64bit app - 8 terabytes or 4 GB?

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by Jacky Kwok, Jun 21, 2005.

  1. Jacky Kwok

    Jacky Kwok Guest

    Dear All:

    I just read the the "What are the General Memory Limits of Windows 64-bit?"
    in
    http://msdn.microsoft.com/isv/technology/64bitwindows/x64faq/generalfaq/default.aspx

    The answer in the page is
    "Virtual Address Space per 64 bit processes: 2 GB (4 GB with large
    address aware) "


    Is it correct?

    I also had read the 64bit SDK document in
    http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...y/en-us/win64/win64/virtual_address_space.asp

    It mentioned that
    "By default, 64-bit Microsoft Windows-based applications have a
    user-mode address space of 8 terabytes".

    What is the fact? 8 terabytes or 4 GB?

    If a 64bit application just uses max 4GB, I think it is not so interesting.



    --
    Jacky Kwok
    jacky@alumni_DOT_cuhk_DOT_edu_DOT_hk
    jacky@compose_DOT_com_DOT_hk
    Jacky Kwok, Jun 21, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. You know it is higher than 4GB. There are AMD Opteron motherboards out now
    that support 128GB of RAM, so it has to be higher.



    Wayne
    Wayne Wastier, Jun 21, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Hello,
    That page looks to be wrong, let me check on this.
    Thanks,
    Darrell Gorter[MSFT]

    This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights
    --------------------
    <Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 10:23:49 +0800
    <From: Jacky Kwok <>
    <User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317)
    <X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
    <MIME-Version: 1.0
    <Subject: 64bit app - 8 terabytes or 4 GB?
    <Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
    <Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    <Message-ID: <>
    <Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general
    <NNTP-Posting-Host: 210.176.55.168
    <Lines: 1
    <Path: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP08.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl
    <Xref: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general:8131
    <X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general
    <
    <Dear All:
    <
    <I just read the the "What are the General Memory Limits of Windows 64-bit?"
    <in
    <http://msdn.microsoft.com/isv/technology/64bitwindows/x64faq/generalfaq/def
    ault.aspx
    <
    <The answer in the page is
    <"Virtual Address Space per 64 bit processes: 2 GB (4 GB with large
    <address aware) "
    <
    <
    <Is it correct?
    <
    <I also had read the 64bit SDK document in
    <http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/win64/win6
    4/virtual_address_space.asp
    <
    <It mentioned that
    <"By default, 64-bit Microsoft Windows-based applications have a
    <user-mode address space of 8 terabytes".
    <
    <What is the fact? 8 terabytes or 4 GB?
    <
    <If a 64bit application just uses max 4GB, I think it is not so interesting.
    <
    <
    <
    <--
    <Jacky Kwok
    <jacky@alumni_DOT_cuhk_DOT_edu_DOT_hk
    <jacky@compose_DOT_com_DOT_hk
    <
    Darrell Gorter[MSFT], Jun 21, 2005
    #3
  4. That FAQ is wrong. Pure and Simple

    --
    Charlie.
    http://www.msmvps.com/xperts64/


    Jacky Kwok wrote:
    > Dear All:
    >
    > I just read the the "What are the General Memory Limits of Windows
    > 64-bit?" in
    > http://msdn.microsoft.com/isv/technology/64bitwindows/x64faq/generalfaq/default.aspx
    >
    > The answer in the page is
    > "Virtual Address Space per 64 bit processes: 2 GB (4 GB with large
    > address aware) "
    >
    >
    > Is it correct?
    >
    > I also had read the 64bit SDK document in
    > http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...y/en-us/win64/win64/virtual_address_space.asp
    >
    > It mentioned that
    > "By default, 64-bit Microsoft Windows-based applications have a
    > user-mode address space of 8 terabytes".
    >
    > What is the fact? 8 terabytes or 4 GB?
    >
    > If a 64bit application just uses max 4GB, I think it is not so
    > interesting.
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Jun 21, 2005
    #4
  5. See, you're much politer than I. I said it's just plain wrong.

    --
    Charlie.
    http://www.msmvps.com/xperts64/


    "Darrell Gorter[MSFT]" wrote:
    > Hello,
    > That page looks to be wrong, let me check on this.
    > Thanks,
    > Darrell Gorter[MSFT]
    >
    > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
    > rights --------------------
    > <Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 10:23:49 +0800
    > <From: Jacky Kwok <>
    > <User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317)
    > <X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
    > <MIME-Version: 1.0
    > <Subject: 64bit app - 8 terabytes or 4 GB?
    > <Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
    > <Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    > <Message-ID: <>
    > <Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general
    > <NNTP-Posting-Host: 210.176.55.168
    > <Lines: 1
    > <Path: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP08.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl
    > <Xref: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl
    > microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general:8131 <X-Tomcat-NG:
    > microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general <
    > <Dear All:
    > <
    > <I just read the the "What are the General Memory Limits of Windows
    > 64-bit?" <in
    > <http://msdn.microsoft.com/isv/technology/64bitwindows/x64faq/generalfaq/def
    > ault.aspx
    > <
    > <The answer in the page is
    > <"Virtual Address Space per 64 bit processes: 2 GB (4 GB with large
    > <address aware) "
    > <
    > <
    > <Is it correct?
    > <
    > <I also had read the 64bit SDK document in
    > <http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/win64/win6
    > 4/virtual_address_space.asp
    > <
    > <It mentioned that
    > <"By default, 64-bit Microsoft Windows-based applications have a
    > <user-mode address space of 8 terabytes".
    > <
    > <What is the fact? 8 terabytes or 4 GB?
    > <
    > <If a 64bit application just uses max 4GB, I think it is not so
    > interesting. <
    > <
    > <
    > <--
    > <Jacky Kwok
    > <jacky@alumni_DOT_cuhk_DOT_edu_DOT_hk
    > <jacky@compose_DOT_com_DOT_hk
    > <
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Jun 21, 2005
    #5
  6. Actually, Wayne, "virtual memory address space" and RAM are two VERY
    different things. It would be technically possible to support that much RAM
    and still only have a 4GB Virtual Memory address space. Stupid, silly, and
    not very efficient. But technically possible.

    --
    Charlie.
    http://www.msmvps.com/xperts64/


    Wayne Wastier wrote:
    > You know it is higher than 4GB. There are AMD Opteron motherboards
    > out now that support 128GB of RAM, so it has to be higher.
    >
    >
    >
    > Wayne
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Jun 21, 2005
    #6
  7. Jacky Kwok

    Peter Lawton Guest

    Those sound like the limits for 32bit apps to me, 2Gb or 4Gb when compiled
    large memory aware. It definately isn't the limit for 64bit apps.

    Peter Lawton

    "Jacky Kwok" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Dear All:
    >
    > I just read the the "What are the General Memory Limits of Windows
    > 64-bit?"
    > in
    > http://msdn.microsoft.com/isv/technology/64bitwindows/x64faq/generalfaq/default.aspx
    >
    > The answer in the page is
    > "Virtual Address Space per 64 bit processes: 2 GB (4 GB with large address
    > aware) "
    >
    >
    > Is it correct?
    >
    > I also had read the 64bit SDK document in
    > http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...y/en-us/win64/win64/virtual_address_space.asp
    >
    > It mentioned that
    > "By default, 64-bit Microsoft Windows-based applications have a user-mode
    > address space of 8 terabytes".
    >
    > What is the fact? 8 terabytes or 4 GB?
    >
    > If a 64bit application just uses max 4GB, I think it is not so
    > interesting.
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    > Jacky Kwok
    > jacky@alumni_DOT_cuhk_DOT_edu_DOT_hk
    > jacky@compose_DOT_com_DOT_hk
    Peter Lawton, Jun 21, 2005
    #7
  8. To expand:

    a.. What are the General Memory Limits of Windows 64-bit?

    The memory limits for 64-bit Windows are:

    a.. Total Virtual Address Space: 4 GB (32-bit) and 16 TB (64-bit) <--
    Correct
    b.. Virtual Address Space per 32-bit processes: 2 GB (3 GB with 3gb flag)
    <-- Wrong.
    c.. Virtual Address Space per 64 bit processes: 2 GB (4 GB with large
    address aware) <-- WAY wrong
    The correct answer is 4 GB for 32 bit processes compiled with the
    /LARGEMEMORYAWARE switch, when running in x64's WOW64. No command line
    switches are required. And for 64 bit processes, it's 8TB of address space.

    --
    Charlie.
    http://www.msmvps.com/xperts64/


    Jacky Kwok wrote:
    > Dear All:
    >
    > I just read the the "What are the General Memory Limits of Windows
    > 64-bit?" in
    > http://msdn.microsoft.com/isv/technology/64bitwindows/x64faq/generalfaq/default.aspx
    >
    > The answer in the page is
    > "Virtual Address Space per 64 bit processes: 2 GB (4 GB with large
    > address aware) "
    >
    >
    > Is it correct?
    >
    > I also had read the 64bit SDK document in
    > http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...y/en-us/win64/win64/virtual_address_space.asp
    >
    > It mentioned that
    > "By default, 64-bit Microsoft Windows-based applications have a
    > user-mode address space of 8 terabytes".
    >
    > What is the fact? 8 terabytes or 4 GB?
    >
    > If a 64bit application just uses max 4GB, I think it is not so
    > interesting.
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Jun 21, 2005
    #8
  9. Charlie Russel - MVP wrote:
    > Actually, Wayne, "virtual memory address space" and RAM are two VERY
    > different things. It would be technically possible to support that
    > much RAM and still only have a 4GB Virtual Memory address space.
    > Stupid, silly, and not very efficient. But technically possible.


    And it *has* been done: just think of the old times(TM) with EMS, HMS,
    memory bank switching etc. :)

    Kind regards

    robert
    Robert Klemme, Jun 21, 2005
    #9
  10. Charles,

    "Ahead of Computex 2005 in Taipei, AMDboard.com has another scoop regarding
    the latest 8-way AMD Opteron motherboard from IWILL. Dual-core ready, the
    IWILL H8502 is powered by the powerful NVIDIA NFORCE PRO 2200 & 2050 that
    can provide up to 40 lanes PCI-Express bandwidth. The IWILL H8502 8-way AMD
    Opteron server architecture also uses a special HTX technology to connect
    the I/O controller to the system controller and can accommodate up to 128GB
    of memory. All this allows an unprecedented level of performance required
    for complex, highly technical computing and high performance parallel
    applications as proven by Linpack benchmark raised 80% from 4-way to 8-way
    system! "
    Wayne Wastier, Jun 21, 2005
    #10
  11. "Jacky Kwok" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Dear All:
    >
    > I just read the the "What are the General Memory Limits of Windows
    > 64-bit?"
    > in
    > http://msdn.microsoft.com/isv/technology/64bitwindows/x64faq/generalfaq/default.aspx
    >
    > The answer in the page is
    > "Virtual Address Space per 64 bit processes: 2 GB (4 GB with large address
    > aware) "
    >
    >
    > Is it correct?
    >
    > I also had read the 64bit SDK document in
    > http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...y/en-us/win64/win64/virtual_address_space.asp
    >
    > It mentioned that
    > "By default, 64-bit Microsoft Windows-based applications have a user-mode
    > address space of 8 terabytes".
    >
    > What is the fact? 8 terabytes or 4 GB?
    >
    > If a 64bit application just uses max 4GB, I think it is not so
    > interesting.
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    > Jacky Kwok
    > jacky@alumni_DOT_cuhk_DOT_edu_DOT_hk
    > jacky@compose_DOT_com_DOT_hk


    Look here, and scroll down to the part about Virtual memory space.

    http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=60000254
    Wayne Wastier, Jun 21, 2005
    #11
  12. Andre Da Costa [Extended64], Jun 21, 2005
    #12
  13. Hello Charlie,
    <G>
    Working on getting it corrected.
    Thanks,
    Darrell Gorter[MSFT]

    This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights
    --------------------
    <From: "Charlie Russel - MVP" <>
    <References: <>
    <>
    <Subject: Re: 64bit app - 8 terabytes or 4 GB?
    <Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 23:13:12 -0700
    <Lines: 66
    <X-Priority: 3
    <X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    <X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2527
    <X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2527
    <X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
    <Message-ID: <>
    <Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general
    <NNTP-Posting-Host: crussel.static.uniserve.ca 216.113.200.27
    <Path: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP08.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl
    <Xref: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general:8148
    <X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general
    <
    <See, you're much politer than I. I said it's just plain wrong.
    <
    <--
    <Charlie.
    <http://www.msmvps.com/xperts64/
    <
    <
    <"Darrell Gorter[MSFT]" wrote:
    <> Hello,
    <> That page looks to be wrong, let me check on this.
    <> Thanks,
    <> Darrell Gorter[MSFT]
    <>
    <> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
    <> rights --------------------
    <> <Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 10:23:49 +0800
    <> <From: Jacky Kwok <>
    <> <User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317)
    <> <X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
    <> <MIME-Version: 1.0
    <> <Subject: 64bit app - 8 terabytes or 4 GB?
    <> <Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
    <> <Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    <> <Message-ID: <>
    <> <Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general
    <> <NNTP-Posting-Host: 210.176.55.168
    <> <Lines: 1
    <> <Path: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP08.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl
    <> <Xref: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl
    <> microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general:8131 <X-Tomcat-NG:
    <> microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general <
    <> <Dear All:
    <> <
    <> <I just read the the "What are the General Memory Limits of Windows
    <> 64-bit?" <in
    <>
    <http://msdn.microsoft.com/isv/technology/64bitwindows/x64faq/generalfaq/def
    <> ault.aspx
    <> <
    <> <The answer in the page is
    <> <"Virtual Address Space per 64 bit processes: 2 GB (4 GB with large
    <> <address aware) "
    <> <
    <> <
    <> <Is it correct?
    <> <
    <> <I also had read the 64bit SDK document in
    <>
    <http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/win64/win6
    <> 4/virtual_address_space.asp
    <> <
    <> <It mentioned that
    <> <"By default, 64-bit Microsoft Windows-based applications have a
    <> <user-mode address space of 8 terabytes".
    <> <
    <> <What is the fact? 8 terabytes or 4 GB?
    <> <
    <> <If a 64bit application just uses max 4GB, I think it is not so
    <> interesting. <
    <> <
    <> <
    <> <--
    <> <Jacky Kwok
    <> <jacky@alumni_DOT_cuhk_DOT_edu_DOT_hk
    <> <jacky@compose_DOT_com_DOT_hk
    <> <
    <
    <
    <
    Darrell Gorter[MSFT], Jun 21, 2005
    #13
  14. Good. :)

    --
    Charlie.
    http://www.msmvps.com/xperts64/


    "Darrell Gorter[MSFT]" wrote:
    > Hello Charlie,
    > <G>
    > Working on getting it corrected.
    > Thanks,
    > Darrell Gorter[MSFT]
    >
    > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
    > rights --------------------
    > <From: "Charlie Russel - MVP" <>
    > <References: <>
    > <>
    > <Subject: Re: 64bit app - 8 terabytes or 4 GB?
    > <Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 23:13:12 -0700
    > <Lines: 66
    > <X-Priority: 3
    > <X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    > <X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2527
    > <X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2527
    > <X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
    > <Message-ID: <>
    > <Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general
    > <NNTP-Posting-Host: crussel.static.uniserve.ca 216.113.200.27
    > <Path: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP08.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl
    > <Xref: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl
    > microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general:8148 <X-Tomcat-NG:
    > microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general <
    > <See, you're much politer than I. I said it's just plain wrong.
    > <
    > <--
    > <Charlie.
    > <http://www.msmvps.com/xperts64/
    > <
    > <
    > <"Darrell Gorter[MSFT]" wrote:
    > <> Hello,
    > <> That page looks to be wrong, let me check on this.
    > <> Thanks,
    > <> Darrell Gorter[MSFT]
    > <>
    > <> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
    > <> rights --------------------
    > <> <Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 10:23:49 +0800
    > <> <From: Jacky Kwok <>
    > <> <User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317)
    > <> <X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
    > <> <MIME-Version: 1.0
    > <> <Subject: 64bit app - 8 terabytes or 4 GB?
    > <> <Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
    > <> <Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    > <> <Message-ID: <>
    > <> <Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general
    > <> <NNTP-Posting-Host: 210.176.55.168
    > <> <Lines: 1
    > <> <Path:
    > TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP08.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl <>
    > <Xref: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl <>
    > microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general:8131 <X-Tomcat-NG: <>
    > microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general < <> <Dear All:
    > <> <
    > <> <I just read the the "What are the General Memory Limits of Windows
    > <> 64-bit?" <in
    > <>
    > <http://msdn.microsoft.com/isv/technology/64bitwindows/x64faq/generalfaq/def
    > <> ault.aspx
    > <> <
    > <> <The answer in the page is
    > <> <"Virtual Address Space per 64 bit processes: 2 GB (4 GB with large
    > <> <address aware) "
    > <> <
    > <> <
    > <> <Is it correct?
    > <> <
    > <> <I also had read the 64bit SDK document in
    > <>
    > <http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/win64/win6
    > <> 4/virtual_address_space.asp
    > <> <
    > <> <It mentioned that
    > <> <"By default, 64-bit Microsoft Windows-based applications have a
    > <> <user-mode address space of 8 terabytes".
    > <> <
    > <> <What is the fact? 8 terabytes or 4 GB?
    > <> <
    > <> <If a 64bit application just uses max 4GB, I think it is not so
    > <> interesting. <
    > <> <
    > <> <
    > <> <--
    > <> <Jacky Kwok
    > <> <jacky@alumni_DOT_cuhk_DOT_edu_DOT_hk
    > <> <jacky@compose_DOT_com_DOT_hk
    > <> <
    > <
    > <
    > <
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Jun 22, 2005
    #14
  15. Oh, gawd yes. tweaking qemm to get it to do what it had to do. And all the
    fun with EMS, XMS, and EEMS. But it _was_ stupid, silly and not very
    efficient. ;) Just the only game in town at the time.

    --
    Charlie.
    http://www.msmvps.com/xperts64/


    Robert Klemme wrote:
    > Charlie Russel - MVP wrote:
    >> Actually, Wayne, "virtual memory address space" and RAM are two VERY
    >> different things. It would be technically possible to support that
    >> much RAM and still only have a 4GB Virtual Memory address space.
    >> Stupid, silly, and not very efficient. But technically possible.

    >
    > And it *has* been done: just think of the old times(TM) with EMS, HMS,
    > memory bank switching etc. :)
    >
    > Kind regards
    >
    > robert
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Jun 22, 2005
    #15
  16. Yup. But you won't be able to run XP on it with all those processors. But
    think of the power. The mind boggles. Not something I'll be able to buy, but
    still something I could _conceive_ of buying.

    --
    Charlie.
    http://www.msmvps.com/xperts64/


    Wayne Wastier wrote:
    > Charles,
    >
    > "Ahead of Computex 2005 in Taipei, AMDboard.com has another scoop
    > regarding the latest 8-way AMD Opteron motherboard from IWILL.
    > Dual-core ready, the IWILL H8502 is powered by the powerful NVIDIA
    > NFORCE PRO 2200 & 2050 that can provide up to 40 lanes PCI-Express
    > bandwidth. The IWILL H8502 8-way AMD Opteron server architecture also
    > uses a special HTX technology to connect the I/O controller to the
    > system controller and can accommodate up to 128GB of memory. All this
    > allows an unprecedented level of performance required for complex,
    > highly technical computing and high performance parallel applications
    > as proven by Linpack benchmark raised 80% from 4-way to 8-way system!
    > "
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Jun 22, 2005
    #16
  17. "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Yup. But you won't be able to run XP on it with all those processors. But
    > think of the power. The mind boggles. Not something I'll be able to buy,
    > but still something I could _conceive_ of buying.
    >
    > --
    > Charlie.
    > http://www.msmvps.com/xperts64/
    >
    >


    I know what you mean. I salivated on my keyboard when I saw this. LOL

    But you know that you could run it with Server 2003 SP1 x64, right? :)


    Wayne
    Wayne Wastier, Jun 22, 2005
    #17
  18. Oh, yes, I could run Server on it. If I could afford it, of course. ;)

    --
    Charlie.
    http://www.msmvps.com/xperts64/


    Wayne Wastier wrote:
    > "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in
    > message news:...
    >> Yup. But you won't be able to run XP on it with all those
    >> processors. But think of the power. The mind boggles. Not something
    >> I'll be able to buy, but still something I could _conceive_ of
    >> buying. --
    >> Charlie.
    >> http://www.msmvps.com/xperts64/
    >>
    >>

    >
    > I know what you mean. I salivated on my keyboard when I saw this. LOL
    >
    > But you know that you could run it with Server 2003 SP1 x64, right? :)
    >
    >
    > Wayne
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Jun 22, 2005
    #18
  19. "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Oh, yes, I could run Server on it. If I could afford it, of course. ;)
    >
    > --
    > Charlie.
    > http://www.msmvps.com/xperts64/
    >


    Just get the Trial version, and keep re-formatting and re-installing every
    179 days. ROFLOL


    Wayne
    Wayne Wastier, Jun 22, 2005
    #19
  20. The issue isn't the copy of Server -- I'm sure I could score that. And I
    can't even imagine the pain of rebuilding my server every 6 months. Yuckk.
    OTOH, one of those boxes does NOT come cheap. And no one's offering me any
    freebies. If I were buying the server box of my dreams right now, it would be
    the HP DL-585. Now that is one sweet box.

    --
    Charlie.
    http://www.msmvps.com/xperts64/


    Wayne Wastier wrote:
    > "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in
    > message news:...
    >> Oh, yes, I could run Server on it. If I could afford it, of course.
    >> ;) --
    >> Charlie.
    >> http://www.msmvps.com/xperts64/
    >>

    >
    > Just get the Trial version, and keep re-formatting and re-installing
    > every 179 days. ROFLOL
    >
    >
    > Wayne
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Jun 23, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Doug
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    532
    Robert Bonomi
    Jun 1, 2006
  2. Bruce Sinclair

    Killer App/Nifty App

    Bruce Sinclair, Jun 8, 2005, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    35
    Views:
    1,174
  3. El Chippy
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    743
    Shane
    Apr 16, 2007
  4. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Explaining "Terabytes" to Management

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Apr 19, 2008, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    334
    Squiggle
    Apr 27, 2008
  5. Keith Chilton

    1000 Terabytes = 1 exabyte?

    Keith Chilton, Feb 17, 2007, in forum: MCDST
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,837
    Keith Chilton
    Feb 17, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page