If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Seeing that the first computers I worked on had less main memory that
current Intel and AMD CPUs have L1 cache... I have a different take on bloat. What's wrong with bloat? A system that handles 4 GBytes well today costs less that an month's lease on 4 Kbytes memory back when an OS ran 4 KBytes. What else would the use of 4 GBytes for 999 out of 1000 users? "Bob" wrote in message ... On Wed, 18 May 2005 11:07:04 -0500, David Maynard wrote: Haven't bothered to, as 4 GBytes is far in my future. Judging from the pace at which Windows bloats, it may be sooner than you think. Yeah. 4 gig is a 'future' thing for me too. But when you get to the 4 gig stage go 64 bit and what PAE is won't matter anyway, 4 GB of RAM is obscene. I can remember when a 20 MB HD was considered large. I suppose you could set up 3 GB RAM disk. I bet that sucker would scream. -- Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html A liberal is a person who is so open minded that their brains have fallen out. |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Phil Weldon wrote:
Seeing that the first computers I worked on had less main memory that current Intel and AMD CPUs have L1 cache... I have a different take on bloat. Hehe. Yeah, me too. What's wrong with bloat? A system that handles 4 GBytes well today costs less that an month's lease on 4 Kbytes memory back when an OS ran 4 KBytes. What else would the use of 4 GBytes for 999 out of 1000 users? "Bob" wrote in message ... On Wed, 18 May 2005 11:07:04 -0500, David Maynard wrote: Haven't bothered to, as 4 GBytes is far in my future. Judging from the pace at which Windows bloats, it may be sooner than you think. Yeah. 4 gig is a 'future' thing for me too. But when you get to the 4 gig stage go 64 bit and what PAE is won't matter anyway, 4 GB of RAM is obscene. I can remember when a 20 MB HD was considered large. I suppose you could set up 3 GB RAM disk. I bet that sucker would scream. -- Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html A liberal is a person who is so open minded that their brains have fallen out. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Bob wrote:
On Wed, 18 May 2005 11:07:04 -0500, David Maynard wrote: Haven't bothered to, as 4 GBytes is far in my future. Judging from the pace at which Windows bloats, it may be sooner than you think. Yeah. 4 gig is a 'future' thing for me too. But when you get to the 4 gig stage go 64 bit and what PAE is won't matter anyway, 4 GB of RAM is obscene. I can remember when a 20 MB HD was considered large. I can not only remember when a 12 inch pizza platter hard drive was 1.2 meg I've got two drives and a dozen packs in the garage. I suppose you could set up 3 GB RAM disk. I bet that sucker would scream. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
In article , David Maynard wrote:
If "it" is being able to run an EM64T processor in 64 bit mode then the board supports "it." If "it" is having an address space larger than 4 gig then the board does not support "it." _All_ modern day processors support more than 4Gb - this was introduced in the 386 - although admittedly you had to abandon the 'flat' memory model. For the 386 the absolute limit was 64Gb if memory serves. Therefore the processor is irrelevant - it's more dependant on the chipset. I never saw a 386 board that supported so much memory but I remember them being availiable from about the Pentium I era onwards. -- Andrew Smallshaw |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
And I thought this reserved for memory hardware crap died out with the
real mode 8086 and it's archaic 640k and reserved for hardware 384k. BIOS/firmware hub (2 MB) Local APIC (19 MB) Digital Media Interface (40 MB) Front side bus interrupts (17 MB) PCI Express configuration space (256 MB) MCH base address registers, internal graphics ranges, PCI Express ports (up to 512 MB) Memory-mapped I/O that is dynamically allocated for PCI Conventional and PCI Express add-in cards The amount of installed memory that can be used will vary based on add-in cards and BIOS settings. Figure 14 shows a schematic of the system memory map. All installed system memory can be used when there is no overlap of system addresses. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Andrew Smallshaw wrote: In article , David Maynard wrote: If "it" is being able to run an EM64T processor in 64 bit mode then the board supports "it." If "it" is having an address space larger than 4 gig then the board does not support "it." _All_ modern day processors support more than 4Gb - this was introduced in the 386 - although admittedly you had to abandon the 'flat' memory model. For the 386 the absolute limit was 64Gb if memory serves. Therefore the processor is irrelevant - it's more dependant on the chipset. I never saw a 386 board that supported so much memory but I remember them being availiable from about the Pentium I era onwards. -- Andrew Smallshaw The issue for applications is maximum proccess size, which is 4GB or less per process in x86 architecture. For software to use more requires PAE which does context switching to access multiple segments. This has a performace cost and requires PAE circiutry on the mobo. -- a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Andrew Smallshaw wrote:
In article , David Maynard wrote: If "it" is being able to run an EM64T processor in 64 bit mode then the board supports "it." If "it" is having an address space larger than 4 gig then the board does not support "it." _All_ modern day processors support more than 4Gb That isn't in question. - this was introduced in the 386 PAE was introduced on the Pentium Pro. - although admittedly you had to abandon the 'flat' memory model. For the 386 the absolute limit was 64Gb if memory serves. Therefore the processor is irrelevant No, the processor isn't irrelevant. x86 architecture uses PAE to get past 4GB whereas 64 bit processors natively address way more than even PAE. They're entirely different mechanisms with different capabilities. performance, and limits. And, of course, there are non x86 processors, although they clearly don't plug into an x86 architecture motherboard. - it's more dependant on the chipset. That is precisely the 'support' we are discussing. Or rather, not only the chipset but also how much of the chipset's capability is implemented in a particular motherboard's design. I never saw a 386 board that supported so much memory but I remember them being availiable from about the Pentium I era onwards. PAE was introduced on the Pentium Pro, however, we're talking about 64 bit addressing. At least in theory we are. How 64 bit addressing gets 'upgraded' into a board originally designed as a 32 bit system isn't entirely clear. |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
lyon_wonder wrote:
And I thought this reserved for memory hardware crap died out with the real mode 8086 and it's archaic 640k and reserved for hardware 384k. Since it never died out, or even gasped a teensy bit, and has been there in every single x86 system ever made, and expanded by PCI and further expanded by PCI express, it hardly qualifies as 'archaic'. In fact, rather than 'die out' it has grow, lived long, and prospered. BIOS/firmware hub (2 MB) Local APIC (19 MB) Digital Media Interface (40 MB) Front side bus interrupts (17 MB) PCI Express configuration space (256 MB) MCH base address registers, internal graphics ranges, PCI Express ports (up to 512 MB) Memory-mapped I/O that is dynamically allocated for PCI Conventional and PCI Express add-in cards The amount of installed memory that can be used will vary based on add-in cards and BIOS settings. Figure 14 shows a schematic of the system memory map. All installed system memory can be used when there is no overlap of system addresses. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 18 May 2005 19:24:57 GMT, "Phil Weldon"
wrote: What's wrong with bloat? Good question. Nature seems to like bloat. Bloat must be existential. -- Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html A liberal is a person who is so open minded that their brains have fallen out. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 18 May 2005 14:46:43 -0500, David Maynard
wrote: 4 GB of RAM is obscene. But bloat rules. It may be existential. I can remember when a 20 MB HD was considered large. I can not only remember when a 12 inch pizza platter hard drive was 1.2 meg I've got two drives and a dozen packs in the garage. That goes back a bit. I can remember the Physics Dept doing particle experiments with drum storage. The memory took a good sized room. If bloat rules, then how come all advances in computers have come about by smallness? That's another existential question. -- Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html A liberal is a person who is so open minded that their brains have fallen out. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
overcoming the 300 gigabyte limit | || | Homebuilt PC's | 2 | February 2nd 05 03:30 AM |
Controller that allows drives over 137gb limit?? | John Barrington | General | 4 | June 22nd 04 11:10 AM |
Somewhat off-topic...Customizing the TIF limit for Internet Explorer | MovieFan3093 | Dell Computers | 2 | October 23rd 03 03:22 AM |
Temporary Internet Files limit | HistoryFan | Dell Computers | 3 | October 16th 03 03:32 PM |
Limit to processor speed? | ZITBoy | General | 33 | September 17th 03 12:46 AM |