Unknown wrote:
> Not a bug. Hardware architecture limits memory addressing to about 3.2
> gig.
jorgen wrote:
> The x86 architecture includes PAE, which expands the address space well
> above 4G. Both xp and vista includes a PAE kernel, but limits the physical
> address space to 4G anyway> The x86 architecture includes PAE, which
> expands the address space well above 4G. Both xp and vista includes a PAE
> kernel, but limits the physical address space to 4G anyway
Bob Peters wrote:
> Not trying to be sarcastic here, but am actually curious:
>
> You shop for a decent new motherboard, you're usually looking at a
> capacity for 8G on one that's "Designed for Windows XP" and "Windows
> Vista Certified." (at the time I'm writing this)
Who is the 'you' that you (Bob Peters) is referring to here in the
statement, "... you're usually looking at a capacity for 8G on one ..."?
I know if I am looking for a motherboard/computer for Windows XP, I look for
one with a maximum capacity of 4GB if I plan on running 32bit Windows/etc.
If I might later install something that might use more (VMWare ESX, *nix,
64bit Windows, etc...) I might look for a board that supports more. If I
find a better board that supports a maximum of 256GB of memory for a few
bucks more - but because of the FSB and other features, it is better
overall - sure, I'll blow the extra few dollars - but not because it
supports the extra RAM necessarily - but because it has other features I
want.
You (Bob Peters) seem to imply that the mysterious 'you' referred to will
only look for two things. RAM capacity and OS compatibility. I look at
FSB, CPU type, onboard USB capability, onboard audio, onboard NIC, HDD
controller type/capacity, RAID or not and even the type of casde it will fit
in. I like to get as much as *I* would need for now and 3-5 years in the
future as I can given a price restraint and what I plan on doing with it in
that timeframe.
> What's the point if you can only address half of that, max?
Why'd you (Bob Peters in this case) bother to spec something you did not
need and whether or not it supports it does not mean you have to utilize it.
I bet you have driven cars that will easily go 120MPH or faster... Did you
have to go that fast all the time because the car had that ability? I bet
you've bought a pack of gum, a six-pack of beer or a bag of candy when you
knew only a few would resolve your current craving.
> Surely the hardware can't require 4G behind the scenes, even if
> you're building a monster gaming rig to go gunning for the Angry
> German Kid in "Unreal."
I do not understand here - are you making the same point I am? What do you
mean, "... the hardware can't require 4G behind the scenes ..."?
> Is the higher capability entirely for those early adapters who are
> going 64-bit even without many goodies yet compatible?
It's for anyone who thinks they might need it. Each person is different.
Some may be happy with a 400MHz machine with 128MB memory running Windows XP
(I've seen it and even read about such people in these newsgroups.) Others
may need 1.8GHz with 512MB memory for minimal performance with their office
apps. Others might need 3.0GHz with 1GB memory for their smaller graphical
editing (2D usually.) Others might be better off with the latest AutoDesk
product, Core2Dua 3.0GHz Xeon and 3.5GB memory for their 3D modeling. It
all depends on the 'you' that you (Bob Peters) was referring to.
--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
