Duncan, Obviously, you haven't had a need for that much RAM. After all these years on the list, we all know you take your time to upgrade and there's nothing wrong with that - eventually, you might hit that limit and decide the need for more RAM.
Whether you believe it or not, the primary driver for a 64-bit OS is addressable memory space - regular folks run applications that require lots of memory, swap space is not acceptable (one example is editing HD home videos). Windows took its time getting there and now it's widely available (Vista/Win7 x64) - drivers are fine. Even consumer-level computers coming with 4GB RAM, there's no choice but to go with a 64-bit OS, otherwise, you will be inundated with questions about "I bought 4GB, why does it say 3.3GB?" - e.g. my parents don't care what OS (32 or 64) as long as everything works the way they like it. 4GB and a updated OS with more ease-of-use features goes a long way in that respect. -alex -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of DSinc Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 8:01 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [H] More than 4GB of ram and VM question Brian, Um, so why is being able to address >4GB of RAM such a big deal? I comprehend the other thread about the RAM issue. Is this what this is all about? No. I am not starting a "consumer choice" discussion. I've read all the past threads about Vista. I have "read-thru" all of this List's grumbles. Presently, I read all the Win7 thread-shares also. I also believe that this LIST is largely populated by "early-adopter's" and beta-tester's; and/or folks that have moved to some flavor of *nix, or, now playing some flavor of Apple. Fine. It has always been so. Hope this continues. Some of us just do not jump quickly. Still. Why the big pressure to go 64-bit? ATM seems just a "coolness factor" issue? Best, Duncan Brian Weeden wrote: > 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>> >
