32 bit vs 64 bit Comparison

[Dilbert8056]

I run with Win 7 Pro X64. I installed Win 7 Pro X86 under Oracle VirtualBox. After 30 days it expired and would no longer function and I could not activate it, so the answer is no, you cannot legally do this. It's a shame as it would make great test environment for doing research for posts here and on other forums.

I wonder why t's not allowed, since it would always be running on the same computer.

A VM is NOT seen as the same hardware as the actual PC it is running on.

I have 4 PCs here, all multibooting, two of them have had both 32 + 64 bit Win 7 running and activated for months. It HAS to be the same hardware to work, even though it is strictly against the licence terms.

Dil

 

[GeneO]

I have Windows 7 with 4GB memory upgraded from XP.

So I know under XP the 4GB of space was segregated into 2GB for XP, 2GB for user, unless you specify the /3G boot switch.

Does 32 bit Windows 7 overcome this or is there stall a partitioning of the memory between Windows 7 and user space? If so than this is an advantage of 63 bit over 32 bit: system and user sharing the space equally.

In any case I see this as a big advantage over XP 32 bit at least - more efficient sharing of the memory between the OS and user space.

- Gene

 

[Lordbob75]

I have Windows 7 with 4GB memory upgraded from XP.

So I know under XP the 4GB of space was segregated into 2GB for XP, 2GB for user, unless you specify the /3G boot switch.

Does 32 bit Windows 7 overcome this or is there stall a partitioning of the memory between Windows 7 and user space? If so than this is an advantage of 63 bit over 32 bit: system and user sharing the space equally.

In any case I see this as a big advantage over XP 32 bit at least - more efficient sharing of the memory between the OS and user space.

- Gene

I have never heard of that. Do you have any documentation about it?

~Lordbob

 

[GeneO]

I have Windows 7 with 4GB memory upgraded from XP.

So I know under XP the 4GB of space was segregated into 2GB for XP, 2GB for user, unless you specify the /3G boot switch.

Does 32 bit Windows 7 overcome this or is there stall a partitioning of the memory between Windows 7 and user space? If so than this is an advantage of 63 bit over 32 bit: system and user sharing the space equally.

In any case I see this as a big advantage over XP 32 bit at least - more efficient sharing of the memory between the OS and user space.

- Gene

I have never heard of that. Do you have any documentation about it?

~Lordbob

Never heard of what? 32 bit XP reserving space for itself? There is plenty of documentation out there about windows 32 bit XP reserving 2GB of memory for itself and limiting processes to 2G unless you use the /3G boot switch.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778(VS.85).aspx

 

[Lordbob75]

I have Windows 7 with 4GB memory upgraded from XP.

So I know under XP the 4GB of space was segregated into 2GB for XP, 2GB for user, unless you specify the /3G boot switch.

Does 32 bit Windows 7 overcome this or is there stall a partitioning of the memory between Windows 7 and user space? If so than this is an advantage of 63 bit over 32 bit: system and user sharing the space equally.

In any case I see this as a big advantage over XP 32 bit at least - more efficient sharing of the memory between the OS and user space.

- Gene

I have never heard of that. Do you have any documentation about it?

~Lordbob

Never heard of what? 32 bit XP reserving space for itself? There is plenty of documentation out there about windows 32 bit XP reserving 2GB of memory for itself and limiting processes to 2G unless you use the /3G boot switch.

Memory Limits for Windows Releases (Windows)

Oh, this. Actually, you are incorrect.

What this refers to is the x32 limitation shared by ANY x32 OS. Each application can only use up to 2Gb of memory, and the OS can only recognize up to 4Gbs.

XP (or any other x32 OS) never reserved space "for itself" (not including hardware addressing), nor for the user (besides what the HDD can hold).

To get around this, you must use a x64 OS (be it XP, Vista, Seven, Linux, OSX, etc).

~Lordbob

 

[GeneO]

I have never heard of that. Do you have any documentation about it?

~Lordbob

Never heard of what? 32 bit XP reserving space for itself? There is plenty of documentation out there about windows 32 bit XP reserving 2GB of memory for itself and limiting processes to 2G unless you use the /3G boot switch.

Memory Limits for Windows Releases (Windows)

Oh, this. Actually, you are incorrect.

What this refers to is the x32 limitation shared by ANY x32 OS. Each application can only use up to 2Gb of memory, and the OS can only recognize up to 4Gbs.

XP (or any other x32 OS) never reserved space "for itself" (not including hardware addressing), nor for the user (besides what the HDD can hold).

To get around this, you must use a x64 OS (be it XP, Vista, Seven, Linux, OSX, etc).

~Lordbob

Maybe I wasn't clear in my terminology. What I meant was that the available virtual address space of 4Gb for 32 bit OS is carved up between kernel space and user space 2GB and 2GB by default. If you want to increase the virtual address space of a program on a 32 bit OS, you need to use the boot 3G switch. That will give user space 3GB but at the cost of the system getting only one. In addition on the 32 bit, the OS can only use 2GB max. That is what I meant by partitioning. Giving a program access to 3GB hamstrings the OS to 1GB. Even for a machine with only 4GB of memory, with 64 bit OS and hardware, nether the OS or user space is limited in this way. In your original post you don;t touch on this or that on a 32 bit OS, you can give a program access of up to 3GB ( not just 2GB). It is at a cost.

- Gene

 

[Lordbob75]

Never heard of what? 32 bit XP reserving space for itself? There is plenty of documentation out there about windows 32 bit XP reserving 2GB of memory for itself and limiting processes to 2G unless you use the /3G boot switch.

Memory Limits for Windows Releases (Windows)

Oh, this. Actually, you are incorrect.

What this refers to is the x32 limitation shared by ANY x32 OS. Each application can only use up to 2Gb of memory, and the OS can only recognize up to 4Gbs.

XP (or any other x32 OS) never reserved space "for itself" (not including hardware addressing), nor for the user (besides what the HDD can hold).

To get around this, you must use a x64 OS (be it XP, Vista, Seven, Linux, OSX, etc).

~Lordbob

Maybe I wasn't clear in my terminology. What I meant was that the available virtual address space of 4Gb for 32 bit OS is carved up between kernel space and user space 2GB and 2GB by default. If you want to increase the virtual address space of a program on a 32 bit OS, you need to use the boot 3G switch. That will give user space 3GB but at the cost of the system getting only one. In addition on the 32 bit, the OS can only use 2GB max. That is what I meant by partitioning. Giving a program access to 3GB hamstrings the OS to 1GB. Even for a machine with only 4GB of memory, with 64 bit OS and hardware, nether the OS or user space is limited in this way. In your original post you don;t touch on this or that on a 32 bit OS, you can give a program access of up to 3GB ( not just 2GB). It is at a cost.

- Gene

Never heard of this.

That documentation also has nothing to do with it.

~Lordbob

 

[CyberZeus]

Sorry GeneO, but you are incorrect. There is no OS memory and user memory. There is only memory. The documentation you specified has nothing to do with this: it clarifies what the memory limitations are.

Cheers

 

[Lordbob75]

Sorry GeneO, but you are incorrect. There is no OS memory and user memory. There is only memory. The documentation you specified has nothing to do with this: it clarifies what the memory limitations are.

Cheers

Thats right.

He is thinking about the x32 limitations.

~Lordbob

 

[GeneO]

Sorry GeneO, but you are incorrect. There is no OS memory and user memory. There is only memory. The documentation you specified has nothing to do with this: it clarifies what the memory limitations are.

Cheers

No I am not wrong. There is OS virtual and User space virtual address space and that article does list the limitations on each of these, which are much different for 32 and 64 bit OS. You obviously don't know the rudiments how an operating system manages memory.

Boy did I make a mistake coming to these forums. A bunch of know-it-alls that know next to nothing. I had hoped I would learn something here.

 

[GeneO]

Sorry GeneO, but you are incorrect. There is no OS memory and user memory. There is only memory. The documentation you specified has nothing to do with this: it clarifies what the memory limitations are.

Cheers

Thats right.

He is thinking about the x32 limitations.

~Lordbob

Well duh, didn;t I say that. And that document does say what I said - perhaps you don;t know how to read.

Later to you boys.

 

[Lordbob75]

Boy did I make a mistake coming to these forums. A bunch of know-it-alls that know next to nothing. I had hoped I would learn something here.

You can't learn anything if you only believe you are right.

I can't speak for anyone else here, but I don't tolerate much arrogance. Good riddance.

~Lordbob

 

[Layback Bear]

Short and sweat GeneO GOOD BY.

 

[tw33k]

I think you all need to read this and apologise to GeneO

Memory Management - x86 Virtual Address Space - Ask the Performance Team - Site Home - TechNet Blogs

 

[Lordbob75]

I think you all need to read this and apologise to GeneO

Memory Management - x86 Virtual Address Space - Ask the Performance Team - Site Home - TechNet Blogs

So why didn't he post that (or something similar) when I asked for documentation?
Instead he posts x32 memory limitations, which had nothing to do with it...

Thus my confusion.

Tw33k, thanks for the link. I guess he was right. I still don't appreciate his arrogance or insults because of it.

I had no idea this existed, and had never heard of it. That is why I asked for an article/documentation on it. If he (or someone else) posted that, then great, I learned something.
Being arrogant accomplishes nothing, except relieving himself of respect.

~Lordbob

 

[tw33k]

I can understand his frustration. Maybe he didn't handle it the best but I get that. Especially CyberZeus saying "Sorry GeneO, but you are incorrect. There is no OS memory and user memory." To me that is both ignorant and arrogant.

 

[Lordbob75]

I can understand his frustration. Maybe he didn't handle it the best but I get that. Especially CyberZeus saying "Sorry GeneO, but you are incorrect. There is no OS memory and user memory." To me that is both ignorant and arrogant.

Ignorant yes. I didn't know it existed either.
Neither of us were intentionally arrogant/insulting though (at least I wasnt).

~Lordbob

 

[tw33k]

No..you weren't

 

[Layback Bear]

Folks I think we all are willing to work with anybody and yes there is always some thing we can all learn but smart mouth don't get it. If some one wants to try the golden little goody found on the internet and let us all know how it works, please do. We will be waiting.

 

[CyberZeus]

I can understand his frustration. Maybe he didn't handle it the best but I get that. Especially CyberZeus saying "Sorry GeneO, but you are incorrect. There is no OS memory and user memory." To me that is both ignorant and arrogant.

I'm NOT ignorant and arrogant and I didn't want to be. And I never said GeneO is.

However, thank you, tw33k: very nice from you.