The Great PC RAM Swindle | Hacker News Reader

The Great PC RAM Swindle

appleinsider.com

24 pointspmorici13 comments

Really old news, sensationalist headline for a crappy biased article. Microsoft have been moving forward towards 64-bit for a while, although they arguably should offer 64-bit as default on new builds, and a large proportion of people run 64-bit Linux.

Apple offered upgrades to 4gb of memory without explaining the disadvantages and Mac OS X Tiger showed the amount of physical memory rather than the amount addressable - http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=364707 - why is it a "swindle" when Dell do it but not when Apple do it?

Actually, a tiny proportion of people run 64-bit Linux.

I'd actually say its easier to run 64-bit Vista than Linux due to the fact that people often ship binaries for Windows that seem to work whereas the SOs in Linux leave you with a mixed-mode install. Sigh.

The biggest problem I ran into with this was that earlier versions of package managers didn't handle multiple arches installed on the same system very well (claims of package conflicts due to the names being the same, things like that). That seems to have been fixed or is being worked on.

My honest response is I don't know what the current state of the world is like in 64bit land.

My one experience was deeply frightening (what do you mean I can't listen to music without having to maintain a 32bit userland?)

Microsoft ... should offer 64-bit as default on new builds

Dragon NaturallySpeaking -- even the just-released v.10 -- only runs on 32-bit Windows.

http://www.google.com/search?q=naturallyspeaking+32+64+windo...

If there is no 32-bit version of Mac OS X Leopard, then why does it need the 8gb hack at all?

And why does Microsoft still sell 32-bit Windows?

Maybe why needs an 8gb hack:

"Currently, Mac OS X Leopard hosts both 32-bit and 64-bit apps on top of a 32-bit kernel (below). Using PAE, the 32-bit kernel can address 32GB of RAM in the Mac Pro and Xserve; Apple's consumer machines only support 4GB RAM, but unlike 32-bit operating systems they can use the entire 4GB (with appropriate hardware support). Leopard's 32-bit kernel enabled Apple to ship 64-bit development tools to give coders the ability to build applications that can work with huge data sets in a 64-bit virtual memory space (and port over existing 64-bit code), without also requiring an immediate upgrade to all of Mac OS X's drivers and other kernel-level extensions. That transition will happen with Snow Leopard." http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/08/26/road_to_mac_os...

I don't know if this is right, but it caught my attention when I read it.

They seem to hype the whole 64-bit stuff a lot. I've had a full 64-bit Gentoo running for quite year and the difference to 32-bit wasn't even noticeable.

Running what?

Unless you're doing CAD, 3D or video editing, 64-bit on the desktop is just for bragging.

That is true right now. Making every integer and every pointer 64 bits is really a net loss performance-wise for most applications because it reduces the number of items that can be cached by 50%.

However, it is much easier to write server applications that assume all data can fit in virtual memory. All of my new server-side applications assume that the entire dataset of every process can fit in the virtual address space of the system. Effectively, my applications now require 64-bit machines to handle more than 2GB of data. This allows me to use mmap() and normal memory management (malloc, etc.) and rely on the operating system's VMM to swap for me. This is a vast simplification over trying to implement your own user-space VMM just to handle large files on small (32-bit) systems. I expect that the next generation of server software will all be design this way, and a lot of desktop software will probably adopt this kind of design too.

well he said gentoo, so i guess that means running gcc.

Over and over and over again... :-P

Reply on news.ycombinator.com