Should I go for six gigs?

Tycho · PostPosted:Thu May 21, 2009 9:25 am

Quote:

According to that wiki page, Vista 32 Home Premium is supported so when I figure out what the hell this PAE thing is and if I can get it working i'll tell you what the performance difference is.

It's worth noting that on the same page, they show 32-bit Windows OSes that support 128GB of RAM (2003 Datacenter for example), showing it's definitely possible to have a ridiculously high amount of RAM, but that they frequently cap it at well below that number.

They claim driver incompatibilities are the reason, but I don't buy that. With XP, yes, that makes sense. XP has been "in the wild" for a long while, so changing it to allow > 4GB of RAM would break things for some drivers, but with Vista they don't have that excuse. They broke compatibility with most of the XP-compatible drivers, so they might as well have just set the limit to 32GB or something.

Silly Microsoft.

Switch · **Joined:**Mon May 29, 2006 6:11 pm **Posts:**266

Quote:

According to that wiki page, Vista 32 Home Premium is supported so when I figure out what the hell this PAE thing is and if I can get it working i'll tell you what the performance difference is.

It's worth noting that on the same page, they show 32-bit Windows OSes that support 128GB of RAM (2003 Datacenter for example), showing it's definitely possible to have a ridiculously high amount of RAM, but that they frequently cap it at well below that number.

They claim driver incompatibilities are the reason, but I don't buy that. With XP, yes, that makes sense. XP has been "in the wild" for a long while, so changing it to allow > 4GB of RAM would break things for some drivers, but with Vista they don't have that excuse. They broke compatibility with most of the XP-compatible drivers, so they might as well have just set the limit to 32GB or something.

Silly Microsoft.

I've just read some various sites including Microsoft sites that google gave me, and they all seem to claim that only the DEP or something can use above 4gb. Another Microsoft page says to enable PAE to open CMD Prompt and type BCDEDIT /SET PAE ForceEnable. I'll try that as soon as I find out how to disable it should anything go wrong. I assume ForceDisable would be the command.

Tycho · PostPosted:Thu May 21, 2009 11:15 am

Quote:

I've just read some various sites including Microsoft sites that google gave me, and they all seem to claim that only the DEP or something can use above 4gb. Another Microsoft page says to enable PAE to open CMD Prompt and type BCDEDIT /SET PAE ForceEnable. I'll try that as soon as I find out how to disable it should anything go wrong. I assume ForceDisable would be the command.

PAE and No Execute/eXecute Disable (branded by Microsoft as Data Execution Prevention [DEP]) are the same feature.

ghost_sypher · **Joined:**Wed Nov 05, 2008 7:08 am **Posts:**140

Quote:

Well, drivers match based on the PCI device ID. Can you look at the card in Device Manager (you should be able to even if the driver isn't installed)? If you can get the line which says something akin to: "PCI\VEN_168C&DEV_0024", we can figure out where to get a driver for you.

If it doesn't show in Device Manager at all, then you probably haven't pushed the card in all the way. Try reseating it.

Thats the problem Tycho. It doesn't show up. It wouldn't appear in the Device Manager. I'm not even sure, it is shown on the bootup screen of the Bios. And I already checked different PCI-e slots so i guess not having it pushed in right isn't the issue. But I'll trie that tomorrow just to make sure.

It's not about installing the right drivers. It's about installing them at all. And it seems they don't want to be installed, unless they find a suiteable device.

Maybe I'll trie Windows safe mode as well, whether the card shows up there at all.

Do you think it could have something to do with the Realtech onboard sound chip and drivers that the Creative soundcard wouldn't be recognised?

Tycho · PostPosted:Thu May 21, 2009 5:50 pm

Quote:

Do you think it could have something to do with the Realtech onboard sound chip and drivers that the Creative soundcard wouldn't be recognised?

The onboard card shouldn't interfere at all.

Tycho · PostPosted:Thu May 21, 2009 5:52 pm

Quote:

What did you do, what did you do ????

Blog here, blog here !

No, I specifically have a blog so I don't blog here.

I've scheduled the post to go up in a few hours (hopefully after DNS propagates, since I'm moving Anomalous Anomaly back to a server which can handle being slashdotted), so keep watching. It'll be up soon.

By the way, it's up now. It's a fairly interesting read, I think.

Gwanky · PostPosted:Thu May 21, 2009 6:34 pm

Got that statistic from task manager. I'm going to go ahead and get six gigs and upgrade to Vista 64 bit.

ghost_sypher · **Joined:**Wed Nov 05, 2008 7:08 am **Posts:**140

Quote:

Got that statistic from task manager. I'm going to go ahead and get six gigs and upgrade to Vista 64 bit.

LOL

If you feel better with that. Good luck. Personally I would rather dispense with the graphical bells and whistles of Vista. What good is an Os that doesn't work effective?
Why would you go with an Os that needs more power to do the same job that others accomplish with less?
Just because of DirectX 10 support for games? OK, if you really need that already.
64bit for more RAM? OK, if you need that for Progs only running on a Microsoft Os.
For good looks and gimmicks? Pfffffff.

"Aero" my ass

Well, that's just my opinion. I think more in terms of efficiency than in shiny.
Vista will never see my Hardware. Never. Maybe Windows 7 will get a chance, if it makes things more right and is more efficient than XP. Till than, in maybe one year or longer, till the bugs and stability and compatibility and driver flaws are down to a grade where people can actually use the product without wanting to through it out of their "windows" -I think that's where the name derives from- until than I will still play with well programmed games taking all out of DirectX9 and run efficient on hardware.
I hate stuff that needs more resources just because it's done sloppy.
Sorry.

Quote:

By the way, it's up now. It's a fairly interesting read, I think.

Yea, read it already. It is very interesting. Thanks. Also about JKDefrag. Read about it a long time ago but never used it. I will most certainly run it now after I read about your results

Also read about that eBooster thing. Cool stuff. I will try that. Although my XP boots quite fast and the longest time it takes is probably me making the choice on the boot-loader.

Quote:

The onboard card shouldn't interfere at all.

Well, than I guess my Soundcard is broken or I have not functional PCI-e slots which would be strange because the PCI-e 16x slots used for graphic cards both work fine.
Hmmmm, I guess I got a faulty card than, would you agree?

Switch · **Joined:**Mon May 29, 2006 6:11 pm **Posts:**266

Quote:

Well, that's just my opinion. I think more in terms of efficiency than in shiny.
Vista will never see my Hardware. Never. Maybe Windows 7 will get a chance, if it makes things more right and is more efficient than XP. Till than, in maybe one year or longer, till the bugs and stability and compatibility and driver flaws are down to a grade where people can actually use the product without wanting to through it out of their "windows" -I think that's where the name derives from- until than I will still play with well programmed games taking all out of DirectX9 and run efficient on hardware.
I hate stuff that needs more ressources just because it's done sloppy.
Sorry.

My friends who hate on Vista are loving Windows 7. One guy actually got nearly 20fps increase in Crysis. I tried it last night but really can't be bothered or have the space to reinstall all my programs twice on the same harddrive.

Tycho · PostPosted:Fri May 22, 2009 9:54 pm

I've got Windows 7 RC1 installed on my 4th partition. My only complaint with it so far is how much disk space it takes. Windows XP is much more light in that regard.

ghost_sypher · **Joined:**Wed Nov 05, 2008 7:08 am **Posts:**140

Yep, I hate that too. It's insane what nowadays progs and especially Windows OS's need.
If I think back to Windows 3.1 and now Vista. Uh, I'm dizzy.
Linux proofs that it can be done lean and fast and still with playfull gimmics (that are more impressive than what Microsoft came up with), if you must.

Btw. news from the soundcard front. I pluged it in one of my two Graphic-cards-PCI-e-slots and there it is. It know is recognised as a new hardware component. Hmmm, seems my other single PCI-e slots are not working. Is it possible, they are all faulty and the two two 16x PCI-slots work fine? That would be strange though. Or is it possible to deactivate/activate them, maybe in the Bios? That would make more sense. Maybe I foolishly deactivated them becaus I didn't have a PCI-e card. I'll google that.

Switch · **Joined:**Mon May 29, 2006 6:11 pm **Posts:**266

Quote:

I've got Windows 7 RC1 installed on my 4th partition. My only complaint with it so far is how much disk space it takes. Windows XP is much more light in that regard.

I've got Windows 7 on my 4th partition, but can't get anything to run on it that's already on my harddrive. Is there someway to (Warning; painfully noob question:) transfer the registry or something like that so you don't have to reinstall every day program?

eddieringle · PostPosted:Sat May 23, 2009 9:43 am

Quote:

I've got Windows 7 RC1 installed on my 4th partition. My only complaint with it so far is how much disk space it takes. Windows XP is much more light in that regard.

I've got Windows 7 on my 4th partition, but can't get anything to run on it that's already on my harddrive. Is there someway to (Warning; painfully noob question:) transfer the registry or something like that so you don't have to reinstall every day program?

AFAIK there is no tool like that, seeing as upgrades from XP to 7 are not allowed (you have to have Vista to upgrade) which may be due to incompatibilities in the registry.
Of course, you may have Vista, but I am assuming you don't.

Switch · **Joined:**Mon May 29, 2006 6:11 pm **Posts:**266

Quote:

I've got Windows 7 RC1 installed on my 4th partition. My only complaint with it so far is how much disk space it takes. Windows XP is much more light in that regard.

I've got Windows 7 on my 4th partition, but can't get anything to run on it that's already on my harddrive. Is there someway to (Warning; painfully noob question:) transfer the registry or something like that so you don't have to reinstall every day program?

AFAIK there is no tool like that, seeing as upgrades from XP to 7 are not allowed (you have to have Vista to upgrade) which may be due to incompatibilities in the registry.
Of course, you may have Vista, but I am assuming you don't.

I'm Vista. Got Vista on one partition and 7 on another.

Gwanky · PostPosted:Sat May 23, 2009 10:05 pm

Quote:

Got that statistic from task manager. I'm going to go ahead and get six gigs and upgrade to Vista 64 bit.

LOL

If you feel better with that. Good luck. Personally I would rather dispense with the graphical bells and whistles of Vista. What good is an Os that doesn't work effective?
Why would you go with an Os that needs more power to do the same job that others accomplish with less?
Just because of DirectX 10 support for games? OK, if you really need that already.
64bit for more RAM? OK, if you need that for Progs only running on a Microsoft Os.
For good looks and gimmics? Pfffffff.

"Aero" my ass

Well, that's just my opinion. I think more in terms of efficiency than in shiny.
Vista will never see my Hardware. Never. Maybe Windows 7 will get a chance, if it makes things more right and is more efficient than XP. Till than, in maybe one year or longer, till the bugs and stability and compatibility and driver flaws are down to a grade where people can actually use the product without wanting to through it out of their "windows" -I think that's where the name derives from- until than I will still play with well programmed games taking all out of DirectX9 and run efficient on hardware.
I hate stuff that needs more ressources just because it's done sloppy.
Sorry.

Quote:

By the way, it's up now. It's a fairly interesting read, I think.

Yea, read it already. It is very interesting. Thanks. Also about JKDefrag. Read about it a long time ago but never used it. I will most certainly run it know after I read about your results

Also read about that eBooster thing. Cool stuff. I will try that. Although my XP boots quite fast and the longest time it takes is propably me making the choise on the boot-loader.

Quote:

The onboard card shouldn't interfere at all.

Well, than I guess my Soundcard is broken or I have not functional PCI-e slots which would be strange bacause the PCI-e 16x slots used for graphic cards both work fine.
Hmmmm, I guess I got a faulty card than, would you agree?

Xp has an irrelevant speed advantage when compared to Vista and when using non-legacy hardware Vista can actually be faster because the drivers tend to have more work put into them. 64bit operating systems are better addressing large amounts of memory (it may be technically feasible to install up to 128GB on a 32 bit OS but a 64 bit OS will handle it more efficiently.) In what way is Vista not effective? I enjoy the convenience offered by the games manager, I'd actually forgotten that I had homeworld 2 installed and was rather excited to play it. I like the quick search function integrated into the start menu, Aero is a pretty interface, and Windows dreamscene (The ability to have full Motion High defenition videos as your background with a minimal performance hit is awesome) I also like the additional security offered by it (Hello Conficter, even when it can infect Vista computers it can't do anything to them.) Plus direct x 10 is pretty.

I'm not a vista fanboy, I have a mac laptop (Powerbook G4) because macs are like Chevys in that if you're just looking for the internet and aim they can basically be used forever and thats all I need in a laptop right now. and a Coyote Linux as my server\firewall, but I don't think I could use anything but a Windows computer as my main machine, and if I'm using Windows why not use the pinnacle which at this point in time is Vista.

Should I go for six gigs?

Who is online