1. Welcome Guest! In order to create a new topic or reply to an existing one, you must register first. It is easy and free. Click here to sign up now!.
    Dismiss Notice

Can Vista use all 4MB of RAM?

Discussion in 'Windows Vista' started by rmo555@cox.net, Aug 27, 2009.

  1. On 9/17/09, the entity Carl Kaufmann wrote this:<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
    > Ken Blake, MVP wrote:<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
    >> On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 14:46:54 -0700, Gene E. Bloch
    >> <letters@someplace.invalid> wrote:
    >><!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
    >>> On 9/16/09, the entity Ken Blake, MVP wrote this:
    >>>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:21:13 -0400, "David H. Lipman"
    >>>> <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> From: "Ken Blake, MVP"<kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 09:11:04 -0400, Tim Slattery<Slattery_T@bls.gov>
    >>>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>> "David H. Lipman"<DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:
    >>>>>>>> How do you represent (2^64)-1 in Bytes ?
    >>>>>>> Lessee....that works out to 18,446,744,073,709,551,615. That's 18
    >>>>>>> quintillion and change, I think. Is the term for 2^64 bytes "exobyte"?
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> An "exabyte" (note the spelling) is 2^60. 2^64 is 18 exabytes.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Ahhhhhhhh That's the term. Win64 addresses 18 Exabytes of memory.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> What do you think of the chances we hit that ceiling in say 10 years ?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> I'm a terrible person to ask.<g> I've been terrible at making
    >>>> forecasts like this in the past, and have almost always been
    >>>> dramatically wrong.
    >>>
    >>> BTW, in talking about memory, engineers tend to use 1024 as the
    >>> 'thousands' multiplier, so 2^64 should probably be called 16 EB (if
    >>> that's the right abbreviation). Disk drive makers (and marketers), of
    >>> course, like the number 18 that you used, as do physicists, who still
    >>> think a thousand is 10^3 :)<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
    >>
    >>
    >> Note my standard message on of subject of whether a gigabyte is
    >> 1,000,000,000 bytes or 1,073,741,824 (in particular, note the last two
    >> sentences):
    >>
    >> All hard drive manufacturers define 1GB as 1,000,000,000 bytes, while
    >> the rest of the computer world<!--colorc--><!--/colorc--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
    <!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
    > <pedant>
    > except networking, which also uses the decimal definitions.
    > </pedant><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
    <!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
    > , including Windows, defines it as 2 to<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
    >> the 30th power (1,073,741,824) bytes. So a 120 billion byte drive is
    >> actually a little under 112GB. Some people point out that the official
    >> international standard defines the "G" of GB as one billion, not
    >> 1,073,741,824. Correct though they are, using the binary value of GB
    >> is so well established in the computer world that I consider using the
    >> decimal value of a billion to be deceptive marketing.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
    <!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
    > I consider it accurate communication. YMMV.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
    <!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
    > Carl
    > EAC Liar, Damned Liar, and Statistician<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

    Yes. They've been doing it since the Fall of Rome, so I, for one, know
    that a GB on a hard drive is 10**9 bytes, not 1024**3 bytes.

    But like you (Carl), I catch on quickly.

    --
    Gene Bloch 650.366.4267 lettersatblochg.com
     
  2. From: "Gene E. Bloch" <letters@someplace.invalid>

    | On 9/17/09, the entity Carl Kaufmann wrote this:<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro--><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
    >> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:<!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
    >>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 14:46:54 -0700, Gene E. Bloch
    >>> <letters@someplace.invalid> wrote:<!--colorc--><!--/colorc--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
    <!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro--><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro--><!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
    >>>> On 9/16/09, the entity Ken Blake, MVP wrote this:
    >>>>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:21:13 -0400, "David H. Lipman"
    >>>>> <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:<!--colorc--><!--/colorc--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
    <!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro--><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro--><!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
    >>>>>> From: "Ken Blake, MVP"<kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain><!--colorc--><!--/colorc--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
    <!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro--><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro--><!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
    >>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 09:11:04 -0400, Tim Slattery<Slattery_T@bls.gov>
    >>>>>>> wrote:<!--colorc--><!--/colorc--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
    <!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro--><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro--><!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
    >>>>>>>> "David H. Lipman"<DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>> How do you represent (2^64)-1 in Bytes ?
    >>>>>>>> Lessee....that works out to 18,446,744,073,709,551,615. That's 18
    >>>>>>>> quintillion and change, I think. Is the term for 2^64 bytes "exobyte"?<!--colorc--><!--/colorc--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

    <!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro--><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro--><!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
    >>>>>>> An "exabyte" (note the spelling) is 2^60. 2^64 is 18 exabytes.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
    <!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro--><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro--><!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
    >>>>>> Ahhhhhhhh That's the term. Win64 addresses 18 Exabytes of memory.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
    <!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro--><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro--><!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
    >>>>>> What do you think of the chances we hit that ceiling in say 10 years ?<!--colorc--><!--/colorc--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->


    <!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro--><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro--><!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
    >>>>> I'm a terrible person to ask.<g> I've been terrible at making
    >>>>> forecasts like this in the past, and have almost always been
    >>>>> dramatically wrong.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
    <!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro--><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro--><!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
    >>>> BTW, in talking about memory, engineers tend to use 1024 as the
    >>>> 'thousands' multiplier, so 2^64 should probably be called 16 EB (if
    >>>> that's the right abbreviation). Disk drive makers (and marketers), of
    >>>> course, like the number 18 that you used, as do physicists, who still
    >>>> think a thousand is 10^3 :)<!--colorc--><!--/colorc--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

    <!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro--><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro--><!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
    >>> Note my standard message on of subject of whether a gigabyte is
    >>> 1,000,000,000 bytes or 1,073,741,824 (in particular, note the last two
    >>> sentences):<!--colorc--><!--/colorc--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
    <!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro--><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro--><!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
    >>> All hard drive manufacturers define 1GB as 1,000,000,000 bytes, while
    >>> the rest of the computer world<!--colorc--><!--/colorc--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
    <!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro--><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
    >> <pedant>
    >> except networking, which also uses the decimal definitions.
    >> </pedant><!--colorc--><!--/colorc--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
    <!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro--><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
    >> , including Windows, defines it as 2 to<!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
    >>> the 30th power (1,073,741,824) bytes. So a 120 billion byte drive is
    >>> actually a little under 112GB. Some people point out that the official
    >>> international standard defines the "G" of GB as one billion, not
    >>> 1,073,741,824. Correct though they are, using the binary value of GB
    >>> is so well established in the computer world that I consider using the
    >>> decimal value of a billion to be deceptive marketing.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
    <!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro--><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
    >> I consider it accurate communication. YMMV.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
    <!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro--><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
    >> Carl
    >> EAC Liar, Damned Liar, and Statistician<!--colorc--><!--/colorc--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

    | Yes. They've been doing it since the Fall of Rome, so I, for one, know
    | that a GB on a hard drive is 10**9 bytes, not 1024**3 bytes.

    | But like you (Carl), I catch on quickly.

    | --
    | Gene Bloch 650.366.4267 lettersatblochg.com


    I have always looked at it as the unformatted capacity vs. the formatted capacity.


    --
    Dave

    Multi-AV -
     
  3. Tim Slattery

    Tim Slattery Guest

    "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:
    <!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
    >I did not know that. Do you have a MS URL about that Tim ?<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

    Hmm..looks like I'm not quite right. 64-bit Vista maxes at 128GB, but
    this page:
    says that
    64-bit Win7 maxes at 192GB. And the hugest version of Win2008 server
    and Win2003 server will handle 2TB! Is there any hardware that will
    support that much?

    --
    Tim Slattery
    MS MVP(Shell/User)
    Slattery_T@bls.gov
     
  4. Tim Slattery

    Tim Slattery Guest

    "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:

    <!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
    >I have always looked at it as the unformatted capacity vs. the formatted capacity.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

    Which isn't correct. You use a tiny percentage to overhead when you
    format. The difference you see is due to the decimal - binary units
    thing.

    --
    Tim Slattery
    MS MVP(Shell/User)
    Slattery_T@bls.gov
     
  5. From: "Tim Slattery" <Slattery_T@bls.gov>

    | "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:
    <!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro--><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
    >>I did not know that. Do you have a MS URL about that Tim ?<!--colorc--><!--/colorc--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

    | Hmm..looks like I'm not quite right. 64-bit Vista maxes at 128GB, but
    | this page:
    | says that
    | 64-bit Win7 maxes at 192GB. And the hugest version of Win2008 server
    | and Win2003 server will handle 2TB! Is there any hardware that will
    | support that much?

    Not yet but....


    --
    Dave

    Multi-AV -
     
  6. On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 08:58:51 -0400, Tim Slattery <Slattery_T@bls.gov>
    wrote:
    <!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
    > "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:
    >
    > <!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
    > >I have always looked at it as the unformatted capacity vs. the formatted capacity.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
    >
    > Which isn't correct. You use a tiny percentage to overhead when you
    > format. The difference you see is due to the decimal - binary units
    > thing.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->



    I was about to say the same thing, but you took the words out of my
    mouth (or, in this case, off my fingers).

    --
    Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
    Please Reply to the Newsgroup
     
  7. On 9/18/09, the entity Ken Blake, MVP wrote this:<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
    > On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 08:58:51 -0400, Tim Slattery <Slattery_T@bls.gov>
    > wrote:<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
    <!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro--><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
    >> "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:
    >>
    >> <!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
    >>> I have always looked at it as the unformatted capacity vs. the formatted
    >>> capacity.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
    >>
    >> Which isn't correct. You use a tiny percentage to overhead when you
    >> format. The difference you see is due to the decimal - binary units
    >> thing.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->


    <!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
    > I was about to say the same thing, but you took the words out of my
    > mouth (or, in this case, off my fingers).<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

    And for an example with explicit numbers, look at a gigabyte. Using
    1024, the number is 1073741824, and using 1000 it's 1000000000 (of
    course). If the HD maker used binary units, he'd have to call his
    decimal-gigabyte drive 931 megabytes. That's ~7% worth of marketing...

    I'm too lazy to carry this out for exabytes, but the marketing bonus is
    obviously gonna be huge. When we get there :)

    --
    Gene Bloch 650.366.4267 lettersatblochg.com
     

Share This Page