushing it; it still has horrible load times once you get a few different apps going (music, msn with a cam feed, maybe vent/ts and a few different web pages, for example), and it really unpleasant to use compared to an identical machine running XP (for comparitative purposes, I have two identical computers; one on Vista and one on XP. Both 1gb RAM as it happens, and I can tell you there's a HUGE difference).
XP can address a full 4 gigs of ram, it just can't show it all. some of the ram is used for things like drivers etc, but all is used.Funny, I've worked on numerous Vista computers and I have yet to run into one yet that hasn't run as fast or faster in general use than the same system running xp. If there are so many things running that you don't need, shut them off. Not exactly brain surgery.
member of imminst.org
What if you need them all?