Re: Apple and 64 bit apps - the latest in this series
- From: "Daniel Johnson" <danieljohnson2@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 11:18:42 -0400
"Snit" <usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:C4E7DCD6.D4B18%usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Daniel Johnson" <danieljohnson2@xxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
BPqdnYNaVI0Lzl_VnZ2dnUVZ_uGdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on 9/6/08 2:55 AM:
Windows systems are moving up through the "4 GB barrier" as if it wasn't
there. I would say that Macs are 'stuck' at 2 GB, but that would be unfair:
Apple has always starved their computers for RAM, so I can't blame that on
the 64-bit transition.
Apple is in no way "stuck" at 2 GB -
Indeed not; they are just lagging the curve, as they always do in this respect.
as I noted, I happily have 4 GB on a
consumer level machine. And, yes, Win 32 is the norm - not Win 64. I just
went to Dell and looked at the systems they *suggest* when you say you want
4 GB of RAM... the first few had Vista 64 suggested. Most did not. To
suggest the 32 bit version of Vista when the one feature I listed was 4 GB
RAM is just silly. And dishonest.
It appears that Dell is following the rule that a system should get 64-bit windows if it can be expanded *above* 4 GB, regardless of how much RAM is included stock. I see the Inspiron 530s has 3 GB stock, but ships with 64-bit Vista anyway.
I can't say I agree with all Dell's choices. Sometimes they go 32-bit when I would not. But sometimes they go 64-bit when I would not. It isn't just "Dell won't ship 64-bit Vista".
No use getting more than 2GB Ram on a Windows machine unless you use a 64 bitThe effective limit is actually more like 3 GB or 3.5 GB, even with discrete
version that will not run many of the things you might want it to!
graphics.
Well, if you have a video card with plenty of memory - 1 GB - you get 2.2 GB
of usable system RAM. If you have a video card with less memory you do get
more available RAM.
I wonder where the other 800 MB went. At any rate, you should certainly build that system with 64-bit Windows.
<http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/09/03/road_to_mac_os_x_snow_leopard
_64_bits_santa_rosa_and_the_great_pc_swindle.html>
-----
For example, Dell's top of the line $5799 Alienware gamer PC
comes standard with a 1GB video card, 2GB of RAM, and 32-bit
Windows Home Premium. That means the system can only possibly
use 2.3GB of RAM, but Dell "recommends" users spend $250 (or
$8 per month with financing) to buy a 4GB upgrade (below)
that will offer them little more than bragging rights, as the
1GB video card and the roughly 750MB of other MMIO will make
the extra 2GB unusable. Dell says "Upgrading your memory
allows you to take full advantage of system capabilities as
well as increasing system efficiency," but that's simply not
true on this page.
That's not exactly a common configuration there. Alienware appears to be following the same rule: it can't be expanded above 4 GB, so it gets 32-bit Vista.
This just goes to show that I'm smarter than Dell: according to *my* rule "4 GB + discrete graphics = 64 bit", that system would be able to use all its memory.
But Vista 64-bit is pretty compatible; the main thing is that it
won't run 16-bit software. That's a bummer, but it doesn't seem to have held
it back much.
Well, not unless you look to buy a computer!
That's exactly where 64-bit Windows is being sold. Apparently even on computers that don't actually need it, to judge by Dell's website.
And, of course, it doesn't hurt that OS X Leopard is even *worse*, and can't
even run 32-bit clean Classic software. Vista looks pretty good next to
that: real 64-bit *and* more compatible.
The lack of Classic is a shame... but OS X does not confuse users with two
versions... and Apple does not push a systems with more RAM than it can use.
I see no evidence that any users are "confused". They buy a computer, the OEM picks the right Windows for that hardware. That's 64-bit Vista quite frequently, it turns out.
OTOH, it does appear that Dell is confused and shipping systems with suboptimal Windows installs. That turns out to include shipping 64-bit Windows on systems that do not need it.
It's surprising. Not that Apple blew it- they've never been all that good at
the technical stuff. Rather, I'd expected Windows PCs to stall a bit at 4 GB
for compatibility reasons, but evidently this is not happening. Apparently,
16-bit compatibility is less important than I expected it would be.
Macs comes with 16 GB of RAM that they can use. Most Windows PCs cannot
even use 4 GB. Heck, even my consumer level iMac has 4 GB it uses quite
well!
Macs do not come standard with that much memory. You can buy it, of course. But without a 64-bit OS, you'll be limited in your ability to use it.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Apple and 64 bit apps - the latest in this series
- From: Tim Murray
- Re: Apple and 64 bit apps - the latest in this series
- From: Snit
- Re: Apple and 64 bit apps - the latest in this series
- References:
- Apple and 64 bit apps‹the latest in this series
- From: Mike
- Re: Apple and 64 bit apps - the latest in this series
- From: Daniel Johnson
- Re: Apple and 64 bit apps - the latest in this series
- From: Snit
- Re: Apple and 64 bit apps - the latest in this series
- From: Daniel Johnson
- Re: Apple and 64 bit apps - the latest in this series
- From: Snit
- Apple and 64 bit apps‹the latest in this series
- Prev by Date: Re: Apple and 64 bit apps - the latest in this series
- Next by Date: Re: Apple and 64 bit apps - the latest in this series
- Previous by thread: Re: Apple and 64 bit apps - the latest in this series
- Next by thread: Re: Apple and 64 bit apps - the latest in this series
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading