Then they haven’t tried Vista 64Bit then if they think that![]()
I'm using Vista x64 myself, and while it is better than XP32 bit, so is the 32bit Vista install on my laptop. More to do with Vista than 64bit I think
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fc608/fc608ab6e6dc2469165c10f9a8cb020731d10c69" alt="Smile :) :)"
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Then they haven’t tried Vista 64Bit then if they think that![]()
Sure, some apps will run slower.
Although I also have Sony Vegas and I found it the other way round actually.
Not tried Maya however.
Are you only running 2GB though? - Vista will run a slight slower with 2GB than XP would, so take it to 4GB and then get back on it.
No, there is no excuse these days for not having 4GB
No, I dont think you got how I was meaning that...
This Forum is called OVERCLOCKERS...
You know... People who overclock, or at the very least, want the best out of their hardware, no matter what computer they have!
I am assuming that the majority of people here, dont only want to have their computers to browse and do Emails.
Sure enough, if they only browse and do Emails, then why do they need Vista? - why would they even need XP? - Hell, if all the ydo is browse and EMail, they dont need half the junk that PCs have and for the most part, a £10 scrap heap recovered computer would do the job pressy much as fast as any other computer.
So, I stand by my quote, although I will accept that I should have expended on it rather than generalise for everyone.
Oh, and as a sort of side note to that, I will add a few thigns.
When I upped from 512K to 1MB, it was because a game was jerking. Apart from that one game, it made no other real-world difference ( at the time ) .
When I upped from 1MB to 2MB, again, I saw no benefit at all, and often wondered if I had wasted my money.
When I upped from 2MB to 4MB, I found absolutely no benefit what-so-ever.
However... I do Virtual Machines for testing O/Ses and various apps and what-not and so for VM its a must... For any other times, its not.
So, in that respect, 4MB over 2MB is a useless option.
However...
In saying that, and what I also said about 512K to 1MB then 1MB to 2MB and then 2 to 4 all showing no real difference, would I be able to take this machine now, back down to 512K? - surely if it didnt make much difference through all those upgrades, then it should not really make much difference to go back would it?
No, I could not, neither could you, or 95% of the population either, but why?
Because everythign we use our PCs for are getting more and more bloated.
So, even if we are happy with 1GB or 2GB now, its only a matter of time before we will need 4GB because our PCs are getting junked down.
Of course with RAM being as cheap as it is, for those of us who want to squeeze the best out of our PCs, then 4GB is a must.
If it was not a useable upgrade to go from 2GB to 4GB then there woulkd not be so many of us running 4GB would there? - we would all be still on 2GB
Its also better to have it and not need it, than to not have it but need it.
Bloody hell, I dont half waffle dont I?
LOL
My pc runs a 32 bit windows xp OS
To my knowlage my processor is a 64 bit processor
![]()
If I installed a 64bit OS would my pc then run with the benafits of 64bit
Win95.
Now THERE was an o/s !