• 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.

Will it ever be possible for Windows 7 32 bit to recognize more than 3GB ram?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
When i say 64bit equal i mean. In ubuntu some programs will not run at all. I know that you can run some/most 32bit programs in 64bit. But not all.
Click to expand...

Luckily as long as you stick to OSS apps there is almost always a 64-bit version. I've even used WINE to run 32-bit Windows programs on my 64-bit Debian install and had very few problems.

Penalties such as no vpn client in windows.
Click to expand...

That's all Cisco's fault for not porting the kernel-mode portions of their client. However, Windows supports IPSec VPNs out of the box although you'd have to figure out how to connect to your uni's network on your own.

But windows i feel 64bit is fine but for ubuntu its not worth the hassle.
Click to expand...

I feel the exact opposite because most of the software is 64-bit already. On Windows you might see less compatibility problems because you're running almost all 32-bit software and most Windows installers come with all of their dependencies bundled so you get another copy of all of the 32-bit libraries that you might need.
 
Tried Win7 RC 64bit and hated it.

1. UNSTABLE (while 32bit RC is stable as a rock - not a single crash!)
2. Takes up a ridiculous amount of space (30GB+ I forgot exactly how much but posted about it here)! With a SSD, HDD space is a premium.
3. WTF is the point? Yes - in some extreme cases (e.g. maybe Maya 3-D rendering or something like that) the apps can actually use the extra RAM - otherwise, there is no benefit.
 
3. WTF is the point? Yes - in some extreme cases (e.g. maybe Maya 3-D rendering or something like that) the apps can actually use the extra RAM - otherwise, there is no benefit.
Click to expand...

Actually lots of games are already getting to the point where 2G of VM isn't enough.
 
Originally posted by: Nothinman
3. WTF is the point? Yes - in some extreme cases (e.g. maybe Maya 3-D rendering or something like that) the apps can actually use the extra RAM - otherwise, there is no benefit.
Click to expand...

Actually lots of games are already getting to the point where 2G of VM isn't enough.
Click to expand...

Exactly! Out of 3-3.5GB.

 
Originally posted by: ViRGEPAE is an abomination, MS only "limited" 32bit Windows by not exposing their users to such a grotesque hack.
Click to expand...

Are you thinking of AWE (which is specific to Windows)? AWE cannot compensate for a 64bit OS and 64bit applications in any way.

PAE, as others have mentioned by now, is not a "grotesque hack".
 
If all my software is 32bit will a 64bit OS with gobs of Ram help any or will anything above 4Gb be wasted?
Click to expand...

Each 32-bit process gets 2G of VM by default so the more physical memory you have the more large processes you can run concurrently.
 
Originally posted by: totalnoob
This seems quite ridiculous to me.. Here we are approaching 2010, and the vast majority of home owners will be buying (or getting with their Dells) Windows 7 32 bit, yet it only recognizes 3GB of system ram. Given how cheap ram is and how many programs can benefit from more, why can't Microsoft release a patch or a service pack that expands this amount for their new OS? I've heard that some versions of Vista 32 bit could recognize 3.5GB, and even an extra 512mb would be a decent boost.. But I'm running the newest Win7 RC and only see 2.94GB under system properties. 🙁

Is there any hope? Or will 90% of the home market be stuck with 3gb of memory until Windows 8?
Click to expand...

Microsoft can't patch a HARDWARE issue. 32bit MEANS 32bits. The HIGHEST a 32bit number can go is 4,294,967,295 (and that is an unsigned int(32), in programming you need to worry about if it has a negative or a positive sign on it, because if you are caring about positive or negative, well, you just lost one of those bits, which will effectively cut your range of numbers in half (not just because you only have 1/2 positive and 1/2 negative, but because you need one of the ones and zeros to represent if it is a positive or negative value as well)

This is a hardware level issue. Due to it being 32 bit, the largest number being 32 bits is a hard limit. Nothing you can do about that. Memory address space will be indexed by a 32bit number under a 32bit OS. And because that index can't count higher than 4,294,967,295, you can't address more space than that number. While this number is actually lower than the 2.94 that you see under Windows, you are forgetting that this address space also includes your video card memory, and a little is reserved for other system uses to keep you from ever trying to use a value that is larger than 4,294,967,295 when looking for a memory address (bad things start happening when you overload a 32bit unsigned integer).

So again, Microsoft can't do anything about that other then release a 64bit OS version, which is why they finally joined all the other OS vendors out there 4-5 years ago when they released XP 64bit (Sun Solaris has been 64bit for 14+years, HP-UX about the same amount of time, Linux has had 64bit versions for about 10 years as well). If you want to use more than 3GB of RAM, you need to use a 64bit OS. Its not Microsoft's problem that you don't buy a 64bit version. They offer it.
 
Microsoft can't patch a HARDWARE issue. 32bit MEANS 32bits.
Click to expand...

Good thing they don't have to, x86 has had a 36-bit addressing mode via PAE since the Pentium Pro.

So again, Microsoft can't do anything about that other then release a 64bit OS version, which is why they finally joined all the other OS vendors out there 4-5 years ago when they released XP 64bit (Sun Solaris has been 64bit for 14+years, HP-UX about the same amount of time, Linux has had 64bit versions for about 10 years as well). If you want to use more than 3GB of RAM, you need to use a 64bit OS. Its not Microsoft's problem that you don't buy a 64bit version. They offer it.
Click to expand...

You can say it with as much authority as you like but that doesn't make it true. x86 has supported up to 64G of physical memory via PAE for ~15 years now. The fact that 32-bit Windows Server 2003 supports >4G of memory should make it pretty obvious that MS can indeed do something about it if they want.
 
Originally posted by: coolVariable
Tried Win7 RC 64bit and hated it.

1. UNSTABLE (while 32bit RC is stable as a rock - not a single crash!)
Click to expand...
Are you overclocked? You might have to lower your overclock while running a 64-bit OS. This seems to be true for many machines.

 
As long as someone has already mentioned gaming, let me jump in here with a side-question on our 32 vs 64 discussion.

I have a new client who had a system built elsewhere that is running 64-bit Vista Home Premium with a 9850-BE Phenom Quad and 4GB of Corsair Dominator Capacity DDR2 1066. He tells me that Corsair recommends that he throttle this back to 800 MHz . . . but that is another issue. Dual Asus EAH4870 DK (512MB) video cards on an Asus M3A78T motherboard.

My question is this: He is trying to run older versions of high-end games (Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic, Star Wars Galaxie, Everquest II), in other words stuff that is 4-5 years old, and is having problems just getting the games to launch. He can, however, run Half-Life 2, although I didn't go any further than just seeing that the game would load and start.

Could this be caused by limitations in these older games that don't agree with Vista 64 HP ???
 
Originally posted by: NothinmanThe fact that 32-bit Windows Server 2003 supports >4G of memory should make it pretty obvious that MS can indeed do something about it if they want.
Click to expand...
Yes, datacenter supports 128GB. If the VAS wasn't limited to 4GB, it would probably have supported even more.

Originally posted by: Fallen Kell
Microsoft can't patch a HARDWARE issue. 32bit MEANS 32bits. The HIGHEST a 32bit number can go is 4,294,967,295 (and that is an unsigned int(32), in programming you
Click to expand...
Check out how paging works. Register size is unrelated to the number of bits you can potentially use for addressing physical memory.
 
Yes, datacenter supports 128GB. If the VAS wasn't limited to 4GB, it would probably have supported even more.
Click to expand...

No, the 32-bit version of datacenter supports 64G which is the limit of 36-bit addressing with PAE. And the virtual memory limits have absolutely nothing to with that. The 64-bit version supports up to 512G.
 
http://technet.microsoft.com/e...y/cc758523(WS.10).aspx

Gotta love MS documention, that link contradicts yours but makes more sense to me since AFAIK PAE is 36-bit which is 64G.

However with some googling it looks like 128G is possible with PAE but there's very little details. The only thing I can figure is that they do something odd like use the NX bit to give them 37-bit addressing.
 
The PTE is 64 bit wide in PAE mode (as well as in 64bit mode). Many more of those bits can be used in newer CPUs (they were previously reserved).
 
Originally posted by: dguy6789
Windows 8 if it has 32 bit at all will have the same limitation.

Nobody should be buying Windows 7 32 bit, it's really silly.
Click to expand...
Thats what I was thinking. Really, they shouldnt even have a 32 bit version. No one who is clinging to their 32 bit CPU is in need of a new OS. Everyone else should be forced to upgrade. You can get a decent 64 bit proccessor and motherboard for much less than the price of Windows 7.

 

In the discussion above I have seen a few comments about the fact that nobody should install the 32 bit version of Windows 7. I confess I am very uninformed when it comes to 64 bit OSs (well, I guess that compared to most people here, I am uninformed in pretty much everything! LOL 😱).

I am now running the 32 bit version of Win 7 RC (dual boot with XP for now, until the final release comes out). I chose not to install the 64 bit version because of concerns about drivers and compatibility with software (and the MS notice to that effect on their FAQ on this subject). My hardware is my sig. Not a cutting edge system, but not too old either. Given it is a core 2 duo, it should support 64 bits without problems.

So, the question is this: can 32 bit apps run without problems in a 64 bit OS? Or do the apps also have to be written specifically for a 64 bit OS? Is there a place I can check whether drivers for my specific hardware exist in 64 bit signed versions? I am particularly concerned about an HP 1100A laser printer, which is very old...

I guess I should just bite the bullet, uninstall Win 7 32 bit and install the 64 bit version of the RC, and try it out. Anything tips or warning before I try this? I am assuming that running Win 7 RC in dual boot with 32 bit XP should cause no problems with the Xp install, right?



 
So, the question is this: can 32 bit apps run without problems in a 64 bit OS? Or do the apps also have to be written specifically for a 64 bit OS? Is there a place I can check whether drivers for my specific hardware exist in 64 bit signed versions? I am particularly concerned about an HP 1100A laser printer, which is very old...
Click to expand...

Win64 comes with WoW64 which lets you run 32-bit apps natively and the CPU does both at full speed with no emulation. Most 32-bit apps should run fine as long as you have 32-bit versions of all of the dependent libraries, plugins, etc. 32-bit processes can't load 64-bit libraries and vice versa so for example, if you want 64-bit FF to have Flash you need a 64-bit plugin, the 32-bit one won't load into the 64-bit FF.

As for drivers, since you're on Windows you'll have to check every manufacturer one at a time to see if they have 64-bit drivers available. Although with that laser printer you might be able to get away with a generic PostScript driver.
 
Nothinman

Thanks for the (very prompt!) reply. I checked on the HP website and they have a 64 bit version of the driver for Vista, and it is already included in Windows Vista itself. No mention of Win 7, but I would assume that if the driver was made for Vista, it should also be included in Win 7. I also agree that a generic PS driver will almost certainly work, so I guess I should be ok here.

Regarding your explanation on the 32 bit libraries and such, I assume that if I have all the original install media for all my programs and install everything from their original media, I should be ok, as all the required libraries would be present.

My biggest concern would be Photoshop CS3. It is "certified" for Vista 32 bits, but no mention of 64 bits... time to go dig in Adobe's website.


 
Regarding your explanation on the 32 bit libraries and such, I assume that if I have all the original install media for all my programs and install everything from their original media, I should be ok, as all the required libraries would be present.
Click to expand...

Probably.

My biggest concern would be Photoshop CS3. It is "certified" for Vista 32 bits, but no mention of 64 bits... time to go dig in Adobe's website
Click to expand...

AFAIK Photoshop doesn't do anything special. As long as all of your plugins are 32-bit I don't see why there'd be a problem.
 
Nothinman,

Thanks for the info. I've taken the plunge -- I removed Win 7 RC 32 bit, and just finished installing the 64 bit version. I will now start installing all the software I need and see how it goes. Up until i saw this thread I hadn't even considered a 64 bit OS.

Thanks again!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top