wombleassasin
New member
Is it worth the expense to change? Will I see any real difference apart from directx10?
xp 32bit to vista 64bit
- Thread starter wombleassasin
- Start date
Rastalovich
New member
Being really honest m8, if ur a gamer and wish to stick with the hardware in ur sig, I`d stick to xp 32bit.
If however u want to ~atleast~ install 4g, vista 64bit would be a good option.
Ur cpu may not be outstanding by todays i7 standards, but if I`m honest, it`ll handly vista etc fine and gaming I`m sure.
Be concerned about ur possible sli setup tho, check with some1 else on that.
If however u want to ~atleast~ install 4g, vista 64bit would be a good option.
Ur cpu may not be outstanding by todays i7 standards, but if I`m honest, it`ll handly vista etc fine and gaming I`m sure.
Be concerned about ur possible sli setup tho, check with some1 else on that.
Hmmm didn't notice you were still on xp... Then I'd stick with xp32 until windows 7 is officially released.
I have just been fiddling for about an hour to get the tiniest wireless card I have ever seen working. Officially it supports vista64, well it does NOT. I had to disable the driver signing check to make it work.
I have just been fiddling for about an hour to get the tiniest wireless card I have ever seen working. Officially it supports vista64, well it does NOT. I had to disable the driver signing check to make it work.
SwaleSmith
New member
SLI is fine on 64bit, don't know why on earth anyone could hink it wasn't nvidia fully support Vista 64Bit????
depends how desperate you are you may be wise to wait for windows 7 but it's boundto be late LOL when eaxctly is it scheduled middle next year was it?
depends how desperate you are you may be wise to wait for windows 7 but it's boundto be late LOL when eaxctly is it scheduled middle next year was it?
Yeah, something similar to Q2 '09. I guess it will become Q04 '09 if not Q1 '10.
But when xp32 is still sufficient for your needs (which it seems to be for his, would still be for me if it wasn't for my 6GB kit), I'd stay exactly there. After working with Vista for a week or two now I still do not like any of the substantial changes when compared to XP.
Hmm ok, I do like some parts of the new configpanel once you know where everything is.
But when xp32 is still sufficient for your needs (which it seems to be for his, would still be for me if it wasn't for my 6GB kit), I'd stay exactly there. After working with Vista for a week or two now I still do not like any of the substantial changes when compared to XP.
Hmm ok, I do like some parts of the new configpanel once you know where everything is.
Rastalovich
New member
What was wilson-dood posting about b4 about having to stick with win32 cos of some sli support thing ?
Could be I got wrong end of some stick.
Ah I wonder if it was xp64 ?
Could be I got wrong end of some stick.
Ah I wonder if it was xp64 ?
wombleassasin
New member
Does xp recognize more than 3 gig?
Rastalovich
New member
Any 32 bit OS can only address 4g. Normally.
Being as the OS can only address 4g, anything wishing to be involved in the pc via the OS also shares the same 4g limitation. This means that every piece of equipment u have attached to ur mobo that requires memory addressing will have to occupy the same 4g allocation.
If u install 4g in the 32bit OS, u'll be able to use 4g minus allocation/addressing of any hardware attached. The biggest thing being graphic memory.
If u install 6/8g in the 32bit OS and rely on the extended paging, u`ll have 6/8g minus the same figure.
Being as the OS can only address 4g, anything wishing to be involved in the pc via the OS also shares the same 4g limitation. This means that every piece of equipment u have attached to ur mobo that requires memory addressing will have to occupy the same 4g allocation.
If u install 4g in the 32bit OS, u'll be able to use 4g minus allocation/addressing of any hardware attached. The biggest thing being graphic memory.
If u install 6/8g in the 32bit OS and rely on the extended paging, u`ll have 6/8g minus the same figure.
wombleassasin
New member
name='Rastalovich' said:
What do you mean by extended paging? I have had 4 gig of memory in before but only 3 were shown in windows because of my graphics cards being 768mb. I dont understand how you can have 6/8g.
SwaleSmith
New member
me niether have no idea what hes on about all I know is I have 6gb and it shows it???
wombleassasin
New member
What it shows it in windows or it shows it in bios?
SwaleSmith
New member
I have 64bit and it shows it in bios and windows (see my sig for system spec)
Rastalovich
New member
U obviously missed the bit where I started off "Any 32 bit OS..." and repeated 32bit twice more in the post.
Physical address extension, is what Windows 32bit uses to allow u to psuedo-use more than 4g. I think it uses something akin to the old bank-switching 8 and 16 bit OS(s) used to use.
Physical address extension, is what Windows 32bit uses to allow u to psuedo-use more than 4g. I think it uses something akin to the old bank-switching 8 and 16 bit OS(s) used to use.
wombleassasin
New member
name='Rastalovich' said:
How do you get it to do that then?
Rastalovich
New member
Windows 32 does it automagically. Or atleast the ones in work do, but they could be patched in readyness so that all the desktops are the same. Maybe not.
When u bring up ControlPanel->System, where it shows the PC info and at the bottom it describes the cpu and memory, just underneath it'll say Physical Address Extension.
And instead of the 8g u put in the mobo, it might say 7.3g - depending mostly on ur gfxcard, as we mentioned earlier.
When u bring up ControlPanel->System, where it shows the PC info and at the bottom it describes the cpu and memory, just underneath it'll say Physical Address Extension.
And instead of the 8g u put in the mobo, it might say 7.3g - depending mostly on ur gfxcard, as we mentioned earlier.
wombleassasin
New member
I have 4 gig in mine now and control panel, systems tells me I only have 3g. its just above physical address extensions.
SwaleSmith
New member
ah but this 32bit ''apparently'' doesnt use this memory, or not atleast the same as 64bit.
not sure on all the technicals but it goes soemthing along the lines....that a 32bit O'S simply cannot use it as It does not have the adress space...end of story no matter what you do it will not use it!!!
Seems to make sense to me.
not sure on all the technicals but it goes soemthing along the lines....that a 32bit O'S simply cannot use it as It does not have the adress space...end of story no matter what you do it will not use it!!!
Seems to make sense to me.
Rastalovich
New member
It's merely to do with numbers, and the crux of it all machine code. (first one to explain to programmers who learnt how to past 1995 what that is wins a cookie)
The numbers 32bit machine language can understand addressing wize are 0 to 2^32 (minus 1 cos zero is an address). Hence 32bit. 2^32 happens to be 4g
U can use numbers within the language than have higher values obviously, for calculations etc.
Knowing m$, their 64bit OS at this moment is probably all the 32bit machine code instructions plus 64 bit addressing. Which is partly why it's not as impressive as it could/should be.
The numbers 32bit machine language can understand addressing wize are 0 to 2^32 (minus 1 cos zero is an address). Hence 32bit. 2^32 happens to be 4g
U can use numbers within the language than have higher values obviously, for calculations etc.
Knowing m$, their 64bit OS at this moment is probably all the 32bit machine code instructions plus 64 bit addressing. Which is partly why it's not as impressive as it could/should be.
O.k. here's the question, being on a 64 environment would it not be increase the performance of the hardware since it will operate on a 64 bit (e.g. video card, ram, cpu etc.).
Also, I have a 4gig ram right now running on dual boot 32 & 64 bit vista and I'm not really running anything that would consume a lot of ram. Is it wise to get another 4gig of ram for a total of 8gig. will I see any performance gain
Also, I have a 4gig ram right now running on dual boot 32 & 64 bit vista and I'm not really running anything that would consume a lot of ram. Is it wise to get another 4gig of ram for a total of 8gig. will I see any performance gain
SwaleSmith
New member
Yes youshould see a small boost in speed and 64bit optimized app's/games
you don't need 8gb of ram I have 6gb and it's not needed there is no difference from what I can tell the system or any app will most likely never use the 4gb.....as yet atleast
you don't need 8gb of ram I have 6gb and it's not needed there is no difference from what I can tell the system or any app will most likely never use the 4gb.....as yet atleast
