As long as the cpu doesn't take a hard hit from PAE, I agree as well (some cpus have heavier overhead from it than others).
On a non related note, after some research I finally decided to get a 2GB module, replacing one of my 1GB modules for one of 2GB. Seems like the 945 chipset does support asymmetric dual channel, so I'm kinda safe :) On Aug 7, 4:20 am, AngelicTears <[email protected]> wrote: > hey all, > > @uncleferassi > lol, yeah, i do plan for a future release of V2.0, i have to consider that > the V2.0 should combined with other modders work, meaning a co-op driver, > the V2.0..but that aside, it's a future plans... > > @ everyone.. > > lol, too much debate, i cant point out who to point to ^^ > imo x64 have it's good side and bad side...it depends on the users > him/herself...as for me, i prefer 32bit system with PAE..^^ > > also yes, i have been working for the 64bit V1.2 drivers...mind that i cant > test it myself as i dont have any 64-bit system...so result may vary... > V2.0 will also available for both 32 and 64 bit... > > V1.1E will not having a 64bit version...^^ > > > > On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 10:32 AM, tribaljet <[email protected]> wrote: > > Exactly. All systems with 4GB and above should go for x64 as it also > > increased the max allocated memory for single apps, and for > > productivity it is also helpful. But I know of many powerful systems > > with 4GB in which 1GB is sacrificed so they get the added performance > > of x86. > > > On Aug 6, 5:18 pm, Espionage724 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I only use x64 Windows 7 on my new laptop because of UEFI support > > > (semi-instant boot), but other then that, I use Win7 Pro x86. > > > > x64 is only useful IMO if you have more then 4GB of memory, other then > > > that, your talking all x86 apps running in an emulation layer, and > > > less compatibility, and your talking more HDD/mem usage when compared > > > to a x86 OS. Oh and since x64 doesn't have an easy way of disabling > > > driver signature enforcement, imagine having to press F8 on boot each > > > time just so these modded drivers load (theres other means like a > > > 3rd-party boot loader, but that would probably disable activation > > > means like Windows Loader 1.9 and etc, but not RemoveWAT). > > > > I personally saw no game run any better on a x64 OS then a x86 OS also. > > > > Not really trying to dis x64 OS's, but unless you have more then 4GB > > > of RAM or a mobo with UEFI support, theres no real use IMO > > > > On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 4:27 AM, lolattheotherguy > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > @tribal: This is exactly what keeps things behind. Everyone should go > > > > x64 as all new processors are capable of it. People with x64 ready > > > > machines decide to go 32bit coz of the lack of support. It all has to > > > > turn around. > > > > > -- > > > > 9xx SOLDIERS SANS FRONTIERS > > > > -- > > > Acer TravelMate 2480 > > > GFX: GMA950 CPU: Intel Celeron M 420 @ 1.6Ghz RAM: 2GB DDR2 333Mhz > > > HDD: Samsung 120GB 5400RPM SATA > > > -- > > 9xx SOLDIERS SANS FRONTIERS > > -- > Laptop: > Acer Aspire > Core Duo T2300E @ 1.67GHz > Intel GMA 950 IGP > Intel 945 Chipset > 1GB RAM (512MB*2) Dual Channel DDR2 > 80GB standard PATA HDD > Win7 Ultimate 32bit / Ubuntu 10.04 -- 9xx SOLDIERS SANS FRONTIERS
