• ArbiterXero@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    79
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    5 months ago

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

    • aard@kyu.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      42
      ·
      4 months 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
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        4 months 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
          2
          ·
          4 months 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
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months 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.

    • Amanda@aggregatet.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      5 months ago

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

        • AnyOldName3@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          It’s a silly flag to use as it only works when running 32-bit Windows applications on 64-bit Windows, and if you’re compiling from source, you should also have the option to just build a 64-bit binary in the first place. It made a degree of sense years ago when people actually used 32-bit Windows sometimes (which was usually just down to OEMs installing the wrong version on prebuilt PCs could have supported 64-bit) if you really wanted to only have one binary or you consumed a precompiled third party library and had to match its architecture.

          • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            4 months ago

            You can also toggle it on precompiled binaries with the right tool (or a hex editor if you’re insane), which was my main use case. Lots of old games that never got 64-bit releases that benefit from having access to the extra RAM, especially if you’re modding them. It’s a great way to avoid out of memory crashes.

      • ArbiterXero@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months 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

      • neclimdul@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        It was actually 3gb because operating systems have to reserve parts of the memory address space for other things. It’s more difficult for all 32bit operating systems to address above 4gb just most implemented additional complexity much earlier because Linux runs on large servers and stuff. Windows actually had a way to switch over to support it in some versions too. Probably the NT kernels that where also running on servers.

        A quick skim of the Wikipedia seems like a good starting point for understanding the old problem.

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/3_GB_barrier

        • Amanda@aggregatet.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          4 months ago

          Wow they just…disabled all RAM over 3 GB because some drivers had hard coded some mapped memory? Jfc

          • ms.lane@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            4 months ago

            Only on consumer Windows.

            Windows Server never had the problem. But wouldn’t allow Creative Labs drivers to be installed either…

    • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      I’m not sure what you are talking about. Linux got PAE in 1999. Windows XP got PAE in 2001.