I
Isaac Hunt
kirk said:
Horses for courses I guess, but I wish I could run the Zune theme on
vista. lol
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Horses for courses I guess, but I wish I could run the Zune theme on
vista. lol
K
kirk jim
http://www.visualtasktips.com/ (free)
this effect is something they added in the vista shell...
If you are running xp and want to have this effect you can try this out.
If anyone is interested... I have a list of applications that can make xp
do whatever vista can....
This is good for people who are running XP and may want things vista has but
do not want
or can not upgrade,
or
those who use vista and xp on different machines, and when they go
to the xp machine they feel that it lacks features.
Personally I don't like effects and use a classic theme for speed...
but I am always interested in trying things out.
So if anyone is interested reply to this post and I will make the list
.....
this effect is something they added in the vista shell...
If you are running xp and want to have this effect you can try this out.
If anyone is interested... I have a list of applications that can make xp
do whatever vista can....
This is good for people who are running XP and may want things vista has but
do not want
or can not upgrade,
or
those who use vista and xp on different machines, and when they go
to the xp machine they feel that it lacks features.
Personally I don't like effects and use a classic theme for speed...
but I am always interested in trying things out.
So if anyone is interested reply to this post and I will make the list
.....
S
Stutterer
Horses for courses I guess, but I wish I could run the Zune theme on
vista. lol
Many people just wish they could RUN something on Vista. Anything. At all.
M
Mike Hall - MS MVP
Do you have one that will make XP use memory as efficiently as Vista can, or
is this just a list of visual enhancements?
--
Mike Hall
MS MVP Windows Shell/User
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/
is this just a list of visual enhancements?
kirk jim said:http://www.visualtasktips.com/ (free)
this effect is something they added in the vista shell...
If you are running xp and want to have this effect you can try this out.
If anyone is interested... I have a list of applications that can make xp
do whatever vista can....
This is good for people who are running XP and may want things vista has
but do not want
or can not upgrade,
or
those who use vista and xp on different machines, and when they go
to the xp machine they feel that it lacks features.
Personally I don't like effects and use a classic theme for speed...
but I am always interested in trying things out.
So if anyone is interested reply to this post and I will make the list
....
--
Mike Hall
MS MVP Windows Shell/User
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/
K
kirk jim
solitaire ?
that runs ;-)
that runs ;-)
Stutterer said:Many people just wish they could RUN something on Vista. Anything. At all.
K
kirk jim
Do you have one that will make XP use memory as efficiently as Vista can,
Mike.. The way you state your question implies that vista actually is better
at memory handling that XP is.
I disagree.
I remember applications back on windows 95 that does what superfetch does
now for vista.... and that was with 8-16 mb of ram... lol. Not only did
thos programs learn by themselves, but you could actually select which
programs would be accelerated, something that prefetch does only
automatically.
Of course they did not catch on with so little ram then and they have been
forgotten.
The thing is Vista tries to tell us this is a revolution. Its an old
concept,
and many have done it... if you look around there are apps that do the same
thing for XP, but you know what? I always hated them....
I turn prefetch off on XP, and superfetch off on vista.
These features may be ok for most people, but not for me.
There are no REAL improvements in memory that vista has over XP, since both
due to 32 bit limitations (if that's what we are talking about and not 64
bit), you cant have more than 4 gigs...
DO you have something in mind that I may not know? Perhaps something about
the new kernel?
Please provide links so I can see any information relative to this.
On my tests I have seen that vista degrades considerably the performance of
a computer you install it on compared to xp on the SAME machine. And I have
tested 6 different machines now ... tested them in detail.. Why did I do
these tests? Well because people kept saying that vista is faster... well
sorry guys..
its not faster... it has faster boot and shut down, but that's it.
What I would love to do, but cant... would to have 2 machines side by side
and record them on a camcorder,
one with XP and one with vista. I cant do this because I don't have 2
identical machines. I would to all imaginable tests
and see visually the response time of each OS. Benchmark apps have their
limitations, and they dont really show
the reaction of the computer in real world computing habbits.
And the readyboost is a good feature for low memory systems that have under
1 gig... but if you have 1+ gigs you wont see any difference with
readyboost.
I advise people to not use vista with less than 1 gig minimum anyway... 2 is
better.
However this is all a big waste of time.... by the time I needed to write
this post, the level of technology for CPU speed has already increased...
lol Intel wants to have 100 core cpus in 5 years.
On that kind of a machine, even vista will run fast <g>
or is this just a list of visual enhancements?
Mike.. The way you state your question implies that vista actually is better
at memory handling that XP is.
I disagree.
I remember applications back on windows 95 that does what superfetch does
now for vista.... and that was with 8-16 mb of ram... lol. Not only did
thos programs learn by themselves, but you could actually select which
programs would be accelerated, something that prefetch does only
automatically.
Of course they did not catch on with so little ram then and they have been
forgotten.
The thing is Vista tries to tell us this is a revolution. Its an old
concept,
and many have done it... if you look around there are apps that do the same
thing for XP, but you know what? I always hated them....
I turn prefetch off on XP, and superfetch off on vista.
These features may be ok for most people, but not for me.
There are no REAL improvements in memory that vista has over XP, since both
due to 32 bit limitations (if that's what we are talking about and not 64
bit), you cant have more than 4 gigs...
DO you have something in mind that I may not know? Perhaps something about
the new kernel?
Please provide links so I can see any information relative to this.
On my tests I have seen that vista degrades considerably the performance of
a computer you install it on compared to xp on the SAME machine. And I have
tested 6 different machines now ... tested them in detail.. Why did I do
these tests? Well because people kept saying that vista is faster... well
sorry guys..
its not faster... it has faster boot and shut down, but that's it.
What I would love to do, but cant... would to have 2 machines side by side
and record them on a camcorder,
one with XP and one with vista. I cant do this because I don't have 2
identical machines. I would to all imaginable tests
and see visually the response time of each OS. Benchmark apps have their
limitations, and they dont really show
the reaction of the computer in real world computing habbits.
And the readyboost is a good feature for low memory systems that have under
1 gig... but if you have 1+ gigs you wont see any difference with
readyboost.
I advise people to not use vista with less than 1 gig minimum anyway... 2 is
better.
However this is all a big waste of time.... by the time I needed to write
this post, the level of technology for CPU speed has already increased...
lol Intel wants to have 100 core cpus in 5 years.
On that kind of a machine, even vista will run fast <g>
G
Guest
You must have an underpowered computer. PCMag released a taskbar for 3.1.
G
Guest
XP can use more than 4mb of memory. It has modes. I think it can use up to
16 GB of installed memory.
16 GB of installed memory.
G
Guest
Windows has many memory modes. One mode allows up to 16 GB of main memory.
Another allows applications to access many GB of memory. And there are
others. Any restrictions are marketing based.
Because programs can implement Virtual memory (seperate to windows memory
management). The hardware can use PAE (up to 16GB of memory).
Modes, modes, and more modes.
If you wish to be critical then you should take aim at the criminals in MS
marketing dept.
Another allows applications to access many GB of memory. And there are
others. Any restrictions are marketing based.
Because programs can implement Virtual memory (seperate to windows memory
management). The hardware can use PAE (up to 16GB of memory).
Modes, modes, and more modes.
If you wish to be critical then you should take aim at the criminals in MS
marketing dept.
K
kirk jim
It is a mathematical limitation of 32bit...
no OS that is 32 bit can use more ram...
perhaps there will be some workaround sometime... but I dont know of any
no OS that is 32 bit can use more ram...
perhaps there will be some workaround sometime... but I dont know of any
G
Guest
That just shows your ignorance. And I did go to some trouble in my previous
post to correct your anticipated propaganda.
For a start you assume memory addresses are a function of processing bit
size. This is mostly true in theory but you need to remember that the 8086
had a 16 bit regtisters but a 20 bit memory addressing bus.
A program has to use windows virtual memory functions to access more than
4GB.
The hardware need to be designed to support more than 4GB of physical
memory. These are hardware limitations.
I quote MS
Address Windowing Extensions
Address Windowing Extensions (AWE) is a set of extensions that allows an
application to quickly manipulate physical memory greater than 4GB. Certain
data-intensive applications, such as database management systems and
scientific and engineering software, need access to very large caches of
data. In the case of very large data sets, restricting the cache to fit
within an application's 2GB of user address space is a severe restriction.
In these situations, the cache is too small to properly support the
application.
AWE solves this problem by allowing applications to directly address huge
amounts of memory while continuing to use 32-bit pointers. AWE allows
applications to have data caches larger than 4GB (where sufficient physical
memory is present). AWE uses physical nonpaged memory and window views of
various portions of this physical memory within a 32-bit virtual address
space.
AWE places a few restrictions on how this memory may be used, primarily
because these restrictions allow extremely fast mapping, remapping, and
freeing. Fast
post to correct your anticipated propaganda.
For a start you assume memory addresses are a function of processing bit
size. This is mostly true in theory but you need to remember that the 8086
had a 16 bit regtisters but a 20 bit memory addressing bus.
A program has to use windows virtual memory functions to access more than
4GB.
The hardware need to be designed to support more than 4GB of physical
memory. These are hardware limitations.
I quote MS
Address Windowing Extensions
Address Windowing Extensions (AWE) is a set of extensions that allows an
application to quickly manipulate physical memory greater than 4GB. Certain
data-intensive applications, such as database management systems and
scientific and engineering software, need access to very large caches of
data. In the case of very large data sets, restricting the cache to fit
within an application's 2GB of user address space is a severe restriction.
In these situations, the cache is too small to properly support the
application.
AWE solves this problem by allowing applications to directly address huge
amounts of memory while continuing to use 32-bit pointers. AWE allows
applications to have data caches larger than 4GB (where sufficient physical
memory is present). AWE uses physical nonpaged memory and window views of
various portions of this physical memory within a 32-bit virtual address
space.
AWE places a few restrictions on how this memory may be used, primarily
because these restrictions allow extremely fast mapping, remapping, and
freeing. Fast
K
kirk jim
And what about linux 32 bit... are you blaming Microsoft for their 4gb
limitations too? lol
By definition, a 32-bit processor uses 32 bits to refer to the location of
each byte of memory. 2^32 = 4.2 billion, which means a memory address that's
32 bits long can only refer to 4.2 billion unique locations
if you can find me a way to make 2^32 = 16 billion
then you will have not only proved me wrong.. you would have broken
the fundemental rules of mathematics
limitations too? lol
By definition, a 32-bit processor uses 32 bits to refer to the location of
each byte of memory. 2^32 = 4.2 billion, which means a memory address that's
32 bits long can only refer to 4.2 billion unique locations
if you can find me a way to make 2^32 = 16 billion
then you will have not only proved me wrong.. you would have broken
the fundemental rules of mathematics
K
kirk jim
Yeah....I am running vista on a pocket calculator...
it will take 3 million years to boot.
it will take 3 million years to boot.
K
kirk jim
my ignorance is because no one... and I must repeat no one
in the microsoft newsgroups, including the MVPs ever said
that it was somehow possible to go beyond the 4 gig limitation...
I am a person that dont like limitations of that sort, and believe
that there are always possibilities....
thank you for telling me this information... I will pass it on, if
this topic comes up again.
in the microsoft newsgroups, including the MVPs ever said
that it was somehow possible to go beyond the 4 gig limitation...
I am a person that dont like limitations of that sort, and believe
that there are always possibilities....
thank you for telling me this information... I will pass it on, if
this topic comes up again.
J
Justin
Stutterer said:Many people just wish they could RUN something on Vista. Anything. At all.
Anything?
Office 2003, 2007
Photoshop
Folding@Home
WLMd
Firefox
Flash
Acrobat
.....I can keep on going if you want.
J
Justin
kirk jim said:http://www.visualtasktips.com/ (free)
this effect is something they added in the vista shell...
If you are running xp and want to have this effect you can try this out.
If anyone is interested... I have a list of applications that can make xp
do whatever vista can....
This is good for people who are running XP and may want things vista has
but do not want
or can not upgrade,
or
those who use vista and xp on different machines, and when they go
to the xp machine they feel that it lacks features.
Personally I don't like effects and use a classic theme for speed...
but I am always interested in trying things out.
So if anyone is interested reply to this post and I will make the list
....
This is old and there's a couple of them out there. Maybe even a few. This
belong in XP Customize, not Vista.
J
Justin
kirk jim said:It is a mathematical limitation of 32bit...
no OS that is 32 bit can use more ram...
perhaps there will be some workaround sometime... but I dont know of any
I hope that people read threads like these and realize just how ignorant
this kirk guy is when it comes to anything Windows related. He talks a lot
of talk and often some up short with bogus facts.
Windows 32 bit can use more then 4GB of memory. I have many machines with
16GB of memory and SQL has no problem accessing any of it. All you need is
the AWE switch. "." pretty much took care of the specifics.
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.