OT Microsoft a little slow supporting more than 3.4 GB of RAM?
in [Home Built PC]
|
Prev: Evening wear
Next: Wholesale Audemars Piguet Watch Classic Collection - Jules Audemars AP041 Discount, Fake Watch
From: John Doe on 22 Apr 2008 00:05 (Crossposted) Maybe this is a better way to put the question. The 32 bit and 64-bit operating systems, are they fundamentally the same except for what one would expect (32 versus 64)? It seems a little odd to me. When Windows XP came out, maybe I missed something, but was there as great of a distinction between operating systems (as there is now between 32 and 64-bit Microsoft OSs) around that time? If the second question I'm asking seems a little vague, well it probably is. Mostly curious, thanks.
From: Conor on 22 Apr 2008 09:23
In article <ludPj.10318$2g1.9874(a)nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com>, John Doe says... > (Crossposted) > > > Maybe this is a better way to put the question. The 32 bit and > 64-bit operating systems, are they fundamentally the same except for > what one would expect (32 versus 64)? > > It seems a little odd to me. When Windows XP came out, maybe I > missed something, but was there as great of a distinction between > operating systems (as there is now between 32 and 64-bit Microsoft > OSs) around that time? > > If the second question I'm asking seems a little vague, well it > probably is. > > Mostly curious, thanks. > Basically the big thing you're forgetting is that the highest address a 32 bit OS can address is 4GB. Hardware requires its own memory addresses which the 32 bit OS needs to be able to address so that's why you end up with less than 4GB usable in a 32bit OS. Microsoft haven't been slow in supporting more than 3.4GB of RAM because they've had a 64 bit OS out for years. What your complaint is is that XP/Vista quite accurately reported what they could address, not what was installed. -- Conor I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams |