Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [ccd-newastro] Help with computer

Expand Messages
  • Robert Marceau
    Interesting. MS claims that 32 bit versions of Vista use up to 4GB. I Googled this and got some interesting answers. In XP, if you have an integrated video
    Message 1 of 26 , Nov 30, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Interesting. MS claims that 32 bit versions of Vista use up to 4GB. I
      Googled this and got some interesting answers.

      In XP, if you have an integrated video system, it steals main memory and the
      reported amount is smaller by that amount. But 512MB is awfully large
      for integrated graphics.

      Seems like the answer for Vista is a whole lot more complicated and a whole
      lot OT to this group.

      On 11/29/07, Murray Hammick <mphammick@...> wrote:
      >
      > I have Vista on a Quad core PC with 4 gig of Ram loaded.
      >
      > The system only shows 3.25gig for some reason. perhaps that is the max on
      > VIsta.
      >
      > Murray
      >
      >
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Robert Marceau
      It might be helpful if we could start a table of astro applications are known to work with Vista and which have issues. The upgrade check that MS provides can
      Message 2 of 26 , Nov 30, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        It might be helpful if we could start a table of astro applications are
        known to work with Vista and which have issues. The upgrade check that MS
        provides can tell for mainstream apps like Photoshop, but is not going to
        know much about specialty products. Since this group is not dedicated to
        any one brand of hardware or software product, it seems like a good home for
        a resource like this.

        The database link in Yahoo Groups allows us to create a shared table. I
        would suggest columns like this:

        *Application Name* *Level* *Version* *Category* *Compatible* *Mostly
        Works* *Major Problems* *Comments* Starry Sky Pro 7.5 Planetarium X Telescope
        Communication Fails

        Any thoughts?

        Rob Marceau

        On 11/30/07, sforster12 <SHFORSTER1@...> wrote:
        >
        > Regarding software.
        >
        > I plan to run:
        >
        > 1.CCDSoft
        > 2. Maxim
        > 3. Registar
        > 4: Images Plus
        > 5: Photoshop CS and 6.0
        >
        > STU
        >
        > --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, Murray Hammick <mphammick@...>
        > wrote:
        > >
        > > It might be a bit more effective to simply list the software that
        > he wants to run and put it in a post to this site so others can
        > comment on it from a perspective of real-time users.
        > >
        > > For what it is worth, I can vouch for Photoshop CS3 and Elements 5,
        > as well as MaxDSLR , Canon's Digital Photo Professional and a range
        > of other web-based products such as Deep Sky Stacker, Neat Image etc.
        > >
        > > In fact, I have not yet come across any software that has a problem
        > with Vista.
        > >
        > > I asked about Starry Nights and the latest version is supposed to
        > be OK as long as you have a good graphics card.
        > >
        > > Murray
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > jbarnes520@... wrote:
        > >
        >


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Murray Hammick
        Sounds like a great idea - can you set it up as a table so we can enter our data ? Not sure what your last comment was about Communication fails - was that
        Message 3 of 26 , Dec 1, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Sounds like a great idea - can you set it up as a table so we can enter our data ?

          Not sure what your last comment was about "Communication fails" - was that referring to Starry Sky Pro 7.5 ?

          STU - I can only vouch for the list I provided - but as Rob mentioned in his post, we do need to know which versions of each s-ware you are intending to use

          Murray


          Robert Marceau <rob.marceau@...> wrote: It might be helpful if we could start a table of astro applications are
          known to work with Vista and which have issues. The upgrade check that MS
          provides can tell for mainstream apps like Photoshop, but is not going to
          know much about specialty products. Since this group is not dedicated to
          any one brand of hardware or software product, it seems like a good home for
          a resource like this.

          The database link in Yahoo Groups allows us to create a shared table. I
          would suggest columns like this:

          *Application Name* *Level* *Version* *Category* *Compatible* *Mostly
          Works* *Major Problems* *Comments* Starry Sky Pro 7.5 Planetarium X Telescope
          Communication Fails

          Any thoughts?

          Rob Marceau

          On 11/30/07, sforster12 <SHFORSTER1@...> wrote:
          >
          > Regarding software.
          >
          > I plan to run:
          >
          > 1.CCDSoft
          > 2. Maxim
          > 3. Registar
          > 4: Images Plus
          > 5: Photoshop CS and 6.0
          >
          > STU
          >
          > --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, Murray Hammick <mphammick@...>
          > wrote:
          > >
          > > It might be a bit more effective to simply list the software that
          > he wants to run and put it in a post to this site so others can
          > comment on it from a perspective of real-time users.
          > >
          > > For what it is worth, I can vouch for Photoshop CS3 and Elements 5,
          > as well as MaxDSLR , Canon's Digital Photo Professional and a range
          > of other web-based products such as Deep Sky Stacker, Neat Image etc.
          > >
          > > In fact, I have not yet come across any software that has a problem
          > with Vista.
          > >
          > > I asked about Starry Nights and the latest version is supposed to
          > be OK as long as you have a good graphics card.
          > >
          > > Murray
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > jbarnes520@... wrote:
          > >
          >

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Roger Hamlett
          ... The 32bit versions of Vista, and XP, can both directly _address_ 4GB. However,out of this address space has to come a whole lot of stuff. Spaces for the
          Message 4 of 26 , Dec 2, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            > Interesting. MS claims that 32 bit versions of Vista use up to 4GB. I
            > Googled this and got some interesting answers.
            >
            > In XP, if you have an integrated video system, it steals main memory and the
            > reported amount is smaller by that amount. But 512MB is awfully large
            > for integrated graphics.
            >
            > Seems like the answer for Vista is a whole lot more complicated and a whole
            > lot OT to this group.
            >
            > On 11/29/07, Murray Hammick <mphammick@...> wrote:
            >> I have Vista on a Quad core PC with 4 gig of Ram loaded.
            >>
            >> The system only shows 3.25gig for some reason. perhaps that is the max on
            >> VIsta.
            >>
            >> Murray
            The 32bit versions of Vista, and XP, can both directly _address_ 4GB.
            However,out of this address space has to come a whole lot of stuff.
            Spaces for the BIOS, the video card BIOS, a huge window for the video,
            even when it is not shared, areas for network adapters, etc. etc..
            It is typical to lose about 256MB, on systems designed to keep the loss
            small. On normal systems 300MB, to 768MB is 'typical' (the latter in
            particular on systems supporting double video cards...).
            Now, there is a way round this, called 'PAE'. Basically, a modern
            'smarter' bank switching technology, allowing the memory manager to
            switch in different memory areas according to what is using them. This
            was first implemented in NT. Latter it appeared in W2K, and then it
            arrived in XP SP1. At this point, basic XP, could give you 4GB of
            'visible' RAM, on sytems with this fitted, and the hardware to implement
            the switching. Only a couple of weeks latter, MS introduced a 'hotfix',
            and though PAE was left enabled (it is used for some other things
            related to system security), the maximum addressable, dropped back to
            4GB, except on the server releases...
            Vista32 retains this limit.
            Now, part of MS's statement about disabling the feature on XP, was that
            for machines with only 4GB, it was costing more than you gained.
            Switching to supporting the extended addressing, implies that huge
            numbers of table entries inside the OS, have to grow from being 32bit
            values, to a larger size. This makes handling slower, and increases the
            size of these tables. So though you then 'see' 4GB of RAM, the useable
            area, does not grow by much, and you lose perfomance. You also need to
            remember, that if you are running a typical application, _it_ cannot see
            4GB. Normally XP/Vista, allocate 2GB _max_ to a application. There is an
            option (/3GB), which increases this allocation, but it also requires the
            application to have been compiled to support the large address space model.
            The difference, really appears, when you run a 64bit OS (where the page
            switching is no longer needed, and the register addresses in the
            processor directly support the extra size), with an application that has
            also been written to support this. Then with even more memory (8GB+),
            the performance on large database application, and raphics, really flies.
            I am typing this to you, on a XP32 Pro 'session', inside a Vista64 box.
            The XP session, has 3669MB of memory available. The Vista host, has
            8061MB available. This is using VMWare, which really shows how MS,
            should have implemented 32bit support for the 64bit OS. Inside the
            session, I can even run half a dozen peripherals, for which there are no
            64bit drivers, whilst at the same time gaining full 64bit performance
            outside.
            Run up XP directly (without VMware), and the memory drops to only 3248MB.

            Best Wishes
          • Murray Hammick
            Wow !! Thanks for the explanation. I am afraid I could not track all of it - but I get the drift of what you were saying - I think. Given the need for astro
            Message 5 of 26 , Dec 2, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              Wow !!

              Thanks for the explanation. I am afraid I could not track all of it - but I get the drift of what you were saying - I think.

              Given the need for astro computers to multi task - are you suggesting that we could reconfigure a PC to make it considerably more efficient ?


              Roger Hamlett <roger@...> wrote: > Interesting. MS claims that 32 bit versions of Vista use up to 4GB. I
              > Googled this and got some interesting answers.
              >
              > In XP, if you have an integrated video system, it steals main memory and the
              > reported amount is smaller by that amount. But 512MB is awfully large
              > for integrated graphics.
              >
              > Seems like the answer for Vista is a whole lot more complicated and a whole
              > lot OT to this group.
              >
              > On 11/29/07, Murray Hammick <mphammick@...> wrote:
              >> I have Vista on a Quad core PC with 4 gig of Ram loaded.
              >>
              >> The system only shows 3.25gig for some reason. perhaps that is the max on
              >> VIsta.
              >>
              >> Murray
              The 32bit versions of Vista, and XP, can both directly _address_ 4GB.
              However,out of this address space has to come a whole lot of stuff.
              Spaces for the BIOS, the video card BIOS, a huge window for the video,
              even when it is not shared, areas for network adapters, etc. etc..
              It is typical to lose about 256MB, on systems designed to keep the loss
              small. On normal systems 300MB, to 768MB is 'typical' (the latter in
              particular on systems supporting double video cards...).
              Now, there is a way round this, called 'PAE'. Basically, a modern
              'smarter' bank switching technology, allowing the memory manager to
              switch in different memory areas according to what is using them. This
              was first implemented in NT. Latter it appeared in W2K, and then it
              arrived in XP SP1. At this point, basic XP, could give you 4GB of
              'visible' RAM, on sytems with this fitted, and the hardware to implement
              the switching. Only a couple of weeks latter, MS introduced a 'hotfix',
              and though PAE was left enabled (it is used for some other things
              related to system security), the maximum addressable, dropped back to
              4GB, except on the server releases...
              Vista32 retains this limit.
              Now, part of MS's statement about disabling the feature on XP, was that
              for machines with only 4GB, it was costing more than you gained.
              Switching to supporting the extended addressing, implies that huge
              numbers of table entries inside the OS, have to grow from being 32bit
              values, to a larger size. This makes handling slower, and increases the
              size of these tables. So though you then 'see' 4GB of RAM, the useable
              area, does not grow by much, and you lose perfomance. You also need to
              remember, that if you are running a typical application, _it_ cannot see
              4GB. Normally XP/Vista, allocate 2GB _max_ to a application. There is an
              option (/3GB), which increases this allocation, but it also requires the
              application to have been compiled to support the large address space model.
              The difference, really appears, when you run a 64bit OS (where the page
              switching is no longer needed, and the register addresses in the
              processor directly support the extra size), with an application that has
              also been written to support this. Then with even more memory (8GB+),
              the performance on large database application, and raphics, really flies.
              I am typing this to you, on a XP32 Pro 'session', inside a Vista64 box.
              The XP session, has 3669MB of memory available. The Vista host, has
              8061MB available. This is using VMWare, which really shows how MS,
              should have implemented 32bit support for the 64bit OS. Inside the
              session, I can even run half a dozen peripherals, for which there are no
              64bit drivers, whilst at the same time gaining full 64bit performance
              outside.
              Run up XP directly (without VMware), and the memory drops to only 3248MB.

              Best Wishes





              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Robert Marceau
              ... (snip) Murray ... I simply made up a fictitious (I hope) application and provided a sample comment just to give an idea of what I was thinking of. I ll try
              Message 6 of 26 , Dec 3, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                On 12/1/07, Murray Hammick <mphammick@...> wrote:
                >
                > Sounds like a great idea - can you set it up as a table so we can enter
                > our data ?
                >
                > Not sure what your last comment was about "Communication fails" - was that
                > referring to Starry Sky Pro 7.5 ?


                (snip)

                Murray
                >
                I simply made up a fictitious (I hope) application and provided a sample
                comment just to give an idea of what I was thinking of.



                I'll try to create a table tonight, but since I am not using Vista yet, I
                won't have any real answers to put into it.


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Robert Marceau
                Wow Roger! I must have been going by statements about XP that refered to what is available to apps. I ve never had workstatino hardware that supported more
                Message 7 of 26 , Dec 3, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  Wow Roger! I must have been going by statements about XP that refered to
                  what is available to apps. I've never had workstatino hardware that
                  supported more than 2GB so have never put it to the test.

                  Someone mentioned not having heard of a demo version of Vista. MS sort of
                  has one.

                  Visit
                  http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/winfamily/virtualpc/default.mspx to
                  get a free copy of Virtual PC 2007.

                  From there, the Test Drive Program link takes you to
                  http://technet.microsoft.com/en-ca/bb738372.aspx which has a 30 day trial of
                  Vista running under Virtual PC.

                  Rob


                  On 12/2/07, Roger Hamlett <roger@...> wrote:
                  (snip)

                  The 32bit versions of Vista, and XP, can both directly _address_ 4GB.
                  > However,out of this address space has to come a whole lot of stuff.
                  > Spaces for the BIOS, the video card BIOS, a huge window for the video,
                  > even when it is not shared, areas for network adapters, etc. etc..
                  > It is typical to lose about 256MB, on systems designed to keep the loss
                  > small. On normal systems 300MB, to 768MB is 'typical' (the latter in
                  > particular on systems supporting double video cards...).


                  (snip)


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.