vbetts Posted July 6, 2008 Share Posted July 6, 2008 That's right, soon the downfall of 32-bit operating systems will start to be put into motion, thanks to ATI's product the HD4870X2, which will sport 1 gb of GDDR5, or 2 gb or GDDR5, which for these cards, having the current standard being at 2-gb of memory, no 32-bit system will be able to access all of the system memory, and video card memory, which can bottleneck the card SEVERELY. 64-bit Operating systems like Vista 64-bit, will be able to make full use of the cards and systems memory, as well as DX10, but only if the game is DX10. For info on the hd4870X2, http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=c...85&Itemid=1 For pictures of the HD4870X2, http://en.expreview.com/2008/07/04/what-we...870x2/#more-505 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BebopBlues Posted July 6, 2008 Share Posted July 6, 2008 eventually 32 bit will be phased out, but it won't be because of these cards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InorganicMatter Posted July 6, 2008 Share Posted July 6, 2008 Where do you get this info on the limitations of 32-bit and DX9? Links? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vbetts Posted July 6, 2008 Author Share Posted July 6, 2008 32-bit OS can only handle if I remember right up to 3.5 gb of memory all together, DX9 really has no limitations, DX9 is still strong right now. DX10 does the same things that DX9 does, but DX10 makes it possible to do, and a lot more easier to do the effects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CLiDE FTW!!1 Posted July 6, 2008 Share Posted July 6, 2008 DX10 is just a Vista gimmick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Fogge Posted July 6, 2008 Share Posted July 6, 2008 A 32-bit Windows operating system can access a maximum of 4GB across the whole system, or 2GB per process. A 32-bit Unix-based operating system can access a maximum of 16GB across the whole system, or 2GB per process. A 64-bit operating system is currently limited by what the chipsets support as a maximum amount of memory, however can use up to 16 exabytes across the whole system and per process. Unix-based operating systems can access more memory now due to creating multiple memory pools and then splitting each process between an allocated memory pool. This allows for increased system memory, however no individual process can make use of memory from two separate pools at any given time. This is all very well documented on Wikipedia if you feel like having a look. So, vbetts at this point you are mistaken. Very soon given the current pace of graphics card technology you won't be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gargar Posted July 6, 2008 Share Posted July 6, 2008 Actually, vbetts is correct. In 32 bit Windows operating systems, the total addressable space available is 4GB. If you install a total of 4GB worth of RAM, the system will detect/use/display less than 4GB of total memory because of address space allocation for other critical functions, such as: - System BIOS (including motherboard, add-on cards, etc..) - Motherboards http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/motherboard resources - Memory mapped I/O - Configuration for AGP/PCI-Ex/PCI - Other memory allocations for PCI devices Therefore, you can in reality only use around 3.25 GB of total memory in a 32 bit windows OS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vbetts Posted July 6, 2008 Author Share Posted July 6, 2008 Applications in Windows 32-bit can only address up to 2 gb of ram for applications. I didn't mention Unix based OS, because in this case the 4870x2 will not have support, seeing as there is no real current support for crossfire for a Unix based OS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearcat Posted July 6, 2008 Share Posted July 6, 2008 Actually, vbetts is correct. In 32 bit Windows operating systems, the total addressable space available is 4GB. If you install a total of 4GB worth of RAM, the system will detect/use/display less than 4GB of total memory because of address space allocation for other critical functions, such as: - System BIOS (including motherboard, add-on cards, etc..) - Motherboards http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/motherboard resources - Memory mapped I/O - Configuration for AGP/PCI-Ex/PCI - Other memory allocations for PCI devices Therefore, you can in reality only use around 3.25 GB of total memory in a 32 bit windows OS. This is correct for system ram, but the memory on a graphics card is not directly addressable by the OS. You use instructions to the graphics card to address the memory on the card. The OS does not know, or need to know about the memory on a graphics card. The graphics driver will need to know, when it uses the graphic card instructions to load up the memory on the graphics card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandro17 Posted July 6, 2008 Share Posted July 6, 2008 In any case, the day 64-bit operating systems are well supported and we stop using 32-bit ones, it will never be one day too soon. I don't need to say that it has been mainly Microsoft's fault if it hasn't happened before. Personally I was using Windows XP Pro x64, but I had to give up especially because I couldn't use my (expensive) dial-up modem. Also, I didn't particularly like the idea that I had to use Windows built in firewall. As to Linux, it has been supporting 64-bit for many years now. But even Linux will still cause you some problems (Smart in openSUSE 10.3 would suffer of countless unsolved conflicts, just to mention one). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nbollinger Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 How is that MS fault for 64-bit not taking off? All Microsoft does is build an OS that allows other manufacturers to run their products on. If your manufacturer doesn't want to support 64-bit, it's their fault and not MS. Last time I checked Microsoft is a software company that sell hardware accessories (that is contracted out, they just put their name on it) such as keyboards, mice, and the like. The only argument I see about it being MS fault is they didn't make Vista 64 bit only which would force 64 bit computing if your bought a new pc from an OEM. MS has always been big about legacy support and dropping 32-bit would be a huge blow to that. Not everyone has a newer pc or hell wants to buy a new cause their p3 1.5 ghz still surfs the web and runs office just fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vbetts Posted July 7, 2008 Author Share Posted July 7, 2008 People will still run old hardware like that, no one is forcing them to upgrade. That's always been like that. There are still tons of people not using a multiple core cpu, for things like the internet and stuff, it's not really needed. People still run Windows 2000, even though it's not supported anymore. People are still playing games on an AGP system, because though PCIE is good, it's not needed to play games. People use IDE for harddrives, again because Sata is not needed. The only thing that this is saying, is if you want the most out of your hardware, when your hardware has huge amounts of memory on it like the 4870X2, to run it the most you need a 64-bit OS. For things like Sata, or just a pcie video card that has 512mb or under on it, 32-bit would be fine. If Microsoft would drop 32-bit support, it would hit them hard. But, who are developers going to go to? The user base for Macs, even more new Intel Macs are not big enough for developers to say "hey, let's move over to Mac since Windows did this or that". That would force developers to add support for 64-bit, plus 64-bit is getting pretty decent support right now. Microsoft is at a point right now that if they dropped something like 32-bit support, it would not harm them pretty much. Most developers don't care about support for their products anyways, they just want to get their product out. That's why there is crappy hardware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandro17 Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 How is that MS fault for 64-bit not taking off? Why does XP Pro 32-bit support my dial-up modem out of the box while XP x64 doesn't even see it? How much advertisement for XP Pro x64 did you see? And yet it is a great, rock-solid, secure OS. But they had to sell {censored} Vista... It was the same story with Windows 2000: only geeks knew it even existed. Mere mortals had to buy ME first and XP later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrMookMook Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 How much advertisement for XP Pro x64 did you see? Hey wait, I thought the ad's were for XP in general not XP 32 bit or 64 bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
netkas Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 about wind and 2gb per process. it's called kernel/suerspace memory split, it's all because kernel memory maps to memory space of every process, to speedup system calls, so lower 2g for process, higher 2g for kernel and devices. In linux u can specify whqt mem ory split model u wanna use In macosx....in 32-bit macosx kernel doesn't maps into user process, sos systems calls should be slow then, yeah ? but here comes commpage, little part of kernel memory which maps into every's process memory, to speedup most usefull system calls, cool yeah ? So, macosx shouldn't have problems even with 3-3.5 gb processes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vbetts Posted July 7, 2008 Author Share Posted July 7, 2008 How much advertisement for XP Pro x64 did you see? And yet it is a great, rock-solid, secure OS.But they had to sell {censored} Vista... The reason why 64-bit never caught on and got so much {censored} was because of XP64. I would never let that garbage on my machine, Vista 64-bit works perfect for me, better FPS in my games too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nbollinger Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 I don't know why some of you are blaming everything like its microsoft fault. They released a 64 bit version of Windows. You should be thankful of that. Anything that came with windows from a default install worked fine. If not, MS was quick to update it for the most part. If you had apps you couldnt run or if you didnt have a certain driver for your hardware than that is the developer of the software or hardware. You simply cannot {censored} and moan because you can't run the latest OS because Microsoft doesn't want to support somebody else's product. They made available to the developers of hardware and software the tools to develop and it was up to them to develop or not. Windows XP 64 and Vista 64 worked fine for me. I had all the drivers I needed (I had to do an intensive search with XP64, it was new so drivers weren't readily available for it) and I really didn't {censored} and fuss if a certain app didn't work or had partial functionality. I generally found another app that did the same or just dealt with the limitations of an app. All you bitter folks, really need to grow up and know where to place faults. Why does XP Pro 32-bit support my dial-up modem out of the box while XP x64 doesn't even see it? <--lamest justification for blaming MS on not supporting 64-bit. Is it a Microsoft branded modem? I'm willing to bet its not and why should they support somebody else's product. Would you want to support somebody else product? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandro17 Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 "XP x64 doesn't even see it" means just that. It isn't even in the device manager with a question mark. It simply doesn't exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idividebyzero Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 32bit will take off when Dell gets it through their thick hollow skulls that they can and should ship Vista 64 with Core 2 Duo computers instead of shipping 32bit for no reason at all There is no reason people should still be using 32bit Vista with 64bit systems. Its ridiculous and it has to end. 32bit programs dont work better in Vista 32, and all modern hardware should have 64bit drivers. People using 32bit when they fully qualify for 64bit are really hurting technology progression. Its pathetic that so many Mac users are putting 4gbs of ram in their macbooks and imacs for web surfing while hardcore PC gaming rigs are stuck with 2gbs. XP 64 was the worst operating system ever made in the history of mankind, but Vista 64 is faster, much more secure, and just as stable and program-compatible as Vista 32. Stop installing Vista 32, its useless. Whats ironic is that people have some obsession with wanting to get XP Pro. XP Pro doesnt have features people will use that arent in a business environment or have a workstation class computer with 2 processors. Why do so many people spend so much extra money on Pro which gives them no benefits over Home but they refuse to use Vista 64 which has many significant benefits and doesnt cost extra? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandro17 Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 XP 64 was the worst operating system ever made in the history of mankind I find it funny when people insist XP x64 was (is, in fact) such a bad OS. It is nothing but Windows 2003 Server, which so many people consider the best Microsoft OS ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idividebyzero Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 Which is great for servers but very bad as an OS for regular people who just want to do normal things. It was a disaster in that area, almost everyone had major problems getting it to work as good as regular XP with regular programs. Programs were unstable, buggy, and finicky because they were made to work on completely different architecture which XP 64 didnt have. Vista 64 is different, its not a server OS, its a 64bit home OS, it was made from the start to be a home OS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandro17 Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 Programs were unstable, buggy, and finicky because they were made to work on completely different architecture which XP 64 didnt have. Vista 64 is different, its not a server OS, its a 64bit home OS, it was made from the start to be a home OS. I had absolutely nothing like that. As I have already said, except for my modem that was "invisible" and I had to use the built-in firewall, everything else worked absolutely fine and the OS never crashed. With Vista I had the opposite experience, absolutely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mifki Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 get over your {censored} modem already Alessandro, you sound like a broken record Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cicyoass Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 I find it funny when people insist XP x64 was (is, in fact) such a bad OS. It is nothing but Windows 2003 Server, which so many people consider the best Microsoft OS ever. Wrong. Windows XP x64 would actually be Windows Server 2003 x64, which also would be a horrid OS. Any 64-bit version of Windows prior to Vista is and was horribly put together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boss4908 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 How is that MS fault for 64-bit not taking off? All Microsoft does is build an OS that allows other manufacturers to run their products on. If your manufacturer doesn't want to support 64-bit, it's their fault and not MS. Last time I checked Microsoft is a software company that sell hardware accessories (that is contracted out, they just put their name on it) such as keyboards, mice, and the like. The only argument I see about it being MS fault is they didn't make Vista 64 bit only which would force 64 bit computing if your bought a new pc from an OEM. MS has always been big about legacy support and dropping 32-bit would be a huge blow to that. Not everyone has a newer pc or hell wants to buy a new cause their p3 1.5 ghz still surfs the web and runs office just fine. Everyone knows it is not Microsofts fault 64 bit has not moved in the main stream any sooner. It is George Bush's fault. He lied, some cried and 64 bit died. So get off this blame MS for all the worlds problem and put it where it belongs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts