StephenIrelandIsAGnome Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 anyway to stop fm using so much vitual memory? or anyway to stop it being so slow? I'v kind of forgot how to check my specs so can some refresh my memory. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micado Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Start menu - run - dxdiag. Then you will have several tabs. display, sound, systems etc. At the bottom you see a button called save all information, this will save all informatio to a txt file. EDIT: Basically what Nomis07 mentioned. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nomis07 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Please give us an indication of what the thread is about in your thread title. Use Descriptive Thread TitlesWhen making a new thread, be as descriptive as possible when choosing the thread title. This helps yourself and other members so please try and avoid being vague. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StephenIrelandIsAGnome Posted January 21, 2009 Author Share Posted January 21, 2009 Ok sorry about that title fellow fmers.. Anyway heres my specs: ------------------ System Information ------------------ Time of this report: 1/21/2009, 15:45:34 Machine name: SN032483220696 Operating System: Windows XP Home Edition (5.1, Build 2600) Service Pack 2 (2600.xpsp_sp2_gdr.080814-1233) Language: English (Regional Setting: English) System Manufacturer: Packard Bell NEC System Model: 00000000000000000000000 BIOS: Phoenix - AwardBIOS v6.00PG Processor: AMD Athlon XP 2600+, MMX, 3DNow, ~1.9GHz Memory: 704MB RAM Page File: 750MB used, 108MB available Windows Dir: C:\WINDOWS DirectX Version: DirectX 9.0c (4.09.0000.0904) DX Setup Parameters: Not found DxDiag Version: 5.03.2600.2180 32bit Unicode ------------ And by the way i only have english(down to league 2), german(Division 2) and spanish(Liga Agelante) leagues loaded! Thanks alot Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hursty2 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 You definitely need some more ram mate as the xp version requires 500mb of ram to run and you only have 704mb, I assume you have other stuff running at the same time aswell Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StephenIrelandIsAGnome Posted January 21, 2009 Author Share Posted January 21, 2009 Firefox other than that nope. What the min requirement for the vista version? As i have been looking to upgrade to vista sometime soon anyway Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hursty2 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Don't get vista with ur spec even more ram is required a whopping 1gb. I'd stick with xp but just upgrade your ram Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
englandmanager Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 dude i'm not trying to be funny here..... but you bought a game for £30 i'm guessing you aren't a pirate .... and 500mb sticks of ram can be bought for £25 do yourself a favor and go buy 1gb more ram for £5o or under you will see the difference i'm running off 4gb ddr2 on a 64 bit system and i have 29 leagues running at good pace it's not even hard to fit yourself ... but if you wanted you could get it fitted by a computer shop Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hursty2 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 You can actually he an extra 2gb of ram of this website: www.crucial.co.uk for around 20 quid and they'll also scan your computer to see if your comp takes more or less than 2gb Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
englandmanager Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 You can actually he an extra 2gb of ram of this website: www.crucial.co.uk for around 20 quid and they'll also scan your computer to see if your comp takes more or less than 2gb what speed are they at ? i'm guessing they won't be 833mhz or above? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hursty2 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 TBH I dont know but everyones been recomending them so they must be half decent Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daley Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Ok sorry about that title fellow fmers..Anyway heres my specs: ------------------ System Information ------------------ Time of this report: 1/21/2009, 15:45:34 Machine name: SN032483220696 Operating System: Windows XP Home Edition (5.1, Build 2600) Service Pack 2 (2600.xpsp_sp2_gdr.080814-1233) Language: English (Regional Setting: English) System Manufacturer: Packard Bell NEC System Model: 00000000000000000000000 BIOS: Phoenix - AwardBIOS v6.00PG Processor: AMD Athlon XP 2600+, MMX, 3DNow, ~1.9GHz Memory: 704MB RAM Page File: 750MB used, 108MB available Windows Dir: C:\WINDOWS DirectX Version: DirectX 9.0c (4.09.0000.0904) DX Setup Parameters: Not found DxDiag Version: 5.03.2600.2180 32bit Unicode ------------ And by the way i only have english(down to league 2), german(Division 2) and spanish(Liga Agelante) leagues loaded! Thanks alot If you tell me the exact model of your PC I will find out how much RAM it can take and get you the correct part numbers for the different sizes of modules available to you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Law_Man Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 dude i'm not trying to be funny here..... but you bought a game for £30 i'm guessing you aren't a pirate .... and 500mb sticks of ram can be bought for £25do yourself a favor and go buy 1gb more ram for £5o or under you will see the difference i'm running off 4gb ddr2 on a 64 bit system and i have 29 leagues running at good pace it's not even hard to fit yourself ... but if you wanted you could get it fitted by a computer shop Could you tell me what your processor is too please? Its just I've just ordered a 64-bit laptop with 4GB DDR2 and a dual core 2.5GHz processor and wondering whether the extra drain on resources in running Vista 64-bit will outstrip the loss of a little RAM if I ran it on Vista 32-bit. Cheers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daley Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Could you tell me what your processor is too please? Its just I've just ordered a 64-bit laptop with 4GB DDR2 and a dual core 2.5GHz processor and wondering whether the extra drain on resources in running Vista 64-bit will outstrip the loss of a little RAM if I ran it on Vista 32-bit. Cheers. Law_Man, unless there is a specific reason that you want to run the 64-bit O/S then I would personally stick with the 32-bit and lose 512MB of RAM as you won't notice that. The other option is to upgrade your RAM to the max and run the 64-bit O/S Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Law_Man Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Law_Man, unless there is a specific reason that you want to run the 64-bit O/S then I would personally stick with the 32-bit and lose 512MB of RAM as you won't notice that. The other option is to upgrade your RAM to the max and run the 64-bit O/S What's your reasoning for that pal? Also, its a laptop so I think 4GB will be the maximum. The guy above said he's running 4GB DDR2 RAM on Vista 64-bit and he's running 29 leagues a good pace. Although admittedly he didn't list his processor which is why I asked him for it. Cheers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daley Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Just because there are so few applications that are utilising the power of the 64-bit O/S. I think its another example of the technology being there but just not really being used to it's potential! If you let me know the manufacturer and model I'll check out your max RAM for you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Law_Man Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Law_Man, unless there is a specific reason that you need to run the 64-bit O/S then I would personally stick with the 32-bit and lose visability of 512MB RAM as you'll hardly notice it. The other option would be to max out your RAM and then run the 64-bit O/S ?Eh? That's what you wrote above!? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daley Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 ?Eh? That's what you wrote above!? Sorry my IE is playing up and when I went back to look at your last ost it didn't show my previous one so I posted agaion and then it showed it so I edited it! Nightmare work PC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Law_Man Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Sorry my IE is playing up and when I went back to look at your last ost it didn't show my previous one so I posted agaion and then it showed it so I edited it! Nightmare work PC No worries Why do you say run Vista 32-bit instead of 64-bit then? Cheers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daley Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Just because there are so few applications that are utilising the power of the 64-bit O/S. I think its another example of the technology being there but just not really being used to it's potential! If you let me know the manufacturer and model I'll check out your max RAM for you. Law_man, see above! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Law_Man Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Law_man, see above! But that's not really a reason not to run it, is it? More of a reason not to buy it. My original post to the other guy asking for his processor was along the line of whether Vista 64-bit takes more resources to run than Vista 32-bit. And then the obvious trade off between using the full 4GB RAM and potentially running a more resource intensive OS. Its a HP Pavillion and fairly sure 4GB is the max. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daley Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 But that's not really a reason not to run it, is it? More of a reason not to buy it. My original post to the other guy asking for his processor was along the line of whether Vista 64-bit takes more resources to run than Vista 32-bit. And then the obvious trade off between using the full 4GB RAM and potentially running a more resource intensive OS.Its a HP Pavillion and fairly sure 4GB is the max. I wouldn't be so sure but I would need the model number to be certain. I know what you are saying, yes it will be more resource intensive and you won't see the advantage of the 64-bit unless the application can utilise it! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Law_Man Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 I wouldn't be so sure but I would need the model number to be certain. I know what you are saying, yes it will be more resource intensive and you won't see the advantage of the 64-bit unless the application can utilise it! Ah that explains a lot, cheers Now for the million dollar question.... does FM utilise it? Also, not that I'm an expert but I just thought that 64-bit simply means that the OS can use more than 3.5GB RAM, and to that end, that then everything the computer does will make full use of the full RAM if needed. Am I right in reading from what you just said then that if: (1) You have 4GB RAM and 64-bit system (2) What you're doing on the computer would use the full 4GB then (3) Unless the programme requiring the RAM (i.e. FM, photoshop etc) is 64-bit compatible, you'll still be limited to 3.5GB RAM, despite the fact that you're running a 64-bit system with 4GB RAM? Cheers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
englandmanager Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Could you tell me what your processor is too please? Its just I've just ordered a 64-bit laptop with 4GB DDR2 and a dual core 2.5GHz processor and wondering whether the extra drain on resources in running Vista 64-bit will outstrip the loss of a little RAM if I ran it on Vista 32-bit. Cheers. quad core amd phenom x4 9500 2.2 ghz Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daley Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Ah that explains a lot, cheers Now for the million dollar question.... does FM utilise it? Also, not that I'm an expert but I just thought that 64-bit simply means that the OS can use more than 3.5GB RAM, and to that end, that then everything the computer does will make full use of the full RAM if needed. Am I right in reading from what you just said then that: (1) You have 4GB RAM and 64-bit system (2) What you're doing at on the computer would use the full 4GB then (3) Unless the programme requiring the RAM (i.e. FM, photoshop etc) is 64-bit compatible, you'll still be limited to 3.5GB RAM, despite the fact that you're running a 64-bit system? Cheers. Sorry that I didn't reply yesterday but I had finished work & didn't log back in until this morning. Ok, I'm not very technical but I'll tell you what I understand (if someone else knows better then please feel free to correct me!). 64 bit just means that the processor can hold wider data registers. Data in 64-bit architectures (relative to 32-bit) occupies more memory space, thus increasing memory requirements of any process. Currently, most commercial x86 software is compiled into 32-bit code, not 64-bit code, so it does not take advantage of the larger 64-bit address space or wider 64-bit registers and data paths on x86 processors. To answer your questions from above, 1)No (although I'm not sure that I am reading the question the way you intended). 2) Not necessarily & 3) Please see my comment above, therefore you would not see a difference in performance. As for FM09, I very much doubt it but then someone at SI would need to confirm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.