Sadly it's totally false. Because Windows 1 is a different branch from Win95 architecture, despite being similar in architecture (needs MSDOS), and Windows NT3 is a completely different architecture from Windows 9x, and NT6 is also a different architecture. They might SEAM like one is OS is based on the previous one, but doesn't mean that some ideas are kept that it's the same.
It's supposed to be a joke. Like the one about the new Windows taking its cues from Windows CE, Windows Me and Windows NT aka. Windows CEMeNT. But perhaps an image would illustrate better...
There is a 32 bit installer for grim fandango that allows it to be installed and played on a 64 bit OS.
You could download a SCUMM emulator - I think it is in SCUMM like the Monkey Island series... http://www.scummvm.org/ Even if not you can still play great games like sam and max and day of the tentacle from the old 16 bit days! Bit off topic though......
With RAM as cheap as it is, there's no excuse not to use the 64-bit version of Windows Vista or 7. Just bought 16GB DDR3 RAM for around £100.
This certainly applies for older chipsets (e.g. nForce) but current ones (like Intel's X58) relocate GPU memory beyond the 4GB boundary, so it doesn't reduce the memory accessible on 32-bit OSes (some providing a BIOS option for this). It's worth noting that even though PAE was officially disabled on 32-bit WinXP, some software can still use it to access memory beyond what XP can manage, allowing 32-bit users to gain improved performance from their system. Examples include: Gavotte Ramdisk PAE (free); Superspeed Ramdisk Plus (commercial, licence key tied to computer name); Vsuite and Primo Ramdisks (free and commercial versions available - commercial licence key tied to computer hardware, requires online activation or email to Romex to install on new system); Dataram Ramdisk (cannot access memory between 3-4GB on 32-bit systems, may have problems hosting pagefiles); EBoostr - disk caching software, requires online activation. The main reason to use 32-bit Windows is clearly compatibility - especially for those using hardware or software with 32-bit drivers (that cannot run under 64-bit and may not work in XP mode with its limitations on hardware access) where no update is available. Another downside of 64-bit is the rather inept way Microsoft has chosen to segregate 32-bit and 64-bit software, requiring a separate "Program Files (x86)" for 32-bit software when alternative systems (like a new file extension for 64-bit software) would have made the 64-bit transition a far more seamless experience. Contrast this with how 32-bit Windows OSes handled 16-bit software (firing up WOWexec automatically) - users didn't even need to know whether their software was 32-bit or not. Patchguard (an attempt to block kernel modifications on 64-bit systems) and driver signing are also problematic - although intended to improve security they arguably make matters harder for security software vendors than for malware writers. Driver signing imposes a cost on developers (typically $500/year) which will have the effect of discouraging freeware, while having near-zero impact on malware ($500 is small change for scammers and certificate providers have little incentive or ability to avoid authorising malware). For someone starting out with a new system and no legacy software or hardware, 64-bit is going to be the better choice (only for Win7 Professional or better, since Home Premium's 16GB limit is paltry compared to the 64GB a Win2K/XP install can handle with PAE). However it isn't clear-cut for everyone, and there will be cases where 32-bit (with various workarounds, noted above) will be better.
As a minor aside, if you want a good example of how to lead a user base onto 64 bit, look at how Apple have done it...
Well that's the thing, the normal limit is 2GB. One way to go around it, is that you have multiple processes communicating each other, so for example one can be a game map loader, and the other be the visuals loader (let's say), and one will draw everything, by combining both. And I don't know if Linux override mode, causes performance decrease.
People here say PAE makes the computer slower than hell... Windows runs in PAE mode by default (non-server editions just don't go above 4G). The small overhead involved when running in PAE mode also applies when running in 64bit mode. Sometimes people confuse PAE with AWE.
Actually the limit was put on non server Windows, because of driver problems. Manufacture refuse to fix the problem blaming on Microsoft fault. Some driver manufacture did fix them, but far in between. Manufacture never really cared, because back then most gamer PC had 512MB of RAM. Microsoft knew that people (gamers, and who ever needs a lot of memory for their work) would have more than 4GB of RAM really soon (and they were perfectly right), so they set the limit. Also, PAE support was only available on certain (high-end (regular to us)) 32-bit CPU's. Plus, it would only allow 4GB per process at best (and that is Linux thing). Microosft had 2 choices with Vista. -> Stay stuck in the paste and block computer innovation with PAE support and cross their fingers that manufacture would finally fix their problems, causes system stability issues, or malware malfunction. or -> Open doors, transition to leave the 32-bit world, drop 16-bit support (aka: "DOS software"), support with real 64-bit support, where now you can have (on paper) 16 Exabyte of RAM, solve the problem with the 2TB HDD limit, provide new security features on CPU's to block widely used attacks, and system exploits methods, provide additional performance, provide new operation code, which also increase performance. The decision is obvious. This is like magnetic tapes. Towards the end of life of cassettes tapes, in a time where CD's where really coming soon, you had Type 2 and Type 3 cassettes, which allowed a significance increase in durability, and play/record counts, than the traditional Type 1 cassettes. That was a useless investment in research, to try and push the lifespan of cassettes. Well for one it didn't pick up, and second, there are better technologies.. CD's! I am glad Microosft picked the right choice, and ditch PAE, and push 64-bit. These are signs that Microosft does indeed have a strong vision onto the future, and Windows never limited computer hardware.
Technically, 36bit PAE has been supported by almost all Intel's CPUs since the beginning. Motherboards and chipsets on the other hand haven't always supported addressing above 4G. The 2 TiB hard drive limitation is not about 32 or 64bit OSes, but about how the harddrive is partitioned. 32bit Windows also goes beyond 2 TiB.
Yes sir you are correct on both points. My apologies. But not all AMD and VIA supports 36bit PAE at the time. Interesting read: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2004/08/18/216492.aspx
Yes it did. By the time, the majority of CPU's from AMD and Intel supported 64-bit long instructions, plus Vista was a transition OS. Today nearly all CPU's that run Windows 7, can run 64-bit of Windows 7. Hence why there was the rumor that Win8 will be 64-bit only (which isn't the case yet, as Microsoft is all about backward compatibility). If driver where better made, then you would get PAE. So complain to them, and not Microsoft.
Oh, we are at the time where we have 64bit CPUs? I thought we were talking old days. If the 64bit OS can address above 4G, so can the 32bit. I am not sure I am complaining, but if I were then Microsoft could have chosen to release an optional pae kernel with support of more than 4 GB.
Yea but most 32-bit drivers has issues with PAE. That's the problem. Which is fixable, probably complex thing to do, based on companies that does the drivers complete resistance in fixing the problem.
