Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 21st Jan 2009 11:30 UTC
We've been able to drop the world of 32bit for a while now, with 64bit processors and support for them being prevalent in all popular, modern operating systems. However, where Mac OS X and Linux seem to make the move to 64bit rather effortlessly, Windows has more problems. Even though 32bit applications should run fine on 64bit Windows, some don't; and to make matters worse, drivers need to be 64bit, as there's no support for 32bit drivers in 64bit versions of Windows. Still, Gizmodo claims that with Windows 7, the time is right to take the plunge. But really, is it so? And why do Linux and Mac OS X seem to handle the transition so much easier?
Thread beginning with comment 344712
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: More than 4GB with 32bits
by PlatformAgnostic on Wed 21st Jan 2009 13:26
in reply to "More than 4GB with 32bits"
Member since:2006-01-02
Client (non-Server) releases of Windows force physical addresses to be in the 4 GB range because of historical problems in 32-bit drivers due to storing physical addresses in 32-bit variables. Server drivers tend to be better-tested in these circumstances, so high addresses are allowed on those.
Also, Windows processes get 2GB each on 32-bit systems. A 32-bit process on a 64-bit system can get 4GB if its executable is marked as large address aware (basically a promise by the app writer to the OS that he/she is not using the top bit of pointers for nefarious purposes).
RE: More than 4GB with 32bits
by panzi on Wed 21st Jan 2009 13:47
in reply to "More than 4GB with 32bits"
Member since:2006-01-22
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2006-01-11
32bits OSes are limited to 4GB per application
Since the Pentium Pro (1995), x86 can have at least 36bits (=64GB) of physical address space.
I don't know whether current OSes use it though.