Has anyone ever read this before...

[mpcrsc562]

Geoff Chappell, Software Analyst - Viewer

Better yet, has anyone ever been able to reproduce what was written here?

Curious. :sarc:

 

[jorpe]

I'm really confused and dont really understand anything that was written there.

 

[Fumz]

I thoroughly enjoyed that. Good stuff!

 

[stormy13]

A few times,

http://www.sevenforums.com/hardware-devices/28513-32bit-4gb-memory-limit-explained.html

http://www.sevenforums.com/performance-maintenance/14251-regarding-ram-32-bit-operating-systems.html

http://www.sevenforums.com/performance-maintenance/29381-maximum-ram-read-32-bit-systems.html

and probably a few more that I missed.

Still comes down to you want to use 4 GB or more, use 64 bit.

 

[Lomai]

Geoff Chappell, Software Analyst - Viewer

Better yet, has anyone ever been able to reproduce what was written here?

Curious. :sarc:

Interesting - thanks

 

[Kari]

Really good reading, thanks for sharing.

 

[mpcrsc562]

A few times,

http://www.sevenforums.com/hardware-devices/28513-32bit-4gb-memory-limit-explained.html

http://www.sevenforums.com/performance-maintenance/14251-regarding-ram-32-bit-operating-systems.html

http://www.sevenforums.com/performance-maintenance/29381-maximum-ram-read-32-bit-systems.html

and probably a few more that I missed.

Still comes down to you want to use 4 GB or more, use 64 bit.

You're right...

But it is interesting that the author states that "the impossibility of using more than 4GB on a 32-bit system is not true," as he was able to do exactly that. He did say also that he had to modify the kernel for Windows to recognize the ram above 4GB.

Anyway, it is an interesting read. If you really have [a lot] of time, take time to read the whole site. (@jorpe: It is headache inducing )

 

[Lordbob75]

Regardless, he is wrong. For one, he was running a XEON with PAE, which is specially made to break that barrier.
And extremely expensive.

~Lordbob

 

[TimStitt]

Interesting and a good read.

Thanks.

 

[gladson1976]

A few times,

http://www.sevenforums.com/hardware-devices/28513-32bit-4gb-memory-limit-explained.html

http://www.sevenforums.com/performance-maintenance/14251-regarding-ram-32-bit-operating-systems.html

http://www.sevenforums.com/performance-maintenance/29381-maximum-ram-read-32-bit-systems.html

and probably a few more that I missed.

Still comes down to you want to use 4 GB or more, use 64 bit.

You're right...

But it is interesting that the author states that "the impossibility of using more than 4GB on a 32-bit system is not true," as he was able to do exactly that. He did say also that he had to modify the kernel for Windows to recognize the ram above 4GB.

Anyway, it is an interesting read. If you really have [a lot] of time, take time to read the whole site. (@jorpe: It is headache inducing )

If you are using Linux, you can recompile the kernel to support more than 4GB on 32bit

 

[Adrian]

A few times,

http://www.sevenforums.com/hardware-devices/28513-32bit-4gb-memory-limit-explained.html

http://www.sevenforums.com/performance-maintenance/14251-regarding-ram-32-bit-operating-systems.html

http://www.sevenforums.com/performance-maintenance/29381-maximum-ram-read-32-bit-systems.html

and probably a few more that I missed.

Still comes down to you want to use 4 GB or more, use 64 bit.

+1 Ken,

 

[Geoff Chappell]

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?

 

[Lordbob75]

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?

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...

(If I am wrong, please correct me)

~Lordbob

 

[smarteyeball]

Check who you are replying to LB

 

[si8mon]

Check who you are replying to LB

:roflmao:

 

[Lordbob75]

Check who you are replying to LB

He wrote it didn't he...

Well, I will stand by what I said.
If he can provide some outside sources showing that it is possible on a regular system (i.e. like a core 2 duo and a fairly standard motherboard) then I will concede.

~Lordbob

EDIT: Yup, he did. Geoff, no offense. What I am saying is not a personal offense, it just goes against what I know about x32 systems. If you are right, please show me. I mean no insult.

 

[WindowsStar]

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.

 

[Lordbob75]

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

 

[WindowsStar]

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.

 

[Thorsen]

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