Beating 4GB with 64 bit + 32 bit virtual?

[TS]

Been reading alot about the limits of the 32bit OS (not all 4GB RAM accesible)

The easy solution is ofc to simply do a 64bit OS (vista..)

Unfortunatly to my knowledge many/most drivers/games/programs dont work/exist with 64bit OS.

Made me think...

How about doing a 64bit system - and then put a virtual 32bit machine (a VmWare virtual machine) ontop of that.

In cases where the drivers/games/programs arent working for the 64bit - Simply chuck them into the 32bit virtual machine.

The 32bit virtual will ofc take a performance hit due to running in virtual - But with one of the new (dual core) CPU's, I wonder just how much of an issue it would be...


-----

So - Just how bad is the 64bit support (games mostly I suppose?)
And if it's bad - Would the 32bit virtual "ontop" of the 64bit even be worth trying?

 

[hassa]

While it may work for some things, I doubt it will give you anything short of horrible results for games though since you won't be able to get access to the hardware for 3D etc... (Since there is an extra layer between the program and the HAL (Hardware Abstraction Layer).

 

[jt001]

I don't think the VM could address the all the RAM because the hardware it's emulating doesn't support that much. Plus the performance drop would be significant.

 

[tik]

I would wait untill we really need that much amount of the memory, than install 64 and 32 bit OS in 2 difference HDD. The choice is your.

 

[TS]

<snip>horrible results for games though since you won't be able to get access to the hardware for 3D etc... (Since there is an extra layer between the program and the HAL (Hardware Abstraction Layer).

Worse (to horrible) - Probably true...

But on Vista I'm not so sure that the "extra" HAL matters so much (if the CPU is just a bit beefy) - as, if I've understood things correctly, in Vista programs (including games) dont have direct access to the hardware anyway (has to ask nicely for it through Vista)


@JT001 No - the (32bit)VM will not ofc - But that one is basically just there for "backup" for stuff that wont run on 64bit - Nothing else.

install 64 and 32 bit OS in 2 difference HDD.

More or less the option I'd like to avoid... (But prob will end up with having to do...)
I'd hate having to first shutdown the 64bit and then boot to the 32bit just to be able to do X - As opposed to just jump into the virtual 32bit....

---

Anyone here experienced with the 64bit - and how good/bad the support is for progs/games/etc (prob the wrong forum for this Q I guess)

Might just settle for a single 32bit boot if it's not really worth the bother....

Buying a new box in a couple of months so.. Decissions, decissions, decissions....

 

[Howard_Stern]

I have the Vista 64 bit and I haven't had any problems, except for some internet plug-ins.

I've read that the 8800GTX in SLi suffers from bad drivers for 64bit Vista, but I don't have any issues at all.

Regards.

 

[kamel5547]

Been reading alot about the limits of the 32bit OS (not all 4GB RAM accesible)

The easy solution is ofc to simply do a 64bit OS (vista..)

Unfortunatly to my knowledge many/most drivers/games/programs dont work/exist with 64bit OS.

Only had one driver issue with Vista x64... and that was for a webcam. Everything else I have works just fine...

On the other hand a 32 bit OS will only has 4 GB of memory space, virtual or not.

 

[robshardware]

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/283037

http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=291988

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension

http://forums.2cpu.com/archive/index.php/t-78532.html

PAE - Physical Address Extension.

You need a motherboard that will support memory beyound 4 gb (often it will state - can address up to 8 gb of memory), i think you also need a 64bit capable cpu...... i suspect you also need a server class (32 -BIT)operating system. Some light reading..and a bit of testing might get you somewhere.
I am planing to try this out myself in the future as i can borrow another 2gb of memory b4 i purchase anything. Let us all know if you try this and where you get to.
Good luck.
If anyone can shoot this down or knows it works plz chime in !!

 

[Turas]

I have been running Vista x64 since release in November and it was rough at first. Mostly the drivers were not opitmized or non existent. Since then most of my hardware has drivers now and the system runs great. I used it mostly for video editing and games. I have played the latest Madden, WOW, Everquest and few others on it so far. I dont think you would have many problems with any modern games.

I also use the VM ware beta so that I can have a test lab of different systems. It works great but you can not really run any games on it. VMWAre or VirtualPC basically emulate an older video card which could not run any decent games.

 

[proware]

Been reading alot about the limits of the 32bit OS (not all 4GB RAM accesible)

What you've been reading is wrong. Modern motherboards often put about 750MB aside for managing resources. It could be more than 750MB, so count your blessings if you're only missing this common amount. If you install 8GB on your motherboard, install 32-bit Windows and boot it, you will see that Windows has 4GB of memory available to it. But if you've spent the money for 8GB, why not install a 64-bit OS and enjoy 7.25GB of address space.

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:u3pKRj03ZcwJ:blogs.msdn.com/hiltonl/archive/2007/04/13/the-3gb-not-4gb-ram-problem.aspx+not+all+4gb+accessible&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

http://softwarecommunity.intel.com/isn/Community/en-US/forums/permalink/30222182/30231850/ShowThread.aspx#30231850

Now, some emoticons for your viewing pleasure...
8O :? 8) :lol: :x :twisted: :roll: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen: :tongue: :trophy:

 

[Mondoman]

... If you install 8GB on your motherboard, install 32-bit Windows and boot it, you will see that Windows has 4GB of memory available to it. ...

Actually, it will have the use of less than 4GB of physical RAM, typically in the range of 3-3.5GB, because some of the 4GB address space is used up by various hardware components.

 

[TS]

@Turas

That actually sounds very encouraging (your, now, good experience with support for 64bit)

Still I'm not completly confident (dont dare take the risk some of my stuff wont run)

So after reading the replys to this thread I think I'll simply go "full monty"

That is:
Dual boot : Vista 32bit + Vista 64bit
and then put a virtual 32 bit on the 64bit as well - for those, hopefully most, apps that cant run on 64bit, but arent that CPU intensive (those would be put on the real 32bit)


Not excactly a one-shot solution as I had hoped

(Man it's gonne be a pain installing 3 OS + updating them all... sigh)

 

[proware]

... If you install 8GB on your motherboard, install 32-bit Windows and boot it, you will see that Windows has 4GB of memory available to it. ...

Actually, it will have the use of less than 4GB of physical RAM, typically in the range of 3-3.5GB, because some of the 4GB address space is used up by various hardware components.

I can only speak from my experience with Intel motherboards. This hole is totally hidden from windows. Does this mean the motherboard moves these resources out of the <4GB range when 8GB is installed or some other hardware solution to fix this problem, I do not know. But I can tell you that 32-bit Windows can see a full 4GB of memory, specifically (2^32) / 1.024 = 4,194,304,000 bytes should show in your system properties window when that much memory is available.

If the Chinese boards do not work the same way then I think that would totally suck. Then again not many people need more than 1GB of ram. At least not yet. Perhaps the way to see this is that if you can afford 4GB then you can afford a few extra bucks for an Intel motherboard save the case where you must have super,ultra,extreme overclocking boards.

 

[Mondoman]

... If you install 8GB on your motherboard, install 32-bit Windows and boot it, you will see that Windows has 4GB of memory available to it. ...

Actually, it will have the use of less than 4GB of physical RAM, typically in the range of 3-3.5GB, because some of the 4GB address space is used up by various hardware components.

I can only speak from my experience with Intel motherboards. This hole is totally hidden from windows. Does this mean the motherboard moves these resources out of the <4GB range when 8GB is installed or some other hardware solution to fix this problem, I do not know....
Certainly, the "server" editions of 32-bit Windows use various hardware and software extensions to allow access to more than 4GB; however, Win XP Home and Pro SP2 do not support this. What version of Windows were you using?

 

[proware]

... If you install 8GB on your motherboard, install 32-bit Windows and boot it, you will see that Windows has 4GB of memory available to it. ...

Actually, it will have the use of less than 4GB of physical RAM, typically in the range of 3-3.5GB, because some of the 4GB address space is used up by various hardware components.

I can only speak from my experience with Intel motherboards. This hole is totally hidden from windows. Does this mean the motherboard moves these resources out of the <4GB range when 8GB is installed or some other hardware solution to fix this problem, I do not know....
Certainly, the "server" editions of 32-bit Windows use various hardware and software extensions to allow access to more than 4GB; however, Win XP Home and Pro SP2 do not support this. What version of Windows were you using?

XP PRO

Just for your info. Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition and Windows Server 2000 Advanced Server support Physical Address Extensions (PAE). Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition and Windows Server 2000 support a maximum of 4GB. Yes, W2k3 32-bit will use PAE to enable DEP but it does not allow access to greater than 4GB. The Enterprise edition OR any 64-bit version is needed for >4GB.

A quick Google confirms this: :roll:
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/PAEmem.mspx

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.

 

[Mondoman]

Interesting. Was it SP2? Where in Windows did it report the full 4GB of RAM?

Original XP Pro (and maybe SP1, too) did support more than 4GB using PAE. Having Windows see a full 4GB of RAM would require either some RAM to map above 4GB or all the device memory addresses to map above 4GB, which would require drivers written to be "PAE safe", etc. It's my understanding that the incompatibilities from non-PAE-safe drivers and software were the reason Microsoft put the 4GB limit on later releases of XP.

 

[dengamle]

proware > what motherboard do you have?

does the task manager show the same amount of physical memory?
can you give a copy/paste of your memory map (use msinfo32)