[geeks] Windows XP 64bit Licensing?

[nate at portents.com]

>>> Linux has no problem with >3GB of RAM.
>>
>> That depends on what you mean by "no problem"... about a year ago, when
>> I
>> surveyed 64-bit distros they tended to opt for 64-bit native package
> [ snip [
>
> Understood, but you changed the subject.

I didn't change the subject, I gave a more specific answer to a vague
question and your vague answer.  Tossing around phrases like "no problem"
may be all someone needed to hear, or it might not be, because the
question wasn't very good to begin with.

> I was merely referring to Linux not having a limit in how much RAM it
> accesses.

Linux does have limits, depending on the distribution (embedded? 32-bit?
64-bit?) in question and the quirks of the architecture it's running on.

For instance, if you're talking about AMD64 there is a 40-bit physical
memory platform limitation in the current designs that dates back to the
40-bit EV6 based Athlon (which got it's 40-bit EV6 heritage from the
64-bit Alpha 264).  Linux can't get around that, even if it is 64-bit.

> 64-bit Windows was a real PITA too.

What was a real PITA?  The OS?  The drivers?  The poor assumptions and
code implementations people had made up to the release of the OS?  That's
an incredibly vague statement.

> We still have a problem across *ALL* OS with proprietary software not
> being
> released in 64-bit form, and the creators not giving enough information to
> glue them into 64-bit models.
>
> That's really not the fault of Linux, *BSD, or Solaris.

The driver issue is primarily hung up on intellectual property issues
where vendors simply cannot release source code or information without
feeling they given up their competitive advantage (an advantage that's
sometimes real, sometimes imaginary), or sometimes they're including other
people's IP which they've licensed but don't have a license to distribute
the source to and don't have enough of a market incentive to make
something 64-bit clean themselves.

Any 64-bit OS is fundamentally a chicken-and-egg problem.

(Personally I think Microsoft could have made everyone's life easier by
making Vista 64-bit only.)

> I guess they felt that if you are going to have a 64-bit system, then it
> should be a 64-bit system.

Sure, and if someone is contemplating using said 64-bit system (i.e.
AMD64/EM64T platform + Linux x86-64 distribution for instance) I don't see
why all the ins and outs of using said system in a day to day way should
be glossed over with statements such as "no problem".

- Nate