Whats all this i hear about visting being bad with games??
- Thread starter Itanda
- Start date
Plan a good build with 2gb or ram installed to start with! Hopefully improved sets of hardware drivers will be available by then. Older games seem to fair better then some of the newer ones since they are less demanding on graphics and sound overall. The newer security features as well as the "worthless" Windows Defender are some of the items now using some resources. It still needs refinement like any other version of Windows seen at the time of release. XP needed SP2 to get past most there.
few problems with vista here. in fact, the only problem i have seen so far was half life 2 not being able to load saved games. which might not even be vista related.
as pceye says you'll just need more ram really. but looking at your sig you already have 2gb so you should be fine.
i think the 'vista is bad for gaming' statements are just coming from people not realising that vista needs 512mb ram compaired to XPs 64mb ram. in a pc with only 768 or 1gb of ram, that missing 450mb can make a big difference. less ram available for gaming = slower gaming.
as pceye says you'll just need more ram really. but looking at your sig you already have 2gb so you should be fine.
i think the 'vista is bad for gaming' statements are just coming from people not realising that vista needs 512mb ram compaired to XPs 64mb ram. in a pc with only 768 or 1gb of ram, that missing 450mb can make a big difference. less ram available for gaming = slower gaming.
Last edited:
Itanda
New Member
Very Nice!Initially the only bugs seen with either HL2 or EP1 were sound problems with the then beta drivers. EP1 would crash to the desktop in two specific spots in two separate game maps there. In the last couple of days HL2 was starting to act up. But that is more like with the OpenAL transformation that Creative Labs is making away from their trademark EAX in Vista.
Older games like Soldier of Fortune I+II alike as well as Return to CastleWolfenstein have actually seen less problems then the newer XP games there. No 5.1 to worry about most likely. Other then the problems any version sees with the initial releases of both video and sound mainly sound here I haven't seen any indication of any lags when gaming like many complain about. But then I haven't been trying to push frame rates faster then the lcd or video card will even support to start with. Your display still controls the end result despite what number FRAPS or something else reports.
Older games like Soldier of Fortune I+II alike as well as Return to CastleWolfenstein have actually seen less problems then the newer XP games there. No 5.1 to worry about most likely. Other then the problems any version sees with the initial releases of both video and sound mainly sound here I haven't seen any indication of any lags when gaming like many complain about. But then I haven't been trying to push frame rates faster then the lcd or video card will even support to start with. Your display still controls the end result despite what number FRAPS or something else reports.
The Purple Champ
banned
i havent had any problems with games on my 64bit vista.
i got the c2d 2.13ghz, 2gb 667mhz, and an ati x1550 with 512. everythings been slick as a models ass
i got the c2d 2.13ghz, 2gb 667mhz, and an ati x1550 with 512. everythings been slick as a models ass
Just how many games do you installed? You won't see the exact same with every game currently out. Metal of Honor: Allied Assault won't even install on the 32bit Home Premium edition of Vista run here. There are going to be a number of things(games-programs) that simply will not run on the new versions of Windows out. If you run things stock at this time you probably see better results with the stuff you do get to run.
Many are waiting for large service packs that will never come apparently on the new Windows before running it. The MS trend now is to release weekly updates on the late monday - early tuesday time frame. Multi OSing here give me the chance to get familiar with the new Windows without losing access to the programs that remain geared for XP.
Many are waiting for large service packs that will never come apparently on the new Windows before running it. The MS trend now is to release weekly updates on the late monday - early tuesday time frame. Multi OSing here give me the chance to get familiar with the new Windows without losing access to the programs that remain geared for XP.
codeman0013
Active Member
This is kinda off topic but what board is zaroba running that allows for 5 gigs of ram thats a strange number to have plus i have never seen a desktop board with just 5 slots and wtf are you using all 5 gigs for i have 4 and even that is to much i never ever use it all!
A good deal of the new boards out will easily see 8gb or 16gb capacity. Simply look over the specifications seen on the Core 2 Extreme/quad core or even many AM2 models. The easy way to do that is to have two 2gb dimms along with two 512mb dimms on a board like the Asus model I can point you to that shows,Memory
Number of Memory Slotsdocument.write(neg_specification_newline('4×240pin'));4×240pinMemory Standarddocument.write(neg_specification_newline('DDR2 800'));DDR2 800Maximum Memory Supporteddocument.write(neg_specification_newline('8GB'));8GBDual Channel Supporteddocument.write(neg_specification_newline('Yes'));Yes
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131072
when i origionally built the pc back in september i had two 512mb sticks.
then a few weeks ago i added two 2gb sticks. thus the 5gb total, and yes, its running in dual channel.
i use it for gaming and tons of multitasking (i tend to always have open many different windows when i'm doing 3d modelling or texturing). plus future video recording/editing for a small internet game.
Last edited:
You might want to consider adding two more 2gb dimms to replace the 512mb dimms for the 3D modeling side of things. Matching the same sized dimms will see a better outcome. What urks me about XP and now the 32bit version of Vista is that no one has found a way around the 4gb limitattion like was done for the 512mb on the older versions like 98. But for finding what games and apps will run on 64bit it's still trial and error like with the 32bit Vista.
No one has found a way around the 4GB barrier because it's NOT POSSIBLE. Those are 32 bit operating systems, run on 32 bit processors.
he means they got around the 512mb limitation in windows 98. not the 4gb limitation
but yea, its not exactly possible to get around the 32bit 4gb limitation. not unless you somehow reprogram windows to allocate more bits for memory addressing. its limited to 4gb because 32 bits ( 2 to the 32nd power) only equals 4,294,967,296 bytes of addressable memory.
but yea, its not exactly possible to get around the 32bit 4gb limitation. not unless you somehow reprogram windows to allocate more bits for memory addressing. its limited to 4gb because 32 bits ( 2 to the 32nd power) only equals 4,294,967,296 bytes of addressable memory.
Last edited:
The Purple Champ
banned
wow, look at 64bits
18,446,744,073,709,551,616
These days people are running 32bit versions of Windows on 64bit cpus. Have you ever heard of the term AMD64 or Core 2 Dou?
As far as getting past the limitation on 4gb never say never. It would have to involve a software tweak in some form. With 98 one simple line of text was added into the autoexec.bat file or you would follow the MS guide forr an edit of the system.ini. Due to the increased capacity of newer boards someone may finally decide to work out the problems seen even at 4gb with XP.
The Purple Champ
banned
but why would you want more than 4gbs on a 32 bit machine? thats like putting a new coat of paint on a car with 750,000 miles with a broken 4th gear and engine that can only go 10 miles before it just stops moving and calling the car fixed. im startng to think that pceye is scared of 64 bit.
well now. it would depend overall on what kind of limitation is in place for ram.
98 being a 32bit OS was limited to 4gb. it just had a small bit of stuff in it to limit that amount to 512mb for whatever reason. and that block was easily disabled by tossing a line in the autoexec. simple limitations like these are evident in many operating systems. look at windows 2000 and vista, theres ram differences between the different versions of them. there not hardware limitations, just stuff coded in to make people pay more for an os that could use more ram.
getting over the 4gb on the otherhand, would be a bit more complex. you'd have to rewrite parts of the os itself to allocate more bits to the memory addressing system. if your runing it on 64bit hardware, then yea, that would *theoretically* be possible.
however if your running that 32bit os on 32 bit hardware, then you'll also have to alter your computers hardware aswell. you'd need to make the cpu utilize and assign a larger bit range plus force the motherboard to detect more then 4gb of ram. both of which are impossible.
98 being a 32bit OS was limited to 4gb. it just had a small bit of stuff in it to limit that amount to 512mb for whatever reason. and that block was easily disabled by tossing a line in the autoexec. simple limitations like these are evident in many operating systems. look at windows 2000 and vista, theres ram differences between the different versions of them. there not hardware limitations, just stuff coded in to make people pay more for an os that could use more ram.
getting over the 4gb on the otherhand, would be a bit more complex. you'd have to rewrite parts of the os itself to allocate more bits to the memory addressing system. if your runing it on 64bit hardware, then yea, that would *theoretically* be possible.
however if your running that 32bit os on 32 bit hardware, then you'll also have to alter your computers hardware aswell. you'd need to make the cpu utilize and assign a larger bit range plus force the motherboard to detect more then 4gb of ram. both of which are impossible.