• 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.

Using 8GB ram in windows 32 bit

I only very quickly skimmed this, but it has already de-bunked my belief that the 4gb limit was due to addressing limitations of the 32bit OS. I'm not a software analyst or programmer and admit much of the content will be beyond my expertise, but the premise alone demands my further attention and deeper reading on the matter.
 
PAE has been around for a long time. However, you take it with a performance loss. One site I read measured it being anywhere from 1%-10%.
 
Interesting -- an arbitrary decision by Microsoft to limit the 32-bit OS's application less than 4GB of RAM.

I can't be sure if this is an FTC or other regulatory issue, or if it's even one that could be successfully pursued. What would be MS's intention in limiting the license to its use of only so much memory? On the one hand, older machines that don't admit for socketing more than 4GB of RAM don't "need" the limitation, and on the other hand, there's no reason to limit use of RAM on newer hardware.

I'm really pleased with VISTA-64 speed as it takes advantage of 64-bit-capable processors. So I don't see how MS would stand to "Lose" anything without the license restriction implemented in the OS.

Very puzzling. Very puzzling -- indeed!
 
Originally posted by: BonzaiDuck
What would be MS's intention in limiting the license to its use of only so much memory?
Click to expand...

One angle is that they did it to make people prefer their pro or server branded OS. There are a lot of systems running a Server windows OS that a XP Pro or regular vista install could run if they could access additional memory.
 
PAE has been around for a long time. However, you take it with a performance loss. One site I read measured it being anywhere from 1%-10%.
Click to expand...

I would guess that the difference, if one exists, is imperceptible. All it does is expand the page tables to 3 levels which is the same number of levels used in 64-bit mode on AMD64 CPUs.

What would be MS's intention in limiting the license to its use of only so much memory?
Click to expand...

They claim it's to protect you from crap drivers that can't handle being given physical addresses >4G. Supposedly the nVidia drivers were one of those drivers that would BSOD in that case.

One angle is that they did it to make people prefer their pro or server branded OS
Click to expand...

Except that you need Enterprise Server to actually go above 4G.
 
It article notes it's rare for a driver to have problems with PAE, but considering Windows is installed on just about every computer in the world, it guarantees at some point a driver conflict would arise from PAE. Microsoft probably just decided to avoid that, and the availability of 64-bit hardware makes PAE pointless at this time.
 
Originally posted by: Fox5
It article notes it's rare for a driver to have problems with PAE, but considering Windows is installed on just about every computer in the world, it guarantees at some point a driver conflict would arise from PAE. Microsoft probably just decided to avoid that, and the availability of 64-bit hardware makes PAE pointless at this time.
Click to expand...

I think the driver stability was more of a problem before 64-bit was mainstream.
 
Originally posted by: Nothinman
PAE has been around for a long time. However, you take it with a performance loss. One site I read measured it being anywhere from 1%-10%.
Click to expand...

I would guess that the difference, if one exists, is imperceptible. All it does is expand the page tables to 3 levels which is the same number of levels used in 64-bit mode on AMD64 CPUs.
Click to expand...
64bit mode actually adds two more levels compared to non-PAE mode. And it is worth noticing that PAE is default on most systems today.
 
Originally posted by: hanspeter
Originally posted by: Nothinman
PAE has been around for a long time. However, you take it with a performance loss. One site I read measured it being anywhere from 1%-10%.
Click to expand...

I would guess that the difference, if one exists, is imperceptible. All it does is expand the page tables to 3 levels which is the same number of levels used in 64-bit mode on AMD64 CPUs.
Click to expand...
64bit mode actually adds two more levels compared to non-PAE mode. And it is worth noticing that PAE is default on most systems today.
Click to expand...

What do you mean PAE is default?
It certainly isn't enabled by default in many OS's. I believe all CPU's have the necessary hardware to support it.

As was mentioned, MS has disabled it in all of their OS's for our "protection".

Perhaps I misunderstood you, but I'm not sure I understand what you were implying.

-Kevin
 
What do you mean PAE is default?
It certainly isn't enabled by default in many OS's. I believe all CPU's have the necessary hardware to support it.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure XP enabled it by default somewhere around SP2 because it's required for NX.
 
I read this article the other day and got past a few pages (did some reading on the pot at work =] ). This was a very good read analysis. I'd like to learn what classes one takes to do this sort of investigative research.

Anyhow, I meant to respond the other day; it was mainly to address:
Originally posted by: BonzaiDuck
What would be MS's intention in limiting the license to its use of only so much memory?
Click to expand...

There's not always a good reason to MS's methods. MS could have been accessing memory address in a way that was patented by another company, or the government could have stepped in. I feel as though one point would be that Microsoft is trying to set a new standard in home computing, to 64bit.

This hypothesis is founded on a few things. First, 64b is not selling as many copies. This is due to many reasons, but mainly its from the incompatibilities with legacy software. 32b processes and programming structures are already in place - why would a software vendor want to redo when 98% of its clientèle are still on 32b? It takes a lot of money and time to support multiple systems.

MS is pushing forward into the future, it needs support from both software and hardware vendors. How do you do that? One way would be to not offer a 32b version, the other would be to get the customers to carry the hammer. How do you do that? First is to have enough customers that carry weight - you get them by giving them incentives (err memory incentives).

My assumption is that once the main software/hardware vendors support 64b, then 32b will be a thing of the past - dropped faster than a bastard baby.
 
Originally posted by: vol7ron
There's not always a good reason to MS's methods. MS could have been accessing memory address in a way that was patented by another company, or the government could have stepped in. I feel as though one point would be that Microsoft is trying to set a new standard in home computing, to 64bit.
Click to expand...

They offer a number of different editions, so they want to have som differncies between them. The amount of ram supported is one of them. I don't think it is more complicated than that.

4GB RAM before SP2 vs 4GB physical address space after SP2 (XP). So they did support more than 4GB address space once.
 
why would a software vendor want to redo when 98% of its clientèle are still on 32b? It takes a lot of money and time to support multiple systems.
Click to expand...

Because 99% of the time there's no changes needed, just recompile and you've got a 64-bit binary. Whether it makes a difference or not is another story. Debian supports like a dozen architectures and virtually all of the software in their respotories runs equally well on all of them.

My assumption is that once the main software/hardware vendors support 64b, then 32b will be a thing of the past - dropped faster than a bastard baby.
Click to expand...

Hardware is already there, anyone without 64-bit drivers needs left behind. Software support is already there, even if you don't want to release a 64-bit binary WoW64 will run your 32-bit binary just fine.
 
[QMy assumption is that once the main software/hardware vendors support 64b, then 32b will be a thing of the past - dropped faster than a bastard baby. [/quote]


I'm inclined to believe that programming habits will linger for at least another (software) generation. After all - as pointed out by Nothingman - WOW64 runs 32 bit Windows code just fine. From a practial matter: The same 32 bit code will run well on 32 and 64 bit machines. The inverse is not true in a Windows environment.

So until such time as 64 bit desktops are the norm (and likely by a comfortable margin), I would expect 32 bit programming to continue as the standard, except in the cases where there is a need for for the extra address space 64 bit offers.
 
Originally posted by: Scotteq
My assumption is that once the main software/hardware vendors support 64b, then 32b will be a thing of the past - dropped faster than a bastard baby.
Click to expand...


I'm inclined to believe that programming habits will linger for at least another (software) generation. After all - as pointed out by Nothingman - WOW64 runs 32 bit Windows code just fine. From a practial matter: The same 32 bit code will run well on 32 and 64 bit machines. The inverse is not true in a Windows environment.

So until such time as 64 bit desktops are the norm (and likely by a comfortable margin), I would expect 32 bit programming to continue as the standard, except in the cases where there is a need for for the extra address space 64 bit offers.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

I don't understand why people think 64bit is this magical thing that takes a ton of work to make a program in, but will, again, magically give huge performance increases when it is done.

There is no need for a large portion of software out there to be compiled in 64bit. What is 64bit going to do for Word, Firefox, Powerpoint? If anything, the increased pointer size will increase memory usage and you will see precisely 0 performance increase (Perhaps a decrease).

-Kevin
 
Originally posted by: Nothinman
What is 64bit going to do for Word, Firefox, Powerpoint?
Click to expand...

Well for FF there's potential for 64-bit plugins like flash to run better which would require a 64-bit FF build.
Click to expand...

Hmm yea - I just got to typing and Firefox came to mind. A web browser might actually benefit. The javascript engine would also benefit.

Of course the flash plugin part hinges on Adobe, a company that has proven time and again how insanely horrible they are at coding (Perhaps they can fix non-Windows flash while they are at it).

-Kevin
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top