Will windows XP SP3 support 4GB+ RAM?

[MiST91]

The thread title says it all really. Anyways my question is, will windows XP Service Pack 3 support more than 4GB of RAM? because i have heard from some people there is no reason why it can't and then from other people 4GB is the absolute maximum of the 32bit platform.

 

[ShadowFold]

Hmm idk I used to have some extra DDR2 ram I sold it tho I have XPSP3 too. But I dont think so because of the x86 architecture fancy shtuff.

 

[ktr]

Nope...32bit can only address up to 4GiB.

 

[MiST91]

well, thats shit lol, because there is hardly any 64bit software available, the only thing that can happen now is for someone to make some kind of 64bit, 32bit emulator that runs at 100% speed

 

[ShadowFold]

Why do you want more than 3gb lol

 

[MiST91]

i dont personally need more than 2GB, but i bought some more RAM in error (thought my OCZ RAM was faulty, when it wasn't it was my motherboard), and for price my OCZ RAM is worth, theres no point in selling it

 

[Ripper3]

well, thats shit lol, because there is hardly any 64bit software available, the only thing that can happen now is for someone to make some kind of 64bit, 32bit emulator that runs at 100% speed

That's called XP x64. I run it, and I can run 32-bit and 64-bit software flawlessly.
The CPUs using either AMD's 64-bit or Intel's 64-bit (not including Itaniums) technology (which is in fact one and the same, since Intel acquired the 64-bit support from AMD in trade for SSE3 extentions), all support 32-bit completely, it's why your 64-bit CPU can run a 32-bit OS at full speed.

 

[MiST91]

i had read somwear on internet that 32bit software runs shit on a 64bit OS, not only that you need to have 64bit drivers for a 64bit OS dont you?

but come to think about it, 32bit software can't be that bad on a 64bit OS when i am using a 64bit CPU in a 32bit OS

 

[ktr]

i had read somwear on internet that 32bit software runs shit on a 64bit OS, not only that you need to have 64bit drivers for a 64bit OS dont you?

but come to think about it, 32bit software can't be that bad on a 64bit OS when i am using a 64bit CPU in a 32bit OS

No, the issues with 64bit OS is the lack of drivers to support it, and the lack of 64bit applications.

 

[MiST91]

so it seems we have reached a peak in terms of the 32bit OS and games/software demanding stupid amounts of RAM.

 

[Ripper3]

I have drivers to support it, all my hardware works fine, and I can even use some 32-bit drivers (simpler hardware like webcams, etc. work just fine for me).
In terms of lack of software, 'tis true, there is a bit of a lack of software, but then again, the uptake for 64-bit is a bit low, which explains why that is.
Compatibility with apps, like I mentioned, is perfect (well, apart from GTR, but it hates 64-bit for some reason even though GTL which is basically the same thing works fine on 64-bit, although I play GTR2 anyhow), so using your apps should be fine.
Just for the record, I have found some applications pertaining to image, video and audio editing do run a bit quicker under 64-bit.

 

[asb2106]

I have used 64 bit OS's for the last year, Vista & XP, and I havnt ran into any issues with any software not working.

 

[MiST91]

once the majority of software is coded in 64bit everything will be faster anyway because 64bit is a lot better than 32bit, the only problem is when because i have been hearing about the 64bit platform being so amaizing for the past 7 or 8 years and i don't know a single person who has ever even used a 64bit version of windows

 

[suraswami]

That's called XP x64. I run it, and I can run 32-bit and 64-bit software flawlessly.
The CPUs using either AMD's 64-bit or Intel's 64-bit (not including Itaniums) technology (which is in fact one and the same, since Intel acquired the 64-bit support from AMD in trade for SSE3 extentions), all support 32-bit completely, it's why your 64-bit CPU can run a 32-bit OS at full speed.

Bad Trade:shadedshu. Should have patented it and let Intel Cry.

 

[asb2106]

once the majority of software is coded in 64bit everything will be faster anyway because 64bit is a lot better than 32bit, the only problem is when because i have been hearing about the 64bit platform being so amaizing for the past 7 or 8 years and i don't know a single person who has ever even used a 64bit verson of windows

really?? I guess for most though there isnt a need to go 64 bit, for right now the only advantage is accessing a full 4gigs of memory. Some people say they see a performance increase in graphics but I havnt really seen that

 

[MiST91]

well, sureley in the next 7 years everyone has got to use a 64bit OS because if 7 years ago i said to somone a game i have just bought requires a minimum of 1GB RAM they would have just laughed at me, and with games and software getting more and more advance the only way we can keep up is to go 64bit, but to be honest i won't be switching to a 64bit verson of XP any time soon.

 

[PVTCaboose1337]

We said we would all use 64 bit OSes... well no one cared... but the only choice is the sheepeople want to use 4 gb of ram is to get 64bit, so the industry will switch then.

 

[asb2106]

well, sureley in the next 7 years everyone has got to use a 64bit OS because if 7 years ago i said to somone a game i have just bought requires a minimum of 1GB RAM they would have just laughed at me, and with games and software getting more and more advance the only way we can keep up is to go 64bit, but to be honest i won't be switching to a 64bit verson of XP any time soon.

There should never be a need for you to either, because there is little use for 4 gigs on XP

Doubt youll ever buy a copy of XP64bit.

 

[Ripper3]

Thing is, for server platforms to be running over 4GB, they've all got to be running 64-bit OS, so if most, if not all the important servers in the world are running 64-bit, it's only a matter of time before we catch onto it as well. The problem is Microsoft me thinks. Vista 64-bit not allowing unsigned drivers is sort of shooting themselves in the foot, and stopping progress, because enthusiasts want unsigned drivers at times, for testing, beta or performance or otherwise, while not letting them have it by default, or only through a long process is just stupid.

 

[asb2106]

Thing is, for server platforms to be running over 4GB, they've all got to be running 64-bit OS, so if most, if not all the important servers in the world are running 64-bit, it's only a matter of time before we catch onto it as well. The problem is Microsoft me thinks. Vista 64-bit not allowing unsigned drivers is sort of shooting themselves in the foot, and stopping progress, because enthusiasts want unsigned drivers at times, for testing, beta or performance or otherwise, while not letting them have it by default, or only through a long process is just stupid.

I am able to use unsigned drivers on my 64bit vista install

After removing the UAC it just asks for confirmation that I want to do it

 

[flashstar]

32bit Server 2003 can address up to 64 gb in many cases. Server 2003 is actually a 36 bit os though and that is why it can support more than 3 gb. It's still compatible with most software though.

 

[asb2106]

32bit Server 2003 can address up to 64 gb in many cases. Server 2003 is actually a 36 bit os though and that is why it can support more than 3 gb. It's still compatible with most software though.

it must have some sort of 64 bit extension then, because all x86 32bit architecture can only support ~3.5gigs. Its the math behind it, thats the max cap

 

[devguy]

In this day and age, I have personally found XP x86 to be too vulnerable and unstable. The kernel from Windows 2003 is really the highlight of the work from Microsoft.

Here's the deal, 2003 kernel > 2000 kernel (that XP x86 uses). XP x64 SP2 and Vista x64 are both built off that same exact kernel (XP x64 SP2 in fact = 2003 x64 SP2 + XP look and features). A huge difference is Microsoft decided to add a ton of useless crap to the Vista version as well as enhanced DRM protection and a driver signing issue (possible to get around some of these, but a total pain in the butt).

I've used them all. XP x64 is by and large the best: fast, stable, 64bit support for stuff like Crysis/FarCry and soon PCSx2, and post SP2 it has great driver support.

 

[Solaris17]

just to add something i own 64bit xp and it runs everything absolutely flawlessely and faster onything that hans tever worked were wireless drivers for 2 of my net adapters....and i own 4gb of ocz currently running and xp only see's 3gb.....of course thats because i do bealive it reserves a gig for IO still....xp64 is amazing and if you have 4gigs xp32 will only be able to see 3 so ya...and i run sp3...so no miss comunication their.

 

[Deleted member 3]

32bit Server 2003 can address up to 64 gb in many cases. Server 2003 is actually a 36 bit os though and that is why it can support more than 3 gb. It's still compatible with most software though.

No, it's called PAE, has been in existence since the Pentium Pro. It is mainly for servers to allow huge amounts of memory. It's a slow workaround though and doesn't allow single programs to address more memory. The best solution to utilize 4+GB is going 64 bit.