Of a modern OS, Vista is surprisingly oldfashioned: 32 bit vista fails to access more than 3.1-3.5 GB RAM. M$ wants people to buy their expensive server solutions to run apps requirering more than approx 3.1 GB of RAM. Furthermore 64 bit vista is unable to run 32 bit apps. In Leopard the support is seemless!
-- Jesper - Jeg sover godt om natten, når han passer på mine penge. Naser Khader om Anders Fogh Rasmussen. http://theextract.blogspot.com/
"Jesper" <spambus...@users.toughguy.net> stated in post 1i9jjbb.8b3wm1hxq73uN%spambus...@users.toughguy.net on 12/22/07 1:22 PM:
> Of a modern OS, Vista is surprisingly oldfashioned: 32 bit vista fails > to access more than 3.1-3.5 GB RAM. M$ wants people to buy their > expensive server solutions to run apps requirering more than approx 3.1 > GB of RAM. Furthermore 64 bit vista is unable to run 32 bit apps. In > Leopard the support is seemless!
I got 4 GB of RAM for my Mac and just took it for granted that modern OSs would accept it with no problem. Amazing.
-- One who makes no mistakes, never makes anything.
> Of a modern OS, Vista is surprisingly oldfashioned: 32 bit vista fails > to access more than 3.1-3.5 GB RAM.
Vista supports memory mapped hardware that uses some of the address space that RAM might otherwise occupy. That hardware needs to be placed in the low 4GB where you RAM would be.
Theoretically, you can remap that extra RAM above the 4GB mark, and more recent x86 chips can actually access it, even in 32-bit mode. XP tried to do this, but it never worked very well. You need hardware support to do that remapping, and even if you have it, many drivers have bugs that are exposed when you do this.
And what you get for that all trouble is more disk cache. You still don't get more than 3GB per process, tops.
> M$ wants people to buy their > expensive server solutions to run apps requirering more than approx 3.1 > GB of RAM.
No. They also offer 64-bit versions of Windows Vista. Same price as 32-bit, and you get 64-bit everything.
That is what Microsoft wants people to buy.
> Furthermore 64 bit vista is unable to run 32 bit apps. In > Leopard the support is seemless!
64-bit Vista can run 32-bit apps, of course. Leopard supports 32-bit apps seamlessly because it is a 32-bit OS, so it's only natural it so do so. It's not quite so good at the 64-bit stuff, though.
> Of a modern OS, Vista is surprisingly oldfashioned: 32 bit vista fails > to access more than 3.1-3.5 GB RAM. M$ wants people to buy their > expensive server solutions to run apps requirering more than approx 3.1 > GB of RAM. Furthermore 64 bit vista is unable to run 32 bit apps. In > Leopard the support is seemless!
Not another Mactard here to demonstrate to everyone how stupid they are. This is not a limitation due to Vista but is found in 32 bit operating systems. With a 32 bit address space a maximum of 4GB can be accessed directly. Hardware and software has to share this 4GB address space along with the OS and user applications. The amount of RAM directly accessible to a 32 bit OS is dependent on many factors one of which is the memory consumed by various hardware. With video cards having 256MB - 512MB of video memory this address space is mapped into the 4GB space thus reducing RAM by a corresponding amount. With a 512MB video card your 4GB of RAM drops to 3.5GB from this one card alone. Add in the overhead of other devices and the operating system itself and available RAM for user programs shrinks even futher. Again this is NOT a Vista specific problem but a limitation of 32 bit operating systems. If you want all of your memory then use a 64 bit OS. Unlike OS X Vista is offered in a 100% 64 bit edition.
> > Of a modern OS, Vista is surprisingly oldfashioned: 32 bit vista fails > > to access more than 3.1-3.5 GB RAM. M$ wants people to buy their > > expensive server solutions to run apps requirering more than approx 3.1 > > GB of RAM. Furthermore 64 bit vista is unable to run 32 bit apps. In > > Leopard the support is seemless!
> Not another Mactard here to demonstrate to everyone how stupid they are. > This is not a limitation due to Vista but is found in 32 bit operating > systems. With a 32 bit address space a maximum of 4GB can be accessed > directly. Hardware and software has to share this 4GB address space along > with the OS and user applications. The amount of RAM directly accessible to > a 32 bit OS is dependent on many factors one of which is the memory consumed > by various hardware. With video cards having 256MB - 512MB of video memory > this address space is mapped into the 4GB space thus reducing RAM by a > corresponding amount. With a 512MB video card your 4GB of RAM drops to 3.5GB > from this one card alone. Add in the overhead of other devices and the > operating system itself and available RAM for user programs shrinks even > futher. Again this is NOT a Vista specific problem but a limitation of 32 > bit operating systems. If you want all of your memory then use a 64 bit OS. > Unlike OS X Vista is offered in a 100% 64 bit edition.
> Vista supports memory mapped hardware that uses some of the address space > that RAM might otherwise occupy. That hardware needs to be placed in the low > 4GB where you RAM would be.
> Theoretically, you can remap that extra RAM above the 4GB mark, and more > recent x86 chips can actually access it, even in 32-bit mode. XP tried to do > this, but it never worked very well. You need hardware support to do that > remapping, and even if you have it, many drivers have bugs that are exposed > when you do this.
> And what you get for that all trouble is more disk cache. You still don't > get more than 3GB per process, tops.
>> M$ wants people to buy their >> expensive server solutions to run apps requirering more than approx 3.1 >> GB of RAM.
> No. They also offer 64-bit versions of Windows Vista. Same price as 32-bit, > and you get 64-bit everything.
> That is what Microsoft wants people to buy.
You were talking about Apple's transitions... how well do you think MS is transitioning to 64 bit?
>> Furthermore 64 bit vista is unable to run 32 bit apps. In >> Leopard the support is seemless!
> 64-bit Vista can run 32-bit apps, of course. Leopard supports 32-bit apps > seamlessly because it is a 32-bit OS, so it's only natural it so do so.
<http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/64bit.html> ----- Now the Cocoa application frameworks, as well as graphics, scripting, and the UNIX foundations of the Mac, are all 64-bit. ... Even better, if you upgrade to new 64-bit-capable drivers, your 32-bit applications will also benefit from the increased throughput. -----
The OS, it seems, has both 32 and 64 bit components.
> It's not quite so good at the 64-bit stuff, though.
Can you give a real world example of where OS X does not support 64 bit apps well?
-- Try not to become a man of success, but rather try to become a man of value. --Albert Einstein
> "Jesper" <spambus...@users.toughguy.net> wrote in message > news:1i9jjbb.8b3wm1hxq73uN%spambuster@users.toughguy.net... >> Of a modern OS, Vista is surprisingly oldfashioned: 32 bit vista fails >> to access more than 3.1-3.5 GB RAM. M$ wants people to buy their >> expensive server solutions to run apps requirering more than approx 3.1 >> GB of RAM. Furthermore 64 bit vista is unable to run 32 bit apps. In >> Leopard the support is seemless!
> Not another Mactard here to demonstrate to everyone how stupid they are. > This is not a limitation due to Vista but is found in 32 bit operating > systems. With a 32 bit address space a maximum of 4GB can be accessed > directly. Hardware and software has to share this 4GB address space along > with the OS and user applications. The amount of RAM directly accessible to > a 32 bit OS is dependent on many factors one of which is the memory consumed > by various hardware. With video cards having 256MB - 512MB of video memory > this address space is mapped into the 4GB space thus reducing RAM by a > corresponding amount. With a 512MB video card your 4GB of RAM drops to 3.5GB > from this one card alone. Add in the overhead of other devices and the > operating system itself and available RAM for user programs shrinks even > futher. Again this is NOT a Vista specific problem but a limitation of 32 > bit operating systems. If you want all of your memory then use a 64 bit OS. > Unlike OS X Vista is offered in a 100% 64 bit edition.
How many versions are there that a user has to select between? And at what cost - if you use the 64 bit version you lose compatibility with many programs (more than even with 32 bit Vista), registry weaknesses (no file redirection), no ability to use 32 bit or unsigned drivers, etc.
-- The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations. - David Friedman
> Of a modern OS, Vista is surprisingly oldfashioned: 32 bit vista fails > to access more than 3.1-3.5 GB RAM. M$ wants people to buy their > expensive server solutions to run apps requirering more than approx 3.1 > GB of RAM. Furthermore 64 bit vista is unable to run 32 bit apps. In > Leopard the support is seemless!
> -- > Jesper > - Jeg sover godt om natten, når han passer på mine penge. > Naser Khader om Anders Fogh Rasmussen. > http://theextract.blogspot.com/
I bought my Dell XPs 410 with Vista Ultimate configured with 4Gb of RAM. Vista only recognizes 3.07 Gb. Nothing at all wrong with the machine. I am dissiapointed that Dell allowed me to configure the machine as such. I was just so used to Macs that I forgot that in the area of RAM Windows is still back in the Stone Age.
> "Daniel Johnson" <danieljohns...@verizon.net> stated in post > 13mqv57gmdo3...@news.supernews.com on 12/22/07 2:07 PM: >> No. They also offer 64-bit versions of Windows Vista. Same price as >> 32-bit, >> and you get 64-bit everything.
>> That is what Microsoft wants people to buy.
> You were talking about Apple's transitions... how well do you think MS is > transitioning to 64 bit?
I think they are doing better than Apple, since they do have 64-bit Windows to sell.
Still, 32-bit Windows remains the most compatible version- it will run your 16-bit applications- and I think 64-bit will be held back by that. Nobody would prefer 64-bit Windows unless than have at least 4 GB of memory; and that's not too commonplace quite yet.
>>> Furthermore 64 bit vista is unable to run 32 bit apps. In >>> Leopard the support is seemless!
>> 64-bit Vista can run 32-bit apps, of course. Leopard supports 32-bit apps >> seamlessly because it is a 32-bit OS, so it's only natural it so do so.
> The OS, it seems, has both 32 and 64 bit components.
Yes. It's not completely devoid of 64-bit support. It's just kind of limited.
It's not actually *useless*: your 32-bit apps will benefit from the additional disk cache you will have because you can install more memory.
It's like Windows XP with PAE from back in the day, but with one difference: Apple controls the drivers, the hardware, and the OS. They can make this rube-goldberg machine work. MS couldn't really do that.
>> It's not quite so good at the 64-bit stuff, though.
> Can you give a real world example of where OS X does not support 64 bit > apps > well?
Adobe cannot write a 64-bit version of Photoshop for the Mac, because Photoshop is a Carbon app, and Carbon does not support 64-bit.
And of course, it's not just apps. OS X does not yet support 64-bit drivers, either.
"Daniel Johnson" <danieljohns...@verizon.net> stated in post 13mr3dni2c0j...@news.supernews.com on 12/22/07 3:20 PM:
> "Snit" <C...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message > news:C392CFEA.9EB3D%CSMA@gallopinginsanity.com... >> "Daniel Johnson" <danieljohns...@verizon.net> stated in post >> 13mqv57gmdo3...@news.supernews.com on 12/22/07 2:07 PM: >>> No. They also offer 64-bit versions of Windows Vista. Same price as >>> 32-bit, >>> and you get 64-bit everything.
>>> That is what Microsoft wants people to buy.
>> You were talking about Apple's transitions... how well do you think MS is >> transitioning to 64 bit?
> I think they are doing better than Apple, since they do have 64-bit Windows > to sell.
Apple has *one* OS - not two as MS does. You do not need to pick if you want legacy 32 bit support or new 64 bit support.
> Still, 32-bit Windows remains the most compatible version- it will run your > 16-bit applications- and I think 64-bit will be held back by that. Nobody > would prefer 64-bit Windows unless than have at least 4 GB of memory; and > that's not too commonplace quite yet.
>>>> Furthermore 64 bit vista is unable to run 32 bit apps. In >>>> Leopard the support is seemless!
>>> 64-bit Vista can run 32-bit apps, of course. Leopard supports 32-bit apps >>> seamlessly because it is a 32-bit OS, so it's only natural it so do so.
> Yes. It's not completely devoid of 64-bit support. It's just kind of > limited.
In what way?
> It's not actually *useless*: your 32-bit apps will benefit from the > additional disk cache you will have because you can install more memory.
> It's like Windows XP with PAE from back in the day, but with one difference: > Apple controls the drivers, the hardware, and the OS. They can make this > rube-goldberg machine work. MS couldn't really do that.
A benefit of Apple's model... they can get things to work.
>>> It's not quite so good at the 64-bit stuff, though.
>> Can you give a real world example of where OS X does not support 64 bit apps >> well?
> Adobe cannot write a 64-bit version of Photoshop for the Mac, because > Photoshop is a Carbon app, and Carbon does not support 64-bit.
Though Adobe can use Cocoa "parts", right? Isn't the distinction between Cocoa and Carbon getting fuzzy anyway... what, really, do you mean by a Carbon app these days?
> And of course, it's not just apps. OS X does not yet support 64-bit drivers, > either.
According to the link and quote I provided you with it does - do you have contrary info you can point to?
-- Look, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated walrus with walnut paneling and an all leather interior.
> > Of a modern OS, Vista is surprisingly oldfashioned: 32 bit vista fails > > to access more than 3.1-3.5 GB RAM. M$ wants people to buy their > > expensive server solutions to run apps requirering more than approx 3.1 > > GB of RAM. Furthermore 64 bit vista is unable to run 32 bit apps. In > > Leopard the support is seemless!
> > -- > > Jesper > > - Jeg sover godt om natten, når han passer på mine penge. > > Naser Khader om Anders Fogh Rasmussen. > >http://theextract.blogspot.com/
> I bought my Dell XPs 410 with Vista Ultimate configured with 4Gb of RAM. > Vista only recognizes 3.07 Gb. Nothing at all wrong with the machine. I am > dissiapointed that Dell allowed me to configure the machine as such. I was > just so used to Macs that I forgot that in the area of RAM Windows is still > back in the Stone Age.
Snit <C...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > "Daniel Johnson" <danieljohns...@verizon.net> stated in post > 13mr3dni2c0j...@news.supernews.com on 12/22/07 3:20 PM:
> > "Snit" <C...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message > > news:C392CFEA.9EB3D%CSMA@gallopinginsanity.com... > >> "Daniel Johnson" <danieljohns...@verizon.net> stated in post > >> 13mqv57gmdo3...@news.supernews.com on 12/22/07 2:07 PM: > >>> No. They also offer 64-bit versions of Windows Vista. Same price as > >>> 32-bit, > >>> and you get 64-bit everything.
> >>> That is what Microsoft wants people to buy.
> >> You were talking about Apple's transitions... how well do you think MS is > >> transitioning to 64 bit?
> > I think they are doing better than Apple, since they do have 64-bit Windows > > to sell.
> Apple has *one* OS - not two as MS does.
Hmmm... you'd better inform the Apple store of you claim... they seem to feel they have a product called "Leopard Server"
> > Of a modern OS, Vista is surprisingly oldfashioned: 32 bit vista fails > > to access more than 3.1-3.5 GB RAM. M$ wants people to buy their > > expensive server solutions to run apps requirering more than approx 3.1 > > GB of RAM. Furthermore 64 bit vista is unable to run 32 bit apps. In > > Leopard the support is seemless!
> > -- > > Jesper > > - Jeg sover godt om natten, når han passer på mine penge. > > Naser Khader om Anders Fogh Rasmussen. > >http://theextract.blogspot.com/
> I bought my Dell XPs 410 with Vista Ultimate configured with 4Gb of RAM. > Vista only recognizes 3.07 Gb. Nothing at all wrong with the machine. I am > dissiapointed that Dell allowed me to configure the machine as such. I was > just so used to Macs that I forgot that in the area of RAM Windows is > still > back in the Stone Age.
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 14:22:19 -0600, Jesper wrote (in article <1i9jjbb.8b3wm1hxq73uN%spambus...@users.toughguy.net>):
> Of a modern OS, Vista is surprisingly oldfashioned: 32 bit vista fails > to access more than 3.1-3.5 GB RAM. M$ wants people to buy their > expensive server solutions to run apps requirering more than approx 3.1 > GB of RAM. Furthermore 64 bit vista is unable to run 32 bit apps. In > Leopard the support is seemless!
Not too surprising, given it's still a 32-bit OS, with 32-bit address spaces. Without the /3GB flag, you have 2G of address space per user process, not 3.
Even with PAE enabled to get above 4GB of total system memory, that doesn't solve the per process issue. If you want 64-bit address spaces, there are several options, but a 32-bit kernel isn't it.
>> > Of a modern OS, Vista is surprisingly oldfashioned: 32 bit vista fails >> > to access more than 3.1-3.5 GB RAM. M$ wants people to buy their >> > expensive server solutions to run apps requirering more than approx 3.1 >> > GB of RAM. Furthermore 64 bit vista is unable to run 32 bit apps. In >> > Leopard the support is seemless!
>> > -- >> > Jesper >> > - Jeg sover godt om natten, når han passer på mine penge. >> > Naser Khader om Anders Fogh Rasmussen. >> >http://theextract.blogspot.com/
>> I bought my Dell XPs 410 with Vista Ultimate configured with 4Gb of RAM. >> Vista only recognizes 3.07 Gb. Nothing at all wrong with the machine. I >> am >> dissiapointed that Dell allowed me to configure the machine as such. I >> was >> just so used to Macs that I forgot that in the area of RAM Windows is >> still >> back in the Stone Age.
> How much ram does the video card use?
> None. I have a 512 Mb Nvidia Card.
Then it uses 512MB which decreases the memory available to Vista by that amount. This is NOT a Vista problem Mactards!
> Of a modern OS, Vista is surprisingly oldfashioned: 32 bit vista fails > to access more than 3.1-3.5 GB RAM. M$ wants people to buy their > expensive server solutions to run apps requirering more than approx 3.1 > GB of RAM. Furthermore 64 bit vista is unable to run 32 bit apps. In > Leopard the support is seemless!
Bullshit! I am running Vista Business 64 and it runs 32 bit apps just fine. Stop being a brainwashed member of the Apple cult.
In article <4p-dnT2YR_1EOfDanZ2dnUVZ_gydn...@comcast.com>, "Titus Pullo" <n...@unix.site> wrote:
> "Jesper" <spambus...@users.toughguy.net> wrote in message > news:1i9jjbb.8b3wm1hxq73uN%spambuster@users.toughguy.net... > > Of a modern OS, Vista is surprisingly oldfashioned: 32 bit vista fails > > to access more than 3.1-3.5 GB RAM. M$ wants people to buy their > > expensive server solutions to run apps requirering more than approx 3.1 > > GB of RAM. Furthermore 64 bit vista is unable to run 32 bit apps. In > > Leopard the support is seemless!
> Bullshit! I am running Vista Business 64 and it runs 32 bit apps just fine. > Stop being a brainwashed member of the Apple cult.
Keep us out of your coprophilia.
-- Posted from my 1999 Apple G4 Sawtooth A 450 MHz G4 running OS X 10.4.11
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 17:59:21 -0600, Titus Pullo wrote (in article <4p-dnT2YR_1EOfDanZ2dnUVZ_gydn...@comcast.com>):
> "Jesper" <spambus...@users.toughguy.net> wrote in message > news:1i9jjbb.8b3wm1hxq73uN%spambuster@users.toughguy.net... >> Of a modern OS, Vista is surprisingly oldfashioned: 32 bit vista fails >> to access more than 3.1-3.5 GB RAM. M$ wants people to buy their >> expensive server solutions to run apps requirering more than approx 3.1 >> GB of RAM. Furthermore 64 bit vista is unable to run 32 bit apps. In >> Leopard the support is seemless!
> Bullshit! I am running Vista Business 64 and it runs 32 bit apps just fine. > Stop being a brainwashed member of the Apple cult.
Good catch. I missed that little bit of stupidity in my reply.
> >> > Of a modern OS, Vista is surprisingly oldfashioned: 32 bit vista fails > >> > to access more than 3.1-3.5 GB RAM. M$ wants people to buy their > >> > expensive server solutions to run apps requirering more than approx 3.1 > >> > GB of RAM. Furthermore 64 bit vista is unable to run 32 bit apps. In > >> > Leopard the support is seemless!
> >> > -- > >> > Jesper > >> > - Jeg sover godt om natten, når han passer på mine penge. > >> > Naser Khader om Anders Fogh Rasmussen. > >> >http://theextract.blogspot.com/
> >> I bought my Dell XPs 410 with Vista Ultimate configured with 4Gb of RAM. > >> Vista only recognizes 3.07 Gb. Nothing at all wrong with the machine. I > >> am > >> dissiapointed that Dell allowed me to configure the machine as such. I > >> was > >> just so used to Macs that I forgot that in the area of RAM Windows is > >> still > >> back in the Stone Age.
> > How much ram does the video card use?
> > None. I have a 512 Mb Nvidia Card.
> Then it uses 512MB which decreases the memory available to Vista by that > amount. This is NOT a Vista problem Mactards!
That depends on if the card uses shared memory, or if it has its own memory, doesn't it? If it uses shared memory, you are correct. If it has its own memeory, it doesn't use the system RAM.
Perhaps you should find out more before you start calling people Mactards, as it seems to me you didn't come out too well on this exchange. -- Dave Fritzinger Honolulu, HI
>>>> Of a modern OS, Vista is surprisingly oldfashioned: 32 bit vista fails >>>> to access more than 3.1-3.5 GB RAM. M$ wants people to buy their >>>> expensive server solutions to run apps requirering more than approx 3.1 >>>> GB of RAM. Furthermore 64 bit vista is unable to run 32 bit apps. In >>>> Leopard the support is seemless!
>>>> -- >>>> Jesper >>>> - Jeg sover godt om natten, når han passer på mine penge. >>>> Naser Khader om Anders Fogh Rasmussen. >>>> http://theextract.blogspot.com/
>>> I bought my Dell XPs 410 with Vista Ultimate configured with 4Gb of RAM. >>> Vista only recognizes 3.07 Gb. Nothing at all wrong with the machine. I >>> am >>> dissiapointed that Dell allowed me to configure the machine as such. I >>> was >>> just so used to Macs that I forgot that in the area of RAM Windows is >>> still >>> back in the Stone Age.
>> How much ram does the video card use?
>> None. I have a 512 Mb Nvidia Card.
> Then it uses 512MB which decreases the memory available to Vista by that > amount. This is NOT a Vista problem Mactards!
You are badly confused.
If it was for example, an intel mobo with on-board video, which typically share system RAM (and are dog slow) you'd be right. With add-on cards with their own RAM, this is /not/ the case.
> "John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message >> > None. I have a 512 Mb Nvidia Card.
>> Then it uses 512MB which decreases the memory available to Vista by that >> amount. This is NOT a Vista problem Mactards! > That depends on if the card uses shared memory, or if it has its own > memory, doesn't it?
No, it does not.
> If it uses shared memory, you are correct. If it has its own memeory, it > doesn't use the system RAM.
If it uses shared memory then it uses the system physical memory. If it has it's own dedicated memory then it uses it's own physical memory. Regardless of where the video memory resides it has to be mapped into the 4GB (for 32 bit systems/operating systems) address space. If you have a system with 4GB or RAM and 512MB of dedicated video memory you have more (4.5GB) physical memory than the system/os can address. In this situation the system maps the dedicated 512MB into the 4GB somewhere overlaying system RAM. Thus total RAM available to the user decreases by 512MB. If you have a system with 3GB of RAM and a 512MB dedicated video card you have 3.5GB of physical memory total and the system can map both within the 4GB constraint.
> Perhaps you should find out more before you start calling people Mactards, > as it seems to me you didn't come out too well on this > exchange.
Good advice. You'd be well to follow it yourself. Perhaps if you did you wouldn't be making the stupid statements you just did.
>>>>> Of a modern OS, Vista is surprisingly oldfashioned: 32 bit vista fails >>>>> to access more than 3.1-3.5 GB RAM. M$ wants people to buy their >>>>> expensive server solutions to run apps requirering more than approx >>>>> 3.1 >>>>> GB of RAM. Furthermore 64 bit vista is unable to run 32 bit apps. In >>>>> Leopard the support is seemless!
>>>>> -- >>>>> Jesper >>>>> - Jeg sover godt om natten, når han passer på mine penge. >>>>> Naser Khader om Anders Fogh Rasmussen. >>>>> http://theextract.blogspot.com/
>>>> I bought my Dell XPs 410 with Vista Ultimate configured with 4Gb of >>>> RAM. >>>> Vista only recognizes 3.07 Gb. Nothing at all wrong with the machine. I >>>> am >>>> dissiapointed that Dell allowed me to configure the machine as such. I >>>> was >>>> just so used to Macs that I forgot that in the area of RAM Windows is >>>> still >>>> back in the Stone Age.
>>> How much ram does the video card use?
>>> None. I have a 512 Mb Nvidia Card.
>> Then it uses 512MB which decreases the memory available to Vista by that >> amount. This is NOT a Vista problem Mactards!
> You are badly confused.
> If it was for example, an intel mobo with on-board video, which > typically share system RAM (and are dog slow) you'd be right. > With add-on cards with their own RAM, this is /not/ the case.
It's not the amount of physical memory that's the problem Mactards! It's the fact that a 32 bit system can directly access 4GB of memory. Just because it's physical memory existing on a video card does not make it any less than real memory that needs to be mapped within the 4GB address space. Sheesh! Why you clueless dolts think you're qualified to comment on things you no nothing about is the question of the century. You're absolutely clueless!
>>> > Of a modern OS, Vista is surprisingly oldfashioned: 32 bit vista fails >>> > to access more than 3.1-3.5 GB RAM. M$ wants people to buy their >>> > expensive server solutions to run apps requirering more than approx >>> > 3.1 >>> > GB of RAM. Furthermore 64 bit vista is unable to run 32 bit apps. In >>> > Leopard the support is seemless!
>>> > -- >>> > Jesper >>> > - Jeg sover godt om natten, når han passer på mine penge. >>> > Naser Khader om Anders Fogh Rasmussen. >>> >http://theextract.blogspot.com/
>>> I bought my Dell XPs 410 with Vista Ultimate configured with 4Gb of RAM. >>> Vista only recognizes 3.07 Gb. Nothing at all wrong with the machine. I >>> am >>> dissiapointed that Dell allowed me to configure the machine as such. I >>> was >>> just so used to Macs that I forgot that in the area of RAM Windows is >>> still >>> back in the Stone Age.
>> How much ram does the video card use?
>> None. I have a 512 Mb Nvidia Card.
> Then it uses 512MB which decreases the memory available to Vista by that > amount. This is NOT a Vista problem Mactards!
THe VIDEO CARD HAS ONBOARD VRam dumbshit!!!! That is in addition to the 4Gb of system RAM
>>> Then it uses 512MB which decreases the memory available to Vista by that >>> amount. This is NOT a Vista problem Mactards!
>> That depends on if the card uses shared memory, or if it has its own >> memory, doesn't it?
> No, it does not.
>> If it uses shared memory, you are correct. If it has its own memeory, it >> doesn't use the system RAM.
> If it uses shared memory then it uses the system physical memory. If it > has it's own dedicated memory then it uses it's own physical memory. > Regardless of where the video memory resides it has to be mapped into the > 4GB (for 32 bit systems/operating systems) address space. If you have a > system with 4GB or RAM and 512MB of dedicated video memory you have more > (4.5GB) physical memory than the system/os can address. In this situation > the system maps the dedicated 512MB into the 4GB somewhere overlaying > system RAM. Thus total RAM available to the user decreases by 512MB. If > you have a system with 3GB of RAM and a 512MB dedicated video card you > have 3.5GB of physical memory total and the system can map both within the > 4GB constraint.
>> Perhaps you should find out more before you start calling people >> Mactards, as it seems to me you didn't come out too well on this >> exchange.
> Good advice. You'd be well to follow it yourself. Perhaps if you did you > wouldn't be making the stupid statements you just did.
Absolute nonsense. My friend also has a Dell Machine with 4Gb of RAM and only a 256Meg Video Card. Vista STILL SHOWS THE SAME 3.07Gb of Available RAM. No matter what onboard memory a video card has ONLY 3.07Gig of RAM is recognized by Vista.
>>>> Of a modern OS, Vista is surprisingly oldfashioned: 32 bit vista fails >>>> to access more than 3.1-3.5 GB RAM. M$ wants people to buy their >>>> expensive server solutions to run apps requirering more than approx 3.1 >>>> GB of RAM. Furthermore 64 bit vista is unable to run 32 bit apps. In >>>> Leopard the support is seemless!
>>>> -- >>>> Jesper >>>> - Jeg sover godt om natten, når han passer på mine penge. >>>> Naser Khader om Anders Fogh Rasmussen. >>>> http://theextract.blogspot.com/
>>> I bought my Dell XPs 410 with Vista Ultimate configured with 4Gb of RAM. >>> Vista only recognizes 3.07 Gb. Nothing at all wrong with the machine. I >>> am >>> dissiapointed that Dell allowed me to configure the machine as such. I >>> was >>> just so used to Macs that I forgot that in the area of RAM Windows is >>> still >>> back in the Stone Age.
>> How much ram does the video card use?
>> None. I have a 512 Mb Nvidia Card.
> Then it uses 512MB which decreases the memory available to Vista by that > amount. This is NOT a Vista problem Mactards!
If Vista is unable to deal with the memory then it *is* a Vista problem. OS X, for example, does not share the same weakness - though even if it did then it would be just a shared problem.
-- Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away.
