gcmartin wrote:Sorry. whether you or I like it or not, PAE as a hardware built-in feature of the CPU has been in the build of over 99% of all 32bit systems built since 1995.
You know what else has been around since 1995? i386 technology. Doesn't mean we should be using it. Just like i386, PAE needs to be left it the wastebin of history.
gcmartin wrote:The preponderance of evidence is published by several authorities all over the internet. And, internal reports (that I sure no one lets you see) have shown that PAE provides comparable performances without degradation harm to the OSes.
You have failed at ANY point to provide evidence for your claims. Others have provided verifiable sources. You continue to make claims with no supporting evidence.
And whats this... internal reports no one is letting me see. What this community has secret reports that only a select few people get to see. LMAO. That's got to be the most outragous claim I've ever heard on here.
gcmartin wrote:Maybe you can go up against the Industry Giants to show that the whole industry has lied to you.
Well lets see what the Industry giants say, shall we?
Linus Torvalds wrote:And dammit, in this age and date when almost everybody has a gigabyte of RAM in any new machine, anybody who still thinks that "not that many people need 64-bits" is simply not aware of what he's speaking of.
Linus Torvalds wrote:anybody who still doesn't get why 64 bits is a requirement should just shut up rather than make a total fool of himself.
Source =
http://www.realworldtech.com/forum/?thr ... stid=76973
Linus Torvalds wrote:Once you start having to access physical memory through some kind of HIGHMEM.SYS window (which is what PAE is), and cannot map it all, you can no longer keep normal pointers to such memory around. Instead, you are basically using a really ugly and strange segmented architecture, where you keep some kind of indirect pointer, and every time before you use it, you have to map it into the virtual address space, access it, and then unmap it again.
So performance plummets, and the code actually gets really nasty too, so you don't actually use the high memory for any random data, you only use it for special stuff. As an example, you'd use it for disk caching (that's what 90% of all HIGHMEM.SYS usage was too - a lot of people just set it all - or at least a big chunk of it - aside as a harddisk cache, because so few programs could use it very well for anything else).
Linus Torvalds wrote:And yes, there were serious problems. In theory, you can have 64GB of RAM with Linux on a PAE x86 box. In practice, it seldom worked very well past the 4GB mark, so PAE itself was almost totally useless. The reason was that once you had more than 4GB of memory, you usually had filled out a large chunk of the easily accessible memory with just all the data structures to keep track of the rest of memory (that's exaggerated, but it's not entirely off).
Source =
http://www.realworldtech.com/forum/?thr ... stid=76980
gcmartin wrote:Edit: One additional thing. It appears your REALLY dont know how the OSes work on use of accessed data as you "sound off" as an authority on system performance. WOW! Shame on you, my friend. I am inclined to believe Intel and AMD who build and test this, versus your emotional perceptions.
Well lets see what AMD has to say about this, shall we?
AMD wrote:Benchmarks
First we picked some real world benchmarks for our 32-bit vs. 64-bit comparisons. Oggenc, Mencoder and Povray as well as some compilation tests. Furthermore micro benchmarks were used to show specific performance differences for syscalls and 64-bit arithmetics.
We set up three system configurations – a 32-bit installation, a 64-bit installation and a combination of 32-bit installation with 64-bit kernel to challenge the compat layer. All tests were performed on a dual-core AMD-K8™ processor with 1 GB RAM.
The tests showed that the penalty of using the compat layer instead of running your 32-bit application on a native 32-bit kernel is about 1-2 percent. So it is almost negligible.
64-bit took the lead in the media encoding tests. Our Povray and Mencoder benchmarks took about 5% less time in the 64-bit case, Oggenc even 25%. Just C-compilation tests showed a performance advantage of 5% to 8% for 32-bit versus 64-bit.
Native arithmetic performance (64-bit data types used in 64-bit software vs. 32-bit data types used in 32-bit) showed a gain of 10% for the 64-bit case. Using 64-bit data types on 32-bit and 64-bit in the arithmetic performance test showed that 64-bit is more than twice as fast as 32-bit.
Source =
http://developer.amd.com/community/blog ... bit-linux/
Dont know what 'experts' you are talking about and what 'industry' you are keep talking about. The IT industry and experts have been VERY clear about the performance benefits of X64 over PAE even with limits below 4GB ram.