• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Quick question. Does windows 7 32 bit still have the memory limit?

I am quite sure that it can 'see' 4 GB, the real question is if it can utilize it.
 
Well there is an architectural limitation, but it can be worked-around using PAE. Microsoft crippled PAE for 32-bit client/workstation OS, but not for 32-bit enterprise and datacenter server SKUs.

If the hardware can support addressing beyond 32-bit, then the limitation indeed is the OS when its one of Microsoft's crippled PAE editions.
 
short yes, very much so. even tweaks like PAE (acronym for ape?) don't mean much - application have to support it

now most games barely support dual core, then rarely 64-bit support, and stuff like PAE that allows them to go over 2GB per process are rarely, almost never implemented.
 
Originally posted by: postmortemIA
short yes, very much so. even tweaks like PAE (acronym for ape?) don't mean much - application have to support it

now most games barely support dual core, then rarely 64-bit support, and stuff like PAE that allows them to go over 2GB per process are rarely, almost never implemented.
Click to expand...

PAE has no effect on a process' virtual address space at all. PAE is about physical memory addressing only. So it is the drivers that have to not ignore addresses above 4GB when doing DMA. Applications continue to live in their virtual address space.
 
Why we always have to get the people that want to be all smart and say PAE blah blah blah server blah blah blah just answer the guys question.

No 32bit version of any Windows OS that someone here will actually buy will utilize over 4GB of RAM total including video ram and other things..

Can we have that on a sticky or something??? We have a new thread about it almost every day.
 
Originally posted by: zerocool84
No 32bit version of any Windows OS that someone here will actually buy will utilize over 4GB of RAM total including video ram and other things.
Click to expand...
So which of the following is true:

- Server 2003 and 2008 Enterprise and Datacenter editions are not Windows OS
- Nobody here would actually buy Server 2003 or 2008

Or both?
 
Originally posted by: tcsenter
Originally posted by: zerocool84
No 32bit version of any Windows OS that someone here will actually buy will utilize over 4GB of RAM total including video ram and other things.
Click to expand...
So which of the following is true:

- Server 2003 and 2008 Enterprise and Datacenter editions are not Windows OS
- Nobody here would actually buy Server 2003 or 2008

Or both?
Click to expand...

If all Zigs are Zags, and some Zags are Zugs... then all Zigs are Zugs?

Perhaps he meant, any consumer would buy.

Where by consumer we mean the guy that goes into Best Buy to buy Windows.
 
Originally posted by: zerocool84
Why we always have to get the people that want to be all smart and say PAE blah blah blah server blah blah blah just answer the guys question.

No 32bit version of any Windows OS that someone here will actually buy will utilize over 4GB of RAM total including video ram and other things..

Can we have that on a sticky or something??? We have a new thread about it almost every day.
Click to expand...

Was anyone trying to be smart? It was said that it was an architectural impossibility to address more than 4GB in a 32bit environment. And then someone said otherwise
 
Originally posted by: hanspeter
Originally posted by: zerocool84
Why we always have to get the people that want to be all smart and say PAE blah blah blah server blah blah blah just answer the guys question.

No 32bit version of any Windows OS that someone here will actually buy will utilize over 4GB of RAM total including video ram and other things..

Can we have that on a sticky or something??? We have a new thread about it almost every day.
Click to expand...

Was anyone trying to be smart? It was said that it was an architectural impossibility to address more than 4GB in a 32bit environment. And then someone said otherwise
Click to expand...

Especially when you consider that it isn't exactly outside the realm of possibility that Microsoft would build PAE into Win 7 so that one could use the 32bit OS that they are used to (which makes less sense in a post-Vista world considering Vista actually pushed devs to release good 64bit drivers) but still have the gobs of RAM that is so cheap to acquire.

My desktop has 4GB of RAM, so I run Vista 64 and Win7 32 Beta since that was what I first grabbed.

Other OSes, non-server OSes, have PAE in them such that they can utilize more than 4GB RAM, so as I said, it wouldn't be a breaking of precedent for Microsoft to do the same with Win 7.
 
Other OSes, non-server OSes, have PAE in them such that they can utilize more than 4GB RAM, so as I said, it wouldn't be a breaking of precedent for Microsoft to do the same with Win 7.
Click to expand...

Microsoft wants to see 32bit die the death it now needs, thats why the new server releases (SBS etc) are 64bit only. They are not going to try and prolong the life if 32bit any longer than needed.

 
The issue with the PAE band~aid on a 32 bit OS is that your drivers have to be Large Address Aware, which is not the case with the great majority. So they'd have to be rewritten to take advantage...

Well... If you're going to rewrite all your drivers: Do you rewrite it to take advantage of the Band~Aid, and then turn around and make a second one for the (production ready and openly available) Solution? Multiplied, of course, by however many products you have to support.

Or do you ignore the Band~Aid, go straight for the solution, and only have to do the work once?

 
Originally posted by: zerocool84
Why we always have to get the people that want to be all smart and say PAE blah blah blah server blah blah blah just answer the guys question.

No 32bit version of any Windows OS that someone here will actually buy will utilize over 4GB of RAM total including video ram and other things..

Can we have that on a sticky or something??? We have a new thread about it almost every day.
Click to expand...

Yep I am sick of tired of that as well. No one ever learns.
 
Originally posted by: TheStu
Other OSes, non-server OSes, have PAE in them such that they can utilize more than 4GB RAM, so as I said, it wouldn't be a breaking of precedent for Microsoft to do the same with Win 7.
Click to expand...
It was highly believable that a plethora of device drivers on the market were choking on PAE back when Microsoft made the decision circa 2003/2004 to neuter PAE on Windows XP. It was still believable when Vista was released, though I doubt the prevalence was nearly as high. But for almost one year now, Microsoft has required both 32-bit and 64-bit drivers be submitted in order to receive WHQL signing. Not optional.

I don't believe it, anymore. Sure, there undoubtedly are a small percentage still out there, but there was also a small percentage of drivers in the server arena that were choking on PAE at the time Microsoft decided it was not prevalent enough to warrant neutering the server SKUs. There are good technical reasons against trying to retrofit Windows XP with functional PAE at this late stage, after work on XP's code as progressed for the last five years with exactly zero hours of consideration or testing with non-crippled PAE. Microsoft fulfilled its own prophecy in that respect, spending the last five years NOT wanting to know the risks of uncrippling PAE on Windows XP, it can credibly claim that uncrippling PAE is too much of an unknown risk. Search not, find not. Ask not, know not.

But its not too late to start the impact assessment and regression testing on Windows 7, nor even Windows Vista for that matter. Microsoft has plenty of experience with non-crippled PAE on Windows Vista (a.k.a. Server 2008). I agree it should not be the default configuration, but there is no reason Microsoft could not give us a bcedit parameter that would require the user to click "I agree" to warnings of doom and destruction for which Microsoft will not be liable.

However, I don't think we'll see Microsoft change its mind. It seems fairly evident from comments or statements coming out of Redmond (e.g. developer blogs) that Microsoft firmly decided 64-bit would be its only path to >4GB RAM on the client/workstation front.
 
Is it me or, did it seem like the question was missed?

Sony VAIO VGN-FW290, Intel Core2Duo T9400 @ 2.53Ghz, 4GB RAM and ATi Mobility Radeon HD 3650 with a 7,200 RPM HD (Laptop)

Windows 7 (32 and 64-bit Results):

Windows 7 64-Bit
Can see and utilize 4GB

Windows 7 32-Bit
Can see 4GB however, can only utilize 2.47GB


Exact wording in Windows 7 32-Bit System Window:
Installed memory (RAM): 4.00GB (2.47GB usable)

Now for today's bonus scenario...
Q. Windows Experience Index, which bit version would score higher on my Sony VAIO?

A. Windows 7 64-Bit 4.7 and Windows 7 32-Bit 5.4
 
Originally posted by: cbtrusted
Now for today's bonus scenario...
Q. Windows Experience Index, which bit version would score higher on my Sony VAIO?

A. Windows 7 64-Bit 4.7 and Windows 7 32-Bit 5.4
Click to expand...
Yes, but it'd be a 64-bit Experience. 😛
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top