I thought I read somewhere (either on the [H] boards, or Ars boards, or somewhere else) that 32 bit version of windows can’t address ram higher than 3.5 gigs or something to that effect. You just physically run out of addresses (or is it registers?) to store stuff in and access, so 4 gigs of ram becomes a waste. Does this limitation apply to Vista as well (to the 32 bit version at least) ?
It’s not an OS limitation, that’s just the nature of 32-bit systems. You run out of memory address over 4GB when a system is 32-bit. (There are workarounds designed for servers, but they’re just a hack).
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/PAEmem.mspx
Interesting. Wonder if it’s the same deal for Vista. Thanks for the info too Woolen.
I like how, in the OP, MS sez:
As always, I’m just reporting what I’ve seen
DON’T SHOOT THE MESSENGER. Your version of “as always” differs greatly from the public at large, Bawf. Maybe that should be your vocabulary lesson for the day. Additonally, you haven’t seen shit, you’ve like read some stuff, so you’re rocking like a 4:1 word:lie ratio. GG!
Really? I didn’t realize you fixed PCs and ran OS/X. Color me surprised! Next thing you know, we’ll find out your own a PS2!
And a GameCube! Truly, I’m so cool!
Yep, both FreeBSD and Linux can support 64GB of RAM on a 32-bit system,
but at that point the memory maps are gigantic. 16GB of memory requires
a half-gigabyte memory map.
There might also be slowdowns, depending on implementation.
I gave Vista (64 bit) and office 2007 a try and wasn’t all that impressed. So much stuff has been moved around and once you get past the gloss and find the app it pretty much looks and works just like XP.
Also, I expected the beta to be further along if they plan to release in early 2007. My bet is it gets pushed back again or they somehow cut even more features. The current driver situation is just a mess.
Dumb down the os (yeah umm menus confuse people. this ranks up there with killing off MDI but now we just call them tabs so it’s ok) and pretty it up for the masses.
As a gamer, programmer, and pvr user I can’t find a single killer must have feature in Vista that would make me upgrade except DX10 and we all know the only reason it’s not going to be in XP is $$$$$$$$ (ranks up there with IE is part of the OS argument).
MS has 6666 posts.
Fixed!
You really are computer 1337!
I hear he fixes PCs for a living.
So, my M$ fanboi boss today…
I sent him the pic of vista sucking down 944 meg just with the base system, and remarked how sloppy MS is. His reply?
“Well, ram is cheap these days. You really need 4 gig to run a decent 64 bit system, but it’s cheap so what’s the big deal?”
His head’s so far up MS’s ass that every time Gates turns a corner it cracks his neck.
NO! Does he play console games?
Aszurom- Why did you abandon your S=$ conceit after the first sentence? It was funny because it’s a dollar sign instead of an S. I get it! Yay!!
Also, RAM is cheap.
Apparenty, my Linux workstation is run by Microsoft as well.
No way to tell for sure, but I can tell you this: He owns a PS2, and uses a Mac.
Most of that usage is in the disk cache though, not within programs.
(KDE and Gnome are still getting resource-hungrier by the day, though…)
Of course not. That’s a retarded proposition.
Windows XP is bulkier than 2000, which is bulkier than NT, which is bulkier than 95, which in turn was WAY more complex than 3.1. Obviously Vista is going to be much bigger.
The only question then: is the bloat worth it?
I hear you represent game publishers for a living…