PDA

View Full Version : How much memory do I "need"...



lafenatu
05-21-2008, 10:41 PM
Hey guys/gals:

New to the forum :)

I bought FSX and am curious to how much memory you guys recommend to have to play comfortably.

I just don't want the game to pause and or end because of lack of memory and I wanna be able to have some scenery haha...

Thanks guys!

-Rob

Paxx
05-21-2008, 11:14 PM
2GB works well for me, others recommend 4 if your on a 64bit Operating system. What are the specs on the rest of your system if I may ask?

vortiz56
05-22-2008, 02:56 AM
With the price of RAM, 4GB can't hurt, but it has made little difference for me. Definitely 2GB.

lungho
05-22-2008, 09:24 AM
I've only got 2.0GB and everything runs pretty smooth. I personally would get a graphics card with 512MB of memory (or more) if you plan on running with hi rez textures....i. e. most of the sliders to the right.

vortiz56
05-22-2008, 09:54 AM
NVidia 8800 GT (X if you have Vista, right?)

Paxx
05-22-2008, 12:19 PM
NVidia 8800 GT (X if you have Vista, right?)

Vista has nothing to do with making a choice between a 8800GT or GTX.

lupedelupe
05-22-2008, 12:48 PM
What operating system are you running?

XP will only use/recognise a max of 3GBs.
Vista will be able to use far more....

RAM (DDR2) is relatively cheap at the moment, so if you are going Vista I'd say go mad with memory.

vortiz56
05-22-2008, 06:11 PM
Oh, I'd read in previous posts that GTX worked with Vista, not XP

Paxx
05-22-2008, 07:00 PM
Oh, I'd read in previous posts that GTX worked with Vista, not XP

Hogwash, it works on Microsoft Windows 2000, XP, Vista.

vortiz56
05-22-2008, 07:09 PM
Cool, I was always wanting the GTX.

myocardia
05-22-2008, 11:10 PM
XP will only use/recognise a max of 3GBs.
Vista will be able to use far more....

Umm, no, it makes no difference which version of Windows you're using. 32-bit Vista has exactly the same 4GB address limitation as 32-bit XP (resulting in ~3GB of usable RAM), and 64-bit XP has the capability to use more than your motherboard can handle, just like 64-bit Vista.

lafenatu
05-23-2008, 06:48 PM
What are the specs on the rest of your system if I may ask?

Well..

I recieved a computer for free. It is nothing special...seriously, but I figured I could upgrade it enough just to play FSX.

Cheap little eMachine...heh

- MS Windows Vista Home Basic
- Intel Pentium 4 CPU 3.20 GHz
- 32 bit operating system
- 501 MB RAM :mad:
- Intel 82945G Express Chipset Family

Not sure what kind of graphics card but it is an eMachine so I am thinking bottom of the line POS haha...

Paxx
05-24-2008, 04:40 AM
Well..

I recieved a computer for free. It is nothing special...seriously, but I figured I could upgrade it enough just to play FSX.

Cheap little eMachine...heh

- MS Windows Vista Home Basic
- Intel Pentium 4 CPU 3.20 GHz
- 32 bit operating system
- 501 MB RAM :mad:
- Intel 82945G Express Chipset Family

Not sure what kind of graphics card but it is an eMachine so I am thinking bottom of the line POS haha...

Aye, first of all you'll need 2GB RAM, that will mean tossing your 512MB chip (or 2x 256MB chip) sorry.

You also appear to have whats called an 'on board' graphics solution. This means that you don't have a video 'card' per say but that the graphics are provided by the motherboard chipset. This is not good if you want to run FSX well.

The good news is that you can probably upgrade to some relatively cheap hardware, more RAM and a video card, that will go in your emachine just fine and produce better results with FSX than what your system currently will.

Before we go on, if your interested in upgrading, I need to know what model number Emachine you have. That way we will be able to figure out what kind of video card upgrade you might be able to install.

KenG
05-24-2008, 07:21 AM
"it is an eMachine so I am thinking bottom of the line POS haha..."

Pay no mind to the emachines detractors. emachines are great computers. I've had a bunch, with the oldest an old emonster 500 bought in 1999, which has been handed down 2 times, and is still going strong without so much as a burp in ten years!

BUT, if you buy a video card, pay special attention to the power supply requirement. Some of them will require more watts than your existing power supply can handle. ie; if your video card suggests you need a 350 watt ps to run it, and you only have 300, it will cause all kinds of problems. A lot of cards even have their own plug to attach to the power supply.

Ken

lafenatu
05-25-2008, 09:03 PM
Aye, first of all you'll need 2GB RAM, that will mean tossing your 512MB chip (or 2x 256MB chip) sorry.

You also appear to have whats called an 'on board' graphics solution. This means that you don't have a video 'card' per say but that the graphics are provided by the motherboard chipset. This is not good if you want to run FSX well.

The good news is that you can probably upgrade to some relatively cheap hardware, more RAM and a video card, that will go in your emachine just fine and produce better results with FSX than what your system currently will.

Before we go on, if your interested in upgrading, I need to know what model number Emachine you have. That way we will be able to figure out what kind of video card upgrade you might be able to install.


PM :)

angels355
05-25-2008, 10:07 PM
What operating system are you running?

XP will only use/recognise a max of 3GBs.
Vista will be able to use far more....

RAM (DDR2) is relatively cheap at the moment, so if you are going Vista I'd say go mad with memory.

xp 32 bit running a 32 bit program will only use 2 gb's of ram for the program, however I think that 4 gb's can't hurt. XP 32 bit recognizes 4 gb's ram, so does 32 bit win 2000, and I think NT4 also recognizes 4 gb's ram. 64 bit xp will recognize I think 128 gb's of ram, but on a 32 bit program will only use 2 gb's but in my opinion 4 gb's can't hurt. When you say that xp only recognizes 3 gb's ram, I believe that may be the figure that shows up in the system window, but if you've got 4 gb's installed it will use it, it might not list it but it's being used any way as I understand it.

Vista 4 gb's definitely. On Vista 2 gb's are for only household use according to an anantech article maybe last year or so, and suggest 4 gb's for gaming. 32 bit Vista will recognize 4 gb's, 64 bit Vista will recognize I can't remember 128 to 180 gb's, don't remember the exact figure? According to that same article, pre-SP1, vista uses memory differently than xp, it tries to guess what data you'll need coming up so preloads it into ram in an effort to improve performance. So even though you're running a 32 bit program that w/ xp would only use 2 gb's of ram, vista can use 4 gb's of ram to run a 32 bit program as it will guess what's needed and pre-load it.

Friend of mind just built an xp pro computer for gaming, he installed 4 gb's ram. Now days, I think mobos can run 6 to 8 gb's of ram, maybe more, but that would only be recognized with either 64 bit xp or 64 bit vista. 64 bit vista might actually use all of that in its' new method of managing ram.

angels355
05-25-2008, 10:10 PM
Cool, I was always wanting the GTX.

I believe djt mentioned that there's a 9900 gtx on the way out, so either look for that, or look for a drop in prices on the 8800's.

Saw a B-17 fly overhead today!

vortiz56
05-25-2008, 10:17 PM
Or just pay for the 99, eh? Vroooooom. Thanks for the heads up.

Probably the Collins B-17, they toured the So Cal area a few weeks ago. What a thrill. I remember multi-prop, non-turbine, planes overhead back in the 60s.

angels355
05-25-2008, 10:22 PM
Well..

I recieved a computer for free. It is nothing special...seriously, but I figured I could upgrade it enough just to play FSX.

Cheap little eMachine...heh

- MS Windows Vista Home Basic
- Intel Pentium 4 CPU 3.20 GHz
- 32 bit operating system
- 501 MB RAM :mad:
- Intel 82945G Express Chipset Family

Not sure what kind of graphics card but it is an eMachine so I am thinking bottom of the line POS haha...

LEF!!

SERIOUSLY!! DO NOT TURN ON YOUR EMACHINE UNTIL YOU REPLACE THE POWER SUPPLY! I'VE SEEN EMACHINE POWER SUPPLIES BLOW OUT ONE AFTER ANOTHER, AND WHEN THE DO THEY BURN OUT THE MOTHERBOARD ALONG WITH IT. I'VE GOT FIVE BURNED OUT EMACHINES, ALONG WITH BURNED OUT MOTHERBOARDS!!

What is especially bad is that if you get a larger video card and it draws more watts from the psu, that can trigger a catastrophic failure of the psu, and then it will die and burn out the mobo along with it.

Besides, in order to run a larger video card on your computer you're going to need a larger psu any way. Buy a quality brand psu, 400 watts or more.

I'm sorry to have to be the bearer of bad news!

The good news is that emachine motherboards and processors are not all that bad, so as long as you replace the psu before it blows out, you might have a very nice little computer!

ALSO! Sorry for more bad news. I'm sorry to say that you may be very disappointed by the results you get with fsx running on a pentium 4. Good performance with fsx starts at the Core 2 Duo level chip.

Seriously, if you want a good flight simulator experience, purchase flight simulator 2004 century of flight, also referred to as "fs9". Trust me, you'll love fs9 on your computer, but fsx will not run well at all on a pentium 4.

angels355
05-25-2008, 10:28 PM
Or just pay for the 99, eh? Vroooooom. Thanks for the heads up.

Probably the Collins B-17, they toured the So Cal area a few weeks ago. What a thrill. I remember multi-prop, non-turbine, planes overhead back in the 60s.

It was a real thrill, I think they are doing a Memorial Day event at the Seattle Museum of Flight. It flies beautifully. I'm so accustomed to looking at flight simulator, the planes, and sky, I'm surprised at how closely Boeing and Nature are able to copy the flight simulator world! :)

vortiz56
05-25-2008, 10:35 PM
If you are close enough get over there. They are just terrific to hear and feel, as well as watch.

Paxx
05-25-2008, 10:40 PM
LEF!!

SERIOUSLY!! DO NOT TURN ON YOUR EMACHINE UNTIL YOU REPLACE THE POWER SUPPLY! I'VE SEEN EMACHINE POWER SUPPLIES BLOW OUT ONE AFTER ANOTHER, AND WHEN THE DO THEY BURN OUT THE MOTHERBOARD ALONG WITH IT. I'VE GOT FIVE BURNED OUT EMACHINES, ALONG WITH BURNED OUT MOTHERBOARDS!!

Angels I like you man but easy on the eMachines ok. :)

I have 2 currently running XP and Ubuntu. I have had zero problems with them for the past almost 3 years. I also have 2 friends who have them and I get the pleasure of servicing them also. Again zero problems, power supply or anything else. One I added a 7300GT about 2 years ago because he didn't want to get a different power supply (still going strong, runs FS9 @Kimber FPS) and the other I have added/upgraded the Core Duo, HD, power supply and 8800GTS to because she wanted a good mid-level gamer for her son. I had to upgrade the PS because the 8800s need a bit more than the stock 300w could handle. Again no problems. I'm sure they are not perfect but I am also sure that they 'blow up' no more than normal for any budget machine. :)

See your PM for upgrade advice lafenatu.

angels355
05-25-2008, 10:49 PM
If you are close enough get over there. They are just terrific to hear and feel, as well as watch.

I have to cross the water so it's not too easy. What really thrilled me was seeing an F4U Corsair some years ago up close idling on the tarmac, sounded like a dragster, really cool watching it take off.

angels355
05-25-2008, 11:03 PM
Angels I like you man but easy on the eMachines ok. :)

I have 2 currently running XP and Ubuntu. I have had zero problems with them for the past almost 3 years. I also have 2 friends who have them and I get the pleasure of servicing them also. Again zero problems, power supply or anything else. One I added a 7300GT about 2 years ago because he didn't want to get a different power supply (still going strong, runs FS9 @Kimber FPS) and the other I have added/upgraded the Core Duo, HD, power supply and 8800GTS to because she wanted a good mid-level gamer for her son. I had to upgrade the PS because the 8800s need a bit more than the stock 300w could handle. Again no problems. I'm sure they are not perfect but I am also sure that they 'blow up' no more than normal for any budget machine. :)

See your PM for upgrade advice lafenatu.

Sorry to be a harbinker of doom, however in this case, I have more experience than you with all do respect. In the past two months I've been a witness to 7 to 10 emachine psu plus mobo burn outs, five of them were mine plus a replacement mobo that was perfectly good that the emachine psu burned out right in front of me immediately after turning it on.

One of my technician friends independently agrees with me 100%, that emachines are nice computers as long as you replace the psu as soon as you get them! At his shop they have a ready supply of psu's that they routinely use to replace emachine psu's with. Over there, they have the sense to replace them asap. At another shop, they wouldn't believe me, I told them the psu should be replaced. After they repaired the emachine they were working on, a separate issue, they put it back together, then all of a sudden something happened...psu failure and burnout of the mobo...who could have guessed? They restarted it, and it came back up for air, still somewhat working. Their customer picked it up, took it home, and it burned out the rest of the way at home. Go figure? What are the chances? I tried to tell them!

I can not in good conscience recommend running an emachine on the stock psu.

Also, fsx on a p4 has had bad results.

Paxx
05-25-2008, 11:13 PM
Sorry to be a harbinker of doom
Aye, we each have our own results/experiences I guess. :)

See your PM.

TomH
05-26-2008, 09:45 AM
RE: emachines problems

I've been listening to people trash emachines (and all off-the-shelf)computers for years now, including a buddy of mine who swears they are the worst computer ever built.

When you get past the hysteria, this is usually the story that emerges:

Guy goes down to the big-box store, buys a pre-packaged computer, gets home, finds it doesn't work that well with flight sim. Goes online, finds flight-sim forum, asks for advice. 35 year old dweeb living in his mother's basement tells him he needs a $600 video card that requires a nuclear power plant to run it. Sends the guy to newegg (where all the "in-the-know" geeks go!) to purchase said card. Guy gets the card, installs it. Computer starts to scream out in pain, and blows up. What (or who) do you think gets the blame?

That's right! Must be that piece of crap emachines!

With any piece of equipment, you need to work within it's limitations. If your computer has a 300 watt power supply, what the heck are you doing buying a video card that clearly states it needs a 400+ power supply to run it? You have to limit yourself to what your computer can handle

I am a big emachines fan, and have no problem reccomending them to friends and family. So far 6 people I know have them, and no problems at all.

Tom

lungho
05-26-2008, 10:18 AM
I see and repair a variety of different computers 5 days a week. Any brand you can think of plus a hand full of custom rigs. So I'd say my sample pool is far greater than 5 or 6 of anybody's friends. These are the trends I see.

Retail machines have come a long way in performance over the last 10 years. When they debuted, eMachines used to be the absolute worst computer on the market for reliability. I remember people having these things for 6 months and then stop working. eMachine quality has steadily increased over the years and now they aren't too bad of a machine to own.

My only reservations about owning a retail machine these days are as follows:

1) Cheap motherboards
2) Inadequate power supplies
3) BIOS w/ little or no features
4) Tons of preinstalled crapware taking up HDD space

The first two are more of a problem than the last two. I've seen too many machines with not a lot of miles on them quit working because of cheap boards and/or power supplies. Note that custom rigs can suffer the same problems if you purchase cheap parts too.

In my opinion, if you have the proper knowledge, building your own rig (with quality parts) is the best way to go. You simply can't beat the reliability, upgradebility, and performance.

angels355
05-27-2008, 05:39 AM
I might have msi and asus mobo's in my emachines, and amd and celeron processors, that's a good thing. Problem is the psu's blow out, frying the mobo's along with it. One such psu fried two mobo's in a row, before, duh, I figured it out. They might be OK with a better psu.

I recently talked to a really sharp repair tech who specializes in used equipment, he named the brand of psu that has caused so much trouble with emachines, unfortunately I didn't catch the name. I suppose I could look at the ones in mine, but I don't have enough time.

Tomh is right when he says that if you plug in a heavy duty video card that clearly states that it requires a 400 watt psu, and you only have a 300 watt psu, it could cause a psu failure. I believe that is true even of new cheap psu's. 500 or 600 watt cheap psu's can give the same results. Good quality psu's when they fail, they simply stop working. Cheap psu's if overstressed they can fail and in the process send a large jolt of electricity through the mobo, frying it. This can happen if it is old or new.

I guess i could say that i've had good luck with Compaq's, except one older one was so proprietary I could barely work with it, and it had an extremely rudimentary bios.

HP's, I like their calculators very much, but i've got two HP computers that are burned out, but my best computer right now is actually an HP.

Dell, two thumbs up! All of my Dells are running extremely well. Extremely reliable.

For best results and features however, I think building your own computer from quality parts is a great way to go.

EDIT: I spoke again to the tech I mentioned above, he says that the emachine psu that he has experienced to be so bad is made by Bestek. He said after they replaced those with another brand they were not too bad, however I'm still a little leary. If I had one, I'd upgrade the psu any way.

loki
05-27-2008, 09:05 AM
As was memtioned, the 32 it Vista has the same RAM limitations as the 32 bit XP systems do. If you have 4GB of RAM installed, you will only get ~3.2GB, or maybe even less to use. The rest will go unused because the system does not have enough virtual addresses to assign to it, and thus can't access it. Vista will report that there is a full 4GB installed, even though it still can't use it. The 64 bit versions of both Vista and XP will recognise and use more than 4GB, if you have it.

Vista's prefetch doesn't mean the program gets more RAM to use, just that the files to load it may be kept in memory to allow it to load faster. The apps will still have the 2GB virtual address space limitation (unless you use the /3GB switch and the apps are largeaddressaware).

munnst
05-27-2008, 10:32 AM
As was memtioned, the 32 it Vista has the same RAM limitations as the 32 bit XP systems do. If you have 4GB of RAM installed, you will only get ~3.2GB, or maybe even less to use. The rest will go unused because the system does not have enough virtual addresses to assign to it, and thus can't access it. Vista will report that there is a full 4GB installed, een though it still can't use it. The 64 bit versions of both Vista and XP will recognise and use more than 4GB, if you have it.

Vista's prefetch doesn't mean the program gets more RAM to use, just that the files to load it may be kept in memory to allow it to load faster. The apps will still have the 2GB virtual address space limitation (unless you use the /3GB switch and the apps are largeaddressaware).

I went with 4gb of RAM purely because it was just an extra 20 or so on top of my 1300 setup. So if I ever upgrade I can use it. BTW I did have to sell the wife and kids but I got a good deal.

Kapitan
05-27-2008, 12:19 PM
3gb or 4gb...Im still confused.

Microsoft says in its website any system xp/vista accepts 4gb or even 16gb, unless the switch to 3gb is selected in the boot.ini file.

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/PAEmem.mspx

Can someone more enlightened assure me if any game will benefit from 2gb to 3 or 4?
I am selling in ebay my two ddr2 800 1gb and buying 2 of 2gb each.

Thanks
K

loki
05-27-2008, 01:41 PM
The 32 bit desktop (note that the server versions have different limits) versions of Windows can see 4GB of RAM. However, Microsoft has capped the ammount of virtual addresses these operating systems have at 4GB (2^32). This address space is used both for running software, including the OS, and for addressing the various pieces of hardware such as the video card(s), sound card, network card and all the rest. Since the hardware needs some of the addresses, the operating system and software will have less than the full 4GB to use, which is why people talk about only ~3GB or so of memory being available or showing up. Video cards use up the most as the system needs to address the video RAM. If you have a video card with 768MB or 1GB of RAM, or two video cards, you could end up with even less memory available for the OS.

Under Vista Microsoft changed the system to report the full amount of RAM installed, rather than what is avilable for use like in XP. Apparently this change was made because more and more people have systems with 4GB of RAM and were wondering why it didn't show up in Windows.

Until recently most games wouldn't benefit from more than 2GB of system RAM. This is changing with the increased details (in grahpics, physics and AI) in current games. With FSX it depends a little on what you have installed, and whether you have other programs running in the background. Several people here have reported that their systems aren't using more than 2GB when running FSX, but some do. If there are other apps running as well, having 3GB or more would help.

angels355
05-27-2008, 04:02 PM
As was memtioned, the 32 it Vista has the same RAM limitations as the 32 bit XP systems do. If you have 4GB of RAM installed, you will only get ~3.2GB, or maybe even less to use. The rest will go unused because the system does not have enough virtual addresses to assign to it, and thus can't access it. Vista will report that there is a full 4GB installed, even though it still can't use it. The 64 bit versions of both Vista and XP will recognise and use more than 4GB, if you have it.

Vista's prefetch doesn't mean the program gets more RAM to use, just that the files to load it may be kept in memory to allow it to load faster. The apps will still have the 2GB virtual address space limitation (unless you use the /3GB switch and the apps are largeaddressaware).

Thanks very much loki. How do you turn on that 3 gb switch for future reference? And the apps have to be "largeaddressaware", are there games with that? I wonder if FS11 will be 64 bit. It must be much more fully multithreaded don't you think? I've been starting to get over my aversion to activation programming, might have to buy some Red Eye and go for it, and bite the bullet!

If given a choice do you think it would be better to run vista or xp on a p4 with up to 4 gb's of ram and a 16x pci-e video slot? I haven't done the research, I don't know if a p4 2.8 ghz w/ 1 mb L2 cache is 64 or 32 bit capable. If 32 bit maybe xp would be better?

angels355
05-27-2008, 04:05 PM
I went with 4gb of RAM purely because it was just an extra 20 or so on top of my 1300 setup. So if I ever upgrade I can use it. BTW I did have to sell the wife and kids but I got a good deal.

Haha! We must have our priorities!

loki
05-27-2008, 04:21 PM
There's a good article in the Wiki about the 3GB switch.

http://www.flightsim.com/fswiki/index.php/OOM_Error

FSX SP2 has the largeaddressaware flag set, and the original and SP1 versions can be manually updated. There are some other games that have this set as well, though not all. Most games still don't need the extra room, but this is changing.

It depends on whether you want/need to use Vista. While it is a little heavier on the memory, with 4GBs you would have plenty. If the PC has 1GB or less I would stick with XP. Probably the biggest issue would be making sure you have drivers for everything. For an older system you may need to go directly to the individual company sites (nVidia, ATi, Intel, Realtek etc.).

As for whether the P4 supports 64 bit extensions or not, you would need to find out which exact model it is and then check Intel's site. Some do, and some don't (the older ones).

http://www.intel.com/products/desktop/processors/pentium.htm?iid=processors_body+dt_pentium

myocardia
05-28-2008, 01:36 AM
Actually, no Skt 478 P4's are 64-bit, and no single-core LGA775 P4's do, either. Only the dual-core Pentium D's are 64-bit. Intel didn't have any 64-bit desktop processors until they released the P-D's: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1777753,00.asp

loki
05-28-2008, 01:59 AM
As that article mentions, the Pentium 5xx (some at least) and 6xx series have the 64 bit extensions and are single core.

http://www.intel.com/products/processor/pentium4/index.htm
http://www.intel.com/products/processor_number/chart/pentium4.htm

myocardia
05-28-2008, 03:41 AM
As that article mentions, the Pentium 5xx (some at least) and 6xx series have the 64 bit extensions and are single core.

Hah, I guess my memory's getting worse. I was sure that the first were the Pentium D's. Carry on, carry on.

angels355
05-28-2008, 04:22 AM
myocardia, loki,

That 3 gb switch is very interesting, I've had to do some patching of the boot.ini and sys.ini before, so I know of it, but these mods are semi-complicated, but I think I could do it. I've bookmarked it for future reference.

I checked both my 2.53 ghz celeron D and p4 2.8 ghz, both I think are socket 478's, and neither of them are 64 bit. I tried running 64 bit Ubuntu 7.04, and it told me that neither of these processors had long address capability, and to run a 32 bit version of Ubuntu.

As a side note, I've found that linux distros, especially more advanced versions, don't like slow optical drives to run the live disk and won't run, but a fast ide drive will.

A friend of mine told me he just built an e8400 system w/ 4 gb's of ddr3 ram, by the look in his eyes I could tell it turned out...OK....all right more than OK. He had used Vista for some time, so I was surprised when he told me that he chose xp. His co-worker built a similar e8400 system, and he chose xp also. The boss did also, chose xp. Some real hesitancy there.

I've been tempted by Vista, because of dx10, bluray, and the new way it has of managing ram, but of course i'm a little disappointed that I may not have a computer really worthy of Vista. Eventually I think I will however.

loki
05-28-2008, 08:50 AM
You don't need Vista to play Blu-ray discs. XP can play them using apps like PowerDVD. Of course you could also just get a PS3 for this too.

n4gix
05-28-2008, 12:36 PM
As was memtioned, the 32 it Vista has the same RAM limitations as the 32 bit XP systems do. If you have 4GB of RAM installed, you will only get ~3.2GB, or maybe even less to use. The rest will go unused because the system does not have enough virtual addresses to assign to it, and thus can't access it.

The video card's memory will be mapped to the "unseen" hardware memory, so that extra memory does have the potential of being used...

I'm not certain what you mean, since the VAS table is a fixed 4GB of addresses!

loki
05-28-2008, 12:58 PM
Yes, the system has 4GB of virtual address space, and some will be used for the video RAM. However, as some of those virtual addresses are used for the video RAM, the system cannot address some of the system RAM (if you have 4GB installed). So some of the 4GB of RAM won't be used unless you move to a 64 bit operating system (or use one of the 32 bit Windows server operating systems).

Edited to add:

If a system has only 2GB of RAM installed, the system will still be using some of the 4GB of virtual address space for the video memory. In this case, however, there are enough virtual addresses for both the system RAM and the video RAM. It's when you get to 3GB+ of RAM and video cards with 512MB+ of video RAM that the system has to choose between between giving virtual addresses to the video card or to the main memory.

angels355
05-28-2008, 02:44 PM
You don't need Vista to play Blu-ray discs. XP can play them using apps like PowerDVD. Of course you could also just get a PS3 for this too.

I thought that Blu-Ray the highest definition playback could only play on vista with DRM?? I've seen it playing on PS3. But MS made such a big deal about DRM and hi def playback on Vista, I thought for sure that vista was the only way to run it?? I thought that on non DRM systems with old timer (haha) xp you could only playback low definition versions of Blu-Ray?? This was a major big deal, I'm confused.

loki
05-28-2008, 03:32 PM
Vista includes support for the Blu-ray file system format, whereas with XP you need to get the drivers from somewhere (PowerDVD is one source). The link below details what you need to play Blu-ray discs on XP. Some of the information is a little outdated, like the comments regarding HDCP support in video cards. Almost all current generation video cards have support for HDCP, whereas most older ones don't. The same goes for monitors.

http://www.hardware.info/en-US/news/ym2cmJqVwpqa/The_word_is_out_BluRay_and_HDDVD_playback_will_be_possible_in_Windows_XP/

angels355
05-28-2008, 04:52 PM
Vista includes support for the Blu-ray file system format, whereas with XP you need to get the drivers from somewhere (PowerDVD is one source). The link below details what you need to play Blu-ray discs on XP. Some of the information is a little outdated, like the comments regarding HDCP support in video cards. Almost all current generation video cards have support for HDCP, whereas most older ones don't. The same goes for monitors.

http://www.hardware.info/en-US/news/ym2cmJqVwpqa/The_word_is_out_BluRay_and_HDDVD_playback_will_be_possible_in_Windows_XP/

Thanks very much loki, I sure appreciate your generosity with your time. I'm really astonished (edit: ) that blu-ray will play on xp!

Let me mention something, I've taken a highly informal survey, and people seem to VERY strongly hands down support xp. I think next month MS is going to stop selling it! Do you think MS will change their mind at all and continue selling it?

Wow, p4's seem ancient now.