"code" Licensing Limits Ram Amounts?

An issue was brought up in another thread about 64-bit Windows 7 Home only being "licensed" for a maximum 16GB of total RAM.

I expressed my doubts because I personally don't see how Microsoft (or anyone) can tell me how much RAM I can install in my computer. I understand with software, we don't really "own" the software. Rather we own a license to "use" the software based on the terms in the EULA (end user license agreement) - and we agree to abide by those terms when we make the decision to keep using the software.

But with hardware, I own it - lock, stock and barrel.

I also understand how there can be "physical" limits based on the number of address locations available. For example, the commonly mentioned 4GB limits with 32-bit operating systems. And I understand there may be limits based solely on the physical capability (or restrictions) of the software - or even limits imposed by the support capability of the motherboard. But "licensing" (to me) implies a "legal" agreement - not a physical restriction imposed by the Laws of Physics.

As seen in this Microsoft document, there are indeed "limits on physical memory" for Windows but no where in that Microsoft document is there any mention of there being limits imposed through a "license" agreement between Microsoft and the end-user (us).

The source cited for there being licensing limits is this one, where the author says,

I note the author does not work for Microsoft and that document is not from Microsoft. In fact, Geoff Chappell is software analyst who specializes in "reverse engineering" software to see how it works.

To be sure, I am NOT a programmer or a software developer. So I am basing my position through ignorance and research with my good (but not always faithful) friend, Bing Google, and by reading the EULAs.

I think where I am getting confused is Geoff Chappell's use (misuse???) of the phrase, Microsoft ... "doesn’t license you to use that code". I don't really know what "license to use that code" means. I am starting to believe, in this context, license is a "programming" term (perhaps coined by Geoff Chappell!) and not a "legal" term related to an agreement between Microsoft and the end-user of their products.

I can find no Microsoft document anywhere that says I am limited by license as to how much RAM I can use with Windows.

When I look at the Windows 7 Home EULA there is nothing in there about how much RAM we are "licensed" to use. And I note, when it comes to how we use our software, the EULA is the only license we are bound to abide by.

So my bottom line and understanding is there definitely are "physical limits" to how much RAM the various versions of Windows support, but I personally feel there are no RAM limits imposed by the Windows license.

I welcome any comments/opinions on this.

 

Russinovich: https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com...ushing-the-limits-of-windows-physical-memory/

 

Sweet! Thanks for that. Mark R is certainly someone we can trust speaks for MS. My ignorance still does not allow me to see how or why this is a "licensing" issue - I still wonder if licensing in this context is a programming term and not a legal term. Since I see Mark has commented in that blog as recently as this morning, I will ask him to explain and hope he replies.

 

Increasing market share by creating artificially restricted (using licensing), lower cost OS versions - it's been cheaper to buy the lower versions like Basic/Starter/Premium and Home to recoup some of the 'lost' profits by pushing the sale of add -ons to 'upgrade' the license and allow higher memory usage.

MS/Intel tried something similar with their 'netbook' spec., in an attempt to counter losses to Chrome/AMD/Android/ARM in the low-end laptop market, aimed at developing regions.

 

I just find it odd perhaps because I have never encountered this before. Typically, only "enthusiasts" would think of ever having 16GB, let alone more than 16GB. Those I know with more than 16GB are few and all have at least Pro versions of Windows. So this is just something I have not run into before.

I don't really see this a greed or market share grabbing thing because as you noted in your links, this goes back to Vista and back then, 8GB was considered "more than anyone would EVER need" - even enthusiasts. In fact, not sure 8GB sticks were available back then - only 4GB and pretty much only server boards had more than 4 slots. It is only in recent years that 8GB sticks became affordable. Most computer users buy factory made computers and there was not (and still is not) a big demand for more than 8GB of RAM in most computers.

I think if money came into it, it was just resources it took to code for more memory. But I may be demonstrating more of my ignorance there.

 

It goes back to XP/Server 2003 (or, perhaps more likely, OSX Server!). 2003 x86 allowed 16/64GB and XP had Starter Edition, x86 0nly and a 512MB limit. Market share grabbing/greed goes back millenia.

It was Server 2003 and AMD x64 CPUs that spawned XP x64, rather than dealing with a lack of stable (maybe any) 4GB+ drivers for a myriad of consumer components on x86, MS offered a Consumer x64 OS.

Re. ignorance: note Mark's surprise in that series where he recounts how he ordered a new PC with 4GB RAM and 2x 1GB GPUs, only to find it had less than 2GB available memory. The (local?) company supplied it with a 32-bit Windows version, and it seems that neither they nor Mark had noticed that little pitfall prior to first use.

 

No doubt. But I guess in this case (home PC market with XP), I would have to ask who are they going to grab market share from? Apple/Mac was not a threat. Nor was Linux. And I don't think it fair to lump in server software. The server market was not driving the home PC industry and still doesn't. People wanting to setup servers were not buying XP or Windows 7 Home.

I mean 16GB is still today a HUGE amount of RAM by any standard. So it seems if market share/greed were a driving factor, Microsoft would have set that licensing limit at 6GB or 8GB, not 16GB.

 

Hmmm, just checked Mark's blog again and what I thought was a reply today, may not be as the last 20 replies were all made on July 11, 2016 at 6:31 pm. My reply is bending moderator review, so hurry up and wait, I guess.

 

If Apple/Mac/*nix/ARM/Android wasn't/isn't seen as a threat by MS we'd probably still be stuck with Vista or W8.

What happened with MS's 'phone OS share? Tablet share?

 

I think the problem there is, they were not better products - plus they were late to the game and the others already had an established foothold.

As for Vista or W8, both were marketing failures - doomed from the start. Vista just was no better than XP and too buggy. And while W8 was a superior OS than W7, nobody liked being forced into learning a new UI that had a steep learning curve and was not user friendly.

Microsoft has had to come out with new and truly improved products in order to entice users to give up their still functioning older generation products. Neither Vista or W8 did that so neither were successes with any chance of sticking around.

Another issue is the hardware makers are not sitting on their thumbs either. They are advancing the state-of-the-art independently of Microsoft and users are demanding operating systems that support their new hardware. Microsoft has to join and keep up or be left behind. So W10 is designed to support current and future hardware technologies - a very good thing.

And of course, the bad guys have played a role here too - XP is not safe and each new generation of Windows is safer than the one before.

Any cut in market share is seen as threat, but much of that is users giving up their PCs for handheld devices and game consoles. More and more users are using their smart phones for ALL their computing needs and just don't want big, heavy PCs anymore. That is not Microsoft's fault.

I am not denying corporate greed plays a role. Of course it does. Microsoft has lots of shareholders they have a fiduciary responsibility to. But in my opinion, Apple is a much bigger and greedier offender, by a long shot. All their products are proprietary and very expensive. Apple is much bigger than Microsoft and doing everything it can to stay that way - at consumer's expense. Microsoft barely made the top 50 in this list.

 

Interesting thread. My POS Inspiron came with Win 8.1 Core and 12GB of RAM which I upped to 16GB. 16GB is the max it will take. UEFI/BIOS limitations?

 

Have a look at what this guy did.
https://feilipu.me/2011/05/18/windows-7-starter-with-up-to-128gb-ram/

 

Eldon, that's based on the info from Geoff Chappell that I linked to in the other topic and Bill repeated in the OP here.

@mdonah: could be a chipset/# of RAM slots limitation.

 

Could be. As satrow noted, it ould also be the chipset. The CPU and its integrated memory controller sets limits too.