• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

3.25GB of RAM instead of 4GB?

yes it is,just get XP64 and see all the ram or vista 64bit
you cant go wrong with that
 
i used to have 3.5 on my old board on 32bit and now in the new board i get 3.25... but yep - its the extension limit 32bit issue - no way around it
 
I should point out to you that XP64 was epic fail, though it has been a long time since I tried it. Maybe they fixed it, maybe not. To me, that extra RAM was not worth all the problems. Vista64 w/ SP1 isn't bad, but the speed lost due to Vista kind of overshadows the speed gained by the extra RAM... I currently use XP32 w/ my 4gb :(
 
kevineugenius said:
I should point out to you that XP64 was epic fail, though it has been a long time since I tried it. Maybe they fixed it, maybe not. To me, that extra RAM was not worth all the problems. Vista64 w/ SP1 isn't bad, but the speed lost due to Vista kind of overshadows the speed gained by the extra RAM... I currently use XP32 w/ my 4gb :(
Click to expand...

XP x64 is not an epic fail. It is my choice OS. Faster, more stable, and overall a much better OS than 32bit XP ever was.
 
Seeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeearch.


Also Kevin what speed lost due to Vista?
 
I like Vista 64 on my desktop system....my system is pretty powerful thanks to the quad.....but I am quite sure if I wanted to downgrade...I would see an increase in performance...and yes..XP64..(besides Windows 2000 ;)) is my OS of choice...Ubuntu is very nice as well :)

Something about going backwards..... scares me :(
 
XP 64 Bit worked well for me for almost 2 years, i moved to it simply to use 64 bit at the time and not due to memory limit (i had 3GB).
drivers were the main concern, but currently most of the devices have drivers.
BTW i feel that the drivers were not there simply due to the fact that there was no large 64 bit install base at the time and not due to limitations or issues with the XP 64 it self.
 
64-bit drivers are like no issue now. Every product coming out these days has 64-bit support.
 
Dallows said:
Seeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeearch.


Also Kevin what speed lost due to Vista?
Click to expand...

Pretty much all of it. Atl+tabbing out of a game to check email, bootup times, shutdown times, framerates in games, load times on DVDs, everything.
 
thebeephaha said:
XP x64 is not an epic fail. It is my choice OS. Faster, more stable, and overall a much better OS than 32bit XP ever was.
Click to expand...

XP64 is a wonderful OS. I used it since the beta for a long time until I finally got Vista Ultimate 64. It is a very stable os and it has plenty of driver support.

kevineugenius said:
I should point out to you that XP64 was epic fail, though it has been a long time since I tried it. Maybe they fixed it, maybe not. To me, that extra RAM was not worth all the problems. Vista64 w/ SP1 isn't bad, but the speed lost due to Vista kind of overshadows the speed gained by the extra RAM... I currently use XP32 w/ my 4gb :(
Click to expand...

I'd have to disagree in more ways then one. Other than what I previously stated, Vista 64 is also wonderful and it is very fast, if not faster than XP. Definitely snappier. Superfetch is amazing. :)
 
kevineugenius said:
Pretty much all of it. Atl+tabbing out of a game to check email, bootup times, shutdown times, framerates in games, load times on DVDs, everything.
Click to expand...
That sucks, really. Vista x64 for me is the fastest OS I've ever had, and the system I'm running it on is no better for the time than anything else I've ever used. Did you tweak services or mess with the OS or have buggy/beta drivers? :( :confused:
 
kevineugenius said:
Pretty much all of it. Atl+tabbing out of a game to check email, bootup times, shutdown times, framerates in games, load times on DVDs, everything.
Click to expand...


Running SP1? A lot of people here use it as their main box and love it. I haven't switched over yet. I'm assuming you haven't been using it long. So lets clear that up. You're aware of SuperFetch too right?

I'm no vista lover, just trying to understand hate.

I'm pretty sure the framerate in games thing is negligible, as show in many benchmarks.
 
XP x64 is not an epic fail. It is my choice OS. Faster, more stable, and overall a much better OS than 32bit XP ever was.
Click to expand...
Drivers are my concern...then so are games and applications. XP64 can't run 32-bit software/games, or am I wrong?

I have used Vista before (I don't know what version), and I really hate the altered parts of the GUI. Next to that, from the experience my cousins have testified to me ... Vista is just a downgrade from XP, not an upgrade. You lose more things then you gain (who cares about having a transfer speed show in XP when copying or moving files? It's going to get transferred one way or another, sooner or later? XP just has a few minor 'flaws')?

But eh, I've never really, truely used Vista -- as in actually installing Vista and giving it a try. Perhaps I can try it out through VMWare to check it out.

I've heard that the SP2 patch for Vista might fix all those flaws in Vista and actually make it compete with XP, but who knows...Microsoft is known for mouthing off big words for things like this.

We'll see / I'll see. :)
 
Cerulean said:
Drivers are my concern...then so are games and applications. XP64 can't run 32-bit software/games, or am I wrong?

I have used Vista before (I don't know what version), and I really hate the altered parts of the GUI. Next to that, from the experience my cousins have testified to me ... Vista is just a downgrade from XP, not an upgrade. You lose more things then you gain (who cares about having a transfer speed show in XP when copying or moving files? It's going to get transferred one way or another, sooner or later? XP just has a few minor 'flaws')?

But eh, I've never really, truely used Vista -- as in actually installing Vista and giving it a try. Perhaps I can try it out through VMWare to check it out.

I've heard that the SP2 patch for Vista might fix all those flaws in Vista and actually make it compete with XP, but who knows...Microsoft is known for mouthing off big words for things like this.

We'll see / I'll see. :)
Click to expand...

There's a lot of misconceptions going on there. First off, all 64-bit OS'es can install and run 32-bit applications. There's a separate program files folder for them.

If you don't like the interface there are plenty of programs you can use to alter that. Vista itself has a lot of customization.

I'd like to know more about all these flaws that you claim might be fixed.
 
Cerulean said:
Drivers are my concern...then so are games and applications. XP64 can't run 32-bit software/games, or am I wrong?
Click to expand...

Yea wrong.. :p

It runs most everything regular XP does. Some programs might fuss like iTunes (had to hack this to make it work) but other than that.. I have not had one issue in my 1+ year of using this on the rig in my sig below.
 
Audio programs are the only thing that are problems nowadays for Vista 64.

I.E. Ableton Live 7 works fine in XP32, XP64, and (I think) Vista32, but in Vista64 there are many problems due to the way Vista handles the audio and something else due to Vista64 (memory I think).
 
Bite the bullet, get Vista x64.

I have home premium x64 and its just fine.
Runs every program and then some. No problems with 32 bit programs. I haven't found a game that won't run, especially if it ran on XP.

Now, currently there really isn't anything that deserves Vista.....ie I haven't seen the earth-shattering benefits of DX10, I don't see any super speed increase in my programs, it gets hung up just as much as XP.......I keep waiting for the great leap forward and there just isn't anything. Maybe this fall with FarCry 2 or ClearSky???? Yeah,yeah, Crysis had a DX 10 selection......and there was some image advantage, but not much over XP.

I still use a dual boot system XP MCE and Vista HP x64.:eek:
 
I WILL SAY THIS!!!!

VISTA 32 BIT DOES RECOGNIZE 4GBs OF RAM!! (Sorry for caps, needed attention :()

You need to make sure you have all the updates for Vista and it will recognize it, at least for the ultimate version.

I have 64 bit windows XP as well, but I switched over to Vista, mainly for DirectX 10. The other problem with the 64 bit edition is a decent amount of software I used didn't seem to run well on it or support it at all. 64 bit is the way to go, but currently there still isn't really a major difference in programing to really allow it to be used properly, therefore it isn't really something you should stretch far out to get unless it is convenient.

Make sure to get all the updates, I forgot which one it is, but it allows all 4 GBs to be used (not too sure if it goes pass 4 GBs though).
 
Scintir said:
I WILL SAY THIS!!!!

VISTA 32 BIT DOES RECOGNIZE 4GBs OF RAM!! (Sorry for caps, needed attention :()

You need to make sure you have all the updates for Vista and it will recognize it, at least for the ultimate version.

I have 64 bit windows XP as well, but I switched over to Vista, mainly for DirectX 10. The other problem with the 64 bit edition is a decent amount of software I used didn't seem to run well on it or support it at all. 64 bit is the way to go, but currently there still isn't really a major difference in programing to really allow it to be used properly, therefore it isn't really something you should stretch far out to get unless it is convenient.

Make sure to get all the updates, I forgot which one it is, but it allows all 4 GBs to be used (not too sure if it goes pass 4 GBs though).
Click to expand...

I thought that was just a update for system to visually show that you had 4GBs installed but due to memory addressing you'll still be capped to 3.25-3.5 GB.
 
kmS said:
I thought that was just a update for system to visually show that you had 4GBs installed but due to memory addressing you'll still be capped to 3.25-3.5 GB.
Click to expand...
Update Windows all you want, there is NO PHYSICAL WAY to address 4Gb ram with only 32 bits.
 
Scintir said:
I WILL SAY THIS!!!!

VISTA 32 BIT DOES RECOGNIZE 4GBs OF RAM!! (Sorry for caps, needed attention :()
Click to expand...
It recognizes that you have it, yes
It is still only using ~3.25 however


wjogert said:
Update Windows all you want, there is NO PHYSICAL WAY to address 4Gb ram with only 32 bits.
Click to expand...

Technically speaking, yes there is. Windows XP Originally had support for 4GB of ram but something due to system stability issues they had reduced it to the ~3.25 limit
I read it in a MS article once but can't find it now....

Windows Server 2003 32-bit actually does support more RAM. we have a number of servers using 4GB and running 32-bit Server edition. Microsoft has written the server edition to be able to allow the increased usage of the memory because in most of the cases higher quality parts are used in a server and there is less of a chance of system corruption/stability taking place or something....

edit:found the article http://support.microsoft.com/kb/291988

It's kind of a "cheating" 4GB as it allocates the memory differently, so wjogert is still partly right
 
The only reason Microsoft put this 4GB fudge into Vista Service Pack 1 was to help beleaguered OEMs facing swarms of angry customers who (not knowing about or ignoring the 32-bit limit) ordered 4GB of RAM on a 32-bit operating system. It doesn't do anything other than hide the fact that Windows cannot use all that installed memory. It's deceptive, in my opinion.

On a positive note, I did see a Vista Home Premium x64 laptop on display at a Sam's Club a while ago...
 
Sovereign said:
The only reason Microsoft put this 4GB fudge into Vista Service Pack 1 was to help beleaguered OEMs facing swarms of angry customers who (not knowing about or ignoring the 32-bit limit) ordered 4GB of RAM on a 32-bit operating system. It doesn't do anything other than hide the fact that Windows cannot use all that installed memory. It's deceptive, in my opinion.

On a positive note, I did see a Vista Home Premium x64 laptop on display at a Sam's Club a while ago...
Click to expand...

huh?
 
Dallows said:
huh?
Click to expand...

You can see your allotted 4GB of memory, but it still can't be used is what he is saying.

As for Vista being slower, it is the opposite for me. Programs are snappier/more responsive, boot up times are faster.

XP has a noticeable edge in transferring files between drives/partitions and usb transfer speed though.
 
A BIOS update solved the problem when I experienced this - was running an Athlon64 system (4200+ Windsor) and Windows Server 2003 x64 would only recognize 3.62GB. ASUS M2N32-SLI Deluxe board. I know the circumstances are somewhat different (actual x64 system) but thought I would add my $0.02.
 
AMD T-type said:
It's kind of a "cheating" 4GB as it allocates the memory differently, so wjogert is still partly right
Click to expand...

No, PAE is not cheating. You also enter PAE mode when you flip the CPU into 64bit mode. So it is very much PHYSICALLY possible to address more than 4GB with a 32bit OS.
 
AMD T-type said:
Technically speaking... Windows XP Originally had support for 4GB of ram
Click to expand...
pallesen said:
So it is very much PHYSICALLY possible to address more than 4GB with a 32bit OS.
Click to expand...
Yes, technically a 32-bit data bus will address exactly 4,294,967,296 bytes, which is exactly 4 Gb. However many systems cannot use all 32-bits for addressing. Even systems with enough overhead to use all 32-bits CANNOT count higher than 4Gb. PERIOD.
mikeblas said:
A couple of summers ago, I wrote an essay about Understanding Address Spaces and the 4GB Limit. It explains this issue, and is stickied over in the OS area.
Click to expand...

Mike's reference above is 100% correct... and thank God it saves me A LOT of explaining!! :D

I encourage all to read it.
 
wjogert said:
Yes, technically a 32-bit data bus will address exactly 4,294,967,296 bytes, which is exactly 4 Gb. However many systems cannot use all 32-bits for addressing. Even systems with enough overhead to use all 32-bits CANNOT count higher than 4Gb. PERIOD.
Click to expand...

Since many years ago, where Intel invented PAE, 32bit CPUs have been able to address way more than 4GB. That was the point someone pointed out earlier.
 
Scintir said:
I WILL SAY THIS!!!!

VISTA 32 BIT DOES RECOGNIZE 4GBs OF RAM!! (Sorry for caps, needed attention :()

You need to make sure you have all the updates for Vista and it will recognize it, at least for the ultimate version.

I have 64 bit windows XP as well, but I switched over to Vista, mainly for DirectX 10. The other problem with the 64 bit edition is a decent amount of software I used didn't seem to run well on it or support it at all. 64 bit is the way to go, but currently there still isn't really a major difference in programing to really allow it to be used properly, therefore it isn't really something you should stretch far out to get unless it is convenient.

Make sure to get all the updates, I forgot which one it is, but it allows all 4 GBs to be used (not too sure if it goes pass 4 GBs though).
Click to expand...

Wrong. All it does is see it. 32 bit has a 4GB memory cap. XP 32bit or Vista 32 bit can not utilize more than around 3 to 3 and a half gig of ram period.
 
It's certainly true that 2^32 bits = 4GB, and it's not possible to address more memory than that using 32-bit addressing no matter how hard you try. PAE uses 36-bit addressing instead, while still presenting a 32-bit memory space to applications. However, Microsoft decided to prevent 32-bit versions of Windows using more memory via PAE because consumer drivers are generally not written with a 36-bit address space in mind and would fail.
 
I tried out Vista and hated it, primarily because of these two "problems":

vistasucks.gif


Unless there is a way to literally transform Vista's GUI back to XP's, I won't be using Vista.
 
Cerulean said:
Unless there is a way to literally transform Vista's GUI back to XP's, I won't be using Vista.
Click to expand...

That's too bad, but I can't figure out why you're telling us that, or what it might add to this thread.
 
Cerulean said:
I tried out Vista and hated it, primarily because of these two "problems":



Unless there is a way to literally transform Vista's GUI back to XP's, I won't be using Vista.
Click to expand...

So then why the fuck are you telling us this? If you don't like too bad, or you can suck it up and try it for more than five minutes.

Edit: Ugly icons? And what were the XP icons, artistic nirvana?
 
Cerulean said:
I tried out Vista and hated it, primarily because of these two "problems":
{image}
Unless there is a way to literally transform Vista's GUI back to XP's, I won't be using Vista.
Click to expand...
I'm very surprised that it's Vista's GUI that makes your eyes bleed, and not XP's. For me, it's the other way around. Unless there is a way to literally transform XP's GUI to Vista's, I won't be using XP.

OP, just go with x64. I've had zero problems with it since release.
 
AVT said:
I'm very surprised that it's Vista's GUI that makes your eyes bleed, and not XP's. For me, it's the other way around. Unless there is a way to literally transform XP's GUI to Vista's, I won't be using XP.

OP, just go with x64. I've had zero problems with it since release.
Click to expand...

Windows blinds would get you pretty close.
 
I think it's wrong to say that 32 bit Vista will only reconize 3.25 GB becuase it really varies based on your setup. I had a 8800GTS 512 SLI setup with a new core 2 and 4GB of ram and on Vista 32 it only showed 2.8GB available.

So really, it varies based on your GPU's, CPU and motherboard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top