|
fishmech posted:So what consumer needs more than 16 GB between now and the first Windows 7 service pack? I'm not saying "they'll never need more than 16 GB" just "they probably won't before 2 or 3 years is up". Also, they do still sell Windows 7 in 32 bit versions, so I'd imagine developers won't expect people to have more than 4 GB for a while. But why restrict it? A RAM restriction seems like just the sort of thing they would actually spend time to implement, just to get people with enthusiast gear to shell out more money for a single feature. I didn't realize until now that commercial OS developers are running a contest of who can be the most evil without making it blatantly obvious, one one hand there's this, on the other there's jobs charging $20 for OS updates with "quicker dvd-tray opening" Lilac fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Jul 23, 2009 |
#
?
Jul 23, 2009 20:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 17:40 |
|
|
Lilac1 posted:I still can't believe I need to shell out 2x Home premium money to get a version which does not artificially restrict the amount of RAM I can install. 64 GB would be okay, 16 GB is a giant "gently caress you" to the consumers. Can you even get consumer-level motherboards that allows for more than 16 gigs of RAM? Also, not only is there still nothing consumer-oriented that has requirements higher than 2 gigs of RAM (and even that's not that common), there are very, very few programs that even use 64-bit instructions (i.e. they couldn't use more than 4 gigs of RAM anyway, or is it 2 gigs per process?); further, with the fact that there are still many, many people on 32-bit OSes, I don't think anything's going to be designed to require even 4 gigs of RAM until the next version of Windows, if not further if they keep the 32-bit train going any longer. I'd be surprised if a game came out with a higher minimum requirement than 2.5 gigs by the time the next Windows OS was released to the public.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2009 20:54
|
|
|
I think 32-bit applications have a memory cap of 2.5GB. Earlier in the year I got on a WoW kick, and the program killed itself because it tried to allocate more than 2.5GB of RAM. Having 8GB kicks rear end. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2009 21:01
|
|
|
univbee posted:Can you even get consumer-level motherboards that allows for more than 16 gigs of RAM? Also, not only is there still nothing consumer-oriented that has requirements higher than 2 gigs of RAM (and even that's not that common), there are very, very few programs that even use 64-bit instructions (i.e. they couldn't use more than 4 gigs of RAM anyway, or is it 2 gigs per process?); further, with the fact that there are still many, many people on 32-bit OSes, I don't think anything's going to be designed to require even 4 gigs of RAM until the next version of Windows, if not further if they keep the 32-bit train going any longer. I'd be surprised if a game came out with a higher minimum requirement than 2.5 gigs by the time the next Windows OS was released to the public. Modern graphics cards eat up available process memory like cheetos. One of ATI's latest offerings will grind any 32bit OS to a halt if installed, with dual chips requiring 2gb Vram each. 24/32 gb ram is the current amount of ram modern 1366 motherboards are capable of using. When I take the plunge to 64 bit, as I assume many people will (most, in time), the ram restriction might not be all too terrible at first, assuming I can make due without a swap file with that amount. But in three years time, who knows. All I know is that early previews suggested a limitation of 64 gb pre-launch, while still a limitation, a much more future-proof one. But again, WHY restrict ram usage? Lilac fucked around with this message at 21:04 on Jul 23, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2009 21:02
|
|
|
Ah the old no swap file rubbish
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2009 21:07
|
|
|
Lilac1 posted:But why restrict it? The restriction exists for the same reason that XP Home couldn't support more than 2 cores. Basically, Microsoft doesn't want a business to run a Home OS in place of a Server OS for a webserver, or Home instead of Business for an intensive application like CAD, video rendering etc. Despite the fact that all versions share the same kernel. So Windows 7 Home Premium is restricted to 8 cores and 16 GB of RAM. That's a Core i7 with at least $500 worth of RAM in it, and should be fine for a while now. It's a freaking top end gaming system right now. If you need more, pay $100 extra or whatever for Pro. Honestly what annoys me more about Home is not having RDP/GPO/etc. But you know, even if you get Ultimate you still have a limit on cores and RAM. I believe it's 64 cores and 512 GB of RAM, so you're going to have to buy Server 2008 R2 to go above that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2009 21:08
|
|
|
c0burn posted:Ah the old no swap file rubbish Here, maybe you'll learn something. http://searchwinit.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid1_gci213077,00.html fishmech posted:The restriction exists for the same reason that XP Home couldn't support more than 2 cores. Basically, Microsoft doesn't want a business to run a Home OS in place of a Server OS for a webserver, or Home instead of Business for an intensive application like CAD, video rendering etc. Despite the fact that all versions share the same kernel. 16 gb of ram is a hell of a lot closer to what is easily and cheaply available today than 8 cores on a single cpu, or did you mean 8 threads? Lilac fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Jul 23, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2009 21:09
|
|
|
Lilac1 posted:Here, maybe you'll learn something. There si literally no performance benefit to disabling the swap file unless you're running a pre-1998 IDE drive in a computer with 32 GB of ram. All it does is have the potential to cause problems without helping anything.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2009 21:10
|
|
|
Lilac1 posted:Here, maybe you'll learn something. Huh, I learn something new every day. I thought swap files were where programs went to trade old features they didn't use any more and second hand temp files and stuff like that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2009 21:13
|
|
|
fishmech posted:There si literally no performance benefit to disabling the swap file unless you're running a pre-1998 IDE drive in a computer with 32 GB of ram. All that writing to disk pisses me off.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2009 21:18
|
|
|
Lilac1 posted:Here, maybe you'll learn something. Windows sees a core i7 as having 8 cores, and that's all that matters for that limit. Lilac1 posted:All that writing to disk pisses me off. Then you're stupid, pretty much. Programs constantly write to disk anyway, swap file or not.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2009 21:18
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Windows sees a core i7 as having 8 cores, and that's all that matters for that limit. 8 threads is not 8 cores. Should a proper 8 core cpu be developed, it could still run 8 threads likely more efficiently than the current I7. Or MS could simply address this as an "issue", should the 8 core/8 thread difference come up at a later date. I assume that it's been explicitly stated that W7 home premium will support 8 cores, or the whole point is moot. fishmech posted:Then you're stupid, pretty much. Programs constantly write to disk anyway, swap file or not. Write LESS then, and not use any space. Also, NO U.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2009 21:42
|
|
|
Lilac1 posted:You honestly thought that the I7 had eight cores, yet you maintain keeping this a cock measuring contest. How broken of you. I didn't say 8 threads IS 8 cores, I said 8 threads count as 8 cores for licensing purposes. I never thought an i7 had 8 physical cores. Turnign off the swap file is a retard's decision, done by retards and at best reduces disk writes by 1%. You will never see actual performance increases and you will never extend the life of your hard drive or anything. All disabling a swap file does is make your computer less stable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2009 21:48
|
|
|
What with a thread on this popping up every week I'm amazed there are people who still believe this tripe.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2009 22:33
|
|
|
I've been playing with the Library functionality, starting with music. I've got a share on my WHS named Music that I added to the library. Last night I changed the name of one of the Genre folders, and today I have both the old name and the new name appearing on my Win7 box, both with the same files. How do I clear out the contents?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2009 23:03
|
|
|
[Deleted]
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2009 23:07
|
|
|
fishmech posted:I didn't say 8 threads IS 8 cores, I said 8 threads count as 8 cores for licensing purposes. I never thought an i7 had 8 physical cores. I think he might be trolling.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2009 23:22
|
|
|
One day every thread in SH/SC will be an argument about disabling the swap file. That day is not far off.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2009 23:54
|
|
|
Hey guys how many times should I zero pass my hard drive to make sure it cannot be recovered?
Full Circle fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Jul 24, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2009 00:20
|
|
|
Heres a weird question. I have windows 7 64 bit currently installed, everything works great but I am getting really weird high ping times on games like TF2 and MMO's. I believe I disabled nagles algorithm correctly, so im not really sure what it is. This is also a new mobo/computer, and ive never actually ran anything else on it. So its possible its not even windows fault. What I was thinking of was installing Windows XP 32 bit on a partitioned drive so I can see if that is the problem. Currently only Windows 7 64 is on the drive. Will this cause any problems to dual boot xp 32? Quick edit: I have a X58 3xSLI EVGA mobo, is there any chance that the windows 7 network drivers it installed are no good? I am using the motherboard network adapter. This is my first build in 5+ years so excuse the stupid question. JayJay fucked around with this message at 00:30 on Jul 24, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2009 00:21
|
|
|
Full Circle posted:Hes guys how many times should I zero pass my hard drive to make sure it cannot be recovered? you should just repeatedly zero it forever. it's the only way to be sure
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2009 00:24
|
|
|
BOOM! DOCTA WATSON posted:you should just repeatedly zero it forever. it's the only way to be sure No, you see, Quantum mechanics says that it's possible to recover it even then, you need to shatter it into a billion pieces and then melt those pieces.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2009 00:27
|
|
|
JayJay posted:Heres a weird question. I have windows 7 64 bit currently installed, everything works great but I am getting really weird high ping times on games like TF2 and MMO's. I believe I disabled nagles algorithm correctly, so im not really sure what it is. This is also a new mobo/computer, and ive never actually ran anything else on it. So its possible its not even windows fault. What I was thinking of was installing Windows XP 32 bit on a partitioned drive so I can see if that is the problem. Currently only Windows 7 64 is on the drive. Will this cause any problems to dual boot xp 32? I run 32 bit XP and 64 Win7 just fine. However, I should mention that I installed XP first and it's on a completely seperate hard drive so YMMV. I think you should be fine though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2009 00:27
|
|
|
BizarroAzrael posted:I hope no one minds me bringing up the European version again, I'm sure it's somewhere deep in the thread but I've not seen it yet. PC World were doing it for £45 (£90 for pro) a couple of days ago, with free delivery too. Don't know if they've sold out yet but as most techies hate Dixons group companies they might last a big longer. Scan are currently offering full price OEM versions on pre-order they're about 90 quid for home. As stated by others, no version of Windows has ever come with Office, so either you got a really good deal on your last PC or you got a pirate copy of office free with your PC. IMO MS should keep the pricing at this level. I balk at paying over £100 for an OS but at this price I'm happy to give them my money. This is the first time I've bought Windows since my Amstrad 486slc/33 came with 3.1 16 years ago (Excluding company machines obviously) I forked out for Pro to get XP mode too. Edit: Here yo go home premium for 45 quid. Pro is already sold out, not 180 quid. Lum fucked around with this message at 00:53 on Jul 24, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2009 00:31
|
|
|
To address the artificial limitation argument: 640k aught to be enough for everyone. Remember that? Just because the consumer can't currently utilize a feature, doesn't necessarily mean that it's useless. Limiting users to 16GB of ram in 2009 would have been like Microsoft coding in a 1GB limitation in 2000. "Why, Windows XP Home users often operate just fine on 256MB of memory. I can't see them spending that much on extra memory. Trying to use that much for them is simply a waste of time!" While we're up on the limitation boat, why not throw in an arbitrary disk space limitation too. Why, I bet right now that single users will never have 16TB hard drives. Incidentally, I take it that the prices quoted far earlier in the thread ($300 for 7 Pro? Hah.) are for the retail images. If that's the case, then OEM ones may even be affordable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2009 00:42
|
|
|
PopeOnARope posted:To address the artificial limitation argument: 640k aught to be enough for everyone. Remember that? Well, since the vast majority have 32 bit systems, XP does basically have a 4GB limitation. That being said, it's been able to nearly double it's intended lifespan due to Vista delays and people are only really hitting the 4GB limitation now. I know there's people here with a lot more than 4GB, but most retail PCs are still coming with 2-4GB. If Microsoft stick to their release schedule, a 16GB limit should be too bad at all in my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2009 00:53
|
|
|
PopeOnARope posted:To address the artificial limitation argument: 640k aught to be enough for everyone. Remember that? Hmmm, except they still can use it, they have to pay to do so. It's almost as if Microsoft's using it as a feature.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2009 00:56
|
|
|
PopeOnARope posted:To address the artificial limitation argument: 640k aught to be enough for everyone. Remember that? But 640k was just fine for the public for about 5 years after that? Microsoft isn't saying WE'LL NEVER LET THE HOME USER USE MORE 16 GB OF RAM. Windows ME was released in 2000 and would CRASH if you had 1 GB of RAM or more so I don't see your point really.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2009 01:11
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Windows ME was released in 2000 and would CRASH if you had 1 GB of RAM or more so I don't see your point really. Yes, but Windows ME was an unmitigated piece of poo poo that makes Vista look like an Apple fanboy's description of MacOSX
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2009 01:29
|
|
|
Lum posted:Yes, but Windows ME was an unmitigated piece of poo poo that makes Vista look like an Apple fanboy's description of MacOSX It was the Home version of Windows released in 2000 that he was referring to though. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2009 01:48
|
|
|
fishmech posted:But 640k was just fine for the public for about 5 years after that? So would any 9x Windows with more than 512 megs of RAM (it would see it as negative RAM, IIRC). The best part about this is that Microsoft asks questions on Vista certification exams about making a dual boot configuration of Windows Vista...and Windows 95. No, not a VM, loving dual boot. So you need exactly 512 megs of RAM (which makes Vista run like rear end) or to hack 95 so it only sees 512 megs of RAM. If I see any such questions on my exam, I'm tempted to give the correct answer and then fill in the end with "...but I will put a loving bullet in my head before actually doing this for a client, seriously are you loving retarded?"
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2009 01:54
|
|
|
univbee posted:So would any 9x Windows with more than 512 megs of RAM (it would see it as negative RAM, IIRC). The best part about this is that Microsoft asks questions on Vista certification exams about making a dual boot configuration of Windows Vista...and Windows 95. No, not a VM, loving dual boot. So you need exactly 512 megs of RAM (which makes Vista run like rear end) or to hack 95 so it only sees 512 megs of RAM. If I see any such questions on my exam, I'm tempted to give the correct answer and then fill in the end with "...but I will put a loving bullet in my head before actually doing this for a client, seriously are you loving retarded?" 98 supported 768 MB of RAM and 98 SE supported 1 GB of RAM but both numbers included video card RAM, etc. So a 98 computer with 512 MB RAM and a 256 MB video card was likely to crash on boot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2009 01:57
|
|
|
fishmech posted:It was the Home version of Windows released in 2000 that he was referring to though. It was Windows 98 dressed up in drag to look like it's older sister Windows 2000. Only it didn't know how to do the make up properly and had no idea how to walk in heels without falling over every 10 minutes. What I'm trying to say is using ME as an example of anything isn't valid unless it's an example of something that should never have been sold.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2009 02:02
|
|
|
1997 posted:I think he might be trolling. And last I heard MS counts physical cores, not logical cores, for the licensing restrictions. That may have changed of course, but thats how it was for XP if not Vista.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2009 02:33
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:My quad with 8GB and no swap is perfectly stable. Silly people. Shut the gently caress up and put your e-peen away already. ilkhan posted:And last I heard MS counts physical cores, not logical cores, for the licensing restrictions. That may have changed of course, but thats how it was for XP if not Vista. It will continually go back and forth for eternity. Enterprise software licensing has been based on 'processors' for decades. The problem is, the definition of 'processor' keeps changing as the hardware changes. It used to be cores, then it was sockets, then it was units, and back to cores, and sockets, and all around again. But they always call it 'processor'.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2009 02:36
|
|
|
Is there a better RSS gadget, or at least a way to make the one that comes with 7 stop rotating between all its pages? It's rather distracting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2009 06:02
|
|
|
univbee posted:"...but I will put a loving bullet in my head before actually doing this for a client, seriously are you loving retarded?" This is the correct answer on at least 50 questions in the MCSE 2003 curriculum.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2009 07:45
|
|
|
Lilac1 posted:I still can't believe I need to shell out 2x Home premium money to get a version which does not artificially restrict the amount of RAM I can install. 64 GB would be okay, 16 GB is a giant "gently caress you" to the consumers. Just to point out one thing that hasn't been commented on. How is this a giant gently caress you? At most it's a bit of a let down. Who gets this restriction? Just home premium? How many people who are going to buy Home Premium have more than 16GB of RAM or will do so in the next year or two? 3? 4?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2009 08:44
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:My quad with 8GB and no swap is perfectly stable. Silly people. My i7 with 6GB and a swapfile is even more stable and prone to stay that way rather than tumble over for seemingly no reason, like yours can. The reason MS limits RAM is in order to sell sever OS's. If anyone could buy home premium and slap 64GB of RAM in a box to make some sort of powerful server, there'd be decreased incentive to buy the server-style OS's that MS releases. Whether or not 16GB is a reasonable limitation or not is another matter (I disagree, 32GB would be acceptable in my mind - already 12GB of RAM is not that unreasonable to get if you're cutting-edge - triple channel i7 with 3x4GB sticks would do it, for example).
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2009 11:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 17:40 |
|
|
Casao posted:No, you see, Quantum mechanics says that it's possible to recover it even then, you need to shatter it into a billion pieces and then melt those pieces. Unfortunately all your bits where entangled with some bits elsewhere and I have thus, recovered all your horrible, horrible secrets.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2009 11:47
|
|