Re: So how much RAM does a 32 bit OS see?
Ray
It is your stand that is inaccurate. You will never see your system as you describe
use more than 3.5 gigs of physical memory. Even if you hack it is not possible.
But if you say so Ray then it must be that in front of your eyes ONLY
--
Peter
Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
"ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message news:6qvjfkFeq3l2U1@mid.individual.net...
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:23:53 +0000, Steve Thackery wrote:
>
>>> But it DOES exist and is a way for a 32 bit OS (it sure as hell ain't a
>>> 64 bit OS) to address more than 4gb. You can quibble about whether it
>>> is a '32 bit OS' or a '36 bit OS' if you want (though it obviously is
>>> not a 36 bit OS either, IMHO, since the 4gb per process limitaion
>>> remains.
>>
>> Guys: Ray obviously has to have the last word. I'd let him, if I were
>> you!
>>
>> ;-)
>>
>> SteveT
>
> No, I simply don't like to see innaccuracies stand.
Re: So how much RAM does a 32 bit OS see?
"Peter Foldes" <okf122@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23cb11GVYJHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Not quite true.
Yes, true.
> Not all 32 bit systems are restricted to this. For example the 32 bit W2K3
> and 8 Enterprise versions can see and handle up to 64 gig's in memory . My
> 32 bit W2K3 Enterprise at present is handling more than 4 x that of a 32
> bit Vista or XP .
But those are using the PAE hack. When you turn on PAE (Physical Address
Extension) you now have 36 bits of address space. So you are no longer
bound by the 32 bit limit.
Again, it is mathematically impossible for a 32 bit OS to address more than
4 GB. PAE turns it into a sort-of-but-not-really 36 bit OS. That's why PAE
is a kludge.
Re: So how much RAM does a 32 bit OS see?
"James Kosin" <jkosin@support.intcomgrp.com> wrote in message
news:giecto$ksv$1@beta.intcomgrp.com...
>> That's why it is a kludge. It gives a 32 bit OS 36 bits of address
>> space but keeps all of the other limitations of 32 bits. The very
>> definition of a hack.
> Kludge or not, it is the basic premise for how virtual memory works as
> well; so, everyone has to get use to it.
No, it has nothing to do with virtual memory. PAE allows more PHYSICAL
memory to be addressed. All of the other 32 bit limitations remain.
Re: So how much RAM does a 32 bit OS see?
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 15:59:39 -0500, Bob Campbell wrote:
> "James Kosin" <jkosin@support.intcomgrp.com> wrote in message
> news:giecto$ksv$1@beta.intcomgrp.com...
>>> That's why it is a kludge. It gives a 32 bit OS 36 bits of address
>>> space but keeps all of the other limitations of 32 bits. The very
>>> definition of a hack.
>> Kludge or not, it is the basic premise for how virtual memory works as
>> well; so, everyone has to get use to it.
>
> No, it has nothing to do with virtual memory. PAE allows more PHYSICAL
> memory to be addressed. All of the other 32 bit limitations remain.
EXACTLY! Just as I said, it is a 32 bit OS accessing more than 4gb.
Re: So how much RAM does a 32 bit OS see?
"ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message
news:6r0277Ff3tbqU1@mid.individual.net...
> EXACTLY! Just as I said, it is a 32 bit OS accessing more than 4gb.
But it is addressing more than 4 GB because it has 36 bits of address space,
and the hardware has 36 address lines. Therefore it is no longer "a 32 bit
OS". It is a 36 bit/32 bit hybrid. A hack. A kludge.
Once again, it is mathematically impossible for a 32 bit OS to address more
than 4 GB. Once you turn on PAE, it is no longer a 32 bit OS. It is a
32/36 bit hybrid.
Re: So how much RAM does a 32 bit OS see?
I have a V6 under the hood and a V10 in the bed of my truck, does that mean
I have a V16?
It's the same with RAM, you may be able to see it, but can you USE it all?
Due to the addressing allocation limit of 4GB in a 32 bit OS, only 4GB TOTAL
can be seen.
So if you have a 1GB video card, you're already down to 3GB.
Other overhead (NIC, Soundcard, modem, IDE controller, etc) all use a small
amount of memory and each of those reduce the total available for use by the
OS.
<ray rod> wrote in message
news:20081217193632f17raymondrodriguez221@gmail.com...
> Well mine sees more than 4Gb
> 32 bit vista home premium..do not believe then see my attachment here>>>>
> http://www.mypcclinic.com/forums/sho...028#post229028
>
> Can anyone of you experts explain?
Re: So how much RAM does a 32 bit OS see?
"Not Even Me" <cargod01@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uUhxoZaYJHA.5156@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> So if you have a 1GB video card, you're already down to 3GB.
> Other overhead (NIC, Soundcard, modem, IDE controller, etc) all use a
> small amount of memory and each of those reduce the total available for
> use by the OS.
Yep. This 3.2 GB limit out of 4 GB total is *exactly* the same situation
as the "640K limit" of DOS. You had 20 bits of address space which gave
you 1 MB total. 360K was reserved for video cards and other resources, so
you were left with 640K of useable RAM.
1 MB seemed like a lot of RAM in 1981. 4 GB seemed like a lot of RAM in
1995. 16 EB seems like a lot of RAM today. I wonder when we will be
whining about the "14.5 EB limit" and "Why can't I use all 16 EB of RAM I
installed?"!!!!!
You needed more than 20 bits then to use more than 640K. You need more
than 32 bits today to use more than 3.2 GB. Whether that is 36 bits with
PAE or a real 64 bit OS does not matter. With 32 bits you are limited to
something less than 4 GB.
Re: So how much RAM does a 32 bit OS see?
"Bob Campbell" <bob@bob.bob> wrote in message
news:VMydndi-vcOtDdbUnZ2dnUVZ_ozinZ2d@supernews.com...
> "Not Even Me" <cargod01@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uUhxoZaYJHA.5156@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> So if you have a 1GB video card, you're already down to 3GB.
>> Other overhead (NIC, Soundcard, modem, IDE controller, etc) all use a
>> small amount of memory and each of those reduce the total available for
>> use by the OS.
>
> Yep. This 3.2 GB limit out of 4 GB total is *exactly* the same situation
> as the "640K limit" of DOS. You had 20 bits of address space which gave
> you 1 MB total. 360K was reserved for video cards and other resources,
> so you were left with 640K of useable RAM.
>
> 1 MB seemed like a lot of RAM in 1981. 4 GB seemed like a lot of RAM in
> 1995. 16 EB seems like a lot of RAM today. I wonder when we will be
> whining about the "14.5 EB limit" and "Why can't I use all 16 EB of RAM I
> installed?"!!!!!
>
> You needed more than 20 bits then to use more than 640K. You need more
> than 32 bits today to use more than 3.2 GB. Whether that is 36 bits with
> PAE or a real 64 bit OS does not matter. With 32 bits you are limited to
> something less than 4 GB.
>
>
PAE uses page switching. To access, say 16GB, you would have 4
pages of 4GB each. The 32 bit OS would allow access to only one
page at a time. The page switching kludge isn't too bad for accessing
data, but running code that may cross a page boundary would present
a bit of a programming challenge.
It's all becoming irrelevant. I noticed in the latest Bestbuy flyer that
half the desktop systems have from 4 to 8 GB of RAM, and run 64
bit Vista, and all for $1k, or less. In another year only low end PCs
will be 32 bit. This may accelerate the development of true 64 bit
applications.
Re: So how much RAM does a 32 bit OS see?
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 12:00:15 -0500, Ian D wrote:
> "Bob Campbell" <bob@bob.bob> wrote in message
> news:VMydndi-vcOtDdbUnZ2dnUVZ_ozinZ2d@supernews.com...
>> "Not Even Me" <cargod01@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:uUhxoZaYJHA.5156@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> So if you have a 1GB video card, you're already down to 3GB. Other
>>> overhead (NIC, Soundcard, modem, IDE controller, etc) all use a small
>>> amount of memory and each of those reduce the total available for use
>>> by the OS.
>>
>> Yep. This 3.2 GB limit out of 4 GB total is *exactly* the same
>> situation as the "640K limit" of DOS. You had 20 bits of address
>> space which gave you 1 MB total. 360K was reserved for video cards
>> and other resources, so you were left with 640K of useable RAM.
>>
>> 1 MB seemed like a lot of RAM in 1981. 4 GB seemed like a lot of RAM
>> in 1995. 16 EB seems like a lot of RAM today. I wonder when we will
>> be whining about the "14.5 EB limit" and "Why can't I use all 16 EB of
>> RAM I installed?"!!!!!
>>
>> You needed more than 20 bits then to use more than 640K. You need
>> more than 32 bits today to use more than 3.2 GB. Whether that is 36
>> bits with PAE or a real 64 bit OS does not matter. With 32 bits you
>> are limited to something less than 4 GB.
>>
>>
>>
> PAE uses page switching. To access, say 16GB, you would have 4 pages of
> 4GB each. The 32 bit OS would allow access to only one page at a time.
> The page switching kludge isn't too bad for accessing data, but running
> code that may cross a page boundary would present a bit of a programming
> challenge.
>
> It's all becoming irrelevant. I noticed in the latest Bestbuy flyer that
> half the desktop systems have from 4 to 8 GB of RAM, and run 64 bit
> Vista, and all for $1k, or less. In another year only low end PCs will
> be 32 bit. This may accelerate the development of true 64 bit
> applications.
True 64 bit applications have been around for years. In the mid 90's I was
running true 64 bit applications on a DEC Alpha - it is just MS who is so
far behind and trying to play catchup.
Re: So how much RAM does a 32 bit OS see?
"Ian D" <taurus@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:OCGREtfYJHA.1532@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
> It's all becoming irrelevant. I noticed in the latest Bestbuy flyer that
> half the desktop systems have from 4 to 8 GB of RAM, and run 64
> bit Vista, and all for $1k, or less. In another year only low end PCs
> will be 32 bit. This may accelerate the development of true 64 bit
> applications.
Yep. I was in Sam's the other day. Every desktop machine there has 64 bit
Vista and 4 GB minimum. The "deluxe" machines had 6 GB. I was stunned.
64 bit is mainstream right now.
Re: So how much RAM does a 32 bit OS see?
"ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message
news:6r25vnFfbc2lU2@mid.individual.net...
>
> True 64 bit applications have been around for years. In the mid 90's I was
> running true 64 bit applications on a DEC Alpha - it is just MS who is so
> far behind and trying to play catchup.
Yeah, because there are so many DEC Alpha machines on desktops and in homes
today! Those probably cost $50,000 in 1995 also. Today they cost
$1,000.
MS isn't "far behind and playing catchup" with anything. 64 bit hardware
has only recently become widely (and cheaply) available. There is no
"catching up" going on, it is just the natural evolution of PCs.
Re: So how much RAM does a 32 bit OS see?
>> It's all becoming irrelevant. I noticed in the latest Bestbuy flyer that
>> half the desktop systems have from 4 to 8 GB of RAM, and run 64
>> bit Vista, and all for $1k, or less. In another year only low end PCs
>> will be 32 bit. This may accelerate the development of true 64 bit
>> applications.
>
> Yep. I was in Sam's the other day. Every desktop machine there has 64
> bit Vista and 4 GB minimum. The "deluxe" machines had 6 GB. I was
> stunned.
>
> 64 bit is mainstream right now.
I just purchased two Dell Studio XP 435MT's (Core i7, 12GB RAM) for $1,499
including a 24" widescreen monitor with Vista 64-bit. I'm thinking there
are just two main factors that will lead to wide spread adoption of 64-bit
(from the manufacturing and software side)
1) volume of 64-bit OS sold/installed
2) Microsoft's commitment to 64-bit (their plans to only support 64-bit OS
in the future, for example, as well as whether they make a native 64-bit
version of Office or other main software). For example, Exchange server
2007+ is 64-bit only. If they did that for BizTalk, SharePoint, SQL Server,
and possibly Office, then everyone will take 64-bit more seriously.
But it isn't just Microsoft and the *NIX crowd, it's the software vendors.
Right now there is lots of software I would love to have 64-bit only but the
software vendors don't provide the 64-bit option.
Borland/CodeGear/Embarcadero Delphi for example, does not even compile to
64-bit code yet. Visual Studio, while can build 64-bit images, is still
very much a 32-bit application, as well as Office, and many device drivers.
With time, things will improve. The mere fact that most new system's sold
today are 64-bit OS (on the Windows side) is a good indication that we're on
our way to greater industry support for 64-bit everything.
Thanks,
Shawn
Re: So how much RAM does a 32 bit OS see?
"Bob Campbell" <bob@bob.bob> wrote in message
news:bLadnV0yTqGokNHUnZ2dnUVZ_jGdnZ2d@supernews.com...
> "Ian D" <taurus@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:OCGREtfYJHA.1532@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>
>> It's all becoming irrelevant. I noticed in the latest Bestbuy flyer that
>> half the desktop systems have from 4 to 8 GB of RAM, and run 64
>> bit Vista, and all for $1k, or less. In another year only low end PCs
>> will be 32 bit. This may accelerate the development of true 64 bit
>> applications.
>
> Yep. I was in Sam's the other day. Every desktop machine there has 64
> bit Vista and 4 GB minimum. The "deluxe" machines had 6 GB. I was
> stunned.
>
> 64 bit is mainstream right now.
It is not.
And at least one of the best buy PC's with 8GB RAM is a friggen dog.
I saw it.
Ran like crap.
You must like sheit shoveled down your throat.
Crappy machines loaded down with useless RAM...low end graphics, and crapola
CPU's.
Merry Christmas....LOL.
I'd give dirt before I'd give one of those PC's.
