Extra Ram ??

[4ndylloyd]

OK, he's a question that I cant find the answer to anywhere else.

I have Vista Home Premium 32 bit with 3 gig ram and a 1 gig graphics card. Since Vista and later allows a graphics card to make use of system ram to effectively increase its own memory is it worth adding extra ram to my 3 gig if Vista 32 bit will only see 3.2 gig regardless of how much I add??

If my graphics card can see and use it even though windows doesn't then it seems like something worth doing but there would seem little point in adding extra ram if the only gain I will get is an extra 256 meg.

Thanks in advance, Andy

 

[William0d0]

32 bit windows with a 1 gig video card allows for only 2.75 gigs of usable ram.

 

[johnwhelan]

OK, he's a question that I cant find the answer to anywhere else.

I have Vista Home Premium 32 bit with 3 gig ram and a 1 gig graphics card. Since Vista and later allows a graphics card to make use of system ram to effectively increase its own memory is it worth adding extra ram to my 3 gig if Vista 32 bit will only see 3.2 gig regardless of how much I add??

If my graphics card can see and use it even though windows doesn't then it seems like something worth doing but there would seem little point in adding extra ram if the only gain I will get is an extra 256 meg.

Thanks in advance, Andy

System memory and GPU memory are normally different. If you have a video board then the memory the GPU can access on the video card is much faster than system memory. Trainz can only access 2 gigs with a 32 bit operating system except TS2009/10 maybe able to access more with a start up switch dig in the forum for this info. The operating system uses around .5 gigs of memory so any memory over 2.5 gigs isn't used that much.

64 bit operating system can use more memory.

Cheerio John

 

[RRSignal]

Trainz does support up to 3Gb memory with the /3Gb switch in the boot initialization file. I'm not exactly sure how to implement this in Vista, but it works nicely in XP-32.

 

[4ndylloyd]

OK. Thanks both but I am not sure that I quite get it ?

This is a screenshot of my graphics properties dialogue box. You can see that the card has 1024 mb dedicated ram but is also accessing some system ram. Should I/could I disable this memory sharing and keep the system ram for running the game and the dedicated graphics ram for the display ? Or if I add more that the 3.2g ram that Windows 32 bit is limited to will the graphics card make use of it as shared memory or will anything above 3.2g be a waste

 

[4ndylloyd]

Trainz does support up to 3Gb memory with the /3Gb switch in the boot initialization file. I'm not exactly sure how to implement this in Vista, but it works nicely in XP-32.

I would like to know more about this 'switch' but because it is such a generic word I haven't had any luck searching the forums for it. If anyone can point me in the right direction I would be more that grateful

 

[RRSignal]

First, I think you have a built-in (integrated) GPU, not a separate one. Built-in video is very different than having a separate graphics card; a discrete video card has it's own memory, entirely separate from system memory. Not only does this not require system memory being eaten up by video, but allows the video card to do it's thing without interfering with the main CPU. Integrated video really is very, very inefficient.

As for the /3Gb switch, basically it changes the way Windows allocates memory. Normally Windows would divide memory between the operating system and applications evenly; the 3Gb switch skews allocation such that applications can get up to 3Gb and the OS only gets 1Gb (which is really much more than it needs on a properly-tweaked system anyway.)

See more below. Basically, Vista has a simpler way to implement it than XP did and calls it something else, but the results should be the same:

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/pae/paemem.mspx

http://blogs.technet.com/b/brad_rut..._2f00_3gb-go-in-longhorn-and-vista_3f00_.aspx

 

[4ndylloyd]

First, I think you have a built-in (integrated) GPU, not a separate one. Built-in video is very different than having a separate graphics card; a discrete video card has it's own memory, entirely separate from system memory. Not only does this not require system memory being eaten up by video, but allows the video card to do it's thing without interfering with the main CPU. Integrated video really is very, very inefficient.

As for the /3Gb switch, basically it changes the way Windows allocates memory. Normally Windows would divide memory between the operating system and applications evenly; the 3Gb switch skews allocation such that applications can get up to 3Gb and the OS only gets 1Gb (which is really much more than it needs on a properly-tweaked system anyway.)

See more below. Basically, Vista has a simpler way to implement it than XP did and calls it something else, but the results should be the same:

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/pae/paemem.mspx

http://blogs.technet.com/b/brad_rut..._2f00_3gb-go-in-longhorn-and-vista_3f00_.aspx

Thanks for the info, I will take a look at the links now. Not to correct you but you are mistaken about my GPU. It is a dedicated graphics card with 1 gb of its own memory. (I fitted it myself!) but Vista allows it to also access system memory if it needs to. Having read other forums I have found that I cannot shut off the shared memory option so may look at the 3gb switch instead

 

[Paul_Bert]

Trainz does support up to 3Gb memory with the /3Gb switch in the boot initialization file. I'm not exactly sure how to implement this in Vista, but it works nicely in XP-32.

But if I read the instructions fro Microsoft on how to do this, they indicate that this feature only works on Windows XP Professional. I do not have that version, nor would most individual users.

 

[2995Valliant]

I've got XP-pro with 4gb of RAM installed, and tried this last night.

For me, the end result was worse performance, with 1-or 2 second freeze ups when loading scenery whilst driving.

Regards,

Anthony

 

[4ndylloyd]

But if I read the instructions fro Microsoft on how to do this, they indicate that this feature only works on Windows XP Professional. I do not have that version, nor would most individual users.

Thats what I thought when I looked so I haven't bothered trying

 

[djt]

But if I read the instructions fro Microsoft on how to do this, they indicate that this feature only works on Windows XP Professional. I do not have that version, nor would most individual users.

For Vista:

1. Open a command prompt with Administration rights. You find the command prompt box under "Programs-Accessories-Command prompt"

2. Right Click the command prompt and select "run as administrator".

3. Enter in the box at the prompt:

bcdedit /set IncreaseUserVA 2560

and press enter

4. Reboot

To set that back to default in VISTA just start the command line prompt with Admin right again and type:

bcdedit /set IncreaseUserVA 2048

Hit enter and reboot

 

[RRSignal]

But if I read the instructions fro Microsoft on how to do this, they indicate that this feature only works on Windows XP Professional. I do not have that version, nor would most individual users.

Sorry for assuming you had XP Pro; since probably about 90% of the business world still runs it, I tend to forget about the other versions. I've read from articles on the net that it works with Home too. Many (if not most) Pro functions work in Home; some are just disabled by default, but present, and may only require a registry change, or less. (Supposedly, FYI, there are even ways to convert a new installation of XP Home to XP Pro.) It's up to you if you want to try it or not. Most of the articles suggest also using the /userva switch but I don't know the setting offhand since the /3Gb switch alone works fine for me.

 

[djt]

since probably about 90% of the business world still runs it

What does running business applications have to do with running games? A lot of businesses are still running machines with Pentium 4's and on-board graphics. Does this mean because the business world is still running them they are adequate for running games also?

(Supposedly, FYI, there are even ways to convert a new installation of XP Home to XP Pro.) It's up to you if you want to try it or not.

Lol, if it came down to that I think it would be a lot better to just ditch XP and grab a copy of Windows 7 64.

 

[RRSignal]

What does running business applications have to do with running games? A lot of businesses are still running machines with Pentium 4's and on-board graphics. Does this mean because the business world is still running them they are adequate for running games also?

Some of us work with computers for a living. I haven't seen an XP Home machine in probably a year because practically nobody in business uses it (or Vista, or Win7, for that matter) And, yes, XP Pro is just fine for many (perhaps most) sims. Perhaps even better than Win7, actually, if we want to continue a past discussion.

Lol, if it came down to that I think it would be a lot better to just ditch XP and grab a copy of Windows 7 64.

I can think a lot of reasons to stick with XP, cost being a reason besides performance. If you already own the Home version, and these tricks work, why not use them? (I'm talking about the memory tricks; converting to XP Home to Pro might violate one's license, so I'm not going to advocate that. It's probably not necessary anyway, since, supposedly, you can use /3Gb in Home.) If we were talking about buying/building a new system, and you had a lot of money to burn, a case could certainly be made for Win7-64.

 

[djt]

Some of us work with computers for a living.

I've worked with computers for part of my living also. What's using computers for a living and choosing a good OS for gaming have to do with it unless you are a game developer?

XP Pro is just fine for many (perhaps most) sims. Perhaps even better than Win7

Could you explain to us how XP Pro could be “perhaps even better than Windows 7” as far as gaming is concerned.

If we were talking about buying/building a new system, and you had a lot of money to burn, a case could certainly be made for Win7-64.

If you have the money to spend on a new machine then Windows 7 is the way to go whether you have money to burn or not. Not to mention Microsoft stopped shipping XP to OEM's last week and I see that some retailers don't even carry XP anymore.

 

[RRSignal]

I've worked with computers for part of my living also. What's using computers for a living and choosing a good OS for gaming have to do with it unless you are a game developer?

Are you a game developer?

Could you explain to us how XP Pro could be “perhaps even better than Windows 7” as far as gaming is concerned.

We went over this a month or two ago with some third-party tests. I seem to remember Crysis and a number of other games equaling or beating Win7 and Vista. Win7 did beat XP on file downloads, so it's good for email though.

If you have the money to spend on a new machine then Windows 7 is the way to go whether you have money to burn or not. Not to mention Microsoft stopped shipping XP to OEM's last week and I see that some retailers don't even carry XP anymore.

Retailers don't carry XP because their incentive is to push Win7, as is Microsoft's. That some retailers still carry XP almost 4 years after the release of Vista and over a year after Win7's release is a testament to the lack of confidence in the newer OS' and the recognition that XP is superior, at least, hardware being equal.

Again, using the aforementioned tests, XP and Win7 are pretty evenly matched - Win7 being better at some things and XP being better at others. Therefore, there is no real benefit to upgrading to Win7, even if you do have the cash to burn. If there was a remarkable jump in performance with Win7, a case could be made, but there isn't. One would be much better off spending that $100-$300 purchase price of Win7 on better hardware, such as a Raptor, better CPU, etc. Add to that Win7 has higher hardware requirements, and you added a fair amount onto the $100-$300 purchase price of the OS itself.


And I haven't even gotten into the mandatory Windows 7 activation, which requires an internet connection. So, you're taking a performance hit there, not to mention this, in turn, necessitates (for most people) anti-virus, anti-spyware, a firewall, etc.

 

[djt]

Are you a game developer?

I have been involved in the development of training software that uses an off the shelf game engine. How about you, ever been dependent on a computer for simulation training or the development of software that does?

We went over this a month or two ago with some third-party tests. I seem to remember Crysis and a number of other games equaling or beating Win7 and Vista. Win7 did beat XP on file downloads, so it's good for email though.

Yes we did as the Windows 7 vs. XP subject seems to be a revolving door for you. Take a look at a comparison now between the two an see what OS would be better off running games?

http://forums.auran.com/trainz/showthread.php?t=62147&page=3

That some retailers still carry XP almost 4 years after the release of Vista and over a year after Win7's release is a testament to the lack of confidence in the newer OS' and the recognition that XP is superior,

Lack of confidence from whom? Take a good look around the web you really most get out more often, lol.

a case could be made, but there isn't.

Sure there is, it's called hardware support, again do some research.

And I haven't even gotten into the mandatory Windows 7 activation, which requires an internet connection. So, you're taking a performance hit there, not to mention this, in turn, necessitates (for most people) anti-virus, anti-spyware, a firewall, etc.

What?, lol.


Why is that any different from XP or Vista, the OS has to be updated doesn't it, or in your mind it doesn't?


It looks like this discussion has been turned into another “I have to justify the fact that I don't have any experience with with anything but XP (32-bit) and my spending budget won't cover it” thread.


Your lack of experience with an OS and your budget limitation has little to do with giving a good recommendation on what OS to use.

 

[RRSignal]

I have been involved in the development of training software that uses an off the shelf game engine. How about you, ever been dependent on a computer for simulation training or the development of software that does?

Nope, security is my thing.



[/quote]Yes we did as the Windows 7 vs. XP subject seems to be a revolving door for you. Take a look at a comparison now between the two an see what OS would be better off running games?[/quote]

yeah,

http://forums.auran.com/trainz/showthread.php?t=62147&page=3[/quote]

Yeah, I remember that, and Win7 either got whooped or just kept up with XP in most categories, including gaming. (Note I am leaving DX11 out of the equation, but as sims aren't really being developed with DX11 - and may never be - its kind of premature.)

Lack of confidence from whom? Take a good look around the web you really most get out more often, lol.

In the general community. Why has XP stuck around when manufacturers ditched 2000 and earlier OS' within a few months of a newer OS' release? Oh, yeah, because Vista was an epic fail and Win7 is Vista with some tweaks.

Sure there is, it's called hardware support, again do some research.

Yeah, I did. XP's fine. You might want to stop hanging out with the wanna-be flyboys. If you think railfans think they know more than real railroaders...

Why is that any different from XP or Vista, the OS has to be updated doesn't it, or in your mind it doesn't?

No, it doesn't. In fact, if you run offline (or, as I do, even allow extremely limited, as-required access to the DLS) you don't need to update jack. I don't need to worry about viruses and spyware.

It looks like this discussion has been turned into another “I have to justify the fact that I don't have any experience with with anything but XP (32-bit) and my spending budget won't cover it” thread.

Unlike you, not everybody has an unlimited budget, and computers are more than just hobbies for most. And, even if you have something close to an unlimited budget, there are wise ways to spend your money, and stupid ones. Win7 is a stupid one at this point in time. In 5 years, the story may be different.

Your lack of experience with an OS and your budget limitation has little to do with giving a good recommendation on what OS to use.

Your attitude of dollars growing on trees does not jibe with reality. Furthermore, getting the average user to tweak their OS (e.g. alter reauthorization settings for Windows 7 so as to not require a constant internet connection) does not play well with most people. If you had real-world experience, you'd know that people are finicky when it comes to their computers. Most consumers, even many that consider themselves somewhat tech-savvy, are loathe to futz around with the OS, even if you carefully lay out what the benefits are and how to do it. Don't ask me to explain human nature; I think it's rather silly myself. But that's how things are.

 

[djt]

and Win7 either got whooped or just kept up with XP in most categories, including gaming. (Note I am leaving DX11 out of the equation, but as sims aren't really being developed with DX11 - and may never be - its kind of premature.)

It did where? What review site? How about now 12 months after Windows 7 release?


I've got few DirectX 11 games (one that is on the verge of being considered a sim) they run and look great, with future game engines it's the way to go if you want good system resource utilization.

In the general community.

What general community? Please don't tell us the business community again, lol.


How about these communities, you know the PC gaming, hardware enthusiast communities, what are they using and why? -


http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/


http://hardforum.com/


http://forums.anandtech.com/

XP's fine

XP's fine for what?

If you think railfans think they know more than real railroaders...

You'll have to explain the relevance of that comment?

In fact, if you run offline (or, as I do, even allow extremely limited, as-required access to the DLS) you don't need to update jack.

Really? So I guess you are saying that keeping an OS up to date is only for security updates?

Unlike you, not everybody has an unlimited budget

Who has an unlimited budget, not me.

computers are more than just hobbies for most.

Exactly, that's why you pick the right tool for the job.

Your attitude of dollars growing on trees does not jibe with reality.

It's got nothing to do with my attitude “of dollars growing on trees” but more to do with my attitude towards individuals who spread misconceptions, misinformation and speculation about something they obviously have no experience with.


My comments and recommendations are based on actual experience using XP Pro (32 and 64-bit) and Vista/Windows 7 (32 and 64-bit) on a wide variety of hardware from low end to the best high end hardware. In addition I have also run 30+ sims/games on these OS's, TRS2006, TRS2009 and TS2010 are three of them.


As I mentioned before your comments are nothing more than your personal justification for not having experience or the means to use Windows 7.

Furthermore, getting the average user to tweak their OS (e.g. alter reauthorization settings for Windows 7 so as to not require a constant internet connection) does not play well with most people.

Who has to “tweak their OS (e.g. alter reauthorization settings for Windows 7 so as to not require a constant internet connection)”?


That a good one. Does this mean that we can add another one of your misconceptions to the list?


Do you have such a lack of experience with the OS that you think that you have be constantly connected to the Internet to use it?