2GB RAM & E2160 - 64bit OS?

iDenTiTy said:
The benefits are not only in memory usage...

Secondly you refer to a TS environment, which I'm afraid to say the user is unlikely to be involved in.

Thirdly you refer to sever 2003 x64, which in all accounts is not the same as Windows 7 x64. Windows 7 uses a brand new kernel, where as Server 2003 used a kernel which was really implemented 10 years ago..

If you going to compare various operating systems, then rather go for Vista x86 and x64. Since they are aimed at the same market and only differ in the architectures they aiming at..

EDIT: I seem to remember that Microsoft stated that Windows 7 will be their last x86 capable operating system.
Click to expand...

This is getting pretty academic, I agree that 64 bit has benefits - just not with 2GB RAM :)

Windows 32bit OS (all versions, Server, XP, Vista, TS etc.), can only see 4GB RAM (total RAM, including display cards etc.). The system then splits the 4GB into two - 2GB is used for applications and 2GB for system (Thats why SLI 1GB cards on 32bit OS is not a good idea!).

The application 2GB is per process and the 2GB system is used by the kernel; i.e. each process can only use 2GB RAM (unless you use the 3GB switch, which changes it to 3GB per app and 1GB for kernel).

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx#physical_memory_limits_windows_vista

Also check out Marks blog - what this guy knows about Windows is amazing:

http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/archive/2008/07/21/3092070.aspx
 
I think the point is that there won't be a performance loss on 64-bit with 2GB RAM.
I know this because I ran Vista 64-bit on 2GB for a few months before upgrading to 6GB.
And installing 64-bit from the start would be easier cos it's unlikely Cardene will downgrade his RAM
 
Conradl said:
This is getting pretty academic, I agree that 64 bit has benefits - just not with 2GB RAM :)

Windows 32bit OS (all versions, Server, XP, Vista, TS etc.), can only see 4GB RAM (total RAM, including display cards etc.). The system then splits the 4GB into two - 2GB is used for applications and 2GB for system (Thats why SLI 1GB cards on 32bit OS is not a good idea!).

The application 2GB is per process and the 2GB system is used by the kernel; i.e. each process can only use 2GB RAM (unless you use the 3GB switch, which changes it to 3GB per app and 1GB for kernel).

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx#physical_memory_limits_windows_vista

Also check out Marks blog - what this guy knows about Windows is amazing:

http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/archive/2008/07/21/3092070.aspx
Click to expand...

I think we've gone off at pretty much a tangent to the OP..

Should I assume that we both agree that there's no harm in going for x64?
Bearing in mind that the perf delta (Server etc.) between x86 and x64 is minuscule.

Nowdays, if you not running enterprise level machines and OSes, 64bit shouldn't be a worry at all.

I'd be more worried about RAM and other hardware than the virtual ddress space of 32bit vs. 64bit..

How often do we ponder the buts and whys of addressing and mapping while we chainsaw a guys face off in Gears?
 
charlie_82 said:
I think the point is that there won't be a performance loss on 64-bit with 2GB RAM.
I know this because I ran Vista 64-bit on 2GB for a few months before upgrading to 6GB.
And installing 64-bit from the start would be easier cos it's unlikely Cardene will downgrade his RAM
Click to expand...

Agreed. A performance loss would only occur under very certain circumstances....
 
Qwikslver said:
Definitely go 64bit.

Later you won't be thinking " I should've gone 64bit from the start".



Win 7 is Vista Service pack 3. Haven't you heard?

;)
Click to expand...

You still going on about this!! :( :( Dude catch a wake up! Windows 7 cannot be considered as a service pack as the changes made to the OS is too big to impliment in a SP. And no, Win 7 is way more than a shine shell! There has gone a whole lot of work into the Kernel and a whole lot of fixes into the kernel that can't be implimented with just a mere Service Pack release.

Another thing. Go and readup on exactly what a service pack is. Yes, Microsoft made a habbit of it with XP to introduce new feature with Service Packs but that is not the purpose of a service pack. A service pack is only a budle of a lot of hotfixes and updates that was shipped in the past.

Vista SP2 will be the last SP for Vista and only contains fixes and enhancements - like it should be. SQL Server 2005 SP3 was shipped just over a week ago and not one of the 3 contained any new features!

So get off your horse now as this argument of your is starting to get irritating now!
 
simp said:
Wrong - it's 4GB. :p

"All processes (e.g. application executables) running under 32 bit Windows gets virtual memory addresses (a Virtual Address Space) going from 0 to 4,294,967,295 (2*32-1 = 4 GB), no matter how much RAM is actually installed on the computer. "

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555223
Click to expand...

Are you referring to Vista or Windows 7?
Don't think so. Since the article is dated 2004.

Still, I think they refer to the activation of PAE.

You therefore are correct. In this case.

Still it's kinda off topic now, isn't it?

:p
 
iDenTiTy said:
Are you referring to Vista or Windows 7?
Don't think so. Since the article is dated 2004.

Still, I think they refer to the activation of PAE.

You therefore are correct. In this case.

Still it's kinda off topic now, isn't it?

:p
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter if its Vista or Win7 or Linux or whatnot - 32bit is 32bit. Look at the math: a 32bit address covers 4GB. That's all its about. Off topic, yes, but I have developed this nasty habit of wanting to be able to back up the things I say when I need to.
 
simp said:
Doesn't matter if its Vista or Win7 or Linux or whatnot - 32bit is 32bit. Look at the math: a 32bit address covers 4GB. That's all its about. Off topic, yes, but I have developed this nasty habit of wanting to be able to back up the things I say when I need to.
Click to expand...

PAE was introduced to alleviate technicalities around 32bit, so technically 32bit is not 32bit is not 32bit.

Have I got the whole thing wrong then?

/ confused himself */

Explain to me, if you please..

:confused:
 
iDenTiTy said:
PAE was introduced to alleviate technicalities around 32bit, so technically 32bit is not 32bit is not 32bit.

Have I got the whole thing wrong then?

/ confused himself */

Explain to me, if you please..

:confused:
Click to expand...

Doesn't PAE use 36 bit address, but still 64bit is the future.
 
Right you are, DJNgoma, PAE "converts" a 32bit address into a 36bit address.
iDenTiTy, the only point I'm trying to make is that a 32bit address covers the full 4GB range, as per the MS article linked to above.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X