64-bit OS with 2GB RAM

[newtekie1]

That's debatable. In short: I've had no security problems on XP x64. Vista/7 have no new features I care for. Vista/7 64-bit suffer the same backwards compatibility issues XP x64 does.

Beyond Good & Evil just closed without message or warning once it gets to the Star-Force part on an x64 OS. In XP Mode, it installs fine but fails to run because of no Direct3D support. On an 32-bit XP machine, it installs and plays just fine. I think it works on 32-bit Vista and 7 as well.

Debatable yes, but your preferences don't negate the truth of the points. And there is more than just backwards compatibility issue with software, there is poor hardware compatibility, and there are some programs that still identify XP x64 as a server OS, and hence won't install. I had this issue with some Adobe products(I think it was Photoshop 7 or maybe CS, possibly the entire CS suite), and some of the free anti-virus programs do the same.

I haven't tried Beyond Good & Evil, but I will. Like I said, a lot of the time you have to disable driver signing before installing the game.

 

[jjFarking]

Guys.. with all due respect, the OP has already stated that Windows 7 64-bit will be used and that he's unlikely to install any games at all..
Fascinating as your respective points may be, they don't actually pertain to much in what the OP needs

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Debatable yes, but your preferences don't negate the truth of the points. And there is more than just backwards compatibility issue with software, there is poor hardware compatibility, and there are some programs that still identify XP x64 as a server OS, and hence won't install. I had this issue with some Adobe products(I think it was Photoshop 7 or maybe CS, possibly the entire CS suite), and some of the free anti-virus programs do the same.

I haven't tried Beyond Good & Evil, but I will.

A feature is not a feature unless it is useful to the user. It's bloat if it isn't.

You shouldn't be thinking about installing an OS without first making sure all hardware is supported. All x64 systems I built did so hardware compatibility is moot.

Some applications may see Windows 7 as Server 2008 (both are 6.1). That's not a fault of the OS, just poor programing (Adobe is infamous for that).

Guys.. with all due respect, the OP has already stated that Windows 7 64-bit will be used and that he's unlikely to install any games at all..
Fascinating as your respective points may be, they don't actually pertain to much in what the OP needs

I didn't see his post but my original point still stands: I would not recommend installing Windows 6.0 or newer (Vista, Server 2008, 7) on a system with 2 GiB or less RAM. 3 is fine because that leaves 1 GiB for the OS and 2 GiB for user space. Only large address aware applications (32-bit) can address more than that.

 

[CounterZeus]

I turn off Speedstep/C1E in the BIOS and all the power saving features in the OS.

didn't work for me, must be something weird. thnx anyway ^-^

 

[newtekie1]

A feature is not a feature unless it is useful to the user. It's bloat if it isn't.

You shouldn't be thinking about installing an OS without first making sure all hardware is supported. All x64 systems I built did so hardware compatibility is moot.

Some applications may see Windows 7 as Server 2008 (both are 6.1). That's not a fault of the OS, just poor programing (Adobe is infamous for that).



I didn't see his post but my original point still stands: I would not recommend installing Windows 6.0 or newer (Vista, Server 2008, 7) on a system with 2 GiB or less RAM. 3 is fine because that leaves 1 GiB for the OS and 2 GiB for user space. Only large address aware applications (32-bit) can address more than that.

There are plenty of useful featurs that come with Vista and Win7, just because you don't believe so that doesn't make it true.

Correct, the first thing I generally do before installing an OS is check to make sure all hardware is compatible, and you know what I find? Almost every build I think about there is at least one thing that doesn't have XP x64 drivers...

I have yet to find an application that sees Win7 as Server 2008, there is a major difference between the releastionship between Win7 and Server 2008 and XP x64 and Server 2003. Server 2003 came out before XP x64(by 2 years). XP x64 was actually a stripped down version of Server 2003, rush to market to fill the needs of desktop x64 users(rather keep the "enthusiasts"* at time happy). On the other hand Server 2008 was a beefed up version of Win7, released at the same time. So XP x64 was based off Server 2003, while the reverse is true with Win7, Server 2008 is based off Win7. This is where the issue arises. There are several checks that software can do to determine what type of OS it is being installed on. And some of those checks still report a server OS on XP x64, they don't on Win7.

Obviously I, and others including the OP, have shown your point isn't really valid, as we all have shown and told you that Win7 runs great on 2GB of RAM. Win7 only uses 500MB of RAM, leaving 1.5GB for other applications, that is plenty even for most gaming.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I have yet to find an application that sees Win7 as Server 2008, there is a major difference between the releastionship between Win7 and Server 2008 and XP x64 and Server 2003. Server 2003 came out before XP x64(by 2 years). XP x64 was actually a stripped down version of Server 2003, rush to market to fill the needs of desktop x64 users(rather keep the "enthusiasts"* at time happy). On the other hand Server 2008 was a beefed up version of Win7, released at the same time. So XP x64 was based off Server 2003, while the reverse is true with Win7, Server 2008 is based off Win7. This is where the issue arises. There are several checks that software can do to determine what type of OS it is being installed on. And some of those checks still report a server OS on XP x64, they don't on Win7.

The underlined portion is incorrect but I'll get to that later...

Server 2003 was released in April 2003. 64-bit support didn't come until December 2005 with Server 2003 R2. Server 2003 R2 SP2 current version is 5.2.3790.3959. XP x64 was released in April 2005 with a current version (SP2) of 5.2.3790.3959. They are, as far as everything is concerned, the same operating system. The only real difference is x64 doesn't have Active Directory while Server 2003 does. The 7 month difference in release dates were probably mostly converting Active Directory to use EM64T as well as additional debugging.

In terms of release dates: Server 2003 (32-bit only) -> XP x64 Edition (64-bit only) -> Server 2003 R2 (32-bit and 64-bit).


On the flipside, Server 2008 was released February 2008 with Server 2008 R2 in October 2009. R2 is version 6.1.7600.16385. Windows 7 was released on the same date as Server 2008 R2 with the same version number: 6.1.7600.16385.

In terms of release dates: Server 2008 (32-bit and 64-bit) -> Windows 7 (32-bit and 64-bit) AND Server 2008 R2 (only available in 64-bit)

See the problem? A programmer has to get creative to distinguish the two. The version numbers are identical. Windows 7 is a striped down (no Active Directory) version of Server 2008 with some GUI tweaks while XP x64 is a stripped down Server 2003 overhauled to support 64-bit which was desperately needed in that segment of the market. The parrallels are uncanny.

Obviously I, and others including the OP, have shown your point isn't really valid, as we all have shown and told you that Win7 runs great on 2GB of RAM. Win7 only uses 500MB of RAM, leaving 1.5GB for other applications, that is plenty even for most gaming.

When it could/should be using around 1 GiB. The limited amount of RAM available forces Windows to pull back on caching. If it is temporary (a month or two), go for it. If it is long term, I wouldn't recommend it.



Server 2008 R2 being 64-bit only might indicate that the next major version of Windows (the real Windows 7.0) will only be offered in 64-bit. The next generation operating system is naturally based on the most recent Server edition with Active Directory disabled (and some other server-only goodies).

 

[newtekie1]

The underlined portion is incorrect but I'll get to that later...

Server 2003 was released in April 2003. 64-bit support didn't come until December 2005 with Server 2003 R2. Server 2003 R2 SP2 current version is 5.2.3790.3959. XP x64 was released in April 2005 with a current version (SP2) of 5.2.3790.3959. They are, as far as everything is concerned, the same operating system. The only real difference is x64 doesn't have Active Directory while Server 2003 does. The 7 month difference in release dates were probably mostly converting Active Directory to use EM64T as well as additional debugging.

In terms of release dates: Server 2003 (32-bit only) -> XP x64 Edition (64-bit only) -> Server 2003 R2 (32-bit and 64-bit).


On the flipside, Server 2008 was released February 2008 with Server 2008 R2 in October 2009. R2 is version 6.1.7600.16385. Windows 7 was released on the same date as Server 2008 R2 with the same version number: 6.1.7600.16385.

In terms of release dates: Server 2008 (32-bit and 64-bit) -> Windows 7 (32-bit and 64-bit) AND Server 2008 R2 (only available in 64-bit)

See the problem? A programmer has to get creative to distinguish the two. The version numbers are identical. Windows 7 is a striped down (no Active Directory) version of Server 2008 with some GUI tweaks while XP x64 is a stripped down Server 2003 overhauled to support 64-bit which was desperately needed in that segment of the market. The parrallels are uncanny.



When it could/should be using around 1 GiB. The limited amount of RAM available forces Windows to pull back on caching. If it is temporary (a month or two), go for it. If it is long term, I wouldn't recommend it.



Server 2008 R2 being 64-bit only might indicate that the next major version of Windows (the real Windows 7.0) will only be offered in 64-bit. The next generation operating system is naturally based on the most recent Server edition with Active Directory disabled (and some other server-only goodies).

If you'd like to look at the developement tree yourself, you are more than welcome:

Again, XP x64 is based off Server 2003, while the reverse it true with Win7 and Server 2008. XP x64 is a stripped down Server 2003, Server 2008 is Win7 with some added features. Normally this would sound like symantics, but in this case it isn't, it is describing how the 4 were developed.

Now, you seem to still be stuck on believing that applications rely soly on OS version numbers to determine what OS, or more importantly what type of OS, they are being installed on. This isn't the case, applications use several methods to determine what type of OS they are being installed on.

You aren't the one to be saying how much RAM the OS could/should be using. More to the point, this doesn't matter. What matters is the OS performance, and it performs perfectly on 2GB of RAM. It doesn't affect caching, obviously, since it is pretty clear that almost 1GB of space is used for caching in my screenshots. Yes, it could be using more, it uses about twice as much for caching in my 8GB rig, but 1GB is still plenty. Right now you are trying to argue based on background happenings that in reality have little effect on actual performance of the OS. Yes, it does affect the OS performance, but not very noticeable, and thanks to the improvements in Win7, it still feels faster on 2GB than XP does.

Oh, and I figured out why Beyond Good & Evil doesn't work. It is because the game doesn't use Starforce...

Though I'm pretty much done arguing with you, the OP has already went with x64, and it worked out fine for him...imagine that...so why keep arguing trying to say it will or won't?

 

[[H]@RD5TUFF]

I used to run my download box with Vista 64, with 2 gb of DDR2 667, and while it is do-able and it will work, it's just not the best idea, you will be able to do all the basic tasks, internet e-mail, word processing and even some light game, it's just not going to be "smooth" there will be times when it chugs, and hangs, and lags. Especially with Vista, this will be true in both 32 and 64 bit versions. Though between Vista and Windows 7, Windows 7 seems to handle the lack of memory a lot better. Mostly because it's just less bulky and over all a better OS. If you have any plans of increasing your memory amount, go with Windows 7 64 bit, there really is no reasson to go 32 bit anymore, as there are little to no compatibilty issues, and a lot of apps and games are begining to support 64 bit nativly.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/Windows_Family_Tree.svg/1000px-Windows_Family_Tree.svg.png

That was made by a user named NOKIA 3120 classic. It is not official. Server 2008 came before Windows 7 and Server 2008 R2 launched on the same day as Windows 7. Server 2008 (February 2008) can't be based on something that didn't exist (October 2009) at the time of its release.

Now, you seem to still be stuck on believing that applications rely soly on OS version numbers to determine what OS, or more importantly what type of OS, they are being installed on. This isn't the case, applications use several methods to determine what type of OS they are being installed on.

Depends how the application is coded. If they dig farther than version number, they can sort out what product type Windows is; however, if they only look at version numbers, there will be false positives.

Oh, and I figured out why Beyond Good & Evil doesn't work. It is because the game doesn't use Starforce...

Oops, Tages. Tages is just as heavily integrated as Star-Force though.

 

[Super XP]

Vista does a bad job with ddr memory. Windows 7 fixes that problem and much more.

 

[newtekie1]

That was made by a user named NOKIA 3120 classic. It is not official. Server 2008 came before Windows 7 and Server 2008 R2 launched on the same day as Windows 7. Server 2008 (February 2008) can't be based on something that didn't exist (October 2009) at the time of its release.

Ok, bad wording on my part, when I say Sever 2008, I mean Server 2008 R2. Server 2008 was based on Vista, and Server 2008 R2 was based on Win7. Sorry for the confusion, replace Server 2008 with Server 2008 in all my posts.

Depends how the application is coded. If they dig farther than version number, they can sort out what product type Windows is; however, if they only look at version numbers, there will be false positives.

Correct, if they look at version numbers alone, there will be false positives. However, even going beyond that, alot of the checks that go further return false positives on XP x64, but not on Win7 because they did a better job of differentiating Win7 from a server OS than they did with XP x64.

Oops, Tages. Tages is just as heavily integrated as Star-Force though.

Correct, but not applicable to the original comment about starforce that I made, that you tried to counter. And while Tages offers an x64 driver also, it seems older games don't tend to like using it.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Ok, bad wording on my part, when I say Sever 2008, I mean Server 2008 R2. Server 2008 was based on Vista, and Server 2008 R2 was based on Win7. Sorry for the confusion, replace Server 2008 with Server 2008 in all my posts.

They are both based on Server 2008 (version 6.1). R2 coming from Windows 7 or Windows 7 coming from R2 is like arguing did a blue Taurus come before a red Taurus: they are the same thing--just Windows 7 has a lot disabled and comes in a 32-bit flavor.

Correct, if they look at version numbers alone, there will be false positives. However, even going beyond that, alot of the checks that go further return false positives on XP x64, but not on Win7 because they did a better job of differentiating Win7 from a server OS than they did with XP x64.

Nope. Microsoft didn't change anything in that regard but developers are more knowledgable about the issue so they code for it.

It is not as cut and dried as you think it is. In fact, I can't find any sure fire way to tell if the OS is a server edition or not. The only way I know of is to check the OS string for "Server." That isn't very reliable though.

Correct, but not applicable to the original comment about starforce that I made, that you tried to counter. And while Tages offers an x64 driver also, it seems older games don't tend to like using it.

Which still means that the game won't run on any x64 OS.

 

[Super XP]

Will be ever see PURE 64-Bit games? Games writen so they may better use up 4GB+ of system memory.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Yes, once consoles have 4+ GiB RAM or console ports (for whatever reason) require more than 4 GiB on Windows. They will have to be compiled as 64-bit binaries because they can't run in 32-bit user space.

 

[[H]@RD5TUFF]

Will be ever see PURE 64-Bit games? Games writen so they may better use up 4GB+ of system memory.

Pure 64 bit proboably not for another year or 2. Due to the fact there are still some people that insist on running a 32 bit OS, people that think a 32 bit OS is a good idea need to suck it up and go 64 bit.

 

[newtekie1]

They are both based on Server 2008 (version 6.1). R2 coming from Windows 7 or Windows 7 coming from R2 is like arguing did a blue Taurus come before a red Taurus: they are the same thing--just Windows 7 has a lot disabled and comes in a 32-bit flavor.

As I already said, while it seems like symantics, it this contect it actually makes a difference. Server 2008 R2 being engineered off the Win7 core, instead of the reverse like the case with XP x64 and Server 2003, makes a difference.

Nope. Microsoft didn't change anything in that regard but developers are more knowledgable about the issue so they code for it.

It is not as cut and dried as you think it is. In fact, I can't find any sure fire way to tell if the OS is a server edition or not. The only way I know of is to check the OS string for "Server." That isn't very reliable though.

Microsoft actually changed a lot, again they didn't have as much time with XP x64, it was rushed to the market to fill an idiot demand for a 64-bit Desktop OS.

Just to name a couple ways to go beyond version number:

Check OS Name String and match it up with a list of supported OSes: The problem with this is if new OSes come out, then what? But that is the same problem that applications that go by version number face, except more so with version number because it can change even on the same OS, a service pack can change the version number.

Check OS Configuration String: This string specifically identifies what type of OS is on the machine, and actually how that OS is configured, and is why programs like AVG free won't install on Server 2008 R2 but will install on Win7. This is a much better way than going by version number or OS string, as it will not change, so you don't have to worry about a new OS coming out and not being on the support list. It was also a big sticking point with XP x64 that led to most of the problems, as it still had the configuration string saying it was a server, not a workstation, at least that was the case when I used it, I would be surprised if Microsoft finally patched this, I also wouldn't be surprised if they didn't...

Which still means that the game won't run on any x64 OS.

Correct, but there are actually Tages x64 driver, the problem is the crappy old install(the game is rather old), the steam version works though. But again, we were talking about starforce games installing, so this doesn't matter one bit.

 

[Steve-007UK]

not that it matters but i ran the new batman game on this pc with 1 gig of ram while waiting for my 4 gig of ram and windows 7 worked fine wouldent even call it slow so to be honest 2 gig is good but 4 is better.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

As I already said, while it seems like symantics, it this contect it actually makes a difference. Server 2008 R2 being engineered off the Win7 core, instead of the reverse like the case with XP x64 and Server 2003, makes a difference.

There is absolutely no evidence of that. Windows 7 was based off of Server 2008. just as XP x64 was based off of Server 2003. Server 2008 R2 and Windows 7 were co-developed just as Server 2003 R2 and XP x64 were co-developed. The only difference is that Windows XP x64 launched over a half a year before Server 2003 R2 (probably because Active Directory need serious overhauling for x64 Edition) where as Server 2008 R2 and Windows 7 launched on the same date.

Microsoft actually changed a lot, again they didn't have as much time with XP x64, it was rushed to the market to fill an idiot demand for a 64-bit Desktop OS.

Let's look at the facts: The first AMD64 processor to be released came out in September 2003. XP x64 didn't launch until April 2005. Microsoft had at least (AMD most likely sent Microsoft engineering samples in order to fast-track the development of the OS because AMD64 is useless without Microsoft's support) one and a half years to implement XP x64. It was not rushed. I got it just two months after release and that OS worked perfectly right out of the starting gate. It is four months since Windows 7 came out and I already have more problems than I can shake a stick at (IE8 is practically broke, WMP12 is practically broke, click n' dragging files has a clear hang-up, and networking has obvious glitches). Server 2008 came out in Februrary 2008 and Windows 7 came out in October 2009, that's a year and a half too. XP x64 had at least equal dev time as Windows 7. Which was really rushed? I'd say Windows 7 because of all the issues.

Have you ever used XP x64 Edition at length?

Check OS Name String and match it up with a list of supported OSes: The problem with this is if new OSes come out, then what?

That's exactly what I said.

But that is the same problem that applications that go by version number face, except more so with version number because it can change even on the same OS, a service pack can change the version number.

Service packs change the build number, not the major and minor numbers. When I code an app for a specific platform, I only check major and minor. If I need to make sure that a service pack is installed, I check the build number for equal or greater than.

Check OS Configuration String: ...

That doesn't even exist. I finally remembered how to check it via WMI (Win32_OperatingSystem):
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa394239(VS.85).aspx

ProductType:
1 Work Station
2 Domain Controller
3 Server

Any application that checked just version number would flag XP x64 as potentially Server 2003 just as any application that checked just for Server 2008 would flag Windows 7. They have to check the Product type to distinguish between Windows 7 (Work Station) and Server 2008 (Domain Controller or Server). OperatingSystemSKU will give you even more information about version 6 and up (Vista, 7, and Server 2008).

 

[jjFarking]

Funny, I can't find any good information about this. Link me to a C, C++, VB, or C# article that pulls that information.

Would THIS be of any assistance?

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Would THIS be of any assistance?

No, that's what we discussed earlier in this thread. I just edited my post with the correct info (WMI ProductType and maybe OperatingSystemSKU).

 

[jjFarking]

No, that's what we discussed earlier in this thread. I just edited my post with the correct info (WMI ProductType and maybe OperatingSystemSKU).

Fair enough mate. I didn't see that earlier part of the thread

 

[newtekie1]

There is absolutely no evidence of that. Windows 7 was based off of Server 2008. just as XP x64 was based off of Server 2003. Server 2008 R2 and Windows 7 were co-developed just as Server 2003 R2 and XP x64 were co-developed. The only difference is that Windows XP x64 launched over a half a year before Server 2003 R2 (probably because Active Directory need serious overhauling for x64 Edition) where as Server 2008 R2 and Windows 7 launched on the same date.

There is no evidence of THAT...see I can do that to...

Of course the evidence to back me up is that some applications won't install on XP x64 because they ID it as a server OS...not a problem with Win7 though...

Let's look at the facts: The first AMD64 processor to be released came out in September 2003. XP x64 didn't launch until April 2005. Microsoft had at least (AMD most likely sent Microsoft engineering samples in order to fast-track the development of the OS because AMD64 is useless without Microsoft's support) one and a half years to implement XP x64. It was not rushed. I got it just two months after release and that OS worked perfectly right out of the starting gate. It is four months since Windows 7 came out and I already have more problems than I can shake a stick at (IE8 is practically broke, WMP12 is practically broke, click n' dragging files has a clear hang-up, and networking has obvious glitches). Server 2008 came out in Februrary 2008 and Windows 7 came out in October 2009, that's a year and a half too. XP x64 had at least equal dev time as Windows 7. Which was really rushed? I'd say Windows 7 because of all the issues.

Microsoft was totally caught off guard by the demand for x64, they did not believe there would be a demand for Desktop x64 OSes. When AMD released the first desktop x64 processor, Microsoft had to scramble to fill the unexpected demand that arose.

The implementation was clearly rushed, the poor support and buggy OS makes that painfully obvious.

And again, when Server 2008 came out has nothing to do with Win7.

And every problem you have listed for Win7 doesn't exist, sorry, but they don't. IE8 works pefectly fine, WMP12 works perfectly fine(execpt for occassionaly forgetting where I resize the window after closing), and file transfers work better than ever!

Have you ever used XP x64 Edition at length?

Yes, I have, used it for almost a year after it came out, nothing but headaches. It was, and I assume still is, a buggy piece of shit with very little driver support. And while I don't use it today, I still have clients that do. And I can list at least one specific program that will not install on XP x64, but will on Win7 and Vista, M-AUDIO Pro Tools. While the way you do it works most of the time, not everyone does it that way, some do go down to the build number, and Pro Tools is one of them. In fact, they just recently released Vista SP2 drivers, before that, I had to install it with SP1 first, then upgrade the machine to SP2. Win7 support didn't exist until that release either, but at least with issues like that I know it is far more likely to release Win7 supportive versions than XP x64...because if they haven't released XP x64 support yet, they probably never will.

I'm starting to wonder if you've ever used Win7 though...

And I'm also wondering why anyone in their right mind would actually thing XP x64 is better after using both at length. It seems like you are more on a Win7 bashing tirade now than anything else...

Service packs change the build number, not the major and minor numbers. When I code an app for a specific platform, I only check major and minor. If I need to make sure that a service pack is installed, I check the build number for equal or greater than.

Well good for you, but how does that matter? So you do it slightly better than other, so we should assume everyone does it this way? Man I wish I lived in that perfect world you do.

Oh, and again, that does help the matter of a new OS coming out and totally screwing things up.

That doesn't even exist. I finally remembered how to check it via WMI (Win32_OperatingSystem):
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa394239(VS.85).aspx

ProductType:
1 Work Station
2 Domain Controller
3 Server

Any application that checked just version number would flag XP x64 as potentially Server 2003 just as any application that checked just for Server 2008 would flag Windows 7. They have to check the Product type to distinguish between Windows 7 (Work Station) and Server 2008 (Domain Controller or Server). OperatingSystemSKU will give you even more information about version 6 and up (Vista, 7, and Server 2008).

I love how you say it doesn't exist, then go on to explain it...

This is how 90% of applications that are supposed to run on workstations, but not on servers(i.e. free anti-viruses) detect the OS, it is a fundumental of programming...

I'm done with this argument, you don't know what you are talking about, obviously and the thread is useless...:shadedshu

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Ignorance (on your behalf) is bliss. You could have learned a lot from this discussion but it appears you choose to learn nothing. That's a shame.

 

[newtekie1]

Ignorance (on your behalf) is bliss. You could have learned a lot from this discussion but it appears you choose to learn nothing. That's a shame.

I don't think you've provided anything worth learning by anyone, other than your constant babbling about how great XP x64 is, and how much "better" it is than Vista and Win7, which pretty much no one else here would agree with...

 

[Steve-007UK]

i think it all depends on the user and the pc they have at the time, i have used windows xp x64 and personly never had a prob with it. its the same for windows 7 it works perfect for me.

programs are only buggy to the ppl that have probs, it dosent meen the programs are bad.

on the other hand vista for me is a crock of shite, where as it works fine for many people.