why 3G of memory for vista desktop? - Linux

This is a discussion on why 3G of memory for vista desktop? - Linux ; On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 19:25:31 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine wrote: >In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Tim Smith > > wrote >on Wed, 04 Jun 2008 18:51:11 -0700 > : >> In article , >> AZ Nomad wrote: >>> >>> >Well ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 65

Thread: why 3G of memory for vista desktop?

  1. Re: why 3G of memory for vista desktop?

    On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 19:25:31 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Tim Smith
    >
    > wrote
    >on Wed, 04 Jun 2008 18:51:11 -0700
    >:
    >> In article ,
    >> AZ Nomad wrote:
    >>> >>> >Well my next machine is pencilled in for 8Gb RAM quad core with 2Tb
    >>> >>> No problem w/ linux.
    >>> >>>
    >>> >>> The vista losers will only be able to use 3GB.
    >>> >>
    >>> >> Where'd you get that notion from?
    >>> >>
    >>>
    >>> >Considering that Vista can run in 64 bit hardware (even if
    >>> >only in 32-bit mode), I find that notion a tad ridiculous.
    >>> >Then again, MSDN does have this interesting little table:
    >>>
    >>> >http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...ysical_memory_
    >>> >limits_windows_vista
    >>>
    >>> >This suggests that all 32-bit Windows Vista variants
    >>> >have a 4 GB limit.
    >>>
    >>> That page is full of ****. 3GB is the limit for 32 bit vista.
    >>>
    >>> http://www.geekzone.co.nz/freitasm/2674
    >>> http://www.dansdata.com/askdan00015.htm
    >>> http://www.tech2.com/forums/viewtopi...=0&sk=t&sd=a&v
    >>> iew=print

    >>
    >> What makes you think a person would use 32-bit Vista on a quad core 8 GB
    >> machine?
    >>


    >I would hope quadcores are 64 bit.


    The dual cores are 64 bit as well. The problem is that vista is 32 bit on
    most instalations and the 64 bit is such an unoly pig that it makes
    a quad core run only slightly faster than the 32 bit with half the
    ram and one processor.

  2. Re: why 3G of memory for vista desktop?

    Verily I say unto thee, that The Ghost In The Machine spake thusly:
    > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Tim Smith
    > wrote on Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:42:19
    > -0700 :
    >> In article
    >> , AZ Nomad
    >> wrote:


    >>> The vista losers will only be able to use 3GB.

    >>
    >> Where'd you get that notion from?


    From Microsoft:

    If a computer has 4 gigabytes (GB) of random-access memory (RAM)
    installed, the system memory that is reported in the System Information
    dialog box in Windows Vista is less than you expect.

    For example, the System Information dialog box may report 3,120
    megabytes (MB) of system memory on a computer that has 4 GB of memory
    installed (4,096 MB).
    http://support.microsoft.com/?scid=k...9605&x=13&y=19

    > http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr..._windows_vista
    >
    >
    > This suggests that all 32-bit Windows Vista variants have a 4 GB
    > limit.


    Theoretically.

    Smith is merely being obtuse. As usual.

    --
    K.
    http://slated.org

    ..----
    | 'When it comes to knowledge, "ownership" just doesn't make sense'
    | ~ Cory Doctorow, The Guardian. http://tinyurl.com/22bgx8
    `----

    Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
    10:42:51 up 167 days, 7:18, 5 users, load average: 0.00, 0.05, 0.01

  3. Re: why 3G of memory for vista desktop?

    * Homer peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > From Microsoft:
    >
    >
    > If a computer has 4 gigabytes (GB) of random-access memory (RAM)
    > installed, the system memory that is reported in the System Information
    > dialog box in Windows Vista is less than you expect.
    >
    > For example, the System Information dialog box may report 3,120
    > megabytes (MB) of system memory on a computer that has 4 GB of memory
    > installed (4,096 MB).
    >
    >
    > http://support.microsoft.com/?scid=k...9605&x=13&y=19


    "The reduction in available system memory depends on the devices that
    are installed in the computer. However, to avoid potential driver
    compatibility issues, the 32-bit versions of Windows Vista limit the
    total available memory to 3.12 GB. See the "More information" section
    for information about potential driver compatibility issues."

    . . .

    For Windows Vista to use all 4 GB of memory on a computer that has 4
    GB of memory installed, the computer must meet the following
    requirements:

    ... An x64 (64-bit) version of Windows Vista must be used.

    --
    We're no longer in the days where everything is super well crafted. But at
    the heart of the programs that make it to the top, you'll find that the key
    internal code was done by a few people who really know what they were doing.
    -- Bill Gates

  4. Re: why 3G of memory for vista desktop?

    On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 06:54:02 -0400, Linonut wrote:
    >* Homer peremptorily fired off this memo:


    >> From Microsoft:
    >>
    >>
    >> If a computer has 4 gigabytes (GB) of random-access memory (RAM)
    >> installed, the system memory that is reported in the System Information
    >> dialog box in Windows Vista is less than you expect.
    >>
    >> For example, the System Information dialog box may report 3,120
    >> megabytes (MB) of system memory on a computer that has 4 GB of memory
    >> installed (4,096 MB).
    >>
    >>
    >> http://support.microsoft.com/?scid=k...9605&x=13&y=19


    > "The reduction in available system memory depends on the devices that
    > are installed in the computer. However, to avoid potential driver
    > compatibility issues, the 32-bit versions of Windows Vista limit the
    > total available memory to 3.12 GB. See the "More information" section
    > for information about potential driver compatibility issues."
    >
    > . . .


    > For Windows Vista to use all 4 GB of memory on a computer that has 4
    > GB of memory installed, the computer must meet the following
    > requirements:


    > ... An x64 (64-bit) version of Windows Vista must be used.


    I'm surprised a third party XMS style memory driver hasn't come out yet to
    let vista owners use more memory albeit as a swapfile.


  5. Re: why 3G of memory for vista desktop?


  6. Re: why 3G of memory for vista desktop?

    "AZ Nomad" schreef in bericht
    news:slrng4dmtd.49i.aznomad.3@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
    > Because vista can't handle any more.
    >
    > It's hilarious that microsoft has put out an OS that is unuseable with 1G
    > of
    > memory, barely useable with 2G, and can't handle any more than 3G. If it
    > is
    > pissing and ****ting away a gig and a half of memory, what do you do if
    > you have
    > an application that needs 2G of memory?



    It isn't a problem with the OS; it's a problem with your lack of knowledge.
    A 32-bit Operating System can address a maximum of 4GB. Add your BIOS shadow
    RAM, video RAM etc into that and the OS has no choice but to reduce the 4GB
    of available RAM. If you want to see all 4GB or of RAM, get a 64-bit OS.
    Get it, moron?
    b.t.w.:
    MS Win x64 128 GB
    MS Vista 64-bit 8 GB
    MS 2003 Ent Itanium 1 TB
    MS 2003 Std x64 R2 32 GB
    MS 2003 Ent x64 R2 2 TB
    OS X 4 TB
    RH Ent Linux ES ver 3 8 GB
    RH Ent Linux ES ver 4 16 GB
    RH Ent Linux base ver 5 unlimited
    RH Desktop Linux v5 4 GB
    RH Desktop v5 w/ wkstn unlimited
    Certified/Theoretical tech limits for RH v5
    x86 16 GB
    Itanium2 1 TB / 1024 TB
    x86-64 256 GB / 1 TB
    Power 512 GB / 1 TB
    zSeries 64 GB
    --
    AZ Nomad AKA moron!


  7. Re: why 3G of memory for vista desktop?

    On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 17:33:46 +0200, Clogwog wrote:
    >"AZ Nomad" schreef in bericht
    >news:slrng4dmtd.49i.aznomad.3@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
    >> Because vista can't handle any more.
    >>
    >> It's hilarious that microsoft has put out an OS that is unuseable with 1G
    >> of
    >> memory, barely useable with 2G, and can't handle any more than 3G. If it
    >> is
    >> pissing and ****ting away a gig and a half of memory, what do you do if
    >> you have
    >> an application that needs 2G of memory?



    >It isn't a problem with the OS; it's a problem with your lack of knowledge.
    >A 32-bit Operating System can address a maximum of 4GB. Add your BIOS shadow
    >RAM, video RAM etc into that and the OS has no choice but to reduce the 4GB
    >of available RAM. If you want to see all 4GB or of RAM, get a 64-bit OS.


    I'd rather have an OS that doesn't need 2G just to draw the ****ing desktop.


    >Get it, moron?

    I get it just fine, ****head.

    The problem is that microsoft has released an OS with a maximum memory
    capacity 3G and thinks it fine to piss away 1.5G of it.

  8. Re: why 3G of memory for vista desktop?

    On 2008-06-04, amicus_curious wrote:
    >
    > "Kelsey Bjarnason" wrote in message
    > news:j5ljh5-q9o.ln1@spankywork.localhost.net...
    >
    >> Hell, I've written stuff that'll suck that much down if it's available,
    >> for efficiency. Almost anything involving repeated analysis of large
    >> data sets is going to be more efficient if cached than if reloaded.
    >>

    > Why that is one of the most common things that the average user is likely to
    > do! What an opportunity to sell Linux!


    Obviously you missed the bus ads with Tux, the big banners with Tux
    and the big fat movie screen displaying a silly Tux commercial at the last
    Oracle OpenWorld in San Francisco.

    --

    Linux: Because I don't want to push pretty buttons. |||
    I want the pretty buttons to push themelves. / | \

    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  9. Re: why 3G of memory for vista desktop?

    On 2008-06-05, Tim Smith wrote:
    > In article ,
    > AZ Nomad wrote:
    >> >I know what I will do.
    >> >Well my next machine is pencilled in for 8Gb RAM quad core with 2Tb

    >> No problem w/ linux.
    >>
    >> The vista losers will only be able to use 3GB.

    >
    > Where'd you get that notion from?


    ....obviously you haven't been using Microsoft products for very long.



    --

    Linux: Because I don't want to push pretty buttons. |||
    I want the pretty buttons to push themelves. / | \

    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  10. Re: why 3G of memory for vista desktop?

    "AZ Nomad" schreef in bericht
    news:slrng4g2h6.pu4.aznomad.3@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
    > On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 17:33:46 +0200, Clogwog
    > wrote:
    >>"AZ Nomad" schreef in bericht
    >>news:slrng4dmtd.49i.aznomad.3@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
    >>> Because vista can't handle any more.
    >>>
    >>> It's hilarious that microsoft has put out an OS that is unuseable with
    >>> 1G
    >>> of
    >>> memory, barely useable with 2G, and can't handle any more than 3G. If
    >>> it
    >>> is
    >>> pissing and ****ting away a gig and a half of memory, what do you do if
    >>> you have
    >>> an application that needs 2G of memory?

    >
    >
    >>It isn't a problem with the OS; it's a problem with your lack of
    >>knowledge.
    >>A 32-bit Operating System can address a maximum of 4GB. Add your BIOS
    >>shadow
    >>RAM, video RAM etc into that and the OS has no choice but to reduce the
    >>4GB
    >>of available RAM. If you want to see all 4GB or of RAM, get a 64-bit OS.

    >
    > I'd rather have an OS that doesn't need 2G just to draw the ****ing
    > desktop.
    >
    >
    >>Get it, moron?

    > I get it just fine, ****head.
    >
    > The problem is that microsoft has released an OS with a maximum memory
    > capacity 3G


    You didn't get it, twat, they released a 64bit version as well.
    I see all of my 8 GB ram on my 64 bit desktop PC.

    > and thinks it fine to piss away 1.5G of it.


    That's exactly the amount of ram "pissed away" in *every* 32 bit operating
    system on that machine.
    My 4 GB laptop shows me 2.68 GB, Linux and Vista. The BIOS tells to the OS
    what to show.


  11. Re: why 3G of memory for vista desktop?

    On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 10:52:37 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote:
    >On 2008-06-05, Tim Smith wrote:
    >> In article ,
    >> AZ Nomad wrote:
    >>> >I know what I will do.
    >>> >Well my next machine is pencilled in for 8Gb RAM quad core with 2Tb
    >>> No problem w/ linux.
    >>>
    >>> The vista losers will only be able to use 3GB.

    >>
    >> Where'd you get that notion from?


    >...obviously you haven't been using Microsoft products for very long.


    >



    Just open a dell flyer and look at the memory sizes of their desktops. They
    all top out at 3G. Why the **** ship with 3G instead of 4G which would
    actually cost less? Simple; it is because vista would only report 3G and
    their tech lines would light up with windows losers whining about it.

    And if you have a OS that pisses away 1.5G and is used on 64 bit hardware,
    why not ship it with a 64 bit version and options for 4 or 8G of memory?
    Simple again. The 64bit version is such a piece of **** that it barely
    performs at half the speed of the 32 bit version.

  12. Re: why 3G of memory for vista desktop?

    On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 19:55:11 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:

    > "Kelsey Bjarnason" wrote in message
    > news:j5ljh5-q9o.ln1@spankywork.localhost.net...
    >
    >> Hell, I've written stuff that'll suck that much down if it's available,
    >> for efficiency. Almost anything involving repeated analysis of large
    >> data sets is going to be more efficient if cached than if reloaded.
    >>

    > Why that is one of the most common things that the average user is
    > likely to do! What an opportunity to sell Linux!


    The question was - I quote - "What application needs 2G of ram?"

    The answer? Lots of applications can benefit from it. Whether the
    average user uses such applications or not is completely irrelevant.

    The average user doesn't do CAD - shall we pretend CAD apps don't exist,
    or aren't important?

    The average user doesn't run DB servers - shall we pretend DB servers
    don't exist or aren't important?

    Why is it you boneheads are so focused on the "average user" that you're
    unable to grasp the simple concept that not every user is an average
    user, or that just because a task isn't something an average user isn't
    likely to do doesn't mean the task isn't useful, even vital?

    One wonders how you'd get online if we abolished all the switches and
    routers and optical fibers and the like, because, after all, the average
    user doesn't use such things.


  13. Re: why 3G of memory for vista desktop?

    On 2008-06-05, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
    > On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 19:55:11 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
    >
    >> "Kelsey Bjarnason" wrote in message
    >> news:j5ljh5-q9o.ln1@spankywork.localhost.net...
    >>
    >>> Hell, I've written stuff that'll suck that much down if it's available,
    >>> for efficiency. Almost anything involving repeated analysis of large
    >>> data sets is going to be more efficient if cached than if reloaded.
    >>>

    >> Why that is one of the most common things that the average user is
    >> likely to do! What an opportunity to sell Linux!

    >
    > The question was - I quote - "What application needs 2G of ram?"
    >
    > The answer? Lots of applications can benefit from it. Whether the
    > average user uses such applications or not is completely irrelevant.
    >
    > The average user doesn't do CAD - shall we pretend CAD apps don't exist,
    > or aren't important?
    >
    > The average user doesn't run DB servers - shall we pretend DB servers
    > don't exist or aren't important?


    People (or rather companies) that run DB servers don't use consumer
    Linux. They don't use consumer Linux servers. They're probably sidestepping
    the "issue" entirely regardless of what OS they're running (Linux, Windows,
    Solaris).

    >
    > Why is it you boneheads are so focused on the "average user" that you're


    The 90/10 rule.

    [deletia]

    Better 3rd party support for 64-bit variants of the various
    OSen across the board would probably be the best solution here.
    Hacks and wrappers can help but the industry just needs to move
    on in general.

    This is just the manifestation of "we will only support
    Micrsoft's one blesed version" problem.

    --
    Linux: because everyone should get to drink the beer of their |||
    choice and not merely be limited to pretensious imports or hard cider. / | \

    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  14. Re: why 3G of memory for vista desktop?

    On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 19:00:01 GMT, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
    >The question was - I quote - "What application needs 2G of ram?"


    >The answer? Lots of applications can benefit from it. Whether the
    >average user uses such applications or not is completely irrelevant.


    >The average user doesn't do CAD - shall we pretend CAD apps don't exist,
    >or aren't important?


    >The average user doesn't run DB servers - shall we pretend DB servers
    >don't exist or aren't important?


    >Why is it you boneheads are so focused on the "average user" that you're
    >unable to grasp the simple concept that not every user is an average
    >user, or that just because a task isn't something an average user isn't
    >likely to do doesn't mean the task isn't useful, even vital?


    >One wonders how you'd get online if we abolished all the switches and
    >routers and optical fibers and the like, because, after all, the average
    >user doesn't use such things.


    You just don't see the beauty of microsoft operating systems. With vista, you
    get to use all your computing resources just to draw the ****ing desktop. Use some
    other operating system if you want to do actual work. Use vista if you just
    want swirling colors to stare at while the UI is locked and the hard drive is
    pounding away for reasons unknown.


  15. Re: why 3G of memory for vista desktop?


    "JEDIDIAH" wrote in message
    news:slrng4g2si.54p.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
    >>>

    >> Why that is one of the most common things that the average user is likely
    >> to
    >> do! What an opportunity to sell Linux!

    >
    > Obviously you missed the bus ads with Tux, the big banners with Tux
    > and the big fat movie screen displaying a silly Tux commercial at the last
    > Oracle OpenWorld in San Francisco.
    >

    Obviously I also missed the Microsoft initiative to have everyone using
    Oracle to try it on Vista, too. Or maybe you missed the title of the
    thread.

    You seem to emphasize the stupidity of the Linux fan. When there is a
    discussion about suitability of Linux on the desktop, in this case some
    attack on Vista which is supposed to make people shun Windows and so be more
    favorable to Linux, the Linux fans all come up with server issues. No
    wonder it is in last place. It is there to stay, I am sure.


  16. Re: why 3G of memory for vista desktop?


    "Kelsey Bjarnason" wrote in message
    news:mtolh5-rm6.ln1@spankywork.localhost.net...
    >
    > The question was - I quote - "What application needs 2G of ram?"
    >
    > The answer? Lots of applications can benefit from it. Whether the
    > average user uses such applications or not is completely irrelevant.
    >
    > The average user doesn't do CAD - shall we pretend CAD apps don't exist,
    > or aren't important?
    >
    > The average user doesn't run DB servers - shall we pretend DB servers
    > don't exist or aren't important?
    >

    The average user doesn't run a server at all, Kelsey. Shall we pretend that
    lack of server application support is a detriment to selling a desktop
    client OS to the the average user?


    > Why is it you boneheads are so focused on the "average user" that you're
    > unable to grasp the simple concept that not every user is an average
    > user, or that just because a task isn't something an average user isn't
    > likely to do doesn't mean the task isn't useful, even vital?
    >
    > One wonders how you'd get online if we abolished all the switches and
    > routers and optical fibers and the like, because, after all, the average
    > user doesn't use such things.
    >


    Us boneheads are focused on the average user because that is the person who
    buys the machines for the most part. You great thinkers seem to have missed
    that and have decided that it must have been some kind of evil monopolist
    plot that forced people to buy Windows. You talk nonsense and no one
    listens and you can't figure out why that is. Better to be a Windows
    bonehead than a Linux savant it would seem.


  17. Re: why 3G of memory for vista desktop?


    "AZ Nomad" wrote in message
    news:slrng4glrq.pr9.aznomad.3@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
    > On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 19:00:01 GMT, Kelsey Bjarnason
    > wrote:
    >>The question was - I quote - "What application needs 2G of ram?"

    >
    >>The answer? Lots of applications can benefit from it. Whether the
    >>average user uses such applications or not is completely irrelevant.

    >
    >>The average user doesn't do CAD - shall we pretend CAD apps don't exist,
    >>or aren't important?

    >
    >>The average user doesn't run DB servers - shall we pretend DB servers
    >>don't exist or aren't important?

    >
    >>Why is it you boneheads are so focused on the "average user" that you're
    >>unable to grasp the simple concept that not every user is an average
    >>user, or that just because a task isn't something an average user isn't
    >>likely to do doesn't mean the task isn't useful, even vital?

    >
    >>One wonders how you'd get online if we abolished all the switches and
    >>routers and optical fibers and the like, because, after all, the average
    >>user doesn't use such things.

    >
    > You just don't see the beauty of microsoft operating systems. With vista,
    > you
    > get to use all your computing resources just to draw the ****ing desktop.
    > Use some
    > other operating system if you want to do actual work. Use vista if you
    > just
    > want swirling colors to stare at while the UI is locked and the hard drive
    > is
    > pounding away for reasons unknown.
    >

    Wow! Is it possible that Mr. Nomad here is the long lost Marlboro man? He
    seems like a true son of the pioneers who were the first to walk across the
    Rocky Mountains, eschewing the plane, train, or automobile.


  18. Re: why 3G of memory for vista desktop?

    On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 09:02:47 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:

    > "Kelsey Bjarnason" wrote in message


    >> The average user doesn't run DB servers


    > The average user doesn't run a server at all, Kelsey.


    amicus_curious has now mastered all the functionality and value of a tape
    recorder.


  19. Re: why 3G of memory for vista desktop?

    Kelsey Bjarnason writes:

    > On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 09:02:47 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
    >
    >> "Kelsey Bjarnason" wrote in message

    >
    >>> The average user doesn't run DB servers

    >
    >> The average user doesn't run a server at all, Kelsey.

    >
    > amicus_curious has now mastered all the functionality and value of a tape
    > recorder.
    >


    Tape recorder Grandad? Are you still puzzling why a mobile phone would
    have 4 gigs of memory? LOL. You aren't half a chump!

  20. Re: why 3G of memory for vista desktop?

    On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 20:48:33 +0200, Hadron wrote:

    > Kelsey Bjarnason writes:
    >
    >> On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 09:02:47 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Kelsey Bjarnason" wrote in message

    >>
    >>>> The average user doesn't run DB servers

    >>
    >>> The average user doesn't run a server at all, Kelsey.

    >>
    >> amicus_curious has now mastered all the functionality and value of a tape
    >> recorder.
    >>

    >
    > Tape recorder Grandad? Are you still puzzling why a mobile phone would
    > have 4 gigs of memory? LOL. You aren't half a chump!


    Kelsey is a tape monkey so thinking is optional.

    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast