Duncan, I myself play World of Warcraft, Wrath of the Lich King on the 64-bit system. You would think it would not matter, but it actually performs much faster. As for those games you are playing you will see a performance increase using a 64-bit OS, but only if the hardware supports it.
As for 64-bit OS's I've used Windows XP, Windows Vista, Unbuntu, and even Mac OS X. Out of them all I am partial to Windows 7. The GUI is much more organized, The ability to use most XP software. Also, if you're having issues with 16 bit software use Windows XP Virtual Machine to solve those questions like I have for out in house Database here. For Drivers, everyone is making them now and Windows Vista 64-bit drivers work in Windows 7. I have had no problem with any hardware so far, although I have not connected a SCSI card as of yet to one. I have only connected SATA, IDE and SAS devices to 64-bit Windows 7. I hope this shed some light on the 64-bit OS dilemma for you, Tim Lider Sr. Data Recovery Specialist Advanced Data Solutions, LLC http://www.adv-data.com > -----Original Message----- > From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- > boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of DSinc > Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 10:33 AM > To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com > Subject: Re: [H] More than 4GB of ram and VM question > > Tim, > I will accept this view. But, only if you and I are/were playing the > same game(s). Otherwise, I think this rationale leaks logic somewhat. > The games I have and play are: > MS FlightSim 2002 > Serious Sam I and II > The original Unreal > Various older versions of Quake > Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon > Medal Of Honor Allied Assault Demo > SimCity 2K > SimCity 3K > > Notice that these are very old games! The newest 2 games I have are the > last 2 games of the Tomb Raider series (from Chrystal Dynamics). These > 2 > games may be able to stretch my newer PC's hardware and 32bit-ness. > > Yes, I know I will eventually move to 64bit platforms; but, not before > MS fully pulls support from XP. At the moment, 64bit does not seem to > offer me tangible or needed benefits for my current "game" portfolio. > Best, > Duncan > > > Tim Lider wrote: > > Duncan, > > > > 64-bit is also great for gaming as well. I use it on my gaming > machine and > > it is awesome. The ability to access larger amounts of RAM and > Larger > > Volumes as well is a plus. > > > > Regards, > > > > Tim Lider > > Sr. Data Recovery Specialist > > Advanced Data Solutions, LLC > > http://www.adv-data.com > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- > >> boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of DSinc > >> Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 5:36 PM > >> To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com > >> Subject: Re: [H] More than 4GB of ram and VM question > >> > >> Tim, > >> In your "business" position I get this. Should you choose this > position > >> personally, that is fine. Please accept that there are many folk > >> everywhere that just do NOT yet see the need for a 64-bit OS. JMHO. > >> Best, > >> Duncan > >> > >> > >> Tim Lider wrote: > >>> Hello all, > >>> > >>> Man explaining it and reading the explanation can make your brain > >> hurt. > >>> Let's just say for the original poster it's not enough and should > >> upgrade to > >>> 64-bit OS. > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> > >>> Tim Lider > >>> Sr. Data Recovery Specialist > >>> Advanced Data Solutions, LLC > >>> http://www.adv-data.com > >>> > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- > >>>> boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Greg Sevart > >>>> Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 12:24 PM > >>>> To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com > >>>> Subject: Re: [H] More than 4GB of ram and VM question > >>>> > >>>> It isn't as much of a mystery as people make it out to be. By > >> default, > >>>> on a > >>>> 32-bit system with 4GB of RAM, 2GB is available for user space, > and > >> 2GB > >>>> is > >>>> reserved for exclusive use by the kernel--which would include > kernel > >>>> mode > >>>> drivers. You are also correct in that some of this upper space is > >>>> reduced by > >>>> various system devices, some of which might not make much sense. > The > >>>> reason > >>>> that systems differ is because of varying chipsets, their maximum > >>>> addressable memory, the ability of the chipset and BIOS to remap > >> memory > >>>> above system-reserved spaces, and, of course, the devices > installed. > >>>> > >>>> Using the /3GB switch will shift the division to 3GB of userland > and > >>>> 1GB of > >>>> kernel memory, but keep in mind that each individual 32-bit > address > >>>> will > >>>> still be limited to 2GB of memory unless it was compiled with > >>>> LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE. It gets much more complicated when you're > using > >>>> PAE > >>>> (Physical Address Extensions) and AWE (Address Windowing > >> Extensions), > >>>> but > >>>> that realm is only relevant if you're running Server Enterprise or > >>>> better. > >>>> > >>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>> From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- > >>>>> boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Winterlight > >>>>> Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 1:00 PM > >>>>> To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com > >>>>> Subject: Re: [H] More than 4GB of ram and VM question > >>>>> > >>>>> This is not how I understand it to work, not that there seems to > be > >>>>> any kind of consensuses on this, but I read in Maximum PC that 32 > >> bit > >>>>> supports 4GB of RAM addressing. You start out with 4GB of RAM and > >>>>> then windows starts knocking off for addresses already used by > your > >>>>> video card, your network card, whatever. This is why some people > >> show > >>>>> 3.2GB some, just 3GB. To add to the confusion, Maximum PC has > >>>>> reported that MS has stated that windows can actually use some of > >>>>> that undressed RAM for things such as drivers. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> At 07:24 AM 9/18/2009, you wrote: > >>>>>> Hello Brian, > >>>>>> 32-bit is really locked to 3GB of RAM, it's just Windows is > >>>> reporting > >>>>> the > >>>>>> 3.6GB of RAM. > >>>> > >>> > >>> > > > > > >
