Win7 / Win7 64 bit

heya , i am actualy using win7 pro ...

i never used any windows 64 bit , and here is my question ...

what would be the change for me to upgrade to 64bit windows7 ?

better gaming performance ? better for apps ? more stable ??? i have no idea what is the difference between both windows .. 32 bit / 64 ...

thx you

Reply to nemoreborn

32 bit can't see more than about 3.5 GB of memory

------------------------------ If a man speaks in the forest and no woman hears him, is he still wrong ?
Reply to JackNaylorPE

Further to what JackNaylor said, the big difference between 32 and 64 bit is memory addressability. 32 bit can see a maximum of 4GB (but only use 3.0 - 3.5GB depending on what other hardware you have in the computer). 64 bit Windows 7 can see a maximum of 192GB. Applications loaded in 64 bit Windows can also address more than 4GB of ram (Photoshop being the first program that comes to mind).

Message quoted 1 times

------------------------------ Please give credit where credit is due! If you think this post was the most helpful, please remember to mark it as the best answer!
Reply to The_Prophecy

But there are some con's with the 64-bit such as some programs won't be as stable as they are if they were used in 32-bit

Message quoted 2 times

Reply to Gasm

Gasm wrote :

But there are some con's with the 64-bit such as some programs won't be as stable as they are if they were used in 32-bit

Who told you that?

32 bit apps are just as stable in a 64 bit environment, as they are in 32....

------------------------------ Please give credit where credit is due! If you think this post was the most helpful, please remember to mark it as the best answer!
Reply to The_Prophecy

Most modern AMD/Intel CPUs have 64 bit extensions, and have had for several years. They each do things in slightly different ways, with slightly different extensions, but should not be confused with true 64 bit processors, nor should any OS running on them be confused with a true 64 bit OS... I do wish, though, that there was a codified standard for the 64 bit extensions.

So basically, for your purposes, if you wish to use more than 4GB RAM, use a x64 OS.

------------------------------ Badges? We don' need no stinkin' badges...!
Reply to croc

Quote :

should not be confused with true 64 bit processors, nor should any OS running on them be confused with a true 64 bit OS

Why aren't Intel and AMD 64-bit processors "true". What do they lack - 64-bit registers, 64-bit addressing,...? No they have that; it's just that, in addition they can support 32-bit programs (and even 16-bit programs) as well. What more should they have?

Anyone familiar with programming in long mode on these processors will know that the instruction set is not merely an extension of the 32-bit instruction set but a whole new instruction set that is designed to resemble the 32-bit instructions (makes life much easier when porting programs).

So tell me, in your experience of assembler programming, what exactly makes a "true" 64-bit processor or OS?

Message edited by ijack on 12-13-2009 at 09:59:14 AM

Reply to ijack

I don't know if it means much. However when intel first started to introduce 64 bits to their cpus, they named them pentium IV emt. The emt stood for extended memory translation. To me this sound as if intel made a 32 bit chip capable of addressing more then 4 GB of ram, but somehow different then a "full" 64 bit chip.

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to PsyKhiqZero

What Intel may have called their initial 64-bit chips is irrelevant (they did have a slight problem as they were competing with their other 64-bit chip, the Itanium). 64-bit Intel and AMD processors are as "true" 64-bit as any other - it's just that they have additional capabilities that some 64-bit processors don't have.

I'd be very interested in an explaination of why a processor that has 64-bit registers (it has several 128-bit ones as well, but let's forget those for the time being), 64-bit addressing and performs operations on 64-bit data is not a "true" 64-bit processor.

Reply to ijack

if they're not true 64bit processors, then what are?

Reply to imrul

the 64-bit is the first version who work fine for the gaming and orther utilisation, uses an Intel processor but not an AMD

Message quoted 1 times

------------------------------ Yes we can, thanks Steve Jobbs for the nice computer
Reply to califoria-inmy-heart

If you need more than 3 ->3.5 gigs ram and can find 64 bit drivers for your Hardware (or don't mind upgrading Hardware) then I would recommend the 64 Bit.

I do get irritated that 64 bit advocates believe that 64 bit is better than sliced bread and everyone should quite complaining and bit the bullet

The only problem I have run into that typical users have is hardware
(Primarily Printers and scanners). Venders will simply not provide 64 bit drivers - They would rather you buy their "Newer" model. Even thought the older model function just fine. ie I have a perfectly good cannon lide 35 - NO 64 bit driver (Work around is to load the lide 60 driver and toolbox - Win 7 does not like this and tells me every time I boot).

Typical programs - Not had a problem with - YET.
But for the none typical, it's just not an option. In my case, Software for data logging of multimeter, Software for capturing waveforms from an o'Scope - WAY too expensive as cost is much greater than any benefit 64 bit could provide. (PS the o'scope uses a serial interface, solve that with a serial -> USB adaptor - But NO 64 bit program.

Reply to RetiredChief

Quote :

I do get irritated that 64 bit advocates believe that 64 bit is better than sliced bread and everyone should quite complaining and bit the bullet

The sooner that 64-bit OSs make up the majority of the market, the better. At that point developers will start optimising their software for 64-bit, making good use of the extra available memory, and making everything better in the whole run.

I've had 0 issues with Vista-64, or my current OS, Windows 7 Ultimate 64. They're the same price, so unless you need hardware that cannot run on a 64-bit platform, there is absolutely no reason not to get it.

------------------------------ [url=http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=1908573][/url]
Reply to Kraynor

well IMO if u have 64bit CPU with 2GB - 4GB or ram and and DX10 / DX11 video card buy windows 7 64 bit

if u don't have the above requirements go for XP 32-bit. theres no point in buying a new 32bit operating system

I loaded my acer 5739G with win7 x64bit and its stable

Reply to juvealert

1st off I have a 64 Bit desktop so I'm not knocking 64 bit, but for Mr Kraymor's benifit - the other side of the coin.
The drive to make 64 bit the primary operating system is driven by "money" not need.

80 Percent (est) of consummers do not need 64 bit (Internet, email, low end games, watching movies - DVD/Bluray). The only "need" for 64 bit (and the need for memory)is high end video editing and gaming. While a vast majority of the people on this forum are heavly into games - compared to the general public - well.

Almost all LOW end computers, and laptops, w/4gigs ram now come with 64 bit Win 7 - Not because of need. The companies do not want to answer the question of where my memory is and as you said - No diff in cost.

Companies are a differnt breed. If thay need 64 bit and will benifit from it, cost wise, if they haven't they will upgrade. If their is no real cost incentive, the will stay.

Case in point. I use a ground suppot system to control a satellite instrum. This is two rack mounted computers - OLD P4's runing WINDOWS 3.11!! Sure it can be done with a single computer now, and we plan on upgrading. That cost will be approx $100K. The computer is only a very small part of the cost. AND it will probably be a XP 32 Bit system!! And the only benifit is supportability, not inproving ability to control the instrument or the data stream from the instrument.

I for one will maintain a 32 bit XP/Vista computer as long as I can keep it running, IT IS just too expensive to upgrade a $3K portable digital o'scope the WILL NOT benifit one iota by going 64 Bit

Reply to RetiredChief

Well, I'll just join the party and ask a question since there's no point of making a whole new post just to ask it. I'm building a new rig (here's the link http://secure.newegg.com/WishList/ [...] r=11205871 and my friend's uncle happened to have a copy of Windows 7 32bit available for free, so I'm wondering if 32 bit would work with 4 gigs of RAM. Some people are saying that 32bit works if you have 4 gigs of RAM or less, some are saying it works with 3.5 gigs of RAM, but my real question is, is there any difference in performance using 32 bit or 64 bit with 4 gigs of RAM(or even better if you can tell me if my whole rig would function the same), I was thinking there shouldn't be. Any answers? Thanks, I just need some clarification.

Message edited by bl1tz on 12-14-2009 at 03:10:25 AM

Reply to bl1tz

I clicked on your wish list and it says it's empty.
As to your question, probably not a big difference. I have a laptop, Win 7 32 bit, with 4 gigs and a desktop ( vista 32) with 4 gigs and my new desktop, win 7 64 bit) with 4 gigs. The 32 bit will see the full 4 gigs, it just that it maps MIMOs into the top and leaves about 3.5 available for windows/applications.

The laptop came with 3 gigs and I upped it to 4 - very little change.
It's hard for me to give a positive answer as my new system has quad core w/ati 5770 vs my vista computer core 2 dual (3.2 GHz) and a ati 4870 gpu.

If you plan (need) to increase memory beyound 4 gigs, you should go with 64 Bit. But, for the time being why not put a FREE copy to good use.

Message quoted 1 times
Message edited by RetiredChief on 12-14-2009 at 03:22:32 AM

Reply to RetiredChief

RetiredChief wrote :

I clicked on your wish list and it says it's empty.
As to your question, probably not a big difference. I have a laptop, Win 7 32 bit, with 4 gigs and a desktop ( vista 32) with 4 gigs and my new desktop, win 7 64 bit) with 4 gigs. The 32 bit will see the full 4 gigs, it just that it maps MIMOs into the top and leaves about 3.5 available for windows/applications.

The laptop came with 3 gigs and I upped it to 4 - very little change.
It's hard for me to give a positive answer as my new system has quad core w/ati 5770 vs my vista computer core 2 dual (3.2 GHz) and a ati 4870 gpu.

If you plan (need) to increase memory beyound 4 gigs, you should go with 64 Bit. But, for the time being why not put a FREE copy to good use.

Oh, yea sorry about that, I test clicked my link after I posted it and it came out empty and I fixed it in a minute, sorry again. Thanks for your input, so basically, 4 gigs of RAM is the sweet spot between 32 and 64 bit OS? I wasn't going to get more than 4 gigs of RAM because I did a bit of research a while ago and came to the conclusion there's not point of getting more than 4 gigs of RAM for gaming and general computing. If you're interested, you can try the link again, it's fixed now, and while you're at it, any suggestions/improvements is welcomed though I did do quite a bit of research and other user input before coming to this build.

Reply to bl1tz

Don't think you need that slot cooler. Didn't catch which PSU.
RipJaw's seem to be good memory, I got the DDR3-1600 Ripjaws.
No position on AMD MB, have the gigabyte P965-DQ6 and the P55-UD4P - Great boards.

Added
If you are in to games then If you can spring for it, I'd go for the sapphire 5770
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6814102858

Message quoted 1 times
Message edited by RetiredChief on 12-14-2009 at 04:31:31 AM

Reply to RetiredChief

RetiredChief wrote :

Don't think you need that slot cooler. Didn't catch which PSU.
RipJaw's seem to be good memory, I got the DDR3-1600 Ripjaws.
No position on AMD MB, have the gigabyte P965-DQ6 and the P55-UD4P - Great boards.

Added
If you are in to games then If you can spring for it, I'd go for the sapphire 5770
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6814102858

Oh yea, I got the PSU handled but if you're interested here's another link to it http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6817194019 , my cousin's not using it so I'm getting it, might be a bit of overkill, but hey. Well my choice of mobo was that one because it offered x8 x8 crossfire and had a high sucess chance of unlocking cores. Many people've suggested HD5770 and I know their logic and my excuse was, I'll wait for the Vapor X version, now that it's come out and its 180 bucks a piece, I've decided to just go with the HD5750 Vapor X's since only plan only going up to a 24" monitor max so if I get 2 HD5750's for 140 bucks each(yea, it was on newegg one day), I can save 80 bucks for ~10fps give or take a few and should be sufficient enough for gaming. I also found out that 2 HD5750Vapor-X's is in between the HD5850 and the HD5870 and should kill 24" monitors.Well, what do you mean by "into games" I usually play the newest titles out there so that should qualify me as a "gamer?"

Message edited by bl1tz on 12-14-2009 at 05:24:58 AM

Reply to bl1tz

The_Prophecy wrote :

Further to what JackNaylor said, the big difference between 32 and 64 bit is memory addressability. 32 bit can see a maximum of 4GB (but only use 3.0 - 3.5GB depending on what other hardware you have in the computer). 64 bit Windows 7 can see a maximum of 192GB. Applications loaded in 64 bit Windows can also address more than 4GB of ram (Photoshop being the first program that comes to mind).

*all server variants of 32bit windows can adress more than 4gb and all other variants can allso do his but:
MS cut this *feature* away from vista/w7 (xp): Licensed Memory in Windows... for some reason: only large difference 32<>64bit...
linux, apple ... can do this since years (32bit >4gb)

*all 32bit applications can adress full of 4gb workspace (if they are have the right flags), and more if needed (like mssql).

here some comparsion: OS differences

there are other (much smaller) differences between 32/64bit that makes sometimes x64 a little faster, sometimes slower..

best

Message quoted 1 times
Message edited by john51 on 12-14-2009 at 11:49:21 AM

Reply to john51

john51 wrote :

*all server variants of 32bit windows can adress more than 4gb and all other variants can allso do his but:
MS cut this *feature* away from vista/w7 (xp): Licensed Memory in Windows... for some reason: only large difference 32<>64bit...
linux, apple ... can do this since years (32bit >4gb)

*all 32bit applications can adress full of 4gb workspace (if they are have the right flags), and more if needed (like mssql).

here some comparsion: OS differences

there are other (much smaller) differences between 32/64bit that makes sometimes x64 a little faster, sometimes slower..

best

Wow, that's a very very nice read, clears a lot of things up. Ok, so there's nothing wrong with Windows 7 32bit right now, I'll just use that(currently using 64bit Vista) and upgrade to 64bit if needed. Thanks guys!

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to bl1tz

If you are using Windows 7 32 bit, you will have to do a clean install to go to the 64 bit version. There are still more drivers available for the 32 bit version than the 64 bit version. Unless you have a compelling need to address more tha 4BB of memory stay where you are. If you are running multiple applcations at a time and want to ease your future path to 64 bit use the 64 bit version.

Reply to howardp6

bl1tz wrote :

Wow, that's a very very nice read, clears a lot of things up.
Ok, so there's nothing wrong with Windows 7 32bit right now,
I'll just use that(currently using 64bit Vista) and upgrade to 64bit if needed. Thanks guys!

hmm, i will say it this way:

if you plan to upgrade and:

*there is no price difference between 32/64bit win7
*you have at least 4gb of memory
*you have a fast pc

then i would choose 64bit. because its the future, not for peformance

Reply to john51

califoria-inmy-heart wrote :

the 64-bit is the first version who work fine for the gaming and orther utilisation, uses an Intel processor but not an AMD

It is completely and absolutely false to claim that 64 bits cannot run on AMD processors.

------------------------------ Trying to make up his mind whether the current situation is due to an overabundance of high quality pharmaceuticals freely available on the Internet. ...or not enough of them.
Reply to Scotteq

...especially as they invented the x86_64.

Reply to ijack

With regards to the 32-bit server variants, there is a feature called PAE (Physical Address Extension) which the server OSes happen to support. PAE was first offered in the Pentium Pro processor. With PAE, the address table's size is essentially increased to 36-bit... allowing for a max of 64GB of addressable memory rather than just the 4GB with 32-bit. The problem is with drivers... most 32-bit drivers are not large address aware and quite often there would be issues with most consumer hardware and PAE. Because server platforms are more tightly controlled, it's much easier to implement it on the server level. With 64-bit gaining more and more support, PAE will be rendered useless. After all, there is no point in offering a 32-bit OS only partially supporting 36-bit addressing when 64-bit is available widely now.

So in a nutshell, with 32-bit Windows you are still limited to 4GB. However, because your RAM is NOT the only addressable memory in your system and any hardware that has memory must have it's memory allocated first, you'll never be able to make use of the full 4GB of RAM. Actual addressable RAM will be 4GB minus however much memory is on your video card or cards, any other RAM or ROM that may be present on any add-in cards, and any cache memory on your hard drives / optical drives. So while you may only have 4GB of RAM installed, you can still benefit from installing 64-bit Windows... because you'll be able to make use of all 4GB. With 32-bit Windows, some of that RAM is going to waste.

Message quoted 2 times

------------------------------ Desktop: Windows 7 Professional 64-bit; Intel Q6600 CPU; E-VGA 780i SLI motherboard; E-VGA E-GeForce 8800GT; OCZ Vista 4GB dual-channel kit; Ultra X2 750W power supply; 2 x Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 500GB in RAID 0. Laptop: Acer Aspire 8730-6314; Windo
Reply to Zoron

Zoron wrote :

With regards to the 32-bit server variants, there is a feature called PAE (Physical Address Extension) which the server OSes happen to support. PAE was first offered in the Pentium Pro processor. With PAE, the address table's size is essentially increased to 36-bit... allowing for a max of 64GB of addressable memory rather than just the 4GB with 32-bit. The problem is with drivers... most 32-bit drivers are not large address aware and quite often there would be issues with most consumer hardware and PAE. Because server platforms are more tightly controlled, it's much easier to implement it on the server level. With 64-bit gaining more and more support, PAE will be rendered useless. After all, there is no point in offering a 32-bit OS only partially supporting 36-bit addressing when 64-bit is available widely now.

So in a nutshell, with 32-bit Windows you are still limited to 4GB. However, because your RAM is NOT the only addressable memory in your system and any hardware that has memory must have it's memory allocated first, you'll never be able to make use of the full 4GB of RAM. Actual addressable RAM will be 4GB minus however much memory is on your video card or cards, any other RAM or ROM that may be present on any add-in cards, and any cache memory on your hard drives / optical drives. So while you may only have 4GB of RAM installed, you can still benefit from installing 64-bit Windows... because you'll be able to make use of all 4GB. With 32-bit Windows, some of that RAM is going to waste.

Well my situation is that my friend's uncle has a spare copy of Windows 7 32bit that I can get for free, I was thinking that if there was no performance difference between 32 bit and 64 bit with 4 gigs of RAM, I wouldn't bother buying Windows 7, however from your post, I'm getting the idea that I would still have to get it it because if that's true, I'm planning to Crossfire two 1 GB vid cards s
o according to your logic I would only be able to use 2 Gigs of my RAM?

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to bl1tz

Not all of the RAM on your video cards is memory mapped. Typically, the aperature for (each) card consumes roughly 256MB of address space. But, yes, running two cards comsumes more address space than the one.

------------------------------ Trying to make up his mind whether the current situation is due to an overabundance of high quality pharmaceuticals freely available on the Internet. ...or not enough of them.
Reply to Scotteq

Out of the 4GB, I'd guess that only 3GB would be usable with 32-bit Windows on your planned configuration... which makes that extra 1GB useless.

------------------------------ Desktop: Windows 7 Professional 64-bit; Intel Q6600 CPU; E-VGA 780i SLI motherboard; E-VGA E-GeForce 8800GT; OCZ Vista 4GB dual-channel kit; Ultra X2 750W power supply; 2 x Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 500GB in RAID 0. Laptop: Acer Aspire 8730-6314; Windo
Reply to Zoron

bl1tz wrote :

Well my situation is that my friend's uncle has a spare copy of Windows 7 32bit that I can get for free, I was thinking that if there was no performance difference between 32 bit and 64 bit with 4 gigs of RAM, I wouldn't bother buying Windows 7, however from your post, I'm getting the idea that I would still have to get it it because if that's true, I'm planning to Crossfire two 1 GB vid cards s
o according to your logic I would only be able to use 2 Gigs of my RAM?

I'm fairly certain product keys are interchangeable between 32 and 64 bit variants of windows 7. So if you can find the x64 bit disc and install with the spare key you should be ok.

Now I don't know how this will work with the 3 pack upgrade as all 3 copies have 1 key.

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to PsyKhiqZero

PsyKhiqZero wrote :

I'm fairly certain product keys are interchangeable between 32 and 64 bit variants of windows 7. So if you can find the x64 bit disc and install with the spare key you should be ok.

Now I don't know how this will work with the 3 pack upgrade as all 3 copies have 1 key.

Confirmed. Windows product keys are interchangeable between equivalent 32 and 64 bit SKU's.

------------------------------ Please give credit where credit is due! If you think this post was the most helpful, please remember to mark it as the best answer!
Reply to The_Prophecy

Lol, facepalm, how could I have overlooked that. So I'll just get my hands on a x64 installation disk and I'm set, thanks!

Reply to bl1tz

Some applications are faster on 64bit as well. x264 for example is ~5% faster when you use 64bit binaries.

------------------------------ macgirlfriend:
"Hey I don't get you people, the people on insanely mac were so much nicer"
Reply to skittle

Gasm wrote :

But there are some con's with the 64-bit such as some programs won't be as stable as they are if they were used in 32-bit

Its usually the exact opposide - your 32-bit apps will have more memory to work with (4gb max) rather then a 32-bit os cramming everything into a 4gb (max) area so applications have less chance to run out of memory and cause instabilities

Supreme Commander is a prime example where a well documented memory leak causes crashes, by using a system with a 64-bit OS and allowing the 64-bit aware option (cant remember the exact term) it stops crashes thanks to 64-bit

------------------------------ i7-2600k@4.6 // Noctua DH14 // ASUS P8P67 Pro // 16gb Ram
Intel 120gb SSD + 1tb WD // 2xGTX570 SLI // Corsair 750w // 2xE900F HD Tuners
(( Using car audio equipment for my sound system - 700w RMS ))
Reply to apache_lives

PsyKhiqZero wrote :

I don't know if it means much. However when intel first started to introduce 64 bits to their cpus, they named them pentium IV emt. The emt stood for extended memory translation. To me this sound as if intel made a 32 bit chip capable of addressing more then 4 GB of ram, but somehow different then a "full" 64 bit chip.

There were/are ways around the 4GB barrier by using these memory "extensions". They way they work is any single App can see 32bits of memory at a "time". But with 36-bit addressing, you can switch which 4GB's you're looking at.

So, instead of one "flat" piece of memory, you break your 36bit memory range into 16 4GB views/pages.

The problem is this isn't transparent. Your OS and drivers must support this or you can get weird problems. The software does not need to support the extended memory, but the app cannot access more than 2GB in a 32bit machine/OS unless it specifically programs for it.

One of the issues with drivers is something kind of like this

A driver not meant to work with 36bit memory will see the 32bit memory at a time. The driver tries to allocate memory and the OS says there's memory free at FFFF FFF0 but on page 2. The Video drivers don't see the page 2 part and suddenly reads/writes data out of the wrong page/view.

Microsoft got too many calls to their tech support about VERY random issues and data corruption that resulted from consumer grade drivers and decided non-server 32bit installs will not see past 4GB. The issues that resulted from driver probably were random and hard to track down.

Reply to kewlx25

Zoron wrote :

So while you may only have 4GB of RAM installed, you can still benefit from
installing 64-bit Windows... because you'll be able to make use of all 4GB. With 32-bit Windows, some of that RAM is going to waste.

well, this is totally false.

with every win 32bit system like servers or *enabled* vists/w7 (not sure with xp),
you are able to use 100% of your 4gbyte. you dont waste anything.
this allso counts with more then 4gbyte.

better:
with an 32bit system running with 4gb memory which *enabled* like servers or modify'd vista/w7 you
have normally about 150-250 mbyte more free memory compared against a similar x64 system.

here my game-system, normal nonpatched 4gb installed, 3.5gb usable:

*enabled* 4gb installed, 4gb usable::

best

Message quoted 1 times
Message edited by john51 on 12-17-2009 at 02:06:26 AM

Reply to john51

As I stated, this is PAE and it is only enabled in SERVER editions of Windows. You have to MODIFY your desktop OS to enable PAE, and if you do, there is no guarantee that this will be stable. Consumer drivers are NOT designed to take advantage of PAE, since it is expected that no consumer would ever have it enabled. You can argue the point as much as you like, but it's already been beaten to death in the Vista forum.

With 32-bit you are limited to 4GB. That is not a theoretical limit, it is a hard mathmatical limit. PAE was created as a workaround to this 32-bit limit. It increases the address table size to 36-bits (even though the processor itself and the OS is still 32-bit) and allows for a maximum of 64GB of RAM to be addressed with a 32-bit OS. All processors support PAE... though I'm not 100% sure about Atom. This was designed for servers, because at that time (Pentium Pro era) servers were the only computers that needed to address more than 4GB of RAM and 64-bit processors still weren't quite there.

Now that 64-bit has arrived, PAE is a waste of time... unless you're running a server or a very old computer with a 32-bit only processor. You might find it useful if you have an Atom-based system as well I suppose, but then the Atom wasn't designed to be in systems that would require 4+GB of RAM. Maybe it's just me, but I prefer to eliminate limits rather than work around them.

------------------------------ Desktop: Windows 7 Professional 64-bit; Intel Q6600 CPU; E-VGA 780i SLI motherboard; E-VGA E-GeForce 8800GT; OCZ Vista 4GB dual-channel kit; Ultra X2 750W power supply; 2 x Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 500GB in RAID 0. Laptop: Acer Aspire 8730-6314; Windo
Reply to Zoron

Why are we still having these stupid conversations about PAE?

If you want/need 4GB of RAM or more, then use a 64 bit version of the OS. Period. End. No hacks or "creative licencing mods" required to make a desktop version of the OS think it's a server, and no hassles with drivers which aren't capable of handling two tables. Not to mention that with a 32 bit OS you still have set limits on what is application space versus what is reserved for the system ( /3gb switch).

I can see it in the context of keeping an old, non-64bit capable system running for as long as possible so it can continue performing some specific task. You have legacy stuff laying around that otherwise would be inadequate? Fine.. But otherwise, screwing with PAE is a waste of time and effort.

Message edited by Scotteq on 12-18-2009 at 03:37:44 PM

Reply to Scotteq

what if i want 8gb? there aint no modifications available to do that with 32-bit - its dead

------------------------------ i7-2600k@4.6 // Noctua DH14 // ASUS P8P67 Pro // 16gb Ram
Intel 120gb SSD + 1tb WD // 2xGTX570 SLI // Corsair 750w // 2xE900F HD Tuners
(( Using car audio equipment for my sound system - 700w RMS ))
Reply to apache_lives

john51 wrote :

well, this is totally false.

with every win 32bit system like servers or *enabled* vists/w7 (not sure with xp),
you are able to use 100% of your 4gbyte. you dont waste anything.
this allso counts with more then 4gbyte.

better:
with an 32bit system running with 4gb memory which *enabled* like servers or modify'd vista/w7 you
have normally about 150-250 mbyte more free memory compared against a similar x64 system.

here my game-system, normal nonpatched 4gb installed, 3.5gb usable:

*Picture Removed*

*enabled* 4gb installed, 4gb usable::

*Picture Removed*

best

Even if your system can see all 4GB, Windows reserves half of your memory range for Kernel rated stuff.

So, even if your computer sees all of your memory, all of your applications cannot access more than 2GB of your total memory.

eg
Applications share memory ranges 0000 0000 through 7FFFFFFF

Kernel reserved space is 8000 0000 through FFFF FFFF

This does mean your apps get a full 2GB to play with since the OS will hang out in the upper 2GB range, but your total user space memory won't be able to exceed 2GB w/o swapping

If you have a 64bit system
Application space is 0000 0000 0000 0000 through 7FFF FFFF FFFF FFFF which is more than you'll use in a long time.

Edit: Also, read an MSDN article on this, Windows will show/claim a full 4GB of usable memory, but the OS will still not use any of the memory ranges allocated by your videocard/etc for DMA

Message edited by kewlx25 on 12-18-2009 at 11:36:58 PM

Reply to kewlx25

PAE would allow you to use all 8GB, but all the other limitations to the 32-bit architecture would still apply. You are much better served going to 64-bit than modifying your desktop OS to do something it was never designed to do.

You don't see Linux users wasting time with 32-bit versions and PAE... they go straight to 64-bit versions. Now that MS has finally caught up with their own very usable 64-bit OS, there is simply no reason to waste time on PAE.

------------------------------ Desktop: Windows 7 Professional 64-bit; Intel Q6600 CPU; E-VGA 780i SLI motherboard; E-VGA E-GeForce 8800GT; OCZ Vista 4GB dual-channel kit; Ultra X2 750W power supply; 2 x Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 500GB in RAID 0. Laptop: Acer Aspire 8730-6314; Windo
Reply to Zoron

/agreed - Now that there is a fully consumer ready 64 bit version, there is no reason to play with PAE unless, as pointed out above, you have some legacy hardware which requires the workaround.

Some links if anyone feels the need to learn more about memory management in Windows than I would possibly be able to relate.

All of these are by Microsoft VP and technical guru Mark Russinovich

Pushing the limits of Windows: Physical Memory

Pushing The Limits of Windows: Paged and Non Paged Pool

Pushing the Limits of Windows: Processes and Threads

Pushing the Limits of Windows: Handles

and

Pushing the Limits of Windows: Virtual Memory

Reply to Scotteq

Forum Windows 7 : General Discussion Win7 / Win7 64 bit

General Discussion

Configuration & Customization

Drivers

Security

Please mind