OS Advantage?

[efs2]

I am preparing to re-build my PC - just to run DCS A-10C (sigh) - and would like to confirm my understanding of OS information set forth here.

 

I intend to re-install a 32-bit version of Windows XP but have a 32-bit copy of Windows 7 I could install if it would help. However, what I read here leads me to think there would be no FPS advantage to doing so. In fact, even upgrading to the 64-bit version would not add FPS. Is that correct?

 

The only advantage offered by Windows 7 is that it supports a greater amount of RAM, which improves load times. However, even that may be marginal because of the 3GB switch available to Windows XP users. Is that correct?

 

And feel free to offer any other insights regarding operating systems.

[kylania]

Windows 7 is so much better than XP this shouldn't even be a question. :)

[Slayer]

You should really make the jump and go to Window 7 x 64. Less load times less stuttering as memory swaps are all but eliminated. Win 7 is probably the most stable windows to date ( and I've used every single one of them since DOS days). I used to format my system yearly to get performance back. With 7 it's been intact since the day it was released.

 

Also looking to the future I'd say that at some point the DCS series will support DirectX 11....way better looking. You cant run DX11 on XP, Vista and above only.

[Ragtop]

I'd say just got for 7 x64, you won't regret it.

 

I made the jump from XP and I can't say a single bad thing about it. You're really just painting yourself into a corner with XP, as it'll eventually be phased out. If you have the option to upgrade to a known stable platform, it should be a no brainer IMO.

[LostOblivion]

If you asked the same question a couple years ago with Vista, then this would be a serious question. With Win7 however, this shouldn't be a hard decision.

[Mustang]

Windows 7 x64 all the way, nothing else will do :)

[Eddie]

Any 32bit OS will be a severe limitation now, and possibly totally prohibitive in the near future.

 

Besides with the current cost of RAM, 8Gb costs less than 4Gb did just a year ago, it makes no sense to be running less than 6Gb in a new system these days.

[cichlidfan]

I can think of no practical reason to not switch to Win 7 64, even if it meant maintaining a second machine for legacy stuff, I would still have it as my regular use platform.

[EtherealN]

I can think of no practical reason to not switch to Win 7 64, even if it meant maintaining a second machine for legacy stuff, I would still have it as my regular use platform.

 

If you need XP for legacy software, just get Win7 Professional and run an XP VM when needed. ;)

 

My own opinion is that XP should be left for the carcass that it is, and the only type of system that should run 32-bit is netbooks.

[efs2]

Just How Much RAM Does This Hog Eat?

 

You should really make the jump and go to Window 7 x 64. Less load times less stuttering as memory swaps are all but eliminated.

I understand the load times are shorter with more RAM. As for stuttering based on memory swaps, as I indicated, I intend to install at least 3GB of RAM. Are you saying that the sim uses more than that and will actually go to the swapfile in the game?
Edited October 15, 2011 by efs2

[SmokeyTheLung]

Can't really comment on the tech stuff, but if you look around in these forums you'll find hundreds (at least :)) of posts/bug reports related to DCS running on 32bit. Probably best to heed the Devs advice and run 64 bit

[Eddie]

I understand the load times are shorter with more RAM. As for stuttering based on memory swaps, as I indicated, I intend to install at least 3GB of RAM. Are you saying that the sim uses more than that and will actually go to the swapfile in the game?

 

The sim will definately use more than 3Gb, a 32bit OS is a serious handicap to performance and overall stability. DCS is moving to 64 bit for a reason, the 4Gb address limit on 32 has become a seroius issue and cannot support all the features being built into the software. The 64bit versions of DCS aren't there for fun, they are there because 32bit has reached the end of it's useful life.

 

 

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to be running a 32bit OS in 2011.

[EtherealN]

I understand the load times are shorter with more RAM. As for stuttering based on memory swaps, as I indicated, I intend to install at least 3GB of RAM. Are you saying that the sim uses more than that and will actually go to the swapfile in the game?

 

See the system requirements for an idea of the situation:

Minimum system requirements: Operating system: Windows XP, Vista or 7; Processor: Core 2 Duo 2.0 GHz; Memory: 3 GB; Free hard disk space: 7 GB; Video: 512 MB RAM card, DirectX 9 - compatible; Sound: DirectX 9.0c - compatible; requires internet activation.

 

Note hpw 3GB RAM is considered a minimum. If we proceed to the recommendations:

Recommended system requirements: Operating system 64-bit: Windows Vista and 7; Processor: CPU: Core 2 Duo E8400, AMD Phenom X3 8750 or better; Memory: 4GB; Hard disk space: 7 GB; Video: Shader 3.0 or better; 896MB NVIDIA GeForce GTX260 DirectX 9.0c or better; Sound: DirectX 9.0c - compatible; DirectX®: 9.0C; requires internet activation.

 

Note that the recommendation is not "this will run A-10C perfectly with everything maxed". You should look at it like this:

 

Minimum: What ED found to be an approximation of what is required to run the simulator at anything that can be considered "playable" at all.

Recommended: What was found to be an estimation of a system that would run it "well", though not necessarily perfectly. (Such a recommendation is impossible to make, since anyone could just add more units until a given system starts tanking under the pressure.)

 

So, as you can see, 4GB is considered recommended, and an 896MB GPU (I'd personally probably say 1GB, but I never tried an 896MB "mid-step" when I upgraded early this year). This means that going 32-bit will always place you below the recommendation, even if the hardware physically is at or above it: 4GB RAM + 1GB vRAM = 5GB, which is over the 32-bit adress limit. It is a very common mistake to consider only the system memory when considering the choice of 32 or 64 bit operating systems, and major computer vendors and manufacturers are also guilty of this, but the fact is that it causes some of the RAM to be unadressable, essentially gimping the system.

 

So, like Eddie says: there is no reason for any gaming system (netbooks and such are exempted for obvious reasons) to use 32-bit operating systems today. Also, there is no reason for any system, again possibly exepting netbooks, to use XP. XP is ANCIENT. Using that today is like using Windows 3.0 or 2.1 in 2001!

[PoleCat]

Windows 7 x64 is your OS of choice. Windows XP is end of life for mainstream support since 4/14/2009. Although extended support for XP does not officially end until 4/8/2014 Windows XP was released on 12/31/2001. I think you can seriously consider it dead.

 

Embrace the the future purchase and Install Windows 7 x64 ;).

 

You will not regret it IMHO. :joystick:

 

Out

[EtherealN]

Yeah Pole, XP is a funny phenomenon. It has adherents every bit as fanatic as MacOS X. :D

But at least OSX is still in active development...

[efs2]

Non Sequitur City

 

Yeah Pole, XP is a funny phenomenon. It has adherents every bit as fanatic as MacOS X. :D

But at least OSX is still in active development...

As much as I enjoy being mocked in the third person, I find it odd as a reaction to what I consider a rational approach of asking a couple of questions to gather pertinent information. As I noted in my original post, I am upgrading for the sole purpose of running this sim. Otherwise, my OS, as well as my hardware, performs without problems at every purpose for which I use it. So what would I gain by "upgrading" the OS otherwise?

 

And I would be willing to bet that for every "fanatic adherent" of XP, there are two Windows Vista or Windows 7 users who upgraded to the latest, greatest OS the day it was released without any thought as to whether they need it. I'm sure Bill Gates is very appreciative of your support. But forgive this fanatic if I don't just uninstall my perfectly stable, don't need to re-install it every year, copy of Windows XP x32 and buy and install Windows 7 x64.

 

Also, you somehow seem to have inferred from my two posts, comprising - what? - three question that Windows 7 x64 is not a consideration. And you have made that incorrect inference the focus of your responses. Perhaps if you looked at the questions asked and considered them as tools for gathering information, this could be more helpful to me or anyone else in the same situation. To make it as clear as possible: I have not said I will not upgrade. What I did do is ask whether there is any FPS advantage to Windows 7 x32 or x64. And I noted that I asked specifically about Windows 7 x32 because I have a copy on hand.

 

Stability is also an issue. But that is less of an issue that requires input regarding the experiences of other users. The hardware in use is also a factor. So if I first try Windows XP x32 or Windows 7 x32 and find the game to be unacceptably unstable on my system, I will decide whether to upgrade to Windows 7 x64.

 

As for the argument that because support for Windows XP will expire in 2014, I should upgrade now, why? If something changes and an upgrade to Windows 7 x64 outweighs the hassle of upgrading, I will upgrade. Otherwise, I will upgrade in 2014. Which strikes me as a rational approach.

Edited October 15, 2011 by efs2

[159th_Viper]

It does not follow?

 

OK, fair enough: I'll tell you what does follow:

 

Upgrade to Win7 from another OS will see a substantial and appreciable increase in FPS as well as performance. That said, here's the rider (there always is):

 

In particular, said upgrade to Win7 32-bit, whilst advantageous as stated above, will in turn guarantee you an 80% or better chance of a CTD every time you run the SIM. Conversely, Win7 64-bit will not.

 

And no - do not rely on the 32-bit hack lest you are a gambling man: That's the Bottom-Line.

 

Your call.

[Eddie]

And I noted that I asked specifically about Windows 7 x32 because I have a copy on hand.

 

Well then there is no issue, as Win 7 licence keys are valid for both 32 and 64 bit versions all you need to get is the 64bit media, which can be easily obtained in .iso form.

 

The reasons why it's the only sensible choice have been outlined several times in this thread and thousands of other places across the internet, so I will not go through them again. You asked for advice, and have been given it, the choice of whether to heed it or not now lies with you.

[EtherealN]

As much as I enjoy being mocked in the third person, I find it odd as a reaction to what I consider a rational approach of asking a couple of questions to gather pertinent information.

 

I'm sorry it wasn't clear, could have been stated better, but I was not talking about you. (How could I? I don't know you. ;) )

 

My point is that the general "atmosphere" of the internet is polluted, so to speak, by people who are fanatic about Windows XP - a remnant (I suspect) of the half-botched Vista release that some people have never gotten over. This has caused some myths and misconceptions getting spread on the internet - for example that XP, through being older, is more optimised and "efficient". This is true in a sense - it's "better at what it does", but the problem is that it was designed and implemented in a time when multiprocessor systems were a server-only phenomenon (excepting some types of workstation enviroments like scientific computation, engineering and animation, though they usually either used Mac or a flavor of UNIX). And by multiprocessor system, this includes dual cores, quad cores, hexacores and octacores, which are today staple for desktop systems.

 

As I noted in my original post, I am upgrading for the sole purpose of running this sim. Otherwise, my OS, as well as my hardware, performs without problems at every purpose for which I use it. So what would I gain by "upgrading" the OS otherwise?

 

Depending on your hardware and your other computing applications: performance. As mentioned: Vista and 7 were designed from the ground up as multiprocessor operating systems. This has implications for a lot of applications - even single-thread 32-bit applications like DCS:BS (where using Vista instead of XP would reliably give you a 20 to 50 percent performance boost simply through being better at handling multicore processors to "juggle" the thread between cores).

 

And I would be willing to bet that for every "fanatic adherent" of XP, there are two Windows Vista or Windows 7 users who upgraded to the latest, greatest OS the day it was released without any thought as to whether they need it.

 

I don't agree with the numbers, but such people do indeed exist. I am not one of them however: I "upgraded" to 7 when I purchased a new computer, from a 64-bit Vista on my previous computer, a 32-bit Vista on the one before that, 32-bit XP on the one before that. On the side, I've always used various unix flavors, mostly Linux (SuSE, Debian and Ubuntu) but a few stints with QNX and BSD as well. I've also used OSX in the office (though I really don't like it, but when the company bought an iMac for specific software needs that's what I have to do).

 

 

I'm sure Bill Gates is very appreciative of your support. But forgive this fanatic if I don't just uninstall my perfectly stable, don't need to re-install it every year, copy of Windows XP x32 and buy and install Windows 7 x64.

 

There is some truth to the old adage of "don't fix what isn't broken", but my point is that as far as using multiprocessor systems, XP is broken. It's just not made to do that job.

 

Similarly with using 32-bit operating systems on machines with 4GB or more adressable memory - including vRAM! - it's just not right for it. It might "work", but it's like putting a beastly 800bhp engine in a car whose transmission can't handle half of the torque... Computers are a unit, and every component, including software in general but especially operating software, needs to be tuned to the hardware to get the best from it.

 

Also, you somehow seem to have inferred from my two posts, comprising - what? - three question that Windows 7 x64 is not a consideration. And you have made that incorrect inference the focus of your responses. Perhaps if you looked at the questions asked and considered them as tools for gathering information, this could be more helpful to me or anyone else in the same situation. To make it as clear as possible: I have not said I will not upgrade. What I did do is ask whether there is any FPS advantage to Windows 7 x32 or x64. And I noted that I asked specifically about Windows 7 x32 because I have a copy on hand.

 

First of all, unless your hardware is more than 6 years old: yes. Your hardware is 64-bit. Running 32-bit OS and software on it would then utilize a microcode translation layer. Essentially: running 32-bit on 64-bit hardware will always cost performance, per definition. The cost is not big, but it is there.

 

Also, regarding having the 32-bit copy on hand, my point was specifically to point out that it would still be 32-bit. Which you really have no reason to use, especially for this piece of software which is made with 64-bit systems in mind. I was also worried by your "at least 3GB" mention - this implied a danger of falling into the 32-bit 4GB trap where people - as mentioned including major manufacturers like HP abd Dell - get it wrong and forget about the VRAM, which when you keep the recommended system specification in mind basically means that to meet the recommendation you NEED a 64-bit OS. There's no if's and buts there - you NEED 4GB RAM and ~1GB vRAM to meed the recommendation, this is a total of 5GB, and a 32-bit operating system will never give you that. That's my point. :)

 

Stability is also an issue. But that is less of an issue that requires input regarding the experiences of other users. The hardware in use is also a factor. So if I first try Windows XP x32 or Windows 7 x32 and find the game to be unacceptably unstable on my system, I will decide whether to upgrade to Windows 7 x64.

 

Stability will be orders of magnitude better with a 64-bit OS.

 

As for the argument that because support for Windows XP will expire in 2014, I should upgrade now, why? If something changes and an upgrade to Windows 7 x64 outweighs the hassle of upgrading, I will upgrade. Otherwise, I will upgrade in 2014. Which strikes me as a rational approach.

 

Actually, "support" ended 2 years ago. The 2014 is the extended support - that is, the kind of support you pay a LOT of money for annually to get. Usually used by companies that need the OS for legacy software.

 

XP is the following:

Not made for multiprocessor systems. This includes every single consumer PC on the market for the last 4 years, exceptions only for some (not all) of netbook models.

XP does not integrate new innovations in software and hardware. That type of support ended in 2009.

And of course, XP does not support Dx10 or Dx11, which is currently N/A DCS, but this will change in the future.

 

I'm actually not joking about the time comparison. The steps in technology supported are comparable, and the operating systems that should be considered today for a consumer is either 7, Latest OSX, or Ubuntu 11.10. Anything else is just selling your hardware short.

[efs2]

0 for 2

 

Your assumption that my current hardware is 64-bit is incorrect. It is 32-bit. Nonetheless, my new hardware will be 64-bit. However, as far as any general performance increase related to running a 64-bit OS, I'm sure I would enjoy my email or letters opening in 1.9 seconds instead of 2.6 seconds. But that would not be enough of an incentive for me to buy hundreds of dollars worth of hardware.

Actually, "support" ended 2 years ago. The 2014 is the extended support - that is, the kind of support you pay a LOT of money for annually to get. Usually used by companies that need the OS for legacy software.

That's just wrong, or at least very misleading. The end of "mainstream" support has had little or no practical affect on me and most other Windows XP users. Non-security hotfixes have been dropped except for customers who pay fees. Which is what I think you were referring to. Under "extended" support, security hotfixes and updates, as well as other updates, continue free of charge.

And there will be no further development of the OS. Well, okay. As noted, Windows XP is 10 years old. I doubt there was much more to be squeezed out of it. But at least I can send a receive a fax.

:thumbup:

There is some truth to the old adage of "don't fix what isn't broken"[.]

"Some" truth?

:)

[winz]

Your assumption that my current hardware is 64-bit is incorrect. It is 32-bit. Nonetheless, my new hardware will be 64-bit. However, as far as any general performance increase related to running a 64-bit OS, I'm sure I would enjoy my email or letters opening in 1.9 seconds instead of 2.6 seconds. But that would not be enough of an incentive for me to buy hundreds of dollars worth of hardware.

What's your hw if it is not 64bit? Even my old core 2 duo was a 64 processor. The main problem with 32bit is memory, you have 2GB per process (that means the sim can only use 2GB of RAM). This may not be enough even for the lowest settings in DCS: A-10C.

You can increase it to 3GB via the /3GB switch, but you may run into OS instability this way (as you are reducing the ram the OS core has at it disposal).

 

My personal experience with 32bit os + DCS: A-10C. Without /3GB switch - unplayabe, out of memory CTD during loading, or short into the mission. With 3GB switch playable at low-medium settings.

[macedk]

enough :)

 

want no issues with dcs a-10 ? go for a 64bit os.

 

xp or win7

 

For me win7 has some nice troubleshooting fixes and win7 fixes minor issues by one click. And plug and play is now alot better.

Haven't had a single blue screen or any serious hangs in win 7 (touch wood).

 

drawback is that win 7 has alot of features turned on that is not needed for a gaming pc. Those are pretty easy for get rid of via some google'ing :)

 

Also from a multiplayer standpoint...I would have a hard time justifying a long mission with a player on a 32bit system, due to the high risk of the player crashing.

 

Also with a 32bit system, you will not get full feature of the game, it is simply just not supported.

 

So lets move on please ;)

[efs2]

Upgrade to Win7 from another OS will see a substantial and appreciable increase in FPS as well as performance. That said, here's the rider (there always is):

 

In particular, said upgrade to Win7 32-bit, whilst advantageous as stated above, will in turn guarantee you an 80% or better chance of a CTD every time you run the SIM. Conversely, Win7 64-bit will not.

 

And no - do not rely on the 32-bit hack lest you are a gambling man: That's the Bottom-Line.

Well, I'm glad to get through the gristle to the meat. And from an insider at that.

 

Regarding that last bit first, the research I've done over the past couple of days finds that the value of the /3GB and /PAE switches ranges from none to very little for most users. I don't know how much of a risk they represent. But it doesn't matter. There is no real reward to weigh against it.

 

http://www.dansdata.com/askdan00015.htm

 

As for the effect on FPS - the actual question I asked - "a substantial and appreciable increase" is a big factor. Has testing produced a specific estimate or range - i.e., x fps versus y fps? Or is your description based on anecdotal evidence? Either way, it is helpful.

 

Regarding the issue of stability, the CTD rate you cite for 32-bit OS - 80 percent or more per session - is remarkable. I'm surprised the developer would even release the game in a 32-bit version. But even if I have to upgrade to the 64-bit OS, that move would apparently be a little less painful than I thought, if my license is good for a 64-bit version.

 

Thanks for the info.

[EtherealN]

Regarding the issue of stability, the CTD rate you cite for 32-bit OS - 80 percent or more per session - is remarkable. I'm surprised the developer would even release the game in a 32-bit version.

 

Ditching it was, afaik, considered. :P

Point is, it didn't affect everyone. So if supplying it helps some people, why not? :)

 

But your 32-bit hardware... what is that? Anything that fits into the minimum requirements is 64-bit. You need to go back pretty much as far as Netburst P4's and first-gen Athlons to get 32-bit processors... ;)

And, of course, if your hardware was 32-bit, using 64-bit OS would be 100% out of the question.

Edited October 15, 2011 by EtherealN

[159th_Viper]

Has testing produced a specific estimate or range - i.e., x fps versus y fps? Or is your description based on anecdotal evidence?

 

Yes and No.

 

With all due respect - you are over-thinking this, no doubt aided by all the participants to this here thread which, in your defence, partially excludes your culpability.

 

By your own admission you are, and I quote:

 

I am preparing to re-build my PC - just to run DCS A-10C (sigh)....

 

Now if that's how far you're willing to go to indulge in this here SIM (and I applaud you for it - I've been there three times myself) then trust us when we say Win7 64 is as good as it gets. There is really no need to justify the issue further - we're not Bullshi**#trs. In actual fact, the OS is but one (dare I say unimportant) of many components of your PC you should be carefully considering if you want to build it specifically for DCS: A-10C......It is unlike any other program you have ever installed on your PC and has it's own unique set of requirements if you're after optimum performance - let's just say she's a demanding mistress ;)

Edited October 15, 2011 by 159th_Viper