Linux Format forums Forum Index Linux Format forums
Help, discussion, magazine feedback and more
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Windows 32 / 64 bit
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Linux Format forums Forum Index -> Other OS
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
heiowge
LXF regular


Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 8:21 pm
Posts: 1892
Location: Cheshire, UK

PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 7:04 pm    Post subject: Windows 32 / 64 bit Reply with quote

Will Windows XP and Windows 7 32 bit editions work on a 64 bit machine?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PCNetSpec
LXF regular


Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 3:50 pm
Posts: 631
Location: Cornwall UK

PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 7:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes
_________________
WARNING: You are logged into reality as 'root'... logging in as 'insane' is the only safe option.
Linux in the UK
The Linux Community Forum
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dutch_Master
LXF regular


Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:49 am
Posts: 2423

PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 8:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

But limited to 3 GB RAM, even if more is available.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
heiowge
LXF regular


Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 8:21 pm
Posts: 1892
Location: Cheshire, UK

PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 8:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I only have 3Gb ram. Sad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dutch_Master
LXF regular


Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:49 am
Posts: 2423

PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 8:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

3 gigabit? That ain't much indeed Razz (note: there's a distinct difference in lower and upper case in Linux, as well as the ISO system Rolling Eyes )
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PCNetSpec
LXF regular


Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 3:50 pm
Posts: 631
Location: Cornwall UK

PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 9:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

4GB not 3GB.... there is a table showing different Windows versions maximum addressable physical memory here:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension#Linux
_________________
WARNING: You are logged into reality as 'root'... logging in as 'insane' is the only safe option.
Linux in the UK
The Linux Community Forum


Last edited by PCNetSpec on Fri Sep 24, 2010 9:16 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
heiowge
LXF regular


Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 8:21 pm
Posts: 1892
Location: Cheshire, UK

PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 9:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Windows Vista Starter 1GB RAM max Laughing Laughing Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PCNetSpec
LXF regular


Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 3:50 pm
Posts: 631
Location: Cornwall UK

PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 9:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Windows XP Starter Edition - 512MB Wink
_________________
WARNING: You are logged into reality as 'root'... logging in as 'insane' is the only safe option.
Linux in the UK
The Linux Community Forum
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
heiowge
LXF regular


Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 8:21 pm
Posts: 1892
Location: Cheshire, UK

PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 9:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

But that was released at a time where most people had 128 - 256 MB RAM. Hardly anyone had more. Those who could afford more could afford more than the basic level XP.

These days you need a mortgage to buy windows. Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PCNetSpec
LXF regular


Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 3:50 pm
Posts: 631
Location: Cornwall UK

PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 10:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's was still intentionally *crippled* by M$

But I get your point, 1GB in Vista was probably a much bigger offence Wink

To tell the truth, I don't remember seeing XP Starter installed on anything, I have come across Vista Starter though Sad
_________________
WARNING: You are logged into reality as 'root'... logging in as 'insane' is the only safe option.
Linux in the UK
The Linux Community Forum
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RedWillow
LXF regular


Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 2:05 pm
Posts: 719

PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 11:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

PCNetSpec wrote:
4GB not 3GB


Actually, nearer 3 than 4. Although a 32-bit system can theoretically address 4GB (putting aside deliberate MS-induced crippling of their own OSs), in practice it can use little more than 3GB. Headache-inducing explanation here:

http://www.dansdata.com/askdan00015.htm

Even a 32-bit Linux system is similarly limited - unless you use a PAE kernel. When I installed a 32-bit version of Ubuntu to a 64-bit CPU machine with 4GB, the gnome system monitor reported that I had 3.2GB memory. And the video card was using a helluva lot less than the 0.8.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PCNetSpec
LXF regular


Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 3:50 pm
Posts: 631
Location: Cornwall UK

PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 11:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Agreed, only about 3.2GB (ish) will be available for use, but 4GB is being addressed.

So it wouldn't it be correct to say 32bit carries a 4GB address limit (without PAE)?... the amount that will be available for use depends on variables, so is effectively un-quotable.
_________________
WARNING: You are logged into reality as 'root'... logging in as 'insane' is the only safe option.
Linux in the UK
The Linux Community Forum
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RedWillow
LXF regular


Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 2:05 pm
Posts: 719

PostPosted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 8:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

PCNetSpec wrote:
So it wouldn't it be correct to say 32bit carries a 4GB address limit


Fair point, but I believe it's important to be aware of the practical limit of ~3GB. I've often seen threads on Ubuntuforums where the OP asks what's wrong when their 32-bit version of Ubuntu can only see about 3GB of the 4GB they've installed. From their wording it's clear they feel cheated. They usually get told to install the PAE kernel which I believe slows the system down. Personally, I'd prefer to be missing a quarter of my RAM than put up with the performance hit.

Extraordinary how MS cut memory access down on their "starter" editions. They never cease to amaze me. I suppose that deep within marketing some bright spark worked out that they would make even more ill-gained profit by doing this.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PCNetSpec
LXF regular


Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 3:50 pm
Posts: 631
Location: Cornwall UK

PostPosted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 10:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I remeber reading a Redhat white paper (heh.. Smile ) that put the performance penalty between 0 - 10% (depending on the task) between 32bit PAE and 64bit.

But I wonder how much of an improvement the extra RAM would give you over 3.2GB (ish) on a 32bit system?

So I guess 32bit PAE might still have a performance benefit over non-PAE at 4GB, at certain tasks... but make the jump to say 8GB, and a PAE enabled system is definitely going to perform better.

I think they mean - a performance hit over 64bit if you see what I mean, so I guess PAE has its place... can't say I've ever used it though.

Couldn't agree more about the M$ starter memory con Wink
_________________
WARNING: You are logged into reality as 'root'... logging in as 'insane' is the only safe option.
Linux in the UK
The Linux Community Forum
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RedWillow
LXF regular


Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 2:05 pm
Posts: 719

PostPosted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 10:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

PCNetSpec wrote:
but make the jump to say 8GB, and a PAE enabled system is definitely going to perform better.


All a bit hypothetical for me. Smile The motherboard on my main machine is a micro-ATX and has only 2 DDR2 slots in each of which I have Crucial 2GB cards = 4GB. My motherboard manual says, "Each module can be installed with 8GB of memory; total memory capacity is 16GB." Which is all very well but, last time I looked, Crucial don't do sticks any greater than 2GB - at least compatible with this board. I had a hunt around other makes and I found some 4GB sticks, but the price... Shocked

So I run 64-bit Ubuntu in 4GB and I haven't run out of memory yet.

The motherboard manual also has this priceless comment: "You must install at least one module in any of the two slots." Really? Damn, I thought I could save some money there by not having any RAM at all. Razz
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Linux Format forums Forum Index -> Other OS All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Linux Format forums topic RSS feed 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group


Copyright 2011 Future Publishing, all rights reserved.


Web hosting by UKFast