Jump to content

? servers

? players online

Is This Worth The Cost?

Recommended Posts


  • Content Count:  1824
  • Joined:  02/15/09
  • Status:  Offline

Why the hell not?? Vista is awesome..especially with 8 GB of ram...

 

If you dont wanna build..yes get this..you have a little money left for a GTX 260..or if you wanna go a little cheaper you might be able to find a radeon 4870

 

How so? Vista doesn't even recognize over 4 gb of ram.

Link to comment

  • Content Count:  2959
  • Joined:  02/27/08
  • Status:  Offline

XP64 does that too. The problem is vista's pretty inconsistent while XP just plain works. Plus to a lot of people who've been using computers in an advanced capacity for a long time vista suddenly going batshit with a whole lot of things is just too annoying to work with. What takes make 1-2min tops in XP and is all in the same options menu is spread all over the freakin place in vista and needs me to constantly load up different menus and windows.

Link to comment

  • Content Count:  1000
  • Joined:  06/12/09
  • Status:  Offline

How so? Vista doesn't even recognize over 4 gb of ram.

 

No operating system that is 32bit will recognize over ~3.5GB of RAM. The same thing happened like 3-5? years ago (not sure when, I didn't know anything about computers back then) with 16bit OS. 16bit OS could only recognize 16MB of RAM.

Link to comment

  • Content Count:  3736
  • Joined:  11/30/07
  • Status:  Offline

XP64 does that too. The problem is vista's pretty inconsistent while XP just plain works. Plus to a lot of people who've been using computers in an advanced capacity for a long time vista suddenly going batshit with a whole lot of things is just too annoying to work with. What takes make 1-2min tops in XP and is all in the same options menu is spread all over the freakin place in vista and needs me to constantly load up different menus and windows.

 

Well Im not a advanced user myself but I have a few friends that are..and since vista SP1 has been around the feedbacks I got from them is that it was as good as XP if not better to works with...now most users arent at that level anyway!!!

 

Furthermore this whole argument is completely invalid since 10/22 since windows 7 came out and it's prolly what you should get....

Link to comment

  • Content Count:  2187
  • Joined:  06/28/09
  • Status:  Offline

No operating system that is 32bit will recognize over ~3.5GB of RAM. The same thing happened like 3-5? years ago (not sure when, I didn't know anything about computers back then) with 16bit OS. 16bit OS could only recognize 16MB of RAM.

and we shall eventually hit the 128gb cap of 64 bit os (i think its 128).

Link to comment

  • Content Count:  1000
  • Joined:  06/12/09
  • Status:  Offline

and we shall eventually hit the 128gb cap of 64 bit os (i think its 128).

 

Copy and paste from Wiki:

 

"The emergence of the 64-bit architecture effectively increases the memory ceiling to 264 addresses, equivalent to approximately 17.2 billion gigabytes, 16.8 million terabytes, or 16 exabytes of RAM. To put this in perspective, in the days when 4 MB of main memory was commonplace, the maximum memory ceiling of 232 addresses was about 1,000 times larger than typical memory configurations. Today, when over 2 GB of main memory is common, the ceiling of 264 addresses is about ten trillion times larger, i.e., ten billion times more headroom than the 232 case."

Link to comment

Reply to Thread

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...