Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 08:55:56 -0500 From: "Jeff MacDonald" <bignose@gmail.com> To: "Bill Moran" <wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, Ivan Voras <ivoras@fer.hr> Subject: Re: Dell PE 1950 - Only seeing 3.2 gigs of ram Message-ID: <f17daf040701110555w5a74e802pae628c62f4ac405b@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20070111084454.0ba4c327.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> References: <f17daf040701101347r4fa8f639u2421bff95a47f61@mail.gmail.com> <eo3q3i$k2j$1@sea.gmane.org> <f17daf040701110535t542f2184wedfe2f335fd0d74d@mail.gmail.com> <20070111084454.0ba4c327.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Well I hate when people say this, but I'm going to say it.. :) > > > > When I did a default install of ubuntu, it saw all 4 gigs without a > > hitch. So does that mean it already includes PAE, or something else ? > > One of those two. You sure you didn't install a 64-bit version of Ubuntu? Fairly sure :) > > Aside, I will read up on PAE. I'll read up about 64 bit as well, I've > > been hesitant to make the jump only cause any word of mouth i've heard > > said that it's not ready for production. Maybe that's off base, it's > > only what "i've heard" > > We're deploying a lot of 64 bit stuff around here. Our experience has > been that the OS is as solid on amd64 as it is on i386. Server applications > are the same. There are, however, a lot of desktop applications that are > still flaky on 64-bit -- mostly non-mainstream ones. We got in a crunch > and had to reinstall a workstation back to i386 because of it, or I would > have filed some bug reports. Yeah, that's likly true what you say about server vs desktop. I'm going to slap a 64 bit copy on now and see how it does. Jeff.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?f17daf040701110555w5a74e802pae628c62f4ac405b>