A Messy Transition: Practical Problems With 32bit Addressing In Windows
by Ryan Smith on July 12, 2007 12:00 PM EST- Posted in
- Software
Final Words
As we wrap things up, we'll reserve a few words for game & application developers who are working on projects that will hit the barrier. Supreme Commander is extremely disappointing in how it handles running out of addressing space. Ideally we'd like for it not to crash, but realistically we'd settle for just an error message pointing out that it hit the 2GB barrier so that we could quickly reach a solution. Otherwise seemingly-random crashes tend to be one of the hardest problems to resolve as a user. Developers need to take care here to offer some kind of warning when the 2GB barrier is the problem; not everyone is or will be well read on the subject or have the time to diagnose it, when it's actually an easily solvable problem.
Getting back to the point at hand however, we feel that this is only going to be the tip of the iceberg. As games and applications continue to come out that push the boundaries of computer hardware and run afoul of the 2GB barrier, these problems will only pick up in pace. For many power users this experience will be a common occurrence, and for most it will be a frustrating experience.
We're at the front end of a messy transition, one that may not end for several years. Today, 32bit games will hit the 2GB barrier, and tomorrow games with support for large addressing will hit the 3GB/4GB barrier. Not until 64bit versions of games are ubiquitous will we be completely through this transition, and that will still be a few years away.
Until that point, stories such as these will continue to be told as users unknowingly hit the 2GB barrier. Developers need to be doing a better job at handling the issue via better crash reports, but our inner cynic says that they can't be solely in charge of the matter. So it will be up to users to diagnose their own problems and take the appropriate action, be it switching operating systems and/or modifying executables. A little knowledge in this regard can go a long way.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
69 Comments
View All Comments
BabyBear - Thursday, July 12, 2007 - link
This also happens with Flight Simulator X by the way.
Over on Phil Taylor's blog he makes mention of it awhile back
http://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/archive/2007/06/15/f...">Microsoft's Phil Taylors Blog
There was also some talk that the June 07 DirectX Redist. seemed to 'help' with Out of Memory problems when using the /3gb switch.
joetron2030 - Thursday, July 12, 2007 - link
On "Page 4: A Case Study: Supreme Commander", in the paragraph discussing the first screen shot from Sysinternals' Process Explorer, you refer to the "Virtual Size" column as the "Private Size" column (which doesn't exist in the screen shot).Had me briefly confused.
quanta - Thursday, July 12, 2007 - link
Although Windows 2000/2003/Vista server versions aren't exactly designed for gaming, did anyone tested game titles on these server OS to see if these large address aware titles will use the Physical Address Extension feature?Ryan Smith - Thursday, July 12, 2007 - link
The short answer is no.The longer answer is that due to a combination of chipset support, software support, performance, and driver support, it's not really usable outside of a server environment and shouldn't be used on a consumer system.
brink - Thursday, July 12, 2007 - link
Wouldn't matter, WinXP SP2 uses PAE, why would you want to install it on a server OS? Only 2003 is a server OS of the ones you mentioned, and I think only Windows 2003 Enterprise is the only 32-bit OS that has the ability to use more than 4GB of memory (8GB seems to be the limit for what modules/mobos are available right now)TA152H - Thursday, July 12, 2007 - link
I'm just reading the remarks about the 386 pushing the memory from 1 MB, to 4 GB. It's patently untrue, unless you think the 386 succeeded the 8086, and not the 286. The 286 had 24 bit addressing (in 64K segments) for 16 MB of memory. This is not only what OS/2 used, but extended memory as well. So, it's not academic.Ryan Smith - Thursday, July 12, 2007 - link
Just hearing the words "segmented memory" gives me flashbacks - and they're not the good kind. For this article we're talking strictly about flat addressing since I could write a small book on just segmented addressing, but I've updated the article to make this clear.TA152H - Thursday, July 12, 2007 - link
Either way, you're using the wrong values. Even on the 8086 the memory was segmented. Actually, so was the 386, but it could handle segments up to 4 GB, so it wasn't important. So, using 1 MB and saying you're not referring to segmentation is inaccurate; that is segmented memory.Segmentation was not a bad thing, particularly back then. It saved memory space, and back in 1978 that was a big thing. Addresses were given in 16 bits, you didn't have to specify the rest, and the net result was you had shorter code. You would have to change the registers to point to the next segment from time to time, but overall it saved a lot of memory. You also could protect apps from each other, but that wasn't really used.
I was an OS/2 developer, and it was a pain sometimes for sure. By the time the 286 came out, which I think was the best processor Intel ever made considering the timing, and the incredible capabilities it had over it's predecessor (the 8086, not the 80186 which was made in parallel with the 286), the extra memory saving was not worth the nuisance of having to deal with, at most, 64K segments. But it really wasn't possible for Intel to do it any other way, as I'll explain below.
Motorola even added some external memory management unit that added segmentation, which today seems strange. It's widely viewed now as just a bad thing, but back then, it wasn't. Motorola really had a choice though, since the 68K was part 32-bit, and part 16-bit, and part 24-bit (addressing). Although the 286 was a more powerful processor than the 68000, it was pure 16-bit, except for the oddity of the 24-bit addressing. Consequently, allowing flat 24-bit addressing would not have been feasible. So, they dealt with it by just adding more segments. Considering the absolutely incredible improvement in this processor in just about every way, it was not such a bad tradeoff.
BitJunkie - Friday, July 13, 2007 - link
Hiya Bill.jay401 - Thursday, July 12, 2007 - link
Just FYI, SupCom has already exhibited this problem and crashes once it breaks the 2GB barrier, which can happen easily in longer games with a high unit limit.This is mostly due to the poor efficiency in their code and models, something GPG (the developer, Gas Powered Games) reported could not easily be fixed in a patch because they basically have to re-render every unit in the game so they take up less memory. Due to this, it's likely to remain unfixed until the expansion pack (now a standalone game) Forged Alliance comes out in November, if it is fixed at all
One forum member developed a way to increase the addressable memory to around 3GB on 32bit WinXP and Vista, so if you're running 4GB, this provides a sort of band-aid solution in the meantime.