Linux can use 8GB RAM, what's the problem with Vista ?
Terry Porter
limited to 4GB of RAM, what's up with that ?
Windows ... which RAM limitation would you like today ?
--
Linux full time, on the desktop, since August 1997
TomTom
> I've just read that Vista32 can only use 3GB of RAM and Vista64 is
> limited to 4GB of RAM, what's up with that ?
What does Linux actually do with that 8GB of ram?
DFS
> I've just read that Vista32 can only use 3GB of RAM and Vista64 is
> limited to 4GB of RAM, what's up with that ?
Yawn. Another dumbass lie from another dumbass Linux liar.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx#physical_memory_limits_windows_vista
> Windows ... which RAM limitation would you like today ?
I just saw - not read - that OpenOffice 3.0 Calc (latest version) has just
1024x65536 cells, or 1/256th the capacity of MS Office 2007 Excel (latest
version).
OSS crapware: what can you expect for free?
Roy Schestowitz
Hash: SHA1
____/ TomTom on Sunday 26 October 2008 00:47 : \____
Intensive database/video/rendering stuff, and not just on servers.
For users whose computers run Fisher Price apps like IE and use just one
virtual desktop (or one task at a time), not much RAM will be needed.
Memory limitations impact development and imperil 'innovation'. Come to
consider how little Windows has improved in 12 years. Without ISVs, Windows
would be years behind its competition in every way.
- --
~~ Best of wishes
Welcome to standards-compliant Web browsing. http://www.spreadfirefox.com/
http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
run-level 5 Oct 15 15:52 last=S
http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkkDv3UACgkQU4xAY3RXLo77zgCfd5a8xHusI/BkWb5VglyJ7VRZ
lzEAoJAcdBgjDYmTpjWPJxbSB1TUDqBf
=ysBi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Tom Shelton
> I've just read that Vista32 can only use 3GB of RAM and Vista64 is
> limited to 4GB of RAM, what's up with that ?
>
>
> Windows ... which RAM limitation would you like today ?
Vista32 can use 4GB - but only about 3.5 can be used by user processes.
Besides, this assumption is very flawed because you aren't taking into
consideration virtual ram. Google /3GB and /PAE for a full discussion.
Vista64 is limited based on the version - and none of them is 4GB (at least
that I know of). Home Basic is like 8GB, Home Premium 16GB, and all others
are 128GB.
--
Tom Shelton
Gregory Shearman
Whatever it likes. Heaps of file cache and buffer space. Plenty of room
for virtual machines...
The most amazing question is what does Linux actually do with 16MB of
RAM (Linksys WRT54GL - MIPS Broadcom - wireless router):
root@slinky:~# uptime
12:44:13 up 149 days, 18:22, load average: 1.85, 1.35, 0.65
Mem: 13564K used, 744K free, 0K shrd, 980K buff, 4848K cached
=============================================================
Or perhaps using my Linksys NSLU2 (ARM-b processor - XScale-IXP42x)
which uses double the memory:
gregory@slug:~$ uptime
12:56:43 up 149 days, 18:34, load average: 1.16, 1.03, 1.01
Mem: 29104K used, 1196K free, 0K shrd, 13068K buff, 6376K cached
=============================================================
Linux scales from the extremely small to the extremely large.
Vista? XP?
Pffft! Not even in the game.
--
Regards,
Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power
AZ Nomad
>I've just read that Vista32 can only use 3GB of RAM and Vista64 is
>limited to 4GB of RAM, what's up with that ?
>Windows ... which RAM limitation would you like today ?
Add to that the the 1:4 performance loss when going to a microsoft 64 bit OS.
Microsoft knows about this amazing defect; why else would they still be
pushing 32 bit OSes when 64 bit machines have been around for six years?
Erik Funkenbusch
> I've just read that Vista32 can only use 3GB of RAM and Vista64 is
> limited to 4GB of RAM, what's up with that ?
>
> Windows ... which RAM limitation would you like today ?
Wow, how can you make such bald-faced lies like this when they're easily
disproved?
Both 32 bit Linux and Vista have precisely the same limitations, they both
support 3.xGB of ram because a certain supset of the last gigabyte is
reserved by the PC architecture for memory mapped device I/O. In other
words, the hardware maps it's own memory into those spaces and thus the OS
cannot use that physical memory.
In 64 bit Linux and Vista, the full 4GB (if you have 4GB installed) because
the memory mapped I/O can be mapped outside the 4GB physical memory space.
No version of 64-bit Vista is limited to less than 8GB, which Home Basic is
limited to. Home Premium is limited to 16GB, and all others are 128GB.
So why the bald-faced line Terry?
Moshe Goldfarb.
> On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 19:41:24 -0500, Terry Porter wrote:
>
>> I've just read that Vista32 can only use 3GB of RAM and Vista64 is
>> limited to 4GB of RAM, what's up with that ?
>>
>> Windows ... which RAM limitation would you like today ?
>
> Wow, how can you make such bald-faced lies like this when they're easily
> disproved?
It's Terry Porter, that's why.
Remember "The Terry Porter School of Networking (Not working if you
prefer)" ?
> Both 32 bit Linux and Vista have precisely the same limitations, they both
> support 3.xGB of ram because a certain supset of the last gigabyte is
> reserved by the PC architecture for memory mapped device I/O. In other
> words, the hardware maps it's own memory into those spaces and thus the OS
> cannot use that physical memory.
>
> In 64 bit Linux and Vista, the full 4GB (if you have 4GB installed) because
> the memory mapped I/O can be mapped outside the 4GB physical memory space.
>
> No version of 64-bit Vista is limited to less than 8GB, which Home Basic is
> limited to. Home Premium is limited to 16GB, and all others are 128GB.
>
> So why the bald-faced line Terry?
Because Terry Porter the "Ben Hur of COLA" hasn't a clue.
Some things never change.
I think Roy has competition.
--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
Please Visit www.linsux.org
TomTom
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> ____/ TomTom on Sunday 26 October 2008 00:47 : \____
>
>> Terry Porter wrote:
>>> I've just read that Vista32 can only use 3GB of RAM and Vista64 is
>>> limited to 4GB of RAM, what's up with that ?
>>
>> What does Linux actually do with that 8GB of ram?
>
> Intensive database/video/rendering stuff, and not just on servers.
Which is of no great interest or concern to the great majority of computer
users.
I use both Windows and Linux, with several versions of each. I haven't
found any limitation on the use of RAM by Windows to be a problem.
Moshe Goldfarb.
> On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 21:04:47 -0400
> "DFS" <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
>
>> Yawn. Another dumbass lie from another dumbass Linux liar.
>>
>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx#physical_memory_limits_windows_vista
>>
>
> I have to wonder why there are memory limits at *all* in any of the
> 64-bit versions that aren't hardware imposed. That is just stupid and
> ugly (to borrow a few words out of the book of Torvalds). It doesn't
> cost any extra to support what the hardware supports, so why the
> limitation? One word: extortion.
>
>>> Windows ... which RAM limitation would you like today ?
>>
>> I just saw - not read - that OpenOffice 3.0 Calc (latest version) has
>> just 1024x65536 cells, or 1/256th the capacity of MS Office 2007
>> Excel (latest version).
>>
>> OSS crapware: what can you expect for free?
>
> I wouldn't open a sheet that used that many cells, let alone however
> many you claim Excel can have. Such a sheet would not be very useful;
> large datasets belong in database systems, not spreadsheets.
>
> --- Mike
Simple answer is so the company can make more money.
AZ Nomad
Yeah, (w/ vista) no memory limitation with windows, as long as you
don't mind allocating 2 gig of the 3 gig limit for the desktop.
The trick is to avoid running anything but trivial applications.
And to reboot daily.
And to clear out the hundreds of thousands of worthless temp files
daily so that indexing via desktop search and DRM doesn't kill the system.
And to remind yourself everytime you see a worthless gl desktop
animation that this is an serious improvement.
DFS
> I've just read that Vista32 can only use 3GB of RAM and Vista64 is
> limited to 4GB of RAM, what's up with that ?
>
>
> Windows ... which RAM limitation would you like today ?
According to some Ubuntu victims, Linux crapware can use a LOT more RAM than
XP:
"After installing xserver-xgl the memory usage immediately went up to
17179869180.0 GB for several packages."
#28 at
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=587905&highlight=freeze&page=3
Rob Schwenk
> On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 19:41:24 -0500, Terry Porter wrote:
>
>> I've just read that Vista32 can only use 3GB of RAM and Vista64 is
>> limited to 4GB of RAM, what's up with that ?
>>
>> Windows ... which RAM limitation would you like today ?
>
> Wow, how can you make such bald-faced lies like this when they're easily
> disproved?
>
> Both 32 bit Linux and Vista have precisely the same limitations, they
> both support 3.xGB of ram because a certain supset of the last gigabyte
> is reserved by the PC architecture for memory mapped device I/O. In
> other words, the hardware maps it's own memory into those spaces and
> thus the OS cannot use that physical memory.
Explain to me how my 32 bit PC has 6GB ram and Linux uses it all? For
sure there is a maximum of 4GB per process but I do run more then
one process!
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 6163728 4025836 2137892 0 218684 2983448
-/+ buffers/cache: 823704 5340024
I often have 2 VM's running and a couple of big (~1GB) java apps and
of course lots of other things that Linux lets me do seamlessly without
any 'stuttering' when I switch from app to app, listen to music, watch
videos, etc.
[snip]
> So why the bald-faced line Terry?
Your ignorance of Linux precludes you of calling anyone a liar. Do you
have the guts to apologize?
Sinister Midget
> On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 20:11:36 -0500
> Tom Shelton <tom_s...@comcastXXXXXXX.net> wrote:
>
>> Vista64 is limited based on the version - and none of them is 4GB (at
>> least that I know of). Home Basic is like 8GB, Home Premium 16GB,
>> and all others are 128GB.
>
So you'll buy the most expensive version if you'd like to have lots of
RAM.
--
A computer without Windows is like a fish without a bicycle.
AZ Nomad
>On 2008-10-26, Michael B. Trausch <mi...@trausch.us> claimed:
>> On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 20:11:36 -0500
>> Tom Shelton <tom_s...@comcastXXXXXXX.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Vista64 is limited based on the version - and none of them is 4GB (at
>>> least that I know of). Home Basic is like 8GB, Home Premium 16GB,
>>> and all others are 128GB.
>>
>> Yes, but *why*? Seriously, what's the point of such a limitation?
>So you'll buy the most expensive version if you'd like to have lots of
>RAM.
However with the enormous slowdown of microsoft's 64 bit kernels,
one should expect to need an 8 core 2+ ghz system just to work worth
worth a damn.
Such progress.
Sinister Midget
They'll probably have a low-end (high-cost) version, out of the 48
planned versions, of Winders 7 just for that. Most likely not more than
$500 for the "competitive upgrade" box no less.
--
Any dimwit can run Windows Vista or XP. And they usually do.
DFS
> On 2008-10-26, AZ Nomad <azno...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> claimed:
>> On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 00:52:57 -0500, Sinister Midget
>> <fardb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2008-10-26, Michael B. Trausch <mi...@trausch.us> claimed:
>>>> On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 20:11:36 -0500
>>>> Tom Shelton <tom_s...@comcastXXXXXXX.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Vista64 is limited based on the version - and none of them is 4GB
>>>>> (at least that I know of). Home Basic is like 8GB, Home Premium
>>>>> 16GB, and all others are 128GB.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, but *why*? Seriously, what's the point of such a limitation?
>>
>>> So you'll buy the most expensive version if you'd like to have lots
>>> of RAM.
>>
>> However with the enormous slowdown of microsoft's 64 bit kernels,
>> one should expect to need an 8 core 2+ ghz system just to work worth
>> worth a damn.
>> Such progress.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2280808,00.asp
> They'll probably have a low-end (high-cost) version, out of the 48
> planned versions, of Winders 7 just for that. Most likely not more
> than $500 for the "competitive upgrade" box no less.
64-bit Ultimate is included with the 32-bit retail box. For other versions
it's $10 to order the media.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/1033/ordermedia/default.mspx
Do you stupid shits try extra hard to be wrong about everything, all the
time?
AZ Nomad
Please please please, can I have a copy now?!
I don't feel confortable unless I pay at least ten grand for hardware.
I want to have my 20ghz system used just to draw animated desktops!
Clogwog
news:FdKdnQb1QpUpIZ7U...@netspace.net.au...
> I've just read that Vista32 can only use 3GB of RAM and Vista64 is
> limited to 4GB of RAM, what's up with that ?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAH!!, you less than useless lying moronic tit!
>
>
> Windows ... which RAM limitation would you like today ?
--
comp.os.linux.advocacy, COLA, (it's close with COLON) widely known as "The
rectum of usenet".
Terry Porter
> On 2008-10-26, Terry Porter <lin...@netspace.net.au> wrote:
>> I've just read that Vista32 can only use 3GB of RAM and Vista64 is
>> limited to 4GB of RAM, what's up with that ?
>>
>>
>> Windows ... which RAM limitation would you like today ?
>
> Vista32 can use 4GB
,snip>
> Vista64 is limited based on the version - and none of them is 4GB (at
> least that I know of). Home Basic is like 8GB, Home Premium 16GB, and
> all others are 128GB.
Thanks Tom :)
7
wrote on behalf of Half Wits from Micoshaft Department of Marketing:
> "Terry Porter" <lin...@netspace.net.au> schreef in bericht
> news:FdKdnQb1QpUpIZ7U...@netspace.net.au...
>> I've just read that Vista32 can only use 3GB of RAM and Vista64 is
>> limited to 4GB of RAM, what's up with that ?
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAH!!, you less than useless lying moronic tit!
BWAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!
You lying piss wit!
Well all know WINDUMMIES ARE LYING RETARDS.
Micshaft products can only access 3Gb of RAM to
compete with Linux while Linux has no limits at any RAM limit.
The 32 / 64 argument is won by Linux which still has the highest
envelope of speed x 32 / 64 bit x RAM size access and performance.
Fsck you windummy fan boyee - we don't need ye!!!
Linux Pimps
<snipped>
7, will you shut the fuck-up?
High Plains Thumper
> 7 wrote:
>
>> The 32 / 64 argument is won by Linux which still has the
>> highest envelope of speed x 32 / 64 bit x RAM size access
>> and performance.
>
>
> 7, will you shut the fuck-up?
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/
[quote]
7.6 Trespasser Disinformation Tactics
50. Claim god like attributes. Claim god like attributes,
such as being all knowing. If you don't want to make that claim,
behave as though you are, any way.
[/quote]
--
HPT
Norman Peelman
Math much?
--
Norman
Registered Linux user #461062
DFS
Clearly, that question needs to be addressed to the slopware developers.
William Poaster
Doesn't that description describe Quack well!
--
Most people are sheep.
Microsoft is very effective
at fleecing the flockers.
ray
> Terry Porter wrote:
>> I've just read that Vista32 can only use 3GB of RAM and Vista64 is
>> limited to 4GB of RAM, what's up with that ?
>
> Yawn. Another dumbass lie from another dumbass Linux liar.
>
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/
aa366778.aspx#physical_memory_limits_windows_vista
>
>
>
>> Windows ... which RAM limitation would you like today ?
>
> I just saw - not read - that OpenOffice 3.0 Calc (latest version) has
> just 1024x65536 cells, or 1/256th the capacity of MS Office 2007 Excel
> (latest version).
>
> OSS crapware: what can you expect for free?
Well, DooFuS - I can't really see why you'd need more than 20 cells -
after all, that's probably how many fingers and toes you have.
ray
> On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 20:11:36 -0500
> Tom Shelton <tom_s...@comcastXXXXXXX.net> wrote:
>
>> Vista64 is limited based on the version - and none of them is 4GB (at
>> least that I know of). Home Basic is like 8GB, Home Premium 16GB, and
>> all others are 128GB.
>
> Yes, but *why*? Seriously, what's the point of such a limitation?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
>
> --- Mike
ray
> On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 19:41:24 -0500, Terry Porter wrote:
>
>> I've just read that Vista32 can only use 3GB of RAM and Vista64 is
>> limited to 4GB of RAM, what's up with that ?
>>
>> Windows ... which RAM limitation would you like today ?
>
> Wow, how can you make such bald-faced lies like this when they're easily
> disproved?
>
> Both 32 bit Linux and Vista have precisely the same limitations, they
> both support 3.xGB of ram because a certain supset of the last gigabyte
> is reserved by the PC architecture for memory mapped device I/O. In
> other words, the hardware maps it's own memory into those spaces and
> thus the OS cannot use that physical memory.
WRONG. With PAE Linux kernels can address 64GB of RAM.
>
> In 64 bit Linux and Vista, the full 4GB (if you have 4GB installed)
> because the memory mapped I/O can be mapped outside the 4GB physical
> memory space.
>
> No version of 64-bit Vista is limited to less than 8GB, which Home Basic
> is limited to. Home Premium is limited to 16GB, and all others are
> 128GB.
>
> So why the bald-faced line Terry?
You should get your facts straigt. 32 bit Linux can address up to 64GB of
RAM.
ray
> Terry Porter wrote:
>> I've just read that Vista32 can only use 3GB of RAM and Vista64 is
>> limited to 4GB of RAM, what's up with that ?
>>
>>
>> Windows ... which RAM limitation would you like today ?
>
>
> According to some Ubuntu victims, Linux crapware can use a LOT more RAM
> than XP:
>
True - 32 bit Linux kernels can address 64GB of RAM via PAE.
ray
> I've just read that Vista32 can only use 3GB of RAM and Vista64 is
> limited to 4GB of RAM, what's up with that ?
>
>
> Windows ... which RAM limitation would you like today ?
Actually, the limitation of 32 bit (yes, that is correct - 32 bit) Linux
is 64GB using PAE.
DFS
Is that all? 32-bit Windows kernels can address 128GB of RAM via PAE.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx#physical_memory_limits_windows_server_2003
DFS
What's with the personal insults, raytard? Are you mad that OO is limited
and slow and bogus compared to MS Office? But it's FREE!
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> I've just read that Vista32 can only use 3GB of RAM and Vista64 is
> limited to 4GB of RAM, what's up with that ?
I don't believe the latter.
If that were the case, why bother with Vista? Why would Office Depot be
selling Vista64 systems with 6 Gb of RAM?
Of course, this being Microsoft, you have to pay more to get more:
http://www.realtime-vista.com/installation/2007/08/windows_vista_ram_limitations.htm
So you move to 64-bit. With this comes some stiff driver
requirements, but what do you get for RAM limitations with Vista
64-bit? Actually, it depends on what edition of Vista you are
running: Home Basic is limited to 8GB, Home Premium is limited to
16GB and the other editions (Business, Enterprise and Ultimate) let
you get all the way up to 128GB.
So how long before we are pissed that 128 is as high as it goes?
Well, you can always move to Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition
SP2 64-bit to take advantage of 2 Terabytes of RAM. That should seem
like a big number for the foreseeable future.
Anyway, Terry, be careful about spreading bullshit about Windows. Those
guys have enough problems.
--
The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the `social
sciences' is: some do, some don't.
-- Ernest Rutherford
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 11:47:02 +1100
> "TomTom" <t...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> Terry Porter wrote:
>> > I've just read that Vista32 can only use 3GB of RAM and Vista64 is
>> > limited to 4GB of RAM, what's up with that ?
>>
>> What does Linux actually do with that 8GB of ram?
>
> I have 8 GB of RAM in my system. I frequently use it to run virtual
> machines and the like. I have yet to use *all* of it, but that's kind
> of what I'd intended when I bought it, was not to use it all just yet.
>
> Most of the time, I use anywhere between 1.5 - 6 GB of it, depending on
> how many VMs I am tinkering with at the time and whatever else I am
> doing. I also do a good deal of compiling code, so the RAM and the 4
> cores that I have work pretty well for me. This system can build a
> pretty good, mostly-generic kernel in about 17 minutes using most of
> the processing power it has. Still tweaking the -jX parameter though
> to see if I can make that better still, though. :-)
My 64-bit system is using all the RAM right now, basically. 4 Gb.
It doesn't do a lot:
o normal kernel, driver, and system stuff
o fetchmail and spamassassin
o apache
o nfs
o samba
o sshd
o exim
o gnome-keyring
o cups
o dbus
o gkrellm, xbindkeys, mpd, and a raft of stuff related to the
desktop
And yet it sucks up every bit of RAM it can get. Oddly enough, the CPU
time barely registers.
Of course, it /has/ been up for 193 days.
--
Many people feel that they deserve some kind of recognition for all the
bad things they haven't done.
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 19:41:24 -0500, Terry Porter wrote:
>
>> I've just read that Vista32 can only use 3GB of RAM and Vista64 is
>> limited to 4GB of RAM, what's up with that ?
>>
>> Windows ... which RAM limitation would you like today ?
>
> Wow, how can you make such bald-faced lies like this when they're easily
> disproved?
>
> Both 32 bit Linux and Vista have precisely the same limitations, they both
> support 3.xGB of ram because a certain supset of the last gigabyte is
> reserved by the PC architecture for memory mapped device I/O. In other
> words, the hardware maps it's own memory into those spaces and thus the OS
> cannot use that physical memory.
>
> In 64 bit Linux and Vista, the full 4GB (if you have 4GB installed) because
> the memory mapped I/O can be mapped outside the 4GB physical memory space.
>
> No version of 64-bit Vista is limited to less than 8GB, which Home Basic is
> limited to. Home Premium is limited to 16GB, and all others are 128GB.
>
> So why the bald-faced line Terry?
He passed along someone else's info without checking it.
--
Thank you for observing all safety precautions.
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 21:04:47 -0400
> "DFS" <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
>
>> Yawn. Another dumbass lie from another dumbass Linux liar.
>>
>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx#physical_memory_limits_windows_vista
>
> I have to wonder why there are memory limits at *all* in any of the
> 64-bit versions that aren't hardware imposed. That is just stupid and
> ugly (to borrow a few words out of the book of Torvalds). It doesn't
> cost any extra to support what the hardware supports, so why the
> limitation? One word: extortion.
>
>> > Windows ... which RAM limitation would you like today ?
>>
>> I just saw - not read - that OpenOffice 3.0 Calc (latest version) has
>> just 1024x65536 cells, or 1/256th the capacity of MS Office 2007
>> Excel (latest version).
>>
>> OSS crapware: what can you expect for free?
>
> I wouldn't open a sheet that used that many cells, let alone however
> many you claim Excel can have. Such a sheet would not be very useful;
> large datasets belong in database systems, not spreadsheets.
A spreadsheet is the /last/ thing you'd every want to use for extensive
calculations and humongous data sets.
Such large capacities for spreadsheets are simply marketing pabulum
aimed at Pointy-Haired-Bosses.
And ever watch OLE automation at work? It's like watching a morbidly
obese person try to struggle up out of a lounge chair.
--
The founding fathers tried to set up a judicial system where the accused
received a fair trial, not a system to insure an acquittal on technicalities.
Moshe Goldfarb.
I suspect it comes naturally.
Like AZ Nomad and his millions of Vista tmp files :)
--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
Please Visit www.linsux.org
Moshe Goldfarb.
Only if your time happens to be free.
Kelsey Bjarnason
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> ____/ TomTom on Sunday 26 October 2008 00:47 : \____
>>
>>> Terry Porter wrote:
>>>> I've just read that Vista32 can only use 3GB of RAM and Vista64 is
>>>> limited to 4GB of RAM, what's up with that ?
>>>
>>> What does Linux actually do with that 8GB of ram?
>>
>> Intensive database/video/rendering stuff, and not just on servers.
>
> Which is of no great interest or concern to the great majority of
> computer users.
Doesn't matter whether it is of concern to many or even most. Most folks
can happily get by with a pocket calculator which does the basic four
functions and maybe one or two extras - percentage, square root, that
sort of thing. If, say, one person in 500 needs statistical functions,
then the calculator designer faces a choice: make something less powerful
and lose those customers, or make something more powerful and appeal to
those customers as well.
Linux has shown that providing access to as much memory as you can
physically get into the box is simply not an insurmountable obstacle, and
whether Joe Sixpack ever uses that feature is irrelevant - it is there
for those who need it, those who don't, well, it's there anyhow should
they change their minds.
I don't know offhand what memory limits Windows has; it may well be the
same as Linux, but the argument that it's "of no great concern to the
great majority of computer users" is specious; unless there is a
compelling reason *not* to offer it, why not put it in and let the user
decide how much memory they want to use?
Moshe Goldfarb.
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Terry Porter belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> I've just read that Vista32 can only use 3GB of RAM and Vista64 is
>> limited to 4GB of RAM, what's up with that ?
>
> I don't believe the latter.
>
> If that were the case, why bother with Vista? Why would Office Depot be
> selling Vista64 systems with 6 Gb of RAM?
>
> Of course, this being Microsoft, you have to pay more to get more:
>
> http://www.realtime-vista.com/installation/2007/08/windows_vista_ram_limitations.htm
>
> So you move to 64-bit. With this comes some stiff driver
> requirements, but what do you get for RAM limitations with Vista
> 64-bit? Actually, it depends on what edition of Vista you are
> running: Home Basic is limited to 8GB, Home Premium is limited to
> 16GB and the other editions (Business, Enterprise and Ultimate) let
> you get all the way up to 128GB.
>
> So how long before we are pissed that 128 is as high as it goes?
> Well, you can always move to Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition
> SP2 64-bit to take advantage of 2 Terabytes of RAM. That should seem
> like a big number for the foreseeable future.
I was going to post the same web page however I didn't because the Linux
loons would probably complain that it is from 2007........
> Anyway, Terry, be careful about spreading bullshit about Windows. Those
> guys have enough problems.
All he has to do is attempt to get something correct for a change.
He's been back for a couple of days and so far his track record has been
dismal.
Much like it was the last time he got laughed out of COLA.
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 23:50:26 -0400, Michael B. Trausch wrote:
>> What does Linux actually do with that 8GB of ram?
>
> I have 8 GB of RAM in my system. I frequently use it to run virtual
> machines and the like. I have yet to use *all* of it, but that's kind
> of what I'd intended when I bought it, was not to use it all just yet.
Few things in computing life suck worse than the pain of watching a
system in the throes of thrashing. What does Linux do with 8GB RAM?
Nothing. What does the *user* do with 8GB RAM? Anything he damn well
pleases - efficiently. ;)
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 23:13:44 -0500, AZ Nomad wrote:
> And to clear out the hundreds of thousands of worthless temp files daily
> so that indexing via desktop search and DRM doesn't kill the system.
Speaking of indexing...
Father-in-law is one of the very, very few people I know running Vista -
it came with his laptop. He's not a big fan, but that's not the point.
Was over there yesterday, trying to help him set up some audio hardware.
Mostly not a problem, but we did run into one interesting issue. Seems
the bundled software (Audacity) supports, but does not include, the LAME
mp3 encoding engine.
Well, no, let's back up a step. After installing everything, we captured
some audio and went to save it as an MP3. The app's response was
something along the lines of "please tell me where the lame_enc.dll file
is".
Okay, well, I don't know. Here's the fun part: I pop up the Vista search
tool, tell it to search drive C. Nothing.
Hmm. Oh, wait, that should have been "search all files and folders", as
apparently "search drive c" doesn't actually search drive c, but, rather,
searches only portions of drive c.
Search again. Nothing. Grr.
Fire up explorer, browse to several likely locations, each of which we
try the "search" thing, only to be informed "this folder isn't indexed;
if you want to search it, use the old search tool" or wording to that
effect.
So, in essence, the built in search tool, when told to search a drive,
apparently doesn't actually do so; when told to search all files,
apparently doesn't do so, and when you want to search something it hasn't
indexed, it falls on its face and requires you to use a completely
different search tool - which is actually included, but the Vista search
isn't smart enough to say "folder isn't indexed, so default to the old
method".
This, apparently, is Vista's great leap forward in usability.
Clogwog
news:6mjedsF...@mid.individual.net...
Windows Server 2003 SP1, Datacenter Edition (yes, that is correct - 32 bit)
128 GB of physical RAM
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/PAEdrv.mspx
Kelsey Bjarnason
It figures, though, that when it's pointed out Linux is less memory-
restricted than Windows, he'd pop in with something completely irrelevant
such as OpenOffice's spreadsheet limitations.
Hmm. 1024x65536x256. That's 17,179,869,184 cells. If we assume a cell's
average size (with data) is 4 bytes, that's 68,719,476,736 bytes - 64GB.
Item 1: Most systems are simply not going to have the memory capacity to
deal with that.
Item 2: Unless you actually _have_ 64GB RAM, this is going to be wildly
painful to use.
Item 3: Last I checked, minimum consumption, per used cell, was actually
8 bytes, not 4, meaning we're actually talking 128GB here, not 64GB.
Item 4: This doesn't include cells with data larger than 8 bytes, nor
does it include any overhead for other items such as attached formatting,
formula management, etc, etc, etc.
Item 5: If you're doing that kind of data management and you're using a
spreadsheet instead of a database, you need to be repeatedly kicked in
the head until the basic concept sinks in, or until you are simply no
longer able to do anything *quite* so terminally retarded anymore.
Not quite sure what DFS's point about "1/256th the capacity" is supposed
to be, other than perhaps to show that MS is supporting software usage
256 times more ridiculously stupid than OOo.
Linux Pimps
>>
>> 7, will you shut the fuck-up?
>
Will you shut the fuck-up? :-P
Erik Funkenbusch
> On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 22:52:22 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 19:41:24 -0500, Terry Porter wrote:
>>
>>> I've just read that Vista32 can only use 3GB of RAM and Vista64 is
>>> limited to 4GB of RAM, what's up with that ?
>>>
>>> Windows ... which RAM limitation would you like today ?
>>
>> Wow, how can you make such bald-faced lies like this when they're easily
>> disproved?
>>
>> Both 32 bit Linux and Vista have precisely the same limitations, they
>> both support 3.xGB of ram because a certain supset of the last gigabyte
>> is reserved by the PC architecture for memory mapped device I/O. In
>> other words, the hardware maps it's own memory into those spaces and
>> thus the OS cannot use that physical memory.
>
> Explain to me how my 32 bit PC has 6GB ram and Linux uses it all? For
> sure there is a maximum of 4GB per process but I do run more then
> one process!
Linux uses PAE to simulate using all memory. The limit is still 4GB in any
given context. 32 bit Windows can also use PAE in some versions, but this
is not turned on by default in desktop versions. You need to issue the
command "BCDEdit /set PAE forceenable"
Erik Funkenbusch
> On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 22:52:22 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 19:41:24 -0500, Terry Porter wrote:
>>
>>> I've just read that Vista32 can only use 3GB of RAM and Vista64 is
>>> limited to 4GB of RAM, what's up with that ?
>>>
>>> Windows ... which RAM limitation would you like today ?
>>
>> Wow, how can you make such bald-faced lies like this when they're easily
>> disproved?
>
> It's Terry Porter, that's why.
> Remember "The Terry Porter School of Networking (Not working if you
> prefer)" ?
It's funny that he's not responded to this thread yet. He's responded
everywhere else.
What's wrong Terry?
Erik Funkenbusch
> On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 22:52:22 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 19:41:24 -0500, Terry Porter wrote:
>>
>>> I've just read that Vista32 can only use 3GB of RAM and Vista64 is
>>> limited to 4GB of RAM, what's up with that ?
>>>
>>> Windows ... which RAM limitation would you like today ?
>>
>> Wow, how can you make such bald-faced lies like this when they're easily
>> disproved?
>>
>> Both 32 bit Linux and Vista have precisely the same limitations, they
>> both support 3.xGB of ram because a certain supset of the last gigabyte
>> is reserved by the PC architecture for memory mapped device I/O. In
>> other words, the hardware maps it's own memory into those spaces and
>> thus the OS cannot use that physical memory.
>
> WRONG. With PAE Linux kernels can address 64GB of RAM.
As can Windows, so what's your point? PAE is a hack, performs slowly, and
is little more than memory swapping. But both Linux and Windows can use
PAE.
>> In 64 bit Linux and Vista, the full 4GB (if you have 4GB installed)
>> because the memory mapped I/O can be mapped outside the 4GB physical
>> memory space.
>>
>> No version of 64-bit Vista is limited to less than 8GB, which Home Basic
>> is limited to. Home Premium is limited to 16GB, and all others are
>> 128GB.
>>
>> So why the bald-faced line Terry?
>
> You should get your facts straigt. 32 bit Linux can address up to 64GB of
> RAM.
We're talking about physical memory, and even PAE still only uses 4GB at a
time.
ray
Actually, I've not found it to be either limited or slow. There is ample
documentation on the web that a number of functions are STILL messed up in
mx office which OO got right years ago. And BTW - you post is completely
off the topic being discussed.
ray
> ray wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 00:47:51 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>
>>> Terry Porter wrote:
>>>> I've just read that Vista32 can only use 3GB of RAM and Vista64 is
>>>> limited to 4GB of RAM, what's up with that ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Windows ... which RAM limitation would you like today ?
>>>
>>>
>>> According to some Ubuntu victims, Linux crapware can use a LOT more
>>> RAM than XP:
>>>
>>>
>> True - 32 bit Linux kernels can address 64GB of RAM via PAE.
>
>
> Is that all? 32-bit Windows kernels can address 128GB of RAM via PAE.
That's interesting since, as I understand it, PAE is a four bit extension.
2**4 = 16 and, last time I checked, 4 * 16 = 64.
>
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/
aa366778.aspx#physical_memory_limits_windows_server_2003
ray
For the record, I did not say it didn't - matter of fact, I didn't say
anything about what MS does or does not.
Clogwog
<yawn>
--
Linux..... isn't that some kind of cheap lavatory tissue?
http://www.angelfire.com/psy/doctorbill/linux.jpg
Tim Smith
Chris Ahlstrom <lin...@bollsouth.nut> wrote:
> >
> > So why the bald-faced line Terry?
>
> He passed along someone else's info without checking it.
Someone else's info that he almost certainly knew was wrong when he
passed it along.
--
--Tim Smith
Peter Köhlmann
> On 26 Oct 2008 14:48:35 GMT, ray wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 22:52:22 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 19:41:24 -0500, Terry Porter wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've just read that Vista32 can only use 3GB of RAM and Vista64 is
>>>> limited to 4GB of RAM, what's up with that ?
>>>>
>>>> Windows ... which RAM limitation would you like today ?
>>>
>>> Wow, how can you make such bald-faced lies like this when they're easily
>>> disproved?
>>>
>>> Both 32 bit Linux and Vista have precisely the same limitations, they
>>> both support 3.xGB of ram because a certain supset of the last gigabyte
>>> is reserved by the PC architecture for memory mapped device I/O. In
>>> other words, the hardware maps it's own memory into those spaces and
>>> thus the OS cannot use that physical memory.
>>
>> WRONG. With PAE Linux kernels can address 64GB of RAM.
>
> As can Windows, so what's your point? PAE is a hack, performs slowly, and
> is little more than memory swapping. But both Linux and Windows can use
> PAE.
Well, and if you want to have "NoExec" on windows, PAE needs to be enabled.
Making windows even more slow, to gain a little more (much needed) security
>>> In 64 bit Linux and Vista, the full 4GB (if you have 4GB installed)
>>> because the memory mapped I/O can be mapped outside the 4GB physical
>>> memory space.
>>>
>>> No version of 64-bit Vista is limited to less than 8GB, which Home Basic
>>> is limited to. Home Premium is limited to 16GB, and all others are
>>> 128GB.
>>>
>>> So why the bald-faced line Terry?
>>
>> You should get your facts straigt. 32 bit Linux can address up to 64GB of
>> RAM.
>
> We're talking about physical memory, and even PAE still only uses 4GB at a
> time.
Out of a pool of readily available 64GB, though
--
Who the fuck is General Failure, and why is he reading my harddisk?
Gregory Shearman
Why should he? Perhaps what he read was wrong. He doesn't use windows
and neither do I. I'm sure you've firmly misdirected everyone else, so
what's the problem?
--
Regards,
Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power
Terry Porter
<snip>
>
> Anyway, Terry, be careful about spreading bullshit about Windows. Those
> guys have enough problems.
Please re read what I posted ?
"I've just read that Vista32 can only use 3GB of RAM and Vista64 is
limited to 4GB of RAM, what's up with that ?"
This is my source:
http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/10/
windows_vista_service_pack_2_to_support_emerging_standards-2.html
and the claim was by "@Shifty203" in the reader comments.
Since when did asking a question based on something I read, qualify as
"spreading bullshit about Windows", on COLA ???
Besides, from what I have read, it does seem that Windows is indeed
limited with regards to RAM.
Tom Sheldon said :
"Vista32 can use 4GB - but only about 3.5 can be used by user processes."
That sounds like a limitation to me.
Tom goes on to explain:
Besides, this assumption is very flawed because you aren't taking into,
consideration virtual ram. Google /3GB and /PAE for a full discussion.
"Virtual ram" is that swap ? Swap isn't ram, hence the term 'thrashing
the hdd"
As for Vista64, Tom wasn't sure, but seemed to think the limitation is
price based.
That's a big limitation to me.
Besides, I don't care what RAM limitations Windows has (and it seems to
have plenty of them), my article has pretty much achieved it's purpose,
which was to get readers talking about the limitations of Windows RAM,
and the advantages of Linux RAM.
Lets suppose I had spent a couple of days researching the myraid of
Windows pricing schemes regarding RAM, and posted the *exact* facts here ?
Do you think that would mean the Wintrolls would stop the personal
attacks and agree with me ?
... Really ?
--
Linux full time, on the desktop, since August 1997
Homer
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>> ____/ TomTom on Sunday 26 October 2008 00:47 : \____
>>>> Terry Porter wrote:
>>>>> I've just read that Vista32 can only use 3GB of RAM and
>>>>> Vista64 is limited to 4GB of RAM, what's up with that ?
>>>>
>>>> What does Linux actually do with that 8GB of ram?
>>>
>>> Intensive database/video/rendering stuff, and not just on
>>> servers.
>
>> Which is of no great interest or concern to the great majority of
>> computer users.
Windows users don't do video editing?
Noted.
Anything else they can't do, or are you going to stop there before you
make an even bigger ass of yourself?
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "At the time, I thought C was the most elegant language and Java
| the most practical one. That point of view lasted for maybe two
| weeks after initial exposure to Lisp." ~ Constantine Vetoshev
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.25.11-60.fc8
00:02:58 up 16 days, 9:58, 4 users, load average: 4.21, 1.85, 0.73
AZ Nomad
>> On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 14:38:08 +1100, TomTom <t...@invalid.com> wrote:
>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>> ____/ TomTom on Sunday 26 October 2008 00:47 : \____
>>>>> Terry Porter wrote:
>>>>>> I've just read that Vista32 can only use 3GB of RAM and
>>>>>> Vista64 is limited to 4GB of RAM, what's up with that ?
>>>>>
>>>>> What does Linux actually do with that 8GB of ram?
>>>>
>>>> Intensive database/video/rendering stuff, and not just on
>>>> servers.
>>
>>> Which is of no great interest or concern to the great majority of
>>> computer users.
>Windows users don't do video editing?
Sure they do, as long as requirements call for a thousand dollar
package.
Moshe Goldfarb.
The best costs money.
Something you Linux loons will never understand.
And before you start dragging out the Hollywood studios using Linux video
programs, understand they have been HIGHLY customized and you can't buy
them in that form anywhere. A major kudo for Linux IMHO. They also replaced
proprietary solutions like SGI and NOT Windows, in most cases.
So while you Linux loons are scratching your heads trying to figure out how
to make Cinelerra do some trivial task, the Windows user is happily
rendering video using one of the professional, easy to use, great UI, help
system, Windows or Mac programs.
Something you Linux loons will never understand.
Erik Funkenbusch
> Besides, from what I have read, it does seem that Windows is indeed
> limited with regards to RAM.
>
> Tom Sheldon said :
> "Vista32 can use 4GB - but only about 3.5 can be used by user processes."
>
> That sounds like a limitation to me.
It's the same limitation that Linux has, because it's a hardware problem,
relating to memory mapped device i/o. For instance, suppose you have a
128MB video card. That 128MB's is mapped into the 4GB of physical memory.
In 64 bit versions of Linux or Windows, then an extra 128MB of memory is
added beyond the 4GB mark to use the full 4GB.
> Tom goes on to explain:
> Besides, this assumption is very flawed because you aren't taking into,
> consideration virtual ram. Google /3GB and /PAE for a full discussion.
>
> "Virtual ram" is that swap ? Swap isn't ram, hence the term 'thrashing
> the hdd"
No, it's not. And if you'd actually done what Tom asked, and googled /3GB
and /PAE you might know that. Virtual RAM means it's RAM that exists
outside the 4GB physical limitations of the 32 x86 mode, PAE is used to
"swap" this external memory into the 4GB pages, similar to the ode EMS
memory in the old DOS days.
> As for Vista64, Tom wasn't sure, but seemed to think the limitation is
> price based.
>
> That's a big limitation to me.
8GB is not much of a limitation for home basic. If you have 8GB, you're
probably not using Home Basic anyways. And 16GB for Home Premium.
> Lets suppose I had spent a couple of days researching the myraid of
> Windows pricing schemes regarding RAM, and posted the *exact* facts here ?
Meriad? You mean all of the 2 ways? All versions of Vista except for Home
Basic and Home Premium have only the physical limitations of current memory
technology. 128GB is arbitrary, they could have set the limit at 512 or
1024GB. Currently Linux has set an arbitrary memory limit of 1TB (1024GB).
I think this is simply a "This is what we've tested with" situation, not a
"There is a hard limit" situation.
Moshe Goldfarb.
> Well stated. :)
>
> --- Mike
However, from an applications point of view, what choice does the user
have?
Does he really care?
Yea, I know high end server stuff allows allocating memory,resources etc
but I'm talking average Joe.
He starts his applications and hopes for the best.
Tim Smith
Terry Porter <lin...@netspace.net.au> wrote:
> Please re read what I posted ?
>
> "I've just read that Vista32 can only use 3GB of RAM and Vista64 is
> limited to 4GB of RAM, what's up with that ?"
>
> This is my source:
> http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/10/
> windows_vista_service_pack_2_to_support_emerging_standards-2.html
>
> and the claim was by "@Shifty203" in the reader comments.
Here are all of Shifty203's comments on that story:
8gb of ram on 32bit systems!!!! I was shocked when I found out Vista
32bit only supports 4 gb's. What the hell kind of planning was that?
Could you point out what part of that says 64-bit Vista is limited to
4GB?
And how did you miss the numerous other comments that had more correct
information about both 32-bit and 64-bit Vista?
You would have been better off just slinking away, instead of trying to
defend your initial deliberately misleading post. That way, at least,
you wouldn't have made Linonut and Spike look foolish for trying to
defend you, as their defenses were based on the idea that you weren't
actually trying to mislead.
--
--Tim Smith
Moshe Goldfarb.
Tim, you have been around a long time like myself and surely you remember
Terry Porter when he consistently made an ass of himself.
His telnet thread was a classic in COLA.
The guy is just a technical boob and he puts his foot in his mouth every
time he opens it.
COLA over the years has tried to re-write history and make this guy some
kind of Ben Hur (thanks LinuxPimp) but those of us that were around when
terry was patrolling this group know full well the guy is a lame brain.
Is he a self centered, commercial enterprise like Schestowitz?
No way.
However, he is just as ignorant.
Terry Porter
> The output of "free" is a bit strange to parse,
> so I usually recommend that people take a look at the numbers from
> "htop", which provide a better abstracted view.
Hi Mike,
Nice tip, htop looks great, think I'll add it to my collection.
gronk1 eeepc # emerge htop
These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
Calculating dependencies... done!
[ebuild N ] sys-process/htop-0.7 USE="-debug" 141 kB
Total: 1 package (1 new), Size of downloads: 141 kB
Would you like to merge these packages? [Yes/No] y
Htop
Another Linux program that Windows users can't get.
High Plains Thumper
> AZ Nomad wrote:
>> Homer wrote:
>>
>>> Windows users don't do video editing?
>>
>> Sure they do, as long as requirements call for a thousand
>> dollar package.
>
> The best costs money. Something you Linux loons will never
> understand.
>
> And before you start dragging out the Hollywood studios using
> Linux video programs, understand they have been HIGHLY
> customized and you can't buy them in that form anywhere. A
> major kudo for Linux IMHO. They also replaced proprietary
> solutions like SGI and NOT Windows, in most cases.
>
> So while you Linux loons are scratching your heads trying to
> figure out how to make Cinelerra do some trivial task, the
> Windows user is happily rendering video using one of the
> professional, easy to use, great UI, help system, Windows or
> Mac programs.
>
> Something you Linux loons will never understand.
Oh yes, we understand.
'Use [...] the Internet, etc. to heighten the impression that the
enemy is desperate, demoralized, defeated, [...] associated with
mental deficiency, as in, "he believes in Santa Claus, the Easter
Bunny". Just keep rubbing it in, via the [...] newsgroups, [...]
make the complete failure of the competition's technology part of
the mythology of the computer industry.'
(reference PDF pages 45 & 55 on
http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/Comes-3096.pdf - Comes vs Microsoft
lawsuit, Microsoft Evangelism document)
and
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy, alt.os.linux.ubuntu
Subject: Re: [News] Red Hat Developer's Update on PulseAudio,
Fedora Live CDs Interview
Message-ID: Xns9A7D9779E7902th...@66.250.146.128
Date: 11 Apr 2008 18:53:55 GMT
[Quote]
> Dan, you're probably a nice guy, but we get a ton of "works
> for me" crap in COLA and most times it's just people telling
> lies.
Well sorry to dissapoint you, but I'm not in COLA. I'm reading
these posts in the Ubuntu group. The only reason they are going
to COLA is because whomever started the thread had it crossposted
there...and to Vista groups, which I removed because this has
nothing to do with Vista.
I'm NOT a Linux pusher, I still use Windows most of the time
since I'd just installed Linux a few weeks ago, maybe a month+
ago, and still checking out apps and learning Linux. There are
things I like and things I don't like.
Believe what you want to believe. It's painfully obvious that you
are completely anti-Linux, just like some are completely anti-MS,
and have such strong preconceived beliefs that it doesn't really
matter what anyone says about any particular Linux item,
everyone's a liar, and nothing works out-of-the-box.
[/Quote]
Linux is gaining in popularity:
Type "Linux" and click [SEARCH] :
[quote]
1. Acer Aspire One AOA110-1295 Netbook - Intel Atom™ Processor
N270 1.60GHz, 802.11b/g Wireless, 512MB DDR2, 8GB SSD, 8.9"
WSVGA, Integrated Webcam, Linpus Linux Lite
Empower yourself with the incredibly light yet remarkably
productive Acer Aspire One – the new thin & light notebook that
weighs only 2.19 pounds.
Related Products in Category: New
Manufacturer: Acer
$389.99
2. Acer Aspire One AOA110-1295 Refurbished Netbook - Intel Atom™
Processor N270 1.60GHz, 802.11b/g Wireless, 512MB DDR2, 8GB SSD,
8.9" WSVGA, Integrated Webcam, Linpus Linux Lite, Open Box
Empower yourself with the incredibly light yet remarkably
productive Acer Aspire One – the thin & light notebook that
weighs only 2.19 pounds.
Related Products in Category: Refurbished
Manufacturer: Acer
$339.97
3. Asus Eee PC 900 - Intel Mobile CPU, 802.11b/g Wireless, 1GB
DDR2, 16GB SSD, 8.9" WSVGA, Integrated Webcam, Linux (Pearl White)
You demanded it. We have it! The new 8.9-inch, 2.18-pound Asus
Eee PC 900. It’s easy to learn, work and play when you own an
Asus Eee PC 900.
Related Products in Category: Netbook
Manufacturer: Asus
$349.96
4. Asus Eee PC 900 - Intel Mobile CPU, 802.11b/g Wireless, 1GB
DDR2, 20GB SSD, 8.9" WSVGA, Integrated Webcam, Linux (Galaxy Black)
You demanded it. We have it! The new 8.9-inch, 2.18-pound Asus
Eee PC 900. It’s easy to learn, work and play when you own an
Asus Eee PC 900.
Related Products in Category: New
Manufacturer: Asus
$369.99*
5. Acer Aspire One AOA110-1626 Netbook - Intel Atom™ Processor
N270 1.60GHz, 802.11b/g Wireless, 1GB DDR2, 16GB SSD, 8.9" WSVGA,
Integrated Webcam, Linpus Linux Lite (Onyx Black)
Empower yourself with the incredibly light yet remarkably
productive Acer Aspire One – the new thin & light netbook that
weighs only 2.19 pounds.
Related Products in Category: New
Manufacturer: Acer
$369.99
6. Acer Aspire One AOA110-1295 Netbook - Intel Atom™ Processor
N270 1.60GHz, 802.11b/g Wireless, 512MB DDR2, 8GB SSD, 8.9"
WSVGA, Integrated Webcam, Linpus Linux Lite
Empower yourself with the incredibly light yet remarkably
productive Acer Aspire One – the new thin & light netbook that
weighs only 2.19 pounds.
Related Products in Category: New
Manufacturer: Acer
$379.99
7. HP 2133 Mini-Note PC - VIA C7-M Processor 1.0GHz, 802.11b/g
Wireless, 512MB DDR2, 4GB Flash, 8.9" WXGA, Webcam, SUSE Linux
Enterprise Desktop 10
The HP 2133 Mini-Note PC comes equipped with the productivity
tools you need to conduct business efficiently on the go.
Related Products in Category: New
Manufacturer: HP
$499.96
8. Asus Eee PC 900 - Intel Mobile CPU, 802.11b/g Wireless, 1GB
DDR2, 20GB SSD, 8.9" WSVGA, Integrated Webcam, Linux (Pearl White)
You demanded it. We have it! The new 8.9-inch, 2.18-pound Asus
Eee PC 900. It’s easy to learn, work and play when you own an
Asus Eee PC 900.
Related Products in Category: New
Manufacturer: Asus
$499.99*
9. Asus Eee PC 1000 - Intel Mobile Atom Processor, Bluetooth,
802.11b/g/n Wireless, 1GB DDR2, 40GB SSD, 10" WSVGA, Webcam,
Linux (Fine Ebony)
While plenty of PCs promise a revolutionary impact, few deliver
the goods. That’s not the case with our new Asus Eee PC 1000.
Related Products in Category: New
Manufacturer: Asus
$599.99
10. Asus Eee PC 1000 - Intel Atom Processor, Bluetooth,
802.11b/g/n Wireless, 1GB DDR2, 40GB SSD, 10" WSVGA, Webcam,
Linux (Pearl White)
While plenty of PCs promise a revolutionary impact, few deliver
the goods. That’s not the case with our new Asus Eee PC 1000.
Related Products in Category: New
Manufacturer: Asus
[1] 2 3 4 5 .... 11 NEXT> LAST>>
[/quote]
Yes, we understand.
--
HPT
Quando omni flunkus moritati
(If all else fails, play dead)
- "Red" Green
Moshe Goldfarb.
Thanks for proving my point......
I left all of your ramblings in tact....
Why?
Just to show beyond doubt that you are a sick person, a nut, a loon and in
need of mental help.
Do you think for a second that anyone really cares about your ramblings?
Tell me, are you Twitter?
You sure sound like him, all 29 nyms in fact....
High Plains Thumper
> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>> Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
>>> AZ Nomad wrote:
>>>> Homer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Windows users don't do video editing?
>>>> Sure they do, as long as requirements call for a
>>>> thousand dollar package.
>>>
>>> The best costs money. Something you Linux loons will never
>>> understand.
>>>
>>> And before you start dragging out the Hollywood studios
>>> using Linux video programs, understand they have been
>>> HIGHLY customized and you can't buy them in that form
>>> anywhere. A major kudo for Linux IMHO. They also replaced
>>> proprietary solutions like SGI and NOT Windows, in most
>>> cases.
>>>
>>> So while you Linux loons are scratching your heads trying
It is interesting to note that this troll cannot speak without
insulting the Linux posting community here. This is an example of:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/
[quote]
7.6 Trespasser Disinformation Tactics
[3.] Put your opponent off guard by insulting him. The
liberal use of profanity and vulgarisms can be very effective,
particularly when used against you more dignified opponents.
Your experience as a school yard bully can be handy here.
[/quote]
>>> to figure out how to make Cinelerra do some trivial task,
>>> the Windows user is happily rendering video using one of
>>> the professional, easy to use, great UI, help system,
>>> Windows
and
[quote]
32. Promote Windows at every opportunity. Microsoft Windows
needs a lot of help to be successful in the mind share of its
targeted user base. Point out to everybody on COLA how wonderful
it is. Ignore the meaning of the name of the newsgroup and its
charter.
[/quote]
>>> or Mac programs.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832105301
Adobe Production Premium CS3 For Mac - Retail $1,669.95
[quote]
Future-ready tools for delivery of video content anywhere
Extensive integration for exceptional productivity
No more intermediate rendering thanks to Adobe Dynamic Link
Engaging online experiences leveraging new Adobe Flash CS3
Professional
Compositing and animation with After Effects CS3 Professional
Real-time editing with new Adobe Premiere Pro CS3, Adobe Encore
CS3, and Adobe OnLocation CS3* (Windows only)
Image editing and graphics creation with Adobe Photoshop CS3
Extended and Illustrator CS3
Fast, intuitive audio editing and creation with Adobe Soundbooth CS3
Video production and preview for mobile devices
[/quote]
Yes, premium software is nice, but who can afford it?
The above is just another example in many of this troll's rants,
which have little to do with "discussion of the benefits of Linux
compared with other operating systems" (ref. FAQ, Paragraph 1.4.)
> Just to show beyond doubt that you are a sick person, a nut, a
> loon and in need of mental help.
This troll cannot express itself without insulting the poster.
This is an example of:
[quote]
[3.] Put your opponent off guard by insulting him. The
liberal use of profanity and vulgarisms can be very effective,
particularly when used against you more dignified opponents.
Your experience as a school yard bully can be handy here.
[/quote]
Also
[quote]
Use [...] the Internet, etc. to heighten the impression that the
enemy is desperate, demoralized, defeated, [...] associated with
mental deficiency, as in, "he believes in Santa Claus, the Easter
Bunny". Just keep rubbing it in, via the [...] newsgroups, [...]
make the complete failure of the competition's technology part of
the mythology of the computer industry.
[/quote]
(reference PDF pages 45 & 55 on
http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/Comes-3096.pdf - Comes vs Microsoft
lawsuit, Microsoft Evangelism document)
[/quote]
> Do you think for a second that anyone really cares about your
> ramblings?
>
> Tell me, are you Twitter? You sure sound like him, all 29 nyms
> in fact....
This is an example of:
[quote]
[6.] When your tactics are turned on you, call your opponents
trolls. Do not accept the fact that by calling someone using
your tactics a troll that makes you the real troll.
[/quote]
and
[quote]
23. Lie. Lie, lie, lie, lie. If you do it often enough you
may create the appearance of truth.
[/quote]
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
How so, Tim? Terry is more out of the Windows loop than most of us
here.
Is the 4 Gb a per-process limit for 64-bit systems? Just wondering (and
not sarcastically).
--
That gets us out of deciding how to spell Reg[eE]xp?|RE . . .
Of course, then we have to decide what ref $re returns... :-)
-- Larry Wall in <1997101718...@wall.org>
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 12:28:12 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
> <snip>
>>
>> Anyway, Terry, be careful about spreading bullshit about Windows. Those
>> guys have enough problems.
>
> Please re read what I posted ?
>
> "I've just read that Vista32 can only use 3GB of RAM and Vista64 is
> limited to 4GB of RAM, what's up with that ?"
>
> This is my source:
> http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/10/
> windows_vista_service_pack_2_to_support_emerging_standards-2.html
>
> and the claim was by "@Shifty203" in the reader comments.
>
> Since when did asking a question based on something I read, qualify as
> "spreading bullshit about Windows", on COLA ???
I think the commentor's name would have raised a flag <grin>.
> Do you think that would mean the Wintrolls would stop the personal
> attacks and agree with me ?
>
> ... Really ?
No, but why give them a leg up?
--
Serfs up!
-- Spartacus
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> You would have been better off just slinking away, instead of trying to
> defend your initial deliberately misleading post. That way, at least,
> you wouldn't have made Linonut and Spike look foolish for trying to
> defend you, as their defenses were based on the idea that you weren't
> actually trying to mislead.
You're an idiot, Tim.
--
Rincewind formed a mental picture of some strange entity living in a castle
made of teeth. It was the kind of mental picture you tried to forget.
Unsuccessfully.
-- Terry Pratchett, "The Light Fantastic"
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 12:36:15 -0400
> Chris Ahlstrom <lin...@bollsouth.nut> wrote:
>
>> And yet it sucks up every bit of RAM it can get. Oddly enough, the
>> CPU time barely registers.
>>
>> Of course, it /has/ been up for 193 days.
>
> What are you using to get your numbers?
>
> The Linux kernel will always use all available memory not allocated to
> applications for disk buffers and cache; for example, "free" says on my
> system currently:
Uh, anybody who's used Linux for awhile knows that.
Sorry for not being clear.
--
In the realm of scientific observation, luck is granted only to those who are
prepared.
-- Louis Pasteur
Peter Köhlmann
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Tim Smith belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> In article <3Y0Nk.54084$Ep1....@bignews2.bellsouth.net>,
>> Chris Ahlstrom <lin...@bollsouth.nut> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > So why the bald-faced line Terry?
>>>
>>> He passed along someone else's info without checking it.
>>
>> Someone else's info that he almost certainly knew was wrong when he
>> passed it along.
>
> How so, Tim? Terry is more out of the Windows loop than most of us
> here.
>
> Is the 4 Gb a per-process limit for 64-bit systems? Just wondering (and
> not sarcastically).
>
No, it is a PAE limit, when running with 32bit
The processor can address 64GB (having 36 address lines, not 32), but only
4GB of it at any given time.
Not a particularly bad limit, under linux this works well, although you will
get a speed penalty of about 10-15% compared with non-PAE kernels.
Under windows *in* *theory* this works also well, but there is a catch: The
32bit-drivers are not compiled to support PAE, so they have to run in 32bit
adddress mode, resulting in some interesting conondrums.
When Erik F and other windows filth assert that PAE works just as well under
windows, it is not really true, it is a half-lie. It does *not* work as
well as under linux, where the drivers are compiled with the kerel
--
Linux: Because rebooting is for adding new hardware
Phil Da Lick!
> Terry Porter wrote:
>> I've just read that Vista32 can only use 3GB of RAM and Vista64 is
>> limited to 4GB of RAM, what's up with that ?
>
Whatever you, as the owner of the machine, would like it to. Shocking, huh?
Erik Funkenbusch
> On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 00:06:30 -0400
> Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
>
>> No, it's not. And if you'd actually done what Tom asked, and
>> googled /3GB and /PAE you might know that. Virtual RAM means it's
>> RAM that exists outside the 4GB physical limitations of the 32 x86
>> mode, PAE is used to "swap" this external memory into the 4GB pages,
>> similar to the ode EMS memory in the old DOS days.
>
> That sounds like a very strange definition of virtual memory.
He didn't say Virtual Memory, he said Virtual RAM. It's virtual because it
has to be "swapped" like Virtual memory, but it's swapped from RAM to RAM,
not RAM to Disk.
> All operating systems that operate in 32-bit protected mode use
> paging. They provide a 4 GB address space to application software.
> Rarely does a 32-bit system actually *have* 4 GB of address space.
> That space is virtual to each process, though.
You have to understand how PAE works to understand why it's called Virtual
RAM.
> Swap space (or the swapfile in Windows) is only one part of what
> virtual memory is.
>
> See the WP article:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_memory
That's nice. How about talking about the same thing as us.
Erik Funkenbusch
Of course you ignore the fact that Linux drivers have to be specially
written to support highmem too. The 2.6 kernel rewrote the block I/O to
more easily support highmem drivers, but the default is still no highmem,
which means unless it's explicitly enabled, you don't get it.
See: http://www.mjmwired.net/kernel/Documentation/block/biodoc.txt
Also, many devices can't DMA into highmem anyways, so it's largely academic
since the devices that can are typically high end server devices (RAID,
NIC, etc..) and these would have drivers compiled for 64 bit I/O anyways on
both Linux or Windows.
As usual, Peter, you're the one who's half-lying.
Peter Köhlmann
Please show us the switch in windows to "enable highmem", will you?
Because if you can't, you still have a situation where linux does support
it, and windows does not
> See: http://www.mjmwired.net/kernel/Documentation/block/biodoc.txt
Notes Written on Jan 15, 2002:
Last Updated May 2, 2002
September 2003: Updated I/O Scheduler portions
I see, you found a fairly "recent" document there, Erik. Nice try
> Also, many devices can't DMA into highmem anyways, so it's largely
> academic since the devices that can are typically high end server devices
> (RAID, NIC, etc..) and these would have drivers compiled for 64 bit I/O
> anyways on both Linux or Windows.
We are not talking about 64bit here, Erik.
And yes, there might be a problem with "32bit only" devices. But that has
nothing to do with the kernel and/or the drivers being able to do PAE.
Windows and linux can do PAE in the kernel. But windows can't *not* *at*
*all* on the driver side, whereas for linux this is a recompile
> As usual, Peter, you're the one who's half-lying.
Oh, another nice try. First pull off a stunt like "windows and linux are
fairly equal in PAE support". And then, when you get your "argument"
clobbered, call other people liars
I did not expect better from you, Erik. Sad state of affairs, but you simply
deserve no respect. You are a somewhat "polite" Hadron Quark at best. That
is, nothing you write can be trusted. Nothing at all
--
We are Linux. Resistance is measured in Ohms.
Erik Funkenbusch
>> Of course you ignore the fact that Linux drivers have to be specially
>> written to support highmem too. The 2.6 kernel rewrote the block I/O to
>> more easily support highmem drivers, but the default is still no highmem,
>> which means unless it's explicitly enabled, you don't get it.
>
> Please show us the switch in windows to "enable highmem", will you?
> Because if you can't, you still have a situation where linux does support
> it, and windows does not
It's not a switch in Linux. You have to use highmem aware API's,
specifically read this section:
"If the driver supports highmem I/O, (Sec 1.1, (ii) ) it needs to use
__bio_kmap_atomic and bio_kmap_irq to temporarily map a bio into the
virtual address space."
In other words, the driver has to be written to support highmem.
>> See: http://www.mjmwired.net/kernel/Documentation/block/biodoc.txt
>
> Notes Written on Jan 15, 2002:
> Last Updated May 2, 2002
> September 2003: Updated I/O Scheduler portions
>
>
> I see, you found a fairly "recent" document there, Erik. Nice try
I see you're trying to squirm. You "missed" this at the top:
"Based on kernel version 2.6.26. Page generated on 2008-07-16 21:12 EST."
The document is still valid as of 2.6.26 on July 16, 2008, according to
that.
>> Also, many devices can't DMA into highmem anyways, so it's largely
>> academic since the devices that can are typically high end server devices
>> (RAID, NIC, etc..) and these would have drivers compiled for 64 bit I/O
>> anyways on both Linux or Windows.
>
> We are not talking about 64bit here, Erik.
> And yes, there might be a problem with "32bit only" devices. But that has
> nothing to do with the kernel and/or the drivers being able to do PAE.
>
> Windows and linux can do PAE in the kernel. But windows can't *not* *at*
> *all* on the driver side, whereas for linux this is a recompile
That's funny, because here's what you said earlier.
"The 32bit-drivers are not compiled to support PAE"
Note the word "compiled". You were admitting that drivers can be specially
compiled for PAE, and now you're pretending otherwise. Very dishonest of
you Peter.
In fact, Windows drivers can work just fine in PAE with a few issues that
drivers need to be aware of. They're documented here:
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/pae_os.mspx
Note the sections:
"I/O
At one level or another, all the PAE variants support both 32-bit and
64-bit DMA I/O devices with the attendant drivers. However, there are a
number of provisos and conditions."
and Driver Issues:
"Typically, device drivers must be modified in a number of small ways.
Although the actual code changes may be small, they can be difficult. This
is because when not using PAE memory addressing, it is possible for a
device driver to assume that physical addresses and 32-bit virtual address
limits are identical. PAE memory makes this assumption untrue."
Now, you were trying to say again?
>> As usual, Peter, you're the one who's half-lying.
>
> Oh, another nice try. First pull off a stunt like "windows and linux are
> fairly equal in PAE support". And then, when you get your "argument"
> clobbered, call other people liars
Funny, but you're the one calling someone a liar, and yet you're completely
wrong about all your technical details, both Linux and Windows.
Tim Smith
Chris Ahlstrom <lin...@bollsouth.nut> wrote:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Tim Smith belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
> > You would have been better off just slinking away, instead of trying to
> > defend your initial deliberately misleading post. That way, at least,
> > you wouldn't have made Linonut and Spike look foolish for trying to
> > defend you, as their defenses were based on the idea that you weren't
> > actually trying to mislead.
>
> You're an idiot, Tim.
The comment he cited as the thing he read that said 64-bit Vista is
limited to 4 GB did not mention 64-bit Vista. It was explicitly only
talking about 32-bit Vista. Why did Terry mention 64-bit Vista, if not
to mislead?
There were many other comments there that pointed out the correct memory
limits, and also explained why there is a limit in 32-bit systems. Do
you really think Terry didn't see those?
You are remarkably gullible.
--
--Tim Smith
Peter Köhlmann
> On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 18:27:07 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
< snip >
>> Windows and linux can do PAE in the kernel. But windows can't *not* *at*
>> *all* on the driver side, whereas for linux this is a recompile
>
> That's funny, because here's what you said earlier.
>
> "The 32bit-drivers are not compiled to support PAE"
>
> Note the word "compiled". You were admitting that drivers can be
> specially compiled for PAE, and now you're pretending otherwise.
I don't pretned anything. You simply can't get PAE enabled drivers for
windows. For linux, you either load a PAE kernel (complete with drivers) or
simply compile it yourself
> Very dishonest of you Peter.
Idiot. You share Hadron Quarks reading comprehension problems to a tee
> In fact, Windows drivers can work just fine in PAE with a few issues that
> drivers need to be aware of. They're documented here:
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/pae_os.mspx
>
> Note the sections:
>
> "I/O
> At one level or another, all the PAE variants support both 32-bit and
> 64-bit DMA I/O devices with the attendant drivers. However, there are a
> number of provisos and conditions."
>
> and Driver Issues:
>
> "Typically, device drivers must be modified in a number of small ways.
> Although the actual code changes may be small, they can be difficult. This
> is because when not using PAE memory addressing, it is possible for a
> device driver to assume that physical addresses and 32-bit virtual address
> limits are identical. PAE memory makes this assumption untrue."
>
> Now, you were trying to say again?
Well, care to show us the PAE-driver section at the various device
manufacturers, Erik?
>>> As usual, Peter, you're the one who's half-lying.
>>
>> Oh, another nice try. First pull off a stunt like "windows and linux are
>> fairly equal in PAE support". And then, when you get your "argument"
>> clobbered, call other people liars
>
> Funny, but you're the one calling someone a liar, and yet you're
> completely wrong about all your technical details, both Linux and Windows.
Again, Erik: Show us the PAE enabled drivers ready to load for windows.
Face it: You are puffing smoke to hide the fact that while in theory those
drivers can exist for windows, in practice they don't
And you can't just take the source and compile them yourself
--
Like being presumed a thief and a liar before using a product?
If so, use M$ XP
nes...@wigner.berkeley.edu
<Quote>
Mac OS X running on a new Mac Pro or Xserve can handle as much as 32GB
of installed RAM using PAE. Linux can also use PAE, but 32-bit Windows
PCs are stuck at a maximum of 4GB of installed RAM. Windows XP
initially offered support for using more than 4GB with PAE, but this
caused problems related to driver bugs, so Microsoft simply disabled
support for more than 4GB, starting with Windows XP SP2 and continuing
into Windows Vista. Unless you're running Vista x64 or an expensive
"datacenter" or "enterprise edition," you simply can't use more than
4GB of RAM on a Windows PC....
System RAM vs MMIO: the "where is my 4GB?" problem
If you're feeling cramped within 4GB, hold on tight because things are
about to get worse. The first issue is a historical limitation in the
Intel x86 architecture, related to "Memory Mapped I/O." Essentially,
all of the device memory used by video cards or any other expansion
cards is mapped on top of the 4GB addresses used by the system's RAM.
This didn't used to be a problem before anyone wanted to actually use
the entire 4GB address space for system RAM.
Note that this doesn't mean that MMIO "eats up" your RAM, it's just
that the hardware maps that device-related memory over the top of
physical memory, leaving fewer addresses available to the operating
system to use for its system RAM. This problem is tied to 32-bit
chipsets, which are independent from the CPU. There are 64-bit PCs
with 32-bit chipsets. For example, Apple's 64-bit Core 2 Duo laptops
prior to the second half of 2007 all used 32-bit addressing.
That means that while they can execute 64-bit code and handle 64-bit
virtual memory, they still can't address more than 4GB of physical
RAM, minus roughly 0.75 GB of MMIO, for a grant total of 3.2GB usable
RAM. If you install a full 4GB, the portion in conflict with the MMIO
will simply not be used. For PC users installing a high end video card
with 1GB of VRAM, the additional MMIO becomes an even greater problem:
their usable system RAM shrinks by down to around 2.3GB.
</Quote>
Terry Porter
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Tim Smith belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> You would have been better off just slinking away, instead of trying to
>> defend your initial deliberately misleading post. That way, at least,
>> you wouldn't have made Linonut and Spike look foolish for trying to
>> defend you, as their defenses were based on the idea that you weren't
>> actually trying to mislead.
>
> You're an idiot, Tim.
Besides, I don't take advice from Wintrolls, posting for years against
the COLA charter.
Go back to comp.os.I.love.windows Tim.
Erik Funkenbusch
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 18:27:07 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>
>
> < snip >
>
>>> Windows and linux can do PAE in the kernel. But windows can't *not* *at*
>>> *all* on the driver side, whereas for linux this is a recompile
>>
>> That's funny, because here's what you said earlier.
>>
>> "The 32bit-drivers are not compiled to support PAE"
>>
>> Note the word "compiled". You were admitting that drivers can be
>> specially compiled for PAE, and now you're pretending otherwise.
>
> I don't pretned anything. You simply can't get PAE enabled drivers for
> windows. For linux, you either load a PAE kernel (complete with drivers) or
> simply compile it yourself
That's bullshit, Peter, and you know it.
>> Very dishonest of you Peter.
>
> Idiot. You share Hadron Quarks reading comprehension problems to a tee
You appear to be the one incapable of understanding what's written, as your
remarks below illustrate.
>> In fact, Windows drivers can work just fine in PAE with a few issues that
>> drivers need to be aware of. They're documented here:
>>
>> http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/pae_os.mspx
>>
>> Note the sections:
>>
>> "I/O
>> At one level or another, all the PAE variants support both 32-bit and
>> 64-bit DMA I/O devices with the attendant drivers. However, there are a
>> number of provisos and conditions."
>>
>> and Driver Issues:
>>
>> "Typically, device drivers must be modified in a number of small ways.
>> Although the actual code changes may be small, they can be difficult. This
>> is because when not using PAE memory addressing, it is possible for a
>> device driver to assume that physical addresses and 32-bit virtual address
>> limits are identical. PAE memory makes this assumption untrue."
>>
>> Now, you were trying to say again?
>
> Well, care to show us the PAE-driver section at the various device
> manufacturers, Erik?
The part you don't seem to understand is that you don't need to have
special drivers for PAE. There is no special PAE kernel. Either a driver
is PAE aware (in which case it works fine without PAE as well) or it's not.
In other words, yes.. some drivers have issues under PAE becuase they make
assumptions that aren't correct under PAE, but drivers for enterprise class
hardware are going to be PAE friendly.
>>>> As usual, Peter, you're the one who's half-lying.
>>>
>>> Oh, another nice try. First pull off a stunt like "windows and linux are
>>> fairly equal in PAE support". And then, when you get your "argument"
>>> clobbered, call other people liars
>>
>> Funny, but you're the one calling someone a liar, and yet you're
>> completely wrong about all your technical details, both Linux and Windows.
>
> Again, Erik: Show us the PAE enabled drivers ready to load for windows.
>
> Face it: You are puffing smoke to hide the fact that while in theory those
> drivers can exist for windows, in practice they don't
> And you can't just take the source and compile them yourself
Ahh... so now it's "in theory they can exist", whereas before you said they
can't.
Need I remind you what you said?
>>> Windows and linux can do PAE in the kernel. But windows can't *not* *at*
>>> *all* on the driver side, whereas for linux this is a recompile
So how do you reconcile your claim that above you claim windows can't use
32 drivers with PAE ("*not* *at* *all*") with your claim now that "in
theory they can exist"? Is this more of your vaunted reading
comprehension?
Despite the fact that many PAE aware drivers do exist.
As an example, this Dell PERC RAID Controller has both PAE and non PAE
supported modes:
If you look under "Additional Information" you see this:
* PowerEdge 2400, integrated PERC 2/Si, non-PAE only
* PowerEdge 2450, integrated PERC 3/Si, non-PAE only
* PowerEdge 2500, integrated PERC 3/Di, in both non-PAE & PAE
configurations
* PowerEdge 2650, integrated PERC 3/Di, in both non-PAE & PAE
configurations
* PowerEdge 2550, integrated PERC 3/Di, non-PAE only
* PowerEdge 4400, integrated PERC 3/Di, non-PAE only
* PowerEdge 1650, integrated PERC 3/Di, non-PAE only
* PowerEdge 4600, integrated PERC 3/Di, in both non-PAE & PAE
configurations
3.0 Add-in-Card PCI Controller Supported
* PERC 2 in both non-PAE and PAE configurations, on supported Dell
platforms.
So, as you were saying Peter?
Peter Köhlmann
> On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 22:01:36 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 18:27:07 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>
>>
>> < snip >
>>
>>>> Windows and linux can do PAE in the kernel. But windows can't *not*
>>>> *at* *all* on the driver side, whereas for linux this is a recompile
>>>
>>> That's funny, because here's what you said earlier.
>>>
>>> "The 32bit-drivers are not compiled to support PAE"
>>>
>>> Note the word "compiled". You were admitting that drivers can be
>>> specially compiled for PAE, and now you're pretending otherwise.
>>
>> I don't pretned anything. You simply can't get PAE enabled drivers for
>> windows. For linux, you either load a PAE kernel (complete with drivers)
>> or simply compile it yourself
>
> That's bullshit, Peter, and you know it.
Good thing that you explained in detail why "it is bullshit"
>>> Very dishonest of you Peter.
>>
>> Idiot. You share Hadron Quarks reading comprehension problems to a tee
>
> You appear to be the one incapable of understanding what's written, as
> your remarks below illustrate.
Really? Please show us the download sections of the major hardware providers
where you can download PAE enabled drivers
>>> In fact, Windows drivers can work just fine in PAE with a few issues
>>> that
>>> drivers need to be aware of. They're documented here:
>>>
>>> http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/pae_os.mspx
>>>
>>> Note the sections:
>>>
>>> "I/O
>>> At one level or another, all the PAE variants support both 32-bit and
>>> 64-bit DMA I/O devices with the attendant drivers. However, there are a
>>> number of provisos and conditions."
>>>
>>> and Driver Issues:
>>>
>>> "Typically, device drivers must be modified in a number of small ways.
>>> Although the actual code changes may be small, they can be difficult.
>>> This is because when not using PAE memory addressing, it is possible for
>>> a device driver to assume that physical addresses and 32-bit virtual
>>> address limits are identical. PAE memory makes this assumption untrue."
>>>
>>> Now, you were trying to say again?
>>
>> Well, care to show us the PAE-driver section at the various device
>> manufacturers, Erik?
>
> The part you don't seem to understand is that you don't need to have
> special drivers for PAE. There is no special PAE kernel. Either a driver
> is PAE aware (in which case it works fine without PAE as well) or it's
> not.
Really. I applaud you for that insight.
If it is PAE aware, it can obviously worok with more than 4GB mem
If it isn't, it is restricted to 32bit address mode. Just as I claimed
> In other words, yes.. some drivers have issues under PAE becuase they make
> assumptions that aren't correct under PAE, but drivers for enterprise
> class hardware are going to be PAE friendly.
Oh, I see. Now we are shifting the goalposts to "enterprise class"
Notice that before you did not talk about "enterprise class". You talked
about "windows"
Lets do just that. Please show us how to use more than 4GB mem on XP, will
you? Or, for that matter, on Vista
>>>>> As usual, Peter, you're the one who's half-lying.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, another nice try. First pull off a stunt like "windows and linux
>>>> are fairly equal in PAE support". And then, when you get your
>>>> "argument" clobbered, call other people liars
>>>
>>> Funny, but you're the one calling someone a liar, and yet you're
>>> completely wrong about all your technical details, both Linux and
>>> Windows.
>>
>> Again, Erik: Show us the PAE enabled drivers ready to load for windows.
>>
>> Face it: You are puffing smoke to hide the fact that while in theory
>> those drivers can exist for windows, in practice they don't
>> And you can't just take the source and compile them yourself
>
> Ahh... so now it's "in theory they can exist", whereas before you said
> they can't.
>
> Need I remind you what you said?
No. I simply said that for your run-off-the-mill windows system you will not
find many (if *any* at all) PAE drivers. And for *any* consumer class PC
you will not get to use more than 4GB mem anyway. This is in stark contrast
to linux, where you can equip that very same machine with as much memory as
you want/it can physically use and get to use that memory
>>>> Windows and linux can do PAE in the kernel. But windows can't *not*
>>>> *at* *all* on the driver side, whereas for linux this is a recompile
>
> So how do you reconcile your claim that above you claim windows can't use
> 32 drivers with PAE ("*not* *at* *all*") with your claim now that "in
> theory they can exist"? Is this more of your vaunted reading
> comprehension?
I never claimed that windows drivers can't be compiled to use PAE (after
all, linux can do that trick easily). You simply will be hardpressed to
find any for your hardware
So, show us the XP drivers enabled for PAE, will you? After all, according
to you (below), those should exist in masses
> Despite the fact that many PAE aware drivers do exist.
Certainly. For that "dataserver" machines anybody and his cat has at home.
Right, Erik?
> As an example, this Dell PERC RAID Controller has both PAE and non PAE
> supported modes:
>
>
http://support.us.dell.com/support/downloads/download.aspx?c=us&cs=555&l=en&s=biz&releaseid=R74084&formatcnt=2&libid=0&fileid=96624
>
> If you look under "Additional Information" you see this:
>
> * PowerEdge 2400, integrated PERC 2/Si, non-PAE only
> * PowerEdge 2450, integrated PERC 3/Si, non-PAE only
> * PowerEdge 2500, integrated PERC 3/Di, in both non-PAE & PAE
> configurations
> * PowerEdge 2650, integrated PERC 3/Di, in both non-PAE & PAE
> configurations
> * PowerEdge 2550, integrated PERC 3/Di, non-PAE only
> * PowerEdge 4400, integrated PERC 3/Di, non-PAE only
> * PowerEdge 1650, integrated PERC 3/Di, non-PAE only
> * PowerEdge 4600, integrated PERC 3/Di, in both non-PAE & PAE
> configurations
>
> 3.0 Add-in-Card PCI Controller Supported
> * PERC 2 in both non-PAE and PAE configurations, on supported Dell
> platforms.
>
> So, as you were saying Peter?
Oh, you found one? How nice of you. Now please point us to more commonly
used hardware. You know, that one uses in your typical machine.
*And* show us how to make use of more than 4GB in XP, will you?
You are even allowed to use other versions than XP Home.
And then please explain the difference between the 64GB mem linux can use on
that machine and the amount XP makes available...
--
Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things I can not change,
the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to hide the
bodies of those I had to kill because they pissed me off.
Tim Smith
Terry Porter <lin...@netspace.net.au> wrote:
>
> Besides, I don't take advice from Wintrolls, posting for years against
> the COLA charter.
You have no clue what the COLA charter is. (Hint: it's not "promote
Linux by lying about Windows").
--
--Tim Smith
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> In article <aOhNk.53590$bx1....@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
> Chris Ahlstrom <lin...@bollsouth.nut> wrote:
>
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Tim Smith belched out
>> this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>> > You would have been better off just slinking away, instead of trying to
>> > defend your initial deliberately misleading post. That way, at least,
>> > you wouldn't have made Linonut and Spike look foolish for trying to
>> > defend you, as their defenses were based on the idea that you weren't
>> > actually trying to mislead.
>>
>> You're an idiot, Tim.
>
> The comment he cited as the thing he read that said 64-bit Vista is
> limited to 4 GB did not mention 64-bit Vista. It was explicitly only
> talking about 32-bit Vista. Why did Terry mention 64-bit Vista, if not
> to mislead?
>
> There were many other comments there that pointed out the correct memory
> limits, and also explained why there is a limit in 32-bit systems. Do
> you really think Terry didn't see those?
>
> You are remarkably gullible.
As I noted, you're an idiot. Why else would you be making a big deal about
this? Same shit you pull every time Roy makes a slip.
--
There is no point in waiting.
The train stopped running years ago.
All the schedules, the brochures,
The bright-colored posters full of lies,
Promise rides to a distant country
That no longer exists.
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> Here's an article on this topic.
>
> <Quote>
> Mac OS X running on a new Mac Pro or Xserve can handle as much as 32GB
> of installed RAM using PAE. Linux can also use PAE, but 32-bit Windows
> PCs are stuck at a maximum of 4GB of installed RAM. Windows XP
> initially offered support for using more than 4GB with PAE, but this
> caused problems related to driver bugs, so Microsoft simply disabled
> support for more than 4GB, starting with Windows XP SP2 and continuing
> into Windows Vista. Unless you're running Vista x64 or an expensive
> "datacenter" or "enterprise edition," you simply can't use more than
> 4GB of RAM on a Windows PC....
>
> . . .
>
> </Quote>
>
> 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
<Me, sitting on sidelines, munching popcorn.>
--
<JHM> Somehow I have more respect for 14 year old Debian developers than
14 year old Certified Microsoft Serfs.
AZ Nomad
>You are remarkably gullible.
tell us about 64 bit vista. How many pc makers are offering?
Count them all up. It's easy. It's about zero.
maybe they feel that having the memory maxed out for a basic machine
is better than a machine that runs like p3 with 64M of ram.
Tim Smith
Chris Ahlstrom <lin...@bollsouth.nut> wrote:
> >
> > You are remarkably gullible.
>
> As I noted, you're an idiot. Why else would you be making a big deal about
> this? Same shit you pull every time Roy makes a slip.
You've made as big a deal of this as I have, by jumping in, and bending
over backwards to try to make excuses for Terry, just like you do for
Roy.
Terry lied. He was caught. That would have been the end of it had not
you and Spike jumped in to try to find whatever lame excuses you could
for him.
Straight question for you: why are you so in favor of people lying to
promote Linux? Don't you think Linux can be successfully promoted
without having to lie about it, or about its competition?
--
--Tim Smith
Erik Funkenbusch
> tell us about 64 bit vista. How many pc makers are offering?
> Count them all up. It's easy. It's about zero.
Umm.. no, it's not. Virtually every PC manufacturer that's selling 4GB
systems are selling them with 64 bit Vista. I bought one, a Sony Vaio
FW170J/W, just last week.
For example:
New! Acer - Aspire Laptop with Intel® Centrino® Processor Technology
Model: AS8930-6243 | SKU: 9088809
Intel® Core™2 Duo mobile processor T5800; 4GB DDR2 memory; DL DVD±RW/CD-RW
drive with Blu-ray Disc support; 18.4" widescreen; 320GB hard drive;
fingerprint reader; built-in webcam; Bluetooth; Windows Vista Home Premium
64-bit with SP1
New! Asus - Laptop with Intel® Centrino® 2 Processor Technology - Black
Model: G50Vt-X1 | SKU: 9050279
Intel® Core™2 Duo mobile processor P8400; 4GB DDR2 memory; DL DVD±RW/CD-RW
drive; LightScribe technology; 15.6" widescreen; 320GB hard drive; built-in
webcam; Windows Vista Home Premium 64-bit with SP1
New! Dell - XPS Laptop with Intel® Core™2 Duo Processor T8100 - Black
Model: X1530-147B | SKU: 8989124
Intel® Core™2 Duo mobile processor T8100; 4GB DDR2 memory; DL DVD±RW/CD-RW
drive with Blu-ray Disc support; 15.4" widescreen; 320GB hard drive;
fingerprint reader; built-in webcam; Bluetooth; Windows Vista Home Premium
64-bit
Yeah, that's Zero allright.
Terry Porter
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
<the usual Wintroll nonsense>
> Oh, you found one? How nice of you.
Yes, they're all *expensive* enterprise gear, PERC cards, lol.
> Now please point us to more commonly
> used hardware. You know, that one uses in your typical machine.
>
<snip>
Peter, I just have to comment ....
You are just *kicking* this Wintrolls arse all over COLA, and you aren't
even breaking a sweat doing it.
Love your posts, they're a pleasure to read, keep up the good work.
Regards
Terry