Windows 7 Forums
Welcome to Windows 7 Forums. Our forum is dedicated to helping you find support and solutions for any problems regarding your Windows 7 PC be it Dell, HP, Acer, Asus or a custom build. We also provide an extensive Windows 7 tutorial section that covers a wide range of tips and tricks.


Windows 7: Has anyone ever read this before...

22 Jun 2010   #21
Kari

 

Welcome Geoff. Nice article, by the way.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
22 Jun 2010   #22
Thorsen

Win7 Home Premium 64x
 
 

Firmware Memory Map

Is this the same as the RAMmap offered by SysInternals? RAMMap
My System SpecsSystem Spec
22 Jun 2010   #23
CarlTR6

Windows 7 Ultimate 32 bit
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by stormy13 View Post
A few times,

32bit 4Gb Memory Limit Explained

regarding RAM for 32 bit Operating Systems

Maximum RAM Read on 32 bit systems

and probably a few more that I missed.

Still comes down to you want to use 4 GB or more, use 64 bit.
Spot on. But it is a good article.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
.

22 Jun 2010   #24
Lordbob75

Windows 7 Ultimate x64, Mint 9
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by WindowsStar View Post
Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by Lordbob75 View Post
Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by WindowsStar View Post
I know for a fact that Windows can use more that 4GB of memory on 32bit. We have been running Windows 2000 Advanced Server (x86) with 8GB for years. As well as Windows Server 2003 (x86) with 8GB for years. Since most of Windows Server 2003 (x86) = Windows XP Professional (x86) then Windows XP Professional (x86), should be able to access more than 4GB. I do believe this is some sort of Microsoft limitation.

I have no intentions of trying to get a (x86) OS to run more than 4GB, because the plain fact is that a 32bit OS is old and 64bit needs to finally take over, it is a move in the right direction.

Interesting article to read.
But is this possible on a non server architecture (such as Windows 7 Home Premium x32)?

~Lordbob
I would be tempted to say yes. Many of our servers now 10 years old were bleeding edge technology at the time but are only P3 or P4 CPUs non-Xeon. That server technology a few years later became Desktop technology.
Hmmmm.... I have heard of PAE, but not anything like this.

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by Thorsen View Post
Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by Geoff Chappell View Post
Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by Lordbob75 View Post
Regardless, he is wrong. For one, he was running a XEON with PAE, which is specially made to break that barrier.
What in the article is made wrong by what you say? And by what logic?

This right here is hillarious...




Welcome to Seven Forums, Geoff
Yeah, what a way to welcome him, right?

Sorry Geoff!

~Lordbob
My System SpecsSystem Spec
22 Jun 2010   #25
Thorsen

Win7 Home Premium 64x
 
 

Oh sorry Lordbob. typing is sometimes without emotional expression and was not meant as sarcasm or as a jab at you.

I felt it was hillarious because of the Author showing up in the Forum, where it was being discussed, to debate your comment. also this: And by what logic?

I was also sincerely welcoming him to SF
My System SpecsSystem Spec
22 Jun 2010   #26
Lordbob75

Windows 7 Ultimate x64, Mint 9
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by Thorsen View Post
Oh sorry Lordbob. typing is sometimes without emotional expression and was not meant as sarcasm or as a jab at you.

I felt it was hillarious because of the Author showing up in the Forum, where it was being discussed, to debate your comment. also this: And by what logic?

I was also sincerely welcoming him to SF
I know it wasn't, I was just laughing at myself for doing it in the first place.

~Lordbob
My System SpecsSystem Spec
22 Jun 2010   #27
Geoff Chappell

Windows Vista
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by Lordbob75 View Post
His screen shot showed he has an Intel Xeon processor for one. I know that those use a special architecture (I am not 100% sure about all this). They have PAE, which allows more RAM to be used on x32 systems.

A x32 OS cannot use more than about 3.25Gbs of RAM... Which is why his article is really not very accurate. He seems to think that any user can use more...
I figure you mean some such thing, yes, but I don't see where you're getting it from in the article. You're not the first to think the article says or suggests that 32-bit Windows Vista can use memory above 4GB on an arbitrary 32-bit processor, and since that's not something I mean anyone to think, I'm left wondering what to change in the article. Increasingly though, I don't think it's a fault in my writing but in some readers' reading. The article is abundantly plain that the code 32-bit Windows has for using memory above 4GB needs the processor to support PAE, which just adds to my wonder about where you think the article is wrong and by what reasoning.
True, the article does say that almost all Intel's processors that are suitable for running 32-bit Windows do nowadays support PAE. I rely on Intel's programming manuals for that. I have no idea how common are the exceptions, just that Intel says the exceptions are few.
In any case, that not everyone has the hardware to run a given Windows feature does not mean that Windows doesn't have the feature.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
22 Jun 2010   #28
Lordbob75

Windows 7 Ultimate x64, Mint 9
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by Geoff Chappell View Post
Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by Lordbob75 View Post
His screen shot showed he has an Intel Xeon processor for one. I know that those use a special architecture (I am not 100% sure about all this). They have PAE, which allows more RAM to be used on x32 systems.

A x32 OS cannot use more than about 3.25Gbs of RAM... Which is why his article is really not very accurate. He seems to think that any user can use more...
I figure you mean some such thing, yes, but I don't see where you're getting it from in the article. You're not the first to think the article says or suggests that 32-bit Windows Vista can use memory above 4GB on an arbitrary 32-bit processor, and since that's not something I mean anyone to think, I'm left wondering what to change in the article. Increasingly though, I don't think it's a fault in my writing but in some readers' reading. The article is abundantly plain that the code 32-bit Windows has for using memory above 4GB needs the processor to support PAE, which just adds to my wonder about where you think the article is wrong and by what reasoning.
True, the article does say that almost all Intel's processors that are suitable for running 32-bit Windows do nowadays support PAE. I rely on Intel's programming manuals for that. I have no idea how common are the exceptions, just that Intel says the exceptions are few.
In any case, that not everyone has the hardware to run a given Windows feature does not mean that Windows doesn't have the feature.
Hey Geoff, thanks for the reply.
One thing that confused me was this line:
Quote:
That 32-bit editions of Windows Vista are limited to 4GB is not because of any technical constraint on 32-bit operating systems. The 32-bit editions of Windows Vista all contain code for using physical memory above 4GB. Microsoft just doesn’t license you to use that code.
I know that x32 OS do have a limitation on total RAM usage, but isn't that a limit caused by the architecture, NOT (necessarily) Windows coding?
I know that x32 OS do not have enough addressing space to contain more than about 3.5Gbs (depending) of RAM, so how can that be an actual limitation by Microsoft?

After reading into the article, I see that you mention that 16bit Windows (limited by 64K) had 640K, so I do see that it has been (and still is) possible to go beyond the theoretical limitations of the OS archetecture.

Now, I am not (at all) a programmer, so I really don't get a lot of the article, but I see the general point.
As you said here
Quote:
If you have a 32-bit program that wants more than its 2GB or 3GB, then upgrading to a 64-bit version of that program to run on a 64-bit operating system is your only path ahead. If you’re buying a new computer and new applications, then getting 64-bit Windows and 64-bit applications is obviously the way of the future. Meanwhile, if your concern is only that the system and all your 32-bit applications may together use all your 4GB or more, then keeping your 32-bit operating system would at least be an option for you if Microsoft would provide you with license data to let you use the PAE support that Microsoft has already coded into the product.
It really seems like it is many times easier to upgrade to x64 Windows.

I also have to add that the whole article really feels like an attack on Microsoft. While I agree with a lot of what you say about them being a monopoly and anti-competitive, etc, it seems like a little over the top for something that is fairly easily fixed.
Moving to x64 (as you said) is the future. What is the point of going through all this to enable more memory in a x32 system?

~Lordbob
My System SpecsSystem Spec
22 Jun 2010   #29
Geoff Chappell

Windows Vista
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by Lordbob75 View Post
But is this possible on a non server architecture (such as Windows 7 Home Premium x32)?
That's a main point of the article, yes. Windows Vista is the first 32-bit client edition of Windows that has all the code for using memory above 4GB but is not licensed to use such memory. Client editions up to and including Windows XP SP1 have the code but not the restriction. (They are limited to 4GB in total, but not to 4GB as a maximum address.) Windows XP SP2 and SP3 have the restriction and don't have all the code.

The only reason that client editions of Windows Vista and Windows 7 won't (try to) use memory above 4GB but contemporaneous server editions will is licensing. Data in the registry sets limits to memory usage. Different editions of Windows are given different limits but they all have the same code. See especially that Windows Vista SP1 and Windows Server 2008 are exactly identical for the kernel and HAL and pretty much every other executable that they have in common.

The only architectural difference that can matter is what the user adds to Windows by way of drivers. Windows may have the code for using memory above 4GB, but a buggy third-party driver can stuff that up. One may reasonably suppose that third-party drivers, including buggy ones, are in ordinary practice more likely on clients than servers.

From the Windows side of things however, it just doesn't matter about client versus server. If it weren't for the license restriction, all that Windows needs to see is a processor with PAE and a memory map that extends above 4GB. Well, of course, the processor and memory have to work. If you can set up the BIOS so that it tells Windows it has 8GB of RAM when only 2GB are fitted or if the chipset doesn't properly support the memory above 4GB, then all bets are off. Windows trusts what the BIOS tells it about memory.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
22 Jun 2010   #30
Thorsen

Win7 Home Premium 64x
 
 

Before reading this, I thought it was the actual architechure preventing 32x from using more than 4G of Ram, but now it seems (given having a CPU that can use PAE) Windows itself is what is limiting it.

-The key has to be changed and loaded unsigned to allow the 32x system to use 8G or ram.

-32x has no problem using 8G or Ram.

-Microsoft would like everyone to believe that the only way forward, to use 8G of ram, is to upgrade from 32x systems like XP to the new 64x system that is allowed to use more than 4G.

-It seems that Microsoft could easily allow hardware that can handle 8G to access all 8G, but it wont let their 32x systems load in that manner.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar help and support threads
Thread Forum
Folder read only and want all files placed in to become auto read only
Creating a new Folder as read only and would like to have all files placed into that new Folder become read only as they are added or moved into that read only Folder. If Windows 7 cannot handle this is there any kind of software utility Haddon I can get to perform this task?
General Discussion
public tv folder read only? mythtv needs read write persmissions
I tried unchecking read only. When apply and look it is back to read only. How can I make this read and write permission?
Network & Sharing
dvd drive wont read specific disk, will read on other vista computer
hey, my computer generally reads disks, music cd's, dvd's, and games (new like sims 3, and old like theme hospital and shogun total war) ive just got anno 2070 and put in the disk, but its not recognizing it at all, when i first put the disk in, it whirs, as it knows there is a disk there, and a...
Hardware & Devices
dvd drive can't read dvd movie, but can read data dvd or dvd games
hai everyone i've got some problem with my dvd drive, CDDVDW TS-T633P from HP touchsmart 600 1137D my dvd can't read or play dvd movie, i reinstall it few times but it can;t solve the problem ...
Hardware & Devices
CD not being read by W7, but XPMode can read without issue
Has any one had this issue? I have a cd that can be viewed on the Windows XP in the XPmode virtual machine. But cannot be read by the host Windows 7 machine, or another Windows 7 machine. I do not know what OS the cd was created on. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Thanks Mike
Hardware & Devices
Read-only files in My games?why can't I get read-write permission
I've installed fallout but can't get it to run,seemingly because my DOCUMENTS library won't turn off read-only status for My games (or anything else). I've run through ownerships+permissions as best I can but I can't get rid of read-only,which seems VERY odd for a documents folder ;Can anyone...
Gaming


Our Sites

Site Links

About Us

Find Us

Windows 7 Forums is an independent web site and has not been authorized, sponsored, or otherwise approved by Microsoft Corporation. "Windows 7" and related materials are trademarks of Microsoft Corp.

Designer Media Ltd

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:33.
Twitter Facebook Google+ Seven Forums iOS App Seven Forums Android App