Um, so you can address more than 4 GB of ram? Which is the issue the started this thread.
It's not like it costs you any more at the consumer level - Vista and Windows 7 come with both the 32 and 64-bit versions in the same box. --------------------------- Brian Weeden Technical Advisor Secure World Foundation <http://www.secureworldfoundation.org> Montreal Office +1 (514) 466-2756 Canada +1 (202) 683-8534 US On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 10:02 PM, DSinc <[email protected]> wrote: > Brian, > OK, tell me why? What is the big glamor of 64-bit computing? > Besides the heavy "business" folk, why do I need to go 64-bit? > Yes, I freely accept that one day I will have to. Until then??? > > Zounds to me like the same noise I lived through with 8->16 and the 16->32 > series of arguments. Yes, now at 64-bit there are NEW advantages. > > Now, I may feel very old. And, might be "reading" some very, very OLD > rationale. > But, I am willing to learn. > Best, > Duncan > > > Brian Weeden wrote: > >> Aside from the pain of tracking down 64-bit drivers - why not go 64-bit? >> >> Apple has already gone almost completely 64-bit OS with Snow Leopard and >> it's been around in *nix circles for a long time. >> >> --------------------------- >> Brian Weeden >> Technical Advisor >> Secure World Foundation <http://www.secureworldfoundation.org> >> >> Montreal Office >> +1 (514) 466-2756 Canada >> +1 (202) 683-8534 US >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 8:35 PM, DSinc <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Tim, >>> In your "business" position I get this. Should you choose this position >>> personally, that is fine. Please accept that there are many folk >>> everywhere >>> that just do NOT yet see the need for a 64-bit OS. JMHO. >>> Best, >>> Duncan >>> >>> >>> >>> Tim Lider wrote: >>> >>> Hello all, >>>> >>>> Man explaining it and reading the explanation can make your brain hurt. >>>> Let's just say for the original poster it's not enough and should >>>> upgrade >>>> to >>>> 64-bit OS. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Tim Lider >>>> Sr. Data Recovery Specialist >>>> Advanced Data Solutions, LLC >>>> http://www.adv-data.com >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> >>>>> From: [email protected] [mailto:hardware- >>>>> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Greg Sevart >>>>> Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 12:24 PM >>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>> Subject: Re: [H] More than 4GB of ram and VM question >>>>> >>>>> It isn't as much of a mystery as people make it out to be. By default, >>>>> on a >>>>> 32-bit system with 4GB of RAM, 2GB is available for user space, and 2GB >>>>> is >>>>> reserved for exclusive use by the kernel--which would include kernel >>>>> mode >>>>> drivers. You are also correct in that some of this upper space is >>>>> reduced by >>>>> various system devices, some of which might not make much sense. The >>>>> reason >>>>> that systems differ is because of varying chipsets, their maximum >>>>> addressable memory, the ability of the chipset and BIOS to remap memory >>>>> above system-reserved spaces, and, of course, the devices installed. >>>>> >>>>> Using the /3GB switch will shift the division to 3GB of userland and >>>>> 1GB of >>>>> kernel memory, but keep in mind that each individual 32-bit address >>>>> will >>>>> still be limited to 2GB of memory unless it was compiled with >>>>> LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE. It gets much more complicated when you're using >>>>> PAE >>>>> (Physical Address Extensions) and AWE (Address Windowing Extensions), >>>>> but >>>>> that realm is only relevant if you're running Server Enterprise or >>>>> better. >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> >>>>>> From: [email protected] [mailto:hardware- >>>>>> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Winterlight >>>>>> Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 1:00 PM >>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>> Subject: Re: [H] More than 4GB of ram and VM question >>>>>> >>>>>> This is not how I understand it to work, not that there seems to be >>>>>> any kind of consensuses on this, but I read in Maximum PC that 32 bit >>>>>> supports 4GB of RAM addressing. You start out with 4GB of RAM and >>>>>> then windows starts knocking off for addresses already used by your >>>>>> video card, your network card, whatever. This is why some people show >>>>>> 3.2GB some, just 3GB. To add to the confusion, Maximum PC has >>>>>> reported that MS has stated that windows can actually use some of >>>>>> that undressed RAM for things such as drivers. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> At 07:24 AM 9/18/2009, you wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hello Brian, >>>>>>> 32-bit is really locked to 3GB of RAM, it's just Windows is >>>>>>> >>>>>>> reporting >>>>>> the >>>>>> >>>>>> 3.6GB of RAM. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>
