Sven Littkowski wrote:
> Bad to hear that software developers don't want to work with higher RAM 
> addresses. Thought, if RAM is available, the programs could reach it 
> dynamically, independent from intented borderlines (2 GB).

The issue is that the numbers used to address memory get too big for the
processor to handle. 32-bit pointers simply cannot reference memory
beyond 4 GB -- you need a 64-bit processor with a 64-bit operating
system and 64-bit applications to go beyond that.

Now, I may be wrong, but my understanding is that the 32-bit version of
Windows XP can't use more than 2GB *total* for the entire system.
(That's 4 GB minus 2 GB worth of addresses hard-coded in to refer to
hardware peripherals...) Microsoft helpfully released a patch that makes
memory beyond 2 GB show up as available in the information pane, but XP
still can't actually use it. :-D

Vista can handle 4 GB just fine, but that is offset by the operating
system itself using twice as much memory...

(Nice time to switch to Linux, BTW. We've had a 64-bit version of the OS
available much longer than Microsoft, and have had time to work most of
the compatibility kinks out!)

-- 
William Tracy
afi### [at] gmailcom -- wtr### [at] calpolyedu

You know you've been raytracing too long when all your browser bookmarks
have something to do with raytracing.
    -- Taps a.k.a. Tapio Vocadlo

Post a reply to this message