Live long and prosper Duncan.
DSinc wrote:
Stan,
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!
Yes, I have been at war with the Dark Force for years; well since ~1972?
Yes, I will eventually join the merry band of Brothers (assimilated)
in the "promised" new world of 64bit. Perhaps even before I settle
into my dirt-nap.......... LOL!
Until then, I remain erasable............ :)
Best,
Duncan
swzaske wrote:
Duncan, I'm not trying to convince you or coerce you. I was just
putting in my 2 cents because for years gamers refused to upgrade to
Vista because of the performance degradation that appears to have
been quashed by the Dark Force known as Microsoft.
"There you go man, keep as cool as you can, face piles of trials with
smiles, it riles them to believe you can perceive the web they weave,
keep on thinking free." You too will eventually become assimilated
into the 64 bit collective. :-)
DSinc wrote:
Stan,
Again, I understand your point, and Tim's, and others. But, I feel
like all of you are missing my point completely! Please go back to
your OS review article and share with me "WHICH GAMES" were used to
rate GAME Performance? I suspect that you will find none of the
game portfolio I shared with Tim (that I continue to play).
Much, if not all, of my personal portfolio was, I suspect, written
to play on XP and/or W2K; which was still in my future (XP) at
purchase, or, in my case, the early learning curve of my next
NT-based OS post NT3.5 (W2K).
I completely accept the present day current Games probably play much
better on Vista, and by extension, Win7. I expect their code base
was developed with full knowledge of Vista and whatever MS shared
about Win7 during the "game's" development. The assertion that these
games play better on Vista/Win7 than they do on XP, to me, is an
invalid point. I believe they were developed for this observation.
Nothing more.
Contrary to some member's belief that XP is fast winnowing away to
oblivion and being replaced by Vista, please, please, SHOW ME THE DATA?
Yes, Win7 may be the big coffin-nail in XP's coffin. Let us table
this "getting emotional again" OS discussion until December 2009,
when some objective sales numbers may exist, to support a demise of XP.
You have chosen to move forward now. Fine. I choose not to at this
time.
Nothing more, nothing less........ :)
Best,
Duncan
swzaske wrote:
I recently read a OS review that rated game performance on WinXP,
Vista and Windows 7. Vista and Win7 blew XP away which is a solid
measure of how much Microsoft has improved Vista SP2 and carried
that over to 7. XP is rapidly dying and I'm thinking about getting
a family pack later this year and swap out XP on all my boxes.
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.
