64bit vs. 32bit XP

[TnT]

With 64 bits you aren't limited to 1.5 GB for the Java JVM. Which is really important to stuff I do for work, but maybe not so much for home use.

[Fat Tone]

eh, not so much. there are some issues between some motherboards and Vista x86 right now where windows decides to map PCIe address space inside of the system memory address space. it's mostly noticable on systems that 1) have 4gb of ram, and 2) have multiple high end video cards. personally, i'm not too up on the issue but it seemed to be a combination of the way the BIOS was reporting itself and Windows ability to handle that. it's kinda goofy...

I built a Vista (32-bit) system for a friend recently, Asus P5W, E6600, 4GB DDR2, 8800GTS (640MB), RAID 5. The BIOS announces that it is 'appropriating' some memory and only leaves 3.2GB for the OS. Didn't have any other video cards to swap with and see if video ram would make a difference.

It's a VERY nice PC though. Makes using my A64 3400+, 1GB a painful experience in Vista.

[Chucky Cheese]

in my new system i just built it has 4GB physical ram...vista reports 3.2GB.

this does lead me to one question though...if your maxed out on ram does "ready boost" even work?

i put a 4GB cruzer in mine...told windows to use it for ready boost but i never seen it accessed...i was running pinnacle studio, media center, outlook, internet explorer and windows explorer.

cc

[DGhost]

CC - no. ReadyBoost is an extension of SuperFetch (err, the memory caching scheme).

err...

One of the improvements that Vista has implemented is that it now maintains a persistent cache for filesystem data. On a system reboot, Vista will actually go ahead and recache the data in the background after it has started up. This, along with a few other improvements, helps application start times and general smoothness in that when you have idle ram it is helping OS performance.

ReadyBoost helps out by allowing Windows to store some of that cache on a flash disk. On a system with more than 512MB of ram it provides no improvement as the OS is able to maintain it's own cache that is faster. note: it is not using the flash disk as an extension of system ram, but an extension of the file system cache.

so, yeah, there are very few cases when ReadyBoost would actually help out.

[Chucky Cheese]

...so...windows stores this filesystem data on a usb 2.0 stick...so that when it needs it it has to make a request through the ICH7 hub(..and all that it does) to the target device?

...isn't this slower than the hard disk sub-system?

ready boost sounds like a placebo!

cc

[Gurm]

...so...windows stores this filesystem data on a usb 2.0 stick...so that when it needs it it has to make a request through the ICH7 hub(..and all that it does) to the target device?

...isn't this slower than the hard disk sub-system?

ready boost sounds like a placebo!

cc

It's slower for sequential reads, but faster for random access of tiny files. In THEORY (and this is largely unproven, in my book) Windows is smart enough to know which reads would happen faster from flash, and which would be faster from HDD.

[DGhost]

also... heavy file i/o on the hard drive tends to have it's own penalties associated with it. it is faster for longer sequential reads, but since it can only read one location on the disk at a time and has to physically move heads in order to change positions... for instance, on low memory systems swapping to disk can (and does) essentially halt the system while it stops to access the swap file/partition. whichever process is waiting on memory requests from swap have to wait for it, and other disk i/o is put off to be able to read it.

but again, ReadyBoost isn't memory that applications can allocate. it's additional cache, to keep read requests from hitting the hard drive. it's mostly pointless in systems with 1GB or more ram as the OS is able to maintain the cache in ram, but on 512mb and lower systems it could help out.

[Gurm]

also... heavy file i/o on the hard drive tends to have it's own penalties associated with it. it is faster for longer sequential reads, but since it can only read one location on the disk at a time and has to physically move heads in order to change positions... for instance, on low memory systems swapping to disk can (and does) essentially halt the system while it stops to access the swap file/partition. whichever process is waiting on memory requests from swap have to wait for it, and other disk i/o is put off to be able to read it.

but again, ReadyBoost isn't memory that applications can allocate. it's additional cache, to keep read requests from hitting the hard drive. it's mostly pointless in systems with 1GB or more ram as the OS is able to maintain the cache in ram, but on 512mb and lower systems it could help out.

Actually Vista has a HUGE cache, so even on a 1GB system a 2GB readyboost would probably be beneficial! Vista's caching system is REALLY efficient when you have 2GB-4GB of RAM in your system, and not so efficient with anything less.

[DGhost]

Actually Vista has a HUGE cache, so even on a 1GB system a 2GB readyboost would probably be beneficial! Vista's caching system is REALLY efficient when you have 2GB-4GB of RAM in your system, and not so efficient with anything less.

Vista's cache is pretty much all memory not allocated by programs. on a 512MB system, that results in very little being cached. On the 1GB system I am using right now, it has a 265MB cached. When I close outlook at bumps up to about 305MB cached. on the 2GB laptop I have sitting next to me, it's got 1222MB allocated for cache.

realistically, there are not too many files that won't fit inside of a 256MB-512MB disk cache that would read faster off of a flash disk than a hard drive. also, you have to consider the fact that SuperFetch monitors program usage over time of day/day of week/etc and will automatically adjust the data in the cache accordingly.

unless you are constantly allocating all 1GB of ram, ReadyBoost isn't going to make much of a difference on a 1GB system.

hmmm, also... one of the niceities with this caching system is that it also natively ties into hybrid disk drives and allows a further tier of high performance storage.

[Gurm]

Vista's cache is pretty much all memory not allocated by programs. on a 512MB system, that results in very little being cached. On the 1GB system I am using right now, it has a 265MB cached. When I close outlook at bumps up to about 305MB cached. on the 2GB laptop I have sitting next to me, it's got 1222MB allocated for cache.

realistically, there are not too many files that won't fit inside of a 256MB-512MB disk cache that would read faster off of a flash disk than a hard drive. also, you have to consider the fact that SuperFetch monitors program usage over time of day/day of week/etc and will automatically adjust the data in the cache accordingly.

unless you are constantly allocating all 1GB of ram, ReadyBoost isn't going to make much of a difference on a 1GB system.

hmmm, also... one of the niceities with this caching system is that it also natively ties into hybrid disk drives and allows a further tier of high performance storage.

I routinely allocate well over a gig on my 1.5Gb Vista machine. I suspect a 2GB readyboost stick would really help.