Vista Ultimate X64 with loads of Ram

[Yoma 0]

I'm considering buying windows vista x64(for workrelated issues, gotta move on at some point)

Nowadays memory is dirt cheap, so buying 4-8 GB of ram is not really expensive.

Vista is supposed to use RAM a lot better then winxp.

I'm not expecting any performance increases (i rather expect decreases compared to xp as the graphics subsystem is further away from hardware).

What i would like to know is:

-does anyone know if arma will even launch with 8GB in your system?

-How will it perform compared to my current setup?(P35,E6750,8800GTX,2 WD disks in raid 0, with 2GB of ram on XP here, it works rather good for me in XP atm)?

-Is there any way to get VISTA to cache some Armafiles in memory so possibly you get less "lod-texture"loading stuff (not that it's that big a consern in XP now, but i find it to be the biggest showstopper when it does happen)

-How many other known programs will not like 8GB of ram

-What else should keep me from doing this?

I only want people that actually have Vista64 to reply, so no "i heard" or "i think" stuff, just real world experiences.

Don't think i'm falling for the "64 is better then 32" bogus argument, but for workrelated stuff (where loads of memory comes into play, it may very well be usefull)

I'm asking this because I don't like dual booting my machine, when i get bored doing work i like to game a bit and visa versa.

[gL33k 0]

they said (Bi) the new memory allocation permit to use more than 2048MB or ram.

usually , memory allocation couldnt be more of 2GB with an 32bit program. only few game use a special way to override that.

Arma does , it seem. i never see a such large memory occupation tough , in my task manager...

64bit program , on the other hand , can adress a Huge space. 16TeraByte i think .

The problem is , how much performance arma memory tweak eat.

shouldn't they code a 64bit executable ? i means , today , maybe 30% of all gamerz have 4GB. desktop cpu are all x86_64 comptatible. i think it's time to start to exploit all our ram.

why , on my 4GB vista x64 , arma never take more than 700MB , and why i have still these LOD latency ... ?

i don't know, only bohemia can answer to that.

other program might run in 32bit emulation , it seem quite functionnal ,i didn't see a software not run on my x64 vista.

ps: since 1.14 , i already had , few time , out of memory crash , then we all know what that means

[pathetic_berserker 4]

I'll second your observations there gl33k, but i think there are still 2 other issues that may be connected with LOD latency and graphc performance.

1st of course theres the graphics card wich we know is a seperate problem to vist64.

And sceondly I've noticed an issue that still isn't relevant to most peoples setups.

But it's the way Vista tries to manage graphics. (I THINK this is the dwm.exe). I run 2 8800gts each responsible for their own monitor so I would expect they would run more or less independant. But this isn't realy the case. I have noticed that having a few graphic intensive windows open on my second monitor will still cause a noticable fps hit on my primary.

That aside I've been pretty happy with vista64. Took me a little while to smooth out some things (i.e. I'd recomend turning off the pretty 'Aero' visuals) but efficiency and flexibility with RAM usage does make things noticably easier.

[echo1 0]

shouldn't they code a 64bit executable ? i means , today , maybe 30% of all gamerz have 4GB. desktop cpu are all x86_64 comptatible. i think it's time to start to exploit all our ram.

1. Very few people have 64 bit operating systems, largely to do with the fact that Vista 64/ XP 64 are not quite up to scratch with their 32bit counterparts. I would say that we wont see mass adoption of 64bit Windows till the next version is out.

2. 30%? I doubt it. I think the vast majority of people would have between 1-2GB. 4GB would be nowhere near as common, mainly because it isnt supported that well by 32bit systems.

[gL33k 0]

i still love to think that exploiting 1 more "gig" , arma might be smoother .

[a24710 0]

Quote[/b] ]. Very few people have 64 bit operating systems, largely to do with the fact that Vista 64/ XP 64 are not quite up to scratch with their 32bit counterparts. I would say that we wont see mass adoption of 64bit Windows till the next version is out.

VIsta 64 is as good as vista 32. It´s even better taking in account that can handle more RAM and can run 64bits app´s

people seems to think that 64b vista is not so polished as 32b and i must totally disagree with that. It´s my main OS and i have yet not found any incompatibility and ARMA runs like butter with the last patch (not 4GB error anymore)

i would go further and say that nowadays having a 32b OS is a mistake and we should all move on to 64b systems

[SWAT_BigBear 0]

Yoma,

You have a beefy DX10 video card, you would get more out of it with Vista 64 or 32 alone. Mine never even broke a sweat....until I added the Dell 30 in.

When I built my pc in Jan 07, 2gig sticks of ram were not perfected at that time, so I stayed with reliable 1gig sticks x4.

I most likely would go 8 (if built today), but the 4 I have has been plenty.

There will be a few things in Vista that may annoy you, such as UAC (User Account Control). It is designed for a family pc with several users, to keep the system safe! I do not allow anyone else on mine, so I have it disabled, which stops all the pop up warnings, and never having to tell a prog~ to "run as administrator".

Another is the new looks to your directories, which I got use to fairly quick.

64 vs 32?

The best way for me to actually see the difference, is playing Crysis, which has a 32 & 64 launch exe's. 64 is far better graphically!

I also use FireDaemon Trinity to run an ArmA server, which has never given any trouble what so ever.

I believe after you explore the Vista experience with a new system (with patience), you'll be glad you made the upgrade.

And do get SP1 for it asap.

Quote[/b] ]-does anyone know if arma will even launch with 8GB in your system?

Wish I knew!

[dotted 0]

In my opinion Vista is alot more responsive than XP since it uses the graphics card instead of the CPU to render the desktop. While sure it demands more, if you got the hardware you might get a more responsive system

Also there wont be any real difference between 32bits and 64bits systems. Other than 64bit perhaps requires more memory since 32bit apps cant load 64bit DLLs and therefor needs a 32bit dll.

[Yoma 0]

To be honest I only expect Arma performance to go down on vista64 compared to xp32. I'm just wondering HOW MUCH it will go down. I'm not really interested in other games performance, as this is the only game i've really played since 2001 :-) Is there anyone out there with a dual boot VISTA64/XP system that can give me any numbers?

If you look at about ANY game benchmark Vista performs worse then XP. I just wonder in the case of Arma: how much worse is it?

Also i know there is a SP1 for vista32 but is there also a SP1 for vista64?

Other then that i will be running lots of VMWares in it (man i love that program) which is why loads of memory come in handy.

[a24710 0]

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2304031,00.asp

this is a recent comparison between xp and VISTA with both new SP´s

actually, there is no more performance difference anymore

i haven´t checked ARMA in particular but i guess it´s like the other games

[Yoma 0]

Is it true that if i buy vista32 Ultimate i can also choose to install Vista64 Ultimate?

[SWAT_BigBear 0]

Is it true that if i buy vista32 Ultimate i can also choose to install Vista64 Ultimate?

The Ultimate upgrade comes with both cd's, 32 & 64. There is a flaw, which allows a full clean install on a new system.

http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=5932

It's legal

Yes, SP1 is for the 64bit version also.

[dotted 0]

Is it true that if i buy vista32 Ultimate i can also choose to install Vista64 Ultimate?

Only the retail, the OEM version is either only 32 or 64-bits

[BraTTy 0]

Running XP64 here with 4gigs ram.

Have about 28 games installed and haven't hit a game yet that doesn't work.

Only problem I have had is there is no 64bit drivers for my 4-port security card so I installed the card in another system I have anyways.

edit: Arma installs itself within regular program files where 64 bit programs install rather than x86 program files.

[gL33k 0]

Running XP64 here with 4gigs ram.

Have about 28 games installed and haven't hit a game yet that doesn't work.

Only problem I have had is there is no 64bit drivers for my 4-port security card so I installed the card in another system I have anyways.

edit: Arma installs itself within regular program files where 64 bit programs install rather than x86 program files.

but is your arma.exe an 64 bit binaries ?

[mrn 0]

Running Home Premium 64 because I wanted the Media Centre and couldn't see the added "value" of Ultimate.

Specs of my machine:

C2D 6400 @3.2

6gb Corsair 800mhz Ram

Intel BX2 motherboard

Sapphire 3870 512 with Catalyst 8.5

-does anyone know if arma will even launch with 8GB in your system? I have 6gb and Arma won't load fullscreen, windowed is fine. If I want to run fullscreen I have to limit the ram to 3072, see here. I suspect my problems are ATI related I think Nvidia users don't have the issue with newer drivers

-How will it perform compared to my current setup?(P35,E6750,8800GTX,2 WD disks in raid 0, with 2GB of ram on XP here, it works rather good for me in XP atm)? Difficult to say but I have to confess to liking Vista, I joined after SP1 was released so I don't know what it was like before. Once I turned all the fluffy stuff off it feels just like XP but snappier.

-Is there any way to get VISTA to cache some Armafiles in memory so possibly you get less "lod-texture"loading stuff (not that it's that big a consern in XP now, but i find it to be the biggest showstopper when it does happen)Dunno, doubt it.

-How many other known programs will not like 8GB of ram Arma is the only one I've come across so far, but I only have Dawn of War and a couple of recent demos installed. There's been a couple of hardware monitoring/tweaking programs I used to use on XP that don't work but this is more to do with Vista than 64bit or having loads of ram.

-What else should keep me from doing this?Check for drivers for all your peripherals first, you don't want any nasty surprises. I had to get a new TV card but that hardly broke the bank.

Overall I would say it's worth doing and it may be psychological but Arma does feel a bit quicker and loading times have decreased but there's been several updates to the game while I've been tweaking Vista so it could be those.

Edit- I forgot to mention, make sure you have an abundance of patience when you first install it, it took me 3 attempts! The issues I had:

Even though I had the DVD with SP1 installed I still had to remove some ram to get it below 4gb to get Vista installed then you have to apply a patch from windows update to get it to support the full amount. Otherwise you just get crashes.

Creative drivers sux, but we all know that. I had to try 3 different versions before I could boot into windows successfully.

Hope that helps

[ShrubMiK 0]

Does the latest patch not solve your "too much RAM" issue? It did for me. I'm Vista64 with 4GB.

[mrn 0]

Quote[/b] ]Does the latest patch not solve your "too much RAM" issue?

Yup, but I had to remove RAM during the install process, apply the patch once Vista was installed then put the memory back in.

[pathetic_berserker 4]

To be honest I only expect Arma performance to go down on vista64 compared to xp32. I'm just wondering HOW MUCH it will go down. .......

I moved from E6700, 2G Ram, 8800gts, running XP32 to the same box but 4G RAM and Vista64 and noticed a big improvement in performance with Arma. Though I cant say if there was a timley patch release at the same time, I certainly didn't go backwards.

[SWAT_BigBear 0]

Quote[/b] ]Edit- I forgot to mention, make sure you have an abundance of patience when you first install it, it took me 3 attempts! The issues I had:

Mine was before SP1, but, I had to boot in/out of bios 2-3 times to setup the raid controllers, then Vista took 17 minutes. The home network was plugged up already, so it automatically pick up the internet and dnlded updates before ever seeing my desktop login screen. After doing the trick I posted earlier, the 2nd install took 14 mins..... XP will never do that.

About the amount of ram.....I also remember that 2gig limit with new installs, I disabled 2gig in bios until finished.

Edit...then I had to wait 5 months for the ArmA Atari in the US, while I played my Czech version on an AMD64 3000+ w/FX-5900.. blah..

[zulu1 145]

Unless you get a 64bit version of Arma, a 64bit operating system won't buy you anything.

[Yoma 0]

Again my focus is not on what it will BUY me, it's on what it will loose me. I have other reasons to try VistaX64 like using loads of ram in different VMwares at the same time or maybe try some neat stuff with ramdrives etc.

[echo1 0]

Again my focus is not on what it will BUY me, it's on what it will loose me. I have other reasons to try VistaX64 like using loads of ram in different VMwares at the same time or maybe try some neat stuff with ramdrives etc.

Do you have any old hardware or software that are completely irreplaceable? If that the answer to that is "no", then the answer to your question is "probably not". Besides, there's nothing stopping you from dual-booting 32bit XP and 64bit Vista, sure, XP wont show up all your RAM, but it still should work.

[Rexxenexx 0]

-does anyone know if arma will even launch with 8GB in your system?

I dunno, I have 4GB. I haven't had a launch problem.

-How will it perform compared to my current setup?(P35,E6750,8800GTX,2 WD disks in raid 0, with 2GB of ram on XP here, it works rather good for me in XP atm)?

I'm betting not much improvement or degradation. I'll put $100 on faster loading and same performance in-game.

-Is there any way to get VISTA to cache some Armafiles in memory so possibly you get less "lod-texture"loading stuff (not that it's that big a consern in XP now, but i find it to be the biggest showstopper when it does happen)

Vista has a prefetching service that speeds up load times of apps, but doesn't have anything OS based to preload textures. That same problem will stick around until the ArmA engine is optimized better.

-How many other known programs will not like 8GB of ram.

I don't know, but I have 4GB and I haven't found any app. that freaks out about ram.

-What else should keep me from doing this?

If you are doing it only for ArmA or game improvements then wait longer for new boards and processors, what you have now is cool enough. From what you said earlier you have other requirements like myself besides games. I would say just match the ram you have now so you have 4GB and see if you can dual boot Vista64 and XP32. Make sure your printer is compatible, that and my MS fingerprint reader were the only two devices that were incompatible when I went to Vista64. Appwise only one game didn't work and that was Starsiege Tribes. I have a bunch of games and apps including VMware, and a boat load of USB stuff connected with no major issues. (P5N32-E,Q6600,8800GTX,500GB HD,4GB RAM). So if you are in need of a Workstation class computer then by all means go for it! Hope this helps.

[Yoma 0]

Again my focus is not on what it will BUY me, it's on what it will loose me. I have other reasons to try VistaX64 like using loads of ram in different VMwares at the same time or maybe try some neat stuff with ramdrives etc.

Do you have any old hardware or software that are completely irreplaceable? If that the answer to that is "no", then the answer to your question is "probably not". Besides, there's nothing stopping you from dual-booting 32bit XP and 64bit Vista, sure, XP wont show up all your RAM, but it still should work.

Euhm do you know VMWare?

That actually lets me run just about any OS UNDER Vista or under XP or under Linux...

If i really have a program that NEEDS xp i'll just run it in a VM