Will DX10 require a 64bit OS?

You shouldent need a 64bit OS but with my 4X1Gig stick's of GSkill Ddr-500 ram I had to have 64BitXP_Pro the forgotten OS. 32Bit xp wont recognize anything over 3 or 4 gig of ram. I think it's actually anything over 6 sides on the ram.I have been running 64bitXP-Pro for a couple year's now and love it. You just have to turn on the memory hole in your bios and reset your ram to 333 or less as Im a Overclocker im set to 133/266 and am running 413Mhz membuss. At 2799Mhz on my 170_Opty. Crashes are probubly due to heat. I run intune monitor all the time.

@ Jaydeejohn- From my knowledge, this is a problem mainly with the way M$ wrote its codes. A 32 bit OS should be able to address far more than 4 gig of ram, but M$ carried over many parts of Windows 98 when it created XP and that resulted in a limitation of 3 gig of addressable ram. I've read that there are ways to increase the amount of ram that can be addressed, but it isn't easy.

When Vista 32 was created, the same limitation was left in place. To me, that made Vista 32 useless as an upgrade except for its ability to use DX10. But there comes the conundrum that you notice; as DX10 games come out, they will quickly require 4 gig or more of ram to run properly. Oh, they may run on 2 gig, but then they may require a lot of page filing to the hard disc to access vitual memory. That in turn will slow the game down. Same thing will happen as other applications start requiring more than 2 gig of ram. Seeing how Vista already imposes a drop in frame rates compared to XP, the additional slowdown may be intolerable.

I myself went to Vista 64 for the simple reason that I can now use 4 or more gig of ram. Crashed are a problem, but I think this will get less as updates to Vista are released and hardware in general gets more refined to working with Vista. Too many pieces of hardware are now simply patched in at present, or are not certified as Windows compliant but are used anyway. I think the switch to 64 bit bit computing with Vista is going to be a slow and painful process, much the same as the switch from Windows 3.1 to Windows 95 was, but that is only an opinion. We will find out a lot more about it during the next two years.

Sailer, I don't know if you are entirely right. It's not necessarily MS to blaim, as much as I imagine vendors that requested the features such as MMIO. If you can only address in 32 bit (edit here: I guess it is called PAE, it is four more bits of address space, but maybe requires a different mode? Anyway it is not used - so 4Gb is all you get in the 32 bit mode) and you want MMIO then there is no way you will have 4Gb available to applications...

In terms of the OP's question, I think the concern is way off base - DX10 does not require a 64bit OS, as I understand. The question may be if the games that really leverage DX10 would need more memory than the 2Gb limit discussed in Anand's article - who knows. Quite possibly. Only time will tell. But I would imagine the titles that come out in the near future will be careful to try to fit their needs into about 2 Gb as they are all too aware about the installed base and the reality is that most people will not rush out for major upgrades to play a game (before you say I would - I'm sure that's true. I'm talking about the majority)

I wasn't meaning to blame M$, as in meaning they conspired to do something bad, only to address what they did. As to the MMIO, that was a step up from the previous PIO. But I believe the limitation of 4gb was a written one, not a structural one. At least I have seen programing that gets around the 4gb limitations, though I don't know that actual process.

You are right, DX10 does not require a 64 bit OS and that is why you can find a Vista 32 bit OS with DX10. The DX10 is not the problem here, but whether or not games will start coming down the line that demand more memory that can only be easily addressed with a 64 bit OS. As you say, only time will tell. Then again, there was a time when games ran well on 256mb of ram in 32 bit XP. As time went on, they increased in complexity to the point that 2gb became the standard. Game meakers seem to see limits and then start stretching them. My choice for the 64 bit version of Vista was mainly because I didn't want to go through installing one OS and then having to buy and install another OS in a couple years. Call it laziness or being cheap, but I don't like to mess with changes any more than I have to.

I never heard of a 32bit problem with DX10.
Just never think of getting Vista 32 unless you want to spend again and upgrade again. Or you have a 32 bit PC that's running well and you want to put a little more life in it. (it runs well after buying 2 gig of RAM and installing updates, patches, drivers)
It's not " laziness or being cheap"

I got the 64bit ultimate because I remember the hassle/expense of Upgrading from XP Home to XP pro. (Dell wanted $170 for the UPGRADE!! ) I think I'm safe for a few years (fingers crossed)

There is obviously no actual limit on DX10 to be run under 64 bit Windows, but you do have a point in that games are needing more and more RAM. I recently upgrade my PC to 2GB RAM (Vista) and STALKER takes the total useage up to 1.3GB.

However, I think that 2GB RAM will be enough for the next year / couple of years - e.g. Crysis will need 2GB. Also, you can use 3GB RAM in 32 bit Windows so 64 bit Windows is not really needed yet.

@ enewmen The " 32 bit problem" with DX10 is not a problem with DX10 itself, only a continuation of the ram limitation that XP has. I also am doing the migration from XP to Vista in part because I don't want to reinvest in a passig technology. Its like my original XP machine, since the OS is the original with no service pac, to do a reinstall means that I have to use a small hard disc, as it is limited in the space that it can address. I could buy a new version and get XP Pro, but do I want to spend $150 on a dying tech? Ok, that's where I start feeling cheap and I don't really want to do it. I might end up doing it, but I don't like the idea.

@ ethel- I think you're right about games not needing more than 2 gig of ram for a year or two, and 3 gig can be used as well. Its just my opinion that if I'm going to spend a lot of money for something, I want to have it last as long as possible. Obviously, for those who don't have computers with 64 bit processors and they want DX10, then Vista 32 is their only option. I think that's the main reason M$ made Vista 32, so they could appeal to more people. Don't know for sure, only an opinion.

My point and question is, the address space being used by both the kernel and the games, games that will have more and more physics and textures and shaders etc ala DX10 will soon overtake any 32bit OS. Better yet Sup Com is here, so is Oblivion, Dark Messiah etc. And thats low physics, high texture only, with some good shader usage. Theyll be cranking it up for sure, and were already near the wall, some are hitting it. Not everyone uses video editing, but ALOT of people game. Itd be nice to run this by a few devs, see what they say about it

If I'm understanding your question correctly, will games using DX10 soon overtake 32 bit operating systems, then I think the answer is yes. At least within 2 years of so. And as I say this, I look at 2 of my computers and realize that in 2 years or so, they will be as out of date as a Windows 3.1 computer was by 1998. Time and technology rush on, and our favorite old machines get laid to waste. Or at least the get regulated to doing e-mails and simple word processing and such.

Your point is clear enough.

I didn't mean that, sorry if it came through that way. I just meant that, as a general rule, I think MS is quite OK at system design - although there are always questions if it can be done in a better way and what the design goals should be. A lot of lazy coding though, but that's besides the point. And yes, you can technically address in 36 bits, which buys you more, I don't quite know the technicality of what it implies on the low level.

I do generally agree with your points, though...