Vista - 64-bit: More than just the RAM

**sidewinder** · 08-28-2008

Quote: Originally Posted by johngalt

John L. Galt
August 28th, 2008 at 5:49 am

“update: That’s not true. If your hardware supports more than 4GB, there is no reason to buy 64-bit Windows. 32-bit XP supports 4GB+. So it was right not to mention this because in terms of bitness it does not matter how much RAM you have. If your hardware does not support more than 4GB, then 64-bit OS won’t help you anyway.”

Sorry, do the math.

2^32 = 4 GB. 32bit applications cannot access more than 4 GB of RAM.

Also, there are a few programs that can be recompiled for 64bit OS, especially open-source programs (as you have already noted) as well as others, provided a person has the know how and wherewithal to do so. Finally, The next version of Photoshop is going 64bit, just to name *one* prominent application.

John,

Didn't we learn anything from our 32-bit address space discussion a while back?

A 32-bit Vista system has a 4GB address space. Applications have a 4GB virtual address space and can access only 2GB of memory. The other 2GB is for the OS (Let's not bring up the IncreaseUserVA setting in the bcd file since no mainstream consumer apps support it). No 32-bit Vista system can access 4GB of physical RAM.

Here is where things get really bad for your comments:

Memory Limits for Windows Releases (Windows)

As you can see, using the PAE switch in the boot.ini file, several 32-bit Windows operating systems can access significantly more than the 4GB of physical RAM. Yes, they are all server operating systems, but they show what can be done with 32-bit operating systems and larger address spaces.

All 32-bit versions of Vista and XP support a 4GB address space. No more and no less.

S-

**Brink** · 08-28-2008

Thank you for the quotes JohnG.

I removed the article link from this thread. It just is not very helpful with that kinda of information. LOL

**johngalt** · 08-28-2008

Quote: Originally Posted by sidewinder

Quote: Originally Posted by johngalt

John L. Galt
August 28th, 2008 at 5:49 am

“update: That’s not true. If your hardware supports more than 4GB, there is no reason to buy 64-bit Windows. 32-bit XP supports 4GB+. So it was right not to mention this because in terms of bitness it does not matter how much RAM you have. If your hardware does not support more than 4GB, then 64-bit OS won’t help you anyway.”

Sorry, do the math.

2^32 = 4 GB. 32bit applications cannot access more than 4 GB of RAM.

Also, there are a few programs that can be recompiled for 64bit OS, especially open-source programs (as you have already noted) as well as others, provided a person has the know how and wherewithal to do so. Finally, The next version of Photoshop is going 64bit, just to name *one* prominent application.

John,

Didn't we learn anything from our 32-bit address space discussion a while back?

A 32-bit Vista system has a 4GB address space. Applications have a 4GB virtual address space and can access only 2GB of memory. The other 2GB is for the OS (Let's not bring up the IncreaseUserVA setting in the bcd file since no mainstream consumer apps support it). No 32-bit Vista system can access 4GB of physical RAM.

Here is where things get really bad for your comments:

Memory Limits for Windows Releases (Windows)

As you can see, using the PAE switch in the boot.ini file, several 32-bit Windows operating systems can access significantly more than the 4GB of physical RAM. Yes, they are all server operating systems, but they show what can be done with 32-bit operating systems and larger address spaces.

All 32-bit versions of Vista and XP support a 4GB address space. No more and no less.

S-

No offense, but how is what I said incorrect, then? Or are you not addressing *me* but the author who replied to me? Remember this is not a forum post so it doesn't get broken into quotation boxes like posts here do....

Quote: Originally Posted by Brink

Thank you for the quotes JohnG.

I removed the article link from this thread. It just is not very helpful with that kinda of information. LOL

Good. Although his info is not 100% wrong - *nix supports 64bit pretty much OOB these days, but for those wanting to build it....compiling is a PITA if you know nothing about CFLAGs and make and how to write / edit config files....

**sidewinder** · 08-28-2008

johngalt,

Well, to start off, this comment of yours is wrong:

"2^32 = 4 GB. 32bit applications cannot access more than 4 GB of RAM."

I was assuming your were disputing the claim made by Alexander Sandler that 32-bit systems could address more than 4GB of physical RAM. Why did I assume that? Because his quote you included made no mention of application limits. In fact his entire post from August 27th, 2008 at 9:11 am did not mention application limits. Maybe you meant applications but nothing in the thread from that site was about application memory limits. Maybe you are just confusing operating system address space limits with application address space limits.

While it is true that 32-bit XP and 32-bit Vista operating systems have a fixed 4GB address space, it's not true for all 32-bit operating systems.

S-

**johngalt** · 08-28-2008

fixed?

"32-bit XP supports 4GB+"

**sidewinder** · 08-28-2008

Quote: Originally Posted by johngalt

fixed?

"32-bit XP supports 4GB+"

Care to explain what that means? You aren't being very clear in this thread.

S-

**rasmasyean** · 08-28-2008

Quote: Originally Posted by johngalt

fixed?

"32-bit XP supports 4GB+"

I thought it was Windows Servers with PAE hardware that can do this.

**sidewinder** · 08-28-2008

Quote: Originally Posted by rasmasyean

Quote: Originally Posted by johngalt

fixed?

"32-bit XP supports 4GB+"

I thought it was Windows Servers with PAE hardware that can do this.

PAE is a software switch in the OS but the hardware would need to support more than 4GB of RAM as well. And you are correct, only 32-bit Windows Server operating systems with PAE enabled support more than 4GB of RAM.

S-

**johngalt** · 08-29-2008

The author stated that 32bit XP could support 4GB+ - as in *more than 4 GB* - or at least that is how I read it.

**roy69** · 08-29-2008

not wanting to be picy but the equations you are all using is wrong.
It is actually (2^32)-1

08-28-2008	#71 (permalink)
sidewinder Vista Home Premium SP1 32-bit 210 posts	Re: 64-bit: More than just the RAM Quote: Originally Posted by johngalt John L. Galt August 28th, 2008 at 5:49 am “update: That’s not true. If your hardware supports more than 4GB, there is no reason to buy 64-bit Windows. 32-bit XP supports 4GB+. So it was right not to mention this because in terms of bitness it does not matter how much RAM you have. If your hardware does not support more than 4GB, then 64-bit OS won’t help you anyway.” Sorry, do the math. 2^32 = 4 GB. 32bit applications cannot access more than 4 GB of RAM. Also, there are a few programs that can be recompiled for 64bit OS, especially open-source programs (as you have already noted) as well as others, provided a person has the know how and wherewithal to do so. Finally, The next version of Photoshop is going 64bit, just to name one prominent application. John, Didn't we learn anything from our 32-bit address space discussion a while back? A 32-bit Vista system has a 4GB address space. Applications have a 4GB virtual address space and can access only 2GB of memory. The other 2GB is for the OS (Let's not bring up the IncreaseUserVA setting in the bcd file since no mainstream consumer apps support it). No 32-bit Vista system can access 4GB of physical RAM. Here is where things get really bad for your comments: Memory Limits for Windows Releases (Windows) As you can see, using the PAE switch in the boot.ini file, several 32-bit Windows operating systems can access significantly more than the 4GB of physical RAM. Yes, they are all server operating systems, but they show what can be done with 32-bit operating systems and larger address spaces. All 32-bit versions of Vista and XP support a 4GB address space. No more and no less. S- Last edited by sidewinder; 08-28-2008 at 08:19 PM..
My System Specs

08-28-2008	#72 (permalink)
Brink Vista x64 Ultimate SP2, Windows 7 Ultimate x64 25,963 posts	Re: 64-bit: More than just the RAM Thank you for the quotes JohnG. I removed the article link from this thread. It just is not very helpful with that kinda of information. LOL
My System Specs

08-28-2008	#73 (permalink)
johngalt Vista Ultimate x64 MAK, OpenSolaris 5, Gentoo 2008.1.... 3,848 posts	Re: 64-bit: More than just the RAM Quote: Originally Posted by sidewinder Quote: Originally Posted by johngalt John L. Galt August 28th, 2008 at 5:49 am “update: That’s not true. If your hardware supports more than 4GB, there is no reason to buy 64-bit Windows. 32-bit XP supports 4GB+. So it was right not to mention this because in terms of bitness it does not matter how much RAM you have. If your hardware does not support more than 4GB, then 64-bit OS won’t help you anyway.” Sorry, do the math. 2^32 = 4 GB. 32bit applications cannot access more than 4 GB of RAM. Also, there are a few programs that can be recompiled for 64bit OS, especially open-source programs (as you have already noted) as well as others, provided a person has the know how and wherewithal to do so. Finally, The next version of Photoshop is going 64bit, just to name one prominent application. John, Didn't we learn anything from our 32-bit address space discussion a while back? A 32-bit Vista system has a 4GB address space. Applications have a 4GB virtual address space and can access only 2GB of memory. The other 2GB is for the OS (Let's not bring up the IncreaseUserVA setting in the bcd file since no mainstream consumer apps support it). No 32-bit Vista system can access 4GB of physical RAM. Here is where things get really bad for your comments: Memory Limits for Windows Releases (Windows) As you can see, using the PAE switch in the boot.ini file, several 32-bit Windows operating systems can access significantly more than the 4GB of physical RAM. Yes, they are all server operating systems, but they show what can be done with 32-bit operating systems and larger address spaces. All 32-bit versions of Vista and XP support a 4GB address space. No more and no less. S- No offense, but how is what I said incorrect, then? Or are you not addressing me but the author who replied to me? Remember this is not a forum post so it doesn't get broken into quotation boxes like posts here do.... Quote: Originally Posted by Brink Thank you for the quotes JohnG. I removed the article link from this thread. It just is not very helpful with that kinda of information. LOL Good. Although his info is not 100% wrong - *nix supports 64bit pretty much OOB these days, but for those wanting to build it....compiling is a PITA if you know nothing about CFLAGs and make and how to write / edit config files....
My System Specs

08-28-2008	#74 (permalink)
sidewinder Vista Home Premium SP1 32-bit 210 posts	Re: 64-bit: More than just the RAM johngalt, Well, to start off, this comment of yours is wrong: "2^32 = 4 GB. 32bit applications cannot access more than 4 GB of RAM." I was assuming your were disputing the claim made by Alexander Sandler that 32-bit systems could address more than 4GB of physical RAM. Why did I assume that? Because his quote you included made no mention of application limits. In fact his entire post from August 27th, 2008 at 9:11 am did not mention application limits. Maybe you meant applications but nothing in the thread from that site was about application memory limits. Maybe you are just confusing operating system address space limits with application address space limits. While it is true that 32-bit XP and 32-bit Vista operating systems have a fixed 4GB address space, it's not true for all 32-bit operating systems. S-
My System Specs

08-28-2008	#75 (permalink)
johngalt Vista Ultimate x64 MAK, OpenSolaris 5, Gentoo 2008.1.... 3,848 posts	Re: 64-bit: More than just the RAM fixed? "32-bit XP supports 4GB+"
My System Specs

08-28-2008	#76 (permalink)
sidewinder Vista Home Premium SP1 32-bit 210 posts	Re: 64-bit: More than just the RAM Quote: Originally Posted by johngalt fixed? "32-bit XP supports 4GB+" Care to explain what that means? You aren't being very clear in this thread. S-
My System Specs

08-28-2008	#77 (permalink)
rasmasyean Vista Ultimate x64 210 posts	Re: 64-bit: More than just the RAM Quote: Originally Posted by johngalt fixed? "32-bit XP supports 4GB+" I thought it was Windows Servers with PAE hardware that can do this.
My System Specs

08-28-2008	#78 (permalink)
sidewinder Vista Home Premium SP1 32-bit 210 posts	Re: 64-bit: More than just the RAM Quote: Originally Posted by rasmasyean Quote: Originally Posted by johngalt fixed? "32-bit XP supports 4GB+" I thought it was Windows Servers with PAE hardware that can do this. PAE is a software switch in the OS but the hardware would need to support more than 4GB of RAM as well. And you are correct, only 32-bit Windows Server operating systems with PAE enabled support more than 4GB of RAM. S-
My System Specs

08-29-2008	#79 (permalink)
johngalt Vista Ultimate x64 MAK, OpenSolaris 5, Gentoo 2008.1.... 3,848 posts	Re: 64-bit: More than just the RAM The author stated that 32bit XP could support 4GB+ - as in more than 4 GB - or at least that is how I read it.
My System Specs

08-29-2008	#80 (permalink)
roy69 Vista home premium 64 bit 2,097 posts	Re: 64-bit: More than just the RAM not wanting to be picy but the equations you are all using is wrong. It is actually (2^32)-1
My System Specs