32 bit OS RAM limitation. - Page 2 - Techist - Tech Forum

Go Back   Techist - Tech Forum > Computer Hardware > Monitors, Printers and Peripherals
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 08-05-2008, 01:29 PM   #11 (permalink)
Wizard Techie
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: /home/jason
Posts: 3,056
Send a message via AIM to Jayce
Default Re: 32 bit OS RAM limitation.

Yeah. Good points from all angles.

There just has to be a justifiable reason for everybody to pick up and be like "Oh, all right. Let's go then." to jump on the bandwagon.

I guess, taking in Mak's estimated time frame, we'll see what the next 3-5 years brings the computing industry. Til then, I'm completely content with where things are at. But hey - I gotta upgrade my computer sometime. Right? Otherwise I wouldn't have any fun!!
__________________

Jayce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2008, 02:10 PM   #12 (permalink)
Lord Techie
 
Kharn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,638
Default Re: 32 bit OS RAM limitation.

if there is not a more headstrong switch towards x64 soon we will start seeing less an less developments, I have been running 3.5gb (including my vid card) an guess what it's not enough. **** the often touted game that is more of a bench mark Cryssis should have no place in a 32bit os, graphics design an 3d editing is yet another case where more ram is better especialy on a vid card a 32bit OS just hasnt got the power under the hood to to handle todays more demanding applications an it's only a matter of time before every day apps start making more demands on systems that just cant handle them.

In the linux world i can sight one example of this, last time i messed about with x64 on a linux desktop distro i thought oh hey what was that vid i wanted to watch again on youtube so I loaded FF an guess what no java, so i thought no biggie i will go an get it well i was shocked to see at the time there was not x64 compatable for linux from sun, in the end i just had to go an get some open source alternative but it was a pain in the *** an only worked when it wanted to (this was suposedly finished an stable) but it was more like a early alpha. So i with regret poped open the side of the case an removed a stick of ram an got ready to install OpenSuSe 32bit again.
Sure Linux is the smaller of the big 3 OS's if you go of a head count of users alone but it is also the OS where for the most part people will have a higher powerd machine an can apreciate the performance boost of x64, sun was missing the mark here in a major way considering that Solaris is little differnt from the core of linux an there x64 bit version was more than capable of runing Java why they didnt do the small comparitivly easy tweaks to get it running in linux is beyond me. There are lots of open source programs out there that are far better than there closed source counterparts but there are many many more that are worse an this can be said of the x64 fos java.

Sorry if it seemed to go of on one there but that is one massive example of a developer not making the effort once again that sticks in my mind. But my point was most of the developers have no intention as of yet to develop for or support the x64 bit future that is just over the horizon an it is going to come a bite the end user in the *** till they get there act together. I can see one or two outcomes this current situation.

1) We have powerful computers with no software for several months an buggy if not unusable hardware.

2) We are stuck with 32bit for a few more years an we start seeing the Tech we all love start to stagnate an only see rehashed arguments for x64 but because the software vendors are stuck in there ways they wont change (there are signs of this starting to happen as my example pointed out). This is one of the many multitude of reasons why I like apple they have seen the x64 an loved it enough to make it standard off the board.
__________________

__________________
Visit this and do something for the world!
www.hackersforcharity.org

Want to do even more? Take a look here and join the fight on human trafficking.

Hear and you forget, see and you remember, do and you understand.

Kharn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2008, 03:28 PM   #13 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,585
Default Re: 32 bit OS RAM limitation.

Memory Limits for Windows Releases (Windows)
atomic tofu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2008, 03:35 PM   #14 (permalink)
Call me Mak or K
Mod Emeritus
 
KSoD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: C:\
Posts: 35,647
Default Re: 32 bit OS RAM limitation.

Yeah?

Okay so that shows the limits. But the thing is we are talking DESKTOP OS. Not Server. Of course Server can handle more. But if you read my thread you would see that it doesnt specificy Servers. Cause a Server OS should NOT be run as a desktop OS.

So that says basically what i have already said. Glad to see i was right.
__________________
I do not accept support questions via EMail, PM, IM or my G+ page!

Phone: LG Optimus G Pro
Running: Stock JB from LG with Nova Launcher

KSoD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2008, 03:40 PM   #15 (permalink)
Lord Techie
 
Kharn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,638
Default Re: 32 bit OS RAM limitation.

Yea server OS's are to be used for servers only unless it's for a special purpose like a dual processor (2 physical processors not 2 cores) workstation.
__________________
Visit this and do something for the world!
www.hackersforcharity.org

Want to do even more? Take a look here and join the fight on human trafficking.

Hear and you forget, see and you remember, do and you understand.

Kharn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2008, 03:51 PM   #16 (permalink)
Call me Mak or K
Mod Emeritus
 
KSoD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: C:\
Posts: 35,647
Default Re: 32 bit OS RAM limitation.

Not to mention that the Server Kernel's are not the same as desktop kernels. It wasnt until Vista/Server 2008 that they were even close. But sharing the same kernel is all they have in common. the rest of the OS is no where near coded the same at all.

So yeah while Servers can utilize more RAM. Doesnt mean anything. For the consumer we use Desktop OS's which makes that link useless cause we do not use Server based OS's for our use.
__________________
I do not accept support questions via EMail, PM, IM or my G+ page!

Phone: LG Optimus G Pro
Running: Stock JB from LG with Nova Launcher

KSoD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2008, 04:02 PM   #17 (permalink)
Lord Techie
 
Kharn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,638
Default Re: 32 bit OS RAM limitation.

This is just a thought an pardon my ignorantse with this but whats the main difference in the XP an the Server 03 kernels? I use both but never really understood the main differences.

Oh an back on topic I just read a nice little artical on a mac forum (not mine) that said somthing about the macpro's logic board being able to address 128gb of ram but as there is no ram available in ddr2 800 fb it still remains theoretical, but it would be nice to dreem.
__________________
Visit this and do something for the world!
www.hackersforcharity.org

Want to do even more? Take a look here and join the fight on human trafficking.

Hear and you forget, see and you remember, do and you understand.

Kharn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2008, 05:01 PM   #18 (permalink)
Wizard Techie
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: /home/jason
Posts: 3,056
Send a message via AIM to Jayce
Default Re: 32 bit OS RAM limitation.

As of now, to my knowledge, the only drastic drawback to 64 bit Ubuntu over 32 bit is the fact that Flash 10 Beta is available on 32 bit, but not 64. On 64 bit, you're stuck with Flash 9. I know, nothing to cry over. But that's the only major thing. However, it's talked about quite a bit on the Ubuntu Forums... mostly because Flash 10, from what I keep hearing, is the start of the official supported version from Adobe.

But, in my case, I think my sound card likes 32 bit more. I just installed 32 bit and it seems to be a little happier in a 32 bit environment. Granted, it worked in 64 bit, but I could tell there were a few qwirky things with it. Including the fact the maximum volume level wasn't what I expected of a 62 dollar sound card.
Jayce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2008, 05:06 PM   #19 (permalink)
Lord Techie
 
Kharn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,638
Default Re: 32 bit OS RAM limitation.

What card is it?
__________________
Visit this and do something for the world!
www.hackersforcharity.org

Want to do even more? Take a look here and join the fight on human trafficking.

Hear and you forget, see and you remember, do and you understand.

Kharn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2008, 08:58 PM   #20 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,585
Default Re: 32 bit OS RAM limitation.

some ppl are money bags here...so they can op for server oses

and to think some ppl think I spent too much on Vista Ultimate, it was OEM!
__________________

atomic tofu is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Kingston RAM wafflehammer New Systems | Building and Buying 33 03-26-2008 01:31 AM
My Comp Won't Read My RAM - Help Please SabakuNoTaira Hardware Repairs and Troubleshooting 3 03-17-2008 12:59 PM
32 Bit Vista - 2 or 4 gb? (yes I know about the 3.3ish limitation) Jayce Microsoft Windows and Software 8 12-23-2007 01:11 AM
To all of you who want 4 GB of Ram w/ 32 bit OS motoxer4533 New Systems | Building and Buying 9 12-18-2007 08:36 PM
Windows XP PRO vs. 4 GB RAM saywhat5959 Microsoft Windows and Software 15 09-21-2007 07:39 PM



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.