Topic: 64bit OS addressing (Read 2313 times)

toasty0 · « **on:** August 29, 2009, 08:31:24 pm »

Interesting fact about 64bit OSs...

In theory a 64bit OS should be able to address 16 exabytes. 16 exabytes == 16.8 million terabytes. Of course most manafacturers throttle things down to a much lower number. Take for instance Microsoft's 64 bit Windows 7 Ultimate which will only address 128+ gigs. I call that throttled down.

Tus-XC · « **Reply #1 on:** August 30, 2009, 12:31:04 am »

wonder what the point of diminishing returns is though. It might be able to handle 16 exabytes, but how efficiently can it utilize it? might be one of the reasons to throttle it.

Javora · « **Reply #2 on:** August 30, 2009, 06:56:29 am »

Quote from: Tus-XC on August 30, 2009, 12:31:04 am

wonder what the point of diminishing returns is though. It might be able to handle 16 exabytes, but how efficiently can it utilize it? might be one of the reasons to throttle it.

I think you have a good point but part of me wonders if Microsoft is in a way protecting future versions of Windows. Limiting Win 7 would force us to buy the next version down the road. I mean future developments and features will probably make Win 7 obsolete faster than anything else but part of me still wonders...

Ok I'm going to stop rambling and go to bed, it's way past my bedtime as it is.

EmeraldEdge · « **Reply #3 on:** August 30, 2009, 07:26:52 am »

You mean, kind of like the way they limited memory usage in different versions of Vista to get you to upgrade to the higher versions for more mem?

marstone · « **Reply #4 on:** August 30, 2009, 10:11:54 pm »

Quote from: Tus-XC on August 30, 2009, 12:31:04 am

wonder what the point of diminishing returns is though. It might be able to handle 16 exabytes, but how efficiently can it utilize it? might be one of the reasons to throttle it.

It should be direct memory address accessing, not paged memory or anything so speed should be good for all of it.

Is that maximum stated as all that win7 would do, or all that it can do with current motherboard configurations. From what I have seen systems neck down into a 32 bit bus so they can be compatible with IDE cards.

toasty0 · « **Reply #5 on:** August 31, 2009, 10:03:22 am »

I'm not sure marstone. The white paper I read on it didn't state. Maybe I should download the developer training kit and read through that to see what it says about ther subject.

*makes note to download kit right after I finish learning SSIS, SSAS, SSRS, and Dynamics*

marstone · « **Reply #6 on:** August 31, 2009, 10:02:58 pm »

Quote from: toasty0 on August 31, 2009, 10:03:22 am

I'm not sure marstone. The white paper I read on it didn't state. Maybe I should download the developer training kit and read through that to see what it says about ther subject.

*makes note to download kit right after I finish learning SSIS, SSAS, SSRS, and Dynamics*

I have a list to learn like that too,

Nemesis · « **Reply #7 on:** September 07, 2009, 11:43:49 am »

Quote from: EmeraldEdge on August 30, 2009, 07:26:52 am

You mean, kind of like the way they limited memory usage in different versions of Vista to get you to upgrade to the higher versions for more mem?

The same as was done with Windows 2000 and XP?

Quote

Windows 2000 Memory Support. With Windows 2000 Professional and Server, the maximum amount of memory that can be supported is 4 GB (identical to Windows NT 4.0, as described later in this section). However, Windows 2000 Advanced Server supports 8 GB of physical RAM and Windows 2000 Datacenter Server supports 32 GB of physical RAM using the PAE feature of the IA-32 processor family, beginning with Intel Pentium Pro and later.

Windows XP Professional and Windows Server 2003 Memory Support. The maximum amount of memory that can be supported on Windows XP Professional and Windows Server 2003 is also 4 GB. However, Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition supports 32 GB of physical RAM and Windows Server 2003, Datacenter Edition supports 64 GB of physical RAM using the PAE feature.

candle_86 · « **Reply #8 on:** September 07, 2009, 01:19:42 pm »

Quote from: Nemesis on September 07, 2009, 11:43:49 am

Quote from: EmeraldEdge on August 30, 2009, 07:26:52 am
You mean, kind of like the way they limited memory usage in different versions of Vista to get you to upgrade to the higher versions for more mem?

The same as was done with Windows 2000 and XP?

Quote
Windows 2000 Memory Support. With Windows 2000 Professional and Server, the maximum amount of memory that can be supported is 4 GB (identical to Windows NT 4.0, as described later in this section). However, Windows 2000 Advanced Server supports 8 GB of physical RAM and Windows 2000 Datacenter Server supports 32 GB of physical RAM using the PAE feature of the IA-32 processor family, beginning with Intel Pentium Pro and later.

Windows XP Professional and Windows Server 2003 Memory Support. The maximum amount of memory that can be supported on Windows XP Professional and Windows Server 2003 is also 4 GB. However, Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition supports 32 GB of physical RAM and Windows Server 2003, Datacenter Edition supports 64 GB of physical RAM using the PAE feature.

its not an artifical limit 32bit only supports 4gb to get 8gb its called enabling PAE or page extension for the memory, and is not compatabile with most applications besides severs, it can cause instability on non server apps and even then on server apps.

News: