That makes a lot of sense. Thanks! On Jan 9, 2008 8:52 AM, Christopher Fisk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Brian Weeden wrote: > > > Yeah it's nothing to worry about. Basically, instead of trying to > > explain to people why 32-bit CPUs can't use more than 4GB and windows > > in particular can't address more than 3.2 GB (which even I don't fully > > understand) they just use the term "designed for 64-bit". Just > > marketing slang. > > The reason is backwards compatability! > > 32 Bit Addressing can only support 4GB of memory, but the way addressing > is used on 32 bit systems that means ALL TYPES of memory. Video card, > SCSI card, etc. Anything with memory will use up some of that addressing > on a 32 bit system. > > Just like Video cards, etc. would claim memory in the region between 640K > and 1024K on old DOS systems, video cards writted after the 32bit > changeover claimed memory at the top of the 4GB barrier and move down. > > If you have an SLi pair of cards with 512MB each, you're limited to 3GB of > system memory addressable without a special motherboard that will adjust > your memory mappings. > > > More information can be found: > > http://www.dansdata.com/askdan00015.htm (Great link explaining it) > http://blogs.msdn.com/hiltonl/archive/2007/04/13/the-3gb-not-4gb-ram-problem.aspx > > > > Christopher Fisk > -- > Mal: "Using corpses for smuggling is a time-honored repulsive custom." > Jayne: "Maybe it's gold!" > Zoe: "And maybe this was a friend of ours, and you wanna show a little > respect." > Jayne: "I got respect. But I'm just saying... gold!" > >
-- Brian Weeden
