18 replies to this topic

[Super Fast]

I am oft told that 32 Bit Windows max RAM = 4 GB. 64 Bit Windows max RAM = 192 GB.
I am aware the 64 Bit limitation is strictly OS imposed, as it can actually support much more (64 Bit Windows Server 2008 R2 Datacenter supports 2 TB RAM).
What puzzles me is that 32 Bit Windows Server 2003 Datacenter supports 64 GB RAM.

Why are 32 Bit versions of Windows being marketed as 4 GB limit, then? If one 32 Bit OS can support 64 GB RAM, why can't all of them?

[Winapp2.ini]

32 bit machines can only page 4gb of ram at once, but can detect that you have more, given certain hacks (from what I understand)

I don't know how server systems work, but it probably uses multiple instances of the kernal to page more than the 4gb or something like that.

[Andavari]

From what I've read installing more than 4GB of RAM the machine won't actually use anything above the 4GB limit.

[Super Fast]

Andavari, on 15 July 2012 - 07:46 PM, said:

From what I've read installing more than 4GB of RAM the machine won't actually use anything above the 4GB limit.

Me too. On XP/Vista/7/etc. So, why does 32 Bit Server 2003 Datacenter support 64 GB RAM? If it can, why not all 32 Bit systems?

[login123]

FWIW.  On win xp 32 bit here, the OS only detects 3.31 gb RAM, but there is 4 gb installed.  Speccy detects 4 gb.

[kroozer]

login123 said:

On win xp 32 bit here, the OS only detects 3.31 gb RAM, but there is 4 gb installed.  Speccy detects 4 gb.

I see this divergency on all computers. Your missing 0.69 GB memory is dedicated for other system uses. On this Win7 pc I have 6.00 GB installed (5.48 GB usable).

[nodles]

(Integrated) GPU might use some of the RAM.

[login123]

Kroozer, is yours 32 or 64 bit?  Just getting started w/ win 7, don't know my way around yet.  Have a win 7 laptop, wondering about getting a win 7 desktop.  Will give win 8 the longest run possible before committing to it ... luddite, ya know.    Win 7 looks pretty good so far.

[kroozer]

64-bit.

I'll spring for a Win8 pc this year or next — gotta learn each new Win OS.

Continually scoping the new pcs, didn't see anything interesting until yesterday when OfficeMax offered the hp p7-1235 with the AMD A8-5500 processor @ $450. wow! Thought it was a misprint.

[login123]

Edit:
Most of this post deleted by me.
That does look like a super deal on a desktop.  Thanks for the Info.

[TheWebAtom]

Windows Server 2003 x32 still has the 4GB virtual address space limitation. It uses what's called a Page Table which (in simple terms) mushes together several 4GB blocks of memory. Due to the x32 design; each process can only use the contents of one block of memory, so they are still limited to 4GB per process. Basically; each process is using a totally separate memory address space; but they work together concurrently.

You can read a more technical description in Microsoft's Physical Address Extension documentation.

*side note: The 4GB limit on x32 Windows is actually imposed by the operating system, not technical limitations. Many drivers totally freak out when they discover more than 4GB of addressable space; so the limitation was put in place. The actual technical limitation of a x32 operating system is 64GB, which can be achieved on XP, Vista & 7 using various system/kernel patches. I've never tested them; but I've heard they can cause major stability issues.

[Super Fast]

TheWebAtom, on 16 July 2012 - 11:09 PM, said:

The 4GB limit on x32 Windows is actually imposed by the operating system, not technical limitations. The actual technical limitation of a x32 operating system is 64GB, which can be achieved on XP, Vista & 7 using various system/kernel patches.

Yeah, see, that's what I'm talking about.

Instead of creating a 32 Bit OS for the common masses that supports 64 GB properly since it is a technical & not OS problem, they half baked it.
This way, they can milk their cash cow a little longer by convincing the masses that 64 GB on a 32 Bit system is truly impossible.

Or, that is my thinking... I'd be happy with a 32 Bit OS that utilized 64 GB RAM!!! So long as they supported it PROPERLY.

[TheWebAtom]

Even if they did have a properly working 64GB on x32 OS implementation: I would still use an x64 operating system. There is nothing like seeing a compiler utilizing 12GB of RAM for a single task

I agree with Microsoft here; why spend millions of dollars (and several years) trying to get x32 to properly support 64GB of RAM, when the (arguably) superior x64 is already there..?

[Super Fast]

TheWebAtom, on 17 July 2012 - 11:20 PM, said:

Even if they did have a properly working 64GB on x32 OS implementation: I would still use an x64 operating system. There is nothing like seeing a compiler utilizing 12GB of RAM for a single task

I agree with Microsoft here; why spend millions of dollars (and several years) trying to get x32 to properly support 64GB of RAM, when the (arguably) superior x64 is already there..?

Because the current implementation of it is not properly implemented.

And since server 2003 supports 64 GB quite comfortably, pie to port it to all other 32 Bit OS. Not saying 64 Bit does not work better.

But if they incorrectly have it implemented, of course 64 Bit will work better.

That said, 64 Bit is ok, but having a 32 Bit properly implemented with 64 GB would be quite enough for a lot of people

[TheWebAtom]

Quote

server 2003 supports 64 GB quite comfortably

You've never used it, have you? Address Extension on server 2003 is a disaster. (bolded and underlined for dramatic effect)

Quote

32 Bit properly implemented with 64 GB would be quite enough for a lot of people

Completely true. But for the small number of people this wouldn't satisfy, an entirely separate O/S architecture would be needed just for them. From a business perspective; moving both casual and enterprise over to the same architecture (x64) makes sense.

[Super Fast]

Actually, I haven't used it. I used to have a copy, & after I installed it & saw the similarity to another variant of the OS, I was dis-interested & quickly discarded it.

I kind of hate having 2 of everything though... Program files + Program Files (x86) with duplicity of feature & function for many things.

I really dread the day we move to 128 Bit computing. Then, there will be Program Files (32 Bit), Program files (64 Bit), & finally, Program Files (128 Bit)?

[Winapp2.ini]

hopelly no more (x86) by that point

[TheWebAtom]

A comical explanation of 128bit computing from Stack Overflow

Quote

It means that the Windows\System32 directory contains 128bit DLLs, 64bit DLLs in WINDOWS\SysWOW128, and 32bit DLLs are in WINDOWS\SysWOW64WOW128.
In the registry, 128bit applications store data under HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE/SOFTWARE, 64bit applications under HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE/SOFTWARE/Wow12864Node, and 32bit applications under HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE/SOFTWARE/Wow1286432Node.
This strategy will confuse virus and malware developers so much that they give up. Registered developers will receive a large poster to illustrate the redirects and mappings.

[Winapp2.ini]

bahaha