why 3G of memory for vista desktop? - Linux

This is a discussion on why 3G of memory for vista desktop? - Linux ; 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 ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 65

Thread: why 3G of memory for vista desktop?

  1. why 3G of memory for vista desktop?

    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?

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


    >
    > 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?


    I don't know, but you can expect a bunch of slimy trolls to crawl all
    over this and blame on Linux.


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

    Verily I say unto thee, that AZ Nomad spake thusly:

    > 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?


    A shed-load of paging to disk. 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
    20:09:06 up 166 days, 16:44, 5 users, load average: 0.04, 0.08, 0.08

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

    nessuno@wigner.berkeley.edu wrote:

    >
    >>
    >> 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?

    >
    > I don't know, but you can expect a bunch of slimy trolls to crawl all
    > over this and blame on Linux.


    No wonder!

    Results 1 - 10 of about 28,400 for Vista is linux's fault. (0.25 seconds)


  5. 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.
    >

    Your post is off-topic in this group, your violating
    [comp.os.linux.advocacy] FAQ and Primer for COLA, Edition III
    http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/

    * The trespasser has come to COLA in order to vent his dislike of
    Microsoft and/or Windows. For that purpose several newsgroups have
    been created.
    * alt.crimehip.microsoft.sucks
    * alt.emircpih.microsoft.sucks
    * alt.flame.ms-windows
    * alt.h.i.p.c.r.i.m.e.microsoft.sucks
    * alt.h0pcr0me.microsoft.sucks
    * alt.h1pcr1me.microsoft.sucks
    * alt.h2pcr2me.microsoft.sucks
    * alt.hh.ii.pp.cc.rr.ii.mm.ee.microsoft.sucks
    * alt.hipclone.microsoft.sucks
    * alt.hipcrime.microsoft.sucks
    * alt.microsoft.crash.crash.crash
    * alt.microsoft.sucks
    * alt.os.windows95.crash.crash.crash
    * comp.misc.microsoft.sucks
    * microsoft.sucks.
    * sk.sux.microsoft
    Fsck you arsehole troll
    PLONK



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

    On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:15:09 -0500, AZ Nomad wrote:

    > 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?


    Swap a lot?


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

    On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 22:15:01 GMT, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
    >On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:15:09 -0500, AZ Nomad wrote:


    >> 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?


    >Swap a lot?


    Actually the next question should be "What application needs 2G of ram?"
    Answer: the next release of microsoft office.

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

    AZ Nomad wrote:

    > 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?



    I know what I will do.
    Well my next machine is pencilled in for 8Gb RAM quad core with 2Tb
    hard disks, 1Gb video card running dozens of
    virtual box virtual machines all at the same time
    in translucent cube desktop with compiz.
    Total outlay about 800 UK pounds.
    And it will be a Linux machine of course.
    Thats what I will do!!!



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

    On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 22:53:25 GMT, 7 wrote:
    >AZ Nomad wrote:


    >> 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?



    >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.

    Maybe they can get an EMS driver and use the other 5GB for swap?

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

    On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:25:54 -0500, AZ Nomad wrote:

    > On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 22:15:01 GMT, Kelsey Bjarnason
    > wrote:
    >>On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:15:09 -0500, AZ Nomad wrote:

    >
    >>> 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?

    >
    >>Swap a lot?

    >
    > Actually the next question should be "What application needs 2G of ram?"
    > Answer: the next release of microsoft office.


    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.


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


    "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!


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

    On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 23:45:02 GMT, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
    >On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:25:54 -0500, AZ Nomad wrote:


    >> On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 22:15:01 GMT, Kelsey Bjarnason
    >> wrote:
    >>>On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:15:09 -0500, AZ Nomad wrote:

    >>
    >>>> 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?

    >>
    >>>Swap a lot?

    >>
    >> Actually the next question should be "What application needs 2G of ram?"
    >> Answer: the next release of microsoft office.


    >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.


    Office needs that kind of space just to handle a few dozen fonts.

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

    AZ Nomad writes:

    > On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 23:45:02 GMT, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
    >>On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:25:54 -0500, AZ Nomad wrote:

    >
    >>> On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 22:15:01 GMT, Kelsey Bjarnason
    >>> wrote:
    >>>>On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:15:09 -0500, AZ Nomad wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> 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?
    >>>
    >>>>Swap a lot?
    >>>
    >>> Actually the next question should be "What application needs 2G of ram?"
    >>> Answer: the next release of microsoft office.

    >
    >>Hell, I've written stuff that'll suck that much down if it's
    >>available,


    Do you ever stop showing off about what you have written? For a
    glorified tape monkey you sure have a high opinion of your programming
    skills.


    >>for efficiency. Almost anything involving repeated analysis of large
    >>data sets is going to be more efficient if cached than if reloaded.


    Anything that can fit in ram is going to be faster if its cached in ram
    rather than reloaded from a HD.

    >
    > Office needs that kind of space just to handle a few dozen fonts.


    Have you ever tried Open Office? It is even slower than Office IMO.

    --
    Do people like check the Debian website every 5 minutes to check it hasn't
    morphed into another one? Not that I'm one to talk, but some people seriously
    need to get a life.
    -- james on #Debian

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

    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?



    --
    --Tim Smith

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

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Tim Smith

    wrote
    on Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:42:19 -0700
    :
    > 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?
    >


    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..._windows_vista

    This suggests that all 32-bit Windows Vista variants
    have a 4 GB limit.

    For its part

    http://kerneltrap.org/node/2450

    suggests Linux understands PAE on 32-bit equipment, but
    there's a few issues regarding I/O and an extra layer
    of indirection.

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Is it cheaper to learn Linux, or to hire someone
    to fix your Windows problems?
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

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

    AZ Nomad wrote:
    > 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.


    Three lies in one sentence isn't a record for a cola loser. Keep trying.



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

    On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 18:25:35 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Tim Smith
    >
    > wrote
    >on Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:42:19 -0700
    >:
    >> 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?
    >>


    >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..._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...d=a&view=print

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

    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?


    --
    --Tim Smith

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

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, AZ Nomad

    wrote
    on Wed, 04 Jun 2008 20:46:36 -0500
    :
    > On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 18:25:35 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Tim Smith
    >>
    >> wrote
    >>on Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:42:19 -0700
    >>:
    >>> 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?
    >>>

    >
    >>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..._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...d=a&view=print


    Wouldn't surprise me. 3GB is also the limit for Linux absent
    considerations such as PAE, and 3GB was also the limit for VMS
    even as far back as 1984...though back then that amount of RAM
    would have been ungodly expensive; our idea of a production
    mini had all of 8 MB of RAM in it. (Heck, we didn't even
    have that much *disk space*.)

    Now? 4GB of RAM on a desktop is almost the *norm*. ;-)

    It only took 20-25 years. ;-)

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Linux. Because it's not the desktop that's
    important, it's the ability to DO something
    with it.
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

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

    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.

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Linux. Because it's not the desktop that's
    important, it's the ability to DO something
    with it.
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

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