The Vista Experience...

[Martin Naef]

Tony Scharf wrote:
> My wife has vista with 3gb of RAM installed.  Unless you go with X64,
> I believe your still limited to 2gb on XP.

I guess so - 2GB per application. You could push it to 3GB/application 
at least on XP with a boot option that would force all system libraries 
into the top GB..

My system here effectively sees 3.3GB physical RAM, 700MB are occupied
in the address range by the graphics board. This is the same behaviour 
as XP.

> Also, there are differences in how the scheduler works in vista that
> optimizes it to working with multiple cores.  As I understand it, the
> Vista scheduler is aware of each core independently, and can make sure
> that a single thread stays on the same core each time it needs time,

I haven't really tested it yet, but I have a feeling that this isn't 
really that strict - I remember load on several cores when I was doing a 
lengthy (single-threaded) render. However, there might be reasons to 
level the load among the cores to optimise heat dissipation.

> I find it funny how XP was evil when Win2k was being replaced, and now
> XP is good and Vista is Evil.  I think people are just in the habit of
> hating anything microsoft does without doing any kind of evaluation
> first.  Ill admit some guilt there too..

My words...

> The only reason *I* havnt moved to vista, is I am (wishfully) waiting
> for the move to 64 bit applications for music.  It could be a while.

I could do it if I had the drivers for all my hardware...

Bye
Martin