Slashdot Mirror

"much like they said a year and change ago."
Citation needed!

No, Microsoft have never said anything about client versions of Windows going 64-bit. Various uninformed people have *speculated* that the x86 version would be dropped, but Microsoft have never confirmed it.

Server versions went x64-only a few years ago, but that has no bearing on the client version.

(And bear in mind too the whole "x86 / 4GB maximum RAM" thing is due to Microsoft licensing rather than any technical reasons... 32-bit versions of Windows can use 64GB of RAM - via PAE - if you fiddle with the kernel to remove the restriction. http://www.geoffchappell.com/n... has more info).

Actually XP always supported PAE, PAE is even required to enable the NX bit which XP will use by default on processors which support it.
XP from SP2 onwards has a licensing restriction which causes it to ignore any address space above 4GB, but that is entirely different from not supporting PAE. See http://www.geoffchappell.com/notes/windows/license/memory.htm

Actually its more about control...

Windows 32bit is more than capable of addressing far more than 4GB, however the lower end versions are simply not licensed for this purpose and therefore have the ability artificially disabled.

Take a read of http://www.geoffchappell.com/viewer.htm?doc=notes/windows/license/memory.htm

This is known as Damaged Goods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damaged_good) where the developers have spent significant time to develop a negative feature, and that had they not spent this time you would have gotten a better product.

The 4 GB barrier was overcome a long time ago on 32 bit systems. The reason people still think its a problem is because Microsoft decided you as a customer shouldnt be able to use more than 4 GB memory on 32-bit since Windows 2000 . The limitations are solely artificial today on Windows 32-bit but linux gladly handle any memory you toss at it.

Excellent article explaining the issue:
http://www.geoffchappell.com/viewer.htm?doc=notes/windows/license/memory.htm

I have also yet to see a benchmark where 64-bit in itself gives significant advantage outside large calculations an simulations.

There are reasons - nefarious or otherwise depending on your interpretation - but at the end of the day you can do it if you're willing to patch and install a self-signed kernel. I did it myself for Vista SP2, and it works fine. It may not work fine for you. I figured it's well worth it to get 4GB vs. 3GB without the hassle of upgrading.

Yea, Geoff Chappell has an e820 memory map utility for Windows to determine what is really limiting your memory: http://www.geoffchappell.com/viewer.htm?doc=studies/windows/km/hal/api/x86bios/fwmemmap.htm

It is insightful, but it wasn't MY insight, I'm just repeating someone else's discovery, which has been referenced on Slashdot:

http://www.geoffchappell.com/notes/windows/license/memory.htm

You have to keep reading to near the end, because he starts off discussing the similar restriction in Vista 32-bit.

Like I said, license restriction, not a physical one.

If you want to support this site, consider donating to Geoff Chappell: http://geoffchappell.com/viewer.htm?doc=support/index.htm&tx=3

And about XP 32bit RAM support - this was Microsofts doing, because Windows server 2003 32bit supports up to 16GB of RAM with PAE.

Indeed. Windows XP supports 64GB of RAM, but there's a license check at boot time that limits RAM to 4GB. If you patch Windows to remove the check it works with more RAM. Details here. The whole idea that 32 bits limits us to 4GB is nonsense.

The 4GB limit is only because MS won't licence you for more, there is no real physical limitation in the OS, as demonstrated by this copy of 32bit Vista running 8GB of ram. /the moar you know

Windows 32-bit has been able to address more than 4 GB of RAM for at least a decade now. You just weren't licensed to use it.