Can Vista use all 4MB of RAM?

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

 

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 -

 

"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

 

"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

 

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 -

 

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

 

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