rasmasyean
August 27th, 2008 at 7:32 am
Sorry to say but your arguments are flawed because you missed some pretty critical information. And you appear to know little about Windows.
32-bit means it can only address 2^32 (2 to the 32nd power) = 4GB memory spaces.
That would be RAM + VRAM + other devices on Motherboard, etc.
e.g. If you have a 1 GB VRAM, you will prolly only be able to get 2.7GB user RAM approx.
Superfetch makes your computer’s “data-access” speed much faster the more RAM you have.
“There appears to be a shift taking place in the PC industry: the move from 32-bit to 64-bit PCs.
We’ve been tracking the change by looking at the percentage of 64-bit PCs connecting to Windows Update, and have seen a dramatic increase in recent months. The installed base of 64-bit Windows Vista PCs, as a percentage of all Windows Vista systems, has more than tripled in the U.S. in the last three months, while worldwide adoption has more than doubled during the same period. Another view shows that 20% of new Windows Vista PCs in the U.S. connecting to Windows Update in June were 64-bit PCs, up from just 3% in March. Put more simply, usage of 64-bit Windows Vista is growing much more rapidly than 32-bit. Based on current trends, this growth will accelerate as the retail channel shifts to supplying a rapidly increasing assortment of 64-bit desktops and laptops.”
Windows Vista Team Blog : Windows Vista 64-bit Today rasmasyean
August 27th, 2008 at 7:41 am
And this is what they said as well…
“PC Accelerators built into Windows Vista, such as Windows SuperFetch, improve performance by keeping commonly used programs in memory, even when the program is closed. More memory capacity on 64-bit PCs allows SuperFetch to do its job more efficiently.”
Just an FYI, so you can include this in your analysis. I guess not many people know that Vista has this technology that sort of “redefines” traditional ways of computing. WPF is also something that introduces some new concepts from a “software engineering” point if you’re interested in checking that out as well. Perhaps it can give you some ideas that carry over to Linux.
Alexander Sandler
August 27th, 2008 at 9:11 am
Well… I am wondering if there’s a slight chance that at least some of my arguments are right…
As a rule you don’t need 64-bit support to have more than 4GB of RAM. Good old Pentium 4 is well capable to address more than 4GB of RAM with both Windows and Linux. However when you try to have more than 4GB of RAM there are whole bunch of limitations unrelated to either OS or the CPU. For instance, I have 4GB on my XP machine at home, but it only sees 3.2GB. Why? This limitation imposed by my MOTHERBOARD.
Still you are right. I missed this point. Someone considering to have more than 4GB of RAM should check out his computers specs. It is possible that 64-bit OS would be the only way for him/her to have that amount of RAM.
update: That’s not true. If your hardware supports more than 4GB, there is no reason to buy 64-bit Windows. 32-bit XP supports 4GB+. So it was right not to mention this because in terms of bitness it does not matter how much RAM you have. If your hardware does not support more than 4GB, then 64-bit OS won’t help you anyway.