Vista - 32 vs 64 bit gaming Increase my fps?

Yes you are correct. To explain il take the numbers from your second Task Manager screenshot:

Ram installed: 8190mb
Ram in use: 1548mb

If you were then to take out 6 gigs of ram so you only had 2 gigs installed on your pc, your performance tab would look like this:

Ram installed: 2048mb
Ram in use: 1548mb

The cache value and the free value will change as youve reduced the amount of ram available. These figures are nothing to worry about and you should just leave vista to do its thing.

If more ram is needed as Free vista will empty the Cached of the amount needed.

thats the thing! it doesnt run faster!
hell just look at crysis:

min for xp is a 2.8 p4 and a gig

min for vista is a 3.2 p4 with a gig and a half


and yes i know that its simply caching the os and if the memory is needed it will become free but on a same spec system xp will run faster for almost anything.

microsoft software is crap, it takes a few years for them to work out the kinks. if mainstream games were supported on linux i'd be all linux.

just look at windows media player (10 or 11), it uses 5-12% of my 7750 to simply play music, it doesnt matter what type: wav, mp3, or wma. im very curious what its doing, if its trying to keep me from playing illegal music it sucks at life. (i just tested it, im against stealing music)
i've moved to foobar2000:
0% cpu and it sounds 10 times better; if you watch the scope on media player it actually shows that its clipping, i didnt notice it until i compared it.

office 2007 has a process (cant remember the name now) that is for "alternative user input," something that probably less than 1% of people use. well microsoft thought it would be just genius if they made this process take up 3-6 megs of memory ALL the time for EVERYBODY sure you could just uninstall that feature but would it have been that hard for them to make its only run if its needed? I wonder what vista could do with 5 megs of ram if it only has 1 or 2 gigs? considering thats really what most people have.

and then there's svchost.exe, haha just kidding, lol



i have dial up because unfortunately i cant get dsl where i live. well, vista just loves to remind me to connect to the internet no matter what im doing, watching a movie, playing a FULLSCREEN game. it doesnt care, it wants to go tell microsoft what ive been doing for all i know. and yes i know i can tell it to "never dial a connection" and just connect manually but i shouldn't have to .


hopefully windows 7 will be better, probably not, but we can always hope


btw- ms cant count
lets see theres windows... 1.0 ,1.1 ,2.0, 2.1, 3.0, 3.1, NT, 95, 98, ME, 2000, XP, vista

more like windows 11....




i wonder if bill gates uses vista... probably uses a mac.... lol

svchost is entirely dependent on what services you have running, so I'm not sure if you're playing off people's lack of knowledge or generally don't know. I'll assume the former. Have you tried Windows 7 yet? Have you not heard the rave reviews of those running the RC?

Also just because I use Linux as my primary OS (OpenSUSE), I have to defend the Linux game front. The Orange Box runs on Wine, and as far as I'm concerned TF2 is the only game I really care about on windows. There are linux versions of all the emulated consoles, and I'm sure there are other games that could run through wine.

Most XP users use 32bit whereas alot of people use vista 64bit. On XP 32bit the amount of ram is an issue whereas on vista 64bit its not, so you can just install what RAM you want.

On the previous page i showed im running Vista 64bit and its using less than 1 gig of RAM. Thats hardly a resource hog as who nowadays doesnt have 1 gig of RAM?

I run XP 32bit and Vista 64bit and i prefer Vista. It looks nicer, its more stable, its more secure, i can run 64bit apps etc. The problem with Vista is people installing it on pc's that are just plain rubbish, with generic ram and locked bios motherboards etc (HP, Dell anyone lol).

dude notice the "haha just kidding" following the svchost.....

yes i have heard of rc, im still skeptical... i will defiantly try it though.

defend? i was not attacking... i want all games to be compatible not just tf2 and hf2
personally i dont like fps's on PC, COD4 is way smoother on 360 even with a 3g quad core and a 4870X2,

Fair enough I can't count how many times I've facepalmed when someone comes to me asking why their current session turns to **** after forcing svchost to end. I'm hoping RC is worth all the hype, but my download speed would probably be better with dialup, and I'm only 33% done as of now. I'd suggest googling the current state of compatibility between the games you enjoy and linux. You'd be surprised how far people are coming.

i have x64 xp

3gig of ram on xp is more than enough

in my experiance vista is far far away from secure. i dont think xp x64 has crashed once since i installed it (4 months ago), not even a program not responding.

i dont care if it looks nicer


it shouldnt take 6 gigs of ddr3 memory and a quad core cpu to run vista and have it not crash.

im tempted to install vista 64 on my system and see how crappy it is compared to xp 64

it seems that the only people who like vista are people with 6 gigs and an overclocked i7 975.

which is why i havent even started downloading it, dial up....

lol look at my system specs. I built my pc over 2 years ago. If technology doesnt advance and require more ram, faster cpu's, HDD's etc we might as well go back to pentium 4's and install windows 98 for pure speed.

People seem to forget that XP had people saying the same things that are being said about Vista. Lots of people where complaining SP2 for XP was bloated and slowed down there pc's and so they were going to avoid it. But eventually SP2 became the norm as faster hardware became available.

I have Vista on a quad core with 2 gigs, a bare bones Inspiron 1500 with 1 gig, and my Sager notebook with 4 gigs and all run fine for what the computers were purchased/built for. I'm not sure if people are attempting to run 10 instances of folding@home with dual monitors jerryrigged to onboard video and crysis running at max settings, but the OS itself seems perfectly able to function on all three computers (the inspiron less then either other installs, but my wife uses Firefox and Word so I hardly lose sleep over it). Both my tower and laptop run two displays the primary being 1680 X 1050 and the secondary 1920 X 1080 with glass on and no slowdown, and neither has top of the line anything. On the other hand the Dell D800 and D810s I have back in NY at work that have Vista Enterprise make me want to gouge my eyes out with sporks, so I'll admit that Vista isn't as ideal as the fanboys would like us to believe, but by no means is vista a bad OS if you have a "decent" computer.