Re: 32 bit vista can't address more than 3.1-3.5 GB RAM
- From: Snit <CSMA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 13:38:24 -0700
"Ilgaz Öcal" <ilgaz_ocal@xxxxxxxxx> stated in post
5taj3mF1ckaskU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 12/24/07 1:28 PM:
On 2007-12-24 18:31:24 +0200, Snit <CSMA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
"Ilgaz Öcal" <ilgaz_ocal@xxxxxxxxx> stated in post
5ta4nhF1ckup0U1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 12/24/07 9:23 AM:
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.
Well, if it really was Intel then Apple would be stuck in the same boat now.
It is in fact the thing we call "PC" and decisions made over time. It
includes MS, Intel and everyone.
If you read the support article of MS, it is DRIVERS, the hardware/add
ons (including gfx card) to blame.
Who is to blame for the weaknesses of a platform is irrelevant to the user.
I do not care *why*, for example, there is no Camtasia-level recording
software for the Mac, I just know there is not (or at least I cannot find
any). Is this Apple's fault? Who cares? It is a benefit of the Windows
platform. Same things here - being able to use 4 GB of RAM is a benefit over
the version of Windows most people have... I do not care whose fault it is.
Whatever uses the DMA could be
responsible.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/888137/en-us
If you check deeper, it is also Intel chipsets to blame. Intel would be
still happily shipping 32bit CPUs and Mainboard chipsets if AMD and
Apple didn't push them with Opteron/G5. That is why competition is
always a nice thing.
Now ask me why I gave up my perfectly working Intel 2200 Mhz PC back in
2003 to move to G5 1600 running OS X. That is the major reason. I
wanted something actually progresses without giving any chance to
archaic level backwards compatibility. The "Wintel" was to blame that
time. MS insisted on insane levels of backwards compatibility and
giving up things (just like this example) for it and Intel was still
caring about those people insisting to run Windows 98 (remember,2003).
Linux was a no choice so I called an Apple store. Result? G5 1600
performed a LOT better than that 2200 Mhz PC.
See they still disable persons purchased RAM instead of failing saying
"Request an updated driver from Vendor" which wouldn't be surprising on
OS X land. Even Linux doesn't mercy in such decisions.
Ilgaz
--
One who makes no mistakes, never makes anything.
.
- References:
- 32 bit vista can't address more than 3.1-3.5 GB RAM
- From: Jesper
- Re: 32 bit vista can't address more than 3.1-3.5 GB RAM
- From: Snit
- Re: 32 bit vista can't address more than 3.1-3.5 GB RAM
- From: Ilgaz Öcal
- Re: 32 bit vista can't address more than 3.1-3.5 GB RAM
- From: Snit
- Re: 32 bit vista can't address more than 3.1-3.5 GB RAM
- From: Ilgaz Öcal
- 32 bit vista can't address more than 3.1-3.5 GB RAM
- Prev by Date: Re: 32 bit vista can't address more than 3.1-3.5 GB RAM
- Next by Date: Re: MacBook is Amazon's best selling computer
- 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
|
Loading
