64-bit OS with 2GB RAM

[Mussels]

Three of them wouldn't work on any 64-bit operating system, two were the result of a one-time Microsoft experiment three years ago, and the remain two aren't anything to write home about (except to complain about Stormrise's ridiculously stupid control system).

compatibility mode, replacement installers, or installing to a VM/older machine and copying the files across (may require a noCD crack, but thats legal in this case) - and they often work in vista/7 in compatibility mode. I've done it with a few oooooold games of mine.

 

[Deleted member 67555]

I'm to Lazy to read this Entire Post But I'm running My HTPC with 2gbs of ram With Vista HP x64 With 512mb dedicated to the Integrated Video Leaving 1.5gb for the system...

Sure it takes an extra 30 seconds to Boot...So what! it still Functions Quite Well at 1920x1080 with NetFlix, Hulu, DVD's Media Center etc...(I'll check BR playback in a week)

And my HTPC was built with mostly "Generic" parts (seiously)

I also ran 2gb with this system But adding 2gb to make 4gb made a huge difference in performance But not really that much IF you know what i mean It's like getting new suspension and tires on your car

 

[Mussels]

why bother with 512MB? 32MB is enough for 1080P video (without hardware accel) and 256MB is enough with.

 

[Deleted member 67555]

I'm sure there is a better fix But it gets rid of a stutter I get on Hulu when it first starts...
I have not noticed one bit of Difference with anything else even setting it at sideport+128 (256)

I have Flash setting at 32mb in Hulu so I know what you say is absolutely correct...unlimited caused a constant stutter

 

[Super XP]

why bother with 512MB? 32MB is enough for 1080P video (without hardware accel) and 256MB is enough with.

The more the better right?

 

[Mussels]

The more the better right?

but its eating his system ram, which may well be more important.


as for hulu etc, if its firefox you're using, you need to read this

 

[Ainvar]

Ignorance (on your behalf) is bliss. You could have learned a lot from this discussion but it appears you choose to learn nothing. That's a shame.

If you can show facts I would like to hear it. But windows xp 64 was a FLOP it was useless to home base users. Why it was due to hardware they where only setup for 32 bit. Not 64 bit. I know I use it. If you are having game issues due to windows xp 64 it due to you are useing a age OS that not supported by the hardware at it time.

If you know computers I would love you to tell us about the time when 16bit change to 32 bit and tell us how long it took for 32 bit to be main stream. From the frist cpu that supported 32 bit to the frist 32 bit windows that only use 32 software.

Learn your facts FordGT90Concept.

 

[Super XP]

I hold FordGT90Concept with high regards, though we did have our differences at one point in time.

Windows 7 x64 is awesome, completely different than XP & Vista. it uses memory very well and your system feels much more responsive in windows, games, watching movies and viewing pics' etc.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

If you can show facts I would like to hear it. But windows xp 64 was a FLOP it was useless to home base users. Why it was due to hardware they where only setup for 32 bit. Not 64 bit. I know I use it. If you are having game issues due to windows xp 64 it due to you are useing a age OS that not supported by the hardware at it time.

Every OS has serious problems with backwards compatibility. Try to get the original Earth 2140 (requires an ISA sound card) to work on Windows anything NT based, for example. Only a handful of games don't work on XP x64. Of those, 1/3 won't work on XP at all (DX10 only), 1/3 won't work on Vista/7 x64 either (requires 32-bit), the remaining 1/3 would work on XP and XP x64 but against the publisher's wishes (blacklisted previous OS's to boost the sales of a new one).

As far as the OS itself is concerned, I started using it 2 months (June 2005) after release (April 2005) and never had a problem with it to date on four separate hardware configurations (Athlon 4000+, Opteron 180, Core i7 920, dual Xeon 5310). I had all necessary drivers and all drivers functioned as expected.

People just love to hate Windows XP x64 just as they love to hate Windows ME. It is irrational and unwarranted.

If you know computers I would love you to tell us about the time when 16bit change to 32 bit and tell us how long it took for 32 bit to be main stream. From the frist cpu that supported 32 bit to the frist 32 bit windows that only use 32 software.

I have a Windows 95 B machine sitting two feet away from me and have used DOS and Windows 3.1 extensively. I doubt there's little you could tell me I don't already know.

There is no "32 bit windows that only use 32 software." Windows 95 through Windows 7 32-bit supports 16-bit applications. The first version of Windows to exclude 16-bit support was none other than XP x64.

I hold FordGT90Concept with high regards, though we did have our differences at one point in time.

Yeah, when I saw what came to be known as Phenom X4 wasn't going to stand a chance against Core 2 Quad and you stood your ground that it would. I still haven't seen that butt shot picture yet you promised.

Windows 7 x64 is awesome, completely different than XP & Vista. it uses memory very well and your system feels much more responsive in windows, games, watching movies and viewing pics' etc.

On that note, Freelancer is killing the audio, initializing Setup engine/Uninstall takes forever, "calculating disk space" takes forever, and the Installer errors when trying to install VC++ 6.0 runtime on my Windows 7 machine. The game ran perfectly on XP x64.


I still have no reason to like Win 7 x64 over XP x64.

 

[newtekie1]

People just love to hate Windows XP x64 just as they love to hate Windows ME. It is irrational and unwarranted.

I'm going to ignore most of the other crap, as it isn't really important. However, I would like to comment on this, and for the most part agree with you, although I wouldn't say it is like ME as ME really was a piece of crap.

Really, XP x64 takes a bad rap because of it's initial problems. I'd say it is closer to Vista's situation than anything else. Poor driver support, and software incompatibilities in the beginning really gave both a bad name. In reality, driver and software support for both have improved greatly since they were released, and both are actually very usable OSes.(I'm typing this from a Vista x64 machine by the way, Rig4 in my sig.) However, people still can't get over the initial bad name.

While neither is perfect, XP x64 definitely has more problems still to this day than Vista or Win7 with modern software and hardware. A lot of hardware still released very recently does not have XP x64 drivers, and never will, while Vista and Win7 support is far more likely. Generic/cheap NICs and wireless cards tend to really fail in XP x64 support particularly(and Linksys just fails at 64-bit support in general). I've got a RC-400 Gigabit adaptor that simply will not work under XP x64, but works perfectly fine under Vista and Win7 x64, for example. You can give anecdotal stories to try and make either souund better, but they aren't worth anything. Do these problem make it a bad OS? No, not really, for the most part it is actually pretty good. However, Vista and Win7 are both better.

However, this discussion really has gotten way off from the initial topic, memory usage. And while Win7 x64 might use a slight bit more memory than XP x64, the difference is marginal and not worth going back to an older OS with more problems.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

No OS is perfect and that will always be the case. We can argue where one succeeds and the other fails on a case by case basis until we meet our makers. In terms of the overall package, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[newtekie1]

No OS is perfect and that will always be the case. We can argue where one succeeds and the other fails on a case by case basis until we meet our makers. In terms of the overall package, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

This we can agree on, no OS is perfect. And really it comes down to the specific situation as to which is the best fit.

There are plenty of nice features in Win7(and some in Vista) that definitely make them better OSes than XP(and XP x64), but there are definitely times when XP(and XP x64) are better suited.

 

[Super XP]

I still have no reason to like Win 7 x64 over XP x64.

Well Windows 7 x64 runs a lot faster and does a better job with memory. But it's obviously not 100% perfect yet. They still need to work out some minor driver issues.

As for Phenom II being really competative, AMD's CEO was at fault, he took the company down the wrong road thinking he can squeeze eversingle last bit out of old technology.

The new CEO is a different story and Bulldozer is looking more like its ready to Bulldoze the competition

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Well Windows 7 x64 runs a lot faster and does a better job with memory.

False on both accounts for me. The kernel constantly freezes when doing simple tasks such as opening a context menu for a file or streaming data over the network. XP x64 uses less memory than Windows 7 x64 and is equally responsive or faster.

The new CEO is a different story and Bulldozer is looking more like its ready to Bulldoze the competition

I'm not convinced but we will see. Intel currently has a huge advantage with symmetrical multithreading.

 

[Super XP]

False on both accounts for me. The kernel constantly freezes when doing simple tasks such as opening a context menu for a file or streaming data over the network. XP x64 uses less memory than Windows 7 x64 and is equally responsive or faster.

I'm not convinced but we will see. Intel currently has a huge advantage with symmetrical multithreading.

That's fair to say. Only time will tell whether AMD steps up to the plate. And lets hope they do. Good competition will only benefit us that buy the products. it forces both Intel and AMD to come out with crazy fast technologies.

 

[newtekie1]

False on both accounts for me. The kernel constantly freezes when doing simple tasks such as opening a context menu for a file or streaming data over the network. XP x64 uses less memory than Windows 7 x64 and is equally responsive or faster.

Another point we are going to have to disagree on. I've yet to get a kernal freeze when openning a context menu on a file. The only time I've seen anything like that is when opening a toolbar full of shortcuts on my taskbar. And even then, the same toolbar takes the same amount of time to load on XP, but with XP all the names show up and are clickable, it just takes a long time for the icons to load. With Win7, the whole menu doesn't show up until it loads all the icons. In reality, it takes the same amount of time if I wait for the icons to load in XP(maybe even a little longer), but with XP I don't have to wait for the icons to load.

And he wasn't talking about how much memory the OS uses, he was talking about HOW it uses it. Win7 and Vista both use memory better than XP. They are a lot better about managing what is in the page file vs. what is in actual memory. There tends to be far less swapping going on with Win7/Vista than with XP, which generally leads to a much more responsive system despite the appearance of more memory being used. Which again takes us back to the original topic, and why I actually prefer Vista and Win7 on 2GB of RAM over XP.

*When I say XP, I mean both 32 and 64 bit.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Win7 and Vista both use memory better than XP.

On Aero.


XP x64 and Windows 7 Ultimate x64 have about the same size page file when the amount of RAM is equal. Performance is still generally better in XP x64 so that is yet another moot point.

 

[theonewhoknowstoomuc]

yeh,i would also wait unless you absolutely have to do it now.

 

[newtekie1]

On Aero.


XP x64 and Windows 7 Ultimate x64 have about the same size page file when the amount of RAM is equal. Performance is still generally better in XP x64 so that is yet another moot point.

Aero actually makes little difference actually.

And no, XP x64 performance is generally not better, as we've all told you Win7 IS snappier and more responsive than XP. Programs do open faster, and respond faster also. You can disagree all you want, and I know you will, but there are more people here that seem to agree with me than you, including the OP.

And I'm sure you're going to go on about XP getting a few more FPS in games...oooohhh the humanity...

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I only found one benchmark comparing Windows XP x64 and Windows 7 x64; however, Windows 7 x64 was still in beta:
http://www.windows7news.com/forum/windows-7-general/windows-xp-x64-vs-windows-7-x64/

XP and XP x64 are significantly different enough that XP can't stand in place of XP x64 in a benchmark against Windows Vista or Windows 7 x64.


It may be "snappier" for you but it isn't for me and I know why. BOINC bogs down Windows 7, it doesn't bog down XP (32-bit nor 64-bit). Windows 7 being more multithreaded means that async communication between threads gets held back because Windows 7 itself can't anticipate that uneven workload. It therefore causes hangs and general unresponsiveness when XP (being mostly just one thread) can fly through that stuff because it doesn't have to wait for async results.

 

[johnspack]

XP64 is on the Server 2003 x64 support cycle, and does get regular updates as noted above, and it is still faster than even Win7 x64. I use both, and game mainly under XP64 because they all scream under it! However, Win7 x64 is much better on system resources, and probably would run just fine with 2gigs. Might as well just get that.
Edit: and despite what any benchmarking shows, I run both, and run the same games on both. XP64 is much faster, sorry!

 

[theonewhoknowstoomuc]

the ram discussion

the 1 or 2 frames difference should be so irrelevant that why the hell would it even matter?
if you intend to get more than 3 or 4 gigs of ram,load up the 64 bit operating system,ok?

And really the windows xp pro 64 bit is getting ancient,looks nasty and it seems to have been proven several times that windows 7 64 bit is actually faster,there will always be people desperate to hang on to something that is proven to be sub-par but its no reason not to just do it.

i also have ran both but now with the windows 7 including windows xp compatibility,why in gods name would you plug up your boot loader,hard drives and life to have a redundant,
useless op system in your pc?HECK,why not throw in a couple distros of LINUX and while your at it,drive yourself totally insane and put on leopard or tiger or whatever the heck that CRAP is.

HONESTLY,FOR THE RIDICULOUSLY LOW PRICE OF DDR2 RAM,THROW IN 6 OR 8 GIGS AND ROCK N ROLL.i have 2 2 gig sticks of patriot extreme ddr2/800,and 2 1 gigs of ocz fatality ddr2/1066 and all of my op systems see it all and use it up.its like beating a dead horse?

just do it already,now or later? SEE MY SIG!!!!

 

[Super XP]

I only found one benchmark comparing Windows XP x64 and Windows 7 x64; however, Windows 7 x64 was still in beta:
http://www.windows7news.com/forum/windows-7-general/windows-xp-x64-vs-windows-7-x64/

XP and XP x64 are significantly different enough that XP can't stand in place of XP x64 in a benchmark against Windows Vista or Windows 7 x64.


It may be "snappier" for you but it isn't for me and I know why. BOINC bogs down Windows 7, it doesn't bog down XP (32-bit nor 64-bit). Windows 7 being more multithreaded means that async communication between threads gets held back because Windows 7 itself can't anticipate that uneven workload. It therefore causes hangs and general unresponsiveness when XP (being mostly just one thread) can fly through that stuff because it doesn't have to wait for async results.

Have you considered something is wrong with your system setup? How about a system format and a re-install of Windows 7 x64? I've not heard such a thing where Win 7 caused hands & unresponsiveness. Currenty its widly evident that this is not happening with Win 7 x86 & x64. Maybe in Vista, but not in 7.

Just to clarify, we are talking about the retail version of Windows 7 x64 right? The beta may be a different story.

 

[Goodman]

I still have no reason to like Win 7 x64 over XP x64.

Then why are you using Win7 x64 Ultimate? (just a question)
Ditch Win7 & install XP x64 right now! come on hurry up!, go! ,go! ,go!... (just joking )

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Have you considered something is wrong with your system setup? How about a system format and a re-install of Windows 7 x64? I've not heard such a thing where Win 7 caused hands & unresponsiveness. Currenty its widly evident that this is not happening with Win 7 x86 & x64. Maybe in Vista, but not in 7.

Just to clarify, we are talking about the retail version of Windows 7 x64 right? The beta may be a different story.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with my install of Windows 7 (except Windows 7, that is). It was a clean install from day one and this install is less than three weeks old.

Like I said, 99.9% of the unresponsiveness is caused by BOINC and Windows fighting over who goes first. I turn BOINC off, most (WMP12 still runs like crap) of the problems go away. It is a common problem with all heavily multithreaded applications because Windows 7 thread priority system has remained virtually unchanged since Windows NT (4.0).

It is a fully updated Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit for System Builders.

Then why are you using Win7 x64 Ultimate? (just a question)
Ditch Win7 & install XP x64 right now! come on hurry up!, go! ,go! ,go!... (just joking )

Because stores don't accept returns on opened software and I don't have enough time to reinstall XP x64.