SC4 Platform Survey

[z1 566]

Well, the first version of Windows NT was released in July, 1993 - almost exactly twenty years ago.  That was Windows NT 3.1, which was numbered to match the existing Windows release at the time.  We're still running versions of Windows NT - for example, Windows 7 is actually NT 6.1 - and are likely to do so for some time.  This is both because the field of OS architecture is rather mature, and also in order to maintain compatibility.  You don't want all your apps to stop working with every Windows release.  (On a related note, I see there are no Windows Vista users here...)

 

The real change was when the NT model of a fully virtualized, multi-tasking OS was brought to the consumer level with Windows XP.  As I indicated earlier, XP isn't all that different from the short-lived Windows 2000; Windows 2000 had the internal version number of 5.0, and XP was 5.1.

 

And then, of course, there's Linux, which is based on Unix, which was invented in 1969.

 

So improvements have been evolutionary rather than evolutionary.  Nevertheless, the increase in hardware capabilities (Moore's law and all that) have made it possible to do things that were not possible a decade ago.  For example, my first PC, a Pentium 90, ran at 107 MIPS, while current Ivy Bridge CPUs run at over 20,000 MIPS.  That's a speed increase of close to 200 times in two decades.  Nothing radical there; just a lot of incremental improvements.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

I still say it's witchcraft and virtually nothing has been invented in the past 30-40 years, It's now just repackaging, repurposing, tweaking and combining to re-patent something.  What really new leap of creation or imagination have we seen since the pc and the carphone went mobile?  (and I certainly don't count the seqway as anything monumental)

It's not witchcraft.  Just old technology.  We had 8 CPU configurations in the 1950s (ATLAS-8, Honeywell 800) with pretty small memories (very expensive in those days) which were virtual.  Looking a little into my machine, I find it not only runs page tables but segment tables using all the available virtual technologies. 

 

I was quite delighted the first time I got a segmentation fault that crashed something.  It was a revelation.  Sometime when I am feeling especially keen, I'll pull in the source code for the memory allocator and give it a good look.  Works well, and I am curious as to how Linus T. implemented it in the kernel.  Used to teach this stuff, and I wonder if anything much has changed.

 

Up until the last few processors, there were no path-predictive pipelines.  I think that is what they are doing now to get "hyperthreading".  BS by any other name ....

[z1 566]

I've noticed some interesting statistics in this poll.

 

Currently, 16 users say they use Windows XP or earlier.  Of these 16 users, 16 use the NAM, and 3 don't.

 

Also, 21 users say they have less than 4 GB of RAM.  Of these 21 users, 23 use the NAM and 2 don't.

 

I don't know, but something looks a little strange here...

 

Must be another one of those anomalies.

[Mr Saturn64 742]

Windows 7, nothing more.  This in't the first computer I've played SC4 on, though, despite getting the game in 2009.

[lhrob 213]

I've noticed some interesting statistics in this poll.

 

Currently, 16 users say they use Windows XP or earlier.  Of these 16 users, 16 use the NAM, and 3 don't.

 

Also, 21 users say they have less than 4 GB of RAM.  Of these 21 users, 23 use the NAM and 2 don't.

 

I don't know, but something looks a little strange here...

 

Must be another one of those anomalies.

 

Sounds like maybe some people could have been a bit confused by the wording of the poll...?  Perhaps they thought "less than 4 GB of RAM" was a reference to how much they had free...?  Or maybe some people simply didn't answer each question...?

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Just to be sure, I went back and re-voted.  While I am running Linux, I am set up under wine as Windows 7 (NT 6.1) and I physically have 4GB.  One of my current projects is getting the 4GB patch to run.

[akbear 3]

I would have liked to run the 4G patch myself and been able to have the option of the upper levels of overpasses, but from what I finally came to understand, after sorting through all the threads about it, is that being on XP3 32-bit it locks me out of that as well, so no giant spaghetti monsters to be lurking in my future.

[z1 566]

Sounds like maybe some people could have been a bit confused by the wording of the poll...?  Perhaps they thought "less than 4 GB of RAM" was a reference to how much they had free...? 

 

Yes, or else they didn't read the questions carefully enough.

 

Since my comment about Vista, we suddenly got three Vista users, though.

 

Or maybe some people simply didn't answer each question...?

 

Actually, the way the polls work here, that's not possible.  The system won't allow you to vote without answering all questions.  That's why I had to put in the third option in the second and fourth questions.

 

I would have liked to run the 4G patch myself and been able to have the option of the upper levels of overpasses, but from what I finally came to understand, after sorting through all the threads about it, is that being on XP3 32-bit it locks me out of that as well, so no giant spaghetti monsters to be lurking in my future.

 

All is not lost.  With XP, it's possible to increase your address space from 2 GB to 3 GB, which should be enough for everybody for now.  The procedure is a little more complicated than just using the 4 GB patch, but it will be incorporated into the NAM 31.2 installer in a way that's easy to use.

[akbear 3]

All is not lost.  With XP, it's possible to increase your address space from 2 GB to 3 GB, which should be enough for everybody for now.  The procedure is a little more complicated than just using the 4 GB patch, but it will be incorporated into the NAM 31.2 installer in a way that's easy to use.

 

Now that is a pleasant extra surprise, I simply accepted that those of us with older machines or OSs would be left behind in the dust.  Those deck hopping sims are going to have a rude awakening one day....

[lhrob 213]

 

Sounds like maybe some people could have been a bit confused by the wording of the poll...?  Perhaps they thought "less than 4 GB of RAM" was a reference to how much they had free...?

 

Yes, or else they didn't read the questions carefully enough.

 

Since my comment about Vista, we suddenly got three Vista users, though.

 

Or maybe some people simply didn't answer each question...?

 

Actually, the way the polls work here, that's not possible.  The system won't allow you to vote without answering all questions.  That's why I had to put in the third option in the second and fourth questions.

 

 

Ah.  I didn't know that.

 

Then something definitely is strange about it.  As of now it's showing a total of 23 people who have less than 4 GB of RAM, and 25 of those 23 people do use the NAM.  LOL!

 

Not sure what to say about that.  It's some fuzzy computing, huh?

[akbear 3]

 

Then something definitely is strange about it.  As of now it's showing a total of 23 people who have less than 4 GB of RAM, and 25 of those 23 people do use the NAM.  LOL!

 

Not sure what to say about that.  It's some fuzzy computing, huh?

 

I'm sure just like me, many simply queried the my computer icon and got a result that said less than 4, but then again, maybe not (I can recall long ago having to allocate hard drive space for virtual ram, so who knows what tricks may work)

[z1 566]

 

All is not lost.  With XP, it's possible to increase your address space from 2 GB to 3 GB, which should be enough for everybody for now.  The procedure is a little more complicated than just using the 4 GB patch, but it will be incorporated into the NAM 31.2 installer in a way that's easy to use.

 

Now that is a pleasant extra surprise, I simply accepted that those of us with older machines or OSs would be left behind in the dust.  Those deck hopping sims are going to have a rude awakening one day....

 

 

This wasn't in the original plan, but this is part of the reason we did the poll.  Seeing how many people still use XP, we decided it would be worthwhile to put this feature in.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Since I am not having any real problem right now, I wonder if it is worthwhile to try and get the 4GB patch code to run on wine.  Right now I have other things going on.  Maybe I'll just wait for the new installer.  Would it be worthwhile, do you think, to retreat to XP?  I don't see any real advantage to pretending to be Windows 7.

[z1 566]

Since I am not having any real problem right now, I wonder if it is worthwhile to try and get the 4GB patch code to run on wine.

 

Most definitely.

 

Right now I have other things going on.  Maybe I'll just wait for the new installer.

 

The new installer is just going to run this patch in its command line mode; since this currently doesn't work for you, I wouldn't expect it to work for you in the new installer either.  On the other hand, if you can find out what's not working, this knowledge can be incorporated into the new installer, if applicable.

 

  Would it be worthwhile, do you think, to retreat to XP?  I don't see any real advantage to pretending to be Windows 7.

 

The only advantage would be if you were to use Wine's 64-bit mode; this would then allow you to have 4 GB of address space available for SC4 versus the 3 GB that are available for 32-bit OSes.  Other than that, you have a slight advantage over Windows users, in that a Wine appearing as a 32-bit version of XP is treated the same by the installer as Wine appearing as a 32-bit version of Windows 7.

 

But overall, I'd recommend the 64-bit Windows 7 approach, as it will work better for you in the long run with the NAM.

 

In a similar vein, I recently came across a fascinating article entitled Licensed Memory in 32-Bit Windows Vista.  The most memory a 32-bit program can possibly use is 4 GB, right?  Not true!  From the article:

 

That 32-bit editions of Windows starting with Windows Vista are limited to 4GB is not because of any technical constraint on 32-bit operating systems. The 32-bit editions of Windows Vista and Windows 7 all contain code for using physical memory above 4GB. Microsoft just doesn’t license you to use that code.

 

A highly recommended read for the technically minded.

[NCGAIO 562]

All this about the PAE is widely known but lacks something in these articles that many just forget at present because today processors control the memory but this was not always so, then it's useful to remember that the word "compatibility" had to be taken into account to avoid enormous confusion technique that would eventually wrongfully blaming the S.O. for the problems.
 
I'll play the translation of some answers Miguel Ferreira, the Windows team at Microsoft Brazil in 2010
source:
 
 

. Which edition you installed?
a. 32-bit Windows has a limit of 4GB and can not "see" above 4GB, except in hardware 36 bits (PAE).
b. 64-bit Windows can use between at least 8GB 2TB depending on the version.
 
. The chipset can map memory above 4GB?
a. Most chipsets for Desktops and Notebooks for sale but Currently not support some of the newer get the latest generation of Intel support up to 8GB;
b. Normally chipsets for Servers and Workstations supports up to 8GB.
 
.Significant quantities address below 4GB (the maximum supported via 32 bit - ) are reserved for the use of the hardware:
- BIOS including ACPI and legacy video support;
- PCI bus including bridges, etc ...;
- Support for PCI Express to reserve at least 256MB;
 
If you have a video card with 256MB or 512MB of video memory, are more 256 or 512MB address below 4GB that Windows can not use. This all means that you will have a standard system between ~ 512MB to 1.5GB of address space below 4GB reserved for the use of hardware that Windows can not access (or any other OS).
 
What can you do?
Windows can remap memory below 4GB to above 4GB and use it. However, it is based on the following points:
 
1. His edition of Windows can access memory above 4GB?
If 32-bit, on a desktop the answer is NO. If 32-bit on a one workstation / server with PAE is likely that SIM. Windows 64-bit accesses smoothly.
 
2. Your processor can access memory above 4GB?
If recent, the chance is great. If AMD64 or EM64T, it is almost guaranteed.
 
3. Your chipset allows remapping above 4GB?
It is this point that affects the majority of users who install Windows 64-bit and still can not access more than 4GB.
 
- If the chipset has 32-bit address range = you will be able to use up to 4 GB of memory minus the address space used by the HW.
- If the chipset has 36-bit address range = you will be able to use up to 64 GB of memory minus the address space used by the HW.
- If the chipset has 40-bit address range = you will be able to use up to 2 TB of memory.
 
With the growing popularity of Windows 64bit and availability of systems with memory above 3GB, this problem should be solved quickly by the manufacturers. But until then you should rather search before purchasing a new computer.
 
Be careful to choose the processor and chipset whose address range is 40-bit or higher (dual and quad-core for sure) and motherboard mainly because many cards selling in the market for desktops and notebooks does not meet this requirement, even as ASUS boards and Intel.

Obviously the current situation of memory control by the processors is changed but what's the point in providing an option for the hybrid control for managing memory if are now available directly with X64 so long ago

I'm not defending Microsoft but just saying all this though technically possible it would not be very easy to understand by the User common when choosing a hardware or himself trying to fit your OS to all its possibilities

After all not all usuariuos are systems analysts, right?

[z1 566]

This was an interview from three years ago.  I think the key sentence her is one that was not boldfaced:

 

With the growing popularity of Windows 64bit and availability of systems with memory above 3GB, this problem should be solved quickly by the manufacturers.

 

And it has been.  With a 64-bit CPU and OS, address space is simply not a problem for PC users.  Even if you had an older system that supports only 36 bits of address space, that's still 64 GB - plenty for just about everybody.

[NCGAIO 562]

But it is precisely the point that I emphasize.

 

The interview is old and older are still 36-bit addresses that are present in processors since the Pentium Pro

 

But it must be remembered that at that time, and with rare exceptions, only the most expensive mainboards and those destined to servers and the corporate market relied on the necessary hardware to take advantage this and should be in this context the discussion of why the system does not releasing the memory management even with all known issues, for something that could not be done in most personal computers.

 

Obviously all this lost sense now, that's why the discussion should take into account the chronology of events.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

This will be an interesting reference when the 128-bit machines appear.

[Sabretooth78 808]

System Specs:

 

• 15" MacBook Pro, Mid-2012, Hi-Res display (non-Retina)
• 2.3 GHz Intel Core i7
• 8 GB RAM
• Intel HD Graphics 4000/NVidia GeForce GT 650M
• 1680x1050 native resolution (also have a 1920x1080 external display)
• Mac OS X 10.8.3 Mountain Lion (up-to-date)

 

SC4 Configuration:

 

• Windows XP 2002/SP3 (up-to-date) through Parallels Desktop 8.0.18483
• 2 Processor cores, 3 GB RAM and 64 GB HDD allocated to VM
• Running NAM 31.1
• Runs SC4 like a dream - beats the tar out of my old Dimension 4550  (which to its credit served me well for many years)