Windows Server 2003 x86 Enterprise

[LittleNemoNES]

Is it true?
And if so, is there some horrible catch?

I can see how I can get a performance boost in games with server 2003 Enterprise x86 vs Vista x64 Ultimate. (I have a technet sub so that's why I have access to it).

 

[Fullmetal Chocobo]

Looks like it is true.

Support up to 8 processors ..[and] up to 64 GB of memory

.

I'm not sure how good of a gaming platform Server 2003 would be though. But if it's free /cheap, you could always try it and see. You could always switch to Vista x64 if it doesn't work out.

 

[LittleNemoNES]

Originally posted by: Fullmetal Chocobo
Looks like it is true.

Support up to 8 processors ..[and] up to 64 GB of memory

.

I'm not sure how good of a gaming platform Server 2003 would be though. But if it's free /cheap, you could always try it and see. You could always switch to Vista x64 if it doesn't work out.

Since it is 32bit, I can simply use xp drivers.
I think I'll bite. Be back in a couple of hours to report.

 

[dclive]

Originally posted by: gersson
Is it true?
And if so, is there some horrible catch?

I can see how I can get a performance boost in games with server 2003 Enterprise x86 vs Vista x64 Ultimate. (I have a technet sub so that's why I have access to it).

Stick with Vista64 or XP64 if you want to use >4GB. You *can* use >4GB with 2003E32 - you just have to go through PAE/AWE contortions to do it, and very little software takes advantage of it. Unless you're running an Oracle or SQL database, essentially, you're outta luck.

Win64 software, however, *can* globally use >4GB, so stick with 64 bit OSs if you have >4GB on consumer platform machines.

 

[LittleNemoNES]

Originally posted by: dclive

Originally posted by: gersson
Is it true?
And if so, is there some horrible catch?

I can see how I can get a performance boost in games with server 2003 Enterprise x86 vs Vista x64 Ultimate. (I have a technet sub so that's why I have access to it).

Stick with Vista64 or XP64 if you want to use >4GB. You *can* use >4GB with 2003E32 - you just have to go through PAE/AWE contortions to do it, and very little software takes advantage of it. Unless you're running an Oracle or SQL database, essentially, you're outta luck.

Win64 software, however, *can* globally use >4GB, so stick with 64 bit OSs if you have >4GB on consumer platform machines.

Yeah, I just realized that.
On top of that, I couldn't even install my raid drivers for some weird reason.
Thanks anyway, folks.

 

[RebateMonger]

Originally posted by: gersson
On top of that, I couldn't even install my raid drivers for some weird reason.
Thanks anyway, folks.

Not every hardwre that runs on XP will be recognized by Server 2003.

 

[Nothinman]

And if so, is there some horrible catch?

Just that some crappy drivers will crash when handed physical memory addresses >4G.

Stick with Vista64 or XP64 if you want to use >4GB. You *can* use >4GB with 2003E32 - you just have to go through PAE/AWE contortions to do it, and very little software takes advantage of it. Unless you're running an Oracle or SQL database, essentially, you're outta luck.

Even if no processes use AWE the memory will still get used, just not all by one process.

Win64 software, however, *can* globally use >4GB, so stick with 64 bit OSs if you have >4GB on consumer platform machines.

And there's so much more Win64 software than there is Win32+AWE software...

 

[dclive]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
Even if no processes use AWE the memory will still get used, just not all by one process.

It's got to be called by AWE "/largeaddressaware" to take advantage of anything >4GB.

And there's so much more Win64 software than there is Win32+AWE software...

Agreed. Plus it can actually see all the RAM in the system, unlike Win32 OSs.
(http://support.microsoft.com/kb/283037)
(http://support.microsoft.com/kb/268363/)

 

[Nothinman]

It's got to be called by AWE "/largeaddressaware" to take advantage of anything >4GB.

Even with AWE a 32-bit process is still limited to 4G of VM, AWE is just a more effeceint way to swap between sets of addresses so that more than 4G can be used even though only 4G is available at once.

Agreed. Plus it can actually see all the RAM in the system, unlike Win32 OSs.

Mine was sarcasm so we're not in agreement. Win32 OSes can address >4G whenever MS wants them to, what's what this thread is all about.

 

[dclive]

...with PAE/AWE. Without, it can't. If you've found a workaround, please describe.

 

[vailr]

What about MS Server 2008 Enterprise 32-bit?
Does it handle >4 Gb memory any differently, than does Server 2003 Enterprise 32-bit?

 

[dclive]

Still a 32 bit os, so still the same issues.

 

[HannibalX]

Originally posted by: gersson
Is it true?
And if so, is there some horrible catch?

I can see how I can get a performance boost in games with server 2003 Enterprise x86 vs Vista x64 Ultimate. (I have a technet sub so that's why I have access to it).

Yes it's true. I run W2K3E on my workstation at work with 8GB of ram. No problems. Built the workstation last year and it just chugs along, zero issue. I don't game on it though. I do however run MSSQL tests and regularly use upwards of 6GB of ram with zero issues.

W2K3E is a commercial OS and is not aimed at the retail market so no guarantees your retail level software will run correctly.

 

[Nothinman]

...with PAE/AWE. Without, it can't. If you've found a workaround, please describe.

AWE is that workaround but even with it a 32-bit process is limited to 4G of VM. AWE just lets that process shift around "windows" into other sections of memory but at any one point in time only 4G of VM is ever addressable.

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: RebateMonger

Originally posted by: gersson
On top of that, I couldn't even install my raid drivers for some weird reason.
Thanks anyway, folks.

Not every hardwre that runs on XP will be recognized by Server 2003.

Yeh good luck finding drivers for your 3D card.. you will be stuck with the standard VGA driver.

But do note... Vista 32 bit ATI drivers worked on Server 2008.

 

[Nothinman]

Yeh good luck finding drivers for your 3D card.. you will be stuck with the standard VGA driver.

You can make hardware accelerated drivers work but I've heard that the nVidia drivers are one of the culprits that tend to BSOD when handed addresses >4G, i.e. the reason that MS limited 32-bit XP to 4G.

 

[Scotteq]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Yeh good luck finding drivers for your 3D card.. you will be stuck with the standard VGA driver.

You can make hardware accelerated drivers work but I've heard that the nVidia drivers are one of the culprits that tend to BSOD when handed addresses >4G, i.e. the reason that MS limited 32-bit XP to 4G.

My understanding of this is that it's an address space issue - 32 bit Windows has 2^32 bytes worth of address space. That's 4GB. That's all they were designed to have. In the case of a server OS (2003, etc), MSFT implemented PAE in order to provide more space. But that particular game of Hide The Sausage requires drivers to be large address aware (as already pointed out). Not a problem for a business, many/most of whom are probably writing their own stuff anyhow.

But on the consumer side, doing that would mean all of the drivers for the thousands and thousands of devices out there would have to be rewritten. The cost of rewriting all of that software would be staggering. Not to mention the PR blow from invalidating every device driver ever written for the OS, overnight, and therefore p*ssing off millions of people. No product manager in their right mind would make such a decision. Never. Ever.

So I don't believe that blaming nVidia for XP not recognizing more than 4GB is the proper approach. - They're clearly the cart to MSFT's horse in this case. I mean - Why would BillyG in Redmond give a rat's azz if developers at nVida couldn't follow a spec for a driver?? It's up to nVidia to make sure their stuff works. Or people wouldn't buy their cards. Microsoft would never change the OS to help a 3rd party. At most, they'll eMail the same spec they already eMailed before and tell nVidia "sorry... Guess you guys need to try that one again... If you <giggle> need some help <chortle> or instruction on How2Program <grin> I guess we could send <giggle> my nephew down there <BLAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAA> to show you. But thanks for the laugh, guys!"




For the OP - If/since the OS is free, I see no reason to not play with it. Even just for grins.

There is something that bugs me, though - If you go to a server level OS just to use more RAM. Then play with PAE... And then have to spend time hunting down drivers that are 64 bit aware. And have to install codecs, Direct X, and all that stuff you need to game...




Wouldn't it just be easier and less expensive just to use a 64 bit OS in the first place?? Not like XP x64 and Vista X64 aren't priced for consumers, or anything. Maybe I'm just beiong lazy/curmugeonly

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Scotteq
In the case of a server OS (2003, etc), MSFT implemented PAE in order to provide more space. But that particular game of Hide The Sausage requires drivers to be large address aware (as already pointed out). Not a problem for a business, many/most of whom are probably writing their own stuff anyhow.

But on the consumer side, doing that would mean all of the drivers for the thousands and thousands of devices out there would have to be rewritten. The cost of rewriting all of that software would be staggering. Not to mention the PR blow from invalidating every device driver ever written for the OS, overnight, and therefore p*ssing off millions of people. No product manager in their right mind would make such a decision. Never. Ever.

So I don't believe that blaming nVidia for XP not recognizing more than 4GB is the proper approach. - They're clearly the cart to MSFT's horse in this case. I mean - Why would BillyG in Redmond give a rat's azz if developers at nVida couldn't follow a spec for a driver?? It's up to nVidia to make sure their stuff works. Or people wouldn't buy their cards. Microsoft would never change the OS to help a 3rd party. At most, they'll eMail the same spec they already eMailed before and tell nVidia "sorry... Guess you guys need to try that one again... If you <giggle> need some help <chortle> or instruction on How2Program <grin> I guess we could send <giggle> my nephew down there <BLAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAA> to show you. But thanks for the laugh, guys!"

For the OP - If/since the OS is free, I see no reason to not play with it. Even just for grins.

There is something that bugs me, though - If you go to a server level OS just to use more RAM. Then play with PAE... And then have to spend time hunting down drivers that are 64 bit aware. And have to install codecs, Direct X, and all that stuff you need to game...

Wouldn't it just be easier and less expensive just to use a 64 bit OS in the first place?? Not like XP x64 and Vista X64 aren't priced for consumers, or anything. Maybe I'm just beiong lazy/curmugeonly

Couple clarifications:

PAE is an Intel thing, not just Microsoft.
BillyG in Redmon *does* give a rat's azz about nVidia following spec. Thats why MS has invested so much in WHQL and integrated driver signing requirements.
Many drivers are PAE aware even if they do not leverage the functionality. For compatibility Windows 2000 Pro (and beyond) support PAE drivers even if the OS does not support more than 4GB memory (2k pro, XP pro x86 etc.)
MS frequently alters the OS to help 3rd parties (just submitted a change myself last week).

 

[dclive]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Yeh good luck finding drivers for your 3D card.. you will be stuck with the standard VGA driver.

You can make hardware accelerated drivers work but I've heard that the nVidia drivers are one of the culprits that tend to BSOD when handed addresses >4G, i.e. the reason that MS limited 32-bit XP to 4G.

I'm confused - the driver can't be handed an address >4GB since it's a 32 bit driver; it expects to live within a 2GB kernel space, and if it doesn't (if, for example, you're using /3GB) then there can be all kinds of issues, but those have gotten better.

 

[dclive]

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: RebateMonger

Originally posted by: gersson
On top of that, I couldn't even install my raid drivers for some weird reason.
Thanks anyway, folks.

Not every hardwre that runs on XP will be recognized by Server 2003.

Yeh good luck finding drivers for your 3D card.. you will be stuck with the standard VGA driver.

But do note... Vista 32 bit ATI drivers worked on Server 2008.

Both ATI and nVidia drivers work with Windows Server 2003.

 

[dclive]

Originally posted by: Scotteq

But on the consumer side, doing that would mean all of the drivers for the thousands and thousands of devices out there would have to be rewritten. The cost of rewriting all of that software would be staggering. Not to mention the PR blow from invalidating every device driver ever written for the OS, overnight, and therefore p*ssing off millions of people. No product manager in their right mind would make such a decision. Never. Ever.

Most drivers work fine with /3GB and PAE. It's only the few - and troubleshooting those few in case of an issue.

RAM. Then play with PAE... And then have to spend time hunting down drivers that are 64 bit aware. And have to install codecs, Direct X, and all that stuff you need to game...

64 bit aware? We're talking about installing onto the 32 bit OS with PAE. Normal stuff and stuff from MS installs fine - it's the drivers from third parties that have issues...sometimes.

Wouldn't it just be easier and less expensive just to use a 64 bit OS in the first place?? Not like XP x64 and Vista X64 aren't priced for consumers, or anything. Maybe I'm just beiong lazy/curmugeonly

Easiest to run a 64 bit OS in the first place, yes.

 

[Nothinman]

So I don't believe that blaming nVidia for XP not recognizing more than 4GB is the proper approach. - They're clearly the cart to MSFT's horse in this case. I mean - Why would BillyG in Redmond give a rat's azz if developers at nVida couldn't follow a spec for a driver?? It's up to nVidia to make sure their stuff works. Or people wouldn't buy their cards. Microsoft would never change the OS to help a 3rd party.

That's the reasoning that they give when asked why XP32 can't use all 4G of physical memory in a machine so apparently they do give a rat's azz.

I'm confused - the driver can't be handed an address >4GB since it's a 32 bit driver; it expects to live within a 2GB kernel space, and if it doesn't (if, for example, you're using /3GB) then there can be all kinds of issues, but those have gotten better.

Actually it can, PAE enables 36-bit addressing in the kernel and the 2G of VM that the kernel is limited to is separate from the physical addresses that might be mapped into that virtual range.

 

[dclive]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
Actually it can, PAE enables 36-bit addressing in the kernel and the 2G of VM that the kernel is limited to is separate from the physical addresses that might be mapped into that virtual range.

...which means the net effect is the kernel gets 2GB set aside for it (regardless of where it actually is located). Agreed?

 

[Nothinman]

...which means the net effect is the kernel gets 2GB set aside for it (regardless of where it actually is located). Agreed?

But drivers still have to deal with physical addresses for DMA so it really is an issue.

 

[bwatson283]

no sound support in server