32 bit vista can't address more than 3.1-3.5 GB RAM
Jesper
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
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
"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
"Jesper" <spamb...@users.toughguy.net> wrote in message
news:1i9jjbb.8b3wm1hxq73uN%spamb...@users.toughguy.net...
> 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
> "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
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
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
"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
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:
>> 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
> "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
> "Jesper" <spambus...@users.toughguy.net> wrote in message
How much ram does the video card use?
Steve Carroll
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"
John
"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
(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
"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
"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.
"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
(in article <4p-dnT2YR_1EOfDa...@comcast.com>):
Good catch. I missed that little bit of stupidity in my reply.
Dave Fritzinger
> "John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>
> news:AoidnWI9P-8rP_Da...@netlojix.com...
>
>
>
>
>
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
(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
"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
"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
"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
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
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
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
(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
> "Daniel Johnson" <danielj...@verizon.net> stated in post
> 13mr3dn...@news.supernews.com on 12/22/07 3:20 PM:
>>> 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:
"The kernel (including the I/O Kit) remains a 32-bit environment in Mac OS
X."
Snit
> "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
> "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
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
>> 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
> 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...
>>>> 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
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.