Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Vista Workshop: More RAM, More Speed

Last response: in Windows Vista
Share
February 15, 2008 10:47:45 AM

Can't find right words to express my displease with this article. Really don't know what author wanted to do with it.

Speak a little bit about more ram more speed, than about Vista, than turn around and speak about Cinderella, bad wolf , global warming . . . . and a little bit more about how to disable paging and it's enough let's conclude this with story of how (and can you) upgrade your vista.

Ahhh by the way trust me because i say so, it runs faster.

O my God this was bad article.
February 15, 2008 10:55:30 AM

Pardon me if this seems like a snarky question... But if there's a 'measurable' increase in performance, why didn't Tom's measure anything???? (except footprint)


Bone to pick: Page 1, Paragraph 4:

Quote:
Thanks to a technique called memory remapping, it is possible to move around parts of the system memory in such a way that the full 4 GB is still available for use. The trouble is that this feature had to be deactivated in Windows Vista due to compatibility issues.



The above statement is incorrect. This is a 32 bit Windows issue, and affects ALL consumer versions of the OS. Not just Vista 32. PAE mode was/is enabled only for security reasons (DEP) in XP SP2, and not as a means to use more RAM. The reason why remains the same: Using PAE extensions requires drivers that are 64 bit address~aware. If not, any time a driver or app attempts a Direct Memory Access call to an address which the OS mapped elsewhere under PAE, errors get thrown, screens turn blue, and people send (even more) hate mail to Microsoft. And if it's the case that drivers and apps have to be 64 bit address aware, then you may as well just go to a 64 bit OS in the first place...



Thanks for the command to deactivate Hibernation, though. (powercfg -H off) - the Author is right on this one: With 4GB of RAM, I've found it faster just to start Windows normally.
Related resources
February 15, 2008 11:36:29 AM

The thing that ticks me off, is that there is no "reasonable cost" alternative to those people that built systems with OEM copies of Vista 32. We've got to buy a full retail copy with another license in order to get Vista 64, bulls**t. I'll wait until Windows 7 or maybe find another OS.

Tom
February 15, 2008 11:59:11 AM

ExTechie:
That's not true unless it's Vista basic. Otherwise just install the 64bit media and your key will work for 32bit and 64bit versions. To get the media download an Ultimate DVD which has both versions. During the install select your flavor and use your key.
February 15, 2008 12:10:48 PM

muk said:
Combine 64-bit Microsoft Vista and 8 GB of RAM ($198) and you'll see a measurable improvement in performance.


That's all fine and dandy, but in what way exactly does performance increase? And most importantly, compared to what? To 2GB of RAM or less? Well duh.

I'd like to see some actual tests comparing performance (in regular day-to-day, in gaming and in heavy video-editing situations) on 2GB, 4GB and 8GB of RAM. Especially 4GB vs 8GB. I have yet to find a convincing argument to choose 8GB over 4GB and this article doesn't provide any, other than "because it's cool" and "because it's not expensive". That obviously won't do.

So, anyone have any real experience with 8GB vs 4GB?
February 15, 2008 12:30:12 PM

This article sucks. You go as far to mention a test setup, but show no test results.
February 15, 2008 12:34:03 PM

This article does seem like it was not finished. We would all like to see more data on the actual results.

Furthermore, I'd like to see what the differences are between XP 64 and Vista 64.

February 15, 2008 1:53:49 PM

Yea. After test setup I fully expected to see a page full of tests!!

WTF???
February 15, 2008 2:01:38 PM

bydesign said:
ExTechie:
That's not true unless it's Vista basic. Otherwise just install the 64bit media and your key will work for 32bit and 64bit versions. To get the media download an Ultimate DVD which has both versions. During the install select your flavor and use your key.


This actually works?

If it does work then surely you must have purchased Ultimate to begin with right? Else your key will not activate Ultimate?

If you have an OEM of any version the key would not work with anything DL from MS either? Right? Since you are buying retail from MS, not OEM, unless you are a dealer?

Not arguing here - just asking.
February 15, 2008 2:02:28 PM

Notherdude...did you try this? Will this free up 8 gigs of space on my hard drive? Sorry for any confusion. I have never been able to account for approximately 8 gigs of space on my 150 raptor system drive? Did you gain 4 gigs of space on your machine by disabling hibernation files?

powercfg -H off

Similarly, the command

powercfg -H on
February 15, 2008 2:05:11 PM

Toms you are getting worse by the day, one of these days you will not see my feet at this site any more!

Where are the Windows load times?

Game load times?

Game benchmarks?

Opening multiple applications?

Speed differences between 32Bit and 64Bit?

I hope this was a mistake on the posting of the article, because this cant be a full article at all!

I expect more!
February 15, 2008 2:09:58 PM

badge said:
Notherdude...did you try this? Will this free up 8 gigs of space on my hard drive? Sorry for any confusion. I have never been able to account for approximately 8 gigs of space on my 150 raptor system drive? Did you gain 4 gigs of space on your machine by disabling hibernation files?

powercfg -H off

Similarly, the command

powercfg -H on


Badge that was Scotteq above who tried this, not me. I have not tried it myself. I hibernate every night. I don't care how long it takes to shutdown that way as I just walk away while it's shutting down. As for startup, my system starts up MUCH faster after hibernate than it does from a reboot. About 40 seconds to desktop which is already fully loaded with sidebar and everything else that was previously loaded.

I have 6 gig RAM (though I am moving to 8 as soon as my new RAM comes in) and I really don't care about losing 6 gig HD space, or even 8. I have massive extra HD space though. Several TB over various drives.

Though I can see that with a Raptor this might well be good thing for you.
February 15, 2008 2:11:52 PM

Scotteq, did implementing the run command turning hibernation files off free up space on your hard drive? My system already boots to windows fast, but I'm missing approximately 8 gigs of hard drive space I have never been abole to find. I've searched for it many times without finding where it possibly is until today.
February 15, 2008 2:12:15 PM

nictron said:
Toms you are getting worse by the day, one of these days you will not see my feet at this site any more!

Where are the Windows load times?

Game load times?

Game benchmarks?

Opening multiple applications?

Speed differences between 32Bit and 64Bit?

I hope this was a mistake on the posting of the article, because this cant be a full article at all!

I expect more!


Amen, how about some real life data?

Where is the rest of the article?

I have 64 bit Vista with 4 gigs ram and would go to 8 if i had some actual data that supported this would be to my benefit...

Oh and I love how a ton of people say the article sucks and we get no reply from Toms guys... Guess they dont look at their forums?

I met a couple of these guys a few years back at Million Man Lan and they seemed very full of themselves, guess they felt they were "l337" hardware reveiwers that Pwned us miserable users...
February 15, 2008 2:19:09 PM

Why would anyone want to shell out almost 600 bucks on Windows "Ultimate"?

If you want to take real advantage of 8 gigs of memory do the following:

1. Install Ubuntu 64 bit edition. Then install Wine and run your Windows applications that way. You can keep Vista on there if you'd like, and dual boot the system.

2. Buy a Mac. Leopard fully supports 64 bit software applications, and has a much better 32 bit emulation built into it.

It's good to see Microsoft finally coming to the 64 bit bandwagon, it's sure taken them long enough. However with the driver issues alone, that makes that 300 - 500 dollars you're shelling out for an OS that may or may not run your programs very expensive.
February 15, 2008 2:23:33 PM

badge said:
Scotteq, did implementing the run command turning hibernation files off free up space on your hard drive? My system already boots to windows fast, but I'm missing approximately 8 gigs of hard drive space I have never been abole to find. I've searched for it many times without finding where it possibly is until today.



Badge - Not yet... But I'm gonna. I merely pointed out that my system is fast enough that it boots from cold faster than from Hibernate. I don't need the room (1TB HDD), but I'll run the command anyhow to see... In your case, I would definitely run it since you're much more strapped for the space.

Scott :) 
February 15, 2008 2:33:39 PM

Gee, most users will have to replace their motherboards and RAM just to experience 64-bit Vista nirvana? SHeesh. XP Pro seem to deliver great performance just fine already. Oh it's all about the Dirtect X 10 gaming for the hassle? Please.
February 15, 2008 2:34:43 PM

crom said:
Why would anyone want to shell out almost 600 bucks on Windows "Ultimate"?

If you want to take real advantage of 8 gigs of memory do the following:

1. Install Ubuntu 64 bit edition. Then install Wine and run your Windows applications that way. You can keep Vista on there if you'd like, and dual boot the system.

2. Buy a Mac. Leopard fully supports 64 bit software applications, and has a much better 32 bit emulation built into it.

It's good to see Microsoft finally coming to the 64 bit bandwagon, it's sure taken them long enough. However with the driver issues alone, that makes that 300 - 500 dollars you're shelling out for an OS that may or may not run your programs very expensive.


You don't need to buy Ultimate to do this. ANY retail version will do. XP 64 has been around for years so MS is not just getting to the 64 bit bandwagon.

And an upgrade ver of Ultimate is $259 from MS, $195 Amazon. $159 for home premium 64.

Linux FUD. LOL
February 15, 2008 2:34:49 PM

Lat time I turned my system off was 60 hours ago.
February 15, 2008 2:34:53 PM

By a Mac Crom? What we all need to experience "Myst: The Next Generation?" ;) 
February 15, 2008 2:39:23 PM

My system runs so great, I hate to start shutting windows functions down. Anyway, I have almost reformatted the hard drive and reloaded my OS because of that hard drive space I couldn't seem to account for. I haven't formatted Vista so many times and I remember during this install when formatting 8 gigs or (8 mbs?) was saved from the previous Vista 32 installation. I have been tempted to reformat so many times and didn't. Now I know where 8 gigs of HD are at, I think.
February 15, 2008 2:40:26 PM

Mach5Motorsport said:
Gee, most users will have to replace their motherboards and RAM just to experience 64-bit Vista nirvana? SHeesh. XP Pro seem to deliver great performance just fine already. Oh it's all about the Dirtect X 10 gaming for the hassle? Please.


Nobody is twisting your arm to upgrade. But when you do you will have this option. 64 is no nirvana. What you got is fine and dandy. It's just another option. Sheesh
February 15, 2008 2:42:51 PM

Mach5Motorsport said:
By a Mac Crom? What we all need to experience "Myst: The Next Generation?" ;) 


Well I've got Parallels running UT3, Crysis, Bioshock, Orange Box, etc on my dual quad Xeon MacPro with an 8800gtx video card and 8 gigs of RAM. Runs like glass. I don't even have to leave the OS environment. I've also got the Adobe CS3 apps running on a core2Quad 4 gigs of RAM through wine in Ubuntu 64 bit. It also runs great. I just don't see the point in paying for software that doesn't work, like Windows Vista.
February 15, 2008 2:43:56 PM

badge said:
Lat time I turned my system off was 60 hours ago.


Right. I'd never turn mine off either except that I sleep in the same room with it and can't stand the sound.
February 15, 2008 2:53:01 PM

Scotteq said:
Badge - Not yet... But I'm gonna. I merely pointed out that my system is fast enough that it boots from cold faster than from Hibernate. I don't need the room (1TB HDD), but I'll run the command anyhow to see... In your case, I would definitely run it since you're much more strapped for the space.

Scott :) 



I used to use hibernate when I was dual booting Vista32/XP. Really, I don't know why I stopped when I loaded up Vista 64...heard there were hibernation problems I guess. I didn't have any problems with Vista32. Also, heard upcoming SP 1 will deal with hibernation issues. Also read on an earlier Forumz post addressing upcoming SP1, memory issues like an overhaul of Superfetch are in the package also, I believe? That should be interesting. Anyway, I guess I should think about usng hibernation more. Would using hibernation save a lot power/money considering I don't shut down but a couple times a week unless I have to?

February 15, 2008 2:58:20 PM

I am, as many others, very disgusted by this article.
64-bit Linux has been around for what, like six years, and you decide to give Vista64 free advertising for 16 pages, without a single mention of more advanced operating systems.

Anyone remember the pribe laptops M$ sent to bloggers?
February 15, 2008 2:58:20 PM

crom said:
Well I've got Parallels running UT3, Crysis, Bioshock, Orange Box, etc on my dual quad Xeon MacPro with an 8800gtx video card and 8 gigs of RAM. Runs like glass. I don't even have to leave the OS environment. I've also got the Adobe CS3 apps running on a core2Quad 4 gigs of RAM through wine in Ubuntu 64 bit. It also runs great. I just don't see the point in paying for software that doesn't work, like Windows Vista.



So if I buy a massively overpriced Mac I could build myself (and OC!!) for FAR less I can run my Windows games inside an emulator. Great.
February 15, 2008 3:00:12 PM

12 pages, sorry. And my current uptime:
up 17 days, 22:34
February 15, 2008 3:02:27 PM

I paid $179 for VISTA Ultimate 64. Moving up to a 64 bit OS was something I had wanted to do for years. As far as my personal computer goes, I would never go back to 32 bit, especially XP. I use XP in our office machines everyday.
February 15, 2008 3:08:25 PM

curaga said:
I am, as many others, very disgusted by this article.
64-bit Linux has been around for what, like six years, and you decide to give Vista64 free advertising for 16 pages, without a single mention of more advanced operating systems.

Anyone remember the pribe laptops M$ sent to bloggers?


So you want equal billing for an OS about 1% or less are using? Linux is very 'advanced' as a pure geeks OS but for the average user it is actually quite antiquated. There is a reason MS dominates and it's not just marketing and muscle - it's an OS which is easy for the average Joe to use and THAT takes a LOT of effort. If all you want to do is boot Ubuntu and use the built in apps it's great, but woe to the average user who wants to start installing other stuff. Keep your vain leetism to yourself. We don't care.
February 15, 2008 3:16:24 PM

badge said:
I used to use hibernate when I was dual booting Vista32/XP. Really, I don't know why I stopped when I loaded up Vista 64...heard there were hibernation problems I guess. I didn't have any problems with Vista32. Also, heard upcoming SP 1 will deal with hibernation issues. Also read on an earlier Forumz post addressing upcoming SP1, memory issues like an overhaul of Superfetch are in the package also, I believe? That should be interesting. Anyway, I guess I should think about usng hibernation more. Would using hibernation save a lot power/money considering I don't shut down but a couple times a week unless I have to?

http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/6248/60haursgf4.jpg




Badge,

I have SP1 installed (Secret Handshake 4TW) - What I've noticed so far is that it boots to the password screen faster than it did before. The rest of the startup routine seems to take the same amount of time. I haven't noticed anything specific about Superfetch, except that SP1 "reset" what it loads into memory back to the defaults - temporarily undoing what it learned about my habits until it can learn them again. As I play with it, I'l post back anything else I notice.

Hibernate should save some power, and would certainly save some wear and tear on your HDD's since they would be shut down and therefore not spinning.
February 15, 2008 3:17:15 PM

notherdude said:
So if I buy a massively overpriced Mac I could build myself (and OC!!) for FAR less I can run my Windows games inside an emulator. Great.


I like using operating systems that don't spy on me, and aren't prone to infections from most viruses. I only use Windows to game. Even then, I've tuned my build to be optimized for that purpose, cutting out the rest of the Windows bloat.

Maybe you can't write off machine purchases during tax time, my condolences to you.
February 15, 2008 3:24:48 PM

notherdude said:
...

And an upgrade ver of Ultimate is $259 from MS. $159 for home premium 64.

Linux FUD. LOL


Yes, the article failed to point out that 'Upgrade' versions of Vista are considered retail, and therefore they also apply for the Microsoft 64-bit alternate media deal (at approx. half the price of full retail). IMHO, that's the way to go. I purchased Vista Premium Upgrade 32-bit at Costco for $140 then paid Microsoft $10 for a 64-bit version for a total of $150.
February 15, 2008 3:36:01 PM

Scotteq said:
Badge,

I have SP1 installed (Secret Handshake 4TW) - What I've noticed so far is that it boots to the password screen faster than it did before. The rest of the startup routine seems to take the same amount of time. I haven't noticed anything specific about Superfetch, except that SP1 "reset" what it loads into memory back to the defaults - temporarily undoing what it learned about my habits until it can learn them again. As I play with it, I'l post back anything else I notice.

Hibernate should save some power, and would certainly save some wear and tear on your HDD's since they would be shut down and therefore not spinning.


I didn't try the BETA SP1 because I didn't want to install, then uninstall when the final product came out. I see you got past that dillema :)  I am going to try hibernating the system tonight.
February 15, 2008 3:39:53 PM

Hello, Toms? Anybody home? Your article is just hanging out there and it needs fixing. Hello?
February 15, 2008 3:55:42 PM

Empiricism? No thanks! I like Toms new approach.


Honestly, I'm excited about the article they will publish in the News section on how this article was sub-par.

Possibly similar to the ones highlighting problems with Apple screens.


Get 'em Toms!
February 15, 2008 3:56:52 PM

For those of you out there who are likely to change motherboards, consider buying an upgrade version of vista instead of the oem version. It is $145 vs. $110. When I went to 64 bit, I ordered the $10 64 bit cd to upgrade. I found out that you can't upgrade to 64 bit from a 32 bit os. The solution is simple, install the 64 bit cd, but DON'T enter the product key. You now have a 64 bit vista from which you can do the upgrade. From this, I come to the conclusion that Microsoft only produces two different cd's, a 32 bit version, and a 64 bit version. Each is capable of installing any version(basic, premium, business, ultimate). The only difference is the product activation key which identifies which version, and whether it is retail, upgrade, or oem. It is really the product key which you are buying.

I upgraded to 8gb, primarily because it was cheap, and I had notions of using part of the added memory for a ramdisk. I may yet do so. I have had no problems. My perception is that it is a bit faster, and less susceptible to interference from competing tasks. I do not do lots of multitasking, so I am a bad candidate to get much benefit. If you regularly run a number of concurrent jobs, then 8gb is the way to go.
February 15, 2008 4:12:56 PM

crom said:
Why would anyone want to shell out almost 600 bucks on Windows "Ultimate"?

If you want to take real advantage of 8 gigs of memory do the following:

1. Install Ubuntu 64 bit edition. Then install Wine sucks and run very few of your Windows applications that way. You can keep Vista on there if you'd like, and dual boot the system.

2. Buy a Mac. Leopard fully supports 64 bit software applications, and has a much better 32 bit emulation built into it.

It's good to see Microsoft finally coming to the 64 bit bandwagon, it's sure taken them long enough. However with the driver issues alone, that makes that 300 - 500 dollars you're shelling out for an OS that may or may not run your programs very expensive.


Ubuntu= No Call of Duty 4, UT3, NFS ProStreet, or any other (no ID) current popular game... Uh No thanks.
Mac= Stupid pricing, pay 2 Grand for a $900 pc. Then to play my games I have to load a legit copy of MICROSOFT WINDOWS. Hmm again no THANKS.
$600 For Vista Ultimate??? http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... VISTA ULTIMATE 64 BIT for $189 Full Version not an upgrade With FREE SHIPPING hmm you are off by $411.00. OH WAIT YOU MUST HAVE MEANT BUY THREE COPIES!!! LOL!!!

PS You can even get the retail Vista Ultimate which has 32 & 64 bit http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... for only $319....

id10t keep your FUD to yourself.
February 15, 2008 5:09:33 PM

Haha, the airpoo...the double tap will come in handy.
February 15, 2008 5:15:26 PM

Vista64/8GB ram is still poor with games, tried it, don't use it.
I have a centos64bit machine with vmware server and get full use of my system/memory. Thanks anyways.
February 15, 2008 5:33:58 PM

krisia2006 said:
Vista64/8GB ram is still poor with games, tried it, don't use it.
I have a centos64bit machine with vmware server and get full use of my system/memory. Thanks anyways.


Bad in what way? Sorry but these anti-vista posts are always so damn vague. My games are smotth as butta on Vista 64 - no complaints. Same with many of us here and elsewhere. You try recently, or right after Vista shipped, because Vista today is nothing like when it shipped.
February 15, 2008 5:37:51 PM

krisia2006 said:
Vista64/8GB ram is still poor with games, tried it, don't use it.
I have a centos64bit machine with vmware server and get full use of my system/memory. Thanks anyways.


hmm I play COD4 for example at 1680x1050 on my 22 Inch LCD with everything MAXED and it runs great(avg 70FPS). I can minimize and maximize with no issues and I run several stuff in the background...I am guessing you machine sucks, for gaming anyway... sorry


For those with Gaming PC's, Vista 64 Bit runs great... Just trying to prevent more FUD...

:) 
February 15, 2008 5:42:45 PM

NOTE I actually list the basic settings, WHAT GAME, how many FPS.. That is called INFORMATION, this helps everyone understand better what you are experiencing...

Oh and Vista 32 bit is on my laptop (listed in sig there i go providing INFORMATION again!!!) plays COD4 all settings maxed at 1440x900 NO PROBLEMS... SMMMOOOOOOOTTTTTTHHHHHH

I jsut love posts like, tried vista it sucks i use xyz super duper os it uses ALL my memory... Wow so helpful.. Funny how Vista 32 and 64 bit are working great for me on my laptop and my desktop... HMMMMM
February 15, 2008 5:43:42 PM

I have a few of the original XP disks (no SP1 or SP2). I get a good performance boost over Windows 98, especially using high speed internet. It's the added 2000 patches over the ensuing six years I depend on for 'extreme' performance a lot of XP users experience. Actually, I consider my current XP installations 'one enormous-assed patch' providing me with kind-a-fun partial maximum use of my system hardware.
February 15, 2008 5:50:31 PM

Badge i really hope the missing ~8gb of space on your 150gb raptor is not just because you don't realize that hard drive manufacturers quote hard drive space in a special way where 150gb = 150,000,000,000 bytes which does not equal 150gb in the real world it actually is something like 140 gb.

As the western digitals site disclaimer reads "One gigabyte (GB) = one billion bytes. One terabyte (TB) = one trillion bytes. Total accessible capacity varies depending on operating environment."

In regards to the person who said to buy a mac for 8gb support, I guess hes never seen the price of ram for mac's cause right now to get a mac pro with 4gb instead of 2gb is a 500 dollar upgrade and for 8gb instead of 2gb is a 1500 dollar upgrade. So yes if you wanted a mac that had and supported 8gb you could pay 1500 dollars and get it, or get 8gb in the real world for 200 dollars and buy vista ultimate for 150-300 as people mentioned above.

I also agree this is the one of the worst articles ever, really shows the quality at tom's.
February 15, 2008 5:53:47 PM

Quote:
Badge i really hope the missing ~8gb of space on your 150gb raptor is not just because you don't realize that hard drive manufacturers quote hard drive space in a special way where 150gb = 150,000,000,000 bytes which does not equal 150gb in the real world it actually is something like 140 gb.


No.
February 15, 2008 5:56:51 PM

cashkennedy said:
Badge i really hope the missing ~8gb of space on your 150gb raptor is not just because you don't realize that hard drive manufacturers quote hard drive space in a special way where 150gb = 150,000,000,000 bytes which does not equal 150gb in the real world it actually is something like 140 gb.

As the western digitals site disclaimer reads "One gigabyte (GB) = one billion bytes. One terabyte (TB) = one trillion bytes. Total accessible capacity varies depending on operating environment."

In regards to the person who said to buy a mac for 8gb support, I guess hes never seen the price of ram for mac's cause right now to get a mac pro with 4gb instead of 2gb is a 500 dollar upgrade and for 8gb instead of 2gb is a 1500 dollar upgrade. So yes if you wanted a mac that had and supported 8gb you could pay 1500 dollars and get it, or get 8gb in the real world for 200 dollars and buy vista ultimate for 150-300 as people mentioned above.

I also agree this is the one of the worst articles ever, really shows the quality at tom's.


Quote:
Deactivating Hibernation

If you have a large amount of system memory installed, it is definitely worth your while to take a closer look at Windows' Hibernate feature. The hiberfil.sys file, to which the entire content of the system memory is copied when hibernation is activated, is always just as large as the physical memory. In other words, if your system is equipped with 8 GB of RAM, you're wasting the same amount on your hard drive if you never use this feature.


http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/02/15/vista_workshop/p...
!