[BiB] Borders of a 32-bit World

[Bart]

Unlike oil or electricity, Ram got pretty cheap lately.
Resulting in the fact, that more people heading towards an annoying border: 4GB.
When you've still a 32bit system, you'll face some issues.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What's the matter with 32bit-system and having 4GB RAM?

• Every 32-bit Windowssystem has an invisible border.
  It's at 4GB (2 ^ 32Byte) and indicates the maximum amount of adressable memory the system can handle.

So 4GB is the maximal adressable memory in the 32bit world.
Got that, but can't see a problem there. Coz 4GB RAM = 4GB adressable memory, it fits!.

• 4GB RAM != 4GB adressable memory (C++) aka 4GB RAM <> 4GB adressable memory (VB) aka 4GB RAM is not 4GB adressable memory.
  In this "thing" called adressable memory, you've to include all of your components that has memory and needs adressing (e.g. graphiccard).
  If you ain't at the maximum of this adressable memory, you won't even notice that.
  
  Let's make examples:
  
  If you've 2GB RAM and a graphiccard of 512MB, the amount of adressable memory is 2.5 GB (very simplified). -> Windows shows 2GB.
  If you've 3GB Ram and a graphiccard with 1024MB, the amount of adressable memory is 4 GB (very simplified). -> Windows shows 3GB Ram.
  Now if you've 4GB Ram and a graphiccard with 512MB, the amount of adressable memory is still 4 GB (very simplified). -> But Windows shows only 3.5GB.
  
  This is due the fact that no 32-bit system can adress more than 4GB by default.
  Like i said, it's very simplified.
  Most systems will have more memory adressed, resulting that there is less memory available for windows (2.5GB - 3.2GB)

Does 4GB makes a 32-bit system instable?

• Nope.
  The additional Ram just ain't accessable. That doesnt make your system crash or instable.

Any other issues with 32bit?

• Unfortunally yes.
  Every 32bit-process is just able to use 2GB of physical and virtual RAM.
  So if you've a program that caches alot (>2GB) due the huge amount of data (e.g. Photoshop) the additional RAM is useless there if the program ain't optimized for multi-processing.

Is there a possibility to avoid those limitations?

• Not with a 32bit-system.
  The only reliable way to avoid them is to use a 64bit-system with a 64bit processor.
  
  But there are some tricks how you can bend borders:
  • Some Bios-versions have a function called "memory remap". this allows your physically adress 3.2 GB, even when components need more adressable memory
  • Use the Windows-startoption /PAE and /3GB
    Since Intel Pentium Pro, all Intel processors are able to physically adress 36bit.

So overall 32bit and 4GB Ram is a waste of money?

• Can't be anwered that clear.
  For the record: You'll lose atleast 800MB RAM, but on the otherhand you win 1.2GB.
  Imo 1.2GB more can be very handy when you work much with virtual machines and or other Ram-eating programs.

 

[seas_]

bart went completely nuts now, great shit

 

[Ðeadßoy]

See

http://forums.utassault.net/showpost.php?p=1430394&postcount=47

 

[pinhead]

Seems like you can use 64GB with 32-bit Windows Server 2003 and Physical Address Extension. I know I used to use Windows Server 2003 as desktop OS so might be worth looking into?

 

[doh]

The 4GB limit is really only an issue on Windows, because MS decided that PAE support, which allows mapping up to 64GB, is only supported (allowed) in Windows Enterprise or Datacenter editions.

Other OS's has this support built in.

 

[brajan]

As doh said ... it'a not a 32bit-system limitation. It's Microsoft limitation

 

[Martz]

Did this get forwarded to you from Bill? Sounds like he wants to sell us all Vista!

 

[Bart]

So just another limitation made by Microsoft. Could have guessed that tho

Planned to post that stuff in another forum (more gamingwise) where many guys started threads where this problem occured, so this was somekind of a public-beta and you were my beta-testers.
Could have said that from beginning, but then most ppl wouldn't even bother reading that
Knew you would find summin dodgy.

Most guys there use XP and Vista, that's why i blanked Server2003 out. But to be precise, it's worth to atleast mention that system.

Did this get forwarded to you from Bill? Sounds like he wants to sell us all Vista!

Buy Vista - Buy It - vista is great! - buy it - vista is superior - Buy it - Buy it...

Has nothing to do with Vista. It's also possible to use XP64-bit or non MS products
Hell, i would even say: Don't ever touch Vista, it's made by the devil.....or by Microsoft, but - like you all know - that's almost the same!