If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Win10 32 bit
Just curious why 32bit Win10 even exists.
I don't think one could find anything other than a 64bit mobo . Supposedly Win10 32 will run with less RAM but I could not imagine running any machine with less than 4 gigs of RAM. 8 gigs minimum seems to be pretty standard. I recently purchased a new mobo that would not even support only 2 gigs of RAM. Minimum to even boot was 4 gigs |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Win10 32 bit
"philo" wrote
| Just curious why 32bit Win10 even exists. | Maybe for 32-bit conversions from Win7? Maybe for smaller devices? Maybe because full 64-bit support is just now happening and some software still only comes in 32-bit? At this point 32-bit compatibility is probably still more common than 64-bit. | I don't think one could find anything other than a 64bit mobo . | What's a 64-bit motherboard? I just built a new box for my XP last year. It runs an 8-core AMD on an Asus motherboard. Thanks to AMD, Intel was forced to support both 32 and 64-bit in the same CPU. I bought a new printer a few months ago. HP. It has XP drivers. It's like cellphones and highspeed. If you listen to Silicon Valley marketers you might think all of the US is calling Uber on an iPhone to meet their Foursquare buddies at Starbucks. But only about 2/3 of the US even has highspeed. I have a brother in NH who only recently got DSL access. Before that he was using satellite, which would cut out on cloudy days. He doesn't get cellphone service at his house. A similar number in the US have computer phones. Win-64? Very few people need it. Eventually they probably will, but not yet, and probably not for some time to come. Microsoft and Mozilla and some other companies are very talented at using up any hardware resources you give them, but they don't need to. | Supposedly Win10 32 will run with less RAM but I could not imagine | running any machine with less than 4 gigs of RAM. 8 gigs minimum seems | to be pretty standard. | I run most of the time on 32-bit. The mania over massive RAM is just that. What do you do that needs 8 GB RAM? Video editing? Multiple video streams? It's like suburban pickup truck drivers who get jacked up suspension, hunting lights, and various other fancy add-ons but only drive to the grocery store and back. You can buy a cheap computer with 16 GB RAM or more, but you probably don't need that. It's just that people are impressed by the high numbers. I have a Win7-64 box that I occasionally use for big things like editing large video or audio files, but other than that, XP-32 responds instantly in nearly everything I do. Instantly. Can Win10-64 do that? That includes image editing. | I recently purchased a new mobo that would not even support only 2 gigs | of RAM. Minimum to even boot was 4 gigs Yes. So what? My latest box is similar. I bought one 4 GB RAM stick to go in it. At the time a 4 GB stick was very cheap, so there was no sense buying less. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Win10 32 bit
"philo" wrote
| Just curious why 32bit Win10 even exists. | There's an apropos discussion today in the Firefox group. Someone asked why, when he clicked the download link at Mozilla, he wasn't automatically given 64-bit Firefox for his 64-bit Windows. People explained that few use 64-bit Firefox because there's no advantage and some add-ons don't work with it. That's pretty much the case in general: 64-bit allows for bigger numbers as default. That's all. But in doing so it requires rewriting software and using new functions. There's no sense writing 64-bit software if it still has to use 32-bit values in function calls. So 32-bit software runs on Win64 because Microsoft provided for a smooth transition, but the opposite is not true and cannot be made to work. Meanwhile, for the vast majority of computing tasks, having those bigger numbers as default is just not needed yet. It's more like planning for the future. The only notable difference now is the RAM limitation. But as noted, that has very little real effect for most people. I actually built a new Win7-64 box for my ladyfriend recently, because she does large scale digital photography work so I figured she could benefit from more RAM, and I didn't want to wait so long that she might be stuck with Win10. But one of her printers didn't have Win7 drivers that work. (Like USB in Win95, Microsoft offers drivers. They just don't work. And she didn't like the general complications of moving to Win7, while she was having no trouble working on XP. So the Win7-64 is there for later. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Win10 32 bit
On 04/16/2017 09:37 AM, Mayayana wrote:
"philo" wrote | Just curious why 32bit Win10 even exists. | Maybe for 32-bit conversions from Win7? Maybe for smaller devices? Maybe because full 64-bit support is just now happening and some software still only comes in 32-bit? At this point 32-bit compatibility is probably still more common than 64-bit. | I don't think one could find anything other than a 64bit mobo . | What's a 64-bit motherboard? I just built a new box for my XP last year. It runs an 8-core AMD on an Asus motherboard. Thanks to AMD, Intel was forced to support both 32 and 64-bit in the same CPU. I bought a new printer a few months ago. HP. It has XP drivers. It's like cellphones and highspeed. If you listen to Silicon Valley marketers you might think all of the US is calling Uber on an iPhone to meet their Foursquare buddies at Starbucks. But only about 2/3 of the US even has highspeed. I have a brother in NH who only recently got DSL access. Before that he was using satellite, which would cut out on cloudy days. He doesn't get cellphone service at his house. A similar number in the US have computer phones. Win-64? Very few people need it. Eventually they probably will, but not yet, and probably not for some time to come. Microsoft and Mozilla and some other companies are very talented at using up any hardware resources you give them, but they don't need to. | Supposedly Win10 32 will run with less RAM but I could not imagine | running any machine with less than 4 gigs of RAM. 8 gigs minimum seems | to be pretty standard. | I run most of the time on 32-bit. The mania over massive RAM is just that. What do you do that needs 8 GB RAM? Video editing? Multiple video streams? It's like suburban pickup truck drivers who get jacked up suspension, hunting lights, and various other fancy add-ons but only drive to the grocery store and back. You can buy a cheap computer with 16 GB RAM or more, but you probably don't need that. It's just that people are impressed by the high numbers. I have a Win7-64 box that I occasionally use for big things like editing large video or audio files, but other than that, XP-32 responds instantly in nearly everything I do. Instantly. Can Win10-64 do that? That includes image editing. | I recently purchased a new mobo that would not even support only 2 gigs | of RAM. Minimum to even boot was 4 gigs Yes. So what? My latest box is similar. I bought one 4 GB RAM stick to go in it. At the time a 4 GB stick was very cheap, so there was no sense buying less. Thank you for the reply. Yes, I can now see the logic...upgrading Win7 32bit to Win10 would make some sense I guess..but really I don't see the point in even upgrading Win7 to Win10 but maybe if there is new hardware that has no Win7 drivers that would make sense. As to RAM , I need as much as I can get because there art times I may be editing a large image in Photoshop and doing other work as well. RAM is so cheap...I figure might as well do it. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Win10 32 bit
On 04/16/2017 11:20 AM, Mayayana wrote:
"philo" wrote | Just curious why 32bit Win10 even exists. | There's an apropos discussion today in the Firefox group. Someone asked why, when he clicked the download link at Mozilla, he wasn't automatically given 64-bit Firefox for his 64-bit Windows. People explained that few use 64-bit Firefox because there's no advantage and some add-ons don't work with it. Just noticed on my Win7 64 machine FF is 32 bit... I have no plans to change it. That's pretty much the case in general: 64-bit allows for bigger numbers as default. That's all. But in doing so it requires rewriting software and using new functions. There's no sense writing 64-bit software if it still has to use 32-bit values in function calls. So 32-bit software runs on Win64 because Microsoft provided for a smooth transition, but the opposite is not true and cannot be made to work. Meanwhile, for the vast majority of computing tasks, having those bigger numbers as default is just not needed yet. It's more like planning for the future. The only notable difference now is the RAM limitation. But as noted, that has very little real effect for most people. I actually built a new Win7-64 box for my ladyfriend recently, because she does large scale digital photography work so I figured she could benefit from more RAM, and I didn't want to wait so long that she might be stuck with Win10. But one of her printers didn't have Win7 drivers that work. (Like USB in Win95, Microsoft offers drivers. They just don't work. And she didn't like the general complications of moving to Win7, while she was having no trouble working on XP. So the Win7-64 is there for later. As to Win95 (b) Only once did I see a machine where the USB actually worked...it was a Packard Bell and I kept it for my collection. I recall compiling a USB kernel for RedHat 5.2 and putting in a USB add on card, but never got it to work. In more recent times, I talked to a friend who used to write drivers for a living and he told me I would have had to have done more than just add USB support, I would have had to have added particulars about the card itself and that if the machine had on-board USB it might have worked though. I'm so far behind...it was not until two weeks ago that I finally upgraded my own machines to USB-3 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Win10 32 bit
On 04/16/2017 09:37 AM, Mayayana wrote:
[snip] I run most of the time on 32-bit. The mania over massive RAM is just that. What do you do that needs 8 GB RAM? Video editing? Multiple video streams? I need it on one machine, for running virtual machines. [snip] -- Mark Lloyd http://notstupid.us/ "When religion comes in at the door common sense goes out at the window." [Lemuel K. Washburn, _Is The Bible Worth Reading And Other Essays_] |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Win10 32 bit
[snip] The only notable difference now is the RAM limitation. Apparently many people don't know that that memory limitation is completely artificial. Nearly all CPUs allow up to 64GB RAM in 32-bit mode. It's just Windows that won't let you use it. This limitation does not apply to other OSes, such as Linux. [snip] -- Mark Lloyd http://notstupid.us/ "When religion comes in at the door common sense goes out at the window." [Lemuel K. Washburn, _Is The Bible Worth Reading And Other Essays_] |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Win10 32 bit
"Mark Lloyd" wrote
| Apparently many people don't know that that memory limitation is | completely artificial.... It's just Windows that won't let you use it. | That seems pretty real to me. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Win10 32 bit
On 04/16/2017 01:08 PM, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 04/16/2017 09:37 AM, Mayayana wrote: [snip] I run most of the time on 32-bit. The mania over massive RAM is just that. What do you do that needs 8 GB RAM? Video editing? Multiple video streams? I need it on one machine, for running virtual machines. [snip] Win10_32 in a virtual machine would make sense |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Win10 32 bit
On 04/16/2017 01:11 PM, Mark Lloyd wrote:
[snip] The only notable difference now is the RAM limitation. Apparently many people don't know that that memory limitation is completely artificial. Nearly all CPUs allow up to 64GB RAM in 32-bit mode. It's just Windows that won't let you use it. This limitation does not apply to other OSes, such as Linux. [snip] Yes before I moved up to a 64 bit version of Linux I could use more RAM by using a PAE kernel and it was as simple as that |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Win10 32 bit
Mark Lloyd wrote:
[snip] The only notable difference now is the RAM limitation. Apparently many people don't know that that memory limitation is completely artificial. Nearly all CPUs allow up to 64GB RAM in 32-bit mode. It's just Windows that won't let you use it. This limitation does not apply to other OSes, such as Linux. [snip] This is patently Not True. Processors have physical memory limits. The low end are capped on purpose by Intel. The high end are capped by the limits of the imagination of the JEDEC staff. Intel (on purpose), ensures that their $17 processor cannot support "too much RAM". Doing this, prevents the $17 processor from being offered in a $500 laptop. Not in a million years, will that $17 processor be accessing 64GB of RAM. The Walmart Black Friday tablet for $100, was limited to 1GB of RAM. Attempts to solder more RAM to the motherboard, would be useless. Intel controls the RAM limit. As the price goes up, both the bus count, the RAM limits, they go up. The very worst of Intel processors, only has "half-a-bus", and the memory path is 32 bit. Regular DIMMs are 64 bits wide (and this has nothing to do with the bitness of the processor either, it just happens to be the preferred size with respect to cache line size and DRAM burst size and so on). The Intel processor with the 32 bit wide memory bus, the only memory option is soldering chips to the motherboard. For garbage like this, it wouldn't matter whether you ran Linux or Windows, 32 bit or 64 bit OS. It's a hardware limit. ******* Your references seems to be an oblique reference to PAE, a feature available since Pentium III days. At the time, PAE was set up for 36 bits (64GB, as you say). A virtual translation from a 32-bit program 32 bit address, would come out of the TLB as a 36-bit value. However, PAE implementations since then, have used even larger busses for this. AMD has had some bigger PAE implementations than some of the Intel ones (say, 40 bits or so, suited to multi-socket server boards and immense address spaces). I don't regularly re-examine this to see what the value is today. But it can be bigger. PAE is not a free lunch. To use all 64GB of RAM you might be so lucky to have, you would need 16 separate programs, each using their 4GB limit each. A single program under PAE, cannot access the entire 64GB for itself. Even under Linux. There is still a limitation, based on how page tables work. With the kernel/user split, you typically need double that number, or 32 programs, in practical situations. PAE mode is also used, to support NX (no execute bit), since the page table has room for the storage of the NX bit, on a per-entry basis. So while to end users, PAE may seem to be "only a means for a 32-bit process to be placed in a larger address space", it also supports a page table construct that is useful for other things. This is why PAE was enabled by default on my WinXP SP3, for NX (No Execute) support. It was not intended to violate the memory license, which remains at "4GB" on the Microsoft page listing memory limits. The "4GB" value is artificial, and enforced by the 32-bit OS. It's not an actual hardware issue (some comments by Mark Russinovich allude to this). The "memory license" is actually an address space license, so you can "waste it" as you see fit. For example, insert a big-ass video card, lose the ability to access more of your memory DIMMs (while using your 32-bit OS). "Our memory licenses..." https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/lib...(v=vs.85).aspx PAE allows the selection of a 4GB address "window", into a larger field of physical RAM. When PAE first came out, no implementation could really make use of it for that purpose. Once it became useful (physical RAM was becoming big enough), it was capped by the "memory license". In an example here, a dude cracks the license and uses 8GB on Vista 32-bit. So for whatever hardware drivers were in this machine, the machine didn't tip over. This is 8GB in Ring3. http://www.geoffchappell.com/notes/w...nse/memory.htm At the present time, I am using *8GB* on WinXP SP3 (the machine I'm typing on). It turns out, the memory license does not apply to drivers in Ring0. As a consequence, I have a 4GB RAMDisk on this machine. Which is a good location for the GIMP swap. The memory license actually applies to Ring3 (applications), not to Ring0 (kernel and drivers). The author of my RAMDisk code, has stopped supporting this (how many Microsoft lawyers does that take, one wonders...). So 4GB of my RAM is for Ring3 (applications), and 4GB happens to be a RAMdisk in Ring0. https://s17.postimg.org/47rawwzlr/RAMDisk.gif ******* In terms of physical limits, the first result I can find here suggests 8 DIMMs of 16GB each. So there is an LGA2011-V3 processor for desktops, with 128GB physical limit. And you would hope that's not using the same PAE values, as the Pentium III did (if you sought to run a 32-bit OS on this). Since at least some software is hard-coded for 64GB behaviors, you may run into the occasional problem using all of your 128GB largess. http://ark.intel.com/products/94456/...50-GHz?q=6950x I wouldn't attempt to find the server platform limit, since there are so many to choose from. Paul |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Win10 32 bit
philo wrote:
Just curious why 32bit Win10 even exists. I don't think one could find anything other than a 64bit mobo . Supposedly Win10 32 will run with less RAM but I could not imagine running any machine with less than 4 gigs of RAM. 8 gigs minimum seems to be pretty standard. I recently purchased a new mobo that would not even support only 2 gigs of RAM. Minimum to even boot was 4 gigs I bought a re-furbished 5 year old HP 32bit with Win 7 from Walmart for $75 about a year ago. 64 bit cost more but I just wanted cheap. I named it "Test" and used it to try the upgrade from Win 7 to Win 10 before I applied Win 10 to the other three Win 7 machines on my network. I also apply the latest Win 10 upgrades to Test first to make sure there are no surprises. Any new software such as anti-virus, backups, etc are also installed on Test first to see if there any problems. This was especially useful when I upgraded to 15063.138 and one or two programs gave me a warning in the Action Center. Fortunately, all I had click on "x" a couple of times and I stopped getting the notice. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Win10 32 bit
On 04/16/2017 04:56 PM, Arnie Goetchius wrote:
philo wrote: Just curious why 32bit Win10 even exists. I don't think one could find anything other than a 64bit mobo . Supposedly Win10 32 will run with less RAM but I could not imagine running any machine with less than 4 gigs of RAM. 8 gigs minimum seems to be pretty standard. I recently purchased a new mobo that would not even support only 2 gigs of RAM. Minimum to even boot was 4 gigs I bought a re-furbished 5 year old HP 32bit with Win 7 from Walmart for $75 about a year ago. 64 bit cost more but I just wanted cheap. I named it "Test" and used it to try the upgrade from Win 7 to Win 10 before I applied Win 10 to the other three Win 7 machines on my network. I also apply the latest Win 10 upgrades to Test first to make sure there are no surprises. Any new software such as anti-virus, backups, etc are also installed on Test first to see if there any problems. This was especially useful when I upgraded to 15063.138 and one or two programs gave me a warning in the Action Center. Fortunately, all I had click on "x" a couple of times and I stopped getting the notice. Good idea. I also test operating systems and upgrades on either spare machines or spare hard drives. before I make a decision to go ahead and use it. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Win10 32 bit
On 16/04/2017 15:15:25, philo wrote:
Just curious why 32bit Win10 even exists. I don't think one could find anything other than a 64bit mobo . Supposedly Win10 32 will run with less RAM but I could not imagine running any machine with less than 4 gigs of RAM. 8 gigs minimum seems to be pretty standard. I recently purchased a new mobo that would not even support only 2 gigs of RAM. Minimum to even boot was 4 gigs I'm running 32bit on an 14 year old non fancy HP4045 laptop with 2GB ram. It started life with XP, went on to Vista, Win 7 and now Win 10. The only upgrade it has had was upping the ram to 2GB. -- mick |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Win10 32 bit
On 04/17/2017 08:59 AM, mick wrote:
On 16/04/2017 15:15:25, philo wrote: Just curious why 32bit Win10 even exists. I don't think one could find anything other than a 64bit mobo . Supposedly Win10 32 will run with less RAM but I could not imagine running any machine with less than 4 gigs of RAM. 8 gigs minimum seems to be pretty standard. I recently purchased a new mobo that would not even support only 2 gigs of RAM. Minimum to even boot was 4 gigs I'm running 32bit on an 14 year old non fancy HP4045 laptop with 2GB ram. It started life with XP, went on to Vista, Win 7 and now Win 10. The only upgrade it has had was upping the ram to 2GB. Well, now I certainly see why there is a Win 10 32 bit |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|