| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
FullyAwesome
I post too much
![]() Reputation: 0
Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 4438
Location: Land Down Under
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 1:57 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| sup3r wrote: | he's right, everything will be 64bit eventually (maybe not some linux distos)
why do you say you have never used and never will use 64bit anyway? there's nothing wrong with it...
expect windows7 to be 64bit only btw |
i very highly doubt that.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Nick :3
I posted too much crap
![]() Reputation: 5
Joined: 27 Dec 2007
Posts: 2220
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 1:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rot1 wrote: | | rapion124 wrote: | Techincally, Vista can use up to 4GB of RAM, but only 3GB of RAM for usermode applications, and that's only if the 3GB switch is used. You shouldn't update to x64 just because you have 4GB of RAM. The extra performance from 1GB of RAM is minimal compared to the program incompatibilities you will face with x64.
Maybe in a few years when 16GB of RAM is the standard, then x64 is feasible. |
When 16GRAM will be standard, it will be the year 3000 lol, modern hosting servers with Linux have like MAX 8GRAM or abit more.
| sup3r wrote: | he's right, everything will be 64bit eventually (maybe not some linux distos)
why do you say you have never used and never will use 64bit anyway? there's nothing wrong with it...
expect windows7 to be 64bit only btw |
the reason i'm not moving to x64 OS's is because of the compatibility issues, no ! |
10 years ago the standard was like 128mb
So it will take around 10 years for 16+gigs to be the standard
_________________
Ego vos irrumabo et confutuabo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FullyAwesome
I post too much
![]() Reputation: 0
Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 4438
Location: Land Down Under
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 2:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| UltimateDestiny wrote: | 10 years ago the standard was like 128mb
So it will take around 10 years for 16+gigs to be the standard |
i don't know about that, but i agree that 16 gigs of RAM won't be a standard for quite a while now. what are people going to be running on a day-to-day basis that will require so much RAM anyway?
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick :3
I posted too much crap
![]() Reputation: 5
Joined: 27 Dec 2007
Posts: 2220
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 2:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| fullyawesome wrote: | | UltimateDestiny wrote: | 10 years ago the standard was like 128mb
So it will take around 10 years for 16+gigs to be the standard |
i don't know about that, but i agree that 16 gigs of RAM won't be a standard for quite a while now. what are people going to be running on a day-to-day basis that will require so much RAM anyway? |
People and companies will keep bringing programs that need more and more ram
Especially with the blu ray disk's companies can produce more complicated games and software
_________________
Ego vos irrumabo et confutuabo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FullyAwesome
I post too much
![]() Reputation: 0
Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 4438
Location: Land Down Under
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 2:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| UltimateDestiny wrote: | | fullyawesome wrote: | | UltimateDestiny wrote: | 10 years ago the standard was like 128mb
So it will take around 10 years for 16+gigs to be the standard |
i don't know about that, but i agree that 16 gigs of RAM won't be a standard for quite a while now. what are people going to be running on a day-to-day basis that will require so much RAM anyway? |
People and companies will keep bringing programs that need more and more ram
Especially with the blu ray disk's companies can produce more complicated games and software |
i know games will require huge amounts of resources, but in the next few years or so i doubt there'd be a need for 16gb RAM (excluding hardcore games, if that).
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cheetah
I post too much
![]() Reputation: 0
Joined: 11 Nov 2007
Posts: 2758
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 3:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| fullyawesome wrote: | | sup3r wrote: | he's right, everything will be 64bit eventually (maybe not some linux distos)
why do you say you have never used and never will use 64bit anyway? there's nothing wrong with it...
expect windows7 to be 64bit only btw |
i very highly doubt that. |
I don't. Most people were surprised that Vista wasn't 64-bit only. Microsoft keeping 32-bit OSes is only slowing progress and letting people cling to their archaic beliefs that x64 is incompatible.
@rot1 keeping 32-bit OSes indefinitely isn't going to happen. For that matter, using a 32-bit OS in 2 years will be very unrealistic. It's time to let go of all the rumors you heard about 64-bit OSes and try it yourself, so you can realize there's no real issues and you're clinging to a far inferior architecture for absolutely no reason.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FullyAwesome
I post too much
![]() Reputation: 0
Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 4438
Location: Land Down Under
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 3:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
it's just my opinion, but i think windows 7 will also be 32-bit, and especially because microsoft is probably getting sick of people reading rumours about their products and 64-bit OS's.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cheetah
I post too much
![]() Reputation: 0
Joined: 11 Nov 2007
Posts: 2758
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 3:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| fullyawesome wrote: | | it's just my opinion, but i think windows 7 will also be 32-bit, and especially because microsoft is probably getting sick of people reading rumours about their products and 64-bit OS's. |
Vista should have never been offered in 32-bit, let alone the next OS. Any computer that you'd run Vista on is 64-bit capable, so as far as I'm concerned they went out of their way to have to create another 32-bit OS, making more work for themselves, slowing innovation, and letting these rumors of 64-bit get worse. It doesn't make much sense from a business perspective, especially considering Vista's large memory demands. 4GB will be standard long before Vista goes out, and people will be wondering why their OS won't see it all.
It has to happen sooner or later, and the quicker they disprove these shit rumors the better for everyone.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeletedUser14087
I post too much
![]() Reputation: 2
Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 3069
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 4:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| fullyawesome wrote: | | UltimateDestiny wrote: | 10 years ago the standard was like 128mb
So it will take around 10 years for 16+gigs to be the standard |
i don't know about that, but i agree that 16 gigs of RAM won't be a standard for quite a while now. what are people going to be running on a day-to-day basis that will require so much RAM anyway? |
dude, when you say standard computers will have 16GRAM, don't include NASA or Hosting Servers, i'm talking about home computers.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
darkex
I post too much
 Reputation: 0
Joined: 29 Aug 2008
Posts: 2006
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 4:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Just hit Ctrl+Alt+Del and click Performance. You should see your Physical Memory in KB. If it shows 3.3GB, there is something screwed up with your BIOS or Vista itself.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
~NJ
Grandmaster Cheater Supreme
 Reputation: 0
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
Posts: 1417
Location: sitting outside of the forum
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 4:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rot1 wrote: | | Cheetah wrote: | If it shows it in system properties it should be utilizing it all.
But why aren't you using a 64-bit OS? You still won't be able to use more than 2GB in any given app with a 32-bit even if it does recognize it all. |
i never used nor will x64 OS's in my life. |
Then you my friend, are a noob. x64 is eventually going to be the latest technology and 32 bit will be old. You cannot use higher then 3.3GB of RAM on 32-bit given the threading restrictions. 64Bit allows you to use up to 32GB of RAM I believe.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Blank
I post too much
 Reputation: 1
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 3044
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 5:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ~NJ wrote: | | Rot1 wrote: | | Cheetah wrote: | If it shows it in system properties it should be utilizing it all.
But why aren't you using a 64-bit OS? You still won't be able to use more than 2GB in any given app with a 32-bit even if it does recognize it all. |
i never used nor will x64 OS's in my life. |
Then you my friend, are a noob. x64 is eventually going to be the latest technology and 32 bit will be old. You cannot use higher then 3.3GB of RAM on 32-bit given the threading restrictions. 64Bit allows you to use up to 32GB of RAM I believe. |
128GB.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cheetah
I post too much
![]() Reputation: 0
Joined: 11 Nov 2007
Posts: 2758
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 5:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rot1 wrote: | | fullyawesome wrote: | | UltimateDestiny wrote: | 10 years ago the standard was like 128mb
So it will take around 10 years for 16+gigs to be the standard |
i don't know about that, but i agree that 16 gigs of RAM won't be a standard for quite a while now. what are people going to be running on a day-to-day basis that will require so much RAM anyway? |
dude, when you say standard computers will have 16GRAM, don't include NASA or Hosting Servers, i'm talking about home computers. |
Yep. Just a few years ago 256 and 512MB was a lot, now 4GB isn't a big deal. Within 2 years I bet 8GB will be standard or at least very common, and then where will you be with your 32-bit OS? Within 4 years 16GB should be standard.
Even now, 16GB of RAM would cost about $280.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Polynomial
Grandmaster Cheater
![]() Reputation: 5
Joined: 17 Feb 2008
Posts: 524
Location: Inside the Intel CET shadow stack
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 6:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
If you really think that you're never going to use a 64-bit machine, then you're a moron. In fact, by that logic you should still be running Windows 3.1 on a machine with a 16 bit processor. Everything progresses over time - we will eventually be running something lines of a machine with a 256 core 4GHz machines, 64GB of RAM and a graphics card with 128 parallel GPUs.
The only difference between a 16-bit, 32-bit and 64-bit architecture is simple - instructions and memory addresses use a different number of bytes. For 16 it's 2, for 32 it's 4 and for 64 it's 8. The benefit is that you can build better instruction sets (more instructions and more space for parameters), and you can of course use more memory. Furthermore you can deal with larger numbers in your software, which makes large number calculations (physics included) faster and easier.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
~NJ
Grandmaster Cheater Supreme
Reputation: 0
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
Posts: 1417
Location: sitting outside of the forum
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 6:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wow blank, thanks for that. I didn't know it could go up to 128GB. Got something to build up to now for my server huh? :p
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
