A Messy Transition (Part 3): Vista Buys Some Time
by Ryan Smith on August 13, 2007 3:00 PM EST- Posted in
- Systems
Final Thoughts
Having seen the results of the hotfix, we can unequivocally say that anyone doing serious gaming under Windows Vista should install the hotfix (and the latest drivers for their video card) at the first chance they get. It's not a solution to the 2GB barrier, but it is a solution to Vista's extreme virtual address space usage. For gamers who are or may be experiencing crashes related to the 2GB barrier, and who are weary of the fixes we outlined in part 1, this is the best solution to resolving the problem for now.
We'd like to pause on "for now" though, as in spite of our enthusiasm for this hotfix we can't ignore the fact that this is a fix to take care of what we feel was a stupid problem in Vista long-overdue for a solution, but that's it. This hotfix won't resolve the 2GB barrier; at best it buys some more time for the 32-bit (x86) version of Vista, and at worse it's no better for applications that don't make heavy use of video memory. The 2GB barrier is still the imposing problem this series is all about, and dealing with it won't be any easier, but with this hotfix at least status quo is (nearly) maintained a bit longer.
As for what can be done to deal with the forthcoming messy transition, our views are still those that we started with at the beginning of this series. There are many interim solutions, but the only real solution is moving to 64-bit operating systems with 64-bit applications. Due to the overhead involved with such a transition we fear that this process may get a late start and won't be complete for a few years, while in the meantime users will still be dealing with the kind of crashing and odd behavior that results from hitting the 2GB barrier. Making the best of this messy transition will require some work from everyone from developers to users, if everyone is willing to put in the effort and deal with the problems.
It's worth noting that Microsoft's own solution for the issue is the same as ours, although slightly more forceful and we suspect slightly more profit-motivated (Windows XP users will have to pay to upgrade to Vista x64):
The long-term solution to this virtual address space problem is 64-bit hardware, which has significantly more address space. Windows Vista X64 provides 8 TB (8,096 GB) of user-mode virtual address space to native 64-bit applications. This is large enough to allow growth on both video memory configurations and application memory usage for many years.
Independent software vendors (ISVs) are strongly encouraged to port their games to native 64-bit applications. All graphics independent hardware vendors (IHVs) already make WDDM drivers available for 64-bit platforms at the same time as x86. Microsoft provides several tools that enable ISVs and IHVs to port their applications and drivers to the 64-bit platform. The Windows Logo Program requires that all third-part device drivers that are logo'd for Windows Vista comply with the 64-bit requirements.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
37 Comments
View All Comments
johnsonx - Monday, August 13, 2007 - link
While Vista may be worse than XP in regards to how much of the user address space it uses for the same app, isn't it better in that it's safer to increase user address space to 2.6Gb on Vista than it is to use the /3Gb switch in XP? As long as the developers of big game apps make them large memory aware, then won't Vista provide a net benefit? (ie the same app under Vista will allocate a 10-20% larger chunk of the 30% larger address space vs. XP).Of course this requires fiddling in the Registry to enable the 2.6Gb allocation; perhaps MS could add something to SP1 to smooth this process, or maybe even make it default if it can be determined to be safe enough for mass use?
Chadder007 - Monday, August 13, 2007 - link
Does anyone know why its hard to get X64 still on PCs from the likes of Dell/HP/Lenovo still? I know that HP offers Ultimate x64 at least on some of their consumer PCs but not basic or premium.johnsonx - Monday, August 13, 2007 - link
simple: support headaches. Too much stuff still isn't 64-bit compatible. They just don't want the hassle of all the extra calls to support, and the angry customers who are told they have no recourse but to purchase a retail copy of 32-bit windows.johnsonx - Monday, August 13, 2007 - link
and I can't blame them either.ikjadoon - Monday, August 13, 2007 - link
BF2 literally CTD's with this issue.I've heard claims that with this you cannot use unsigned drivers with these hotfixes, can Anandtech confirm that for us? Many of us using Vista are using Beta (aka unsigned) drivers because WHQL versions are few and far between. Thank you!
~Ibrahim~
Ryan Smith - Monday, August 13, 2007 - link
All of the games we used also can crash due to the issue(and much more frequently than BF2).As for this hotfix, it does not stop using unsigned drivers. I have heard however that one of the other subpacks for SP1 does break this under x64.
MadBoris - Monday, August 13, 2007 - link
Thanks Ryan for showing the before and after effects of the patch. It is clear Vista still has it's overhead unfortunately. Even if a game avoids hitting the 2GB wall by thorough testing and optimization (in a fixed footprint game unlike SupCom), the problem is all developers are being handicapped by RAM for PC now. We have the GPU and CPU power to render more and handle more, but memory size is a restraint to overall game design now for certain genres. Even though console games won't be very effected by PC ports, but standalone PC games that could really address more memory in a couple years won't be able to. As for now 2GB RAM is the current sweet spot for a gaming rig, but it's a slippery slope as we get close to the ceiling.I'm all for the 64 bit solution, as it is the only viable one. It really needs to become more mandatory that applications and games start doing proper x64 versions, some good apps still lack support. I fear the "strong encouragement" from MS isn't enough, maybe new tools they can come down with Visual Studio could make it easier for devs to verify code and do a proper 64 bit build.
Also, I think Microsoft should do a special promotion where users can buy a 64 bit Vista upgrade if you own 32 bit. 1/4 the price or better will make the transition easier and more inviting to Vista 32 users. I think MS would make plenty of money because more people would take the leap, and at the same time help the market adoption to 64 bit. Without MS making it an easy transition price wise for platform saturation, it also won't happen. As it is, 64 bit support is growing very quickly over the last 6 months by developers, it's promising but we need a 32 bit cutoff by MS I fear, maybe with the next OS would be a good time.
BikeDude - Thursday, August 16, 2007 - link
No, 2GB is no longer the sweet spot for a gaming rig. One year ago -- sure.Even though your game will at most utilize 2GB memory, there is still a need for the OS to cache stuff, and you might have other applications running in the background. Nothing is sweeter than having BF2 not touch your hard drive after a while... (I've had 4GB memory for two+ years now)
Given how cheap memory is now, 3GB or 4GB is closer to the sweet spot.
leexgx - Thursday, August 16, 2007 - link
vista norm running you should have 2gb at least or pc mite be an little slow with 1gb with just running norm programs like norton and 1 copy of internet explore + msn printer and so on can realy lag the pc out (gameing on 1gb ram can be an drag but if the game settings are low any way mite not matter)gamers on vista should aim for 3gb min
for later on maybe just buying 4x1gb or 2x2gb ram be better so all the ram is the same and you can get 64bit windows later on or Now (seems to be working fine for me but some games perform not so well game is jumping when FPS is high)
Shawn - Thursday, August 16, 2007 - link
You can switch from Vista 32bit to Vista 64bit by just using the 64bit installation dvd. You can use your same key. You don't need to re-buy Vista.