Yeah that got me too. I mean why bother mentioning it and then say that it actually doesn't really matter.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple's Latest Ad Takes Aim at Microsoft's 'Laptop Hunters' Campaign
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yeah that got me too. I mean why bother mentioning it and then say that it actually doesn't really matter.
Reassuring to hear, since that means that we're making objective statements that don't get stonewalled by Ego.
Slippery Slope Warning:
And the criteria that 16GB was supposedly an "Average User" requirement?
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't roughly 90% of all of the World's PCs currently running a 32-bit OS? And let's recall that 32-bit PC OSs are effectively incapable of addressing more than 4GB, even as per MS's own documentation
So then what is the so-called "Average" desktop personal computer user today? IE, who's running a 32-bit OSs? Well, if we simplistically estimate that that's 95% of all XP desktops and 66% of Vista, then based on their current market shares, we're probably already hitting around 80% of all personal computer users even before we consider the Mac's portion of market share.
Yet the clearly "Non Average" criteria of 16GB RAM isn't being criticized as an inappropriate benchmark, even though easily 80% of the World's personal computer users don't even run an OS that can address more than 4GB.
... are we really sure that this position is logically defensible?
Moving forward, I do agree that having "room for growth" is a good thing when it comes to elements such a RAM. However, from a pragmatic "Average User" perspective, most folks get along fine at RAM levels lower than even XP/Vista's 4GB limit. And while the posters here are disproportionately more shifted towards being power users, if you were to take a survey, you'll probably find that most of them probably don't even have more than 8GB...or are even considering more than that in the near-term.
For example, I've personally done some work manipulating 200 Megapixel photographic images...and while I only have 3.5GB real, even to do this task would effectively only require around12GB (I also had a 50MP file open too). YMMV as to how many more years it will take dSLRs to move from a native 25MP to 200MP to make this level of Photoshop into an "Average" task...but I'd be willing to bet that its not going to be within the 5-7 year lifespan of a new computer purchased today.
-hh
Agreed, but from the PAE page that was referenced from the URL that I previously cited (emphasis added):
"On most computers, PAE is disabled by default."
It continues:
"(PAE is enabled by default only if DEP is enabled on a computer that supports hardware-enabled DEP, or if the computer is configured for hot-add memory devices in memory ranges beyond 4 GB.) PAE must be explicitly enabled for Windows to run in NUMA mode on a NUMA-capable computer."
Golly, this is definitely something that every single "Average PC user":
- knows about said feature;
- knows exactly how to perform said 'enable' task;
- has the right hardware;
- and who actually does make the effort to enable it;
YMMV, but IMO, I doubt that even as high as 50% of generic 'Average' PC users are even aware of PAE at all, let alone actually employ it.
-hh
Good for you then! Was getting a little worried since you seem so agitated in your posts making them a bit hard to read.
It would have been much shorter and more accurate to simply type "I was wrong."
Sorry, but accuracy also requires recognition of the included word of "Effective", which differs from "Is Sometimes Technically Possible".
I'm not aware of any credible documentation that allows us to conclude that a clear majority (it doesn't even have to be 80%+) of all 32-bit Windows OS users worldwide are using PAE.
Now if you can provide a supportable cite, then I will apologize for my generalization being wrong.
But until that happens, my statement regarding the 'Average' User stands.
-hh
hahah
well since when are Apple ads not aimed straight towards Microsoft computers. there ads are funny clear and not desperate like the Microsoft.
well since when are Apple ads not aimed straight towards Microsoft computers. there ads are funny clear and not desperate like the Microsoft.
Look at my post again, and what I quoted:
Note that you said that the OS was effectively incapable - but in your long rambling defense you said that the users weren't smart enough to enable PAE. That was orthogonal to the question that I corrected you on.
I think that most people would consider "effectively incapable" to mean that it's nearly impossible, or there's some drawback that even if it's possible you wouldn't want to do it in practice.
But to the contrary - two terminal commands and a reboot are all that are needed to enable PAE and utilize up to 64 GiB of RAM in a PC OS. (Each process only gets 4 GiB max, of course.)
I would not call that "effectively incapable", therefore I took your suggestion and corrected you.
In fact, the huge majority of 32-bit Windows systems (possibly almost all) shipped in the last five years are running PAE.
The PAE kernel is necessary for DEP (Data Execution Prevention) - which Windows turns on by default if the CPU supports XD/NX. The user doesn't have to do anything - any system Windows XP SP2 or later will run PAE without the user's intervention.
I think that is a supportable citation, so your apology will be accepted.
But the argument was about 32-bit PC operating systems, your tangent about the average user was not relevant - whether true or false.
_______________________________________
More to the point, you don't understand what you are talking about with PAE in the first place.
Running the PAE kernel in XP doesn't give you more than 4 GiB addressing - only the server operating systems support that. (See the above Microsoft link for proof.) So the whole PAE discussion is pointless for XP/Vista 32-bit. Most everyone has the PAE kernel, but it doesn't help. (We have people who run Windows Server 2008 32-bit on their laptops to get the full 4 to 8 GiB RAM access.)
Therefore, your assumption that I was talking about Windows was also wrong.
The "32-bit PC OS" that I was talking about is Ubuntu. Two shell commands and a reboot will load the PAE kernel, and give you 64 GiB RAM capability.
As I said, it would have been much shorter and more accurate to simply type "I was wrong."
Note that you said that the OS was effectively incapable - but in your long rambling defense you said that the users weren't smart enough to enable PAE. That was orthogonal to the question that I corrected you on.
I think that most people would consider "effectively incapable" to mean that it's nearly impossible, or there's some drawback that even if it's possible you wouldn't want to do it in practice.
But to the contrary - two terminal commands and a reboot are all that are needed to enable PAE and utilize up to 64 GiB of RAM in a PC OS. (Each process only gets 4 GiB max, of course.)
I would not call that "effectively incapable", therefore I took your suggestion and corrected you.
In fact, the huge majority of 32-bit Windows systems (possibly almost all) shipped in the last five years are running PAE.
The PAE kernel is necessary for DEP (Data Execution Prevention) - which Windows turns on by default if the CPU supports XD/NX. The user doesn't have to do anything - any system Windows XP SP2 or later will run PAE without the user's intervention.
I think that is a supportable citation, so your apology will be accepted.
But the argument was about 32-bit PC operating systems, your tangent about the average user was not relevant - whether true or false.
_______________________________________
More to the point, you don't understand what you are talking about with PAE in the first place.
Running the PAE kernel in XP doesn't give you more than 4 GiB addressing - only the server operating systems support that. (See the above Microsoft link for proof.) So the whole PAE discussion is pointless for XP/Vista 32-bit. Most everyone has the PAE kernel, but it doesn't help. (We have people who run Windows Server 2008 32-bit on their laptops to get the full 4 to 8 GiB RAM access.)
Therefore, your assumption that I was talking about Windows was also wrong.
The "32-bit PC OS" that I was talking about is Ubuntu. Two shell commands and a reboot will load the PAE kernel, and give you 64 GiB RAM capability.
As I said, it would have been much shorter and more accurate to simply type "I was wrong."
ok i made an error and thank you on that
but it didn't help your or iamafanboyz' argument that people do 3d rendering like he does. People dont care and dont need and most people that use PC's or macs wont need them because they wont get into photos with professional cameras or computer animation or HD video editing
when you have to bring up a power user to make your point on a commercial with obviously non power users present you are wrong....sorry wrong
(but thanks for teh correction
)exactly.....huh?!?!?
I'm passionate.......but in the end i am a lover of woman (in a wide range of ages, say 20-50) not a fighterGood for you then! Was getting a little worried since you seem so agitated in your posts making them a bit hard to read.
No offense but I think they're getting desperate in their own accord, the lastest one always reapeating the message of the last one.
You can only use something witty a number of times before it stops being funny and starts getting old.
They should really update themselves. Mac development has been running on empty the last couple of years, with the exception to the rule being the release of the Unibody Macs. Which btw overheats for many people so it's either a positive or negative, I can't decide.
They're all about iPhone today = boring.
So in other words, I was right afterall.
But also, your raising of the PAE issue was simply an attempt to maliciously and disingenuously obfuscate.
So noted.
-hh
Both take liberties with the truth. I think the PC ones are pretty dire, but the problem with some of Apple's ads, despite some good humour, is that quite a few folk seem to have confused the intended personification of computers with a representation of typical users, the joke being on those using PCs. IMO, that's backfired & seems to have made some people even more anti-Apple than before.
No - we don't dislike Apple.
We dislike the stereotypical Apple customers - like the smug, arrogant jerk that Justin Long plays in the Apple adverts....
I said I've been using Windows since 1993. I didn't say I last used Windows in 1993.
And for all the wailing and gnashing of teeth about the Apple ads being FUD, tell that to two people I know who this very week had viruses wreak major havoc on their PCs.
Maybe they were just brainwashed by Apple's dishonest marketing...
Again, if the Apple ads didn't ring true with hundreds of millions of Windows users, Apple wouldn't keep running them. The ads are effective because Windows users can relate to them.
And if Vista were such a winner as you seem to believe, Microsoft wouldn't be in such a rush to shoo it out the door and usher in its replacement.
I have never heard you refer to any Apple product in a positive light. Everything is always "epic fail" to you. And at times you yourself can also be quite the "smug, arrogant jerk."
Is there an Apple product you don't dislike?
Odd Shaw, because all I see you consistently doing is kvetching about Apple and its products, not throwing around weak stereotypes about its customers (though plenty of other trolls here on this board are happy to do that).