Vista SP1 to lie about RAM usage. Deliberately!
Most somewhat techie users know all about Microsoft and their recent Vista disaster.
One of the biggest problems is that they have about 16 different versions of it, and the average users doesn't know which one to get.
They have
Vista Basic
Vista Home Premium
Vista Business
Vista Enterprise
Vista Ultimate
(they also have a starter edition, and 'N' versions that they sell abroad)
That's not all. Each version comes with a choice of either 32 bit, or 64 bit.
Basically 64 bit should be a bit faster, more stable, have improved security and, more importantly, they can address a full 4GB of RAM (and way more than that).
Because of the way binary works, the most RAM an operating system can use is 2^bits.
In a 32bit OS it's 2^32, which ends up being 4GB (although most windows machines max out at around 3GB). Unlike Apple, they've been unable to combine both editions, letting the OS take care of bit problems. Because of this, almost every copy of vista sold is 32bit, which can't use more than about 3.2GB. This used to be fine, but now that RAM is so cheap (I bought 4GB of RAM for my desktop for $80. At that price, does it really make sense to get any less?)
The issue is deeper though. Computer manufacturers want to boast of new machines that are faster and have more memory than their predecessors. The problem is, what good does more memory do you when your OS can't use it.
If you right click on "My Computer" and go to properties, it will show the amount of RAM that your computer can see. This is perfectly fine, but sometimes the ignorant consumer buys 4GB of RAM, and thinks there is a problem when their OS only reports 3GB.
So, what does the richest company in the world do about it?
Fix the problem at the core?
Enforce manufacturers to use 64bit?
nope. They just have their OS lie about it.
Starting next month, with the release of the first Service Pack for Vista, going to the properties of "My Computer" will show you how much RAM is actually installed on your computer, regardless of whether Vista can actually even use it.
Isn't this despicable? Now there will be even more clueless people who will be upgrading without any benefits.
Does Microsoft ever get anything right?
The only good thing ever to come out of Redmond is Office (Office 2007 is great, but I'm just fine using OpenOffice.org)
I personally am running the 64bit version of Ubuntu.
Here's a link detailing some of the other changes Microsoft are planning.
http://www.ghacks.net/2007/12/10/windows-vista-sp1-guides-for-it-professionals/
4 comments:
-
well if you didnt know... using the windows experience index. (system rating) you can see exactly what you need to upgrade the computer which i think is a massive improvement to help people understand what needs to be upgraded, and microsoft isnt lying? there telling the user EXACTLY how much RAM is in the computer, rather than it saying how much is in use which would more than likely end up with people thinking theyve got faulty RAM.
on
-
but it's deliberately confusing.
It's embarrassing that Microsoft still don't have a viable x64 solution (blame whoever you will, but linux and apple both have perfectly stable x64 with good driver support). The most obvious drawback of 32 bit is its inability to use more than 3.5GB of RAM. This is now becoming an issue, as RAM is cheap. So, Microsoft had 2 solutions.
1: have a good x64 OS available.
2: cover up that you don't support more than 3.5GB of RAM.
and we know which choice they madeon
-
As someone who has experienced this orchestrated deception first hand, I have to agree with the authors comments. I recently bought a new dell and during the online configuration of the system I was allowed to add up to 4 gig RAM (for Xtra $$), so I spent the extra cash and bought 4 gig. I was unpleasantly surprised when Vista only recognized a little over 3 gig. I called Dell and ask them why they sold me a system with 4 gig, when the OS only recognizes 3. They scratched their head and credited me back money for the unused gig.
Now, had my system come with Vista SP1 I would never have been the wiser. As someone who doesn't spend time scouring over tech articles I would not know the limits of the Vista OS and if my computer system properties reported 4 gig, I would unwittingly assume it was using all 4 gig; it is very misleading. I almost think it's collusion between Computer Manufactures and Microsoft. Most will allow you to buy 4 gig when order a system running 32bit Vista, I guess they pressured MS to make this change to SP1 so they would stop hearing from disgruntled customers.on
-
You are a little off though.
intel has known of this limitation of 32bit addressing for quite a while, and with the pentium pro and all (except a couple of mobile processors) implemented PAE (Physical Address Extension) which provides 36bit memory addressing (64Gigs) on 32bit processors. The extra memory is paged in so no one application can use all 64gigs at once, but 16 applications could each access 4gigs.
All it requires is operating system support.
Which microsoft so gladly adds... For their server software, but none of the 32bit consumer software. Which are all software limited to 4gig of physical memory mapped space. Of which many things chew into that 4GB space that aren't ram. Usually 512Mb is reserved for the system bus, and the PCI bus. But if you are using a larger video card, that video ram is going to take more, leaving you with 3GB.
The latest patches for XP and Vista32 just lie, and report the amount of ram installed, not the amount usable, reporting all 4gigs.
Richard
www.fenchurch.orgon
