MS Admits windows is bloated, using 25MB core for next version of windows.

Well, 64 bit supports more memory address space and is also faster with some calculations.

However, it also cuts your cache size in half (effectively), and most all the programs these days are still written for 32 bit so you don't see a lot of the potential benefits of a 64-bit processor yet.

Also the drivers for 64-bit operating systems are less developed than 32 bit versions. Most major stuff like graphics card and motherboard drivers are no problem. Finding a 64-bit driver for your printer might be a different story.

Basically, on higher end hardware and more demanding apps, 64 bit looks better and better, and it will eventually scale to the point where 32 bit is all gone on the desktop. However, at the moment, all of the "basic" stuff we do on our computers is already designed and optimized for 32 bit systems, and the extra 32 bits you gain from the transition doesn't really do anything besides take up extra space in your cache.

I think it's fascinating that one has to spend a lot of money to support their operating system, instead of having an operating system that works on essential hardware. It's like needing a car to drive back and forth to work, and buying a Lamborghini just so you can put exclusive, tailor made cloth seat covers in it. Sure they're pretty and they go nicely with the Lamborghini, but the guy driving the Toyota Camry is still laughing his butt off on the way to work. Sure, you can go faster, but he's still porking your wife while you dick around with your ridiculously expensive car.

J.

That's just the thing though - you don't. Even for Vista, you can buy or build something for about $400 that'll run it smooth as silk. That ain't an expensive machine.

A better analogy might perhaps be Macs, where you buy some pretty expensive hardware and get an OS along with it that, really, is pretty good. However, to extend your Lamborghini analogy, if my wife's fucking around on me, let's just say that I'll have no compunctions using said Lamborghini to go picking up women .

On the 2GB "limit" limit for XP or any 32bit operating system, it's how the OS carves up memory. Below the 2GB threshold is "private". Above this is "shared". It can use all 4GB. This can be reconfigured for more private storage (3:1) but unless you're running a server this isn't recommended.

Anecdotal evidence seems to indicate more than 2GB is wasted on XP with typical processors. Unless you're running quad core multi-CPUs it's a bit like trying to push around the queen mary with an evinrude.

I don't find it worthwhile to spend an extra $20 to go from 1GB to 2GB (much less 4GB) total ram on any machine I use (all are on XP). Vista seems to cache more programs for fast access so 2GB is recommended.

5 years from now 64bit multi core, multi cpu systems may be standard and 4GB will look like 640K did 20 years ago.

Reminds me of a prof I had in 1986 when PCs suddenly broke past the 640K barrier. He got all mystical and pronounced the era of AIs was upon us. It was actually the dawning of the GUI.

I am getting a new box in a month or so, and thats what it is.

http://http://www.jr.com/JRProductP...e=become.datafeed.HP M9180F#productTabDetails

I know it has more horsepower than most the servers people host on but I get a new box about every 5 years so I go all out. I do have a need for a box like this. A mac pro just cost too much money or thats what I would be getting.

At work, even the fairly new boxes with Core 2 Duo E6600 procs and 2GB of RAM (running XP even) really could stand to be faster/have more RAM.

Just so happens these are the same specs on my PC at home (on Vista), and it proves to be loads of speed/memory for my personal use.

The requirements all depend on your application.

I have Vista Home Premium on my laptop, and I'm pretty happy with it. My desktop has 6GB of RAM in it, so for now I have to run XP-64 bit until I get a copy of Vista 64-bit, haven't decided on whether or not I'm going to get Home Premium or Ultimate for it.

Apparently, MS was warned about Vista problems.

I'm gonna save this thread so that in two years we can point and laugh at the folks who say "Screw this new POS OS. Good ol' reliable Vista."

Entirely possible. But it's not crazy to wait for a few years to get the bugs worked out. I didn't upgrade to XP until late 2004. Of course, it was Win2k, not 98, that I was sticking with.

Why not? $20 is cheap to extend the useful life of a PC.

$20 with no appreciable benefit is $20 too much?

Sure it's cheap (I spent hundreds on a few megabytes 15 years ago), but I haven't seen the need for it.

512MB is adequate. 1GB should be enough for the life of any machine bought today, used for office applications and surfing the web.

Granted I'm not into PC games, graphics rendering or video editing. That said I'd try to buy a machine that has 2 available slots for more memory should needs change.

That's definitely a big factor. Games can suck up a huge amount of RAM (there are a few I play that are in the 500MB range). Even some web browsers are getting a bit on the bloated side.

Given how often I see people upgrading system memory and how memory demands are alway trending up $20 seems like a steal.

From what I've heard Vista is a creaky sack of shit.

Also it's full to bursting with annoying DRM shit.

If you ask me MS would have been better off just updating 3.1 to be able to handle the newer stuff that was coming online, rather than going the route of 95/98/ME/XP/Vista. (2000 gets a pass since it was a do-up of NT and inherrently far more stable)

^^^ The amount of "DRM shit" in Vista is maliciously overstated.

You know that XP was built on NT, right? Same as Vista, right?

Also, there was more than enough reason to drop 3.1 from the usability standpoint alone, let alone all the other improvements that were made.

Very true. For the vast majority of people, they won't have to think about it any more than they do when buying something from iTunes.

In hindsight, MS could have saved itself a lot of years of technical headaches and bad press if it had gone straight from WfW to NT.

It's not the type of software most users are running but when I am using the Doom3 level editor it typically sits at around 1.6gb of ram usage.

Either way no matter what you are going to be using it for paying $20 for an extra gig of ram is definitely worth it just in terms of saving yourself hassle down the road.