Klimax (danklima.delete@this.gmail.com) on August 21, 2013 11:09 am wrote:
> Stubabe (Stubabe.delete@this.nospam.com) on August 21, 2013 10:37 am wrote:
> > Michael S (already5chosen.delete@this.yahoo.com) on August 21, 2013 10:02 am wrote:
> >
> > > > and
> > > > even on the desktop many games are now brushing shoulders with the 2/3GB limits of 32bit usermode.
> > >
> > > That could have been relatively easily addresses by improved PAE.
> > >
> > > But AMD, as well their Microsoft partners, had no good reasons
> > > for improving PAE and all good reasons for going 64-bit.
> > >
> > >
> > Well exactly, the point is the existing 32bit addressing options were insufficient going forward, contrary
> > to Atom's claims. We could have replaced it with some 32bit windowing mode or actually a generally more
> > useful large flat address space. The former certainly is able to address many address space issues, but
> > the latter can also resolve problems that are hard to fix with windowing type extensions. If you are making
> > a break you may as well pick the "cleaner", more generally applicable, future proof option.
> >
> >
>
> Something like AWE?

I thought we wanted a good solution. AWE is just painful, its like going back to EMS in DOS or Windows3.1 global memory handles to relocatable sections, arrgh.