• ArbiterXero@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 days ago

    32 bit CPU’s having difficulty accessing greater than 4gb of memory was exclusively a windows problem.

    • Amanda@aggregatet.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 days ago

      Interesting! Do you have a link to a write up about this? I don’t know anything about the windows memory manager

      • ArbiterXero@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 days ago

        Intel PAE if the answer, but it still came with other issues, so 64 was still the better answer.

        Also the entire article comes down to simple math.

        Bits is the number of digits.

        So like a 4 digit number maxes out at 9999 but an 8 digit number maxes out at 99 999 999

        So when you double the number of digits, the max size available is exponential. 10^4 bigger in this case. It just sounds small because you’re showing that the exponent doubles.

        10^4 is WAY smaller than 10^8

    • aard@kyu.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 days ago

      You still had a 4GB memory limit for processes, as well as a total memory limit of 64GB. Especially the first one was a problem for Java apps before AMD introduced 64bit extensions and a reason to use Sun servers for that.

      • ArbiterXero@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 days ago

        Yeah I acknowledged the shortcomings in a different comment.

        It was a duct take solution for sure.

        • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 days ago

          Your other posts didn’t reply to your claim that it is a Windows only problem. Linux did and some distros (Raspberry Pi) have the same limitations as Windows 95.

          32 bit Windows XP got PAE in 2001, two years after Linux. 64 bit Windows came out in 2005.

          • ArbiterXero@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 days ago

            I’m not overly worried about a few random Linux distros that did strange things, nor raspberry pi’s. I mean I don’t know why you’d use 32 bit on an 8gb pi anyways, so it shouldn’t affect anyone unless they did something REALLY strange.

            For the average user, neither of those scenarios mattered, especially back when the problem was at its peak.

            2 years was a long time to wait to use the extra memory that Linux could use out of the box.

            I honestly don’t even remember XP having PAE, but if you NEED the validation, sure, Microsoft EVENTUALLY got it.

            Except that Microsoft removed it in SP2 LOL!

            And all the home use versions of XP still maxed out at 4gb.

            There could see the memory but couldn’t use it, oh I’d forgotten that!

            Wikipedia was a fun read.

            • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              8 days ago

              2 years was a long time to wait to use the extra memory that Linux could use out of the box.

              For 8 years, Linux had the same limitations as Windows. Then for 2 years it was ahead. Pae could always be turned back on with a boot switch. Going back 25 years to criticize Windows is kind of weird but you do you.

              (I run Linux on a variety of PCs, SBC’s, and VM’s in my house. I just get annoyed by unjustified Linux fanboyism.)