Alex,
Thank you. A very insightful reply, but.........
Alex wrote:
Duncan,
Obviously, you haven't had a need for that much RAM. After all these years
on the list, we all know you take your time to upgrade and there's nothing
wrong with that - eventually, you might hit that limit and decide the need
for more RAM.
CorrectOmundo!! No. I have no need for even 4GB of RAM ATM. Mostly
because my current OS will not deal with it. Heck, I only run now with
2GB of RAM on my primary machines. Yes, eventually I "may" hit some limit.
Whether you believe it or not, the primary driver for a 64-bit OS is
addressable memory space - regular folks run applications that require lots
of memory, swap space is not acceptable (one example is editing HD home
videos). Windows took its time getting there and now it's widely available
(Vista/Win7 x64) - drivers are fine.
No. I believe you. And I KNOW that one day I have to move to 64-bit.
But, your share is about "video." Fine. That topic covers a large swath
of discussion. For "video" I accept 64-bit is better. No harm! No Foul!!
Even consumer-level computers coming with 4GB RAM, there's no choice but to
go with a 64-bit OS, otherwise, you will be inundated with questions about
"I bought 4GB, why does it say 3.3GB?" - e.g. my parents don't care what OS
(32 or 64) as long as everything works the way they like it. 4GB and a
updated OS with more ease-of-use features goes a long way in that respect.
What is presently available at Wal-Mart, CostCo, Dell, HP, is not part
of this. Just because the "Industry" has moved ahead and convinced
everyone that "this" is the best slice of cheese does never make it so.
If you choose to follow this model, fine. I do not.
I opened this topic again just because for the past 2.5(?) years or so
WE have been trying to hash out this whole memory issue twixt 32-bit and
64-bit. Nothing more.
Thanks,
Best,
Duncan
-alex
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of DSinc
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 8:01 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [H] More than 4GB of ram and VM question
Brian,
Um, so why is being able to address >4GB of RAM such a big deal?
I comprehend the other thread about the RAM issue. Is this what this is
all about?
No. I am not starting a "consumer choice" discussion. I've read all the
past threads about Vista. I have "read-thru" all of this List's
grumbles. Presently, I read all the Win7 thread-shares also. I also
believe that this LIST is largely populated by "early-adopter's" and
beta-tester's; and/or folks that have moved to some flavor of *nix, or,
now playing some flavor of Apple. Fine. It has always been so. Hope this
continues. Some of us just do not jump quickly.
Still. Why the big pressure to go 64-bit? ATM seems just a "coolness
factor" issue?
Best,
Duncan
Brian Weeden wrote:
Um, so you can address more than 4 GB of ram? Which is the issue the
started this thread.
It's not like it costs you any more at the consumer level - Vista and
Windows 7 come with both the 32 and 64-bit versions in the same box.
---------------------------
Brian Weeden
Technical Advisor
Secure World Foundation <http://www.secureworldfoundation.org>
Montreal Office
+1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
+1 (202) 683-8534 US
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 10:02 PM, DSinc <[email protected]> wrote:
Brian,
OK, tell me why? What is the big glamor of 64-bit computing?
Besides the heavy "business" folk, why do I need to go 64-bit?
Yes, I freely accept that one day I will have to. Until then???
Zounds to me like the same noise I lived through with 8->16 and the
16->32
series of arguments. Yes, now at 64-bit there are NEW advantages.
Now, I may feel very old. And, might be "reading" some very, very OLD
rationale.
But, I am willing to learn.
Best,
Duncan
Brian Weeden wrote:
Aside from the pain of tracking down 64-bit drivers - why not go 64-bit?
Apple has already gone almost completely 64-bit OS with Snow Leopard and
it's been around in *nix circles for a long time.
---------------------------
Brian Weeden
Technical Advisor
Secure World Foundation <http://www.secureworldfoundation.org>
Montreal Office
+1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
+1 (202) 683-8534 US
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 8:35 PM, DSinc <[email protected]> wrote:
Tim,
In your "business" position I get this. Should you choose this position
personally, that is fine. Please accept that there are many folk
everywhere
that just do NOT yet see the need for a 64-bit OS. JMHO.
Best,
Duncan
Tim Lider wrote:
Hello all,
Man explaining it and reading the explanation can make your brain
hurt.
Let's just say for the original poster it's not enough and should
upgrade
to
64-bit OS.
Regards,
Tim Lider
Sr. Data Recovery Specialist
Advanced Data Solutions, LLC
http://www.adv-data.com
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:hardware-
[email protected]] On Behalf Of Greg Sevart
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 12:24 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [H] More than 4GB of ram and VM question
It isn't as much of a mystery as people make it out to be. By
default,
on a
32-bit system with 4GB of RAM, 2GB is available for user space, and
2GB
is
reserved for exclusive use by the kernel--which would include kernel
mode
drivers. You are also correct in that some of this upper space is
reduced by
various system devices, some of which might not make much sense. The
reason
that systems differ is because of varying chipsets, their maximum
addressable memory, the ability of the chipset and BIOS to remap
memory
above system-reserved spaces, and, of course, the devices installed.
Using the /3GB switch will shift the division to 3GB of userland and
1GB of
kernel memory, but keep in mind that each individual 32-bit address
will
still be limited to 2GB of memory unless it was compiled with
LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE. It gets much more complicated when you're using
PAE
(Physical Address Extensions) and AWE (Address Windowing Extensions),
but
that realm is only relevant if you're running Server Enterprise or
better.
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:hardware-
[email protected]] On Behalf Of Winterlight
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 1:00 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [H] More than 4GB of ram and VM question
This is not how I understand it to work, not that there seems to be
any kind of consensuses on this, but I read in Maximum PC that 32
bit
supports 4GB of RAM addressing. You start out with 4GB of RAM and
then windows starts knocking off for addresses already used by your
video card, your network card, whatever. This is why some people
show
3.2GB some, just 3GB. To add to the confusion, Maximum PC has
reported that MS has stated that windows can actually use some of
that undressed RAM for things such as drivers.
At 07:24 AM 9/18/2009, you wrote:
Hello Brian,
32-bit is really locked to 3GB of RAM, it's just Windows is
reporting
the
3.6GB of RAM.
