[OmegaZero_Alpha]

I have tried taking out all of the video-cards, page-file-functions, etc. and it still only reads 2.5 gigs of it... I was thinking that it might be my motherboard , but wouldn't that either (A) prevent my system from posting or (b) prevent the 3rd-party-programs from detecting it? I will see what happens when I go 64-bit on the 21st...

I can also honestly say that nobody should buy vista, save your money for the next version of windows (blackcomb) which is expected for release in 2010. Why they are superseding vista so early? Because they are greedy. I am sort of wonder weather to even use windows products anymore if they are going to get rid of their operating systems every 2 years... (paying 100$ a year to maintain a current operating system is ridiculous)

[Retribution]

for 5 times fast porn downloads, $100 aint much :wink:

[OmegaZero_Alpha]

what does that even mean? Is an operating system supposed to somehow relate to your internet speed? Could you try again with cohencible english?

[Retribution]

better OS = smoother program running, and less useless crap using my interwebs :roll:

[OmegaZero_Alpha]

Well I did some minor overclocking (and by minor overclocking I mean taking my RAMDACs from 400mhz to 500mhz, and my ENGINE from 540mhz to 1ghz) I got my aero rating to 5.2... my gaming performance rating was somehow lowered to a 4.9 (having a faster video card has lowered my performance?). I guess it might be implying that I have some instabilities (possibly because my configuration program is overclocking my RAMDACs instead of the memory itself?)

[Drunken F00l]

Why they are superseding vista so early?)

The same reason they decided to extend the lifespan of Windows XP. Because they know Vista is terrible.

Also, I don't know if this will help you see more RAM, but you could try lowering video card aperture size. I'm not sure if that changes the addressing space the video card gets, but it might.

[OmegaZero_Alpha]

I am having a hard time believing that Vista is actually a new OS. The only real difference between it and XP is some flashy interface and DX10 (both could be easily implemented in XP, as with any other change in vista). None of the things that they are SUPPOSED to change and be upgraded are there (note the difference between 2000 and XP, almost none of the key differences is XP could have been implemented in 2000 without modifying the OS so much that it wouldn't even be similar).

Than again, I found XP horrible (2000 > vista > XP).... (if they would would make 2000 with better networking...)

[Retribution]

thats cuz 2000 sucked and xp rocks, to change any of the core componets would only be a downgrade, so insted the chose to work on afew of xp's fails so you would have an overall better system, and this new system would be no different unless micro soft is trying to pull another ME scam

[larz]

XP was real buggy when it was 1st released, give Vista sometime and it might just take XP's place in the next 4 years.....

[OmegaZero_Alpha]

the problem is that they are replacing it in 2 years...