32-bit operating system to a 64-bit operating system

"Tim" wrote

| And while I am writing, remember that even if you have a 64bit OS
| installed, when you go to run a 32bit program, you will still run into
| the 4GB memory limitation. Just something to keep in mind.
|

That's a good point. And as can be seen at this link,
even that limit is usually not realistic:

https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/tom...bit-processes/

On 09/25/2017 09:23 AM, Jonathan N. Little wrote:

[snip]

You will have to backup all your data off the system. Gather up all your
program install disks or downloaded installers. Install the Windows from
the 64-bit disk or ISO. Following that comes the tedious part of copying
back your data and reinstalling all your third-party apps.

That kind of thing is a reason to keep DATA on a separate partition (or
even a different hard disk). No backup/restore needed to change OS.
However, backups are still a good idea.

--
91 days until the winter celebration (Monday December 25, 2017 12:00:00
AM for 1 day).

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"Education is a crutch with which the foolish attack the wise to prove
that they are not idiots." -- Karl Kraus

On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 06:36:45 -0600, Albert
wrote:

I have Windows 10 Home with a 32-bit operating system, x64-based
processor and I would like to go to a 64-bit operating system. Can I
and if so how do I without losing any data on my computer change to a
64 bit operating system.

Edition Windows 10 Home
Version 1703
OS Build 15063.608
Product ID 00326-10000-00000-AA088
Processor Intel (R) Core (TM) i17-479K CPU @ 4.00 Hz 4.00 GHz
Installed RAM 16.0 GB (2.69 GB usable)
System type 32-bit operating system, x 64-based processor
PN and touch No pen or touch input is available for this display

Reading posts in the thread, wasn't there some setting one could use
to increase memory seen by 32 bit OS. Been a few years if I remember
correctly and don't remember who, what, where or when !!


KenW

wrote

| Reading posts in the thread, wasn't there some setting one could use
| to increase memory seen by 32 bit OS. Been a few years if I remember
| correctly and don't remember who, what, where or when !!
|
Yes. See this link:

https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/tom...bit-processes/

It's a bit more complicated than just how much memory
is available.

Mayayana wrote:

Some people think an older computer is a security
risk. That's as much a partial truth as "RAM makes
things fast".

No that is absolute true. XP *has* vulnerabilities. Those
vulnerabilities are *not* being fixed. Those vulnerabilities are *are*
known.

I've converted old XP users wanting to salvage their old systems to
Linux and they at lease supported patched OS and applications.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 09/25/2017 09:23 AM, Jonathan N. Little wrote:

[snip]

You will have to backup all your data off the system. Gather up all
your program install disks or downloaded installers. Install the
Windows from the 64-bit disk or ISO. Following that comes the tedious
part of copying back your data and reinstalling all your third-party
apps.

That kind of thing is a reason to keep DATA on a separate partition (or
even a different hard disk). No backup/restore needed to change OS.
However, backups are still a good idea.


Except MS has never really made isolating user data from the OS a thing.
10 is better but the registry is still the spoiler. If OP had a Linux
system preserving /home is a cinch. Install 64-bit and restore /home (or
only point to in during setup without reformatting) and ALL your stuff
is there.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

"Jonathan N. Little" wrote

| Some people think an older computer is a security
| risk. That's as much a partial truth as "RAM makes
| things fast".
|
| No that is absolute true. XP *has* vulnerabilities.

Again you've slightly twisted the statement. XP
has vulnerabilities. Yes. I didn't say it doesn't. I said
using an older OS doesn't make for an unsafe OS,
which is the fuzzy logic that MS and their partners
use to scare people into buying new stuff.

All OSs have vulnerabilities. But the most bugs are
going to be aimed at currently popular OSs. If a
new bug targets XP it will probably be accidental.

Just today someone posted a 0-day attack for Macs.
Many attacks are 0-day. That means that AV and
Windows patches are not prepared for them. That's
what allows the NSA to spy so much. They're a 0-day
factory. Do you suppose they're writing them for
XP? No. They're writing them for 7-10.

8 of the top 10 attack vectors in 2015 were with
Flash. 2016? 6 Flash. 2 IE. 1 Silverlight. 1 Windows.
The Windows bug involves embedded fonts.

Do you have Flash installed? Do you enable web fonts?
Do you enable script in the browser? Do you have
Silverlight installed? Do you allow ads to load from
popular ad servers? Do you allow remote connection to
your computer? Do you have MS Office installed?
(MS Office has always been a malware magnet. Here's
just one that was "exploited for months":

https://arstechnica.com/information-...ge-bedfellows/
)

If you answer yes to even one of the above then
you're probably at notably greater risk on Win10
than I am on XP. If it's yes to more than one then
you're at still greater risk. For instance, allow ads
*and* allow script and you've enabled a common
attack vector.

All OSs have vulnerabilities. Typical usage is not
safe. Leaving Win10 on an update dripfeed will
help somewhat. (In addition to allowing Microsoft
to screw with your system on a daily basis. Do you
call that security?)

| Those vulnerabilities are *not* being fixed.
| Those vulnerabilities are *are* known.

Actually they are being fixed. Any big corporation
willing to pay through the nose is getting patches.
Microsoft just refuses to give those patches to
their other customers, at any price, despite that
they've created them. Microsoft even refuses to
list the XP bugs. But big companies are getting them
and as I understand it, a Registry setting that tells
MS your computer is a kiosk system, such as an ATM,
will also give you those patches. I haven't done
that myself. Ask me if I'm worried.

Mayayana wrote:
"Tim" wrote

| And while I am writing, remember that even if you have a 64bit OS
| installed, when you go to run a 32bit program, you will still run into
| the 4GB memory limitation. Just something to keep in mind.
|

That's a good point. And as can be seen at this link,
even that limit is usually not realistic:

https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/tom...bit-processes/

It's funny about that limit, as Photoshop stops at 1.8GB.

If I run my malloc test program on a 32-bit OS, it gets up to 1919.
The program is only like, 12 lines long, so the program doesn't
need much space itself. Unlike Photoshop. Hmmm. That's 128MB
away from 2048MB, roughly speaking. Almost like something
is being used to guard the end of the map.

....
01915 megabytes t=001.261088
01916 megabytes t=001.261796
01917 megabytes t=001.262504
01918 megabytes t=001.263213
01919 megabytes t=001.263926

H:\MALLOC

I've also set up an OS with the /3GB flag, as well
as tested the 64-bit compiled version on my Test Machine.

*******

This is malloc64 on Win7 x64. Notice how much slower
the last allocations are, as the OS is being squeezed to
give this memory up at the same time. It took 29 seconds
to fill all of RAM.

....
63054 megabytes t=029.101187
63055 megabytes t=029.101665
63056 megabytes t=029.102129
63057 megabytes t=029.102602
63058 megabytes t=029.200581

D:\

This is a screenshot of that run, part way through. The time
per megabyte here, is still respectable.

https://s26.postimg.org/wmuv41ynd/slow.gif

Now, if I run the malloc.exe 32-bit version with
largeaddressaware flag set on Win7 x64, it gets this close to 4GB.
And because the memory subsystem isn't under any pressure,
it can fill a 1MB block in 300usec (about 3GB/sec).
4096 minus 3821 is 275, so the other observation
was probably a coincidence. Or, how memory is handled,
is slightly different on Win7 than on the WinXP used
for the 1919 test case.

03817 megabytes t=001.165644
03818 megabytes t=001.165936
03819 megabytes t=001.166256
03820 megabytes t=001.166561
03821 megabytes t=001.166852

D:\

Paul

wrote:
On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 06:36:45 -0600, Albert
wrote:

I have Windows 10 Home with a 32-bit operating system, x64-based
processor and I would like to go to a 64-bit operating system. Can I
and if so how do I without losing any data on my computer change to a
64 bit operating system.

Edition Windows 10 Home
Version 1703
OS Build 15063.608
Product ID 00326-10000-00000-AA088
Processor Intel (R) Core (TM) i17-479K CPU @ 4.00 Hz 4.00 GHz
Installed RAM 16.0 GB (2.69 GB usable)
System type 32-bit operating system, x 64-based processor
PN and touch No pen or touch input is available for this display

Reading posts in the thread, wasn't there some setting one could use
to increase memory seen by 32 bit OS. Been a few years if I remember
correctly and don't remember who, what, where or when !!


KenW

That's called PAE, and yes, it can. You can have 64GB of RAM
usable in a 32-bit OS. Each process cannot access more than
two to four gigabytes, so one 32-bit process is not allowed to
own the whole thing. That takes a good deal of the "fun" out of it.

However, the implementation of the "Microsoft memory license",
prevents this from happening.

How the memory license works, is pretty specific. There is
4GB of address space allowed in Ring 3. Ring 0 (kernel and
driver space) is not limited.

I have 8GB of memory installed on this WinXP Sp3 x32 machine.
SP3 enables PAE to get the NX bit in the page table.
As a side bonus, that leaves the PAE door open.

A certain range of versions of DataRAM RAMDisk are capable
of using PAE space. The RAMDisk runs in Ring0. Thus, I
can have 3.2GB of memory for WinXP (in Ring3 application space),
and 4GB for the RAMdisk (in Ring0 driver space),
out of 8GB total on a 32-bit OS.

The real ****er, is DataRAM removed the PAE capability.
Newer versions of their software no longer have that setting.
Almost like "someone asked them nicely to remove it" :-(
But, I have the capability I need here, so I no longer
care about this. My copy works...

Paul

On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 15:20:34 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:

wrote

| Reading posts in the thread, wasn't there some setting one could use
| to increase memory seen by 32 bit OS. Been a few years if I remember
| correctly and don't remember who, what, where or when !!
|
Yes. See this link:

https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/tom...bit-processes/

It's a bit more complicated than just how much memory
is available.

Didn't remember where the setting was. Never used it though !


KenW

On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 19:28:42 -0400, Paul
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 06:36:45 -0600, Albert
wrote:

I have Windows 10 Home with a 32-bit operating system, x64-based
processor and I would like to go to a 64-bit operating system. Can I
and if so how do I without losing any data on my computer change to a
64 bit operating system.

Edition Windows 10 Home
Version 1703
OS Build 15063.608
Product ID 00326-10000-00000-AA088
Processor Intel (R) Core (TM) i17-479K CPU @ 4.00 Hz 4.00 GHz
Installed RAM 16.0 GB (2.69 GB usable)
System type 32-bit operating system, x 64-based processor
PN and touch No pen or touch input is available for this display

Reading posts in the thread, wasn't there some setting one could use
to increase memory seen by 32 bit OS. Been a few years if I remember
correctly and don't remember who, what, where or when !!


KenW

That's called PAE, and yes, it can. You can have 64GB of RAM
usable in a 32-bit OS. Each process cannot access more than
two to four gigabytes, so one 32-bit process is not allowed to
own the whole thing. That takes a good deal of the "fun" out of it.

However, the implementation of the "Microsoft memory license",
prevents this from happening.

How the memory license works, is pretty specific. There is
4GB of address space allowed in Ring 3. Ring 0 (kernel and
driver space) is not limited.

I have 8GB of memory installed on this WinXP Sp3 x32 machine.
SP3 enables PAE to get the NX bit in the page table.
As a side bonus, that leaves the PAE door open.

A certain range of versions of DataRAM RAMDisk are capable
of using PAE space. The RAMDisk runs in Ring0. Thus, I
can have 3.2GB of memory for WinXP (in Ring3 application space),
and 4GB for the RAMdisk (in Ring0 driver space),
out of 8GB total on a 32-bit OS.

The real ****er, is DataRAM removed the PAE capability.
Newer versions of their software no longer have that setting.
Almost like "someone asked them nicely to remove it" :-(
But, I have the capability I need here, so I no longer
care about this. My copy works...

Paul

I guess it would not work with Win 10. Almost all machines come with 8
gigs these days. I went up to 16 gigs on one laptop. Never noticed any
difference although I doubt I would.


KenW

On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 06:36:45 -0600, Albert
wrote:

I have Windows 10 Home with a 32-bit operating system, x64-based
processor and I would like to go to a 64-bit operating system. Can I
and if so how do I without losing any data on my computer change to a
64 bit operating system.

Edition Windows 10 Home
Version 1703
OS Build 15063.608
Product ID 00326-10000-00000-AA088
Processor Intel (R) Core (TM) i17-479K CPU @ 4.00 Hz 4.00 GHz
Installed RAM 16.0 GB (2.69 GB usable)
System type 32-bit operating system, x 64-based processor
PN and touch No pen or touch input is available for this display

All good suggestions! First off I put the computer together myself in
a Thermaltake box and went from there. But I've decided to stick with
what I have for the near future. So back to the drawing board.

Anyway, I think everyone for their input.
Albert

On 25/09/2017 14:25, Mathedman wrote:
On 9/25/2017 7:36 AM, Albert wrote:
I have Windows 10 Home with a 32-bit operating system, x64-based
processor and I would like to go to a 64-bit operating system. Can I
and if so how do I without losing any data on my computer change to a
64 bit operating system.

EditionÂ*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Windows 10 Home
VersionÂ*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* 1703
OS BuildÂ*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* 15063.608
Product IDÂ*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* 00326-10000-00000-AA088
ProcessorÂ*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Intel (R) Core (TM) i17-479K CPU @ 4.00 Hz 4.00 GHz
Installed RAMÂ*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* 16.0 GB (2.69 GB usable)
System typeÂ*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* 32-bit operating system, x 64-based processor
PN and touchÂ*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* No pen or touch input is available for this display


Â* your computer already contains both systems!Â* ("SYSTEM" and
"SYSTEM32") . What do you mean "go to a 64-bit system" ??

SYSTEM is left over from when Windows was 16 bit and is present in both
32 and 64 bit Windows but doesn't hold very much stuff.

SYSTEM32 is much of the 32 bit stuff for 32 bit Windows but with the 64
bit version of Windows SYSTEM32 contains 64 bit stuff and the equivalent
32 bit stuff is in SysWOW64. Yes I DO have that the right way round,
it's weird I know but that's how it is.

--

Brian Gregory (in the UK).
To email me please remove all the letter vee from my email address.

Tim wrote:

And while I am writing, remember that even if you have a
64bit OS installed, when you go to run a 32bit program, you
will still run into the 4GB memory limitation. Just
something to keep in mind.

That never makes any difference in reality. You need not keep
anything in mind. The 32-bit programs install and run just
like 64-bit programs.

That is similar to worrying about whether a single program
will use multiple cores. You need not worry about such
things. There are AT ALL TIMES a gazillion other processes
running on your computer that use the extra memory and the
extra cores.

On 09/25/2017 03:34 PM, Jonathan N. Little wrote:

[snip]

Except MS has never really made isolating user data from the OS a thing.
10 is better but the registry is still the spoiler. If OP had a Linux
system preserving /home is a cinch. Install 64-bit and restore /home (or
only point to in during setup without reformatting) and ALL your stuff
is there.

One thing I would do on Windows systems, is try to avoid mixing my data
with the OS, as IT seemed to want (all those "My*" directories, etc...).
This is still not as completely successful as with Linux (for one thing,
there's still that **** registry).

--
90 days until the winter celebration (Monday December 25, 2017 12:00:00
AM for 1 day).

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"There are no sects in geometry." [Voltaire, Philosophical Dictionary,
1764]