Comment on Why we don't have 128-bit CPUs
ArbiterXero@lemmy.world 4 months agoYeah I acknowledged the shortcomings in a different comment.
It was a duct take solution for sure.
Comment on Why we don't have 128-bit CPUs
ArbiterXero@lemmy.world 4 months agoYeah I acknowledged the shortcomings in a different comment.
It was a duct take solution for sure.
Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Your other posts didn’t reply to your claim that it is a Windows only problem. Linux did and some distros (Raspberry Pi) have the same limitations as Windows 95.
32 bit Windows XP got PAE in 2001, two years after Linux. 64 bit Windows came out in 2005.
ArbiterXero@lemmy.world 4 months ago
I’m not overly worried about a few random Linux distros that did strange things, nor raspberry pi’s. I mean I don’t know why you’d use 32 bit on an 8gb pi anyways, so it shouldn’t affect anyone unless they did something REALLY strange.
For the average user, neither of those scenarios mattered, especially back when the problem was at its peak.
2 years was a long time to wait to use the extra memory that Linux could use out of the box.
I honestly don’t even remember XP having PAE, but if you NEED the validation, sure, Microsoft EVENTUALLY got it.
Except that Microsoft removed it in SP2 LOL!
And all the home use versions of XP still maxed out at 4gb.
There could see the memory but couldn’t use it, oh I’d forgotten that!
Wikipedia was a fun read.
Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 4 months ago
For 8 years, Linux had the same limitations as Windows. Then for 2 years it was ahead. Going back 25 years to criticize Windows is kind of weird but you do you.
(I run Linux on a variety of PCs, SBC’s, and VM’s in my house. I just get annoyed by unjustified Linux fanboyism.)
ArbiterXero@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Not just for 2 years, XP removed it in sp2.
And even when it supported it, many versions wouldn’t let you use it, or would let you “see” it but not use it.
For basically the life of XP.