What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Follow the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Twitter view!
twitter.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
234 Comments
- larryjr88, on 09/03/2008, -0/+40I love the jab at Dell for selling unusable RAM to customers.
- Weaselboy, on 09/03/2008, -6/+35Good series of articles.
- Pippers, on 09/03/2008, -6/+25You're in luck! Price out a computer with all the exact bells and whistles you get with a Mac, and 9 out of 10 times, the Mac will be cheaper.
When you see that price tag being high, it's not because the Mac is just an average machine that is overpriced. It's a machine that is stuffed full of every possible option under the sun. When you do with with a PC, your price will be more. - tnoy, on 09/03/2008, -3/+20The 32-bit version of Vista can't, the 64-bit version can.
- freshyill, on 09/03/2008, -2/+18I really hope the next revisions of MacBooks and MacBook Pros use Montevina. I've had 2 GB in my two-year-old MacBook since shortly after I got it (HUGE performance difference from the 512 it came with), but I find that sometimes it's just not enough. I do web work, so I've got to be able to run Windows in VMWare. Current performance is very acceptable, but it bogs down the rest of my system while it's running.
A lot of people get frustrated with their computers, but I've found that throwing RAM at the problem is often a pretty good solution. Simplistic, yes. Effective, also yes. - colincornaby, on 09/03/2008, -4/+19Yeah, but unlike the Mac, I've had a lot of programs that won't run right under 64 bit Windows. 64 bit OS X runs all my legacy stuff just fine.
- Spuy767, on 09/03/2008, -3/+17Dell Power Dege 2900 III: 2 Quad Core XEON 5460 @ 3.18 Ghz 1333FSB, 3x 250 GB HD, 2 GB RAM, SUSE Linux
$4724
MacPro 2 Quad Core XEON @3.2GHz 1600FSB, 2GB RAM, 1x320GB HD, 1x500GB HD, OS 10.5
$4499
Dell XPS One Intel E6550 @ 2.33, 2gb ram, 250 GB HD w/20" monitor
$1749
iMac 24" Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.8 GHz, 2 GB Ram, 320GB HD
$1799
Unless you're building your own or buying utter *****, the price difference is a myth. - bundwallah, on 09/03/2008, -19/+33The article is misleading/inaccurate.
PAE is used where the O/S is 32Bit. It allows for memory access >4GB RAM. In a true 64Bit O/S. PAE is not used. To a 64Bit O/S, the memory model is flat. from 0MB on up. No memory "tricks" needed.
PAE use in WindowsXP was most likely disabled by Microsoft as a way or Tiering their products. I.e. you want >4GB memory access? Pay more for Windows Server or wait for 64Bit XP. PAE is NOT 64bit computing. It is a way to let 32bit systems access greater than 4GB of memory. A true 64bit system (O/S and hardware) will bypass PAE as it already has the hooks built in for higher memory access.
The article is touting Apple as a leader in 64Bit computing. I call *****. 64Bit Linux lead the charge on X86_64 systems. Not Windows and certainly not Apple. The very fact the article touts PAE tells me they know nothing of 64Bit computing. PAE is like EMM DOS memory management done in hardware. That's all. It gave 32Bit CPU's 36Bit memory addressing (up to 64GB). It is NOT 64Bit computing. 64Bit computing entails that the O/S is written specifically for the instruction set from the ground up. For Linux, that was a complete recompile. For Windows it was a WOW64 session on top of 32Bit Windows. (sorta like how Novell Netware used to load up on top of DOS yech!!) - jwdav, on 09/03/2008, -2/+15Even having a large iTunes library with Coverflow can eat up a few GB of RAM. Add to that, most modern web browsers will eat as much RAM as they can get and many users run some kind of virtual OS ... 4+GB of useable RAM can't happen fast enough for me.
A few years ago, I never used to see much in the way of page-outs with 2GB of RAM. These days, it's quite common. - nightsweat, on 09/03/2008, -1/+13Tell me about it! Sure, my Mac SE30 is slow, but why no OS/X support for 68030's!?
- jwdav, on 09/03/2008, -0/+11All the Intel Mac Pro's can address and fully use *at least* 16GB of RAM; the newest Mac Pro's handle 32GB.
From the article:
"Mac OS X running on a new Mac Pro or Xserve can handle as much as 32GB of installed RAM using PAE. Linux can also use PAE, but 32-bit Windows PCs are stuck at a maximum of 4GB of installed RAM. Windows XP initially offered support for using more than 4GB with PAE, but this caused problems related to driver bugs, so Microsoft simply disabled support for more than 4GB, starting with Windows XP SP2 and continuing into Windows Vista. Unless you're running Vista x64 or an expensive "datacenter" or "enterprise edition," you simply can't use more than 4GB of RAM on a Windows PC." - HamNCheese, on 09/03/2008, -1/+11You can have 4GB of "usable" ram on any macbook or mac pro today.
- jwdav, on 09/03/2008, -1/+11All Apples G5 machines were 64 bit addressable - the move to Intel required dropping back to 32 bit. PAE was the only solution that made sense to allow pro users to address more than 3GB of RAM.
There was no way Apple could sell the new Intel Mac Pro as a 32 bit machine when the previous generation of PPC machines offered 64 bit addressing. - MacHarborGuy, on 09/03/2008, -0/+10Because "MacOS X Sylvester" doesn't sound right.
- jthei, on 09/03/2008, -0/+10"when in fact it is no more beneficial than if the RAM were simply poked halfway into the CD slot"
Chuckle. - digitalpencil, on 09/03/2008, -3/+13Whereas OS 9's memory management was poor to say the least, OS X's is astounding. Max the ram and it simply flies and with snow leopard paving the road for 16TB addressable, we should begin to be able to let go of VM dependency.
- hurdboy, on 09/03/2008, -1/+11I noticed this almost three years ago, building a NetBSD box w/ 4GB. (P4/Intel 915G board, would only give 3.2GB of mem available to the kernel)
- MacParrot, on 09/03/2008, -1/+11I realize you're trolling, but why not at least make a sensible troll? Snow Leopard is about removing most if not all of the PPC legacy code. PPC Macs will run just fine on 10.5. Those with PowerMac G5 towers will have a great computer for as long as the apps they run are Universal apps. Apple is moving on. They have had several transitions over the years (OS6-OS7, 68xxx to PPC, OS9 to OS X, and PPC to Intel)and for a time support legacy computers, but with a small userbase and the need to keep their apps up to date keeping most developers happy at the same time requires a balancing act. Each transition has had a fair number of people and machines left behind. Part of the price you pay for having what is still a niche computer and OS (but the numbers keep growing).
Oh, and screw crysis - ericdano, on 09/03/2008, -0/+9Speaking as one who has a large iTunes library, and frequently has many programs open at a time on my 2006ish iMac Core 2 Duo that is maxed out with 3 Gigs of Ram, it performs well. However, adding Parallels into the mix (giving it 1 gig of memory), can cause some serious lag on the system, but it still works well enough.
On my MacPro, with 6 gigs of ram, nothing bothers that at all...... - PabloMac, on 09/03/2008, -0/+9Yeah, but then you have a cobbled-together PC.
- ericdano, on 09/03/2008, -0/+9Cause it is Leopard, but a more streamlined, faster, leaner, efficient Leopard. There are, as of right now, no new major features in Snow Leopard (10.6). Features like Time Machine, or anything of that order.
- MacParrot, on 09/03/2008, -2/+10Unless Apple either makes sacrifices in R and D or opens OS X to other makers (or most likely both), Macs will probably remain more expensive. Unlike Microsoft, they are supporting a computer hardware line, unlike Dell and the rest they are supporting an OS. The cost of doing business
- SovereignGFC, on 09/03/2008, -1/+9And this is why I use Vista Ultimate x64 SP1... 8GB RAM is as easy as pie.
- inactive, on 09/03/2008, -1/+9There is a noticeable difference... depending on the app. MOST apps you won't see the difference. However, heavy (read: HUGE) files in Photoshop, as well as upcoming After Effects, upcoming Combustion, and 3D apps... 64-bits makes a vast difference in performance.
- Turbojugend27, on 09/03/2008, -0/+7If you get the same hardware in a PC notebook it is usually more expensive. my old macbook with a 2 gig c2d 7200 chipset still outperformed PC notebooks for almost a whole year.
You get what you pay for, and once you pony up the cash for a mac and buy one you will not be disappointed.
- karipatila, on 09/03/2008, -0/+7Perhaps because the improvements aren't focused on the appearance? It pretty much looks like the same animal. I'll have to consult wikipedia to check if the actual snow leopard has something extra going on as well.
- jwdav, on 09/03/2008, -0/+7Xeon with Intel Extended Memory 64 Technology is not equivalent to CoreDuo/Santa Rosa chipset. It's more in line with a Mac Pro.
The article was referencing CoreDuo processors with < Montevideo chip sets and also noted that 64 bit Linux and 64 bit Vista did not have these issues on 64 bit capable hardware.
Also, from "fine print footnote #1" for the Precision 470:
"The total amount of usable memory available will be less, depending on the actual system configuration. To utilize more than 4GB of memory requires a 64-bit operating system. 2 Dual-channel memory requires 2 each of the same capacity memory DIMMs." - ericdano, on 09/03/2008, -2/+9There is really no surface changes between 10.5 and 10.6. No new features. 10.6 is all about dumping legacy code, and optimizing things to run on multiple core processors.
This is really something Microsoft should have done with Vista. I suppose Microsoft will do this as they seem to be copying Apple even more nowadays (windows mobile store, etc, etc) - bigsteve, on 09/03/2008, -0/+6I read what you wrote just fine. Regardless of slant, the -fact- exists that Microsoft went from reporting -usable- RAM in Win. Vista Gold/SP0 to reporting -installed- RAM in Win Vista SP1 under pressure of OEMs.
I didn't say open source hasn't lead any specific charge. I put quotes around "64bit" in attempt to show that you weren't differentiating between x64 and 64bit in general. I was saying that of course other OSes beat Apple to x86-64, because it wasn't until 2 years into the architecture's consumer existence that Apple even built an x86-64 machine. - ericdano, on 09/03/2008, -2/+8How come Microsoft cannot write a developers kit that would allow a developer to simply compile a binary for whatever platform. Like Apple does. Universal Binary. No, Microsoft makes you have a completely different toolkit, different libraries, etc. What a mess.
- jwdav, on 09/03/2008, -1/+7A swindle is when something is presented as something which it is not.
Whether Mac's are overpriced or not is an opinion, and one that the market will decide. Buying RAM from Apple is not the best move, but the price is clearly listed, and the RAM offered will actually work in the machine.
The point of the article, is that PC OEM's are selling RAM to customers, which their machines cannot take advantage of. Hence, a swindle. - surferjoemaui, on 09/03/2008, -3/+9How about one good point then?
- Radan, on 09/03/2008, -1/+7This thread made me chuckle a bit. Oh how I remember back in the nineties when I pretty much maxed out my Mac with 512 MB of RAM and thought it was amazing, and that wasn't even that long ago.
- digitalpencil, on 09/03/2008, -1/+7you might want to reevaluate your usage of paragraphs and couldn't you have just wrote 'i hate macs'
- ilgaz, on 09/03/2008, -0/+6If you really think you need 64bit adressing, pure 64bit kernel, you can install Yellow Dog Linux to that G5.
Let me tell what will happen: It may run slower. Serious. Pure 64bit does make no sense on G5 hardware, it is same amount of registers and commands, no added bonus as "64bit-added" Intel as PPC was designed with 64bit in mind. - bradleyland, on 09/03/2008, -1/+7The problem with the article is that it compares all the 64-bit aspects of OS X and Apple computers with Windows XP 32-bit... a 7 year old OS. What happens when you load that Alienware PC with Vista 64-bit. According to statistics from Windows Update, Vista 64-bit adoption tripled in July of this year. Once you're talking about a 64-bit version of Windows, all the arguments change.
http://www.techworld.com/news/index.cfm?rss&newsid ...
Original article (was down at time of posting):
http://www.windowsvistaweblog.com/2008/07/31/windo ... - HamNCheese, on 09/03/2008, -0/+6Snow leopard...as in a particular kind of leopard (being that 10.6 does not introduce new features.)
- Spuy767, on 09/03/2008, -2/+8@arjie, Dell 13.3 inch vostro laptop, 1200, MacBook of the same sopecs 1149.
- bigsteve, on 09/03/2008, -0/+5I think you mean OpenCL. Which, in my opinion, is far more interesting than a graphics library. Check it out for yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenCL - Turbojugend27, on 09/03/2008, -2/+7"Nothing like paying three or four hundred dollars more for the same hardware. "
So what you are saying is you are an idiot and don't read anything but Digg for research? The price difference is a myth. - Spuy767, on 09/03/2008, -0/+5I do a lot of programming with graphically intensive applications. I run Windows Server 2003 on my windows drive and 10.5 on my Mac drive. I used to only have 3 gigs of ram. It ran well, but when I would open the development environment, Photoshop, Illustrator, and Opera with 10 tabs of online code reference, things would get slow. So I bit the bullet, and spend almost a grand on 16 gigs of RAM. Holy ***** ***** does the computer run much faster, and it will probably save hard drive life in the future as I almost never use the page file now. If you've got the hardware, and the need, extra RAM is well worth the price.
- theblacknight, on 09/03/2008, -0/+5If you read the rest of the article (more than just the title, you would see that most versions of Windows still are limited by the 4GB - 0.75GB - VRAM barrier while Mac's sold in the last year or more have no such problem.
- jwdav, on 09/03/2008, -5/+10Comparable hardware is about the same price on either platform - if there is a difference, perhaps it is due to software and some people find it worth paying for?
- Traze, on 09/03/2008, -0/+5You misread.
It's not that it shares RAM, but an OS needs to assign addresses to all memory in a computer.
On a 32-bit OS, it can only address 3.2 gigs of RAM, including the video card memory.
So, a 32-bit OS, with a 2 gig video card, can only use 1.2 gigs of RAM. - inactive, on 09/03/2008, -1/+6He means Virtual Memory, not Virtual Machine.
- chuzwuzza, on 09/03/2008, -3/+8How is that at all relevant to weaselboy's comment?
- chuzwuzza, on 09/03/2008, -0/+5I may be learning as I go here, but wasn't the drop back to 32bit only for the pre core 2 duo systems? As of late 2006 with the core 2 duo in place, and the introduction of the mac pro, isn't it entirely 64 bit again?
- hurfydurfur, on 09/03/2008, -0/+5It's on the ultimate CD only. I think there's a voucher for the 64-bit, which you have to mail in. I just ordered the OEM SP1 Home Premium DVD from newegg today. I believe it's the 64-bit version off the bat but it's for "system builders" which I guess means that you can't buy the 64-bit version retail?
I have a couple of macs btw. Run what you want. 50/50 OS market share would be better for the consumer (imo). - bigsteve, on 09/03/2008, -2/+7@piznut: They're not "missing the boat" or "failing to understand," there's just no shortage of demand for the higher-end. Apple doesn't appear to have any desire to cater to the lower end. Econ 101. There's no shortage of demand at the current price point.
So you tell that fortune 500 company what they don't understand, random digg user. Go to it. - scabbers, on 09/03/2008, -1/+6Apparently it's using up the address space that the ram wants to use.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 237 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is