192gb ram support for windows 7?

192gb ram support for windows 7?

true or not

 

i believe a 64 bit can adress 128 gigs of ram already any 64 bit ... but i dont think there is a a 64 gig ram stick

you could take n use your HD for ram a nice intel SSD ......

 

64-bit can support up to 16 terabytes of RAM. Linky.

And no about using HDD for RAM. Only the OS can use it to mount a pagefile, but that still wouldn't be real RAM, not to mention a lot slower, even with SSD. :laugh:

 

We want real 64-bit support: 16 EXABYTES. ROFL win!

 

Max RAM:

XP 64-bit: 128 GB
Vista Home Basic: 8 GB
Vista Home Premium: 16 GB
Vista Business/Ultimate: 128 GB
Windows Server 2008: 2 TB

So 192 GB for Windows 7 sounds very believable, not that it would really matter at this point.

Source: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx

That's virtual memory, not physical.

 

The 128GB limit is sort of a "don't know" limit. They use this because there is no real standard for configurations over 128GB. So MS only does 128GB, since that's all they can be certain of.

As there are more standards for addressing such large amounts of RAM, future OS's will certainly be able to handle it.

Why does anyone even care about a workstation OS supporting that much RAM?

 

they're testing out the limits

i'd love to test such stuff.. i mean, build the biggest machine windows can handle.. and then ask "but does it run farcry??"

blogs.technet - mark russinovich did some testings.

Pushing the Limits of Windows, there you see physical limits

 

View attachment 33488

Does it go to 11?

 

hehe, exactly

 

How many cores is that?

 

64core server node with 200~GB of ram. I could be 32 dual core machines with 8GB ram each (total 256GB of ram)

 

That looks like a 64-core system (4 by 16). That screenshot is a little funny, too, because it shows only 56 processes running, implying that several cores are simply not being used at all, and if you look at the 64 cpu monitors, only one of them even shows a single spike of resource consumption, which suggests that only one core on this 64-core behemoth is doing anything even remotely useful.

Still, that's probably with the system on idle - I'd love to see what it would take to overtax the entire thing (probably something like running the entire U.S. power grid all by it's lonesome ).

 

Wprime could probably max out all the CPU at once. Folding@home could probably use some CPU power as well.

 

That would be a wonder to behold (and the heat coming off that thing would probably be enough to keep the house toasty during the deepest winter ).

 

that is indeed amazing where is the laptop version ?

we can only fit 4 cores

 

LMAO Intel Core 2 64 x64.

 

It's coming....eventually, once Intel rounds up enough nano-sized rolls of duck-tape so that they can tape together 32 two-core dies (along the lines of how they make the current quad-cores, by sticking two two-core dies together).

 

good to hear

 

The server nodes are probably connected through vmware or something. I don't think there are many 16 socket motherboards. So it's possible to connect 32-dual core laptop together to make a "64 cores" laptop server.

 

Eh not anymore; Nehalem changed that, unless your still talking about notebooks, which, I would imagine be changed with the release of Calpella.

 

Fair enough; I am talking about pre-Nehalem processors. Of course, given that this is a forum on notebooks, my focus is on notebook processors, for which the Nehalems have just begun to come out.

Of course, that's also taking a little too seriously a post that was intended to be a joke (hence the reference to nano-sized rolls of duck tape).

 

Ah point. Im used to speaking in general since I dont really post here much anymore

I wasnt talking about the 32-dies on one substrate part ( I would hope if they could some how manage that, that they could make monolithic cores ), but rather the idea of several dies to a processor. But again, as you said, this is a notebook forum.

 

Still, you did make a valid point, as Intel has given up the ersatz quad design and gone for a proper quad design in the i7's which are, in fact, out.

 

True, but I used to think 64k in my Commodore was tons of memory...

 

While it's a nostalgic statement, I had a C64 back in 1983 and while 64K was a lot back then, it wasn't "tons". It certainly wasn't "tons" in the "192GB in 2009" sense.

There's still people on these very forums trying to run Windows 7 in 512MB RAM. My gaming rig alone has 8GB. To the former person, my gaming rig has "tons" of RAM.

 

I used to dream of having 64k of RAM back in the day when I was peeking and poking on my old Atari 800 with 48k.

 

Windows 7 can on 256MB of ram if you wanted to. LOL

 

How about on 48k?

 

LOL...

The lowest you can probably go on windows 7 is 32MB.

 

i doubt it, i run windows 7 on 512mb and it's a bit laggy at times.. also 8gb! sweet that's a lot! xD i only have 2gb >.>

 

Darn; I guess I won't be booting Win7 on that old Atari, then.

 

I'll try it on the Commodore as soon as Microsoft releases Windows 7 on cassette tapes.

 

LOL! xD i love windows 7 atm, too bad my desktop sucks and i use my laptop wayyyy more. (vista)