Re: Alpha remembrance day


Bill Todd wrote:
Andrew wrote:

...

Sorry wrong again.
At the risk of being pedantic, to be wrong 'again' I would already have
had to have been wrong in the current discussion at least once.


Well if you can point to one single part of this thread where you have
been right then I will be happy to buy you a sweet.

How about the fact that Win2K, contrary to your assertions, indeed
*does* support a full 64 GB of RAM? Not that you appear to have managed
to understand even that simple a correction below, so I won't bother
creating a full (and rather lengthy) catalog of the other instances in
this thread where not only I have been right but you have been either
dead wrong or utterly irrelevant to the subject at hand.


Does it really. Windows 2003 does we know that but can you provide a
Microsoft reference for 64GB support in Win2K.

...

The Pentium may well have supported 64GB of RAM in
1996 but but Windows NT Server 4 never did.
By George, it appears that you may be right for once: I thought that I
remembered some trans-4GB facilities (which Win2K later cleaned up as
its AWE mechanisms) being introduced in some flavor(s) of NT V4, but I
can't find any mention of them right now.

Neither did Windows 2000,
Wrong (again). While Microsoft *nominally* supports only up to 32 GB of
RAM in Win2K Datacenter, had you even investigated the link that you
yourself provided you would have seen that this was because of the lack
of available hardware to test on 64 GB systems, and indeed "Inside
Windows 2000" confirms that the Win2K code supports up to the full 64 GB
system size.

Yup - there it is.

Err no wrong yet again. Sequent and laterly IBM built Pentium based
systems which physically supported 64GB of RAM as did Unisys. However
the Win2k release notes say that Win2k only supports 32gb of RAM. So
the reason for official support does not relate to the lack of
available systems.

Though its difficult to see how not having 64GB systems available
supports your line of argument since you were the person who very
misguidely introduced the whole 64GB on Pentium point in the first
place. Why suggest that NT supported 64GB in 1997 when you apparently
knew that no manufaturer build Pentium based boxes with 64GB of RAM.




How amusing, it was you who claimed that 64GB was addressable by NT.

Yes, and (as I readily admitted earlier) it appears that my recollection
that the last version of NT had support for extended RAM may have been
in error (at least I wasn't able to find corroboration with a quick look).

If
you will note I pointed out that this wasn't true for either NT or
Win2K

And, as I noted above, while you may have been correct about NT, you
were wrong about Win2K, which (according to the reasonably authoritative
"Inside Windows 2000") in fact *does* support up to 64 GB of RAM. For
that matter, according to a link from the very Web page which *you*
provided as support for your contention that Win2K supported only up to
32 GB of RAM that nominal limit was set only because larger systems did
not exist at the time on which to validate the full 64 GB support.


If you can find a microsoft document that refers to Win2K supporting
64GB of RAM then please publish it. Reasonably authoritive given your
track record hardly cuts it does it.

I've finally placed you, Andrew: you're the socially-challenged kid on
the playground who's determined to get attention even if he has to goad
others into beating him up to get it. The kind who thinks he's scored
some kind of moral victory by adamantly parroting the same empty drivel
("I know *you* are, but what am *I*?!" is the meaningless schoolyard
comeback that springs to mind) no matter how many times he's first
corrected, then jeered, then kicked around.


Really fascinating have you looked in the mirror today Bill ?

BTW thanks for saving the best until last.

Regards
Andrew Harrison

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Alpha remembrance day
    ... How about the fact that Win2K, contrary to your assertions, indeed *does* support a full 64 GB of RAM? ... and it appears that my recollection that the last version of NT had support for extended RAM may have been in error. ... Andrew: you're the socially-challenged kid on the playground who's determined to get attention even if he has to goad others into beating him up to get it. ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: Alpha remembrance day
    ... Since I already pointed out Pentium's support for 64 GB of RAM since ... RAM in Win2K Datacenter, had you even investigated the link that you ... Or, in the case of NT, instead uses a single process and maps around the ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: Alpha remembrance day
    ... Since I already pointed out Pentium's support for 64 GB of RAM since ... RAM in Win2K Datacenter, had you even investigated the link that you yourself provided you would have seen that this was because of the lack of available hardware to test on 64 GB systems, and indeed "Inside Windows 2000" confirms that the Win2K code supports up to the full 64 GB system size. ... Or, in the case of NT, instead uses a single process and maps around the ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: Virtualized SBS / WS /TS
    ... I don't expect any improvement in the USB support question any time soon. ... I chose this group again because the SBS is the main SW in this ... WS 2008 as Hyper-V parent with a couple of guest OS'es running, ... quickly takes 2.5 to 3 GB RAM for just the parent. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: Virtualized SBS / WS /TS
    ... So, for example, having USB support means my TS RemoteApp server running in Hyper-V runs my iPod/iTunes. ... No, that wouldn't make sense on the main SBS server, but on a Terminal Server, it's a legitimate usage. ... quickly takes 2.5 to 3 GB RAM for just the parent. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)