Talk:3 GB barrier

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Computing (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Suggestion[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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 [1]. 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[edit]

So... what are the " ideas, incidents, or controversies" to which this article "may" lend "undue weight"?

Nobody has come up with specifics on this in nearly five years. If nobody can come up with specifics then the tag should be removed. Jeh (talk) 09:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Remove it. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)