32 vs 64 Windows RAM addressing

Any chance you can edit my post and/or sticky something about 32bit verses 64 bit OS's?

I am tired of the misconception about RAM limits and could use a link to a thread here as a "professional" reference. Back in 2000 Win2000 Datacenter would address 32Gb quite nicely thank you. Win7 32 bit (and any other 32 bit OS) could address a ton more than 4Gb, except Microsoft chooses to limit to 4Gb total.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778(VS.85).aspx

a careful read shows the posters confuse what is possible with what is available.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit

is a good time line, 64Gb addressable RAM from the CPU since the Pentium II?

There is much touting of 64 bit desktop system superiority, but precious little fact giving. But for most users it holds no advantage - otherwise we would all be running Macs as Apple beat Windows to 64 bit by a couple of years. i.e. Panther in 2003 vs XP Pro in 2005.

 

I think you will find that 32-bit is a hardware limitation, as both Linux and Apple 32-bit versions can only address up to 4GB of RAM.

 

Does this help?

I wrote it a long while back, in the hopes it would help people. I agree, a sticky in the hardware forum might be useful to have. Not necessarily my post, just something to reference.

And it's not just hardware. A 32-bit OS on 64-bit hardware is still limited to 4GB total.

 

Two posts touting the exact misconception I am trying to dispell.... ARRGH
You did not look at the links I guess.
The 4Gb limit is SOFTWARE for total and HARDWARE for per application.
If you don't believe me, read the Wiki; Windows 32 bit OS has been addressing much more than 4Gb since 2000; 10 years now.
For now a 32 bit OS running 8Gb of RAM should be faster than a 64 bit due to emulation and wasted space. There are exceptions in CAD, video editing and some other heavy use, but for the most part 32 bit is faster.

 

That's.... not what I've seen when comparing and benchmarking, and not what friends of mine have experienced either. Based on our numbers 64-bit Win7 runs faster than 32-bit does, same with applications asked to do the exact same task (on identical hardware). We're just a small group though, so we might not be typical, but still... what you're saying might fit the theory, but it goes against our practical tests.

Also, I think this might be closer to what you were looking for.

Of course the whole bit about how 32-bit operating systems could address more memory if the OS wasn't limited the way it is, only matters if you care about the theory behind it, and not about the practical outcome. Because at the end of the day, regardless of whether the limitation is artificially forced on the computer or not, it's still there. The average home user with Windows XP SP3 will still only be able to see and access between 3GB and 3.5GB, and they won't be able to change that nor are they likely to be interested in doing so.