Hey smart computer folk....

[EuroZeroZero]

Originally Posted by Spooky Shoes

Sorry I forgot to add that SP1 needs to be installed (for both 32 & 64 bit editions) before 4GB of RAM is installed in the system, so install with 2GB, run the updates and then upgrade the RAM.



The answer is quite simple: Multi core technology. You can run more (RAM consuming) programs simultaneously, with Vista you can assign a specific core to an application which is pretty damn useful for things like rendering or encoding, not all advancements revolve around games.



Untrue. It depends on what you are using it for.

Untrue.

First, SP1 on Vista. It will detect the 4 gigs, and report it as installed memory. But it wont be able to address the 4 gigs (in a 32 bit environment). Its physically IMPOSSIBLE to address the 4 gigs. Heres how you can tell. Vista (whatever) version. 4 gigs of ram. 32 bit. Go into the control panel, and check your system properties. It will report 4 gigs. Then check your task manager, performance tab. Youll see a different number (mine has 3.4 since my BIOS doesnt use that much I/O address space). Thats a far cry from the full 2^32 bytes that i should have addressable.

Second, I was addressing his need for games, mainly. Yes, assigning apps to hardware threads is all fine and dandy, but for mongoose' purposes it's not important, and his question was who i was addressing. Even if you run 10 non game applications at the same time, in terms of performance, youre going to run into any one of many other bottlenecks (like I/O)before you start paging a lot (edit).

Finally, again, for his purposes - all the vista solutions will yeild the exact same performance. This is hands down an undisputable fact. If you're going to consider the 64 vs 32 bit increase, thats great - but benchmark after benchmark has proven that for this generation of apps there is MINIMAL difference. Are you implying that, for whatever use, Vista Ultimate is a better written memory manager or threading functionality than Vista home? BS. You can even assign a core to a process in XP as well. But again, if your apps arent written to create those parallel hardware thread it's useless (years of writing code for the 360 and banging my head against the wall has taught me this)

[Spooky Shoes]

Originally Posted by EuroZeroZero

Untrue.
Heres how you can tell. Vista (whatever) version. 4 gigs of ram. 32 bit. Go into the control panel, and check your system properties. It will report 4 gigs. Then check your task manager, performance tab. Youll see a different number ....

In all of the system builds I have looked at over the past few months I have seen this many times, however they have all been the boot loader cracked version of Vista Ultimate (Which affect the way Vista sees the BIOS) running the cracked version of the Dell RTM SP1, however this is not the case for all as in that I haven't noticed this limitation in legitimate OS installs there are many factors but I will admit that I simply may not have looked, I will check when convenient however.

Originally Posted by EuroZeroZero

Its physically IMPOSSIBLE to address the 4 gigs.

Untrue.

Provided that the chipset and BIOS support it the limit is more like 2^36 as in some of the other 32 bit Microsoft (PAE) OS's, this may have been incorporated into SP1. Honestly I have no idea if it was incorporated or not, nor do I care the thing I was getting at is that it could have been.

Originally Posted by EuroZeroZero

Second, I was addressing his need for games, mainly. Yes, assigning apps to hardware threads is all fine and dandy, but for mongoose' purposes it's not important, and his question was who i was addressing.

Have you ever had someone ask you "Would this be OK for a gaming machine?", you say that it should be fine and a week or so later they ask you about something completely unrelated to gaming that should be running better on their new Gee wizz machine? Well I just wasn't making assumptions, just trying to be informative, information which I quantified as outside of gaming.

Originally Posted by EuroZeroZero

Even if you run 10 non game applications at the same time, in terms of performance, youre going to run into any one of many other bottlenecks (like I/O)before you start paging a lot (edit).

True and also a part of what I said, I was only thinking of 2~3 encoding type apps running alongside the usual but paging is less of an issue on a 64 bit system, no?

Originally Posted by EuroZeroZero

Finally, again, for his purposes - all the vista solutions will yeild the exact same performance. This is hands down an undisputable fact. If you're going to consider the 64 vs 32 bit increase, thats great - but benchmark after benchmark has proven that for this generation of apps there is MINIMAL difference.

There is a minimal difference running 32 bit apps on a 64 bit Vista system because the 32 bit app pretty much runs in an emulation mode which requires an overhead by the 64 bit system, this overhead would in normal circumstance (IE 32 bit emulated on 32 bit system) would make it slower however the OS itself is faster which brings the difference down to minimal. It's like expecting a PS2 game to be better on a PS3, it won't. If you have a 64 bit OS you go for the 64 bit apps not the 32 (Where choice allows).

Originally Posted by EuroZeroZero

Are you implying that, for whatever use, Vista Ultimate is a better written memory manager or threading functionality than Vista home? BS.

Not at all and I really have no idea where you got that impression from? I didn't even mention Ultimate.

Originally Posted by EuroZeroZero

You can even assign a core to a process in XP as well.

Indeed, something that I almost mentioned but thought irrelevant to the thread.

Originally Posted by EuroZeroZero

But again, if your apps arent written to create those parallel hardware thread it's useless (years of writing code for the 360 and banging my head against the wall has taught me this)

Tri-state buffers were my watershed moment, ON, Off and Between states ... messed up TTL forever.

[viddy]

Get.....a.....Mac.....



Sorry, had to say it.

[stimpee]

No differences in memory management or core management in any of the versions of Vista, from Home Basic thru to Ultimate. They all handle quad core and the ram they have identically. The 32bit versions are all limited to 4GB ram (even if they cant really access all of it). The 64bit versions of Home Basic are limited to 8GB and the others 16GB.

I run Vista Business 64bit with 4GB ram (on a Core 2 Duo E6600) and its just flies. The 64bit drivers were easy to find and run very smoothly. 64bit XP drivers have been around for 3 or 4 years now and Vista 64bit drivers are usually available these days. Finding x64 versions of all apps is a different thing, but 32bit apps run just fine if not.

http://hubpages.com/hub/Windows_Vist...the_Difference
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/pro...ns/choose.mspx