The great PC RAM swindle...?

[March_ Bruce]

FYI

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/09/03/road_to_mac_os_x_snow_leopard_64_bits_santa_rosa_and_t...

If you're feeling cramped within 4GB, hold on tight because things are about to get worse. The first issue is a historical limitation in the Intel x86 architecture, related to "Memory Mapped I/O." Essentially, all of the device memory used by video cards or any other expansion cards is mapped on top of the 4GB addresses used by the system's RAM. This didn't used to be a problem before anyone wanted to actually use the entire 4GB address space for system RAM.

For PC users installing a high end video card with 1GB of VRAM, the additional MMIO becomes an even greater problem: their usable system RAM shrinks by down to around 2.3GB.

"Microsoft even changed the way the OS reports the amount of RAM available; rumor is, due to pressure from OEMs," the developer told us. "In Vista and prior, it reported usable RAM, while in SP1 they changed it to report installed RAM ignoring the fact that much of the RAM was unusable due to overlap with video memory." And so many PC users are installing 4GB of RAM in their PCs and thinking that it is being used by the system, when in fact it is no more beneficial than if the RAM were simply poked halfway into the CD slot.

[Djordje]

If it is Intel x86 problem, how come it does not affect the Macs?

[March_ Bruce]

to quote the article:

"Windows XP initially offered support for using more than 4GB with PAE, but this caused problems related to driver bugs, so Microsoft simply disabled support for more than 4GB, starting with Windows XP SP2 and continuing into Windows Vista. Unless you're running Vista x64 or an expensive "datacenter" or "enterprise edition," you simply can't use more than 4GB of RAM on a Windows PC"

[Eduardo Rolon]

Djordje wrote:
If it is Intel x86 problem, how come it does not affect the Macs?

If I understood correctly, Mac OS is not hard coded to specific addresses, Xp is, so Macs do not have to reserve the Memory space and it is open to any application.

[March_ Bruce]

So Djordje are you finally going to make a move from the 'Dark Side'?

I run XP in VirtualBox (freeware) on my MacBook Pro when I must however with an 8 core MacPro & enough RAM one could conceivably have the best of all options with many OSs running congruently...

[henrypootel]

Can all the Mac fans who love to jump on the 'you can't actually use 4Gb in Windows' wagon, please get down?
I'm sure that most of you are running OSX 10.5, and the ones who aren't are thinking about it. The equivalent OS to this is Vista, not XP, so please stop comparing your 10 month old OS to XP which was released in 2001(same year as OSX 10.0 'Cheetah').
So now that we are talking about OSes released in roughly the same time period, lets look at the article:

Unless you're running Vista x64 ... you simply can't use more than 4GB of RAM on a Windows PC

Which would lead one(or me at least) to the obvious conclusion that if you want to use more than 4Gb of RAM, then use Vista x64. I can't think of any good reason why you wouldn't use Vista x64 either. Sure there are problems with drivers for some older hardware, but have you tried plugging that same hardware into an OSX box?
So to summarize, the 'Great PC RAM swindle' is that "If you use a 7 year old operating system, you can't use more that 3Gb of RAM(or in some cases, only 2.3Gb), (Leaving aside that fact that this issue was overcome in 2003 with the release of Windows XP x64 edition)."

I don't feel swindled.

[Eduardo Rolon]

Just to clarify, the limitation exists in Windows Vista "Regular 32 Bit edition" and the whole point of this thread was that if you are not running Vista 64 there are no gains to having 4 or more GB of Ram, the system will recognize it but it will not use it. It is not a Windows vs Mac debacle.

I wrote Xp on my answer to Djordie's question and I should have included Vista 32 bit. My bad.

[henrypootel]

I agree, so why would anyone ever use Vista 32-bit?
I think the real 'swindle' is that hardware manufacturers like Dell continue to include 32-bit Windows as the default OS. 32-bit versions should only be on offer as an 'option' in case you have hardware with no 64-bit drivers available.

[Djordje]

March, wrote:
So Djordje are you finally going to make a move from the 'Dark Side'?

When the time for the next hardware change comes, the option evaluated will be ... not that I am green and small 😉

Frankly, I don't have a problem with 2GB limit, so there is no REAL reason to jump. The whole thing also sounds like "my daddy is stronger than your uncle" type of thing ... a bit like being stuck in Dubai traffic behind a Veyron, with a Lambo in the next lane. We are all moving at the same snail pace, so why pay 20 times more for the same "pleasure"?

Always remember the old CAD curse: You should not just because you can.

[Dwight]

The irony of computer speed is that it really means having a quick interface graphics and smooth movie playback. If you can make the superficial things work right, it is hard to tell if the chip is slow or the RAM is too small.