I have found one this week...sturggle for ages to make Tiger Woods 2008 work (it says compatible with windows Vista). After back and forth communication with EA Customer Support, I have now been told the following:
Thanks for getting back to us. However, after reading again the threads, I just realized that you are using a Vista 64bit Ultimate. Unfortunately, the game only supports the 32bit version of your operating system so it is not guaranteed that the game will run properly on your system.
Should you choose to upgrade your system, kindly contact your system manufacturer or local computer vendor on how to do this.
But if you do not wish to upgrade your video card for any personal reasons and would like to return the game, please follow the warranty information which can be found on the second to the last page of the instruction manual. Please accept our sincerest apologies for any inconvenience caused.
Only one game so far... that's not so bad.
I might just go ahead and get Vista 64bit and assume that I'll have at least playable frame rates and FOREMOST "playability" period, with most games. Especially with any games released after the new service pack for Vista. I wonder how fast the desktop will operate with my X1950PRO 512mb. vs. the Windows XP PRO 32bit version. OR Does it weigh heavier on amount of sys. memory than on video card specs?
I have been soooo unsure of getting this new Vista 64bit OS.
I keep hearing that the new service pack for Win XP will support DX10, and if so I wouldn't have to even think about getting Vista 64bit... (hoping DX10 games will not REQUIRE Vista after the DX 10 version of WinXP comes out).
So far, I've used every variant of windows in this sense.
Right now, I'm using mainly XP x64 on my laptop, so I can use the full 4 gigs of ram while I'm working in photoshop and building for nwn2.
With the laptop video from that card, (7600Go) I got terrible frames with every single game in Vista x64. But I finally came to the assumption that it was driver problems.
I recently built a machine with an AMD+6000 and an 8600GTS in vista x64, and considering the power of that card (Not much), it's performance really blew my mind. And DX eye candy is very nice.
But technically, any x64 bit version is going to take up more system memory space than x86 versions, just because it has to store all of the x64bit extentions.
And on average, idle ram usage for vista for me was about 550mb. Average for XP was about 190. But also consider that I run XP heavily tweaked, and Vista with a sidebar full of gadgets and not tweaked at all.
If you push it, you might be able to get Vista down in the 390mb mark, and a normal average (Not mine) for xp is around 300.
Very helpful thank you. So do you think that in the future the drivers will get better and make it all perform well?
Sounds like I need a DX10 card to run Vista 64bit. w/o any problems or sys. bottle-necking, for compatibility purposes. Unless the new SP1 makes it perform better. I wonder if I can run 4gig. RAM in dual channel 2x2gig? If such a thing exists for DDR3200, socket 939.
I use Photoshop CS-2 and like to do other things at the same time, like 3D modeling/design using ArchiCad 10, watch the Simpson's, etc.(dual mon.setup). Do you think the 4gig. of mem. would be more effective than 2 CPU cores? I print in Lg. format 42" photo printer.(big files) I spend too much time waiting for the rendering. I have been thinking more RAM, or Dual Core?