Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 115.188.27.154 (talk) at 18:53, 14 July 2016 (→"according to Geoff Chappel", Microsoft may limit 32-bit versions of Windows to 4GB as a matter of its licensing policy: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Microsoft Windows: Computing Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft Windows, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microsoft Windows on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Microsoft WindowsWikipedia:WikiProject Microsoft WindowsTemplate:WikiProject Microsoft WindowsMicrosoft Windows Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Computing Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives (Index)

2014/August 2015/February 2015/June 2015/August 2016/July 2017/January 2017/June 2018/September 2020/February 2022/February

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

"Physical Address Extension " vs "Physical-Address Extension"

I wanted to change Physical Address Extension into Physical-Address Extension because it is the correct English spelling ("an extension regarding the physical addresses", not a physical peculiarity of a more generic "Address Extension") and also used by the official documentation by AMD: http://support.amd.com/TechDocs/24593.pdf

Unfortunately Intel does it wrong and writes this term without dash. :-(

Perhaps we should at least mention this fact in the beginning of the article? --RokerHRO (talk) 13:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Please don't. Intel invented it, they get to name it. Windows follows the Intel usage, as does the Shanley book. AMD appears to be a distinct minority in their usage. There is no possible confusion anyway, so no need for a hyphen. Jeh (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I see you similarly moved Page Size Extension. I'll be undoing that. Jeh (talk) 18:22, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Damn it. Since the redirects have edit histories, now we have to go through "requested moves" to fix it. Perhaps you should have at least asked before taking it upon yourself to move PSE? Jeh (talk) 19:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for that. I didn't want to make confusion. :-/

But according to Hyphen#Compound_modifiers the spelling with hyphen would be the correct one if Intel wouldn't define it as a fixed term without hyphen, right?

--RokerHRO (talk) 10:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

So which of them is the "common term", as per WP:COMMONTERM? Guy Harris (talk) 11:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I checked almost all of the references here (got tired of it after about #23). Out of that batch, AMD appears to be alone in using the hyphen. Jeh (talk) 04:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't care one way or the other. "Physical-address extension" is better English, but I don't see "physical address extension" giving rise to confusion with "physical address-extension". It's a technical term. Complicating the issue is the title is capped ("Physical Address Extension"), and that means the article is about a proper noun. It is not just a generic "physical-address extension" but rather the particular PAE described by Intel. Glrx (talk) 04:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

"according to Geoff Chappel", Microsoft may limit 32-bit versions of Windows to 4GB as a matter of its licensing policy

This was finally confirmed by Rusonnovich with Internals 6. :) 6th Edition came out in 2 parts; Book 1 & Book 2. Book 2 contains a fair bit of undocumented info not found elsewhere. :)

Page 320/321 lists physical memory support for all Windows versions, as on MSDN, AND the limiting factors, which are:

"Licensing on 64-bit; licensing, hardware support, and driver compatibility on 32-bit" p320

problematic client driver ecosystem led to the 'decision for client editions to ignore physical memory that resides above 4 GB', even though they can theoretically address it p321

Exactly as Geoff Chappell said...:) It wasn't much of a secret tbh because AMD64 platforms running XP already made great use of 4-8GB RAM: No pagefile required. :) Great for servers.

Coming from Managed Services (Deployment/Support, )published material often times proves more reliable than say MSDN libraries which can be rather ambiguous.......

No idea how to include a link to source which is Microsoft Windows Internals (6th Edition), Part 2, pages 320 & 321, As a wiki newbie so I apologise in advance for breaking any rules. :)

I saw some discussion also over absolute maximum RAM limits allowed by Microsoft...? The official maximum is 2TB, the limit doesn’t come from any implementation or hardware limitation, but because Microsoft will support only configurations it can test. The largest tested and supported memory configuration is currently 2TB.

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Microsoft Windows articles
• Mid-importance Microsoft Windows articles
• C-Class Computing articles
• Mid-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• WikiProject Microsoft Windows articles