XP VS VISTA for production

krysolite

ILLIEN
ill o.g.
Just something you should know.

If you have windows XP, you can only use up to 3gb of RAM. That is, windows XP only identifies a max of 4gb of memory but it allocates 1gb for virtual memory, using your hard drive as 1gb of virtual memory. That only leaves 3gb for you to use physically from your memory.

Vista can identify 6 or 7? Something like that. Linux is 6gb.
If you have 32bit version of Vista, then it can only identify 3gbs again. Go get 64bit vista if you have more than 4gb memory.

Confusing no?

I bought 4gb for my other computer which now has 6gb, but I'm running XP and can only use 3gb. What a waste.



If you don't understand what I said, if you have 3+ gigs of RAM then get Windows Vista 64bit to take advantage of it all.

PEACE - BR
 

LDB

Banned
ill o.g.
Battle Points: 73
Not when running windows on a Mac!!!!!!!!!!!!

VISTA SUX.....PERIOD...NO WAY I'D SWITCH FROM XP TO VISTA..NO WAY
 

LDB

Banned
ill o.g.
Battle Points: 73
Vista can have up to 8G or Ram. My pc is pushing that right now, but Vista lacks the software drivers to be a beast for production.

Yep....and if Windows 7 isn't better than Vista I'll still be working with XP!
 
T

The Arkitekt

Guest
Theres an official beta out for win7 if you want to try it. Idk if it functions well, but from screenshots it looks like vista with more "visual bs"
 

thedreampolice

A backwards poet writes inverse.
ill o.g.
Battle Points: 21
"If you have windows XP, you can only use up to 3gb of RAM. That is, windows XP only identifies a max of 4gb of memory but it allocates 1gb for virtual memory, using your hard drive as 1gb of virtual memory. That only leaves 3gb for you to use physically from your memory."

This is not true at all, Virtual memory and Ram memory are totally different. You can have a max of 4gb or (3.??) For a 32 bit OS. 64bit OS's have a limit of 64GB of ram

Vista has the same limitation unless you use the 64bit versions.

"Not when running windows on a Mac!!!!!!!!!!!! "

This is also not true, a 32bit OS has a 4GB (or 3.6 I think?) Limit period.

"Linux is 6gb"

No the newer Kernel is much higher.
 

LDB

Banned
ill o.g.
Battle Points: 73
"If you have windows XP, you can only use up to 3gb of RAM. That is, windows XP only identifies a max of 4gb of memory but it allocates 1gb for virtual memory, using your hard drive as 1gb of virtual memory. That only leaves 3gb for you to use physically from your memory."

This is not true at all, Virtual memory and Ram memory are totally different. You can have a max of 4gb or (3.??) For a 32 bit OS. 64bit OS's have a limit of 128GB of ram

Vista has the same limitation unless you use the 64bit versions.

"Not when running windows on a Mac!!!!!!!!!!!! "

This is also not true, a 32bit OS has a 4GB (or 3.6 I think?) Limit period.

"Linux is 6gb"

No the newer Kernel is much higher.


LMAO...come of Chris, how can you come across with a bunch of "NOT TRUES" trying to be specific while at the same time using words like "I think" and then throwing in questions marks? THAT'S FUNNY!

A computer technician (the same one who installed my memory) told me that when running windows on a Mac you get more of that memory allocated to other things instead of a definite 1 gig going to windows. Why? It has nothing to do with windows and everything to do with the components make up a Mac and how they operate. In a Mac the components operate separately unlike the components in most pc's. Now because of the windows os on my Mac it will show only 3G available but in reality I have more than that. I don't know the SPECIFIC amount but I do know that it's more than 3G.

Now whether it's 3.4,5,6,7, or 8 doesn't matter. Hell if the difference was an entire gig most wouldn't realize the difference anyway. That's why computers are computers and humans are humans...lol


"HEY BOB, I NOTICED MY MAC WAS RUNNING .6 GIGS LESS MEMORY THIS MORNING", OH NO...SAY IT AIN'T SO JIM. HOW DID U KNOW? "IT SAID IT ON THE DIP STICK"!

GET DA FUCK OUTTA HERE....lol
 

thedreampolice

A backwards poet writes inverse.
ill o.g.
Battle Points: 21
Ha ha

"Why? It has nothing to do with windows and everything to do with the components make up a Mac and how they operate. In a Mac the components operate separately unlike the components in most pc's. Now because of the windows os on my Mac it will show only 3G available but in reality I have more than that. I don't know the SPECIFIC amount but I do know that it's more than 3G. "

Wrong

Also I could not remember off the top of my head if it was 3.6 or 3.8 GB (sorry!). You do know I was a computer tech for many years right?

Bottom line if the OS does not show it, it does not use it. Who cares if your mac has 8GB ram installed XP will not use it period. That is a limitation of a 32bit OS.

The main "Not true" is that virtual memory does not steal from system ram.

Most people will not notice, but if they do large projects it can make a difference. Ever use the VSL library?
 

LDB

Banned
ill o.g.
Battle Points: 73
Ha ha

"Why? It has nothing to do with windows and everything to do with the components make up a Mac and how they operate. In a Mac the components operate separately unlike the components in most pc's. Now because of the windows os on my Mac it will show only 3G available but in reality I have more than that. I don't know the SPECIFIC amount but I do know that it's more than 3G. "

Wrong

Also I could not remember off the top of my head if it was 3.6 or 3.8 GB (sorry!). You do know I was a computer tech for many years right?

Bottom line if the OS does not show it, it does not use it. Who cares if your mac has 8GB ram installed XP will not use it period. That is a limitation of a 32bit OS.

The main "Not true" is that virtual memory does not steal from system ram.

Most people will not notice, but if they do large projects it can make a difference. Ever use the VSL library?

lmao....ok....the currently "employed as computer tech doesn't have a clue" and the formerly employed one does.....

U win Chris...I'm going to kill the "currently employed as" computer tech today for lying to me. lol
 

thedreampolice

A backwards poet writes inverse.
ill o.g.
Battle Points: 21
I was a tech for over a decade up until I came to SW. BTW your tech is a DUMB ASS!

Does this help.

There seems to be a lot of confusion in the industry about what's commonly called the Windows “4GB memory limit.” When talking about performance tuning and server sizing, people are quick to mention the fact that an application on a 32-bit Windows system can only access 4GB of memory. But what exactly does this mean?

By definition, a 32-bit processor uses 32 bits to refer to the location of each byte of memory. 2^32 = 4.2 billion, which means a memory address that's 32 bits long can only refer to 4.2 billion unique locations (i.e. 4 GB).

In the 32-bit Windows world, each application has its own “virtual” 4GB memory space. (This means that each application functions as if it has a flat 4GB of memory, and the system's memory manager keeps track of memory mapping, which applications are using which memory, page file management, and so on.)

This 4GB space is evenly divided into two parts, with 2GB dedicated for kernel usage, and 2GB left for application usage. Each application gets its own 2GB, but all applications have to share the same 2GB kernel space.

This can cause problems in Terminal Server environments. On Terminal Servers with a lot of users running a lot of applications, quite a bit of information from all the users has to be crammed into the shared 2GB of kernel memory. In fact, this is why no Windows 2000-based Terminal Server can support more than about 200 users—the 2GB of kernel memory gets full—even if the server has 16GB of memory and eight 3GHz processors. This is simply an architectural limitation of 32-bit Windows.

Windows 2003 is a little bit better in that it allows you to more finely tune how the 2GB kernel memory space is used. However, you still can't escape the fact that the thousands of processes from hundreds of users will all have to share the common 2GB kernel space.

Using the /3GB (for Windows 2000) or the /4GT (for Windows 2003) boot.ini switches is even worse in Terminal Server environments because those switches change the partition between the application memory space and kernel memory space. These switches gives each application 3GB of memory, which in turn only leaves 1GB for the kernel—a disaster in Terminal Server environments!

People who are unfamiliar with the real meaning behind the 4GB Windows memory limit often point out that certain versions of Windows (such as Enterprise or Datacenter editions) can actually support more than 4GB of physical memory. However, adding more than 4GB of physical memory to a server still doesn't change the fact that it's a 32-bit processor accessing a 32-bit memory space. Even when more than 4GB of memory is present, each process still has the normal 2GB virtual address space, and the kernel address space is still 2GB, just as on a normal non-PAE system.

However, systems booted /PAE can support up to 64GB physical memory. A 32-bit process can "use" large amounts of memory via AWE (address windowing extension) functions. This means that they must map views of the physical memory they allocate into their 2GB virtual address space. Essentially, they can only use 2GB of memory at a time.

Here are more details about what booting /PAE means from Chapter 7 of the book "Inside Windows 2000," by David Solomon and Mark Russinovich.

All of the Intel x86 family processors since the Pentium Pro include a memory-mapping mode called Physical Address Extension (PAE). With the proper chipset, the PAE mode allows access to up to 64 GB of physical memory. When the x86 executes in PAE mode, the memory management unit (MMU) divides virtual addresses into four fields.

The MMU still implements page directories and page tables, but a third level, the page directory pointer table, exists above them. PAE mode can address more memory than the standard translation mode not because of the extra level of translation but because PDEs and PTEs are 64-bits wide rather than 32-bits. The system represents physical addresses internally with 24 bits, which gives the x86 the ability to support a maximum of 2^(24+12) bytes, or 64 GB, of memory.
 

MagnaOpera

Comes Equipped...
ill o.g.
fyi there's a significant drop in performance after the first 4gb of ram on any system... 8 gb is overkill anyways, you're basically spending money on ram that you couldn't use no matter how hard you try.
 

sYgMa

Making head bangers!!!
ill o.g.
Battle Points: 26
... so, what do you people think? What's better for production. I want to buy a new computer soon. I'm thinnking XP is better, but what do y'all think?
 
T

The Arkitekt

Guest
fyi there's a significant drop in performance after the first 4gb of ram on any system... 8 gb is overkill anyways, you're basically spending money on ram that you couldn't use no matter how hard you try.


Depends what you do, 8 gigs can easily get used up by some people (i.e. video production, audio production with like 40 tracks), some people need it.

... so, what do you people think? What's better for production. I want to buy a new computer soon. I'm thinnking XP is better, but what do y'all think?


Yes. Go with XP if your stuck between the two. Currently XP has a shitload more support for devices/drivers than Vista for audio production. Plus it uses a lot less system resources. Also it is a whole lot cheaper.

Your not really gaining anything by getting Vista except for the Aero GUI, which in my opinion blows and is useless. If you want a dope skin for your GUI in XP, look up "Royale Noir". It's official microsoft skins that was only intended to be released for Win Media Center but is also 100% fully compatible with regular XP and uses up no more system resources than the default skin for XP.
 
T

The Arkitekt

Guest
Benchmarks are not subjective my friend...


Whats the thread title? "XP VS VISTA for production"

Key word, production.

If the benchmarks you are reading are not for production, then your post is completely irrelevant to this thread, so you my friend, are an idiot.
 

members online

Top