Re: 32 bit vista can't address more than 3.1-3.5 GB RAM
- From: Ilgaz Öcal <ilgaz_ocal@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 18:23:14 +0200
On 2007-12-22 23:02:08 +0200, Snit <CSMA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
"Jesper" <spambuster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
1i9jjbb.8b3wm1hxq73uN%spambuster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 12/22/07 1:22 PM:
Of a modern OS, Vista is surprisingly oldfashioned: 32 bit vista fails
to access more than 3.1-3.5 GB RAM. M$ wants people to buy their
expensive server solutions to run apps requirering more than approx 3.1
GB of RAM. Furthermore 64 bit vista is unable to run 32 bit apps. In
Leopard the support is seemless!
I got 4 GB of RAM for my Mac and just took it for granted that modern OSs
would accept it with no problem. Amazing.
If Apple did the insane mistake of directly adopting "PC" architecture instead of EFI kinds of things, this could be the case on Intel Macs too. No kidding.
MS is not alone to blame on that 3.2 GB thing, it is part of the archaic PC architecture too. Even Intel could be to blame on those things.
How could PPC G5 Machine of mine, while being 64 bit could happily run 32bit OS with 32bit apps happily? Because PPC was designed to be 64bit in future.
If I had a PC with 4+ GB of RAM, I would run Vista 64bit edition and would demand my Apps to be ported to 64bit. Now, Windows users buy 32bit Vista in 2007 and whine about memory, it is part of the PC culture. Just see how fast Leopard incompatible apps gets updated for Leopard, that is part of the reason why we don't mess with such archaic issues. Developers know Apple won't care about their App working so they sit and recompile/recode for Leopard.
Ilgaz
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Mac OS X Leopard still not ready for prime time
- Next by Date: The sad thing is this guy will go back for more!
- Previous by thread: Re: 32 bit vista can't address more than 3.1-3.5 GB RAM
- Next by thread: Re: 32 bit vista can't address more than 3.1-3.5 GB RAM
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
