- Joined
- May 13, 2008
- Messages
- 198
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Massachusetts - North Shore
Vista-64 bit can utilize up to 8 GB of RAM. The problem is Vista-64 has a bad reputation; it can't run certain programs like the previous Vista -32 could. Vista-32 had secular \\\"compatibility issues\\\" when it was first released.
Actually Vista-64 and XP-64 supports much more than 8GB. I have 16GB in my workstation. Dell ships workstations with 64GB of memory that run Vista/XP-64.
When people complain about Vista, they're not being specific enough. Are they complaining about Vista-32 when it first emerged? Or are they upset about the low compatibility with Vista-64? None of it matters now, anyway. All the updates changed everything.
My big complaint with Vista is that it runs 10% slower than XP. I discovered this while running a suite of Photoshop benchmarks on my QuadCore Xeon 16GB system with a 15,000rpm system drive and a $1,500 nVidia Quadro FX 4500 grphics card.
Photoshop is a 32 bit application (well CS4 just came out which is finally a 64 bit application). It manages memory utilization using scratch files rather than using relying on virtual memory management in Windows XP. I had heard Vista 64 had much better memory caching of the disk drives and was hoping it would speed up Photoshop. I was sadly mistaken however after running the benchmarks. I finally got a huge performance boost by buying a 3rd party RAM disk driver and creating a 12GB RAM disk on which I put the Photoshop scratch files. This made Photoshop on my workstation lightning fast. Too bad Vista 64 couldn't do this for me.
I like a few things about Vista and don't like other things. But mainly there is nothing Vista gives me to make up for the 10% performance penalty for using it.
-John
Last edited: