Welcome to Vista Banter. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have access to ask questions and reply to others posts, upload your own photos and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact support. |
|
Hardware and Windows Vista Hardware issues in relation to Windows Vista. (microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices) |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
ram ..please help
Why would you want huge paging files instead of more RAM? Memory is cheap to add in Vista x64. Hard drives are 1000x slower than memory to run applications in. Microsoft did not implement what you want because they know Physical RAM is better than any hard drive. You still need to have a paging file. How many 32-bit applications do you have that ever use 2GB of physical RAM. Most of my applications and games are under 100 MB. Few get to 200 MB. Only my A/V and CAD applications really get to 1 GB. Stronghold 2 was the only game that I saw use 800 MB of RAM. -- SCSIraidGURU Michael A. McKenney 'www.SCSIraidGURU.com' (http://www.SCSIraidGURU.com) Supermicro X7DWA-N server board pair of Intel E5430 quad core 2.66 GHz Xeons 16GB DDR667 SAS RAID eVGA 8800 GTS 640 MB video card |
|
|||
ram ..please help
SCSIraidGURU wrote:
Why would you want huge paging files instead of more RAM? Memory is cheap to add in Vista x64. Hard drives are 1000x slower than memory to run applications in. Microsoft did not implement what you want because they know Physical RAM is better than any hard drive. You still need to have a paging file. I'm not really sure what you mean. When have I ever said that I want paging files more than I want physical RAM? Paging files are not part of addressing physical memory. |
|
|||
Memory mapping is the key.
I would suggest that since the time required to do the context switching to
change memory maps for different processes is not significant and since Windows Vista is designed to be used on Personnel Computers by one user at a time that it would have made no sense to provide for multithreaded applications that could use multiple processes and memory mapping as is a requirement in a server environment that has hundreds of users logged on concurrently. "Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message news What keeps getting missed is the reason why a functionality to extend past the 4GB limit is not available to Windows clients like XP so that us technology enthusiasts can romp and play in Big Memory Land. Dennis is saying it could be done and that is true. He is saying therefore MS chose not to enable it in Windows clients and faults them for not doing so. That's where I disagree. My take on that point is that MS concluded that PAE is not the solution they wanted to present to Windows client users because moving on to 64bit Windows clients was the more robust solution by far. There isn't much beyond this point that is getting anywhere in this thread. The technical woulda, coulda, shoulda stuff really misses the point of why MS didn't bother to use PAE to address the 4GB limitations in 32bit Windows clients. Providing 64bit operating systems is a far better resolution of the issue than a workaround for 32bit. For that I applaud MS, not fault them. "Charlie Tame" wrote in message ... Yes Dennis was correct but so is the 4GB limit if some other technology is not used. My point was that if "Something else" is not used then the original statement that there is a 4GB limit was correct. Curious wrote: As Colin pointed out in one of his posts yes you can support more the 4GB of physical memory with a 32bit OS if you provide different threads/users each with their own individual logical memory map which is limited to no more the 4GB. 32 bit Server Operating systems have used this technique for years to support large large numbers of users on large memory systems. Also by providing separate logical memory maps for different users servers are able to insure that the programs or data being used by one user can not be corrupted by another server user. Dennis is correct when he states that with a 32 bit OS that supports memory mapping one can develop an application that use more then 4GB of physical memory by spreading the functionality across multiple processes each of which is limited to its own 4GB of logical address space. "dennis" wrote in message ... Charlie Tame wrote: But I could NOT use BASIC routines and the underlying RAM at the same time. Try and count the number of address pins on a 32-bit CPU that supports 36bit PAE, and tell me if anything needs to overlap Yes he |
|
|||
ram ..please help
Instead of working on memory topology. I want more 64-bit applications that can multi-thread across 4+ cores efficiently and allow Vista to move threads to better load balance my pair of quad core Xeons. -- SCSIraidGURU Michael A. McKenney 'www.SCSIraidGURU.com' (http://www.SCSIraidGURU.com) Supermicro X7DWA-N server board pair of Intel E5430 quad core 2.66 GHz Xeons 16GB DDR667 SAS RAID eVGA 8800 GTS 640 MB video card |