I didn't say that NO ONE needs it. Just that the vast majority of people
buying from retail won't. I have a 64-bit capable machine that I just built
and I expect to go to EOL with Windows XP 32-bit on it. And I'm not exactly
the average consumer.
Given MS marketting I don't doubt they will think that they need it.
[email protected] said:What??? Given M$ (and Intel when, and if, they get their act
together) marketing they will *KNOW* they need it. ...and it
doesn't matter what "it" is!
I can't do much about what marketting fools people into believing.
The fact remains that your machine with a 32-bit OS isn't going to
be obsolete any time soon.
And you need 64-bits for what? Once again, in servers/workstations
absolutely, but mobile and desktop?
Most retail sales don't and won't care for several more years at least.
No one, who has a clue and in retail, is going to upgrade just for 64-bit
support. And yes, I like my Yonah laptop a lot! ;-)
We're really starting to push up against the limits of 32-bit desktop
systems these days. 1GB of memory is pretty much the norm and 2GB
isn't all that uncommon. Typically going beyond about 1.5GB of memory
means that you'll want a 64-bit system to prevent having to use Ugly
Kludges to get all your memory working. Remember that it's not just
your physical memory that is counted in the 4GB limit, but your
virtual memory. 1.5GB of physical plus a 2.5GB page file equals your
4GB limit.
They should care because it's just the right thing to do and it's
free.
That's fine. It's not like a 32-bit system is broken or anything,
they aren't going to disappear for a while. However when buying a new
desktop system now or a new laptop system in 3-5 months, there is NO
good reason to opt for a 32-bit chip. 64-bit offers sufficient
enhancements to make it worthwhile, Linux supports 64-bit fully now
and Windows Vista will be available as 64-bit out of the box (WinXP
64-bit is available too, but not as widely supported). The long story
short is that the days of new 32-bit systems are numbered.
Don't forget the virtual memory space the OS reserves for itself
and virtual and real I/O. In reality you only have 2-3GB with a
32bit CPU/OS.
Exactly. Maybe people should still be buying 486s because they
don't "need" Pentiums.
Yep.
Hardware is getting faster, smaller, and cheaper.
Software is getting slower,
bigger,
and pricier.
Even free Linux, if you account for TCO.
Tony said:We're really starting to push up against the limits of 32-bit desktop
systems these days. 1GB of memory is pretty much the norm and 2GB
isn't all that uncommon.
Tony Hill said:We're really starting to push up against the limits of 32-bit desktop
systems these days. 1GB of memory is pretty much the norm and 2GB
isn't all that uncommon. Typically going beyond about 1.5GB of memory
means that you'll want a 64-bit system to prevent having to use Ugly
Kludges to get all your memory working. Remember that it's not just
your physical memory that is counted in the 4GB limit, but your
virtual memory. 1.5GB of physical plus a 2.5GB page file equals your
4GB limit.
But 2G is plenty for the vast majority of PC's being sold today.
Yes, and with 2GB you should really be using a 64-bit processor
and OS, otherwise you're having to deal with ugly hacks.
For most OSes (Windows and *BSD at least) you should always
have more swap space than you have physical memory,
so going beyond about 1.5GB physical memory means
that your running into issues with 32-bit systems.
Bullshit.
In fact, even at 1.5GB of physical memory you should probably
aim for 2GB or more of swap space for Windows to run ideally,
and you just can't do that properly on a 32-bit Windows system
given that you've only got 4GB of total address space and Windows
reserves 700MB to 1GB of that for various I/O functions.
Yes, and with 2GB you should really be using a 64-bit processor and
OS, otherwise you're having to deal with ugly hacks. For most OSes
(Windows and *BSD at least) you should always have more swap space
than you have physical memory, so going beyond about 1.5GB physical
Tony said:Yes, and with 2GB you should really be using a 64-bit processor and
OS, otherwise you're having to deal with ugly hacks. For most OSes
(Windows and *BSD at least) you should always have more swap space
than you have physical memory, so going beyond about 1.5GB physical
memory means that your running into issues with 32-bit systems. In
fact, even at 1.5GB of physical memory you should probably aim for 2GB
or more of swap space for Windows to run ideally, and you just can't
do that properly on a 32-bit Windows system given that you've only got
4GB of total address space and Windows reserves 700MB to 1GB of that
for various I/O functions.
chrisv said:Eh? Sorry, I don't buy that at all. "Oh, you installed more
memory? Now you need more HD swap space!" I don't think so...
Well, you are not required to believe things even
if they are true. It just helps your credibility.
Surely you can see that a suspend-to-disk [hibernation]
file will have to get bigger to mirror installed RAM.
The size of the swap/pagefile is very OS/VM design
dependant. MS-WinNT & *BSD use an algorithm that
requires every physical page to have a spot in the pagefile.
[May even require all of VM]. Linux does not, and will
happily run with a swapfile much smaller than RAM.
These differences are very much like the
difference between AMD & Intel L2 caches.
Intel L2 contains/mirrors all of L1. AMD uses an exclusive
[victim] L2 cache than has no L1 mirrored deliberately.
As Terje Metheson says "All programming is an exercise in caching".
RAM is just a big disk cache.
The disk might be a network cache.
Why is this so though? Personally it seems that the more RAM I added,
the less swap space I set aside in proportion to the actual physical
RAM I have. After all, with all the RAM, it's supposed to help avoid
hitting the comparatively slow hard disk no?
Not if you dont use it fully.
Mindlessly silly. As the amount of physical ram
increases, the need for swap space DROPS.
Gets sillier by the minute.
Why is this so though? Personally it seems that the more RAM I added,
the less swap space I set aside in proportion to the actual physical
RAM I have. After all, with all the RAM, it's supposed to help avoid
hitting the comparatively slow hard disk no?
In Linux yes, in Windows and *BSD, no.
Read up on the differences between how these OSes handle swap space.
FWIW there isn't really a "right"and a "wrong" way
of doing things here, just two different approaches.
Install 4GB of memory in a system sometime and boot into Windows.
Now tell me how much memory does Windows say you have?
Any guesses on where the remaining 700MB+ went?