Behind the 4GB Memory Limit In 32-Bit Windows 756
An anonymous reader points us to a very detailed post by Geoff Chappell, first put up early this year, explaining how the 4GB memory limit commonly bandied about for 32-bit Windows (he is writing mainly about Vista) is more of a licensing preference than an architectural limit. The article outlines how Chappell unlocked his system to use all the memory that is present, but cautions that such hackery is ill-advised for several reasons, including legal ones. "If you want [to be able to use more than 4GB in Vista] without contrivance, then pester Microsoft for an upgrade of the license data or at least for a credible, detailed reasoning of its policy for licensing your use of your computer's memory. ... [C]onsider Windows Server 2008. For the loader and kernel in Windows Vista SP1 (and, by the way, for the overwhelming majority of all executables), the corresponding executable in Windows Server 2008 is exactly the same, byte for byte. Yet Microsoft sells 32-bit Windows Server 2008 for use with as much as 64GB of memory. Does Microsoft really mean to say that when it re-badges these same executables as Windows Vista SP1, they suddenly acquire an architectural limit of 4GB? Or is it that a driver for Windows Server 2008 is safe for using with memory above 4GB as long as you don't let it interact with the identical executables from Windows Vista SP1?"
I don't understand... (Score:5, Funny)
is more of a licensing preference then an architectural limit
So it's a licensing preference, followed by an architectural limit? If so, how is this a story?
Re:Wa wa what? (Score:5, Funny)
In fact, you can barrow someone's 64 bit disk ...
Barrow [wiktionary.org]:
A mound of earth and stones raised over a grave or graves.
Your plan to put 64 bit copies of Windows in the ground and cover them with grave stones and dirt intrigues me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Re:Simple (Score:5, Funny)
...they can't do stupid shit like assume they are loaded in the memory space between 3GB->4GB, I'd imagine.
You must be new here...
Re:Wa wa what? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:32b? (Score:4, Funny)
You'd be surprised. You see alot of people go into BestFutureBigBlockStoreUSAToday and say "My computer's running slow!" and they go "You need more Rams!" and the customer goes "How much will that cost me?" and they go "300 Bones, and we'll do it for you!" and next thing you know, Blogger Buddy Bill has 8 Gigs of RAM on his 32b XP. And because he paid so much, he insists theres a difference!
Re:Wa wa what? (Score:5, Funny)
I have added you to my newsletter as requested. Email confirmation should be received in 1-2 hours.
Mr. Brinestar, confirmation of E-mail confirmation received at 3:31 PM EST:
Subject: Subscription Confirmation for Binestar's newsletter that you requested on slashdot.
This is an automated email confirming your subscription to Binestar's newsletter as requested in your slashdot post here: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1347281&cid=29191073 [slashdot.org]
There is currently no way to remove yourself from this newsletter subscription. I hope you knew what you were doing when you subscribed!
Having completed reading your first newsletter (posted above), I found it vapid and devoid of the call to Microsoftalypse that I look for in all the periodicals I read (most notably my own newsletter entitled eldavojohn's Microsoftalypse that has a staggeringly high readership of a one eldavojohn of Slashdot.org).
Furthermore, to my horror, I noticed it was sent using an account from a hotmail.com address. Considering this datum, I found your footnote warning eerily apt. I shall post a scathing review of your newsletter (seven times longer than necessary) under the guise of frequent and unquestioned Slashdot contributor Bennett Haselton on the morrow. Good day, sir!
Re:Wa wa what? (Score:5, Funny)
Meh, us Linux users sneer at your pathetic Windows barrows. We put our stuff in SSH tunnels.
Re:Let's just get over this and move to 64bit (Score:3, Funny)
Seriously, there are no real technical reasons why we can't just run 64bit operating systems. Let's just stop selling 2-bit ones.
Fixed that for ya.
Re:I didn't ... (Score:3, Funny)
If only they linked to an article that explains that~
dumbass.
Re:I don't understand... (Score:1, Funny)
<htmlnazi>I think you're missing a starting tag there, buddy!</htmlnazi>
Re:32b? (Score:3, Funny)
Are there people out there who have more than 4GB of memory but still run old 32b operating systems?
Yes [ibm.com].
(In all fairness, though, we don't have more than 4GB of memory per processor.)
Re:I don't understand... (Score:4, Funny)
No, it's a licensing limit..
I think you missed the point of the parent. Schon was wittily illustrating the grammar mistake (then/than) and the effect it has on the meaning of the statement.
An appropriate response would have been something equally witty such as, "Well I don't know about you but I'd rather have 4GB then 32GB!"
Re:Nobody needs more than 640K of RAM (Score:4, Funny)
idk my BFFFFFFF jill?
Re:Wa wa what? (Score:3, Funny)
Often would have done - but this time ;-) I thought of it roughly in the middle of the rest of my ramble. Maybe I'm just slow today!
Please tell me that you're not an English teacher! (Score:1, Funny)
Big pet peeve of mine; then vs. than.
I agree with the intent of what you wrote. However, please note the following:
- what you wrote constitutes an incomplete sentence;
- semicolons are for lists, commas are for correlation.
People have gotten so lazy in their pronunciation, that they cannot determine which word they are even using. ...sigh
The specific thought that you wished to convey is obfuscated due to the following:
- the use of the comma is inappropriate as it introduces an unnatural pause;
- "are even using" is a split infinitive;
- the use of the noun "pronunciation" is inappropriate in this context unless you were reviewing an audio clip of the post or made an odd leap in logic.
Now I will leave it to other grammar nazis to trash the grammar in my post.
Just Recompile it (Score:5, Funny)
What's the problem? Just grab the source and recompile it.