32bit Vista can't fully utilizes 4GB RAM?

[Remus]

I'm planning to build a new computer for 32bit Vista Home Premium within couple months to replace my 5 years old PC (bought it for Windows XP). When looking around info on Vista it seems that the new OS (32bit ver) is unable to fully use 4GB RAM eventhough Microsoft said it can "support" 4gigs of RAM. Anyone want to further clarify these?

http://www.vistaclues.com/reader-question-maximum-memory-in-32-bit-windows-vista/

[abbaon]

http://forums.techarena.in/showpost.php?p=2385819&postcount=12
I opened a service request with Microsoft (SRZ061127002189) to get a
definitive answer.

Here a summary of their answer:
32bit Vista does by design not(!) use the full 4GB of physically installed
RAM.
Technically it could use 4GB (by using PAE to access the memory remapped by
the mainboard above the 4GB address boundary). By a marketing design
decision all Windows Vista 32bit editions are limited to 4GB address space.
Vista Starter ist limited to 1GB. "This is based on marketing decisions and
cannot be cheated with the PAE-Kernel."
It looks like the answer you linked to is correct: 32bit Vista's 4GB address space can't accommodate both 4GB of RAM and the rest of your hardware. No workaround.

[JDR13]

Why do you want that much RAM anyways, are you doing CAD work? You certainly don't need it for gaming.

[Prime Junta]

You certainly don't NEED it for gaming, but it can help. Games like Oblivion or Gothic that continuously swap stuff in and out benefit from all the RAM they can get.

[Prime Junta]

Oh, and... I installed 64-bit Vista on my box, and have had no real problems with it -- at least, none that are attributable to it being 64-bit. It runs very smoothly and has run all the games I've thrown at it so far (which isn't many, I admit).

[magerette]

While 4 GB Ram is a lot right now, I think we can say that historically, the RAM demands of games only increase. I was amazed at how much better performance I got with 2GB than 1 on even older games like Dungeon Seige II. I can see it being an issue down the road if they can't eventually make Vista accomodate higher amounts of RAM.

But it's really new right now, so there will probably be quite a few issues waiting to be discovered. ;)

[Alrik Fassbauer]

Marketing decisions ? Oh, how typical Microsoft !

All they do is for marketing reasons ! And of course for profits. No real will to do it for the Customer !

[Wulf]

O.k, but pity the poor gamer who opts' for the 32-bit Vista Starter version.....only 1gb upper limit!! - he's probably better off sticking with XP for now.....and some extra memory...like me.:)

[Moriendor]

The 4GB barrier certainly doesn't have anything to do with marketing. It's the natural address space border of 32-Bit operating systems. PAE is a workaround that is expanding the address space to 36-Bit (64GB RAM). That only makes sense when you have hardware that supports the larger address space though. Only very few (mostly server) chipsets support PAE so it just doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to use it in the consumer editions of XP or Vista.

If you (as a consumer and not a server admin) really need to be able to use the full* 4GB of RAM of your comp under XP or Vista, then you should consider getting a 64-Bit edition of XP or Vista. It's less hassle and more affordable than buying PAE-compatible hardware.

Finally, Windows Vista Starter (the version limited to 1GB RAM) is exclusively aimed at emerging markets where the number of pirated copies of Windows probably excels the number of legal copies. What's the problem with that? It's unlikely that computers with Vista Starter installed even have more than 1GB RAM to begin with. Vista Starter also doesn't have Aero or any other bells or whistles for that matter. It's a heavily stripped down version for a very specific segment of the OS market. I don't see the big deal with this...



*full = not totally accurate - If you have 4GB of RAM then applications can "only" use 3GB of RAM because Windows XP (as of SP2) reserves 1GB for itself. Also, you "lose" some additional RAM because the mainboard and certain system processes reserve some RAM. This amount of "lost" RAM can not be specified but is different from system to system. Usually though you'll have approximately 3.5 - 3.8GB of "useable" RAM when you have 4GB installed.

[Remus]

Why do you want that much RAM anyways, are you doing CAD work? You certainly don't need it for gaming.

Well for one thing your Windows OS and new games are always having habit of demandidng even more memory. Remember the days when i'm impressed when my friend have 486 with 4/8MB RAM and my jaw dropped when i found out my other friend got Pentium 100MHz with 16MB RAM. And Anandtech in a recent article suggested 3GB as sweet spot for Vista's RAM requirement.

Since 32bit Vista only use about 3GB of RAM, i'm planning on getting 2 sticks of 1GB RAM initially, and another 1GB or a pair of 512MB for future upgrade. Correct me if i'm wrong, but from some online readings it's best go for 4 DIMM slots motherboards based on 965P Chipset as it supports Intel Flex Memory Technology (supposely allows differing sizes of memory modules to be installed, while maintaining the dual-channel DDR2 operating mode.)

I checked Gigabyte GA-965P-DS3 reviews and it supports flex memory technology, but strangely enough my other choice - the ASUS P5B-E although based on 965P Chipset its specification never mention anything about flex memory support. Why?

If you (as a consumer and not a server admin) really need to be able to use the full* 4GB of RAM of your comp under XP or Vista, then you should consider getting a 64-Bit edition of XP or Vista.

I heard a lot of complaints on hardware drivers problem with 62bit Windows. For now nVidia haven't even released a good 8800s driver for 32bit Windows. Since i use my computer as a multimedia PC (music, DVD & gaming) i supposed 32bit Vista is good for me for another 5 years before jump to 62bit version.

[abbaon]

The 4GB barrier certainly doesn't have anything to do with marketing. It's the natural address space border of 32-Bit operating systems. PAE is a workaround that is expanding the address space to 36-Bit (64GB RAM). That only makes sense when you have hardware that supports the larger address space though. Only very few (mostly server) chipsets support PAE so it just doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to use it in the consumer editions of XP or Vista.
Without getting into Microsoft's motives, I just wanted to point out that PAE's been available in the AMD line since the Athlon, I believe, and has been in Intel processors since the Pentium II (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0WUB/is_1999_August_30/ai_55582002) (excluding the Pentium M). The PAE kernel for XP Pro supported it, and required it for hardware DEP in SP2. 32bit Vista is less capable in this respect.

Edit: On reflection, I think you were probably referring to motherboard chipsets, not CPUs. Yeah, that's more of a problem. Lots of them don't support it, and some claim to support it but won't. It's somewhat closer to a server-only feature on that side.

[Prime Junta]

I heard a lot of complaints on hardware drivers problem with 62bit Windows. For now nVidia haven't even released a good 8800s driver for 32bit Windows. Since i use my computer as a multimedia PC (music, DVD & gaming) i supposed 32bit Vista is good for me for another 5 years before jump to 62bit version.

FWIW, I haven't had any showstopper issues with drivers on Vista 64-bit. I'm also quite certain that the driver situation will improve pretty quickly, since (a) many people want go 4+GB right about now and therefore have a motive to go with 64-bit, (b) 64-bit Vista has all the features of 32-bit Vista, which makes it the first mainstream 64-bit OS around, and (c) Microsoft requires support for both to fully certify drivers as Vista-capable.

If you're interested, here's a more or less full run-down of the issues I've had with Vista (Ultimate, 64-bit):

* No printer driver available for my Epson Stylus Photo 2100P (any Vista version). Solved by using the driver for Windows XP 64-bit (works with no further issues).
* Problem updating nVidia display drivers (version 97.53). Solution: version 100 beta drivers installed and worked fine; update to final version 100 drivers went with no problems.
* smbclient can't connect to Vista share, stopping my automated backup system from working. Not solved; expecting a solution when Samba 4.0 is released. Until then, I'm using Vista's built-in backup scheduler and a USB HDD for my backups.
* Vista backup scheduler can't write to Samba network disk. As above.
* Adobe Creative Suite 2 refused to install into default directory, because it didn't like the (x86) in the path, and failed to launch from the 64-bit program file hierarchy. Solution: enter the install path manually as "C:\Progra~2\Adobe" when installing.
* Firefox 2.0.0.1 renderer glitches when plugin-content is included on pages (the render area starts stuttering vertically, making things unusable). Solution: wait for update to Firefox, use MSIE in the interim.
* Prime95 stress tester did not stress-test; instead, it just quickly filled up my memory and slowed the computer to a crawl as it started swapping manically. Solution: not pursued.
* Certain programs need to be run in Windows XP SP2 compatibility mode (e.g. VtM:Bloodlines.)
* AVG Free does not support 64-bit environments. Solution: bought license for AVG Pro.

That's about it, now. The only really annoying issues I have relate to Samba interoperability; I'm working around them in the interim but would really like to see a solution soon. The only issue specific to the 64-bit version of Vista I've encountered is the Adobe CS2 installer bug, and that had an easy workaround once I found out what it is. IOW, I really don't see any reason not to go with the 64-bit edition if you want to address 4GB of RAM or more now or in a near-term upgrade.

[Remus]

Thanks Prime Junta for reminding me of the question "Vista 32 Vs Vista 64". I did some reading about the question after and i think i'm leaning toward Vista X32. Anyone has more opinions on Vista x32 vs Vista x64?

Below are what i found online regarding the issue (in the article by Paul Thurrott):

Vista x64 - Pros
=================

- Windows Vista x64 versions include a new secret security feature called Address Space Layout Randmonizer (ASLR) that helps eliminate remote system attacks for the first time on the Windows platform.

- support for hardware-backed Data Execution Protection (DEP); 32-bit Vista versions utilize a less effective, software-based version of DEP.

- Kernel Patch Protection (sometimes called PatchGuard), prevents malicious software from patching the Windows Vista kernel.

- good for running programs that require a lot of RAM (content creation, enineering, & gaming).

Vista x64 - Cons
=================

- 16-bit applications are not supported, although it is less problematic than it was a few years ago.

- 32-bit device drivers are not supported, must instead use the subset of x64-based drivers.

- New 64-bit applications will need to adhere to the new Windows Vista application standards in order to run correctly on these versions. That means that even some software written specifically for XP x64 might not work correctly.

- 32-bit versions of XP can only be upgraded to 32-bit versions of Windows Vista. And Windows XP Professional x64 Edition can only be upgraded to 64-bit versions of Windows Vista.

- Companies that plan to rollout both 32-bit and 64-bit Vista versions will need to maintain separate install images for both 32-bit and x64 Vista versions.

...the x64 versions are also far less compatible than their predecessors, with both hardware devices and software, and these incompatibilities will ultimately make the x64 Vista versions less attractive to most users. Within the next few years, most Windows users will almost certainly move to x64-based PCs. But I'm guessing that the 32-bit versions of Vista will dominate throughout this product's lifetime because of compatibility issues...Think of Vista as the "line in the sand" for the x64 platform on the client: Post-Vista, it's likely that most compatibility issues will be resolved or rendered moot by new hardware and software versions that are more x64-savvy. By that time, migrating to x64 will be a no-brainer,...

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_ff_x64.asp

[bjon045]

I would just stick with windows XP and save your self a whole world of headaches.

*XP runs faster, games typically run 3-10% faster according to most benchmarks on the commonly read hardware sites out there.
*XP is more compatible (Directx10 excluded)
*XP uses less hardrive (8 gig less)
*XP is more secure currently as Vista had more critical security flaws this month than XP did. Forget M$ marketing BS, it will be hacked just as much as XP was (and still is).

[Corwin]

Yeah, but I'm running XP 64 and while it's very stable, it does have a large number of hardware issues!!

[Danicek]

I'm pretty sure that 64bit Vista will be better choice than XP 64bit. I expect less issues with it simply because Microsoft will try to strongly support it (for example the Vista certificate policy). Still it is reasonable to assume that 32bit version will be the solution with least problems.

[Prime Junta]

Whoopty doo, I ran into my first serious game-related wrinkle with Vista: Kotor II won't start on it. It appears there are solutions that involve dicking around in the registry, and, in fact, this may not be Vista related or 64-bit related as much as dual-core and GPU driver-related. I'll wait for Team Gizka to finish what they're doing and see what happens by then, both on the driver front and the game front. Oh well, the joys of PC gaming...

[txa1265]

Oh well, the joys of PC gaming...

I look at this like any other upgrade - people say 'make sure you always have the latest drivers, etc ... but blindly accepting every upgrade for every component can cause as many problems as it fixes ... I will move to Vista when forced for some reason.

[Gorath]

I read a few days ago that Vista for private user will only receive tech support for 5 years.

No reason to change. Maybe I can skip Vista altogether and wait for the next one.

[Khass]

No reason to change. Maybe I can skip Vista altogether and wait for the next one.

From what I've deduced, Vista was made to a) experiment with new features, find new ways to improve security, b) a new source of profit, c) keep consumers happy and employees busy. I, myself, consider it a filler. The real 'unph' will be Blackcomb, set for 2009. At least I hope so.

[txa1265]

Is that multiple choice? I'll go with (b).

(a) doesn't make sense because new features are only useful as a way to enhance (b) and new versions are inherently less secure. As for (c) customers are only useful as revenue streams ... and there are always layoffs.

If there wasn't a need to support new hardware and application needs, as well as competition from OS X and Linux, there would be no Vista.

[Prime Junta]

Walp, that problem was solved quickly. All I had to do was disable multithreading for OpenGL in the nVidia control panel, and KOTOR 2 came up just fine. IOW, I'm back to "no showstoppers" status WRT games. Bring it on, Team Gizka! :-)

And yeah, you're right -- there are no rational reasons to go with Vista yet. Perhaps DirectX 10 will be one somewhere down the line, but it'll be a while yet.

FWIW, so far I've played the following on Vista 64-bit:
+ VtM: Bloodlines
+ NWN2
+ Oblivion
+ KOTOR 2

While none of these are exactly stone-age, the fact that they all run is pretty encouraging when considering application back compatibility.

[Prime Junta]

Actually, cancel that. I got it to start... once. I haven't gotten it to start since. Go figure. Still, people are running KOTOR 2 on Vista, and I got it to start once, so there's got to be a way of doing it. Oh well, back to the ol' drawing board...

[Moriendor]

Found something for you...KOTOR 2 has problems with Vista,basically you can only get it to run with sound disabled in options of the game,this has been reported by many players/members at the official Lucas Arts KOTOR 2 forums,if I find a fix to the sound problem I'll let you know.
...
Update on KOTOR 2,if you click the KOTOR 2 exe.file or keep trying to run the game it will eventually load and play with sound,success rate is like 25 to 1,it normally will just crash but be patient and keep trying,I got it to run and played it for about 2 hours in the game.

The hard bit will be trying to get it to run again, but so far I have got it to play with sound about 4 times tonight so its possible if you are patient.

UPDATE PART 2: It seems a few owners can play KOTOR 2 with no problems while others have problems,no real pattern at the moment ,but I keep looking into this one.

From here:
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=33&threadid=2001223

[Prime Junta]

Thanking you kindly, bookmarked. I hope there'll be a better fix by the time Team Gizka finishes up. I would hate to have to rig up XP on my box just for this purpose (yes, I do want to play it that badly. :-) )

Edit: I tried disabling sound, and it came up like a charm. The funny thing was, when I quit, re-enabled sound, and started it, it came up again... once. Doing the same dance again failed to work.

There is something vewwy vewwy mystewious going on around here. But clearly there's hope. Perhaps I'll see if I can find some new sound drivers...

[ToddMcF2002]

Microsoft sux for releasing a 32 bit version of Vista. It really pisses me off. Gothic 2 would love the RAM.

[Prime Junta]

Somebody stop me if you get bored, but I think the KOTOR 2/Vista problem has been resolved -- I just tried starting and quitting it a couple of times and it appears to work fine. The fix was to replace the Miles Sound System DLL with a different one. Specifics here: [ http://forums.team-gizka.org/viewtopic.php?t=2098&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30 ].

[Prime Junta]

Microsoft sux for releasing a 32 bit version of Vista. It really pisses me off. Gothic 2 would love the RAM.

Come to think of it... I agree. We've gotten to the point where the 32-bit architecture is holding up progress, and since it's clear that it's possible to make the 64-bit version run 32-bit programs just as well as the 32-bit version (again, none of the problems I've had with Vista are attributable to the fact I'm using the 64-bit edition), and very few people indeed are likely to even run it on a 32-bit processor, there really isn't any reason not to "force" people to go 64-bit. Get it over with and all that.

[jalong]

I've given both vista 32 and 64 ultimate lengthy test drives and eventually settled on running vista 32. I started with Vista 64 and it actually ran very well. I had few driver issues since my hardware is relatively new (~ 5-6 months). What compelled me to change to vista 32 in the end was the irritating inability to install unsigned drivers in vista 64, which left me unable to use many of the little utilities I've come to rely on. Too much of a hassle to continually find workarounds (i.e., no software to control voltage and fan speeds on a ATI 1900xt and having to mod the card's BIOS, etc, etc).

Vista 32 is a bit more tolerant than vista 64 (though a few of the little utilities I've come to rely on won't work in vista 32, either, such as ATI Tools...).

--Edit---
Oh, and another thing I should mention if you're buying a new machine is to get a Creative X-Fi as a sound card. Microsoft has rewritten the sound system in Vista and it no longer supports HARDWARE-based Directsound3D. So if you like to play older games that use Directsound3D, the Vista sound system will render it in software stereo with no EAX if you're using on-board sound, a creative Live or an Audigy. The X-Fi uses OpenAL to emulate Directsound3D in hardware... (http://preview.creativelabs.com/alchemy/default.aspx for a more understandable explanation). Creative sounds more than a little pissed when they talk about it in the aforementioned link! :-)
---End Edit---

[Prime Junta]

That's good advice, although only if you have a surround sound system. If you only use stereo speakers or headphones, there's no benefit to the X-Fi.

[Arhu]

That's good advice, although only if you have a surround sound system. If you only use stereo speakers or headphones, there's no benefit to the X-Fi.

I beg to differ. 3D sound works with headphones too, and since you get hardware based DirectSound acceleration (plus EAX) with the X-Fi, you get more fps in games with DirectSound3D/EAX/A3D. Vanguards benefits greatly from that I think.

Besides, having a dedicated soundcard is still better than built-in sound on the mainboard, if you care about speed/quality (X-Fi) or less about speed but even more about quality (Auzentech Meridian 7.1, relatively pricey though).

Of course, you still need *good* speakers or headphones I suppose. Well, let me rephrase your comment then:

That's good advice, although only if you have a surround sound system or good stereo speakers or headphones. If you only have small desktop speakers or headphones for less than € 50,- (arbitrary number), there's no benefit to the X-Fi.


In this regard, it amuses me when I hear from people who spend 500$-1000$ on a graphics solution for their system and then use onboard sound with cheap speakers. I guess it's easier to justify better graphic cards because you can see their benefits on screenshots and in FPS benchmarks. But what most people probably don't know is that such quality jumps are possible with good sound hardware too.

I've been using headphones for € 20,- or so for a while, until one day I upgraded to Sennheiser HD-590's for € 150,-. It was like I've been living in a garage hearing muffled sound for years and then going outside to hearing a full blown orchestra.... Ok, not that dramatic but you get the idea.

[Corwin]

I use Logitech headphones; I can't afford anything better, but I do understand your point. As in all things, you get what you pay for!! :)

[Remus]

I'll definitely go for X-Fi. I got stuck for while on whether to buy a mid-range or high-end speakers. I checked several high-end models and more often than not found recommendations of Logitech Z-5500. Its specifications certainly very impressive but i'm not specifically looking for bass-heavy or room shaking speaker, nor in the habit of listening to really loud music. One reviewer said he haven't even turned its volume near half way point and already got into trouble with neigbours. So recently i'm eyeing the Logitech Z-5300, which is pretty high-end as it specs look higher than most mid-range speakers, seems good enough for X-Fi and and packed quite a lot of power.

[KazikluBey]

I bought an X-Fi when they were still new, and was really bummed when I realized that, unlike their previous cards, they hadn't and wouldn't release any specifications for their new architecture, meaning that there's STILL no Linux sound driver for the X-Fi. About a year ago Creative announced that they would release a proprietary driver "summer 2007", so I'm still hopeful...

On the Vista 32-/64-bit issue, it strikes me as somewhat pointless to "upgrade" to Vista at all if you already have valid XP license. If Microsoft hold true to their "promise" of not taking so long making their next OS (Ballmer said "2-3 years") I will most likely skip Vista altogether, even though I received a free legal copy of Vista Business through my university.

[jalong]

On the Vista 32-/64-bit issue, it strikes me as somewhat pointless to "upgrade" to Vista at all if you already have valid XP license. If Microsoft hold true to their "promise" of not taking so long making their next OS (Ballmer said "2-3 years") I will most likely skip Vista altogether, even though I received a free legal copy of Vista Business through my university.

I upgraded to Vista (which does have some useful new features) for one reason: DirectX 10. As a gamer, it's an inevitable change as long as I want to play new games, so why not change now? It's just another change in a LONG line of OS changes I've made on the x86 architecture: DOS 3-6, Desqview, OS/2 2.0-4.0, Linux, Windoze 2.0 to Vista. I've always seen people vow to hold back and the majority always inevitably seem to change as the newest software and games get written for the newest OS (and the new PCs are bundled with the new OS). So I just accept the inevitable...

I must admit, I've used Linux off and on for years and would love to use it as a full-time OS, but it is just not a good gaming OS. OS/2 was a wonderful OS that in many ways is still superior to XP and Vista... but it is not a good gaming OS. So I'm stuck with Vista. :-(

[Corwin]

I went into a store to buy Vista 64 and the salesperson/manager refused to sell it to me since it was buggy and crap (his words)!! This surprised me, since it was advertised on their website!!

[Prime Junta]

Re X-Fi -- well, it just so happens I'll have something more to say about that soon. The audio out jack on the Realtek circuits on my mobo has been a bit dodgy for a while now (just after the warranty ran out, natch), and it finally got to the point where it won't give out any left channel sound at all. I decided to repair it the fun way, and now have an X-Fi on order. I'll let you guys know if it's any different in practice. (My headphones aren't horrible.)

[jalong]

I went into a store to buy Vista 64 and the salesperson/manager refused to sell it to me since it was buggy and crap (his words)!! This surprised me, since it was advertised on their website!!

My experience is that salespeople/managers are not exactly knowledgeable about what they are selling, though they like to pretend they are. Vista 64 is not particularly buggy, at least in my experience. There ARE: (1) driver issues, (2) an additional layer of software incompatibility issues over and above those encountered with Vista 32, and (3) an irritating inability to install unsigned drivers, leaving you unable to run some 64-bit programs that worked with WinXP 64. These might be perceived as "bugs" by a salesperson but in actuality, they are not. They DO make it more difficult to move to Vista 64 when compared to Vista 32.

In my case, I have relatively new hardware and I was able to find Vista 64 drivers or XP 64 drivers that worked. Some of the first generation Vista 64 drivers do not have the functionality of their XP counterparts. Some of the drivers are beta with the attendant possibility of bugs. The only piece of hardware I could not find drivers for was my Adaptec 2940U2W SCSI card, which is hardly a new piece of equipment (i.e. from 1998). So I went on Ebay, picked up an Adaptec 29160 Ultra 160 for $25.00 and my SCSI drives were back on-line.

Once the drivers were installed, Vista 64 proved to be very stable and basically ran flawlessly. Bottom-line: thoroughly investigate the driver support for your hardware before choosing Vista 64. The driver support is kind of spotty even with new, top-of-the-line hardware.

As for software incompatibility, I had to:
(1) buy AVG professional since AVG Free won't work on Vista 64,
(2) give up ATI Tools and mod my Video card BIOS for fan control,
(3) buy Nero Ultimate because Nero Lite would not work,
(4) run Norton Ghost 10 from my WinXP maintenance partition since it would not work on Vista 32/64 and Norton is not about to release a patch,
(5) run Norton Partition Magic from my WinXP partition for the same reasons,
(6) have a massive struggle with my IPAQ 2210 and the windows mobile syncing software (which was fixed by wiping my handheld and upgrading the ROM with a newer version of Windows Mobile), and
(7) find replacements or do without some of the little utilities I've come to rely on.

Bottom Line: upgrading to Vista 64 is not for the faint of heart. It might take a couple of weekends to get everything working and tweaked to your satisfaction. And if your hardware does not have 64 bit drivers, you're SOL (and don't forget drivers for your printer, scanner, keyboard, mouse, joystick, NIC and sound card!). But, Vista 64 is NOT particularly buggy... :-)

[bjon045]

There are no directx10 games on the market currently so why on earth would you upgrade now, buying vista is like DOWNGRADING your system. You get less performance and have to worry about things like DHCP.

When directx10 games do come out I would just run a dual boot system and only use vista when playing those directx10 games.

[Remus]

Creative Labs Vista audio forum is engulfing in gigantic flame war. They just released new X-Fi driver for Vista 32bit/64bit. They really need to release a better driver.

Auzentech also released the Auzen X-Meridian new driver. Anyone using the sound card? How stable the new driver in Vista 32bit?

[Stanza]

When directx10 games do come out I would just run a dual boot system and only use vista when playing those directx10 games.

Is it possible to do dual boot with Vista? Amongst all the wailings and nashing of teeth, I have a vague recollection that Vista isn't supposed to play nice with dual boot.

[Prime Junta]

Is it possible to do dual boot with Vista? Amongst all the wailings and nashing of teeth, I have a vague recollection that Vista isn't supposed to play nice with dual boot.

[ http://www.windowstalk.org/dual_boot_vista.htm ]

They changed the way it's configured, but it can certainly be dual-booted.

[jalong]

There are no directx10 games on the market currently so why on earth would you upgrade now, buying vista is like DOWNGRADING your system. You get less performance and have to worry about things like DHCP.

I think it depends on your system. For a lower end system, you certainly might have a point. On the other hand, I have a Core 2 Duo E6600 running at 3.1 GHz and if there's a performance impact I certainly haven't been able to notice it. I also did fairly extensive testing using PCMark05 and 3Dmark06 and the overall numbers were pretty close. Best scores for each OS/benchmark:

.........................WinXP SP2.....................Vista 32
PCMark05..........8159............................ .8370
3DMark06..........6594............................ .6395

WinXP did slightly better in the gaming oriented 3DMark06 and Vista 32 did slightly better on the office-oriented PCMark05. I'm actually surprised WinXP didn't pull further ahead in the 3DMark06 tests given the immaturity of the Vista 32 video drivers. So I don't consider Vista a "downgrade," though I am more than willing to admit that other people's mileage may vary, perhaps based on their hardware and/or their proficiency with tweaking Windows based operating systems.

As to your remark about having to worry about DHCP... If by DHCP you mean the "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol," I'm not sure what you are referring to. Setting up fixed or dynamic IP configurations works exactly the same as it has since Windows 95.

When directx10 games do come out I would just run a dual boot system and only use vista when playing those directx10 games.

Certainly a viable option, but I personally prefer to use one primary OS.

[bjon045]

As to your remark about having to worry about DHCP... If by DHCP you mean the "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol," I'm not sure what you are referring to. Setting up fixed or dynamic IP configurations works exactly the same as it has since Windows 95.

Doh, I got my acronyms mixed up. Of course I meant HDCP.

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html

[Prime Junta]

About that X-Fi: I finally got mine.

(1) Yeah, it does sound better. Clearer, crisper, more dynamic, more three-dimensional. (And yes I have decent headphones; Sony MDR-CD580 if anyone cares.)

(2) After fifteen minutes, I stopped noticing.

Perhaps I'm just tone-deaf, but it honestly doesn't make a significant difference on the way I experience a game. I'm sure someone who's more audio-oriented than I am would experience it quite differently.

[Arhu]

Would you want to notice it all the time?

Wouldn't that distract from the game experience?

[Prime Junta]

Perhaps my wording was poor. Point is, I notice if something isn't right -- for example, I hate playing games at very low resolutions or poor frame rates or short draw distances. The value of a really good video card is not noticing the graphics -- they're so good you stop paying attention and get completely immersed in the game.

Thing is, the difference between my onboard sound and X-Fi doesn't change the way I experience a game at all. The flaws in the sound didn't bother me before, so the improvement doesn't make much of a difference to me.

[Sir Markus]

I look at this like any other upgrade - people say 'make sure you always have the latest drivers, etc ... but blindly accepting every upgrade for every component can cause as many problems as it fixes ... I will move to Vista when forced for some reason.


Yep, my thoughts exactly. As far as RAM goes, I like to use as much as possible. I just installed an extra 512k (1.5 gb total). It's kind of a small upgrade, but it's actually really helped the performance of games like Gothic 3 and Jade Empire. I still have some performance issues with Stalker; I've spent more time tweaking that game than actually playing it.

[Remus]

I found more answer and solution on the issue "32bit Vista can't fully utilizes 4Gb RAM".

Since all 32bit OS including Vista unable to use full 4Gb RAM, and if you want the benefit of dual channel memory - that will leave you with the option of installing 2Gb of RAM (two sticks of 1GB RAM). You wasted two empty DIMM slots on motherboard (if that MB has 4 DIMM slots in total), plus your 32bit Vista should still can handle another 1 - 1.5Gb RAM capacity. To solve this, add-in another two channel memory but in the combination of 2x512MB RAM.

Here's one parting bit of advice: if, like me, you're planning to stick with a 32-bit operating system for the next few years, don't waste your money on 4 GB of RAM. You won't be able to use it all. Buy 3 GB instead. Every motherboard I'm aware of will happily accept 2 x 1 GB and 2 x 512 MB DIMMs.

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000811.html

Anandtech suggested 3GB memory for Vista:
We then upgraded the Vista machine to 3GB and ran the test again; thanks to faster application load times and intelligent prefetching, Word started in 1.31 seconds. If you thought that 2GB was the sweet spot for Windows XP, chances are 3GB will be the new minimum for you under Vista.

http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=2917&p=3

And on top of that if you need more performance boost, plug in USB flash memory (using Readyboost feature of Vista) to reduce hard drive swapping, although the performance improvement is not much campare to real memory upgrade:

http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=2917&p=6