


The company is taking multi-core performance very seriously










Comments     Threshold


RE: DirectX 1,1
By invidious on 10/13/2009 12:14:40 PM , Rating: 2
While I agree with you in priciple, the legions of people clinging to XP were pretty ticked off when they found out they couldn't take advantage of the 4gb of ram that their motherboards supported. In my opinion this kinda of thing is to be expected when using an OS that is almost a decade old, but that didn't make their complaining any less prevalent.

RE: DirectX 1,1
By exanimas on 10/13/2009 12:27:24 PM , Rating: 2
That's not so much an XP problem as it is a 32-bit operating system problem. Besides, general rule of thumb is that if you know how to use 4GB of RAM with XP, you probably understand why you can't on the 32-bit version.

RE: DirectX 1,1
By totallycool on 10/13/09, Rating: 0
RE: DirectX 1,1
By Ammohunt on 10/13/2009 2:11:06 PM , Rating: 2
Its called PAE which is a hack to get around the 32-bit memory address space limitation intel added a few bits when the pentium pro was introduced essential making the cpu 36-bit. Its not true addressing of the memory. you can add the /3GB switch to XP to enable the PAE functionality to XP i believe.

RE: DirectX 1,1
By Smilin on 10/15/2009 2:47:06 PM , Rating: 2
/3GB and /PAE are both available switches in workstation products (xp, 2000pro, vista) but will not allow access to more than 4GB of memory.

The switches are only available in the workstation versions for the purposes of driver development and testing. It is only in the server versions /PAE can help you get past the 4GB physical memory limitation.

Note1: /3GB has nothing to do with physical memory. It merely alters the virtual address space to go from 2/2 to 3/1 for user/kernel.

Note2: /3GB and /PAE should never be used together especially on a box running terminal services. Each depletes system PTEs and when used together can cause a total depletion and a bugcheck.

RE: DirectX 1,1
By DrizztVD on 10/13/2009 2:37:13 PM , Rating: 2
No, that is definitely an XP problem, otherwise explain to me how Windows 2000 Advanced server could access 8GB and Windows 2000 Datacenter server could access 32GB of memory.

Vista 32 bit has the exact same limitation as XP. And I wouldn't be surprised if Win7 32 bit was the same. The reason is quite simple really: Developers don't expect users of these operating systems to use PAE. And with the low-level addressing drivers use, these things will crash if they're not PAE-compatible (or Large-Address aware).

So to improve the experience of the average user and keep the blue screens at bay, there is a configuration file that limits the address space. You can copy this config file out of Windows Server OS and replace it with the existing one to gain the use of PAE-like address sizes. But if your PC crashes after a driver install- I told you so.

RE: DirectX 1,1


basic = 8 GB
Home = 16GB
Pro = 192GB


RE: DirectX 1,1
By createcoms on 10/13/2009 1:24:58 PM , Rating: 1

And they had so much more success with the 32-bit flavour of Vista did they?

I was running XP x64 with 8GB of RAM, and observed those with Vista 32-bit hitting various ceilings below 4GB so Vista didn't bring with it some new memory window - that was always a 64-bit issue.

RE: DirectX 1,1
RE: DirectX 1,1
By DOSGuy on 10/14/2009 4:25:50 AM , Rating: 2
I used Windows Me quite happily for three or four years with no complaints and very few crashes. When I initially switched to XP SP1, it crashed frequently, which came as a huge surprise to me after all of the WinMe bashing. In my case, XP wasn't as stable as WinMe had been until SP2.

Bashing Windows Me and Vista may be popular, but IMHO it makes you look like an idiot. When my customers would tell me that WinMe was crap, I would ask them if they had ever used it and the answer was always no. Meanwhile I used it at home and couldn't have been happier with it. The same thing happened with Vista: everyone hated, but no one had used it. Well, Vista (and Vista drivers) has matured enough that most people aren't bashing it any more, and no one uses Windows 95/98/Me any more, so there's no point in bashing them. I've used every Microsoft operating system since MS-DOS 5.0 and I've had no major problems with any of them.

If you never used Windows Me, then you're bashing an OS you never used and I have no respect for that. If you actually did use it and found it significantly worse than Windows 95 or 98, then you don't know much about computers and I have no respect for that. If you're simply comparing Windows Me to XP, then you're not smart enough to realize that Windows Me is Windows 4 (the same basic OS as Windows 95) and Windows XP is Windows 5 -- so of course Windows XP was better! -- and I have no respect for that. So basically, I just don't respect people who casually bash Me and Vista. Maybe you should reserve that kind of criticism for a Mac forum, or some forum where people are less tech savvy and won't realize that you're an idiot.

RE: DirectX 1,1
By MrPoletski on 10/14/2009 4:36:22 AM , Rating: 3
Ah so you're the guy who managed to get Windows ME to work without crashing!

how did you do it? ;)

RE: DirectX 1,1
By VooDooAddict on 10/14/2009 12:45:17 PM , Rating: 2
It was easy, never had an issue ... after fixing the awful OEM settings (which was also a problem with XP too!)

Just disable WinME's System Restore and you removed most of the problems. On top of that, Disable the "Active Desktop", the new indexing, and use Netscape.

You would be left with what felt like a version of Win98 with slightly better memory performance when RAM was over 128Meg.

Bash WinME because it didn't add anything of significant value ... sure. But bash it because it was unstable? I just never saw the stability problems after disabling the above "features".

RE: DirectX 1,1
By Silver2k7 on 10/14/2009 2:22:08 PM , Rating: 2
if you had to disable features to make it stable
then it was unstable..

weather or not it could be made stable if you know what to disable is another thing altogether =)

RE: DirectX 1,1
By Belard on 10/14/09, Rating: 0
RE: DirectX 1,1
By Belard on 10/14/2009 5:18:07 PM , Rating: 2

If someone posts a message thinking that Windows XP/2000 are related to Windows9x... they NEED to be corrected.

Especially if they thing XP is version 5.0 and WindowsME is 4.0. That is funny.

RE: DirectX 1,1
By FaaR on 10/14/2009 5:02:03 PM , Rating: 1
I used WinME back in the day, shittiest OS I ever used. A WinME install lasted 6 months tops before it would spontaneously start going buggo and leaking memory like a sieve. It would always get to the point where you couldn't use the PC for more than a few hours before you ran out of conventional memory and "OS resources", at which point icons, buttons etc refused to show up and programs would start crashing due to out of memory errors.

It was total crap. Period.

RE: DirectX 1,1
By AnnihilatorX on 10/14/2009 5:42:38 AM , Rating: 3
However, speed of Vista surpass XP when you have enough RAM, because of the fundamental difference of how Vista uses and perceives RAM.

Vista will cache as much data into RAM as possible, predicting which app you are likely to run, and make frequently used apps launch quicker. This is why it is 'bloated' as you put it. Vista generally launch apps quicker than XP. But as you say, it needs at least 2GB of RAM.

RE: DirectX 1,1
By Belard on 10/14/09, Rating: 0
RE: DirectX 1,1


RE: DirectX 1,1
200pt difference in what?



RE: DirectX 1,1


RE: DirectX 1,1
By Belard on 10/14/09, Rating: 0
