AWARE SYSTEMS
TIFF and LibTiff Mail List Archive

Thread

2002.08.20 07:31 "memory allocation", by Peter Majer
[...]
2002.08.22 16:29 "Re: OT: large memory allocation in Windows", by Chris 'Xenon' Hanson
2002.08.22 17:20 "RE: OT: large memory allocation in Windows", by Roger Bedell
2002.08.22 17:33 "Re: OT: large memory allocation in Windows", by Peter Montgomery
2002.08.22 18:45 "Re: OT: large memory allocation in Windows", by Chris 'Xenon' Hanson
[...]

2002.08.22 17:33 "Re: OT: large memory allocation in Windows", by Peter Montgomery

Chris,

This non-forward-thinking 2Gb limit brought to you by Microsoft and Bill "Who would ever need more than 640k?" Gates. ;)

Maybe I'm missing something, but how much memory do you see accessing in a 32 bit environment? You can only address a maximum of 4 GB with 32 bits. Would Bill have been a genius if he had allowed a program to use the entire addressable space of the CPU for allocating memory by extending the maximum to 4 GB? So then when someone tries to open the 4.1 GB file, someone says that he was a dope for limiting it to 4 GB. Look, I was no fan of the 640 K limit, but I don't really see how this 2 GB is either Bill's fault or a colossal blunder on his/Microsoft's behalf. The best you could get by increasing to the absolute maximum of 4 GB is to buy sometime before people hit that ceiling.

    Thanks,
    PeterM

PS - Besides, you're limited to +-2GB when using signed 32 bit integers. How can you do relative jumps greater than 2 GB with a 32 bit signed integer?