05-05-2009, 09:49 AM | #11 | ||
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Roeselare, Belgium
Posts: 1,442
|
M&B isn't "modern". The engine is old and has been in development for several years - Oblivion, which is 3 years old now, looks miles better to give you an example. M&B was never designed to be cutting edge in terms of graphics after all. Try running more intensive games like Bioshock and you'll notice a lot of difference - if the game runs at all.
|
||
|
|
05-05-2009, 09:51 AM | #12 | ||
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Roeselare, Belgium
Posts: 1,442
|
Quote:
EDIT: sorry, I noticed Tulac posted after I had already begun writing my post. So yes, you only have 3GB or so left. |
||
|
|
05-05-2009, 09:55 AM | #13 | ||
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Posts: 1,867
|
Also this:
Quote:
And besides we shouldn't be having this discussion anyway. Since today's HD space is dirt cheap you can use a 64-bit OS as your primary, and a 32-bit OS as your secondary system using dual boot. I speak from personal experience since I regret not putting the 64-bit OS in the first place. Last edited by Tulac; 05-05-2009 at 10:05 AM. |
||
|
|
05-05-2009, 07:10 PM | #14 | ||
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Roeselare, Belgium
Posts: 1,442
|
Quote:
|
||
|
|
05-05-2009, 10:45 PM | #15 | ||
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Valleyfield, Canada
Posts: 4,892
|
Quote:
So it's no wonder that I prefer to play old gems like those we have on the site. Add to this the (incredibly) high amount of negative comments I've heard about Vista since it got out... It's also no wonder that I'm definitely not impressed by arguments such as "32 bits OS can't handle more than 3 (or 4) gigs of ram... I only have 512 on my computer right now, and with the kind of program I run it's more than adequate. Never had a problem with it, in fact. So yeah... For me the whole thing is quite ridiculous from the start. |
||
|
|
06-05-2009, 09:48 PM | #16 | ||
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 1,044
|
Quote:
|
||
|
|
07-05-2009, 07:20 PM | #17 | ||
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Peterlee, England
Posts: 169
|
I only have 2 GB of memory and the modern games I play run fine Fallout 3, Crysis, Far Cry 2 etc and that is with a standard £40 graphics card .
I am not sure I buy into the idea that more memory will make that much difference unless you are doing video editing and even if it does losing the ability to run my older games still makes 64 bit lose out maybe when I re-install I will try splitting the HD to run a few games on both to test performance although I am not sure how that will work with my legit copy of windows it should be fine. |
||
|
|
07-05-2009, 09:30 PM | #18 | ||
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Roeselare, Belgium
Posts: 1,442
|
Quote:
Also, unless you've actually used 4GB after having had 2GB, it's unlikely you'll know the difference it gives. Programs load quicker in Vista due to its caching of the most used software - Photoshop can boot in a matter of seconds. One of the main mistakes people make with Vista, is assume it eats memory like mad because it happens to cache available memory. Unlike other OS's, which leave free memory to go unused, Vista makes use of it -if you run a game that needs more memory, it will uncache the programs in less than a second so you only have advantages. And believe me, 2GB vs 4GB makes a HUGE difference here. With caching disabled (you can do this), programs take more than twice as long to start. So do you NEED 2GB? No. I don't think I ever said you did. I said 4GB has its benefits and only an utter fool would believe that, in the future, it wouldn't become necessary. But to me, it has tangible benefits - as a graphic designer, even 4GB is borderline when you work with complex Photoshop files that contain hundreds of layers. For games, it offers a very smooth experience and the cost of memory is definitely not something that should scare you off. In the end, it gives me more advantages than downsides so why not? |
||
|
|