Windows 32 / 64 bit

Help and discussion about non-Linux operating systems

Moderators: ChrisThornett, LXF moderators

Windows 32 / 64 bit

Postby heiowge » Fri Sep 24, 2010 6:04 pm

Will Windows XP and Windows 7 32 bit editions work on a 64 bit machine?
User avatar
heiowge
LXF regular
 
Posts: 1906
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 8:21 pm
Location: Cheshire, UK

Postby PCNetSpec » Fri Sep 24, 2010 6:38 pm

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
User avatar
PCNetSpec
LXF regular
 
Posts: 631
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 3:50 pm
Location: Cornwall UK

Postby Dutch_Master » Fri Sep 24, 2010 7:19 pm

But limited to 3 GB RAM, even if more is available.
Dutch_Master
LXF regular
 
Posts: 2455
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 1:49 am

Postby heiowge » Fri Sep 24, 2010 7:34 pm

I only have 3Gb ram. :(
User avatar
heiowge
LXF regular
 
Posts: 1906
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 8:21 pm
Location: Cheshire, UK

Postby Dutch_Master » Fri Sep 24, 2010 7:39 pm

3 gigabit? That ain't much indeed :P (note: there's a distinct difference in lower and upper case in Linux, as well as the ISO system :roll: )
Dutch_Master
LXF regular
 
Posts: 2455
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 1:49 am

Postby PCNetSpec » Fri Sep 24, 2010 8:07 pm

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_A ... sion#Linux
Last edited by PCNetSpec on Fri Sep 24, 2010 8:16 pm, edited 2 times in total.
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
User avatar
PCNetSpec
LXF regular
 
Posts: 631
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 3:50 pm
Location: Cornwall UK

Postby heiowge » Fri Sep 24, 2010 8:13 pm

Windows Vista Starter 1GB RAM max :lol: :lol: :lol:
User avatar
heiowge
LXF regular
 
Posts: 1906
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 8:21 pm
Location: Cheshire, UK

Postby PCNetSpec » Fri Sep 24, 2010 8:17 pm

Windows XP Starter Edition - 512MB ;)
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
User avatar
PCNetSpec
LXF regular
 
Posts: 631
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 3:50 pm
Location: Cornwall UK

Postby heiowge » Fri Sep 24, 2010 8:39 pm

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. :lol:
User avatar
heiowge
LXF regular
 
Posts: 1906
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 8:21 pm
Location: Cheshire, UK

Postby PCNetSpec » Fri Sep 24, 2010 9:19 pm

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

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

To tell the truth, I don't remember seeing XP Starter installed on anything, I have come across Vista Starter though :(
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
User avatar
PCNetSpec
LXF regular
 
Posts: 631
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 3:50 pm
Location: Cornwall UK

Postby RedWillow » Fri Sep 24, 2010 10:03 pm

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.
RedWillow
LXF regular
 
Posts: 719
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 1:05 pm

Postby PCNetSpec » Fri Sep 24, 2010 10:17 pm

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
User avatar
PCNetSpec
LXF regular
 
Posts: 631
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 3:50 pm
Location: Cornwall UK

Postby RedWillow » Sat Sep 25, 2010 7:23 am

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.
RedWillow
LXF regular
 
Posts: 719
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 1:05 pm

Postby PCNetSpec » Sat Sep 25, 2010 9:00 am

I remeber reading a Redhat white paper (heh.. :) ) 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 ;)
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
User avatar
PCNetSpec
LXF regular
 
Posts: 631
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 3:50 pm
Location: Cornwall UK

Postby RedWillow » Sat Sep 25, 2010 9:36 am

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. :) 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... :shock:

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. :P
RedWillow
LXF regular
 
Posts: 719
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 1:05 pm

Next

Return to Other OS

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests