64-bit XP OS uses memory more efficiently than 32-bit?

[Guest Spin]

Gurus,

 

Is it true that a 64-bit XP OS will get more out of a 4GB RAM system than a

32-bit XP OS will? In other words, the 64-bit version will use the RAM more

efficiently? I imagine the same efficiencies are true for Windows server?

 

--

Spin

[Guest Charlie Russel - MVP]

Re: 64-bit XP OS uses memory more efficiently than 32-bit?

 

yes. For one thing, a 32-bit version of Windows can not use much more than

~3GB of RAM. There simply isn't the address space. And, of course, it has an

absolute top end limit of 4GB of RAM that can be directly addressed.

 

Whether it uses the RAM more "efficiently" would require one to define what

efficiency means in this context. But as 4 GB and greater machines become

the norm, 64-bit becomes the only real option. If one had a 1 GB XP machine,

however, the answer would be a bit more difficult - I would probably choose

32-bit XP for that scenario.

 

--

Charlie.

http://msmvps.com/xperts64

http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel

 

 

"Spin" <Spin@spin.com> wrote in message

news:639ansF26ff46U1@mid.individual.net...

> Gurus,

>

> Is it true that a 64-bit XP OS will get more out of a 4GB RAM system than

> a 32-bit XP OS will? In other words, the 64-bit version will use the RAM

> more efficiently? I imagine the same efficiencies are true for Windows

> server?

>

> --

> Spin

[Guest Chuck Walbourn [MSFT]]

Re: 64-bit XP OS uses memory more efficiently than 32-bit?

 

See the following KB for a detailed explaination of the "you can't really

get 4 GB on 32-bit OSes" issue:

 

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605/

 

Note that Windows Vista SP1 32-bit versions will report the amount of memory

INSTALLED not the amount of memory AVAILABLE in the System Control Panel so

it will no longer report "3.33 GB" or something but say "4 GB" or even "8

GB" if that is what you have installed. The amount of actual AVAILALBE

memory will still be limited to some number ~3 GB unless you are running an

x64 version of Windows. In other words, Service Pack 1 doesn't change the

way PC hardware had worked for more than a decade :>

 

See http://support.microsoft.com/kb/946003/.

 

--

-Chuck Walbourn

SDE, XNA Developer Connection

 

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warrenties, and confers no rights.

[Guest Colin Barnhorst]

Re: 64-bit XP OS uses memory more efficiently than 32-bit?

 

And winver will show the available amount.

 

"Chuck Walbourn [MSFT]" <chuckw@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message

news:Op9Nm$$fIHA.5296@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> See the following KB for a detailed explaination of the "you can't really

> get 4 GB on 32-bit OSes" issue:

>

> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605/

>

> Note that Windows Vista SP1 32-bit versions will report the amount of

> memory INSTALLED not the amount of memory AVAILABLE in the System Control

> Panel so it will no longer report "3.33 GB" or something but say "4 GB" or

> even "8 GB" if that is what you have installed. The amount of actual

> AVAILALBE memory will still be limited to some number ~3 GB unless you are

> running an x64 version of Windows. In other words, Service Pack 1 doesn't

> change the way PC hardware had worked for more than a decade :>

>

> See http://support.microsoft.com/kb/946003/.

>

> --

> -Chuck Walbourn

> SDE, XNA Developer Connection

>

> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warrenties, and confers no

> rights.