That (physical ram) is not completely relevant.Originally posted by: Artanis
And I still believe 4GB RAM is far away from being a standard, even in the today's workstations offerts, not talking about consumer market...
That (physical ram) is not completely relevant.Originally posted by: Artanis
And I still believe 4GB RAM is far away from being a standard, even in the today's workstations offerts, not talking about consumer market...
Originally posted by: Artanis
you can succesfully use /3 GB switch to enable 3GB RAM for appl. and only 1GB for the OS. And I still believe 4GB RAM is far away from being a standard, even in the today's workstations offerts, not talking about consumer market...
Well, - bandaid.Originally posted by: Artanis
The majority 32 bits apl. which doesn't override Windows settings through their own memory manager, like Maya or Photoshop, can have IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE flag activated (using imagecfg.exe utiliy for a 32bit executable - wich is a formality), for using 3GB of phisical (or virtual RAM). BTW, in Linux32 i heard 3GB limit for aplications is activated by default...
Yes, I agree. - This is very undesirable. The idea is to port software to 32-bit segmented, poor performance format. A task many magnitudes more difficult, expensive, bugprone, and timeconsuming, than porting to 64-bit. This just to offer the short term option of buying a 32-bit only CPU instead of a 64-bit.Not to even talk about posibility of rewriting 32bit apl. for PAE, for using RAM over 4GB barrier in 32bit OS.
Of course, this is not a elegant or desired solution and can't last forever (but is a solution)...
Yes, I believe that 64-bit games will be successes next year. And the hardcore gamers that drive the market buzz, and the sales, are already on 64-bit, or will be shortly. But I do believe that there will be 32-bit editions. But they will be crippled in some way. Many gamers will not accept less than full content. This is perfectly evident by the sales of highend videocards.And Vee, if the quantity of phisical RAM is not relevant (while many of today's workstations are still sold with 1-2 GB RAM by default), why should we even care NOW about the 32 bit memory limitations ?
If next year a super game for instance, will be released, wich will require a 64bit OS, and a minimum 2GB of phisical RAM installed, do you believe it would be a succes? I sincerely doubt it would, considering the RAM prices, and why not, the big latencyes of 1GB modules...
Originally posted by: Vee
Yes, I believe that 64-bit games will be successes next year. And the hardcore gamers that drive the market buzz, and the sales, are already on 64-bit, or will be shortly. But I do believe that there will be 32-bit editions. But they will be crippled in some way. Many gamers will not accept less than full content. This is perfectly evident by the sales of highend videocards.
Originally posted by: Artanis
Nor IBM or Alpha had enough marketshare in CPUs to drive things toward 64bits platform.
OK, that's happening at Intel, I was talking about the most of us, consumers.
Today engineers from Alpha work with Intel and from IBM with AMD
Not to even talk about posibility of rewriting 32bit apl. for PAE, for using RAM over 4GB barrier in 32bit OS.
Of course, this is not a elegant or desired solution and can't last forever (but is a solution)...
Why do that when AMD is offering 64-bit processors today as a much cleaner solution?
Originally posted by: Artanis
Why do that when AMD is offering 64-bit processors today as a much cleaner solution?
Because the 64bits software or even OS seems not to move as AMD hardware does
Originally posted by: Artanis
I don't know how difficult it is, because I'm not a programmer, but it seems to me is unwanted by the Wintel corp. According to the old Intel's roadmaps, we should all have by now 64bits computing, and XP/2003 server x64 edition would allready have been released...
Originally posted by: flamingspinach
O_O Are Pentium Pro through Pentium IIIe all the same architecture!? I didn't know that...
Intel really should have called the Prescott something different - if not Pentium 5, at least "Pentium 4 something"... now consumers will be confused...