Reinstall 7 with 32GB RAM?

S

Samury

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 7, 2006
Messages
199
Some day soon I hope to buy a 3930K to go with the massive amount of stuff I've already bought.

Anyway, I have 32GB of Corsair Vengeance mem, and you need 7 Pro or higher to use it. I have the 7 Home disc with a Pro upgrade code. Should I install the Home version with just 16GB, then install Pro, then the rest of the RAM? Or should I put all 32GB in and go from there?

Will it cause any problems if I just put it all on the board then update the OS after install? I'd really like to put it all in and install after, plus update, but this is Windows, so who knows.

NB - there's no raid setup, but I'll be using a Samsung SSD with nothing else but the optical drive connected. I'll even turn off all other unused connection options in the bios to be sure (ASUS P9X79).
 
The limit is artificially imposed I believe. The system can still see all 32gb of RAM, but Windows Home 7 will only address 16gb. I don't think you'll have any problems going either route.
 
Go for it. I just put 32GB in an upgraded machine for a friend & it was recognized by both home & premium setups nottaproblemo..........
 
How do you know that Win7 Home recognized properly 32gb ? 16gb is not a myth. Windows can show in system properties that you have 32gb but 16gb usable for example. The most certain information about memory will give you task manager or aida64 for example.
 
Thanks, that simplifies one thing. Now all I have to do is hope it recognizes the SSD without problems.
 
192 GB? I guess this isn't surprising from the company that thought 640 kB was an upper limit.Yeah, I went there.
 
Samury said:
192 GB? I guess this isn't surprising from the company that thought 640 kB was an upper limit.Yeah, I went there.
Click to expand...

That would be IBM, not Microsoft. The original PC model 5150 split the 1MB 8086 address space in to a 640k/384k allocation scheme. The upper memory address lines were for video memory, ROM expansions, other uses, and BIOS in that order. The limits are still in place in Intel chips today and they still boot to real mode and are setup like that until order them to switch to protected mode or long mode. Even then, there is a hole in physical memory addresses from 640k-1024k.

In terms of the 192GB, yes that is arbitrary. If you want more, they want you to get a server OS (which costs more). Of course 192GB is the most you can easily get in a workstation so I don't know that it matters much. They can always easily raise it, if they wish.

2TB is the actual limitation of Windows right now because they don't implement all 64-bits of addressing since there really isn't the need (you don't want to know how much a 2TB server costs, and you can't buy a bigger one on x64 at this time). That limit will take some more implementation to raise, and may well raise in the next version of Windows.
 
Interesting, thanks. But wasn't it Gates who said, "Who's ever going to need more than 640k?" Or is that apocryphal?

Ah, the memories of trying to free up 640k in the autoexec and config files so you could run certain games.
 
Samury said:
Interesting, thanks. But wasn't it Gates who said, "Who's ever going to need more than 640k?" Or is that apocryphal?

Ah, the memories of trying to free up 640k in the autoexec and config files so you could run certain games.
Click to expand...

I had a sound clip of him saying that a long time ago. Pointless, Bill isn't a prophet and he was talking in the distant future. This always comes up when Linux whiners talk about Windows, yet Ubantu system recommended spec +1 GiB RAM and 15 GB of hard-drive space. Lots more bloat than Linux expected.
 
Sycraft said:
That would be IBM, not Microsoft. The original PC model 5150 split the 1MB 8086 address space in to a 640k/384k allocation scheme. The upper memory address lines were for video memory, ROM expansions, other uses, and BIOS in that order. The limits are still in place in Intel chips today and they still boot to real mode and are setup like that until order them to switch to protected mode or long mode. Even then, there is a hole in physical memory addresses from 640k-1024k.

In terms of the 192GB, yes that is arbitrary. If you want more, they want you to get a server OS (which costs more). Of course 192GB is the most you can easily get in a workstation so I don't know that it matters much. They can always easily raise it, if they wish.

2TB is the actual limitation of Windows right now because they don't implement all 64-bits of addressing since there really isn't the need (you don't want to know how much a 2TB server costs, and you can't buy a bigger one on x64 at this time). That limit will take some more implementation to raise, and may well raise in the next version of Windows.
Click to expand...

Education. Nice.

Loading up a machine with 192 GB of RAM costs a small fortune. The only real application for that is in large clusters running massive calculations and databases.
 
griff30 said:
I had a sound clip of him saying that a long time ago. Pointless, Bill isn't a prophet and he was talking in the distant future. This always comes up when Linux whiners talk about Windows, yet Ubantu system recommended spec +1 GiB RAM and 15 GB of hard-drive space. Lots more bloat than Linux expected.
Click to expand...

Highly unlikely you had a sound clip of Bill Gates saying that. People have been searching for years, and no one can provide a proper citation (time, date, place, witnesses, etc.) for it. It basically came about because that's all DOS could address, because of the limitations (as Sycraft stated) of the intel chip that IBM chose. MS had no say in it, and couldn't get around it until years later when protected mode was introduced in the 80286/80386 (although I think it was only the 80386+ that allowed virtualizing a DOS or real mode environment.)
 
Last edited:
devil22 said:
Highly unlikely you had a sound clip of Bill Gates saying that. People have been searching for years, and no one can provide a proper citation (time, date, place, witnesses, etc.) for it. It basically came about because that's all DOS could address, because of the limitations (as Sycraft stated) of the intel chip that IBM chose. MS had no say in it, and couldn't get around it until years later when protected mode was introduced in the 80286/80386 (although I think it was only the 80386+ that allowed virtualizing a DOS or real mode environment.)
Click to expand...

All I know is, I've got a great motivational poster with the quote. And isn't that what counts?
 
Sycraft said:
In terms of the 192GB, yes that is arbitrary. If you want more, they want you to get a server OS (which costs more). Of course 192GB is the most you can easily get in a workstation so I don't know that it matters much.
Click to expand...
Well afaict 192GB is the most you can put in a dual 1366 box. Dual G34 can go to 256GB though and I'd expect the same to be true when dual LGA2011 comes out.

I doubt they will raise the limit for win7 but it wouldn't entirely surprise me if they do push it to 256GB with win8.
 
Samury said:
192 GB? I guess this isn't surprising from the company that thought 640 kB was an upper limit.Yeah, I went there.
Click to expand...

That old *chestnut* was pre-Windows NT - which started life as a workstation operating system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top