32bit host OS, 64bit guest OS. Can I address more than 4gb of memory?

[gamingexpert13]

Something I was thinking about (haven't tried virtualization yet): if I'm running windows 32bit and I set up a virtual machine to use windows 64bit, could that guest OS be able to see more than 4gb of ram?

I'm guessing you can only assign hardware to a virtual machine that the host machine can see, but I thought it was an interesting question since I'm about to buy more ram and was wondering if i could make use of all of it through a VM.

 

[Gott]

As far as I know this cannot be done. You'll need a 64-bit host to use a 64-bit guest OS.

 

[OmegaAvenger]

You will need a 64-bit host to run a 64-bit guest. Period. Also as far as the Host knows a VM is nothing more than another application, so again no it wont be able to see more ram than the host OS can.

also a good free VM (i use it at work and at home) to try is Virtual Box

 

[DeaconFrost]

If you plan on getting 4 GB of memory, and you have a license for an x64 OS, why not just use that on the host system?

 

[BinarySynapse]

As far as I know this cannot be done. You'll need a 64-bit host to use a 64-bit guest OS.

You will need a 64-bit host to run a 64-bit guest. Period. Also as far as the Host knows a VM is nothing more than another application, so again no it wont be able to see more ram than the host OS can.

also a good free VM (i use it at work and at home) to try is Virtual Box

VMWare can run a 64-bit guest on a 32bit host as long as the system has VT.

 

[gamingexpert13]

also a good free VM (i use it at work and at home) to try is Virtual Box

ya thats the one i downloaded today, gonna try it out

If you plan on getting 4 GB of memory, and you have a license for an x64 OS, why not just use that on the host system?

i've heard it's got compatibility problems, like with drivers and programs and stuff. i do some gaming, and i like tweaking my system to perfection and doing a lot of different stuff on it so i've got hundreds of programs on here (also the reason why i dont use linux or a mac).

VMWare can run a 64-bit guest on a 32bit host as long as the system has VT.

cool, sorry for my ignorance but whats VT?

 

[OmegaAvenger]

y
cool, sorry for my ignorance but whats VT?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86_virtualization#Intel_VT_.28IVT.29

 

[DeaconFrost]

i've heard it's got compatibility problems, like with drivers and programs and stuff.

You heard? Gah! When will people stop believing everything they hear, and do their own research? Vista x64 doesn't have these issues. In fact, if you take a look at what the Games For Windows initiative is about, and what Vista WHQL means, you'll see that Vista x64 has the same level of support for games and devices as Vista x86.

I heard Elvis lives on the moon, but I don't believe it.

 

[BillLeeLee]

To address the main question, ignoring any claims about OSes.

I only speak for VMWare, as I have not played around with Virtualbox as much.

If you're running a newer VMWare version (Server 2.x, WS 6.x), a 64-bit guest can address more than 4 GB RAM if the underlying hardware supports > 4 GB RAM.

And yes, with VT you can run 64-bit guests in a 32-bit host OS. I've used VMWare Server 1.x like this, and WS 6.x like this. As of 2.0, Virtualbox should support this functionality as well with VT.

 

[lopoetve]

As far as I know this cannot be done. You'll need a 64-bit host to use a 64-bit guest OS.

Not entirely true.

ESX can run 64 bit guests on 32 bit architectures. So can workstation and server, now that I look too.

 

[gamingexpert13]

If you're running a newer VMWare version (Server 2.x, WS 6.x), a 64-bit guest can address more than 4 GB RAM if the underlying hardware supports > 4 GB RAM.

And yes, with VT you can run 64-bit guests in a 32-bit host OS. I've used VMWare Server 1.x like this, and WS 6.x like this. As of 2.0, Virtualbox should support this functionality as well with VT.

Cool, I'll prob try it out on Server (once I get more ram), and I might be able to get a version of Workstation from a friend.

From the VirtualBox User Manual:

Starting with Version 2.0, VirtualBox also supports 64-bit guest operating systems,
under the following conditions:
1. You need a 64-bit processor with hardware virtualization support and a 64-
bit host operating system.
2. You must run a 64-bit version of VirtualBox on that OS (Windows Vista, Linux or
OpenSolaris). This can then run both 32-bit and 64-bit VMs; a 32-bit VirtualBox
can only run 32-bit VMs, regardless of the hardware.
3. You must enable hardware virtualization; software virtualization is not sup-
ported for 64-bit VMs.

So I guess it won't work in VirtualBox.


---
Not really related to the topic but:

You heard? Gah! When will people stop believing everything they hear, and do their own research? Vista x64 doesn't have these issues. In fact, if you take a look at what the Games For Windows initiative is about, and what Vista WHQL means, you'll see that Vista x64 has the same level of support for games and devices as Vista x86.

I was talking about 64bit XP. I don't like vista, and not just because i've heard it was bad, but because I've used it (it's on my sisters laptop), and it seems almost everything they changed since XP has just made it worse. Also it's harder to do stuff, lots of stuff is more confusing, and lots of stuff doesn't work on it that works fine on XP. For instance, some 3rd party programs don't work as well, at all, or right away, networking is so much more convoluted and difficult, they try to make things simpler (like display settings) that just end up making it more confusing, of course the whole thing about vista asking you like three times if you're sure you want to do something (like copy a file) which I know you can disable (and I have) but it's still dumb that they added that and that a lot of people don't know you can turn it off. There's more reasons I don't like vista but I just listed a few reasons to show you I actually think for myself.

I'm not really interested in arguing XP vs Vista though, I'm more interested in XP 32bit vs XP 64bit, although I probably won't switch over my main OS. If even one program is incompatible with 64bit XP then it's probably not worth it for me. Basically the only reason I need more ram than what I have now is because the 3d program (Maya) I'm using for a class sometimes requires a lot of memory and crashes since I don't have enough.

 

[OmegaAvenger]

You'll have a much harder time finding xp x64 drivers versus vista x64, just because most companies dont support x64 XP.

 

[DeaconFrost]

I'm not really interested in arguing XP vs Vista though,

That's because you demonstrated that you don't really understand Vista at all. Yes, obviously, things have changed in Vista, but if you really think it makes jobs harder to do, you clearly haven't given it enough time. You also haven't installed it on a system yourself. You based your own experience on a likely OEM laptop, which, if set up by the OEM, on a typically underpowered laptop, will run like crap. You also didn't spend anytime customizing it to your liking, such as disabling UAC, which is one area where Vista outshines XP.

But, given your little patience for these things, and the fact you are still clinging to this incompatibility issue, I'd stay with XP x86. You've clearly showed you are one to deal with any change or small learning curve, so stick with the warm and fuzzy XP that you are used to. When you are ready to open your mind up to what Vista actually is, give it a try the right way. Given the apps you listed, you'd be enjoying Vista x64's performance.

 

[lopoetve]

That's because you demonstrated that you don't really understand Vista at all. Yes, obviously, things have changed in Vista, but if you really think it makes jobs harder to do, you clearly haven't given it enough time. You also haven't installed it on a system yourself. You based your own experience on a likely OEM laptop, which, if set up by the OEM, on a typically underpowered laptop, will run like crap. You also didn't spend anytime customizing it to your liking, such as disabling UAC, which is one area where Vista outshines XP.

But, given your little patience for these things, and the fact you are still clinging to this incompatibility issue, I'd stay with XP x86. You've clearly showed you are one to deal with any change or small learning curve, so stick with the warm and fuzzy XP that you are used to. When you are ready to open your mind up to what Vista actually is, give it a try the right way. Given the apps you listed, you'd be enjoying Vista x64's performance.

... I've been using vista for over a year now and I have to agree with him still - there are a lot of annoying vista quirks that make some tasks far more difficult than they should be. Especially with UAC still, and I'm running Vista64 on a high end system. I exceptionally dislike the construction of the networking system and design of the user management and userspace, although I have to grant that application stability and usability has gotten far better.

And last I tried, disabling UAC still causes problems with certain applications and system level tools that expect to be able to invoke an elevation dialog... If you forget to right-click run as admin things act strange.

This is a totally different subject though and not one I'm interested in discussing.

To answer the OP's question - XP 64 is an abortion and afterthought from Microsoft. Either use XP 32, or Vista 64 - XP 64 was basically proof-of-concept.

 

[DeaconFrost]

And last I tried, disabling UAC still causes problems with certain applications and system level tools that expect to be able to invoke an elevation dialog... If you forget to right-click run as admin things act strange.

What are some examples? I've had one test system at work running Vista x64 without UAC for probably 18 months now, and I haven't had one issue with running software. I'm not arguing with you on this, I'd just like to know some examples.

As for XP x64, it was a proof of concept product in the beginning, meant to push developers into the x64 world for common apps, but over time, the driver support has gotten much better. Unfortunately, too many people still think that's true with Vista x64, which never was the case. Vista x64 was never meant as a proof-of-concept product...it was meant for everyday usage. Driver support for Vista x64 has always been better than XP x64, and has progressed much much faster as well.

There may be some annoying quirks to some people in Vista, but in many cases (most, I'd say), different is equated to annoying, simply because most people are used to doing something one way and refuse to do it differently. Vista also offers many other new ways of doing things that are superiour to XP. The search option, and running programs from the search alone is a good reason to use Vista. It pains me to us XP and not have that feature. Vista also self-tunes, where as XP, especially over time, needed to be maintained, cleaned, etc. I used to re-ghost my system once every 2 months with XP. Now with Vista (pun-intended), that is a thing of the past.

 

[OmegaAvenger]

What are some examples? I've had one test system at work running Vista x64 without UAC for probably 18 months now, and I haven't had one issue with running software. I'm not arguing with you on this, I'd just like to know some examples.

As for XP x64, it was a proof of concept product in the beginning, meant to push developers into the x64 world for common apps, but over time, the driver support has gotten much better. Unfortunately, too many people still think that's true with Vista x64, which never was the case. Vista x64 was never meant as a proof-of-concept product...it was meant for everyday usage. Driver support for Vista x64 has always been better than XP x64, and has progressed much much faster as well.

There may be some annoying quirks to some people in Vista, but in many cases (most, I'd say), different is equated to annoying, simply because most people are used to doing something one way and refuse to do it differently. Vista also offers many other new ways of doing things that are superiour to XP. The search option, and running programs from the search alone is a good reason to use Vista. It pains me to us XP and not have that feature. Vista also self-tunes, where as XP, especially over time, needed to be maintained, cleaned, etc. I used to re-ghost my system once every 2 months with XP. Now with Vista (pun-intended), that is a thing of the past.

On a fresh install of vista if you disable UAC, you cant install adobe flash till you turn it back on. Its a known bug adobe is working on (or may have fixed by now). Thats the only one I know of, the best fix though it use something besides IE

 

[gamingexpert13]

Ok I guess I'll discuss XP vs Vista, if anyone wants to comment on the main topic, please interrupt.

That's because you demonstrated that you don't really understand Vista at all. Yes, obviously, things have changed in Vista, but if you really think it makes jobs harder to do, you clearly haven't given it enough time. You also haven't installed it on a system yourself.

I said most things changed for the worse. I agree that a couple things are cool like the indexed search from the start menu, but I can achieve that on XP (through various indexed search programs) and already use Launchy and Y'z Dock for quick launching programs and stuff.

When XP came out I gladly switched over from using windows ME, 98 and 2000 (various computers). It had changes that were actually good and more programs were compatible with XP than the earlier systems.

Also, I have given it a significant amount of time, it may not be my main system but thats for a reason. If you go out and test drive a car and don't like it you don't say "well I guess I just have to buy it and use it all the time, then I will realize that I actually like it".

You also didn't spend anytime customizing it to your liking, such as disabling UAC, which is one area where Vista outshines XP.

Well, if you had read my post you would see that I told you I already disabled that. I'm probably the first and maybe still the only person out of the vista owners I know IRL that disabled that.

What makes you say Vista is better than XP at customization?

But, given your little patience for these things, and the fact you are still clinging to this incompatibility issue, I'd stay with XP x86. You've clearly showed you are one to deal with any change or small learning curve, so stick with the warm and fuzzy XP that you are used to. When you are ready to open your mind up to what Vista actually is, give it a try the right way. Given the apps you listed, you'd be enjoying Vista x64's performance.

I've got over 200 programs on here (mostly freeware/open source) and I've hardly ever come across issues running them related to my OS. Sometimes WindowBlinds will mess them up but thats not the fault of the OS. A few times I've wanted to install programs that ended up being Linux only and like once I've wanted a mac only program (Handbrake, which now has a windows version). But I can't remember any times that my version of windows has been an issue. With vista I'd have so many programs that 1) are not listed as compatible so I'd have to try them and figure out if they are, and if not, figure out why and what to change. 2) Live with programs that have little quirks only on vista 3) Live with programs that straight up don't work on vista [can't remember experiencing this yet but I'm sure it'd happen if I tried all my programs] 4)Always have to worry about the whole right click, run as administrator thing. 5) Plus I'd have the issues I already stated, like the networking thing.

I'd have all those things as reasons not to use vista, now what reasons do I have to use vista that outweigh those negatives? For me, basically none. Let's see, like I said, the little indexed search thing is cool but I've got stuff to do that already. The whole Aero thing looks kinda cool. The new 3d alt+tab type thing is kinda cool. Oh and here's one real reason: individual application volume control (like if you go into the windows volume control it will show levels for every program, not just the entire OS). I've wanted that on XP for a long time and the only solution I've found is a program that's not free. So basically theres one reason I'd want vista (equivalent to one program) and many reasons why I would not want vista. So why would I switch? I need many more good reasons to outweigh the negatives.

And if I wanted warm and fuzzy I'd use a mac. Don't get me started on that OS though. I will throw you a whole page of things that I don't like about macs. IMO they are made for simplicity for a casual user to do a few basic things without complication (#1 example: 1 mouse button vs 2), windows seems a lot more like your whole 'bigger learning curve, but better if you know how to use it'.

... I've been using vista for over a year now and I have to agree with him still - there are a lot of annoying vista quirks that make some tasks far more difficult than they should be.
...

thanks for backing me up. and ya, I'd rather not discuss it too, a lot of people have different priorities related to an OS and mine are probably similar to hardly anyones, which is why this conversation probably won't get anywhere. but DeaconFrost seems fired up to debate it, and I don't see any more posts related to the original topic so I'll reply to him.

There may be some annoying quirks to some people in Vista, but in many cases (most, I'd say), different is equated to annoying, simply because most people are used to doing something one way and refuse to do it differently.

1) I've said many times, it seems everything they've changed in vista has been for the worse. I'm not just saying it's changed, therefore it's bad. I'm saying I looked at the changes they made and come to a conclusion on whether they are improvements or not. For example, I listed a few changes that I liked up above, and in an earlier post I listed things I didn't like. Also, I told you that I liked the change between XP and earlier systems.

2) A huge reason why I like windows is because if I want to do something one way (maybe like you say, a way I'm used to and refuse to do differently) there is usually something I can change to make it that way, whethere it's a program I can download or some setting I can change. So it's not necessarily a bad thing to want to do something one way as opposed to another. Everybody's different and people want to do things different. Sometimes I do something one way for a certain reason and think everybody should do it that way but then after a while see a reason why I like it the other way (lame example but for instance having the taskbar hidden or not, I used to like it always shown because I wouldn't have to wait for it to slide up before I could do something but now I like it hidden because I like a clean desktop and I like the extra screen space). Also sometimes I try new ways out just because I think they'll be more efficient and I try to force myself to do it that way then end up liking it that way (one example is using Launchy vs the start menu, I always ran launchy even though I didn't use it, and tried to force myself to use it and now I hardly ever use the start menu because it's too slow).

Vista also offers many other new ways of doing things that are superiour to XP. The search option, and running programs from the search alone is a good reason to use Vista. It pains me to us XP and not have that feature.

Like I've said before: Launchy (and/or some kind of dock program).
And if you want search indexing, you can get a program to do that, I'm pretty sure there's one from google and one from microsoft that were both released for XP before vista was released.
Also, if you want the whole start menu thing to look the same as vista there's a program for XP that can do that called VSE - Vista Start Menu Emulator.
Also, see this is an example of how even one issue that you have with an OS makes it painful to use. That's definitely how it is with me and macs except there's so many issues, with vista I think they are more of annoyances but as I haven't tried to use it as my main system I don't think I've come across all possible issues, also I think what might have happened is that I've used these bad changes in vista for long enough that I kind of just learn to bear with them and realize they're not going to improve and therefore I don't realize how much I don't like them.

Vista also self-tunes, where as XP, especially over time, needed to be maintained, cleaned, etc. I used to re-ghost my system once every 2 months with XP. Now with Vista (pun-intended), that is a thing of the past.

I don't know what specifically you are referring to but XP has auto maintenance stuff if you turn it on, like defrags and such, and antivirus and antispyware you pretty much should get a seperate program for on either system. Also, I'm not sure why you redid your system every two months with XP, I've been running this system since 2006 and we've got a computer that's been running XP since probably 2003 that hasn't had to be reformatted. As long as you know the few things you need to do you don't need to reformat (such as keeping antivirus on it and periodically clearing out unneeded startup entries and checking for spyware/adware or whatever).


And for those interested I will be selling Cliffs Notes on this post

 

[DeaconFrost]

I'd continue the debate, but it is clearer and clearer that I'm wasting my time. You've closed your mind to Vista, regardless of facts, such as how XP does not have the self-tuning features that Vista does, nor does it have SuperFetch either, etc etc, the list goes on but why bother.

If you want to know why I'm fired up, is because SO many people decide to give up on Vista simply because they don't give it a fair try, or they don't bother hitting it with an open mind. You've detailed how you fall into the typical category, so why bother.

I'm only fired up about giving the best answers, regardless of how "popular" they may or may not be. I'm also fired up about this board being full of factual information, and not wild, incorrect conjecture. But, if it suits you to make me out to be the bad guy, be my guest. Point is, here on the verge of 2009, if you want to take advantage of more than 4 GB of memory, you run Vista x64....simple as that.

 

[OmegaAvenger]

I'd continue the debate, but it is clearer and clearer that I'm wasting my time. You've closed your mind to Vista, regardless of facts, such as how XP does not have the self-tuning features that Vista does, nor does it have SuperFetch either, etc etc, the list goes on but why bother.

If you want to know why I'm fired up, is because SO many people decide to give up on Vista simply because they don't give it a fair try, or they don't bother hitting it with an open mind. You've detailed how you fall into the typical category, so why bother.

I'm only fired up about giving the best answers, regardless of how "popular" they may or may not be. I'm also fired up about this board being full of factual information, and not wild, incorrect conjecture. But, if it suits you to make me out to be the bad guy, be my guest. Point is, here on the verge of 2009, if you want to take advantage of more than 4 GB of memory, you run Vista x64....simple as that.

I agree with you. I was originally a vista hater, but I decided to give it a shot back in nov. 07 and I have never looked back. I even moved my laptop over to vista x64 after I replaced the Core Duo with a C2D. The only PC in my house that isn't vista now is the desktop my dad and grandma use, and that's because its not worth upgrading to vista because its a celeron.

 

[gamingexpert13]

I'd continue the debate, but it is clearer and clearer that I'm wasting my time. You've closed your mind to Vista, regardless of facts, such as how XP does not have the self-tuning features that Vista does, nor does it have SuperFetch either, etc etc, the list goes on but why bother.

I don't think you are reading my posts.

The problem is that you are not listing the facts as to why vista is better than XP.I am listing what I don't like, and some things I do like (which some can be achieved on XP), but you are not listing all these things that you think make vista great. You mentioned a few things like the "self-tuning features" of vista but didn't describe what they were, even when I asked (well I guess it might not have been clear that I was asking, but you didn't reply to my saying XP had that type of stuff).

If you want to know why I'm fired up, is because SO many people decide to give up on Vista simply because they don't give it a fair try, or they don't bother hitting it with an open mind. You've detailed how you fall into the typical category, so why bother.

As I have evidenced in my posts that you don't like to read, I have tried to come at it with an open mind, listing things I like about it along with things I don't like. I'm just saying that to me, from what I've seen, the bad outweighs the good. If I could find evidence in the other direction I'd change my mind (as evidenced in my previous post).

I don't just go along with what everyone else thinks. If I did then I would believe all those great mac ads and believe that macs are lightyears ahead of PCs, as they all say but have no or very few reasons for.

As an example, before this year I had had very little experience with macs (like using them for a minute in a store) and thought they were pretty cool and thought it was a good OS, but now that I'm actually using one in one of my classes at school I'm finding more and more and more things all the time that I hate about them. My opinion changes based on my findings, does yours? Or are you just set so hard into the mindframe that vista has to be better than XP and have a couple things in your mind that support that, you can't even describe what those things are and can't objectively make a list of goods and bads of each.

It seems that you don't like to approach people with an open mind and you think that since I'm of the opinion that vista isn't as good as xp then I must be one of those people, and that I "fall into the typical category".

You are not responding to anything I'm saying, you basically just keep saying vista is good and that I should use it more. Try replying to what I'm actually saying. I'm open to reasons why vista is better than xp (although it does seem to me that if I haven't found them yet, they probably aren't very noteworthy). Did you even read the part of my post where I said I liked the upgrade to XP from older systems?

I'm only fired up about giving the best answers, regardless of how "popular" they may or may not be. I'm also fired up about this board being full of factual information, and not wild, incorrect conjecture. But, if it suits you to make me out to be the bad guy, be my guest. Point is, here on the verge of 2009, if you want to take advantage of more than 4 GB of memory, you run Vista x64....simple as that.

Dude I'm with you on those first two sentances, and I'm not saying you're the bad guy, I'm just saying that this discussion is better suited for its own thread, and I'm asking that if you insist on saying vista is better than xp, list your reasons, and respond to my reasons and what I'm saying about the other side.

And don't just say that since vista is the newest OS it's the best. Also, if I want to take advantage of more than 4gb of memory it's not as simple as that, I could also run mac, or 64bit xp or 64bit linux. Come on, post factual information.

 

[DeaconFrost]

And don't just say that since vista is the newest OS it's the best. Also, if I want to take advantage of more than 4gb of memory it's not as simple as that, I could also run mac, or 64bit xp or 64bit linux. Come on, post factual information.

I honestly am not saying it is the best because it is the newest. That's usually not the case. In fact, for a while, I used to argue that both were viable, but there really isn't a need to rehash all the features that make Vista a better OS. It's been out for two years now, and has long since hit the maturity level that puts it on top. I also gave you some examples as well, but you've chosen to ignore them...the very thing you are accusing me of doing.

You, yourself mentioned a reason for not wanting to use OSX, so why even mention it here as a possible option? Maybe I am reading your threads? You were so worried about staying on topic, but then you decide to veer it into the Linux world? I love it when people accuse others of doing what they do themselves These threads always fall into that pattern. Then words are twisted to make me look wrong...again, following the same pattern over and over and over to ad nausuem. It gets tiring and predictable after a while.

I have been posting factual information. You've closed your mind to Vista, and that's that. You are free to run whatever you want on your computer, but when you start incorrectly bashing a OS, that's when a problem comes up. The problem is, many people come here for advice, and by filling these threads with incorrect musings on Vista, the correct information isn't being posted. The topic of XP vs Vista doesn't need it's own topic or thread, because there have been literally thousands of them. They all go the same way, until people finally come to admit they haven't given Vista a real shot. Once they do, they start to realize why so many people are using it exclusively right now. Going back to a system with XP is almost a painful process now. So, in short, do as you please on your own, but stick to factual info in your posts....exactly as you instructed me to do. Heed your own advice.

 

[gamingexpert13]

I honestly am not saying it is the best because it is the newest. That's usually not the case. In fact, for a while, I used to argue that both were viable, but there really isn't a need to rehash all the features that make Vista a better OS. It's been out for two years now, and has long since hit the maturity level that puts it on top. I also gave you some examples as well, but you've chosen to ignore them...the very thing you are accusing me of doing.

You obviously aren't reading my whole posts.

Right now there is a need to rehash all the features that make vista a better OS. You are claiming it is better, I am asking you why. I've listed reasons why I think it's not as good, now how about you either refute my reasons or list all those reasons you have not yet.

I have not chosen to ignore your examples, I asked you twice what these "auto-tuning features" are and you have still not answered. I chose not to respond to a couple reasons, like Superfetch just because I figured you wouldn't like my response. I will respond to it now though.

I can not realistically say whether superfetch is an improvement or not because I have not tested it, but for my own personal uses I do not like the concept. For a normal user it's probably great. I, on the other hand, am guessing that I would like to turn that feature off because I max out my memory fairly often and thus try to keep it as clean as possible. I want to use my memory for programs I am actually currently using. I do not want my system to automatically load things into my memory that it thinks I might use. That seems like it will most of the time be a waste of resources. But again, I have not tested it and therefore can not say whether I actually like it or not.

See, I'm guessing that makes you think that I have a closed mind since I do not like the idea of this new feature. But in fact, I have listed logical reasons as to why I might not like it and said I can not actually say yet if it's good or bad.

I responded to your points, now you try responding to some of mine.

You, yourself mentioned a reason for not wanting to use OSX, so why even mention it here as a possible option? Maybe I am reading your threads? You were so worried about staying on topic, but then you decide to veer it into the Linux world? I love it when people accuse others of doing what they do themselves These threads always fall into that pattern. Then words are twisted to make me look wrong...again, following the same pattern over and over and over to ad nausuem. It gets tiring and predictable after a while.

Ok, sorry for mentioning OSX, I didn't know you were talking about me specifically relating to using more than 4gb of mem. What you wrote sounds like "if anybody wants to use more than 4gb of ram their only option is Vista x64". I was just saying that wasn't the only option, it may be the best, but you said "you run Vista x64....simple as that".

By the way, I was concerned about staying on topic until I decided to veer into the xp vs vista realm. Now we're off the main topic.

I have been posting factual information. You've closed your mind to Vista, and that's that. You are free to run whatever you want on your computer, but when you start incorrectly bashing a OS, that's when a problem comes up.

Once again, I doubt you are reading my posts.

You closed your mind to me before I even said the word "Vista". I said 64bit and you thought I was bashing 64bit Vista.

I don't think I have been incorrectly bashing any OS. In fact, lopoetve echoed some of the earlier things I said. I would appreciate it if you showed me where I was incorrectly bashing an OS so I could not do it again.

The problem is, many people come here for advice, and by filling these threads with incorrect musings on Vista, the correct information isn't being posted.

Then, once again, I would appreciate it if you would post the correct information. Why not? I want to see it and you said yourself it isn't being posted.

 

[OmegaAvenger]

http://www.mojaveexperiment.com/
Vista related.

 

[gamingexpert13]

ya i've seen that whole mojave experiment thing on tv, not gonna get into that. I basically don't care about that marketing stunt.

I am looking at that site to try to see some of the new features in vista though, since DeaconFrost doesn't want to tell me them, and I'm starting to see that they really rip people off that have Home Basic. I saw that vista includes a media center app but Home Basic doesn't. Home Basic also doesn't include a lot more stuff like Flip 3d, taskbar thumbnails and advanced Aero stuff.

 

[OmegaAvenger]

ya i've seen that whole mojave experiment thing on tv, not gonna get into that. I basically don't care about that marketing stunt.

I am looking at that site to try to see some of the new features in vista though, since DeaconFrost doesn't want to tell me them, and I'm starting to see that they really rip people off that have Home Basic. I saw that vista includes a media center app but Home Basic doesn't. Home Basic also doesn't include a lot more stuff like Flip 3d, taskbar thumbnails and advanced Aero stuff.

I posted it because i've talked to quite a few people who were totally anti-vista, but changed once they actually tried it. I am one of those people. Left and right before I had ever used it, i was spreading the FUD.

If you two want to argue, make a new thread, because the title will mislead people as it is.

Mods, this thread should be considered /dead

 

[gamingexpert13]

ya i know what u mean.

and thats why i said i didnt wanna get into xp vs vista, but someone wanted to thread hijack i guess (not talkind about you Omega).

 

[OmegaAvenger]

ya i know what u mean.

and thats why i said i didnt wanna get into xp vs vista, but someone wanted to thread hijack i guess (not talkind about you Omega).

I know you aren't reffering to me, don't worry

 

[DeaconFrost]

If by hijack, you mean make sure correct info is posted, then guilty as charged. Just be glad you didn't start your thread in the OS subforum. You would have had many many people "correcting" your posts. The FUD-spreading has gone to ridiculous levels, unfortunately, even 2 years after the product has been on the market. Besides, your original question was of the yes or no sort, and you got several good answers right away, depending on which VM software you planned on using. My original comment as well, I felt, was valid, and if you notice, didn't point to one x64 OS or the other, of the Windows options. Considering this is the VM section, having an x64 OS as the host would benefit you tremendously, given that you can use more memory. Even with 4 GB of memory, I've been able to run a Server 2003 guest, and XP x86 guest, and an Ubuntu guest at the same time, and all were snappy and responsive. You started posting your "reasons" for not liking Vista, so I answered them. Simple as that.

 

[BinarySynapse]

<snip>


I have not chosen to ignore your examples, I asked you twice what these "auto-tuning features" are and you have still not answered. I chose not to respond to a couple reasons, like Superfetch just because I figured you wouldn't like my response. I will respond to it now though.

I can not realistically say whether superfetch is an improvement or not because I have not tested it, but for my own personal uses I do not like the concept. For a normal user it's probably great. I, on the other hand, am guessing that I would like to turn that feature off because I max out my memory fairly often and thus try to keep it as clean as possible. I want to use my memory for programs I am actually currently using. I do not want my system to automatically load things into my memory that it thinks I might use. That seems like it will most of the time be a waste of resources. But again, I have not tested it and therefore can not say whether I actually like it or not.

<snip>.

Superfetch just uses unallocated memory to pre-cache your most used applications and data. It monitors resource usage to see what's unused and fills that with stuff that you most commonly access. It's very low priority, and as such if another application requests memory that Superfetch is using, it gives it up. It will give up every bit of memory it's using for the cache if you need it. There is no need to turn if off. That would be like turning off the processor's L2 cache because you don't like not knowing how the processor is using it (ok, not really, but close).

I'm not sure what you mean by keeping memory clean though. Until it's allocated and something is stored at an address, memory contains pretty random data.

 

[DeaconFrost]

It monitors resource usage to see what's unused and fills that with stuff that you most commonly access.

It's amazing to show a Mac zealot how fast Photoshop CS3 opens on my little Core 2 Duo 6420 compared to her dual Xeon Quad Core OSX system that cost almost seven times what my tower did. This process is all part of the tuning aspects that take a couple of weeks to "learn". It is also one of the main reasons why a quick look to Vista doesn't give you a real idea of how it will perform.

 

[lopoetve]

http://www.mojaveexperiment.com/
Vista related.

silly marketing stunt with non-power users. Not what I'd consider people around here

 

[DeaconFrost]

Those non-power users, however, make up the largest section of customers. When those people start making fun of Vista because they heard Jay Leno make a joke about it, the ridiculous meter goes off. My wife, who just started an IT career this year as a help desk lackey, even told me that Vista sucked because she heard someone on the local news so say. The Mojave Experiment is brilliant when you consider the target audience. I'd be willing to bet, for how bad some of the FUD filled threads were...quite a few of our readers would have failed the Mojave Test as well. That's why, when someone like our OP takes offense to people correcting their Vista comments, they need to do some back-reading on the entire debate, even on here. How many threads were there where people were bashing Vista and posting false information about it....only to later admit they haven't even so much as sat in front of a computer with Vista installed? Hundreds? At least.

 

[lopoetve]

Those non-power users, however, make up the largest section of customers. When those people start making fun of Vista because they heard Jay Leno make a joke about it, the ridiculous meter goes off. My wife, who just started an IT career this year as a help desk lackey, even told me that Vista sucked because she heard someone on the local news so say. The Mojave Experiment is brilliant when you consider the target audience. I'd be willing to bet, for how bad some of the FUD filled threads were...quite a few of our readers would have failed the Mojave Test as well. That's why, when someone like our OP takes offense to people correcting their Vista comments, they need to do some back-reading on the entire debate, even on here. How many threads were there where people were bashing Vista and posting false information about it....only to later admit they haven't even so much as sat in front of a computer with Vista installed? Hundreds? At least.

Granted, but I honestly don't care about them - I care about my experience and the things that I'm trying to get done and accomplish. My computer is an appliance - it has a job to do, and doing it with Vista is harder for many tasks than doing it with XP/Linux/OSX is.

I agree with your points on the experiment for the schmucks out there in the real world, but it doesn't count for us - at least not for anyone that's tried it and still has issues.

 

[OmegaAvenger]

Granted, but I honestly don't care about them - I care about my experience and the things that I'm trying to get done and accomplish. My computer is an appliance - it has a job to do, and doing it with Vista is harder for many tasks than doing it with XP/Linux/OSX is.

I agree with your points on the experiment for the schmucks out there in the real world, but it doesn't count for us - at least not for anyone that's tried it and still has issues.

without them, computer hardware would still be expensive. granted higher end hardware still is, but if they weren't there buying Dells and HP, etc who get all thier MBs and such made by foxconn and asus, etc, We would be paying alot more I;m sure, because I bet you Asus makes more off of OEMing boards for HP and other companies then they do on the enthusiast market.

 

[lopoetve]

True, but I honestly don't care about the same stuff as some random jane looking at her kids pictures is.

I care about what happens with security on virtualized network adapters and why settings aren't persistent between reboots sometimes. I care about the userspace management and admin elevation, and why disabling it to make life simpler breaks various application installers. I care about the fact that I can't beta test an unsigned driver without passing boot parameters.

If I told a Mojave experiment rat about unsigned drivers their eyes would glaze over - that's what I'm trying to say. They're looking at surface stuff, I'm looking at the stuff under the hood, and I certainly would have recognized the box as vista as soon as I tried to set up a mixture of VI in a box and my miro shares.

 

[TechieSooner]

vista asking you like three times if you're sure you want to do something

Pure genius. I mean, pure freaking genius. Anyone that has actually used Vista would know this isn't true.

I can achieve that on XP (through various indexed search programs) and already use Launchy and Y'z Dock for quick launching programs and stuff.

Because downloading and installing multiple applications is ALWAYS better than having it all included

1) are not listed as compatible so I'd have to try them and figure out if they are, and if not, figure out why and what to change.

Crappy application developers. Period.

95% of the developers that followed Microsoft's recommended programming guidelines have no issues with Vista. Instead, it seems like most application developers decided to make the de facto standard to sloppily write throughout all the system directories. Yep- that's much better than keeping it user-level

I do not want my system to automatically load things into my memory that it thinks I might use.

You're saying it cannot predict you using your browser? Email app? Instant Messenger?
Your argument is so flawed it's almost laughable.

I can not realistically say whether a vista feature is an improvement or not because I have not tested it

And, ladies and gentlemen, this is where this gamingexpert's credibility goes out the window.

 

[gamingexpert13]

Superfetch just uses unallocated memory to pre-cache your most used applications and data. It monitors resource usage to see what's unused and fills that with stuff that you most commonly access. It's very low priority, and as such if another application requests memory that Superfetch is using, it gives it up. It will give up every bit of memory it's using for the cache if you need it. There is no need to turn if off. That would be like turning off the processor's L2 cache because you don't like not knowing how the processor is using it (ok, not really, but close).

I'm not sure what you mean by keeping memory clean though. Until it's allocated and something is stored at an address, memory contains pretty random data.

Ya after I posted that I read this:
SuperFetch will adapt to usage patterns, proactively putting applications into the main memory, and keeping them there unless the memory is needed by other applications. Please note that this is different from conventional application caching, which leaves application data in the main memory after it is terminated.

Knowing that, I now think it's a cool feature. See, I thought it would leave it in memory even if that memory was needed. And by clean, I just meant trying to keep as much of it unused as possible, by not filling it up with useless processes and such (while still running stuff I want).

Granted, but I honestly don't care about them - I care about my experience and the things that I'm trying to get done and accomplish. My computer is an appliance - it has a job to do, and doing it with Vista is harder for many tasks than doing it with XP/Linux/OSX is.

I agree with your points on the experiment for the schmucks out there in the real world, but it doesn't count for us - at least not for anyone that's tried it and still has issues.

omg, EXACTLY how I feel, just didn't wanna argue about it.

Pure genius. I mean, pure freaking genius. Anyone that has actually used Vista would know this isn't true.

[ugh... looks like another DeaconFrost, but I'll reply to you once to see if you actually listen to people.]

Well this has happened to me, before I turned off UAC and whatever (I think there's another thing you can turn off too, but it's been off for a while now so I forget), I got three yes/no dialog boxes to do a simple windows explorer task. Usually it was one or two but this time I got three. Maybe if you've used vista more you would know this is possible.

Because downloading and installing multiple applications is ALWAYS better than having it all included

Well, a lot of the time it is. You've probably never tried it. It may not be easier, but most of the time they have more features and therefore, to me, are better.

Crappy application developers. Period.

95% of the developers that followed Microsoft's recommended programming guidelines have no issues with Vista. Instead, it seems like most application developers decided to make the de facto standard to sloppily write throughout all the system directories. Yep- that's much better than keeping it user-level

I'm not saying they're rock-solid apps, I'm just saying that it seems all of the ones I use work on XP so why bother with Vista incompatibilities. For me it's simply a matter of negatives vs positives in OS choice, and for me that is a huge negative for Vista. You may have a different opinion and that's fine. I'm not trying to tell you which OS to use.

You're saying it cannot predict you using your browser? Email app? Instant Messenger?
Your argument is so flawed it's almost laughable.

Ok, not even gonna respond to this, you obviously haven't read my entire posts (or just don't understand them).

And, ladies and gentlemen, this is where this gamingexpert's credibility goes out the window.

Sure, if you misquote anybody I'm sure their credibility could be lost.


and I just realized that I shouldn't have responded to TechieSooner, this is gonna go nowhere.

Could we please stop talking about vista? That's not for this thread. I'm gonna try to not respond to any more vista posts (unless maybe there's a really intelligent one). Btw, is there a way to block people from posting in my threads?

 

[BinarySynapse]

<snip>

Could we please stop talking about vista? That's not for this thread. I'm gonna try to not respond to any more vista posts (unless maybe there's a really intelligent one). Btw, is there a way to block people from posting in my threads?

Unless you're a site admin or the owner, no. There's a little clause in the Rules that you agreed to abide by that states something like
"All messages posted become the property of [H]ard|Forum." So technically speaking, this isn't your thread. You are free to add people to your ignore list, but you still see a message that they posted, but was blocked.

 

[gamingexpert13]

Ok, thanks. I might do that. I'm sick of trolls.

 

[DeaconFrost]

[ugh... looks like another DeaconFrost, but I'll reply to you once to see if you actually listen to people.]

What a joke. You had plenty of intelligent posts from me...you just didn't want to agree with them, so you decided to fall into the typical pattern of changing words, twisting words, and putting me down. Just because you don't want to agree with me, and got caught in the fact you don't use Vista that much (big shocker there, again, keeping with tradition), it now will come down to you putting me down as being worthless. Sad, truly, sad, to be honest. Someone disagrees with an OP, so the OP goes on the attack. This grows tiresome real quick. I read everything that was typed, and that's what was the problem..that I DID read what was written. I should have just ignored your posts, let you go on believing the FUD, and been done with it. You'd be the one missing out...not me.

However, you changed pace with your comments about SuperFetch, for the better. If you drop the bullshit, listen to what people with more experience tell you, like ryan_975, you will see that there's a lot you didn't get with your quick tests of Vista. instead of arguing and trying to put someone down, you had a mature back and forth with him, and now understand how SuperFetch works, and why it is a great feature. See how that works?

Why couldn't you do that from the very beginning? When me, and others, started suggesting Vista x64. ask questions about it. Many of us here have been using it almost exclusively since before it was finalized and released to the public. Why not go into that discussion, if it possibly means bringing you to the best answer? Why start putting people down because they share a different opinion as you....even when their opinion is shared by most? if you did, you'd see that chances are, and I'd bet good money on it, that Vista x64 is the best choice for your needs. And when you want to discuss that intelligently, I'd be more than happy to. But don't go down the route of calling other unintelligent, when you close your mind, or when you don't know their levels of knowledge or experience. We're all here for the same reasons.

I'm sick of trolls.

Trolls? You asked a simple question, and were given plenty of good answers, and then some. You just chose not to like the answers you were given. Once again, you asked basically a yes or no answer, and got some great, detailed answers, You also got some great suggestions, and had some of your incorrect musings corrected, along with a new explanation of one of Vista's key features. Most open-minded people would consider all of this a good thing. Hell, when I was a luker here years ago, I loved reading threads like this, because I may have thought something was true, only to find out it wasn't. I remember RAIDing my Raptor 36GB drives together in RAID0 thinking I was getting this super boost in performance. Boy was I wrong, and I learned that by reading some huge debate on here. I used to completely disable the pagefile in XP, until I learned, again on here, I wasn't helping myself out any.