regarding RAM for 32 bit Operating Systems

BlackFusion said:

32-bit Linux kernels are designed to access only 1GB of RAM by default

Um..? Ubuntu 9.04 (x86) uses 3ish of my 4GB. So I have no clue what you are talking about with that one.

BlackFusion said:

To check whether your kernel is configured to use all your RAM, use this command
free -m

I wont be on Linux until tomorrow, which will be 64-bit.

But my point is, you say MS is only allowing 32-bit to use 4GB for their reasons, but in reality its every 32-bit OS that is forced to be within those limits.

I think you are losing this argument.

BlackFusion said:

even if your "3-ish" GB of RAM are being used, you could have 8 GB installed and simply add a new kernel to use all of the unused RAM on a 32 bit linux distro.

I am not losing, you simply don't understand. Linux kernels are configured to use a set amount of RAM. You can easil unlock the extra by adding a new kernel. What I am TRYING to explain is that MS is fully denying you to unlock the extra RAM in 32 bit Operating systems. my question which has still not been answered, is WHY?

"Assuming" you are correct with this, why does it matter? 64-bit and 32-bit have little, if no price difference.

BlackFusion said:

it matters because Microsoft is obviously keeping something from us. Why did they decide to put a 4 GB limit on a 32-bit Os? Why not let both 32 and 64 bit have an unlimited number of RAM. Why is it so vital to keep 32 bit at a limit if it can in fact handle the extra RAM? if 32 bit was designed to handle more than 4 then why isn't it being used?

If it was MS holding out on us then Linux wouldn't have put a 4gb limit on it either. Yes I know you said you can replace the kernel and you can use unlimited but if it was ment to be done it would have been done before its released not for the user to do.

I have read several articles in the past about RAM and 32-bit, 2 out of 3 of those articles were regarding how unstable Windows became when using more then 4GB RAM in 32-bit Windows (this was back when Vista just came out).

Microsoft isn't holding out on us or anything, I don't see why you think they are.

What proof do you offer though?

Those pictures in the beginning of the thread do not really look legit.

^^
My opinion