EVE General Discussion

That all depends on the OS. That limit is for XP and the way it implements “large memory” management. Still, yes, that's one of the limitations. After all, you have to always have the OS paged in (that's 0.5–1GB gone); you always have to have some core hardware addressable (hence why graphics card memory can quickly become a limiting and limited factor). What's left is a ~2GB page that is available to whatever active process is running.


Some of it was also down to shoddy programming — 64bit versions implemented some memory management and -protection mechanics that weren't compatible with some poorly-behaved shortcuts that some parts of the Windows programming community had gotten used to (a similar issue was the root cause of Vista's UAE “problems”). Habitual sloppiness + an OS that did not allow said sloppiness = crash city.

We saw a similar transition between '98 and Win2k, with similar results: well-programmed software ran spectacularly under Win2k, but clumsy paint-by-number jobs would do various non-conventional things that made Win2k consider it unsafe and shut it down. A lot of games fell into that category of shoddy programming, and thus the myth of Win2k being bad for gaming was borne.

Windows 7, as stable as XP and 64 bit (uses all your RAM by default is the main advantage) to boot. There are a very few compatibility issues with older software but the tools provided by the OS usually fix those. Windows 8 I hear is a crock of horse dung.

Win 7, hands down

Had the same dilemma when getting my current pc a OS.

Id avoid windows 8 and any windows 8.whatevers as its optimized for tablets and is a un-necessary draw on resources (what with its active windows and widget type things)

I'd advise getting windows 7 as it requires a lot less resources to run then windows 8 and most games are optimised for windows 7 currently.

Comment on 32 vs 64 ...

32 bit operating systems are generally a bad idea unless
- you need to use ancient legacy hardware with no 64 bit compatible drivers
- you need to run software that has a 16 bit component somewhere (often the installer)

If you don't have a late 90s scanner/printer and are not addicted to ancient software you bought in 1997 there is no rational reason to stay 32 bit.

Comment on RAM:

1. 32 bit only makes 2Gb to 3Gb available to apps
While off the shelf 32 bit consumer versions of the windows OS can address up to 4 GB ram they only make 2GB (on XP without tweaking) or 3Gb (later MS OSs) of that 4GB available to apps. The other 1Gb is not wasted but is only available to the OS itself.

2. Win7/64 with 8Gb or more preloads
Note that with win7/64 and 8GB of ram or more the OS will preload commonly used apps into ram during idle periods making app startup times substantially shorter.

Just install classic shell or Start8 on windows 8 and make it boot to desktop and you (almost) never see the Metro tablet interface again. Win8 feels quite a bit snappier than the previous versions.

Yes you're right but trust me I hated windows 8, so did my best mate, but hes got some msdn account so he tried windows 8 and eventually liked it after using it, so i agreed to try it since a free key is a free key, once you learn how to navigate the new UI it is actually faster. Sure you have to learn the shortcuts but stop being lazy and just learn some of the basic shortcuts and it is a very nice OS. Its memory management is sound, it runs remarkable well on older machines, it has better recovery options, they have a multitude of backup and restore methods.

It has a slightly different ui, but i know that if i press the windows key on my keyboard and then just start typing it will default to my most used programs and then it can be as fast as typing "ca" then enter and the basic windows calculator opens... Or i can turn on web search results from bing, then start typing my query and it brings in web results in an instant, in most cases this eliminates the need to use google.

Well i really like it, took some time getting use too but it is super slick and just nice


it is also nothing like vistas failure, they basically did a zero release, so weather you like it or not this is the way windows is going so better get use to it

win 7 is pretty decent, and win 8 seems just as fine, as long as you don't have the "they changed the start menu" butthurt that seems to plague many.

You've got to be kidding...

Yes, 24gb is overkill, however 4gb is the minimum recommended that Win7 runs with (it'll run with 2 but the experience gets bad quick) - I tried running with 4 for a while and it works, but after the system has been up for a little while, it gets unpleasant also. 8gb was the "sweet spot" where the system didn't drag to a stuttering mess after a few days of use.

The reason I suggested getting 24gb is because while the appropriate system memory is usually fairly common when a system gets built, shortly after the CPU gets cycled out of active production, the memory that supports it will also cycle out. Getting ahold of quality memory 2-3 years after it's stopped being made can be an EXTREMELY expensive prospect, so spending an extra 30$ when you buy the memory you need the first time can save hundreds down the line. My PC was fine running Vista with 4gb, but when it came to running Win 7 on 4gb, it wasn't even remotely fun - and buying an extra 4gb of memory to match what was already in the PC was nearly 200$, as was just buying a new 8gb set to replace the 4gb outright. If I had "filled" the slots when I built it the first time, I'd have had the 8gb that the system maxed out at, and possibly have not needed to build a new system just because of the chain of events that followed upgrading my OS.

It all comes back to the old adage: do it right the first time, and save the time, money, and headaches from having to re-do it at a later time.

At the moment, I run Win7 x32. Confirming that using a modified kernal combined with a modified PAE limitation of 3.7 allows me to play Planetside 2 with reasonable stability. Instead of crashing every 2 minutes, it crashes every few hours... Which is normal, even for 64 bit users, because Sony.

In case anyone cares: http://www.bcastell.com/tech-articles/enabling-more-than-4-gb-of-ram-under-windows-7-32-bit/