Gaming on Vista using 2GB RAM

[russki]

Here are some good articles on DRM specifically as it applies to Vista.


I think this is the most informative article so far.
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html

here are some others

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12/28/vista_drm_analysis/

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/02/drm_in_windows.html

http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/hardware/hdcp-vista.ars

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=25124

Read up boys and girls, If you were wondering why Vista is so much slower than XP, the answer is in these articles.

I love these links. The register one is the best of all because they claim it's a vulnerability for a malware app to prevent you from watching protected content XD. I also like your comment about the protected path DRM slowing down the whole system all the time. Way to spread the FUD 😛

FUD? I only spread the truth.

I guess all of these journalists are also spreading FUD.

I'll tell you what, why don't you run out and find a positive review of the DRM situation in Vista, then post it here.

Everybody knows how irritating and useless this stuff is, but hey if you like it that's kewl too. I just want an option to remove it from MY operating system.

If you had read those links, you would know that it does slow the whole system down all the time, because it is constantly checking for "premium" content, which uses up quite a few clock cycles.

But don't mind me, I obviously don't know what I'm talking about.

It's not that you don't know what you are talking about, it's that you take things at face value. And if it is FUD, albeit convincingly writte by quasi-reputable parties, you still soak it all in.

The best quote about all that stuff I haave read is this: "God makes little kittens die all over the world every time someone posts this crap," referring to the original Gutmann's article. By the way Schneier's article and Inquirer's articles you posted are a re-hash of that orginal "paper." There has been plenty said about Gutmann's arguments, which are presented in an extremely misleading fashion. I really don't know what he has against MS, but obviously it's a pretty big deal to him. Schneier, judging by the blog entry you posted, sorry to say, is a Moron. He deserves a capital M at the beginning of Moron. His enire point is that Microsoft controls the distribution channel for entertainment content and not the other way around, which is plain wrong. MS has been trying to make the PC a living room appliance, but save for a low percentage of geeks the living room is still centered around a TV with a traditional cable box or what have you (which, by the way is fully DRM compliant, and I don't hear you bitching about your cable provider. And you actually spend a whole lot more money on them than an OS, over any appreciable period of time).

So yes, you are spreding FUD, but it could only be expected with your user name...

 

[petevsdrm]

And if it is FUD, albeit convincingly writte by quasi-reputable parties, you still soak it all in.

OK, so by all means, find some "fully reputable parties" in your opinion that have positively reviewed Vista's DRM problem.

The best quote about all that stuff I haave read is this: "God makes little kittens die all over the world every time someone posts this crap," referring to the original Gutmann's article.

Yes I am sure there are many interested parties that would love it if people quit posting this information.(microsoft) Just look the other way.....

By the way Schneier's article and Inquirer's articles you posted are a re-hash of that orginal "paper."

There are many more "re-hashes" than that, since he did such a thorough job of analysis, many people quote or paraphrase that article. However there are many articles exploring the negative aspects of Vista's DRM that do not refer to Gutman's popular article.

There has been plenty said about Gutmann's arguments, which are presented in an extremely misleading fashion.

I am not totally rabid, if you think I have been mislead, then by all means show me how this DRM is good for me and my system. Seriously, if you can present a good argument I will listen.

I really don't know what he has against MS, but obviously it's a pretty big deal to him. Schneier, judging by the blog entry you posted, sorry to say, is a Moron. He deserves a capital M at the beginning of Moron.

That's pretty ruthless.

His enire point is that Microsoft controls the distribution channel for entertainment content and not the other way around, which is plain wrong. MS has been trying to make the PC a living room appliance, but save for a low percentage of geeks the living room is still centered around a TV with a traditional cable box or what have you.

Yes, and 80 years ago the cutting edge in home entertainment was FM radio. Microsoft is not stupid (or evil despite what some say) and they have very long term goals. Do you doubt that they would love nothing more than to control the avenue for all HD content, particularly as it becomes more popular?

(which, by the way is fully DRM compliant, and I don't hear you bitching about your cable provider. And you actually spend a whole lot more money on them than an OS, over any appreciable period of time).

I don't have a cable provider, furthermore I almost never watch TV unless it is on at a friends house. I do like movies though 😛 . However if I did have cable I could certainly record anything that comes across it on my VCR or DVR, then copy it as I like.

Really, that is part of the problem though, is that my computer is NOT a set-top box, nor do I want it to become one.

So yes, you are spreding FUD, but it could only be expected with your user name...

Again, nothing I have said or posted is not true. If the truth is FUD then I am one FUDding bastid. :lol:

Look I believe everyone has the right to protect their property, intellectual or otherwise
BUT
I am 100% against the current implementations of DRM. Everyone was so shocked to find out that Sony was putting rootkits on their music CD's, but Vista is the Ultimate Rootkit. It's built right into the kernel, constantly running, degrading the performance of your computer. Can you honestly say that my computer would not be faster without it?

 

[Alsone]

Just on the DRM point, it could be annoying depending on how you use your pc. I have a surfing DVD that I wanted to use as my desktop (Vista allows video wallpaper). I used it on XP for this via XP's Power Toys add in.
I copy it on Vista then try to run it as wallpaper and what do I get? Low quality video with stripy red lines over it. Its the only time I've encountered DRM and a bit extreme for desktop wallpaper!!! How are you supposed to put a vidoe on as wallpaper, home videos only?

DRM is not a big issue unless you copy DVD's but DRM sucks. Rather than punishing innocent users who only want back up copies or copies to view no cd on their pc, the industry should go after the file sharers and dvd factories not punish end users for innocent copying.

As far as I'm concerned, if I paid for my cd / or DVD then I have the right to copy that music / film to put in my car, play on my pc, my MP3 player or play anywhere else in my home / car etc.

 

[russki]

Sorry it took a bit to respond (and by the way sorry for hijacking the thread).

Here's the thing about the whole Gutmann is misleading point: his presentation highlights certain DRM features as if to say that they are novel in Vista, when they are the same technologies and implementations that were there in XP. Really, the only DRM features that are new to Vista are those that deal with hi-def content.

Secondly, to everyone who says that MS is this big bad company driving DRM, it is just plan wrong. Look, as I've stated before, there are plenty of reasons to dislike MS, but DRM is not one of them. MS did not develop the DRM technologies, nor did it suggest certain aspects of their implementation that ticks people of. All of the DRM methods were demised by industry interest groups, who deserve the blame and the outrage. At the end of the day, they are preposterous, without a doubt. But here is how it works. Provider says if you want to play my content, you have to do X. MS wants to play the provider's content, therefore MS must comply.

Here, Schneier's point comes in play. He says that MS is so big that it can dictate to the content providers whether or not it will implement the providers' DRM schemes. I believe that he is wrong, however, and you (PETEvsDRM) are a poster child for that. You say that you don't want your PC to replace your set-top box, yet that's what MS wants to happen eventually. And yes, they are making inroads, but they are far from it, and the new hi-def content takes them a step further from the goal. It was cool how they used Xbox360 as the media center extender - I don't think we will see HTPC's any time soon due to the cost, but you won't be able to stream HD content too well, I don't think. Not to mention, there are no reliably working solutions for receiving HD cable programming. With that said, MS is in no position to do the dictating, and, as you acknowledged, they are anything but stupid, and they know that being DRM free would increase sales...

Anyway, this thread is about gaming, so I'll let it go.

 

[petevsdrm]

Here's the thing about the whole Gutmann is misleading point: his presentation highlights certain DRM features as if to say that they are novel in Vista,

1."In order to prevent the creation of hardware emulators of protected output devices, Vista requires a Hardware Functionality Scan (HFS) "

Novel in Vista

2. "Once a weakness is found in a particular driver or device, that driver will have its signature revoked by Microsoft, which means that it will no longer be fed anything considered to be premium content."

Novel in Vista

3.“The evidence [of security] must be presented to Hollywood and other content owners, and they must agree that it provides the required level of security. Written proof from at least three of the major Hollywood studios is required�.

Novel in Vista

4."In order to prevent tampering with in-system communications, all communication flows have to be encrypted and/or authenticated. For example content sent to video devices has to be encrypted with AES-128. "

Novel in Vista

I could go on and on and on, ad nauseum, but the statement that none of this DRM is new in Vista is so ignorant that I don't think I have to.

Secondly, to everyone who says that MS is this big bad company driving DRM, it is just plan wrong. Look, as I've stated before, there are plenty of reasons to dislike MS, but DRM is not one of them.

I never said I dislike Microsoft. Nor did I say that they drive DRM. (where do you get this stuff?)

MS did not develop the DRM technologies, nor did it suggest certain aspects of their implementation that ticks people of.

Back that statement up with proof.

All of the DRM methods were demised by industry interest groups, who deserve the blame and the outrage.

demised?

At the end of the day, they are preposterous, without a doubt.

no argument

But here is how it works. Provider says if you want to play my content, you have to do X. MS wants to play the provider's content, therefore MS must comply.

The providers just don't want to lose a penny, and they will do anything within their power to keep that penny, regardless of who it is detrimental to.

The question is, if it is detrimental to YOU, why do you like it so much?

Here, Schneier's point comes in play. He says that MS is so big that it can dictate to the content providers whether or not it will implement the providers' DRM schemes. I believe that he is wrong, however, and you (PETEvsDRM) are a poster child for that.

I am a "poster child" for no one.
If you have a poster with me on it, please take it down, because the thought is kind of creeping me out.

You say that you don't want your PC to replace your set-top box, yet that's what MS wants to happen eventually.

no kidding. :roll: but you seem to embrace the idea.

And yes, they are making inroads, but they are far from it, and the new hi-def content takes them a step further from the goal.

Explain yourself, honestly, how does it take them further from "the goal"

Not to mention, there are no reliably working solutions for receiving HD cable programming.

You really have never heard of an HD DVR? Do you think that an HD cable card is impossible, or....just not out yet?

 

[mad_murdock]

Battou, I'd like to see Vista only using 500mb of ram with standard settings ie. everything including superprefetching turned on. Of course, it will also depend on which version you have. If you have basic or home then it will use less because they are feature stripped versions. I run Ultimate which is why my usuage may be a higher than some other versions and on the subject of memory leaks, your system can't have memory leaks its software that has memory leaks so short of Vista having one, there is no leak

Though the question is pretyt much dead at this point, I thought I would address this question.

I guess if the mindset is to run Vista with everything running (to include services and apps that you don't really need) then Vista could use a fair amount of ram. I still don't see how anyone is using 1.3GB just for a base desktop run, but I guess we have to clarify what is a base desktop.

Here I am running Vista 64 Ultimate, which OBTW, Ultimate doesn't consume any more ram than HP. Now if you decided to run Dreamscene, that does make a difference, but there are 3rd party apps that allow you to have the dreamscene effect. Anyways, I turned everythign on, I'm using dreamscene, I have a few extra apps running, like PCanywhere, LCD for the keyboard and DUmeter. Along with Superfetch, ready boost and the other services.
I'm peak out around 900MB of memory.

http://images1.filecloud.com/444953/memory_V64.jpg

Now, Here is how I normally run Vista, since I don't care for all the pretty things, and I turn off services that I don't use or want like IP helper, Tablet PC, SuperFetch and Readyboost

http://images1.filecloud.com/444954/low_memory.jpg


So I guess the question is, if one plans to run everything under the sun (which most serious gamers try not to do), then I guess you do need to look at getting 3GB or more of ram.

If you run a more normal config, then 2GB works just fine.I play BF2, BF2142, FEAR, Supreme Commander. All are little ram pigs, but all work just fine under Vista and 2GB of ram. I've run the resource monitor on a 2nd monitor and I don't see any pagefile usage, even when I see 90% memory usage. I guess I should test again with everything under the sun turned on and see what I get.

 

[Alsone]

Here's my desktop, everything set as default (ie as when Windows was installed). 1.18gb usuage = 30%.

Can be seen from both the performance meter and task manager.

You can see its at idle as CPU usuage at 1%!

 

[lmimmfn]

eg. BF2 uses 1.3GB on High settings.

I play BF2 a lot, its actually 1.59 on max, i can verify this from my other PC which has 1.6 Gig from task manager and it doesnt page, but after playing for an hour and context switching back to XP will be sloowwww

Im now on 4Gig with Vista Ultimate 64, its a must( 4 gig that is, not vista lol ), Vista sucks everything out of my PC, BF2 Framerates have dropped from 80FPS to 60, grrrr, and im getting the weirdest performance with test drive unlimited, sometimes its 33FPS avg then i quit and launch again and its 42FPS avg( which isint bad @ 1680x1050 2xAA no HDR )

2Gig was the requirement for gaming on XP, Vista is 4 Gig simply because everyones getting bigger screens, which require better GPU's with more memory for textures, everyone wants high quality sound, its evolution really, i can get Vista down to around 500Meg whereas the smallest i could get XP down to was 165megs, if i switched off even more of the candy on vist id probably get it down to 400Meg, which isint much of a difference compared to XP

Vista is very immature at the mo, and because of the drop in FPS for me i may have to go back to XP but ill wait a bit( simply cos i installed XP on another PC ), ill probably get an 8800 soon just to bring it upto speed

 

[Guest]

people stop wining that windows vista gives low framerates. remember when Xp came out it was the same thing. so just suck it up and deal with it. or go to windows 98 for more framerates.

 

[Ycon]

2 GB is not enough for performance apps in Vista.
Remember that XP required 2 GB for performance and even 4 GB for real high-end.
2 GB under Vista is only sufficient for low-end to moderate performance apps.

 

[lmimmfn]

people stop wining that windows vista gives low framerates. remember when Xp came out it was the same thing. so just suck it up and deal with it. or go to windows 98 for more framerates.

lol, cmon now thats a crap attitude,games are performing the 'exact' same calculations its the OS thats slowing it down and most likely the wrapper they used for DX9, im sure it will be sorted eventually

your example of going back to windows 98 is rubbish, 98 wouldnt give any performance improvement over XP simply because in XP with all the junk turned off the OS doesnt interfere with FPS, if i thought like that i may as well play Paperboy on a speccy emulator so i can see 3000FPS :twisted:

 

[mad_murdock]

Here's my desktop, everything set as default (ie as when Windows was installed). 1.18gb usuage = 30%

I don't doubt that you are using 1.2+GB, I myself would be looking over my config and figuring out why. I have 40 processes running and you have 62. Maybe 45-47 process is normal under a base Vista install, but you have alot more than I would consider normal.

2 GB is not enough for performance apps in Vista.
Remember that XP required 2 GB for performance and even 4 GB for real high-end.
2 GB under Vista is only sufficient for low-end to moderate performance apps

What are you calling performance apps ? This thread is asking about Gaming under Vista using 2GB. If you have some articles that shows an actual performance gain user greater than 2GB under Vista, I'd be glad to look at it. So far, I have seen anything that says 2GB is mandatory, and 4GB is desired.

I don't have a problem buying another 2GB of ram, but it needs to pay for itself. And nothing I've done under Vista shows me that an extra 1GB would pay for itself, much less 2GB.

Maybe I should skip the overclocking stuff, so I can get the cheap ram. But I bought the high-end Corsair ram last year, and 2x1GB ran $300. Last I checked, getting more memory exactly like what I have would cost me $250. I don't see there being $250 worth of performance in that extra 2GB, espeically, when I can't find a performance problem with teh 2GB I have now.

Crysis\UT3, BioShock, etc etc, may change this, but I'm not going to buy ram until I actually need it. Heck, by the time I actually need it, I might be gettign a whole new rig

people stop wining that windows vista gives low framerates. remember when Xp came out it was the same thing

And why has a gamer would you go to an OS that performs slower than the current OS ? Though ATI has had some pretty good drivers, so I'm not seeing anything all that slow under Vista.

I skipped XP for the first 2 years or so it was out, Win2000 gave me everything I needed. I currently triple boot between XP, V32 and V64. I'll be keeping XP around for a while, since it does everything Vista can do and in my personal opinion, better

 

[bLAKEpERKINS]

Battou, I'd like to see Vista only using 500mb of ram with standard settings ie. everything including superprefetching turned on. Of course, it will also depend on which version you have. If you have basic or home then it will use less because they are feature stripped versions. I run Ultimate which is why my usuage may be a higher than some other versions and on the subject of memory leaks, your system can't have memory leaks its software that has memory leaks so short of Vista having one, there is no leak

Though the question is pretyt much dead at this point, I thought I would address this question.

I guess if the mindset is to run Vista with everything running (to include services and apps that you don't really need) then Vista could use a fair amount of ram. I still don't see how anyone is using 1.3GB just for a base desktop run, but I guess we have to clarify what is a base desktop.

Here I am running Vista 64 Ultimate, which OBTW, Ultimate doesn't consume any more ram than HP. Now if you decided to run Dreamscene, that does make a difference, but there are 3rd party apps that allow you to have the dreamscene effect. Anyways, I turned everythign on, I'm using dreamscene, I have a few extra apps running, like PCanywhere, LCD for the keyboard and DUmeter. Along with Superfetch, ready boost and the other services.
I'm peak out around 900MB of memory.

http://images1.filecloud.com/444953/memory_V64.jpg

Now, Here is how I normally run Vista, since I don't care for all the pretty things, and I turn off services that I don't use or want like IP helper, Tablet PC, SuperFetch and Readyboost

http://images1.filecloud.com/444954/low_memory.jpg


So I guess the question is, if one plans to run everything under the sun (which most serious gamers try not to do), then I guess you do need to look at getting 3GB or more of ram.

If you run a more normal config, then 2GB works just fine.I play BF2, BF2142, FEAR, Supreme Commander. All are little ram pigs, but all work just fine under Vista and 2GB of ram. I've run the resource monitor on a 2nd monitor and I don't see any pagefile usage, even when I see 90% memory usage. I guess I should test again with everything under the sun turned on and see what I get.

might what to remove thous images, i can see your Product key?

also @ the dude with 1.3GB of ram being used by vista, that is the dynamic kernel in action, and i bet if you took a gig or 2 out it would go down to 800 like the other dude (i can see you have 4gb so a rich person like you would just go out and get the bests of everything).

 

[mad_murdock]

might what to remove thous images, i can see your Product key?

Well it's technically the Product ID. It's definately not the Product key I typed in. Not sure if anyone can use that product ID for anything useful. I left it in, just to show that it was the same machine. Maybe I'll blotch out the last set for good measure.

Not sure one really needs to be rich anymore. Looking over at newegg, one can get 2x2GB of DDR2-800 for $300, plus a $40 mail in rebate. That's about the same as I paid for my 2x1GB Corsair memory ($286) back in Apr 06
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820220227
Granted I paid extra, because I wanted a 2 stick config, and that memory was suppose to be good for overclocking and had low Latency for big memory sticks (2-3-2-6 1T). They did overclock pretty good, not sure if they were worth the extra $$, but I digress.....

If I was building a new system from scratch today, I'd probably be eyeing 4GB over 2GB, since the price isn't that bad.

Again, would I buy another 2GB today for Vista and gamng ? No, not until I saw that I actually needed it

that is the dynamic kernel in action

I might be able to get behind you on that one. I added a gig to my system to see what would happen, and now I'm hovering around 1.03GB of memory in use.

On a side compliant, Vista\Microsoft seem to be a little to paranoid about piracy. After adding 1GB of ram, I noticed I had the activation windows come up. Not that it's a big deal, but it just seems a little extreme to want to re-activate everytime you change\add a component. It's one thing to change a motherboard, it's another thing to add memory. Oh well, what cha going to do.

 

[bLAKEpERKINS]

yeah, the level of ram usage in vista is determined by the amount of total ram. However, i beleve the difference between 3 or 4 GB is where it stops increasing. I read an article on it some where. i'll see if i can dig it up

 

[Alsone]

also @ the dude with 1.3GB of ram being used by vista, that is the dynamic kernel in action, and i bet if you took a gig or 2 out it would go down to 800 like the other dude (i can see you have 4gb so a rich person like you would just go out and get the bests of everything).

So what does this prove, that Vista scales according to the amount of RAM installed, yes but we already knew that!

But at 800mb usuage on 2GB RAM that still only leaves 1.2GB free and with some of the existing games using up to 1.5gb RAM already that means swap file usuage which = pauses and lag.

Fact is the only way you can get more than 2GB RAM free in Vista, to deal with the latest games, is to install 4GB.

PS I'm not rich but thanks for the compliment.

 

[bLAKEpERKINS]

there is nothing wrong with this need to upgrade to run vista at the same performance as xp, just remember the jump from 98 -> 2000/xp. back then everyone was bitching and complaining like they are about vista, and look where that got em 😛

as for the hole swap file usage thingy, unless you game on a 5400rpm lappy HDD (like me) it shouldn't really be a problem.

that being said more ram is always better (until the point of diminishing returns)

 

[mad_murdock]

there is nothing wrong with this need to upgrade to run vista at the same performance as xp, just remember the jump from 98 -> 2000/xp. back then everyone was bitching and complaining like they are about vista, and look where that got em 😛

An upgrade from Win98 to 2000 and espeically XP was a bigger jump in my opinion. Going from 2000 to XP, wasn't much of a jump. Going from Win98 to XP (or 2000) also gave you alot more in terms of value for the upgrade. I didn't have that much problem with Windows 98, but 2000 and XP are far more robust and handle problems better, At least in My experience. It was what I would call a real Meat and Potatoes upgrade.

My personal complaint with Vista, is that it doesn't offer me anything over XP (or really 2000). I don't mind having to upgrade to perform the same, if I'm getting more out of the OS. But my needs are pretty simple and I don't have problems with XP, so Vista is nothing but a shiny new shell with what I personally find annoying new features. So to say I need to get 4GB of ram to play BF2 under Vista, the same way I can BF2 under XP isn't much value for the money. Though I stil find BF2 plays fine with 2GB under Vista. To me, Vista is more like a Tofu burger upgrade

If I'm going with 4GB to be able to play DX10 games, then I guess it pays for itself that way. Of course, if they offered me DX10 for XP, then that would take a huge reason to upgrade away from me and a a lot of other people. But that's not going to happen.

While I understand hardware is cheap, I'm still wondering if Microsoft has to write their code that way. I still wonder why they can't write clean, tight, code. I guess this is the pitfall of trying to have a do everything OS

 

[leexgx]

512mb on vista is an joke

1gb min it work ok but games will take long time to load + Lots of pageing so game will stutter alot (try and Alt tab out of an game heh)

2gb recommended Most games will work good unless the game it self is useing more then 1gb

3gb or 4gb(64bit) for gaming or any One program that use more then 1gb of system ram (stops pageing as it can happen on 2gb of ram on vista)

Vista starts Pageing at 90-95% Ram use (1.8GB ish)

As an rule take 700mb-1gb system ram when Vista is installed (the lower number with nothing installed) (thats why i recommend min 3gb ram for an gameing system or Video editing that it seems you are doing)

games that use upto or more then 1gb of ram will most likey suffer on 2gb systems an little

if you wish to see the last 1gb of ram in an 4gb system you need to use Vista 64

my system has 2gb ram only becuse the other 2gb refuse to boot up when in (that be sorted soon RMA

any one makeing an new system for gaming with vista just buy the 2x2gb Dual chan packs
Vista 64 tho is not as stable as vista 32 (Drivers/programs ect)

Xp needs no more then 2gb