Vista "Wow"

[Guest]

Wow what??

Here's a good start--
http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/Windows/en-US/community/default.mspx opens
with "The hunt for drivers" Why does this need to be a hunt?? x64 has been
out for over a year, and MS can't even support OneCare. I have no active
outgoing firewall and only 2 antivirus programs even work with Vista 64
without major issues. Further, MS fails to warn users that "Vista
Compatable" programs will most likely not work on x64 computers if the
software requires hardware interface. MS has failed miserably with x64
processing, and previously made claims that Vista and MS Office would work
under the future x64. The latter is still unfulfilled in late Q1 of 2007 of
a release origianally due for Q3 of 2006. The result is a bucnch of x64
processors with limited capability due to the claims of MS. I figure by the
time MS releases enough code for me to get the 3 security basic programs;
firewall, antivirus, and anti-spyware, that my current processor will be
out-dated as it's already one year old.

 

[Guest]

64 bit. It's for servers. So I think you'll find that server apps will be
written for it. And hardware for servers are more likely to have drivers.

Your program is for programmers and others to have a 64 bit environment so
they can write and test server stuff. The same way the Pro had some server
options built in to allow testing of server apps.

It's not for general use. Nor is it for game players. It's for large
companies. And 64 bit is hardly suitable for home use (nearly everything in
it is twice the size, so needs twice as much memory, twice as much hard
disk, twice as long to transfer binary files, and most data it deals with
will be 8 bit, 16 bit, and 32 bit negating the advantage of 64 bits). Should
be great for maths and programs based on maths if written for 64 bit.

Also as regard to the future, it is not a given thing that 64 bit will ever
be a desktop PC. The near future there is a fair chance multicore 32 bit
will rule. Maybe the next desktop jump will be from 32 bit multicore to 128
bit multicore. There are also really wierd things that may make the future
completely different.

 

[philo]

64 bit. It's for servers. So I think you'll find that server apps will be
written for it. And hardware for servers are more likely to have drivers.

Your program is for programmers and others to have a 64 bit environment so
they can write and test server stuff. The same way the Pro had some server
options built in to allow testing of server apps.

It's not for general use. Nor is it for game players. It's for large
companies. And 64 bit is hardly suitable for home use (nearly everything in
it is twice the size, so needs twice as much memory, twice as much hard
disk, twice as long to transfer binary files, and most data it deals with
will be 8 bit, 16 bit, and 32 bit negating the advantage of 64 bits). Should
be great for maths and programs based on maths if written for 64 bit.

Also as regard to the future, it is not a given thing that 64 bit will ever
be a desktop PC. The near future there is a fair chance multicore 32 bit
will rule. Maybe the next desktop jump will be from 32 bit multicore to 128
bit multicore. There are also really wierd things that may make the future
completely different.

<snip>

What are you talking about?...I built an XP_64 bit machine for my girlfriend
well over a year ago now.
She uses it for PhotoshopCS2 . The machine dual boots XP_32 and XP_64 and
for Photoshop at least...
the performance is better using the 64bit OS! Though not all devices
have 64 bit drivers...all of the hardware we have
is supported just fine and I'd say that XP_64 is one great working operating
system.

Vista on the other hand would not cut it. I did a few Vista test
installations and found that the 32bit version...
had (slightly) poor driver support and certainly no performance improvement
over XP . I'd expect the 64 bit version of
Vista to be an equal disappointment.

My suggestion would be to use XP either 32 bit or 64 bit depending on the
hardware...
and have another look at Vista next year to see how it's going

 

[Guest]

I did say maths based applications - that would inclide photoshop.

 

[philo]

I did say maths based applications - that would inclide photoshop.
"philo" <[email protected]> wrote in message

<snip>

and there are plenty of home users who use Photoshop.
I always figured that if you buy a 64bit mobo...why not use a 64bit OS as
well?

 

[Guest]

But the issue is in the buying. It is not efficient.

 

[philo]

But the issue is in the buying. It is not efficient.

<snip>


I though MS should have concentrated on XP_64 and not even bothered with
Vista...

Had XP_64 be the new OS...maybe throw in a few enhancements...

OTOH: Bill Gates seems to be making a little more money on his job than I am
on mine.

When I was a kid...I started out at $1.10 an hour...

heck I must make two or three times that much today <G>

 

[cvp]

As I said in an earlier post, I think they should have restricted Vista to
64-bit (with a few compatibility enhancements for XP (later).

 

[Guest]

There is no self evident arguement for that. So you do need to state
reasons.

 

[Dale White]

I believe the mindset is, force people to 64bit computing, even if there is
no real advantage, to help promote 64bit computing along.

I actually think the current approach is correct. There isn't a real need
for 64bit computing for 90% of home users and my *prediction* is that it
will be 4+ more years, before we need 4GB of ram in home users system and it
will be 8+ years, before we really need 8GB. I think some are trying to
apply Moore's law to memory "needed" and it doesn't work.

My prediction is 64bit computing will be more common place around 2010, if
Microsoft's release schedule holds, the people who switch over to Vienna,
will be opting for a pure 64bit environment. 64bit computing is a
enthusiasts' OS, not an everyday man's OS and most hardware and software
companies realize this.

 

[cvp]

Well... no I don't have to... but..

I stated more in my other post.
XP is butting up against all sorts of hardware limits set in place 20 years
ago when they seemed reasonable for the time (and since you like CP/VM
you'll probably remember when it hit them).
The most obvious one is the 4GB virtual memory problem with the flat memory
mapping. Too late to rearchitect for base/displacement model. As I stated in
the other post, 8GB plus systems will become commonplace in two years.
Another is the 2TB disk limit. Storage that was unimaginable a while back is
now achievable on a 2-disk raid-0 system.
Not many hit these problems right now, but all will soon.
So... how many OS variants (from one vendor) are needed to address these and
other limits? I would have argued for one new one (64-bit vista) and a few
catch-up enhancements to XP to make the two more interoperable. Instead
we'll have 2 variants (and associated development, testing and support costs
for several more years. This will give ISVs and IHVs excuses for lack of
support during the same period.

The fact that some apps see no performance benefits to 64-bit is irrelevant
(as long as some do). The limits need to be raised.

 

[Guest]

Programmers hate segmented memory - that's why it's flat.

But there is also overlays type features in the kernel (not necesarly turned on in Vista) so programs can access more than 4MB. Also the 32 bit kernel can support up to 128 GB of main memory (windows datacentre server). There seems to be a lot of work on the NT kernel over the years on firstly extending limits, and now on removing limits.

Three major limits were made unconditional on Vista's release (being hardware limited now), system cache, and both paged and non paged pool.

Below are the memory limits. For future possibilities one just needs the maximun figure from each column. I suspect the cheapest hardware will determine future directions.

After all PC are very complicated because they are designed to be cheap, cheap in number of points to be soldered, cheap in few components, cheap as in using low cost things (like memory) and then complicated caches to make it faster (but still cheaper). This has been the design philosophy from the beginning - eg the 8 bit physical memory bus for 16 bit memory of 8088, saved 8 connectors and sets of circuits..


Memory Limits for Windows Releases
The following table specifies the limits on memory and address space for current releases of Windows. These limits vary by platform, operating system, and by whether IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE and 4GT RAM Tuning (/3GB) are in use.

Memory type 32-bit Windows 64-bit Windows
User-mode virtual address space for each 32-bit process 2 GB
Up to 3 GB with IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE and /3GB
2 GB
4 GB with IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE

User-mode virtual address space for each 64-bit process N/A 2 GB

x64: 8 TB with IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE
Intel IPF: 7 TB with IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE

Kernel-mode virtual address space 2 GB
Up to 2 GB with IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE and /3GB
8 TB
Paged pool Limited only by kernel mode virtual address space, starting with Windows Vista.

Windows Server 2003: 650 MB
Windows XP: 490 MB
Windows 2000: 470 MB
128 GB
Non-paged pool Limited only by kernel mode virtual address space and physical memory, starting with Windows Vista.

Windows Server 2003 and Windows XP/2000: 256 MB (or 128 MB with /3GB)
128 GB
System cache virtual address space (physical size limited only by physical memory) Limited only by kernel mode virtual address space, starting with Windows Vista.

Windows Server 2003 and Windows XP/2000: 1 GB
1 TB


The following table specifies the limits on physical memory.

Physical memory limits 32-bit Windows 64-bit Windows
Windows Server "Longhorn", Datacenter Edition 128 GB
64 GB with 4GT RAM Tuning
1 TB
Windows Server "Longhorn", Enterprise Edition 64 GB 1 TB
Windows Server "Longhorn", Standard Edition 4 GB 32 GB
Windows Server "Longhorn", Datacenter Edition (Server Core installation) 128 GB 1 TB
Windows Server "Longhorn", Enterprise Edition (Server Core installation) 64 GB 1 TB
Windows Server "Longhorn", Standard Edition (Server Core installation) 4 GB 32GB
Windows Vista Ultimate 4 GB 128 GB
Windows Vista Enterprise 4 GB 128 GB
Windows Vista Business 4 GB 128 GB
Windows Vista Home Premium 4 GB 16 GB
Windows Vista Home Basic 4 GB 8 GB
Windows Vista Starter 1 GB N/A
Windows Storage Server 2003, Enterprise Edition 8 GB N/A
Windows Storage Server 2003 4 GB N/A
Windows Server 2003, Datacenter Edition SP1 128 GB
16 GB with /3GB
1 TB
Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition SP1 64 GB
16 GB with /3GB
1 TB
Windows Server 2003, Standard Edition SP1 4 GB 32 GB
Windows Server 2003, Datacenter Edition 128 GB
16 GB with /3GB
512 GB
Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition 32 GB
16 GB with /3GB
64 GB
Windows Server 2003, Standard Edition 4 GB 16 GB
Windows Server 2003, Web Edition 2 GB N/A
Windows XP 4 GB 128 GB
Windows XP Starter Edition 256 MB N/A


See Also
4GT RAM Tuning
IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE



Send comments about this topic to Microsoft

Build date: 10/2/2006

See Also
4GT RAM Tuning
IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE



Send comments about this topic to Microsoft

Build date: 10/2/2006

 

[Guest]

PS I wake up to find I'm in a Turasmi alert. Ships are rushing to sea and
beaches are closed.

 

[cvp]

Sure there are lots of extention mechanisms - every architecture so far has used them when the limits are reached.Underneath the "flat" surface" of the water the OS is doggy paddling like crazy!

PCs (in fact any systems) are complicated because they deal with ever smaller, ever cheaper, ever more powerful and still have something to sell (and hold). If costs were the only thing driving them we'd have a watch sized PC1 (with a big magnifying glass) for the price of a handful of sand as the mainstream consumer model. Instead we have a balance of half the cost, twice the power as the perennial mainstream. Hence my conclusions on 64-bit (and Vista and linux and...)
<.> wrote in message Programmers hate segmented memory - that's why it's flat.

But there is also overlays type features in the kernel (not necesarly turned on in Vista) so programs can access more than 4MB. Also the 32 bit kernel can support up to 128 GB of main memory (windows datacentre server). There seems to be a lot of work on the NT kernel over the years on firstly extending limits, and now on removing limits.

Three major limits were made unconditional on Vista's release (being hardware limited now), system cache, and both paged and non paged pool.

Below are the memory limits. For future possibilities one just needs the maximun figure from each column. I suspect the cheapest hardware will determine future directions.

After all PC are very complicated because they are designed to be cheap, cheap in number of points to be soldered, cheap in few components, cheap as in using low cost things (like memory) and then complicated caches to make it faster (but still cheaper). This has been the design philosophy from the beginning - eg the 8 bit physical memory bus for 16 bit memory of 8088, saved 8 connectors and sets of circuits..


Memory Limits for Windows Releases
The following table specifies the limits on memory and address space for current releases of Windows. These limits vary by platform, operating system, and by whether IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE and 4GT RAM Tuning (/3GB) are in use.

Memory type 32-bit Windows 64-bit Windows
User-mode virtual address space for each 32-bit process 2 GB
Up to 3 GB with IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE and /3GB
2 GB
4 GB with IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE

User-mode virtual address space for each 64-bit process N/A 2 GB

x64: 8 TB with IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE
Intel IPF: 7 TB with IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE

Kernel-mode virtual address space 2 GB
Up to 2 GB with IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE and /3GB
8 TB
Paged pool Limited only by kernel mode virtual address space, starting with Windows Vista.

Windows Server 2003: 650 MB
Windows XP: 490 MB
Windows 2000: 470 MB
128 GB
Non-paged pool Limited only by kernel mode virtual address space and physical memory, starting with Windows Vista.

Windows Server 2003 and Windows XP/2000: 256 MB (or 128 MB with /3GB)
128 GB
System cache virtual address space (physical size limited only by physical memory) Limited only by kernel mode virtual address space, starting with Windows Vista.

Windows Server 2003 and Windows XP/2000: 1 GB
1 TB


The following table specifies the limits on physical memory.

Physical memory limits 32-bit Windows 64-bit Windows
Windows Server "Longhorn", Datacenter Edition 128 GB
64 GB with 4GT RAM Tuning
1 TB
Windows Server "Longhorn", Enterprise Edition 64 GB 1 TB
Windows Server "Longhorn", Standard Edition 4 GB 32 GB
Windows Server "Longhorn", Datacenter Edition (Server Core installation) 128 GB 1 TB
Windows Server "Longhorn", Enterprise Edition (Server Core installation) 64 GB 1 TB
Windows Server "Longhorn", Standard Edition (Server Core installation) 4 GB 32GB
Windows Vista Ultimate 4 GB 128 GB
Windows Vista Enterprise 4 GB 128 GB
Windows Vista Business 4 GB 128 GB
Windows Vista Home Premium 4 GB 16 GB
Windows Vista Home Basic 4 GB 8 GB
Windows Vista Starter 1 GB N/A
Windows Storage Server 2003, Enterprise Edition 8 GB N/A
Windows Storage Server 2003 4 GB N/A
Windows Server 2003, Datacenter Edition SP1 128 GB
16 GB with /3GB
1 TB
Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition SP1 64 GB
16 GB with /3GB
1 TB
Windows Server 2003, Standard Edition SP1 4 GB 32 GB
Windows Server 2003, Datacenter Edition 128 GB
16 GB with /3GB
512 GB
Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition 32 GB
16 GB with /3GB
64 GB
Windows Server 2003, Standard Edition 4 GB 16 GB
Windows Server 2003, Web Edition 2 GB N/A
Windows XP 4 GB 128 GB
Windows XP Starter Edition 256 MB N/A


See Also
4GT RAM Tuning
IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE



Send comments about this topic to Microsoft

Build date: 10/2/2006

See Also
4GT RAM Tuning
IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE



Send comments about this topic to Microsoft

Build date: 10/2/2006

 

[cvp]

Ah but was it a 32-bit Tsunami or a 64-bit one?

PS I wake up to find I'm in a Turasmi alert. Ships are rushing to sea and
beaches are closed.

 

[Guest]

The dead in the solomons rate it as 64 bit, me - nuffin happened, 1 bit. The
ships that put to sea, Cap'ts should be excuted for cowardice.

 

[Guest]

What I hope for is neural networks built in to the CPU. Build it and the apps will come.
Sure there are lots of extention mechanisms - every architecture so far has used them when the limits are reached.Underneath the "flat" surface" of the water the OS is doggy paddling like crazy!

PCs (in fact any systems) are complicated because they deal with ever smaller, ever cheaper, ever more powerful and still have something to sell (and hold). If costs were the only thing driving them we'd have a watch sized PC1 (with a big magnifying glass) for the price of a handful of sand as the mainstream consumer model. Instead we have a balance of half the cost, twice the power as the perennial mainstream. Hence my conclusions on 64-bit (and Vista and linux and...)
<.> wrote in message Programmers hate segmented memory - that's why it's flat.

But there is also overlays type features in the kernel (not necesarly turned on in Vista) so programs can access more than 4MB. Also the 32 bit kernel can support up to 128 GB of main memory (windows datacentre server). There seems to be a lot of work on the NT kernel over the years on firstly extending limits, and now on removing limits.

Three major limits were made unconditional on Vista's release (being hardware limited now), system cache, and both paged and non paged pool.

Below are the memory limits. For future possibilities one just needs the maximun figure from each column. I suspect the cheapest hardware will determine future directions.

After all PC are very complicated because they are designed to be cheap, cheap in number of points to be soldered, cheap in few components, cheap as in using low cost things (like memory) and then complicated caches to make it faster (but still cheaper). This has been the design philosophy from the beginning - eg the 8 bit physical memory bus for 16 bit memory of 8088, saved 8 connectors and sets of circuits..


Memory Limits for Windows Releases
The following table specifies the limits on memory and address space for current releases of Windows. These limits vary by platform, operating system, and by whether IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE and 4GT RAM Tuning (/3GB) are in use.

Memory type 32-bit Windows 64-bit Windows
User-mode virtual address space for each 32-bit process 2 GB
Up to 3 GB with IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE and /3GB
2 GB
4 GB with IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE

User-mode virtual address space for each 64-bit process N/A 2 GB

x64: 8 TB with IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE
Intel IPF: 7 TB with IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE

Kernel-mode virtual address space 2 GB
Up to 2 GB with IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE and /3GB
8 TB
Paged pool Limited only by kernel mode virtual address space, starting with Windows Vista.

Windows Server 2003: 650 MB
Windows XP: 490 MB
Windows 2000: 470 MB
128 GB
Non-paged pool Limited only by kernel mode virtual address space and physical memory, starting with Windows Vista.

Windows Server 2003 and Windows XP/2000: 256 MB (or 128 MB with /3GB)
128 GB
System cache virtual address space (physical size limited only by physical memory) Limited only by kernel mode virtual address space, starting with Windows Vista.

Windows Server 2003 and Windows XP/2000: 1 GB
1 TB


The following table specifies the limits on physical memory.

Physical memory limits 32-bit Windows 64-bit Windows
Windows Server "Longhorn", Datacenter Edition 128 GB
64 GB with 4GT RAM Tuning
1 TB
Windows Server "Longhorn", Enterprise Edition 64 GB 1 TB
Windows Server "Longhorn", Standard Edition 4 GB 32 GB
Windows Server "Longhorn", Datacenter Edition (Server Core installation) 128 GB 1 TB
Windows Server "Longhorn", Enterprise Edition (Server Core installation) 64 GB 1 TB
Windows Server "Longhorn", Standard Edition (Server Core installation) 4 GB 32GB
Windows Vista Ultimate 4 GB 128 GB
Windows Vista Enterprise 4 GB 128 GB
Windows Vista Business 4 GB 128 GB
Windows Vista Home Premium 4 GB 16 GB
Windows Vista Home Basic 4 GB 8 GB
Windows Vista Starter 1 GB N/A
Windows Storage Server 2003, Enterprise Edition 8 GB N/A
Windows Storage Server 2003 4 GB N/A
Windows Server 2003, Datacenter Edition SP1 128 GB
16 GB with /3GB
1 TB
Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition SP1 64 GB
16 GB with /3GB
1 TB
Windows Server 2003, Standard Edition SP1 4 GB 32 GB
Windows Server 2003, Datacenter Edition 128 GB
16 GB with /3GB
512 GB
Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition 32 GB
16 GB with /3GB
64 GB
Windows Server 2003, Standard Edition 4 GB 16 GB
Windows Server 2003, Web Edition 2 GB N/A
Windows XP 4 GB 128 GB
Windows XP Starter Edition 256 MB N/A


See Also
4GT RAM Tuning
IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE



Send comments about this topic to Microsoft

Build date: 10/2/2006

See Also
4GT RAM Tuning
IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE



Send comments about this topic to Microsoft

Build date: 10/2/2006