I can't speak for Duncan, but it sure did help me. I'm going 64!
Tim Lider wrote:
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: [email protected] [mailto:hardware-
[email protected]] On Behalf Of DSinc
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 10:33 AM
To: [email protected]
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: [email protected] [mailto:hardware-
[email protected]] On Behalf Of DSinc
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 5:36 PM
To: [email protected]
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: [email protected] [mailto:hardware-
[email protected]] On Behalf Of Greg Sevart
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 12:24 PM
To: [email protected]
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: [email protected] [mailto:hardware-
[email protected]] On Behalf Of Winterlight
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 1:00 PM
To: [email protected]
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.
