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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.