32bit 4Gb Memory Limit Explained

I think we have beaten this horse to death.

Which is why I don't bother taking part in these theoretical conversations.

Probably good - since this is physics, not theory.

As far as dead horses, there's many more.

But personally, I think it is up the OP, or admin to stifle contributions.

H2SO4 said:

Completely agree. That article is entirely misguided. I think the conspiratorial tone was meant to raise his profile, as opposed to actually explaining the issue properly.

Properly? Well, the article's issue is licensing. It's in a section of my website that deals with other aspects of licensing. Its central claim is simply that 32-bit Windows Vista has the operating-system support for using memory above 4GB but that tamper-protected license values prevent the operating system from putting that support into use. Windows Vista is the first 32-bit (client) version of Windows for which this is true. That's the article's issue. If you have a different issue that you want explained, then that's your problem. If you think my chosen issue is not explained properly, then show where I'm factually incorrect or where I overlook something I ought not.

Conspiratorial tone? If Microsoft had a clear statement even roughly similar to my article's claim, then of course I would have no article. I don't say that Microsoft planned anything wicked. I don't go further than saying that Microsoft finds it at least convenient to have a limit that matches a widely held misunderstanding. I note that Microsoft says strikingly little, that some of what little it does say is absurd, and that none of what it says is open to testing (on Windows Vista). I suspect that marketing considerations have some play in this, given that Microsoft and others gain if consumers move to 64-bit Windows faster than they might otherwise. What's your problem with any of that?

The dilemma faced by MS came down to two choices:

That is essentially what the article says Microsoft says, too. But the article dismisses it as disingenuous and gives a reason. The dichotomy you present is false. In your phrasing, the falsity is that your #2 can be met only by a license restriction. There were other solutions, with backwards compatibility, which could have been implemented using existing facilities.

The guy's a ranter.

OK, I don't know that when you presented Microsoft's argument, above, you were offering it as criticism of my article, but if you were, then you would appear to have at least one of the distinguishing characteristics of ranting, namely of not acknowledging, let alone attending, to the other party's counter-arguments.

Generally, if someone writes that X is false because of Y, then fair criticism is that you argue something like that Y is false or that its truth would not invalidate X. If you just reassert X without even acknowledging that Y has been put as a counter-argument, then you're certainly not aiming for fair criticism.

Conspiratorial tone? If Microsoft had a clear statement even roughly similar to my article's claim, then of course I would have no article. I don't say that Microsoft planned anything wicked. I don't go further than saying that Microsoft finds it at least convenient to have a limit that matches a widely held misunderstanding. I note that Microsoft says strikingly little, that some of what little it does say is absurd, and that none of what it says is open to testing (on Windows Vista).

There was plenty coming from Microsoft (through developer channels) about this issue six years ago when Microsoft decided that 64-bit would be its only path to > 4GB on client/desktop OS due to well-documented driver issues in consumer space, and subsequently assured developers they needn't be concerned about whether their drivers for 32-bit MS client/desktop OS could cope with addresses larger than 4GB because there would never be a MS client/desktop OS where this would happen or be supported (but vendors of server/enterprise/professional hardware would). e.g.

Part 3: Memory Protection Technologies (See discussion under Driver Compatibility)

Physical Address Extension - PAE Memory and Windows

Operating Systems and PAE Support

The RAM reported by the System Properties dialog box and the System Information tool is less than you expect in Windows Vista or in Windows XP Service Pack 2 or later version

The system memory that is reported in the System Information dialog box in Windows Vista is less than you expect if 4 GB of RAM is installed

More recent discussion:

Mark's Blog : Pushing the Limits of Windows: Physical Memory (See section titled Windows Client Memory Limits)

Lastly, why would Microsoft neuter PAE on client/desktop space to a maximum 4GB? If you don't like Microsoft's explanation why, maybe you'll better prefer Linus Torvald's explanation why Microsoft would do this....

Because "PAE really really sucks"

Who cares what Linus once said while he was drunk?

Guys

Hi and welcome

A- you are replying to someone who isnt even on this site anymore (10/2009) thread.

B- If you search you will find this topic has been beaten to death regularly for months.

C- Linus when drunk is slightly off topic dont you think.

Just an FYI for you all.

Again welcome and have fun

Ken J+

zigzag3143 said:

C- Linus when drunk is slightly off topic dont you think

tcsenter linked to an amusing story from a guy called Linus.

The person I was replying to posted four days ago.