Talk:3 GB barrier
|WikiProject Computing||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
This article looks rather about memory limitation in general.
I suggest renaming the article, making the 3Gb barrier a section in it, or removing the content, which is not directly about the 3Gb limitation. As far I know, this 3Gb memory limitation exists only for 32-bit MS Windows OS (am I right?). If it is so, I suggest making this clear in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderVK (talk • contribs) 08:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Yes to it needing a rewrite and/or the scope/title should be reconsidered or just merged into a broader scope. Yes just 32-bit OSes but not just MS. User:Jeh Rather than obscuring the individual aspects with language like "It is commonly claimed.." it should say the obvious that 32-bit addressing goes up to 4GB, 36-bit like PAE etc to... but keeping this "commonly claimed" just obscures those hard facts . The article still conflates rather than separates and explains the different aspects of this hardware address space issue. Widefox; talk 20:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
- The word "memory" as switched in by Guy Macon is misleading. "Memory" could mean virtual memory. A wording such as "physical address space" is necessary for precision.
- The claims in the references are false, because they blatantly say that ~"32-bit processors can only address 4 GB RAM", without qualification (e.g. "unless PAE is in use"), even though they were written years after PAE was introduced on the Pentium Pro and later CPUs. I could find a dozen more such references without looking hard.
- In any case, the "bit width" of a processor has no direct relationship to the physical address space it supports. The industry history includes a great many machines for which the "bit width" does not match the width of physical addresses. I wonder if the myth persists only among those who have experience only with x86?
- On the other hand, anyone who wants to add text concerning other operating systems, or find a "broader scope" to merge this into, is of course welcome to do so. But it'll take more than "someone should do this". Jeh (talk) 22:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
"Undue weight" tag
So... what are the " ideas, incidents, or controversies" to which this article "may" lend "undue weight"?