This is partially true..

OEM copies can be transfered, once without any reason at all. More than once if you can give a reason why such as virus infection, hardware failure, motherboard failure, hardrive crash or any number of potential reasons that microsoft will accept. I've personally managed to transfer windows vista and recently windows 7 OEM version up to 3 times without so much as a hint of issue. I however of course make Certain that it is completely removed from the previous machine prior to doing anything of the sort.



The number of people that have a retail copy of xp let alone current vista/win7 copies that are retail is exceptionally low.. frankly i'm surprised that microsoft still sells them, i guess mostly due to the numerious svckers (imo) that are willing to spend money unecessarily.

Playing the Monopoly card all you want, this has really no bearing on the end results, either you jump to linux, get yourself an apple or svck it up...


Single out xbox360? Are you forgetting the wii and the ps3.... both of which can argueably be stated to be in some cases much more inferior to the 360 specifically in regards to gaming...

He's saying that because the game ports come from the Xbox360 not the Wii and PS3, so yes the XBox is the single most issue in that regard.

console ports in general though are problematic....

Good number of them are ports from the PS3.... but yes indeed the number is greater from the xbox360 camp....

I don't know of any PS3 ported games to the PC.

If someone wants to know how a game ends up on xbox 360. They can surch MSDN Library --> XNA Game Studio Express. Most games are created on 64 bit systems. You need it to access a large data base. Can use 32 bit with no problims. Just slow and good chance you wont have full access to most library servers due to security issues.

because most people incorrectly identify them as xbox360 ports.

there are a lot of games that are specifically developed for the PS3 first, and then ported over to xbox360 followed by PC..

just like most of the games are xbox360 ported to ps3 and then pc..

Or sometimes you get parallel developments in which one of the 2 consoles are focused on as a primary priority with the other console and the pc following behind at a much lower priority.

Heh, you are wrong! But no you are right! Because I too have tranferred a OEM license recently to a completely different motherboard and processor with zero fuss (note quotes around "can't" in original post) But google: "What Microsoft wont' tell you about Windows 7 licensing". End users are not even suppose to buy OEM licenses, or... maybe they are. Microsoft leaves such issues up in the air and they shift. Microsoft seems to have tried to limit Vista RETAIL to one transfer, but was beaten back. But through Microsoft's glorous beneficence my OEM license was transfered and I didn't even have to call! And your right, if OEM licenses can be transferred, what is the purpose of Retail licenses? Virtual Boxes! if you want to run Windows in a VBox, then you are supposed to need a retail license (at least occording to that article).

Anyway, please Bethesda fix your great game Skyrim to not crash in 32-bit windows with the high res packs, or if it is not your bug, kick the can over to AMD/ATI and NVIDIA who hopefully will not have to kick the can to Microsoft because they will probably just laugh...

Again, it's not a bug but how computer architecture works. It's as simple as that.

Have you seen vista/windows 7 go under 100mb on the memory usage?

People have different needs for the OS. I have never used 90% of the features that windows offers and majority won't. And even if the memory is cheap it still doesn't mean that everyone can afford it. And why should I buy something that I don't need or use? I just don't know where would I need more memory, maybe having virtual machines and couple of ramdisks? This far the only exception that won't run on my 2gb of ram is the Skyrim DLC.

Glad there are modders to fix this flaw: http://skyrim.nexusmods.com/downloads/file.php?id=9080

I don't mean that I wouldn't want more taxing games where we could put the ridiculous ammount of memory to use. I would switch to 64bit and buy more memory immediately if there would be any reason for it!

Actually yes.. I've personally been witness to a Windows Vista and 7 managing well below that of 100mb with majority of the claimed "unnecessary" services and startups completely stripped or disabled.

As i stated, the optimisations and overall footprint of windows vista and 7 is actually considerably smaller.

Actually one of the fine points of the OSes pointed out by not only Microsoft but tested and acknowledged as being true is that windows xp is by far one of the bigger bloats vs vista followed by windows 7 being even more efficient in total memory requirements and needs.

At the root core of windows XP for example they showed how after being fully initialized using an outside programs to check it's actual useage accurate, typically hung around the 100mb... with vista topping in at about 70-90mb and then windows 7 smashing that with a 24-48mb range.

But who in the hell is going to run like that anyways? It's rare enough that people strip their services down to nothing. Sure most people aren't going to need for example windows xp's zeropoint wireless configuration service.... unless you have a wireless adapter to use it.... so why have it start? That's one of many many services that are either partially required, or partially redundant or sometimes started but made inactive. A lot of the Microsoft "garbage" isn't garbage, it's there for the simple reason that they want to accomedate anything you plan to do.... We don't want Linux style "if you need it, compile or add it yourself"... no no.. leave that to linux, we want being able to grab what you want, slap it on the computer and just have it work. Easy.

deaths_soul read's the exciting stickers on his newly bought packaging and software. And seems to state himself as a computer expert here. Honestly, quit trying to get this guy to submit by buying a 64bit OS all you PC newbies spend gobs of money on or pirate. The proof is that skyrim itself is still unstable in areas to use addons of any kind. Skyrim still hasn't reached the milestone of overall stability, anyone who think's it's better with 64bit OS's is delusional and overly supportive of what they own. Skyrim will always be buggy because the fact that nobody is searching/reporting for the bugs and claiming they are not having any problems still. We got a lot of people who'd ignore a physics problem or a bad balance in the AI or even pretty bad bug found in the Battle of Whiterun when fighting for the storm cloaks. (I'm still not gonna let that go.)

Nothing get's fixed because of ignorant forum dwellers who do not explore the problems and keep forcing their unique "Buy this" solution on people. Bethesda didn't grow up on "Buy this" to start it's business, it worked with what it had. I advise the same with all here to trouble shoot the problem rather than being pawns of the Marketing campeigns, it's not earning you any money or helping others. If the game works on windows 32bit, there shouldn't be a problem with something that modifys the textures. You can argue with me all you want, but you know this game will never be fully stable with your avdocasy of defending this game's "Perfect Reputation" Please work with what you have, don't go perscribing buying all the latest and greatest because Bethesda sold to everyone here and I expect people to get along and search for solutions. Please no more "Buy this" replys.

Now as for an opinion of running an Official HD pack for an already High Definition game. It's unusual that this pack would present any problems since the Textures I seen are not much different from the originals, it's more of an experament to see what pleases the eye rather than an Overhaul to improve the textures already there. Bethesda is getting to be as redundant as all the "Buy this" advise here. Bring it on.

Well you clearly don't understand how memory works then. It's a known fact that 32bit OS has a limit on virtual address space and just because you read what the task manager say doesn't mean you understand the whole story of memory.

I don't think any of us claimed that skyrim was stable.... please don't put words in our mouths.....

What we were saying is the most common problem that has a direct relation that has been proven to be a repeatable, reliable, usually problem free solution has been the move from 32bit to 64bit in the case of skyrim. We aren't trying to get people to go out and buy 64bit windows, no no, what we are saying is that if all else fails, 64bit windows may be your solution to the entire problem as per evidence we've witnessed repeatedly over the course of the last 3 and a half months since the launch of the game.

You later prove "the order" that you yourself are totally unaware of the "reason" why this would be happening and completely disregard that a DLC or Textures could potentially have any hinderence. This shows that you totally lack the basic understanding of texture addressing and the way textures are handled.... Larger textures therefore with larger memory requirements resulting in Crashes to desktop.... and you essentially make the claim that, Well, obviously it's skyrims fault, couldn't possibly be that skyrim has hit the memory requirement limits resulting in the process being brutally shutdown with no apparently reason given.

Calling us ignorant....... hello pot..... meet kettle...

I can't claim to know A LOT, my goals in life are to learn, however deductive reasoning, trial and error, theory/hypothesis formed around what is observed, you know a lot surrounding the scientific methods.... experiment ... you know things that allow you to form a conclusion with the known facts...

Having thoroughly tested this due to what i have available at my disposal due to the occupation i'm in, i can setup multiple identical machines and attempt to reproduce the issues as well as the solution to fine tune a realistic conclusion as well as publish a solution best/easiest to implement.

64bit windows, while may not be the easiest for some, unfortunately is the only viable solution that nearly guarantees the specific problem being resolved.

Sure you can used "optimised" textures, which obviously reduces the resolution back down to nearly vanilla, compresses the file down smaller, resulting in a significant reduction in required memory to run. That's one reasonable solution.. at the potential cost of quality.. call it a minor upgrade to the current vanilla while remaining potentially lower than the current HD DLC (excluding the fact that the current one has clear texture naming/format violations that shouldn't have happened in the first place)

And as a matter of fact, there are a LOT of people running windows vista/7 32bit that wouldn't have to so much as push a single penny to make the move to 64bit. Something that would greatly benefit them in the end anyways. No longer are there any 64bit issues to worry about (lack of manufacturers doing their job to provide 64bit support)... actually the fact is that more and more software developers are dropping the 32bit standard cold turkey and only producing a 64bit client/server/end product with ZERO interest in a 32bit due to it's current limitations.

i have a 2 gig vidcard and 6 gigs of ram and i run xp 32bit with /3gb switch + ramdrive for swapfile on the not used 2 gigs of ram , this way i can have programs that use up to 1.7 gigs of ram ( bf2mods and stalkermods) + i can use all 6 gigs of ram

my boot ini:

/pae /NoExecute=OptIn /3GB /Userva=2900

windows 32bit can use all memory, microsoft even has patch out for 32bit server editions to use up to 24 gigs of ram, they just dont want to give it to customers because they want you to buy win7 crap

You mean this? http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa366796(v=vs.85).aspx

Judging by all the dots in your sentences. I see you know the real problem, then... 64bit would be a benefit theoretically now, but the PC market has been in a crunch, and a pretty steep one. If PC is going to get through this, we gotta work with what we got right now, if prices drop in PC products and are produced a lot more,PC will stand a better chance as there will be more buyers. It would just complicate matters for everyone to put a lot of money into 64bit right now, as you said a lot of people still own 32bit systems (myself included). My terms to buying and running a 64bit system is to make it as cheap as 40 dollars. Id get pro edition for it's features (What little they are I liked pro better than Home) MS produces millions of copy's of this, it wouldn't hurt them to drop the price. The hardware market needs more high end variety as well, I'm not seeing as many good deals anymore on the market. My system has a really strong processor, a decent graphics card, and 4 gigs worth of ram. (Ram would likely be the easiest to upgrade in this case.) Game just needs work though.

on average 32bit xp is 5% faster in raw fps then any other os, and very very few games come out with 64bit executables, the game companies simply dont have money and time to develop for it, they all still have xbox engine to work on so 4 gigs of ram is plenty. and still will be for the next 4 years.


@deaths_soul yes that one, but i think our definition of customer who is willing to risk faillure of his OS by editing the boot.ini or a real patch that offers no risks to the customers and is included as service pack option/patch is slighty different

what your missing pesticide is that PAE while allows the expanded memory addressing.. it also breaks things in the process.. if not slows down a lot.

It's essentially counter productive... and quite often is misrepresentative...

for example your system will be reporting useable ram beyond 4gb, however it will not actually use it properly or at all..

PAE essentially bumps the bits up to 36 which allows up to 64gb (62gb actually) to be addressable... how it uses it is questionable, officially even with PAE enabled, windows xp sp2/vista/7, will only officially run within the 4gb address space, with the potentially of ATTEMPTING to expand the required components above..

The reason Microsoft did this was mostly due to the fact that the number of problems showing up was more of a hassle than lack of memory. Windows 2003 Server for example supported through the use of PAE and it's own designed system to work beyond 4gb.... but it's still through another layer.. much slower. .but still beneficial for specific server applications, this is why they typically have ECC memory which is usually much slower but gets the job done even when it takes longer.

So it's not that Microsoft wants you to buy "crap"... they want to do it right.

Jerry Rigging up a 32bit OS just to make it work halfway is just silly.... specially when the PROPER solution is 64bit OS... No garbage to worry about or extra baggage or problems to be concerned with...

It's all about legacy in the end..... get rid of it....

One does not jerry rig windows 95 to work like windows 7... it's just silly to try. Are some people REALLY that desperate to drag a dead OS on so long? Cmon...

for gaming its all about raw fps, and dx9 win32bit xp just delivers the most fps at the cheapest price, we do not like to be forced into change, (dont get us started on dx10 and 11 )

for gamers there is very little reason to switch os, untill the next generation consoles comes out.

I'm not at all comprehending your logic here at all..

What are you saying?

Games have nowhere to go.. are you talking about starting a draw distance and object reduction in order to workin with limits of 32bit? Seriously? You cannot have your cake and eat it to if you want to remain in the 32bit enviroment.... Not without breaking things and ensuring the stability is not at all a concern any longer ensuring problems continue to get worse.

Additionally, 64bit has been only OS installed recently on many of the prebuilt machines for a few years now.... would have been great if they had started at the launch of vista.... but for the last 4 years, windows vista and windows 7 have been most commonly installed on many of the prebuilt machines like hp/dell/etc... UNLESS otherwise specified by the users or in the case of selling old stock.. (which they do quite often).. so sometimes that machine you bought 2 years ago is a machine that's actually about 4 years old or more..



This is a margins of error and easily refuted myth. Windows XP is nowhere near 5% faster..... this was true, if not more significantly prior to properly developed and non beta/preview drivers being used... Since about 2006 this information has slowly been picked at to now turning into nothing but the total opposite with more and more 64bit OSes now outperforming the 32bit counterparts for obvious reasons.

What world are you living in.... DX10/11 both wipe the floor, the Pixel shading capabilities and improvements alone would clearly show the benefits.... The only reason DX9 would perform better (in cases where it was specifically developed using dx9 and nothing newer) was due to well clearly obviously using dx9.... slapping it in dx10 with ZERO optimisations forcing the requirement of an additional layer to do the work is going to have an obvious drawback even if it's only marginally minimal at most.

There are Dozens of tech demos that shows how totally obsolete and poorly dx9 is performing in comparison when any attempt making it a fair "test" vs mode.

Now i know i'm talking to 2 people that are finding every conceivable contrived opinion they can muster up in order to consider themselves right... so this leaves me with 2 options... on of which i really have no need to try to untangled the mess being created by spewing some of the garbage we are currently seeing plaguing this topic...

i dont game tech demos ( alltough some companies really make me eat those words sometimes) in theory you are right, in practice unfortunatly i think i am still correct and i am sad that i am becuase i will be the first to get rid of xp if game making companies start using 64 bit and dx10 and 11 to its full potential but as long as xbox is still there they will not sadly

PAE is only a solution for physical memory not virtual address space. PAE can still only address 2Gb per app so it's not a solution.

Probably better off saving few bucks on a 1GB card instead of 2GB and using that towards a 64bit OS license(though small ammount). Gotta pay to play with mods.

Just some that have made it onto the list..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_with_DirectX_11_support
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_with_DirectX_10_support

Although some of them have faster DX9 due to very terrible integration/slap on DX10/11 mode.... many of them however with identical graphics settings, will tear apart DX9's aging/inefficient methods of doing the same job.

also

yet again i say.... which has already been said about PAE....which Half64 mentioned..... 64bit allowing a 32bit program to access the full blown potential of 4gb unrestricted...... 32bit... cannot be done in the way video games or some programs need. Plus that's taking into consideration of things NOT breaking with PAE enabled... which is a common issue.. and the very reason it is intentionally left disabled and not actively advertised by Microsoft.

All I've got here for evidence is that fact that everything short of games that don't work in any windows vista/7 environment regardless of it being 32/64bit.... and usually they also don't work in windows xp (bad programming)...... everything just works faster/better/more efficiently/less cumbersome and smoother under a windows 64bit environment..... it's completely uncontested.