4GB RAM and 64 bit OS ...

OK, you took your pick from the bargain bin and is quite chuffed at the sweet price you paid for your 1 GB RAM ThinkPad. You congratulated yourself as being savvy to sell that 1 GB RAM online and buy that 2 x 2GB sticks from newegg or it's equivalent at your locale. Some with machines that can go beyond the 4GB limit may even have plonked down top dollar for that shiny new 1 x 4GB in anticipation of maxing it out to 8GB in future.

To have full access to all 4GB of RAM and beyond, you'll need to use a 64 bit OS, be it Vista 64, Windows 7 64, etc.

Question: how would migrating to 64 bit OS affect me as a current 32 bit OS user?

Are we at the dawn of the era similar to the era when 1 MB RAM was standard ... fast forward to few years ago when 1 GB RAM (a THOUSAND fold increase) was standard.

When will 1 TB of RAM and 1 PB of HDD become commonplace? It seemed a long way from now, but hey - it took less than 2 decades from 1 MB RAM / 1 GB HDD to reach 1 GB RAM / 100 GB HDD.

With today's high bandwidth and high bit rate video files, the time gap may even be shorter.

All relevant and helpful pointers, explanations, points of views, analysis, ruminations, visions of the futurem etc - in detail - are welcome!

 

My ThinkPad came with 512MB of memory. I say there's very little to differentiate the two. I've had Vista64 and Linux 64 bit on my R60. I honestly couldn't tell much of a difference. I even had it on my desktop, where I do some Handbrake. Not much to tell there either.

 

I was under the impression that users will need to get 64 bit compatible software to run in a 64 bit environment.

Which means some favorite programs and utilities get left in the dust of upgrading/migration to 64 bit, no?

 

It was my experience that most stuff I installed worked, but there was a few things that did not. Particularly some older software that I think used 16 bit installers, which is a no-no in 64 bit Vista. There was one program I really wanted to work, but did not, AlphaXP. It works in 32 bit Vista just fine, but not in 64 bit. I'm not sure why. Interestingly, it doesn't work in either version of Windows 7. So I may be stuck in XP for a while. I was hoping to upgrade to 7 to see if it offers better Blu-ray playback, which for now works best in XP. If there's no AlphaXP in 7, I'll be in XP for a for the foreseeable future, which more than meets my modest needs.

 

or you'd need the 32-bit version of server 2003 or 2008 enterprise or datacenter edition.   each can address up to 64GB.   server 2003 and 2008 standard 32-bit can address up to 4GB and is not limited like 32-bit XP, vista, or 7.   with standard installed, you'd have all 4GB available.

32-bit apps are still limited to addressing up to 2GB or 3GB each depending on the application, so even a 32-bit version of windows server has its limitations.   64-bit apps can address up to 2TB each -- the limit of 64-bit architecture.   once we get close to 2TB being the standard, 128-bit OSes will be introduced and the cycle will continue.

with that said, unless you're using 64-bit native applications, all that extra memory won't do you much good right now.   there aren't many apps out there that need more than 2GB each.   those that do are currently offered in 64-bit.

 

You’ll need to get x64 drivers, but most 32-bit software will just work. For example, Microsoft Office 2007 is 32-bit and runs without issue.

 

This is false. ALL 32-bit OSs, whether Windows Server, Windows 7 or Linux, can ONLY address up to 4GB of RAM in a 32-bit environment—and they STILL HAVE THE SAME LIMITATION when it comes to the BIOS and hardware reserving address space. This is not an OS limitation, but an architectural one. While some OSs can use special Physical Address Extensions (PAE) to access more than 4GB of RAM in a 32-bit environment (PAE exposes a special 48-bit memory address space), this is a special case and most of the time applications need to be written specifically to use PAE.

 

I moved to Vista 64 on my X61 last October. Everything just worked, and it felt snappier. I was concerned that I would find some favorite software which didn't like it, but I didn't. I haven't run into any problems caused by switching. In fact, to the contrary, it is the most stable Windows machine I've ever owned. As far as I'm concerned, 32-bit is already history.

 

Seeing that it doesn't come with any issues, it's something I may move to later on.

 

what i said above was not false.   with standard 32-bit OSes your statement is correct, however, the "32-bit" versions of 2003 and 2008 actually utilize 36-bit architecture.   the "32-bit" version of server enterprise and datacenter can address up to between 64GB and 128GB and the standard edition up to 4GB.   this would be impossible with standard 32-bit architecture -- but i'm neither refuting that point nor claiming 32-bit OSes can address all 4GB to applications.   what i said above was in reference to server 2003 and 2008, not to standard OSes.

if you doubt my words, i suggest getting a copy of 32-bit windows server and testing it for yourself.   i'd also suggest reading this:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778(VS.85).aspx

you might be surprised with what you learn.

 

"it's not false. with standard 32-bit OSes your statement is correct, however, the "32-bit" versions of 2003 and 2008 are actually 36-bit architecture. in fact, the 32-bit version of server enterprise and datacenter can address up to 64GB."

This will take some careful explanation. Architectures deal with machines and the software driving it. For the purposes of machine memory a 36 bit machine has to have the hardcoded pathways or physical pathways for it to make a difference. So the statement is accurate if the machine has a way to express that physically in hardware and software.

Renee

 

You are, largely, wrong again. I’m quite familiar with MS’s server OSs and I even used to run them as the primary OS on my notebook (I have a Microsoft Developer Network subscription and have access to everything MS’s ever produced.)

There are no OSs that are “36-bit architecture.” You have 32 or 64 bits and that’s it. Almost all 32-bit versions of Windows support PAE—which allow them to access RAM beyond 4GB (and some other functions), but this is a special mode of operation and has its pros and cons. Microsoft has set some artificial limits for its desktop OSs in that the 32-bit versions can only use a maximum of 4GB RAM (for compatibility reasons and because they want you to buy the more expensive server OS), but ALL 32-BIT OSs MUST USE PAE IF THEY WANT TO ADDRESS MORE THAN 4GB RAM. Don’t believe me? Read it from the horse’s mouth at http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/PAEdrv.mspx.

If you don’t want to deal with the shortcomings of PAE, install a 64-bit OS.

 

since we're throwing around our e-credentials, i've used and deployed windows server since the days of NT4.   i had NT4 server running on a thinkpad 701c over a decade ago back before it was "cool" to do so and have run server OSes on my thinkpads ever since.   i'm not exactly new to this and not exactly new to computers.   if an MSDN subscription equates to some sort of credentials then i'd have paid my way to being a computer genius by now.   sadly, it just doesn't work that way.

PAE is 36-bit architecture.   memory hoisting is also 36-bit.   the OS must also be 36-bit for all of this to work together.   the underlying theme here is that we're dealing with 36-bit architecture at BOTH the hardware and software levels when referring to server 2003 and 2008 32-bit being able to address more than 4GB.

the math proves we're dealing with 36-bit, too.   server can address up to 64GB.   2^36 (36-bit) is 68,719,476,736 bytes.   68,719,476,736 bytes = 67,108,864 kb = 65,536 MB = 64GB.   isn't math fun?

so, there IS such a thing as a 36-bit OS.   server 2003 and 2008 32-bit do, indeed, utilize 36-bit architecture.

if you still don't believe me, i suggest spending some time researching PAE, memory hoisting, and 36-bit.   you may find that i am not "largely wrong" here.

can we please stop arguing now?

 

Things are finally getting interesting. I think you all are saying the same thing anyway - namely you can use above 3GB of memory using this PAE mode of operation, but PAE isn't perfect either. For me it falls under the "Who Cares, it's just a computer" category. There's no need to get worked up over it. I only know this, my ThinkPad due to the chipset limitations, will never use more than 3GB of memory, which I'm kind of bitter about, but hey, life goes on. This being the second "Do 32 bit operation systems support more than 3GB of memory thread", I'm going to close this one and let discussion continue in the other.