What a cute little troll you are.Originally Posted by PM from JVene
I don't care about MS.
What they offer and what not means nothing.
You forgot to mention Win95.
What a cute little troll you are.
I don't care about MS.
What they offer and what not means nothing.
You forgot to mention Win95.
Nice that you edited your last post again.
And yes, I have an answer.
They shouldn't ask you.
pjeremy, I had attempted to take this off the thread via PM, but you decided to post that to the public.
Why are you concerned about my correcting a typo, or removing irrelevant material?
Point 1:
the world doesn't revolve around you or your disinterest in Microsoft. The OP is running Photoshop, which doesn't run in linux, he runs XP.
Point 2:
You are the one who took a point thats irrelevant to the OP's inquiry and turned into a flame against me. Fact 1 - XP nor Windows 2000 supports more than 4G of RAM even if PAE is enabled, and aside from your disinterest in Windows, the OP is running XP for the primary interest of Photoshop.
Point 3:
You made a big deal out of my editing a post to remove irrelevant material. Everything I posted before you came along in this thread is accurate relative to the OP, so far nothing you've posted is.
Point 4:
You took a PM and posted it here, and augmented that with commentary that insinuates that was posted in this thread. I never posted the quoted material to this thread.
Point 5:
It is widely practiced that multiple drives are used to drop seeks. It's effect is just as good on full drives as largely empty ones. The AIX installation guide from IBM for their RS6000 line of Unix boxes clearly points this out (at least it did in the early 90's when AIX mattered), and highly recommends placement of the various volumes using this caveat. It works for Windows systems as well. Its not profound, but the benefit doesn't evaporate with the drives fill. The probability that delay from long seeks is reduced relative to the type of material being sought.
Point 6:
You and I are both new to this board. We're likely to get banned from hijacking someone else's thread for irrelevant and unwelcome exchanges, but look back at the record and try to admit the truth - you started with a nasty attitude that would tick anyone off, especially in light of the fact that although you accused me of knowing very little, it is in fact you that professed errors as though they were fact. Despite your claim to denounce MS, the fact is you claimed Windows 2000 and XP support more than 4Gbytes of RAM, as if only an idiot didn't realize such a claim, when in fact MS documentation clearly states no version of XP supports more than 4Gbytes physical RAM even when PAE is enabled. Only versions of server, and not all of them, and to varying limits.
Point 7:
You still couldn't properly answer the question I posed could you? The system, by default, reserves 2Gbytes of the processes' addressable memory for itself unless the /3GB switch is applied in the boot.ini, and the application itself is built with the /LARGEADDRESSAWARE switch turned on. Only certain versions of Windows support this feature, too. XP Pro happens to be one of them.
Point 8:
You seem to find an appetite for swinging the verbal bat at someone. You poked commentary at me with the presumption that I had no idea what PAE is. Well, frankly, it's so little used and worked only in certain circumstances, and in the last 15 years of my association with companies that depend on workstations for architecture, no one I've known has ever used the feature. I was first introduced to the idea on NetFinity machines from IBM that were based on multiple P2 and P3 CPU's, if memory serves 8, 16 and 32 CPU's with up to 16 Gbytes of RAM running AIX. In fact, it didn't work well, and didn't compete well against their own RS6000 line. The whole concept works about as badly as the 24 bit addressing the 286 used in the 16bit days. It works, but with various degrees of complications depending on drivers and performance oriented bottlenecks, but has no benefit to the applications - only to the OS and specialized services like VM. Now with 64 bit computing, it's entirely irrelevant. Anyone interested in using more than the limits of 32bit addressing shouldn't force fit such a bad technical concept into use, especially when it is of no per-process benefit on workstations like the OP is interested in building.
Point 9:
Even in 64bit based workstations, the number of motherboards that can even take over 4GBytes of RAM are far less than those that can by a large margin. One reason is that the market for workstation class machines outnumbers those of the server domain, and most workstation applications are still 32bit builds, whereas 64bit OS that runs those applications are still a little flaky (and with XP on the chopping block, the outlook isn't very good considering Vista 32bit is about as flaky with drivers).
64 bit computing is still a niche, about like 32bit computing was for years after the 386. It's not yet ready for novices and the general public, there are too many frustrations for them. Geeks find it easy, but even architects that depend on workstations for daily use can't be bothered.
Point 10:
I built my first computer when I was 12, back in the days when you actually had to solder the chips and sockets to the motherboard - when it was actual work, and a running result was an accomplishment. I've forgotten more than you'll know about this stuff.
Point 11:
I don't sell computers. I only make them when I need one myself, or a friend has already started one and gets stuck. I'm a developer, my primary work is in C++. I own my own firm, and my reputation among my clients is very strong, with many active business relationships dating back to 1990, and a few dating back to 1983, when I was probably as young, childish and green as you, pjeremy.
Last edited by JVene; 05-23-2007 at 12:44 AM.
Wow, settle Girls, This is a c programming board. Go and program something instead of flaming.
Leaving the boards is upto you, but it is a bit childish.
You attempted to flame like a little twat in PM so noone notices. I don't play like that. I want an audience.
You didn't correct a typo, you removed "irrelevant parts" showing your lack of knowledge.
Kudos though, almost a 12-step program.
Point 1+2: blabla, you're the only one mentioning Photoshop. 2k supports PAE.
Point 3+4: Of course, everything you've posted is absolutely, undoubtedly accurate....
Except the first line beneath your quoted PM, the rest was an answer to your previous post, which, of course, you've edited since then.
Point 5: Yes, and it's waste of money with questionable performance boost for a normal user.
Point 6: The victim card. Now you got me. Now I will get banned, oh no. Neither did I denounce MS nor did I claim XP can use PAE. Quick, edit your post.
Point 7: I don't intend to.
Point 8: Well googled, Vene. 64bit (Mips Risc, DEC Alpha, Sun UltraSparc, etc) has been around for a long time. But yes, PAE is rather irrelevant nowadays.
Point 9: No, just no.
Point 10+11: Yes Masser, me no know nothing.
Neither insulting nor your 'strong reputation' will help you.
To the OP:
Figure out what you want out of your PC, check the hardware in your price range, compare, evaluate cost-benefit and pick what you consider best for your purposes.
Thread closed!
If members of the board want to fight, argue, or even slap each other with handbags, then I suggest thew do it in private
