How much Memory can Vista 32 bit support?

S

Steve Ballmer

Em Sexta, 18 de Julho de 2008 02:01, Mike Hall - MVP escreveu:
Is that the proof? Your post?
Click to expand...
i don't know exactly what kind of prof you want, and i can only give you
documentation...
this text was pasted from linux kernel config documentation:

CONFIG_NOHIGHMEM:
│
│
│
│ Linux can use up to 64 Gigabytes of physical memory on x86 systems.
│
│ However, the address space of 32-bit x86 processors is only 4
│
│ Gigabytes large. That means that, if you have a large amount of
│
│ physical memory, not all of it can be "permanently mapped" by the
│
│ kernel. The physical memory that's not permanently mapped is called
│
│ "high memory".
│
│
│
│ If you are compiling a kernel which will never run on a machine with
│
│ more than 1 Gigabyte total physical RAM, answer "off" here (default
│
│ choice and suitable for most users). This will result in a "3GB/1GB"
│
│ split: 3GB are mapped so that each process sees a 3GB virtual memory
│
│ space and the remaining part of the 4GB virtual memory space is used
│
│ by the kernel to permanently map as much physical memory as
│
│ possible.
│
│
│
│ If the machine has between 1 and 4 Gigabytes physical RAM, then
│
│ answer "4GB" here.
│
│
│
│ If more than 4 Gigabytes is used then answer "64GB" here. This
│
│ selection turns Intel PAE (Physical Address Extension) mode on.
│
│ PAE implements 3-level paging on IA32 processors. PAE is fully
│
│ supported by Linux, PAE mode is implemented on all recent Intel
│
│ processors (Pentium Pro and better). NOTE: If you say "64GB" here,
│
│ then the kernel will not boot on CPUs that don't support PAE!
│
│
│
│ The actual amount of total physical memory will either be
│
│ auto detected or can be forced by using a kernel command line option
│
│ such as "mem=256M". (Try "man bootparam" or see the documentation of
│
│ your boot loader (lilo or loadlin) about how to pass options to the
│
│ kernel at boot time.)
│
│


other than this... i guess i got to see it to believe

and by the way, this is not the only situation a know were microsoft
documentation lies.

regards
 
R

Roger Blake

Steve Ballmer said:
Em Sexta, 18 de Julho de 2008 02:01, Mike Hall - MVP escreveu:
Is that the proof? Your post?
Click to expand...
[snip]

and by the way, this is not the only situation a know were microsoft
documentation lies.
Click to expand...

Well, there's your problem, confusing Linux documentation (which is what you
quoted) with Microsoft documentation which is what you claim lies.

Even your Linux documentation says it's a hardware limitation (" However,
the address space of 32-bit x86 processors is only 4 Gigabytes large.")that
has a workaround in Linux, which is to compile it to a 64-bit version, the
same way Windows has 32-bit and 64-bit versions. Microsoft just does the
compile for you, instead of making you do it.

I guess it's kind of like buying all that crappy cheap Ikea furniture that
you have to put together yourself versus buying a piece of quality furniture
that is already assembled for you.
 
R

Roger Blake

F Oh'Ff vist- A said:
The negativity in my posts are all because of the worst operating system
ever made in human history= vista.
Click to expand...

Nope, that's actually Millenium.
 
C

Colin Barnhorst

F Oh'Ff vist- A said:
Windows server editions that are 32 bit can see more than 4 gb ram too, by
utilizing the PAE technology.. there is a catch though that applies to all
32 bit operating systems... if you have 8 gb of ram the OS uses 2 chunks
of 4 gb each

In windows the applications must be created so that they will be aware of
this PAE technology and most aren't...

As for vista? Its stupid.. crap... and a piece of junk


google these keywords "PAE WIKIPEDIA"
Click to expand...


Server can use PAE for addressing because support for that is written into
the OS. That support is NOT written into Windows clients so it doesn't
matter whether or not an app is written to use PAE. The support is not
there in the client OSs. PAE has very limited applicability to Windows
clients (issues involving DEP) and the ability to address more than 4GB is
not one of them. Full support of PAE also requires care to insure only PAE
compliant hardware and software is in use. That's why it is not supported
in 32bit clients.

Notice in the article at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension the phrase, "...used
in 32-bit systems, given appropriate operating system support."
 
S

Steve Ballmer

Em Sexta, 18 de Julho de 2008 02:46, Roger Blake escreveu:
Well, there's your problem, confusing Linux documentation (which is what
you quoted) with Microsoft documentation which is what you claim lies.
Click to expand...
--the way that XP documentation refers to RAID Arrays is a lie

--the way that vista documentation refers to UDF Cdroms is another lie.

this could go on and on...

Even your Linux documentation says it's a hardware limitation (" However,
the address space of 32-bit x86 processors is only 4 Gigabytes
large.")that has a workaround in Linux,
Click to expand...
No, this workaround was obtained by intel pentium pro, and it is now able in
almost all intel processors and amd too.

the real situation is that only a few windows versions suports this feature
for now, and vista isn't one of them

maybe microsoft is yet learning about this feature, the same way they wore
the last company to implemente ipv6 on there OS, and i belive in a few
years microsoft SOs will implement TCP Window Scalling also, and of course,
by that time, windows documentation will be refering to TCP Window Scalling
as a microsoft development (as usual).


which is to compile it to a 64-bit
version, the
same way Windows has 32-bit and 64-bit versions. Microsoft just does the
compile for you, instead of making you do it.
Click to expand...
you can not compile a windows kernel, and you are limited to have only one
kernel for system in any windows version.
 
K

Kerry Brown

Well, its sad to see misinformation out there about 32bit 4gb limits...
Its VERY sad...

Its an **OPERATING SYSTEM LIMIT**. Not a hardware/bios/32bit/etc limit.

I have 8GB of memory in my desktop system. Guess what. All 8GB are being
seen FINE by Debian, Ubuntu-Server, and FreeBSD; all of which are, get
this.... 32bit OS's!

So, tell me again how this isn't a MASSIVE oversight by Microsoft?
Click to expand...


Some 32 bit Microsoft operating systems use PAE to use up to 64GB of RAM
just as some Linux distros use PAE to use up to 64 GB of RAM. The problem is
that this is not supported by some drivers or applications. With Ubuntu this
pretty much means not using any of the restricted drivers. This severely
limits things like wireless and graphics acceleration. If you need more than
4GB then 64 bit is the way to go. PAE is a bit of a crutch to allow servers
to use more RAM. It doesn't work that great for desktop OS's.
 
C

Charlie Tame

Micah said:
Well, its sad to see misinformation out there about 32bit 4gb limits... Its VERY sad...

Its an **OPERATING SYSTEM LIMIT**. Not a hardware/bios/32bit/etc limit.

I have 8GB of memory in my desktop system. Guess what. All 8GB are being seen FINE by Debian, Ubuntu-Server, and FreeBSD; all of which are, get this.... 32bit OS's!

So, tell me again how this isn't a MASSIVE oversight by Microsoft?
Click to expand...


No it's not, the Commodore 64 had 64 K + a 32K ROM Basic, you could page
out the ROM and load machine code into almost all of the 64 K of ram,
that is how come it was good at games. It was using a methid similar to
PAE, you might also call that "Paging" although that may not be strictly
correct terminology. The hardware address space was 64K (8 bit).

The Commodore 128 also appeared to defy the physical limit, but it did not.

Microsoft could have done the same for "User" systems, they did not
because there was really no need in the past. For servers they did.

Now, as applications want more memory, GFX resolution gets higher,
software needs to handle more data etc there is a need for more memory
and the obvious and most efficient way has been adopted by the hardware
folks, with 64 bit CPUs. Now it is worth making "User" systems fully 64
bit because people can afford 8GB and probably many will actually need
it and use it.

But the fact remains that for "Most" people the "Hardware" limit and the
32 bit OS limit are effectively the same.
 
M

Mike Hall - MVP

Saucy said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension
Click to expand...


This is a telling statement from the site you supplied..

'However, desktop versions of Windows (Windows XP, Windows Vista) limit
physical address space to 4 GB for driver compatibility reasons.'



--
Mike Hall - MVP
How to construct a good post..
http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm
How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc
Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx
 
H

harvey

Well, its sad to see misinformation out there about 32bit 4gb limits... Its VERY sad...

Its an **OPERATING SYSTEM LIMIT**. Not a hardware/bios/32bit/etc limit.  

I have 8GB of memory in my desktop system. Guess what.  All 8GB are being seen FINE by Debian, Ubuntu-Server, and FreeBSD; all of which are, get this.... 32bit OS's!

So, tell me again how this isn't a MASSIVE oversight by Microsoft?
Click to expand...


- well, this is because you

1:) DONT NEED that much memory

2:) this is a feature in an upcoming release of Vista, - That you can
BUY!!!

3:) Ubuntu can see 8Gig of Memory;

- but

4:) Ubuntu isn't REAL Operating System so it doesn't matter that it
can see 8 GB of Mem

- SATISFIED ???

- Now run along and buy another copy of Vista Ultimate..

And For God Sake get a REAL Operating System on your PC..


:)
 
R

ray

This is a telling statement from the site you supplied..

'However, desktop versions of Windows (Windows XP, Windows Vista) limit
physical address space to 4 GB for driver compatibility reasons.'
Click to expand...

Yes, it is indeed telling. MS brain damages it's os for driver
compatibility reasons.
 
M

Mike Hall - MVP

F

FAB

F said:
millennium has 2 n's too


vista is crap and will remain so until the end of time
Click to expand...


Tell us capin' crunch...how does it feel to be publicly destroyed by an
OS like Vista, huh?
Does it make you feel as stupid as you seem to be?...LOL!
Loser!
 
F

Frank

Some said:
Em Sexta, 18 de Julho de 2008 02:46, Roger Blake escreveu:



--the way that XP documentation refers to RAID Arrays is a lie
Click to expand...

Care to post it and prove it?
--the way that vista documentation refers to UDF Cdroms is another lie.
Click to expand...

Care to post it and prove?
this could go on and on...
Click to expand...

Oh please do. Maybe you can also show us how it's possible for you to
stick both of your feet into your big mouth at the same time, shove your
bloated head up your ass and still talk, huh?
No, this workaround was obtained by intel pentium pro, and it is now able in
almost all intel processors and amd too.

the real situation is that only a few windows versions suports this feature
for now, and vista isn't one of them
Click to expand...

Are you running Vista? Or just lie about it?
maybe microsoft is yet learning about this feature, the same way they wore
the last company to implemente ipv6 on there OS, and i belive in a few
years microsoft SOs will implement TCP Window Scalling also, and of course,
by that time, windows documentation will be refering to TCP Window Scalling
as a microsoft development (as usual).
Click to expand...

So you drank all of the cool-aide huh?
How wonderful!
 
T

the wharf rat

So, tell me again how this isn't a MASSIVE oversight by Microsoft?
Click to expand...

32 bit operating systems on 32 bit hardware have been able to
manage more than 4GB for a while, but the individual processes isn't
able to address more than 4GB-1 bytes. Windows or anything else...
 
N

Not Me

Awww, c'mon, I actually liked Milly...and still have a couple systems
running it (albiet dual boot with XP).
But I could actually see an improvement between ME and XP.
I not only don't see an improvement, I see regression from XP to Vista.
But don't expect MS to admit that.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Similar Threads

64-bit versus 32-bit Vista 12
32 bit and 64 bit RAM access 11
Management memory at Vista Home Premium 32 bits 2
32 bit and 4 GB 16
Vista Home Premium: 32 bit version vs. 64 bit 19
Changing Vista 64-bit to Vista 32-bit 6
32 vs 64 11
Vista 32 bitand memory restrictions 8

Top