32 bit vista can't address more than 3.1-3.5 GB RAM

2 views
Skip to first unread message

Jesper

unread,
Dec 22, 2007, 3:22:19 PM12/22/07
to
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/

Snit

unread,
Dec 22, 2007, 4:02:08 PM12/22/07
to
"Jesper" <spamb...@users.toughguy.net> stated in post
1i9jjbb.8b3wm1hxq73uN%spamb...@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.

Daniel Johnson

unread,
Dec 22, 2007, 4:07:59 PM12/22/07
to

"Jesper" <spamb...@users.toughguy.net> wrote in message
news:1i9jjbb.8b3wm1hxq73uN%spamb...@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.

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.

PC Guy

unread,
Dec 22, 2007, 4:13:38 PM12/22/07
to

"Jesper" <spamb...@users.toughguy.net> wrote in message
news:1i9jjbb.8b3wm1hxq73uN%spamb...@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.

Tommy Troll

unread,
Dec 22, 2007, 4:25:07 PM12/22/07
to
On Dec 22, 4:13 pm, "PC Guy" <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Jesper" <spambus...@users.toughguy.net> wrote in message

It's simple math. 2^32 = 4,294,967,296 (4gb) unique binary addresses.

2^64 = 18,446,744,073,709,600,000. We should not need to add more ram
than that, even for OS X, for quite some time.

Snit

unread,
Dec 22, 2007, 4:30:02 PM12/22/07
to
"Daniel Johnson" <danielj...@verizon.net> stated in post
13mqv57...@news.supernews.com on 12/22/07 2:07 PM:

>
> "Jesper" <spamb...@users.toughguy.net> wrote in message
> news:1i9jjbb.8b3wm1hxq73uN%spamb...@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.
>
> 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

Snit

unread,
Dec 22, 2007, 4:33:42 PM12/22/07
to
"PC Guy" <pc...@hotmail.com> stated in post
jtGdnW5OTMRl4PDa...@comcast.com on 12/22/07 2:13 PM:

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

John

unread,
Dec 22, 2007, 4:50:35 PM12/22/07
to

"Jesper" <spamb...@users.toughguy.net> wrote in message
news:1i9jjbb.8b3wm1hxq73uN%spamb...@users.toughguy.net...


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

unread,
Dec 22, 2007, 5:20:47 PM12/22/07
to
"Snit" <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
news:C392CFEA.9EB3D%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com...

> "Daniel Johnson" <danielj...@verizon.net> stated in post
> 13mqv57...@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.
>
> <http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/64bit.html>

[snip- excerpt from that url]


> 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.

Snit

unread,
Dec 22, 2007, 6:30:04 PM12/22/07
to
"Daniel Johnson" <danielj...@verizon.net> stated in post
13mr3dn...@news.supernews.com on 12/22/07 3:20 PM:

> "Snit" <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
> news:C392CFEA.9EB3D%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com...
>> "Daniel Johnson" <danielj...@verizon.net> stated in post
>> 13mqv57...@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.
>>
>> <http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/64bit.html>
> [snip- excerpt from that url]
>> 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.

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.

Tommy Troll

unread,
Dec 22, 2007, 6:39:10 PM12/22/07
to
On Dec 22, 4:50 pm, "John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> "Jesper" <spambus...@users.toughguy.net> wrote in message

How much ram does the video card use?

Steve Carroll

unread,
Dec 22, 2007, 6:40:46 PM12/22/07
to
In article <C392EC0C.9EB6F%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> "Daniel Johnson" <danielj...@verizon.net> stated in post
> 13mr3dn...@news.supernews.com on 12/22/07 3:20 PM:
>
> > "Snit" <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
> > news:C392CFEA.9EB3D%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com...
> >> "Daniel Johnson" <danielj...@verizon.net> stated in post
> >> 13mqv57...@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"

http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/

John

unread,
Dec 22, 2007, 6:50:12 PM12/22/07
to

"Tommy Troll" <tom_...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:33b19ff7-ead1-49b1...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...


None. I have a 512 Mb Nvidia Card.

Lefty Bigfoot

unread,
Dec 22, 2007, 6:52:03 PM12/22/07
to
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 14:22:19 -0600, Jesper wrote
(in article
<1i9jjbb.8b3wm1hxq73uN%spamb...@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.


--
Lefty
All of God's creatures have a place..........
.........right next to the potatoes and gravy.
See also: http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/images/iProduct.gif

PC Guy

unread,
Dec 22, 2007, 6:53:24 PM12/22/07
to

"John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:AoidnWI9P-8rP_Da...@netlojix.com...

Then it uses 512MB which decreases the memory available to Vista by that
amount. This is NOT a Vista problem Mactards!

Titus Pullo

unread,
Dec 22, 2007, 6:59:21 PM12/22/07
to

"Jesper" <spamb...@users.toughguy.net> wrote in message
news:1i9jjbb.8b3wm1hxq73uN%spamb...@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.

Jim Lee Jr.

unread,
Dec 22, 2007, 7:03:04 PM12/22/07
to
In article <4p-dnT2YR_1EOfDa...@comcast.com>,
"Titus Pullo" <nu...@unix.site> wrote:

Keep us out of your coprophilia.

--
Posted from my 1999 Apple G4 Sawtooth
A 450 MHz G4 running OS X 10.4.11

Lefty Bigfoot

unread,
Dec 22, 2007, 7:22:41 PM12/22/07
to
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 17:59:21 -0600, Titus Pullo wrote
(in article <4p-dnT2YR_1EOfDa...@comcast.com>):

Good catch. I missed that little bit of stupidity in my reply.

Dave Fritzinger

unread,
Dec 22, 2007, 7:33:26 PM12/22/07
to
On Dec 22, 1:53 pm, "PC Guy" <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>
> news:AoidnWI9P-8rP_Da...@netlojix.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Tommy Troll" <tom_e...@earthlink.net> wrote in message

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

Lefty Bigfoot

unread,
Dec 22, 2007, 7:46:02 PM12/22/07
to
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 17:53:24 -0600, PC Guy wrote
(in article <1f6dnau4CYboPvDa...@comcast.com>):

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.

PC Guy

unread,
Dec 22, 2007, 8:00:16 PM12/22/07
to

"Dave Fritzinger" <dfri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c9485533-9233-45d6...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

On Dec 22, 1:53 pm, "PC Guy" <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "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.

PC Guy

unread,
Dec 22, 2007, 8:02:59 PM12/22/07
to

"Lefty Bigfoot" <nu...@busyness.info> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C3930BEB...@news.verizon.net...

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!

John

unread,
Dec 22, 2007, 8:13:38 PM12/22/07
to

"PC Guy" <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1f6dnau4CYboPvDa...@comcast.com...


THe VIDEO CARD HAS ONBOARD VRam dumbshit!!!! That is in addition to the
4Gb of system RAM

John

unread,
Dec 22, 2007, 8:16:52 PM12/22/07
to

"PC Guy" <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:s8ydne9kTp68LvDa...@comcast.com...

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.

Snit

unread,
Dec 22, 2007, 8:21:37 PM12/22/07
to
"PC Guy" <pc...@hotmail.com> stated in post
1f6dnau4CYboPvDa...@comcast.com on 12/22/07 4:53 PM:

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.

Snit

unread,
Dec 22, 2007, 8:22:00 PM12/22/07
to
"Titus Pullo" <nu...@unix.site> stated in post
4p-dnT2YR_1EOfDa...@comcast.com on 12/22/07 4:59 PM:

How about 32 bit drivers?


--
Picture of a tuna milkshake: http://snipurl.com/f34z
Feel free to ask for the recipe.

Lefty Bigfoot

unread,
Dec 22, 2007, 8:22:48 PM12/22/07
to
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 19:02:59 -0600, PC Guy wrote
(in article <VMCdneJ13uVZLvDa...@comcast.com>):

Wrong again. The video adapter uses the display buffer memory
completely separate from the per process memory limits.

Daniel Johnson

unread,
Dec 22, 2007, 8:40:15 PM12/22/07
to
"Snit" <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
news:C392EC0C.9EB6F%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com...

> "Daniel Johnson" <danielj...@verizon.net> stated in post
> 13mr3dn...@news.supernews.com on 12/22/07 3:20 PM:
>>> 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.

Not quite: you have to pick if you want legacy 16-bit support or new 64-bit
support. You get 32-bit support either way.

That's a choice Apple doesn't demand you make. They don't offer that sort of
compatibility at all.

On the other hand, they also don't offer a True 64-bit OS. So you get
neither the one thing nor the other: you get weak 64-bit support *and* weak
backwards compatibility.

[snip]


>>> <http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/64bit.html>
>> [snip- excerpt from that url]
>>> 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.
>
> In what way?

You know that, I think.

>> 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.

This thing, anyway. :D

[snip]


>> 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?

I mean "something that uses enough Carbon that it can't be recompiled for
64-bit".

By that standard, Photoshop qualifies, I think. Adding bits of Cocoa to an
app doesn't really help with this.

>> 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?

If you insist:

[http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Darwin/Conceptual/64bitPorting/transition/chapter_3_section_4.html]

"The kernel (including the I/O Kit) remains a 32-bit environment in Mac OS
X."


Snit

unread,
Dec 22, 2007, 8:49:15 PM12/22/07
to
"Daniel Johnson" <danielj...@verizon.net> stated in post
13mrf3n...@news.supernews.com on 12/22/07 6:40 PM:

> "Snit" <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
> news:C392EC0C.9EB6F%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com...
>> "Daniel Johnson" <danielj...@verizon.net> stated in post
>> 13mr3dn...@news.supernews.com on 12/22/07 3:20 PM:
>>>> 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.
>
> Not quite: you have to pick if you want legacy 16-bit support or new 64-bit
> support. You get 32-bit support either way.

Well, other than drivers - if I understand correctly you can use only 32 or
64 bit, not the mix that Apple allows.

<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.
-----

> That's a choice Apple doesn't demand you make. They don't offer that sort of
> compatibility at all.

Sure they do - you can use Mac OS 7.x for free.

> On the other hand, they also don't offer a True 64-bit OS. So you get
> neither the one thing nor the other: you get weak 64-bit support *and* weak
> backwards compatibility.

One of their APIs is not 64 bit. Other than that what do you mean by poor
support?

> [snip]
>>>> <http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/64bit.html>
>>> [snip- excerpt from that url]
>>>> 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.
>>
>> In what way?
>
> You know that, I think.

Carbon... and you think that is going away, meaning the whole OS will
support 64 bit well. :)

>>> 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.
>
> This thing, anyway. :D

True... and many other things.

> [snip]
>>> 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?
>
> I mean "something that uses enough Carbon that it can't be recompiled for
> 64-bit".
>
> By that standard, Photoshop qualifies, I think. Adding bits of Cocoa to an
> app doesn't really help with this.

Another reason for Adobe to make a modern program with a modern "engine".
Heck, if it is 32 bit on Windows it will remain that way unless they can
compile it 64 bit there as well.

>>> 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?
>
> If you insist:
>
> [http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Darwin/Conceptual/64bitPorting/trans
> ition/chapter_3_section_4.html]
>
> "The kernel (including the I/O Kit) remains a 32-bit environment in Mac OS
> X."

Which does not say that it does not support 64 bit drivers.


--
Satan lives for my sins... now *that* is dedication!

Jesus

unread,
Dec 22, 2007, 11:32:08 PM12/22/07
to
On Dec 22, 8:49 pm, Snit <C...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Daniel Johnson" <danieljohns...@verizon.net> stated in post
*snip*
> > If you insist:
>
> > [http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Darwin/Conceptual/64bitPorti...

> > ition/chapter_3_section_4.html]
>
> > "The kernel (including the I/O Kit) remains a 32-bit environment in Mac OS
> > X."
>
> Which does not say that it does not support 64 bit drivers.

How can the kernel load 64-bit kernel extensions when the kernel's not
64-bit?

Snit

unread,
Dec 23, 2007, 12:01:23 AM12/23/07
to
"Jesus" <rustybu...@gmail.com> stated in post
032dffe7-5957-4700...@i3g2000hsf.googlegroups.com on 12/22/07
9:32 PM:

I do not know... I am not a programmer. But I do know that Apple says this:

<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.
-----

Sure sounds like it supports "64-bit-capable drivers" to me. Maybe someone
else will be able to shed some light on how and why and what, if anything,
is the difference between "64-bit-capable drivers" and "64-bit-drivers".


--
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
- Anatole France

nospamatall

unread,
Dec 23, 2007, 12:19:29 AM12/23/07
to
Daniel Johnson wrote:

>> 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.

That's an example of a software vendor who is not producing a 64 bit
app. That's not what he asked for.

nospamatall

unread,
Dec 23, 2007, 12:24:57 AM12/23/07
to
Dave Fritzinger wrote:
> On Dec 22, 1:53 pm, "PC Guy" <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:AoidnWI9P-8rP_Da...@netlojix.com...
<snip>

>>>> 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.

Should brush up on his arithmetic too.

Andy

Snit

unread,
Dec 23, 2007, 12:30:52 AM12/23/07
to
"nospamatall" <nospa...@iol.ie> stated in post fkkr53$26g$1...@aioe.org on
12/22/07 10:19 PM:

Good point - a better answer than the one I provided.


--
Teachers open the door but you must walk through it yourself.

Jesus

unread,
Dec 23, 2007, 12:39:14 AM12/23/07
to
On Dec 23, 12:01 am, Snit <C...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Jesus" <rustybucket...@gmail.com> stated in post
> 032dffe7-5957-4700-b5d3-272237173...@i3g2000hsf.googlegroups.com on 12/22/07

Hmm... interesting. I wouldn't have thought a 32-bit kernel could
load a 64-bit kext, but like you, I'm not a programmer. Any Mac
people who can explain this?

Snit

unread,
Dec 23, 2007, 1:02:11 AM12/23/07
to
"Jesus" <rustybu...@gmail.com> stated in post
f897a77e-0400-47f8...@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com on
12/22/07 10:39 PM:

> Hmm... interesting. I wouldn't have thought a 32-bit kernel could
> load a 64-bit kext, but like you, I'm not a programmer. Any Mac
> people who can explain this?

And, more to the point: how this would effect the user.

--
The answer to the water shortage is to dilute it.

Steve Hix

unread,
Dec 23, 2007, 1:10:24 AM12/23/07
to
In article <fkkr53$26g$1...@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospa...@iol.ie>
wrote:

Also a reminder of how long Adobe has had to port Photoshop from Carbon
to Cocoa; it's not like it wasn't clearly stated at the beginning that
Carbon is a stopgap to ease developer's transistion from the previous
century.

Daniel Johnson

unread,
Dec 23, 2007, 7:10:06 AM12/23/07
to
"Snit" <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
news:C3930CAB.9EBC4%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com...

> "Daniel Johnson" <danielj...@verizon.net> stated in post
> 13mrf3n...@news.supernews.com on 12/22/07 6:40 PM:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Not quite: you have to pick if you want legacy 16-bit support or new
>> 64-bit
>> support. You get 32-bit support either way.
>
> Well, other than drivers - if I understand correctly you can use only 32
> or
> 64 bit, not the mix that Apple allows.

You get *more* than the mix Apple allows: the whole userspace goes both
ways.

[snip- repetition]

>> That's a choice Apple doesn't demand you make. They don't offer that sort
>> of
>> compatibility at all.
>
> Sure they do - you can use Mac OS 7.x for free.

Well, that's not quite the same. Apple hasn't made any Macs that would run
that OS is many, many years. :D

I do not think there is *any* Mac that can dual-boot System 7 and OS X, say.

>> On the other hand, they also don't offer a True 64-bit OS. So you get
>> neither the one thing nor the other: you get weak 64-bit support *and*
>> weak
>> backwards compatibility.
>
> One of their APIs is not 64 bit. Other than that what do you mean by poor
> support?

The most important, widely used API is not 64-bit. Also the kernel is not.

[snip]


>> By that standard, Photoshop qualifies, I think. Adding bits of Cocoa to
>> an
>> app doesn't really help with this.
>
> Another reason for Adobe to make a modern program with a modern "engine".
> Heck, if it is 32 bit on Windows it will remain that way unless they can
> compile it 64 bit there as well.

At the least, Windows itself is not stopping them. The 64-bit version of
Win32 is ready today.

[snip]


>>> According to the link and quote I provided you with it does - do you
>>> have
>>> contrary info you can point to?
>>
>> If you insist:
>>
>> [http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Darwin/Conceptual/64bitPorting/trans
>> ition/chapter_3_section_4.html]
>>
>> "The kernel (including the I/O Kit) remains a 32-bit environment in Mac
>> OS
>> X."
>
> Which does not say that it does not support 64 bit drivers.

<blink>

Er, yes it does.

Or, at least, I can't see how you are interpreting it to mean that the
kernel is 64-bit, or that 64-bit drivers are possible. To me it seems pretty
unequivocal. Perhaps you could elaborate on this point.

Anyway, if you read on at that link, you'll find out what "64-bit capable"
drivers are. It's essentially the same thing that Windows drivers had to do
to support >=4 GB of physical RAM on 32-bit Windows XP. And, as with XP,
it's largely a question of fixing bugs.


Daniel Johnson

unread,
Dec 23, 2007, 7:13:32 AM12/23/07
to
"nospamatall" <nospa...@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:fkkr53$26g$1...@aioe.org...

That's an example of a vendor that *can't* produce a 64-bit app, even
through there *is* demand from its customers that they do so. It's even a
pretty important app for the Mac.

Yes, it *is* possible that there are other things (besides Apple) holding
them back- but that is to be demonstrated.

Even if that is so, this is still a real world example of OS X not support
64-bit apps well.

Daniel Johnson

unread,
Dec 23, 2007, 7:17:23 AM12/23/07
to
"Steve Hix" <se...@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote in message
news:sehix-D5838C....@news.speakeasy.net...

> In article <fkkr53$26g$1...@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospa...@iol.ie>
> wrote:
[snip- Photoshop can't go 64-bit, it's Carbon]

>> That's an example of a software vendor who is not producing a 64 bit
>> app. That's not what he asked for.
>
> Also a reminder of how long Adobe has had to port Photoshop from Carbon
> to Cocoa; it's not like it wasn't clearly stated at the beginning that
> Carbon is a stopgap to ease developer's transistion from the previous
> century.

It wasn't, though.

What The Steve said when he introduced OS X was that Carbon was for existing
OS 9 apps coming over to OS X, and Cocoa was for *new* apps.

Adobe Photoshop is clearly in the first category- clearly they should be
Carbon. Anyway Adobe had already told Apple that they weren't going to port
to Cocoa. That's one reason Carbon exists in the first place.

Message has been deleted

David Empson

unread,
Dec 23, 2007, 7:38:41 AM12/23/07
to
Daniel Johnson <danielj...@verizon.net> wrote:

> "Snit" <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
> news:C3930CAB.9EBC4%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com...
> > "Daniel Johnson" <danielj...@verizon.net> stated in post
> > 13mrf3n...@news.supernews.com on 12/22/07 6:40 PM:

> >> That's a choice Apple doesn't demand you make. They don't offer that sort
> >> of compatibility at all.
> >
> > Sure they do - you can use Mac OS 7.x for free.
>
> Well, that's not quite the same. Apple hasn't made any Macs that would run
> that OS is many, many years. :D
>
> I do not think there is *any* Mac that can dual-boot System 7 and OS X, say.

It depends on your definition of "System 7" and any conditions on how
you boot Mac OS X.

The PowerMac 7300-9600 series were originally supplied with System 7.5.2
through 7.6.1. They won't boot a retail copy of Mac OS X, but can be
made to run early versions using XPostFacto, which bypasses installer
checks and patches the system or adds drivers to get around a few
issues. (System 7.5.3 is the version Apple have available for free.)

The first PowerMac G3 was supplied with Mac OS 8.0 and it will boot Mac
OS X 10.0 through 10.2 without any third party assistance.

--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz

Snit

unread,
Dec 23, 2007, 11:10:48 AM12/23/07
to
"Daniel Johnson" <danielj...@verizon.net> stated in post
13msk0m...@news.supernews.com on 12/23/07 5:10 AM:

> "Snit" <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
> news:C3930CAB.9EBC4%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com...
>> "Daniel Johnson" <danielj...@verizon.net> stated in post
>> 13mrf3n...@news.supernews.com on 12/22/07 6:40 PM:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Not quite: you have to pick if you want legacy 16-bit support or new
>>> 64-bit
>>> support. You get 32-bit support either way.
>>
>> Well, other than drivers - if I understand correctly you can use only 32
>> or
>> 64 bit, not the mix that Apple allows.
>
> You get *more* than the mix Apple allows: the whole userspace goes both
> ways.
>
> [snip- repetition]
>
>>> That's a choice Apple doesn't demand you make. They don't offer that sort
>>> of
>>> compatibility at all.
>>
>> Sure they do - you can use Mac OS 7.x for free.
>
> Well, that's not quite the same. Apple hasn't made any Macs that would run
> that OS is many, many years. :D

Has MS made *any* machine that can run desktop Windows?


>
> I do not think there is *any* Mac that can dual-boot System 7 and OS X, say.
>
>>> On the other hand, they also don't offer a True 64-bit OS. So you get
>>> neither the one thing nor the other: you get weak 64-bit support *and*
>>> weak
>>> backwards compatibility.
>>
>> One of their APIs is not 64 bit. Other than that what do you mean by poor
>> support?
>
> The most important, widely used API is not 64-bit. Also the kernel is not.

How do you figure Carbon is the "most important, widely used API"?


>
> [snip]
>>> By that standard, Photoshop qualifies, I think. Adding bits of Cocoa to
>>> an
>>> app doesn't really help with this.
>>
>> Another reason for Adobe to make a modern program with a modern "engine".
>> Heck, if it is 32 bit on Windows it will remain that way unless they can
>> compile it 64 bit there as well.
>
> At the least, Windows itself is not stopping them. The 64-bit version of
> Win32 is ready today.

Apple is not stopping Adobe from updating their software.

> [snip]
>>>> According to the link and quote I provided you with it does - do you
>>>> have
>>>> contrary info you can point to?
>>>
>>> If you insist:
>>>
>>> [http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Darwin/Conceptual/64bitPorting/tra
>>> ns
>>> ition/chapter_3_section_4.html]
>>>
>>> "The kernel (including the I/O Kit) remains a 32-bit environment in Mac
>>> OS
>>> X."
>>
>> Which does not say that it does not support 64 bit drivers.
>
> <blink>
>
> Er, yes it does.
>
> Or, at least, I can't see how you are interpreting it to mean that the
> kernel is 64-bit, or that 64-bit drivers are possible. To me it seems pretty
> unequivocal. Perhaps you could elaborate on this point.
>
> Anyway, if you read on at that link, you'll find out what "64-bit capable"
> drivers are. It's essentially the same thing that Windows drivers had to do
> to support >=4 GB of physical RAM on 32-bit Windows XP. And, as with XP,
> it's largely a question of fixing bugs.
>
>

To summarize, comparing 64-bit Vista with OS X:

* OS X drops Classic.
Vista drops 16 bit apps.

* OS X has a migration path via Carbon, but Carbon is only 32-bit.
Vista's migration path is... um... do you know?

* OS X can handle both 32 and 64-bit drivers (or 64-bit-capable at least).
Vista can handle only 64-bit drivers.

Add to that with 64-bit Vista you lose compatibility with many programs
(more than even with 32 bit Vista), you have (more) registry weaknesses (no
file redirection), and you have no ability to unsigned drivers. OS X has no
similar weaknesses.

PC Guy

unread,
Dec 23, 2007, 11:28:28 AM12/23/07
to

"John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ZpadnRQsWO6YKvDa...@netlojix.com...

Video cards aren't the only things which consume address space. I was
focusing on the video card because it was being discussed and, being 512MB,
uses a considerable amount of the 4GB address space. Another consumer of
address space is the operating system. It requires part of the address space
for its executables and data. You can pretend this is some limit of Vista
all you want. It's not.

PC Guy

unread,
Dec 23, 2007, 11:32:57 AM12/23/07
to

"John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:DMOdnagkhf7ZK_Da...@netlojix.com...

No SHIT DUMBASS! So you have 4GB + 512MB = 4.5GB of physical memory. But a
32 bit operating system can only address 4GB of memory whether it's on the
motherboard, video card, or somewhere else.

PC Guy

unread,
Dec 23, 2007, 11:34:20 AM12/23/07
to

"Lefty Bigfoot" <nu...@busyness.info> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C3931489...@news.verizon.net...

Yes, you are. No surprise there.

> The video adapter uses the display buffer memory completely separate from
> the per process memory limits.

Note the key words "per process memory limits".

PC Guy

unread,
Dec 23, 2007, 11:35:38 AM12/23/07
to

"Snit" <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
news:C3930631.9EBB7%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com...

This is NOT a limitation of Vista. It is a limitation of 32 bit operating
systems...including OS X.

> OS X, for example, does not share the same weakness - though even if it
> did
> then it would be just a shared problem.

32 bit versions of OS X do.

Snit

unread,
Dec 23, 2007, 11:47:40 AM12/23/07
to
"PC Guy" <pc...@hotmail.com> stated in post
VYSdnVIY1onCE_Pa...@comcast.com on 12/23/07 9:35 AM:

>>> 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.
>
> This is NOT a limitation of Vista. It is a limitation of 32 bit operating
> systems...including OS X.

I have 4 GB of memory... my OS X machine uses it just fine.


>
>> OS X, for example, does not share the same weakness - though even if it did
>> then it would be just a shared problem.
>
> 32 bit versions of OS X do.

I believe OS X has been able to handle more than 4 GB of memory since day
one.


--
"If you have integrity, nothing else matters." - Alan Simpson

PC Guy

unread,
Dec 23, 2007, 11:50:39 AM12/23/07
to

"Snit" <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
news:C3930648.9EBB8%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com...

> "Titus Pullo" <nu...@unix.site> stated in post
> 4p-dnT2YR_1EOfDa...@comcast.com on 12/22/07 4:59 PM:
>
>>
>> "Jesper" <spamb...@users.toughguy.net> wrote in message
>> news:1i9jjbb.8b3wm1hxq73uN%spamb...@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.
>>
> How about 32 bit drivers?

What about them?

Tommy Troll

unread,
Dec 23, 2007, 1:18:19 PM12/23/07
to
On Dec 22, 6:50 pm, "John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> "Tommy Troll" <tom_e...@earthlink.net> wrote in message

>
> news:33b19ff7-ead1-49b1...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 22, 4:50 pm, "John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Jesper" <spambus...@users.toughguy.net> wrote in message

>
> >news:1i9jjbb.8b3wm1hxq73uN%spamb...@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!
>
> > > --
> > > 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The 512 kb shares memory addresses with ram. In any 32 bit system
there will only be 4 gb of addresses, and all memory has to share
those. The remaining difference between 4 gb and what you see is
used by the system. You are right though, and I had not thought of
this, 3 gb is about the max ram you want to buy for a 32 gb OS with a
video card. If you are using shared ram for video you could use up to
the full 4 gb.

Tommy Troll

unread,
Dec 23, 2007, 1:22:22 PM12/23/07
to
On Dec 23, 7:32 am, Bob Campbell <b...@bob.bob> wrote:
> In article <1i9jjbb.8b3wm1hxq73uN%spambus...@users.toughguy.net>,

>
>  spambus...@users.toughguy.net (Jesper) wrote:
> > 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!
>
> This is a hardware issue, not software/OS.   Most modern motherboards
> reserve about 700 meg of address space for hardware use (video memory
> among many other things.)    Thus there is only about 3.3 gigs of space
> left for the OS to see.   Vista is "seeing" all 4 gig, there is only 3.3
> gig left to see.
>
> OS X on the same hardware has the same issue.   This problem is exactly
> analogous to the old DOS "640K barrier" of 20 years ago.   The hardware
> could address 1 meg, 360K was reserved by the hardware for other things
> - including video ram.  
>
> Fully 64 bit hardware running fully 64 bit software doesn't have this
> problem.   Just like 32 bit hardware and software overcame the 16 bit
> DOS 640K limit.
>
> Bob Campbell

64 bit has the same problem, but the limits are just a LOT higher.

Snit

unread,
Dec 23, 2007, 1:29:10 PM12/23/07
to
"PC Guy" <pc...@hotmail.com> stated in post
Q-SdnfrNPLV4DPPa...@comcast.com on 12/23/07 9:50 AM:

Vista-32 does not support them. OS X does.

Daniel Johnson

unread,
Dec 23, 2007, 1:41:57 PM12/23/07
to
"Snit" <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
news:C393D698.9EC7F%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com...

> "Daniel Johnson" <danielj...@verizon.net> stated in post
> 13msk0m...@news.supernews.com on 12/23/07 5:10 AM:
>> Well, that's not quite the same. Apple hasn't made any Macs that would
>> run
>> that OS is many, many years. :D
>
> Has MS made *any* machine that can run desktop Windows?

Er, I guess you have me there. :D

But other people have done that. Have other people made any machines that
can run System 7 in the last few years?

[snip]


>> The most important, widely used API is not 64-bit. Also the kernel is
>> not.
>
> How do you figure Carbon is the "most important, widely used API"?

I figured we all knew *that*.

We all know many important apps that are Carbon. Office. Photoshop. iTunes.

Let's look at it the other way. What are the important Cocoa apps?

[snip]


>> At the least, Windows itself is not stopping them. The 64-bit version of
>> Win32 is ready today.
>
> Apple is not stopping Adobe from updating their software.

Apple *is* stopping Adobe from going 64-bit, at least on the Mac.

Now, if Photoshop isn't 64-bit clean it might be well to make it so, so it
can go 64-bit on Windows. But it still won't be able to do it on the Mac.

[snip]


> To summarize, comparing 64-bit Vista with OS X:
>
> * OS X drops Classic.
> Vista drops 16 bit apps.

You mean "64-bit Vista" here, I imagine.

> * OS X has a migration path via Carbon, but Carbon is only 32-bit.
> Vista's migration path is... um... do you know?

For .NET apps, it's like Java: it's all pointer size neutral anyway. The
same app runs 64-bit on a 64-bit OS, 32-bit on 32-bit OS.

For Win32 apps, it looks a lot like the Win16->Win32 transition, only it's
less painful. There is now 'Win64', which is just like Win32 but uses 64-bit
pointers. It is fairly trivial to write an app that compiles both ways; much
easier than it was to do the same thing during the transition to Win32.

For drivers, the story looks like Win64: you can write your driver so it
compiles both ways. Again, this is much gentler than what you had with the
transition to Win32.

By contrast, OS X has a good story for Cocoa: it makes is easy to 'recompile
both ways'. But for Carbon there *is no* migration path. Not even a path
that leads to Cocoa.

And Apple hasn't told anyone what it's plans are for 64-bit kernel modules
and the like. If indeed it has any.

> * OS X can handle both 32 and 64-bit drivers (or 64-bit-capable at least).
> Vista can handle only 64-bit drivers.

OS X cannot use 64-bit drivers. "64-bit capable drivers" exist on Windows
and they work fine in Vista. They are considered by all to just be 32-bit
drivers. The difference is simply that "64-bit incapable drivers" are buggy.

> Add to that with 64-bit Vista you lose compatibility with many programs
> (more than even with 32 bit Vista),

Aside from the 16-bit thing, the defaults are different: 64-bit Vista has
DEP turned on by default, so older programs written before DEP break. You
can turn it off, of course.

The big thing is that you just cannot run 16-bit programs at all. There's no
workaround for that, except to install 32-bit Vista.

> you have (more) registry weaknesses (no
> file redirection),

I do not understand what you are referring to here. File redirection
appeared first in 64-bit XP: it is used to make 32-bit programs see the
directory structure they are used to. 64-bit programs don't get this, but I
don't see why that's a problem.

> and you have no ability to unsigned drivers. OS X has no similar
> weaknesses.

I don't exactly approve of the "no unsigned drivers" rule, but I understand
where MS is coming from. People- some on this very newsgroup- are very
insistent that all security issues are Microsoft's problem, even when it's
an ignorant end user installing malware voluntarily.

This 'signed drivers' thing should help with that last case: it does not
prevent a fool from installing a root kit, but it does mean that the root
kit can be traced back to its creators. That ought to be a deterrent.

PC Guy

unread,
Dec 23, 2007, 1:46:13 PM12/23/07
to

"Snit" <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
news:C393F706.9ECAD%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com...

I assume you meant to say Vista-64 instead of Vista-32. As for OS X
supporting both 32 and 64 bit drivers can you provide documentation to
support this claim?

Snit

unread,
Dec 23, 2007, 2:21:02 PM12/23/07
to
"PC Guy" <pc...@hotmail.com> stated in post
POGdnbtWq95mMfPa...@comcast.com on 12/23/07 11:46 AM:

>
> "Snit" <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
> news:C393F706.9ECAD%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com...
>> "PC Guy" <pc...@hotmail.com> stated in post
>> Q-SdnfrNPLV4DPPa...@comcast.com on 12/23/07 9:50 AM:
>>
>>>
>>> "Snit" <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
>>> news:C3930648.9EBB8%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com...
>>>> "Titus Pullo" <nu...@unix.site> stated in post
>>>> 4p-dnT2YR_1EOfDa...@comcast.com on 12/22/07 4:59 PM:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Jesper" <spamb...@users.toughguy.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:1i9jjbb.8b3wm1hxq73uN%spamb...@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.
>>>>>
>>>> How about 32 bit drivers?
>>>
>>> What about them?
>>>
>> Vista-32 does not support them. OS X does.
>
> I assume you meant to say Vista-64 instead of Vista-32.

Correct - my mistake.

> As for OS X supporting both 32 and 64 bit drivers can you provide
> documentation to support this claim?

<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.
-----

I will admit I am not sure if there is a difference between 64-bit drivers
and 64-bit-capable drivers.

--
Never stand between a dog and the hydrant. - John Peers

Snit

unread,
Dec 23, 2007, 2:45:42 PM12/23/07
to
"Daniel Johnson" <danielj...@verizon.net> stated in post
13mtave...@news.supernews.com on 12/23/07 11:41 AM:

> "Snit" <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
> news:C393D698.9EC7F%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com...
>> "Daniel Johnson" <danielj...@verizon.net> stated in post
>> 13msk0m...@news.supernews.com on 12/23/07 5:10 AM:
>>> Well, that's not quite the same. Apple hasn't made any Macs that would
>>> run
>>> that OS is many, many years. :D
>>
>> Has MS made *any* machine that can run desktop Windows?
>
> Er, I guess you have me there. :D
>
> But other people have done that. Have other people made any machines that
> can run System 7 in the last few years?

Are you blaming Apple if they have not? Well, being that Apple has not, as
far as I know, allowed the old Mac ROMs to be copied that could be the case.

> [snip]
>>> The most important, widely used API is not 64-bit. Also the kernel is
>>> not.
>>
>> How do you figure Carbon is the "most important, widely used API"?
>
> I figured we all knew *that*.
>
> We all know many important apps that are Carbon. Office. Photoshop. iTunes.
>
> Let's look at it the other way. What are the important Cocoa apps?

Most of iLife and iWork and Safari and on and on an on. Clearly Apple
thinks Carbon is not as important.

> [snip]
>>> At the least, Windows itself is not stopping them. The 64-bit version of
>>> Win32 is ready today.
>>
>> Apple is not stopping Adobe from updating their software.
>
> Apple *is* stopping Adobe from going 64-bit, at least on the Mac.

Nope. Not at all.

> Now, if Photoshop isn't 64-bit clean it might be well to make it so, so it
> can go 64-bit on Windows. But it still won't be able to do it on the Mac.

Not in Carbon... but with Cocoa it could.

> [snip]
>> To summarize, comparing 64-bit Vista with OS X:
>>
>> * OS X drops Classic.
>> Vista drops 16 bit apps.
>
> You mean "64-bit Vista" here, I imagine.

Hence the "comparing 64-bit Vista with OS X" comment above.

>> * OS X has a migration path via Carbon, but Carbon is only 32-bit.
>> Vista's migration path is... um... do you know?
>
> For .NET apps, it's like Java: it's all pointer size neutral anyway. The
> same app runs 64-bit on a 64-bit OS, 32-bit on 32-bit OS.
>
> For Win32 apps, it looks a lot like the Win16->Win32 transition, only it's
> less painful. There is now 'Win64', which is just like Win32 but uses 64-bit
> pointers. It is fairly trivial to write an app that compiles both ways; much
> easier than it was to do the same thing during the transition to Win32.
>
> For drivers, the story looks like Win64: you can write your driver so it
> compiles both ways. Again, this is much gentler than what you had with the
> transition to Win32.
>
> By contrast, OS X has a good story for Cocoa: it makes is easy to 'recompile
> both ways'. But for Carbon there *is no* migration path. Not even a path
> that leads to Cocoa.

But Carbon runs on OS X.

> And Apple hasn't told anyone what it's plans are for 64-bit kernel modules
> and the like. If indeed it has any.
>
>> * OS X can handle both 32 and 64-bit drivers (or 64-bit-capable at least).
>> Vista can handle only 64-bit drivers.
>
> OS X cannot use 64-bit drivers. "64-bit capable drivers" exist on Windows
> and they work fine in Vista. They are considered by all to just be 32-bit
> drivers. The difference is simply that "64-bit incapable drivers" are buggy.

I would like to see this supported.

>> Add to that with 64-bit Vista you lose compatibility with many programs
>> (more than even with 32 bit Vista),
>
> Aside from the 16-bit thing, the defaults are different: 64-bit Vista has
> DEP turned on by default, so older programs written before DEP break. You
> can turn it off, of course.
>
> The big thing is that you just cannot run 16-bit programs at all. There's no
> workaround for that, except to install 32-bit Vista.
>
>> you have (more) registry weaknesses (no
>> file redirection),
>
> I do not understand what you are referring to here. File redirection
> appeared first in 64-bit XP: it is used to make 32-bit programs see the
> directory structure they are used to. 64-bit programs don't get this, but I
> don't see why that's a problem.

<http://www.dansdata.com/askdan00001.htm>
-----
No automatic registry and file redirection, which is what
32-bit Vista uses to allow existing software to work with
Vista's better user account security, even if the software
wants to do admin-rights stuff to the registry and Program
Files directory. Many apps still break in 32-bit Vista, but
many more break in the 64-bit version.
-----

>> and you have no ability to unsigned drivers. OS X has no similar
>> weaknesses.
>
> I don't exactly approve of the "no unsigned drivers" rule, but I understand
> where MS is coming from. People- some on this very newsgroup- are very
> insistent that all security issues are Microsoft's problem, even when it's
> an ignorant end user installing malware voluntarily.
>
> This 'signed drivers' thing should help with that last case: it does not
> prevent a fool from installing a root kit, but it does mean that the root
> kit can be traced back to its creators. That ought to be a deterrent.

A pain in the rump for users is still a pain in the rump for users.


--
I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is to try to please
everyone. -- Bill Cosby

Jesus

unread,
Dec 23, 2007, 2:48:09 PM12/23/07
to
On Dec 23, 2:21 pm, Snit <C...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "PC Guy" <pc...@hotmail.com> stated in post
> POGdnbtWq95mMfPanZ2dnUVZ_uWln...@comcast.com on 12/23/07 11:46 AM:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Snit" <C...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message

> >news:C393F706.9ECAD%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com...
> >> "PC Guy" <pc...@hotmail.com> stated in post
> >> Q-SdnfrNPLV4DPPanZ2dnUVZ_j6dn...@comcast.com on 12/23/07 9:50 AM:
>
> >>> "Snit" <C...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:C3930648.9EBB8%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com...
> >>>> "Titus Pullo" <n...@unix.site> stated in post
> >>>> 4p-dnT2YR_1EOfDanZ2dnUVZ_gydn...@comcast.com on 12/22/07 4:59 PM:
>
> >>>>> "Jesper" <spambus...@users.toughguy.net> wrote in message

There is. 64-bit-capable is not 64-bit. It sounds like 64-bit-
capable drivers are really just 32-bit drivers that can be assigned
chunks of memory beyond the first 4GB. They still can't address more
than 4GB of memory, but if you have two or three of these drivers on a
machine with lots of memory, each of them can claim more memory for
themselves (each up to 4GB). Am I understanding this correctly?

PC Guy

unread,
Dec 23, 2007, 2:54:01 PM12/23/07
to

"Snit" <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
news:C394032E.9ECC4%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com...

It appears Leopards kernel remains 32 bit:

"The kernel (including the I/O Kit) remains a 32-bit environment in Mac OS
X. "

http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Darwin/Conceptual/64bitPorting/transition/chapter_3_section_4.html

And this appears to be the reason 64 bit drivers are not required.

Jesus

unread,
Dec 23, 2007, 3:04:29 PM12/23/07
to
On Dec 23, 11:10 am, Snit <C...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Daniel Johnson" <danieljohns...@verizon.net> stated in post
> 13msk0m8dp8d...@news.supernews.com on 12/23/07 5:10 AM:
>
>
>
> > "Snit" <C...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
> >news:C3930CAB.9EBC4%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com...
> >> "Daniel Johnson" <danieljohns...@verizon.net> stated in post
> >> 13mrf3nl7d07...@news.supernews.com on 12/22/07 6:40 PM:

> >>>> 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.
>
> >>> Not quite: you have to pick if you want legacy 16-bit support or new
> >>> 64-bit
> >>> support. You get 32-bit support either way.
>
> >> Well, other than drivers - if I understand correctly you can use only 32
> >> or
> >> 64 bit, not the mix that Apple allows.
>
> > You get *more* than the mix Apple allows: the whole userspace goes both
> > ways.
>
> > [snip- repetition]
>
> >>> That's a choice Apple doesn't demand you make. They don't offer that sort
> >>> of
> >>> compatibility at all.
>
> >> Sure they do - you can use Mac OS 7.x for free.
>
> > Well, that's not quite the same. Apple hasn't made any Macs that would run
> > that OS is many, many years. :D
>
> Has MS made *any* machine that can run desktop Windows?

hah! :-P


> > I do not think there is *any* Mac that can dual-boot System 7 and OS X, say.
>
> >>> On the other hand, they also don't offer a True 64-bit OS. So you get
> >>> neither the one thing nor the other: you get weak 64-bit support *and*
> >>> weak
> >>> backwards compatibility.
>
> >> One of their APIs is not 64 bit. Other than that what do you mean by poor
> >> support?
>
> > The most important, widely used API is not 64-bit. Also the kernel is not.
>
> How do you figure Carbon is the "most important, widely used API"?

Many important commercial apps use Carbon, including Photoshop and
Office. Photoshop could benefit from increased memory availability,
but it's currently not possible to move Photoshop to 64-bit unless
Photoshop is ported to Cocoa, meaning much of its core code would have
to be rewritten using Cocoa. In essence, they'd have to rewrite much
of the underpinnings of Photoshop. If Adobe did that to take
advantage of things like Core Image, that'd be great, but it's still a
huge effort that wouldn't benefit their other primary platform,
Windows, one bit. If writing cross-platform programs is really that
much trouble using Cocoa, perhaps Apple could release Cocoa for
Windows. It looks like they've already at least partially done that
with Safari/QuickTime.

> > [snip]
> >>> By that standard, Photoshop qualifies, I think. Adding bits of Cocoa to
> >>> an
> >>> app doesn't really help with this.
>
> >> Another reason for Adobe to make a modern program with a modern "engine".
> >> Heck, if it is 32 bit on Windows it will remain that way unless they can
> >> compile it 64 bit there as well.
>
> > At the least, Windows itself is not stopping them. The 64-bit version of
> > Win32 is ready today.
>
> Apple is not stopping Adobe from updating their software.

They are in terms of the extra work involved. Had Apple released 64-
bit Carbon, Adobe could use their existing code base in moving to 64-
bit. Now they can't.

> > [snip]
> >>>> According to the link and quote I provided you with it does - do you
> >>>> have
> >>>> contrary info you can point to?
>
> >>> If you insist:
>

> >>> [http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Darwin/Conceptual/64bitPorti...


> >>> ns
> >>> ition/chapter_3_section_4.html]
>
> >>> "The kernel (including the I/O Kit) remains a 32-bit environment in Mac
> >>> OS
> >>> X."
>
> >> Which does not say that it does not support 64 bit drivers.
>
> > <blink>
>
> > Er, yes it does.
>
> > Or, at least, I can't see how you are interpreting it to mean that the
> > kernel is 64-bit, or that 64-bit drivers are possible. To me it seems pretty
> > unequivocal. Perhaps you could elaborate on this point.
>
> > Anyway, if you read on at that link, you'll find out what "64-bit capable"
> > drivers are. It's essentially the same thing that Windows drivers had to do
> > to support >=4 GB of physical RAM on 32-bit Windows XP. And, as with XP,
> > it's largely a question of fixing bugs.
>
> To summarize, comparing 64-bit Vista with OS X:
>
> * OS X drops Classic.
> Vista drops 16 bit apps.

Correct. To be fair, 16-bit apps are much older than many Classic
apps. Also, 16-bit is still supported in the 32-bit edition. Classic
isn't supported *at all*.

> * OS X has a migration path via Carbon, but Carbon is only 32-bit.
> Vista's migration path is... um... do you know?

Win32 and Win64. Most apps have already migrated to at least Win32
since Win16 was abandoned so many years ago.

> * OS X can handle both 32 and 64-bit drivers (or 64-bit-capable at least).
> Vista can handle only 64-bit drivers.
>
> Add to that with 64-bit Vista you lose compatibility with many programs
> (more than even with 32 bit Vista),

Do you mean beyond 16-bit apps? What 32-bit apps don't run under XP/
Vista 64? I know Data Execution Prevention causes problems with some
apps, and I think that's turned on by default in the 64-bit version.
It's a very smart security feature to have enabled, but it can be
turned off if need be. I don't see why it would have to be for most
apps, though, as I turned it on under Vista 32 and it hasn't caused
any problems for me.

> you have (more) registry weaknesses (no
> file redirection),

eh?

> and you have no ability to unsigned drivers.

Annoying, but it is meant to improve security. An argument could be
made that OS X has no way of verifying kexts as legit and is therefore
not as secure.

> OS X has no
> similar weaknesses.

I'm not sure I agree with the weaknesses you gave, but OS X certainly
has weaknesses of its own. A 32-bit kernel with 64-bit support
elsewhere in the OS boosts compatibility, but that means OS X still
isn't a true 64-bit OS.