Windows 64 Bit Compatibility Question

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by DMc2007, Mar 21, 2008.

  1. DMc2007

    DMc2007 Guest

    Hi

    I am currently using Windows XP SP 2 32bit, I am thinking of installing the
    64 bit version because of the 3.5GB RAM limitation.

    The questions I have is about software:

    1) I use Office 2007 will this still work?
    2) I use Visual Studio Tools for Office 2005, will this work?
    3) I use Virtual PC 2007, can i run 32 bit applications inside of this on a
    64 bit system?

    Regards

    D
    DMc2007, Mar 21, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. DMc2007

    Sebastian G. Guest

    DMc2007 wrote:


    > I am currently using Windows XP SP 2 32bit, I am thinking of installing the
    > 64 bit version because of the 3.5GB RAM limitation.



    You're not thinking, since then you would have recognized that there's no
    such limitation if you simply use PAE. The only limit is the 2/3 GB user
    mode address space per process, and maybe some duble buffering for drivers
    which are not PAE aware.

    > The questions I have is about software:
    >
    > 1) I use Office 2007 will this still work?



    Counter question: What does "work" mean in terms of Office 2007?

    Short to say, it will still launch as before and behave as before. Which is
    insufficient for any sane scenario or reliable usage.

    > 2) I use Visual Studio Tools for Office 2005, will this work?



    Same as above.

    > 3) I use Virtual PC 2007, can i run 32 bit applications inside of this on a
    > 64 bit system?



    Yes.
    Sebastian G., Mar 21, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. DMc2007

    Theo Guest

    Windows XP SP2 and later by default on NX capable processors
    enables PAE in order to enable NX, but limits physical
    address space to 32 bits for driver compatibility reasons.


    Sebastian G. wrote:
    > DMc2007 wrote:
    >
    >
    >> I am currently using Windows XP SP 2 32bit, I am thinking of
    >> installing the
    >> 64 bit version because of the 3.5GB RAM limitation.

    >
    >
    > You're not thinking, since then you would have recognized that there's
    > no such limitation if you simply use PAE. The only limit is the 2/3 GB
    > user mode address space per process, and maybe some duble buffering for
    > drivers which are not PAE aware.
    >
    >> The questions I have is about software:
    >>
    >> 1) I use Office 2007 will this still work?

    >
    >
    > Counter question: What does "work" mean in terms of Office 2007?
    >
    > Short to say, it will still launch as before and behave as before. Which
    > is insufficient for any sane scenario or reliable usage.
    >
    >> 2) I use Visual Studio Tools for Office 2005, will this work?

    >
    >
    > Same as above.
    >
    >> 3) I use Virtual PC 2007, can i run 32 bit applications inside of this
    >> on a
    >> 64 bit system?

    >
    >
    > Yes.
    Theo, Mar 21, 2008
    #3
  4. DMc2007

    Theo Guest

    You need to re-read the information relative to PAE and
    Windows XP. Regardless of PAE, Windows XP is still limited
    to 4GB.


    http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/pae_os.mspx

    Windows and PAE
    Windows Version Support
    Windows 2000 Professional
    Windows XP
    AWE API and 4 GB of physical RAM

    Windows XP SP2 and later
    AWE API and 4 GB of physical address space

    http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/PAEmem.mspx



    Sebastian G. wrote:
    > DMc2007 wrote:
    >
    >
    >> I am currently using Windows XP SP 2 32bit, I am thinking of
    >> installing the
    >> 64 bit version because of the 3.5GB RAM limitation.

    >
    >
    > You're not thinking, since then you would have recognized that there's
    > no such limitation if you simply use PAE. The only limit is the 2/3 GB
    > user mode address space per process, and maybe some duble buffering for
    > drivers which are not PAE aware.
    >
    >> The questions I have is about software:
    >>
    >> 1) I use Office 2007 will this still work?

    >
    >
    > Counter question: What does "work" mean in terms of Office 2007?
    >
    > Short to say, it will still launch as before and behave as before. Which
    > is insufficient for any sane scenario or reliable usage.
    >
    >> 2) I use Visual Studio Tools for Office 2005, will this work?

    >
    >
    > Same as above.
    >
    >> 3) I use Virtual PC 2007, can i run 32 bit applications inside of this
    >> on a
    >> 64 bit system?

    >
    >
    > Yes.
    Theo, Mar 21, 2008
    #4
  5. 1. Yes
    2. Yes
    3. Yes, once you install an operating system inside a guest you can run the
    apps on that.

    "DMc2007" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hi
    >
    > I am currently using Windows XP SP 2 32bit, I am thinking of installing
    > the
    > 64 bit version because of the 3.5GB RAM limitation.
    >
    > The questions I have is about software:
    >
    > 1) I use Office 2007 will this still work?
    > 2) I use Visual Studio Tools for Office 2005, will this work?
    > 3) I use Virtual PC 2007, can i run 32 bit applications inside of this on
    > a
    > 64 bit system?
    >
    > Regards
    >
    > D
    >
    >
    >
    Colin Barnhorst, Mar 21, 2008
    #5
  6. Colin is correct. I'd only add that you should ensure you have drivers for
    your hardware before making the move.

    --
    Charlie.
    http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel


    "DMc2007" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hi
    >
    > I am currently using Windows XP SP 2 32bit, I am thinking of installing
    > the
    > 64 bit version because of the 3.5GB RAM limitation.
    >
    > The questions I have is about software:
    >
    > 1) I use Office 2007 will this still work?
    > 2) I use Visual Studio Tools for Office 2005, will this work?
    > 3) I use Virtual PC 2007, can i run 32 bit applications inside of this on
    > a
    > 64 bit system?
    >
    > Regards
    >
    > D
    >
    >
    >
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Mar 21, 2008
    #6
  7. DMc2007

    Sebastian G. Guest

    Theo wrote:

    > Windows XP SP2 and later by default on NX capable processors
    > enables PAE in order to enable NX, but limits physical
    > address space to 32 bits for driver compatibility reasons.



    That's why you have to enable it explicitly via the /PAE switch.
    Sebastian G., Mar 21, 2008
    #7
  8. DMc2007

    John John Guest

    Sebastian G. wrote:

    > Theo wrote:
    >
    >> Windows XP SP2 and later by default on NX capable processors enables
    >> PAE in order to enable NX, but limits physical address space to 32
    >> bits for driver compatibility reasons.

    >
    >
    >
    > That's why you have to enable it explicitly via the /PAE switch.


    Enabling the /PAE on Windows XP will still not provide for memory
    addressing above the 4GB boundary.

    John
    John John, Mar 21, 2008
    #8
  9. DMc2007

    Theo Guest

    Sebastian G. wrote:
    > Theo wrote:
    >
    >> Windows XP SP2 and later by default on NX capable processors enables
    >> PAE in order to enable NX, but limits physical address space to 32
    >> bits for driver compatibility reasons.

    >
    >
    > That's why you have to enable it explicitly via the /PAE switch.


    "but limits physical address space to 32 bits (4GB) for
    driver compatibility reasons."
    Theo, Mar 21, 2008
    #9
  10. DMc2007

    Sebastian G. Guest

    John John wrote:

    > Sebastian G. wrote:
    >
    >> Theo wrote:
    >>
    >>> Windows XP SP2 and later by default on NX capable processors enables
    >>> PAE in order to enable NX, but limits physical address space to 32
    >>> bits for driver compatibility reasons.

    >>
    >>
    >> That's why you have to enable it explicitly via the /PAE switch.

    >
    > Enabling the /PAE on Windows XP will still not provide for memory
    > addressing above the 4GB boundary.



    Actually I just didn't catch the meaning to notice that the above is wrong:
    NX without PAE switch limits the *virtual address space* to 32 bits, which
    is 4 GB minus PCI address range, 1 MB lower memory, config ROMs etc.

    With the PAE switch the virtual address space is extended to 36 bits, but
    the physical address range is limited to 32 bits. That is, you can actually
    fully use the entire 4 GB, since the memory burned by the reserved areas is
    remapped to addresses above the 4 GB virtual address limit.
    Sebastian G., Mar 21, 2008
    #10
  11. DMc2007

    Sebastian G. Guest

    Theo wrote:

    > Sebastian G. wrote:
    >> Theo wrote:
    >>
    >>> Windows XP SP2 and later by default on NX capable processors enables
    >>> PAE in order to enable NX, but limits physical address space to 32
    >>> bits for driver compatibility reasons.

    >>
    >> That's why you have to enable it explicitly via the /PAE switch.

    >
    > "but limits physical address space to 32 bits (4GB) for
    > driver compatibility reasons."


    Yes, it's wrong and I didn't catch it. NX without PAE limits the *virtual*
    address space.
    Sebastian G., Mar 21, 2008
    #11
  12. DMc2007

    John John Guest

    Sebastian G. wrote:

    > John John wrote:
    >
    >> Sebastian G. wrote:
    >>
    >>> Theo wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Windows XP SP2 and later by default on NX capable processors enables
    >>>> PAE in order to enable NX, but limits physical address space to 32
    >>>> bits for driver compatibility reasons.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> That's why you have to enable it explicitly via the /PAE switch.

    >>
    >>
    >> Enabling the /PAE on Windows XP will still not provide for memory
    >> addressing above the 4GB boundary.

    >
    >
    >
    > Actually I just didn't catch the meaning to notice that the above is
    > wrong: NX without PAE switch limits the *virtual address space* to 32
    > bits, which is 4 GB minus PCI address range, 1 MB lower memory, config
    > ROMs etc.
    >
    > With the PAE switch the virtual address space is extended to 36 bits,
    > but the physical address range is limited to 32 bits. That is, you can
    > actually fully use the entire 4 GB, since the memory burned by the
    > reserved areas is remapped to addresses above the 4 GB virtual address
    > limit.


    Don't confuse Virtual Address Space with Physical RAM. With Windows XP
    32-bit enabling PAE does not permit the operating system to access RAM
    addresses remapped above the 4GB boundary. If the OP has 4GB of RAM in
    his machine he will not be able to use all of it. The Physical Address
    Space on Windows XP 32-bit is limited to 4GB and using Physical Address
    Extensions does not change that limit.

    John
    John John, Mar 21, 2008
    #12
  13. DMc2007

    Sebastian G. Guest

    John John wrote:


    > Don't confuse Virtual Address Space with Physical RAM. With Windows XP
    > 32-bit enabling PAE does not permit the operating system to access RAM
    > addresses remapped above the 4GB boundary. If the OP has 4GB of RAM in
    > his machine he will not be able to use all of it. The Physical Address
    > Space on Windows XP 32-bit is limited to 4GB and using Physical Address
    > Extensions does not change that limit.


    Argh, now I got it wrong as well. But I found the conclusion: With the /PAE
    switch, the kernel does not limit the physical address range at all.

    See <http://blogs.msdn.com/carmencr/archive/2004/08/06/210093.aspx>
    Sebastian G., Mar 21, 2008
    #13
  14. DMc2007

    John John Guest

    Sebastian G. wrote:

    > John John wrote:
    >
    >
    >> Don't confuse Virtual Address Space with Physical RAM. With Windows
    >> XP 32-bit enabling PAE does not permit the operating system to access
    >> RAM addresses remapped above the 4GB boundary. If the OP has 4GB of
    >> RAM in his machine he will not be able to use all of it. The Physical
    >> Address Space on Windows XP 32-bit is limited to 4GB and using
    >> Physical Address Extensions does not change that limit.

    >
    >
    > Argh, now I got it wrong as well. But I found the conclusion: With the
    > /PAE switch, the kernel does not limit the physical address range at all.


    No, with Windows XP the use of the /PAE switch does not change the
    available physical address space, it will still be limited to 4GB, the
    XP PAE kernel will not make use of RAM addresses remapped above the 4GB
    boundary, it is completely limited to the lower 4GB arena. The use of
    the /PAE switch is different for 32-bit Server products than it is for
    Workstation products.

    John
    John John, Mar 21, 2008
    #14
  15. DMc2007

    Sebastian G. Guest

    John John wrote:


    >>> Don't confuse Virtual Address Space with Physical RAM. With Windows
    >>> XP 32-bit enabling PAE does not permit the operating system to access
    >>> RAM addresses remapped above the 4GB boundary. If the OP has 4GB of
    >>> RAM in his machine he will not be able to use all of it. The Physical
    >>> Address Space on Windows XP 32-bit is limited to 4GB and using
    >>> Physical Address Extensions does not change that limit.

    >>
    >> Argh, now I got it wrong as well. But I found the conclusion: With the
    >> /PAE switch, the kernel does not limit the physical address range at all.

    >
    > No, with Windows XP the use of the /PAE switch does not change the
    > available physical address space,



    Which is 36 bits, as long as the board is properly wired.

    > it will still be limited to 4GB, the


    > XP PAE kernel will not make use of RAM addresses remapped above the 4GB
    > boundary, it is completely limited to the lower 4GB arena.



    As you may read up in the link I provided, the Technet documentation is
    obviously not precise enough. When using PAE implied through the NoExecute,
    these limits are applied - if you use PAE explicitly, this doesn't happen.

    > The use of the /PAE switch is different for 32-bit Server products than


    > it is for Workstation products.


    This changed in XP SP2.
    Sebastian G., Mar 21, 2008
    #15
  16. DMc2007

    John John Guest

    Sebastian G. wrote:

    > John John wrote:
    >
    >
    >>>> Don't confuse Virtual Address Space with Physical RAM. With Windows
    >>>> XP 32-bit enabling PAE does not permit the operating system to
    >>>> access RAM addresses remapped above the 4GB boundary. If the OP has
    >>>> 4GB of RAM in his machine he will not be able to use all of it. The
    >>>> Physical Address Space on Windows XP 32-bit is limited to 4GB and
    >>>> using Physical Address Extensions does not change that limit.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Argh, now I got it wrong as well. But I found the conclusion: With
    >>> the /PAE switch, the kernel does not limit the physical address range
    >>> at all.

    >>
    >>
    >> No, with Windows XP the use of the /PAE switch does not change the
    >> available physical address space,

    >
    >
    >
    > Which is 36 bits, as long as the board is properly wired.
    >
    > > it will still be limited to 4GB, the

    >
    >> XP PAE kernel will not make use of RAM addresses remapped above the
    >> 4GB boundary, it is completely limited to the lower 4GB arena.

    >
    >
    >
    > As you may read up in the link I provided, the Technet documentation is
    > obviously not precise enough. When using PAE implied through the
    > NoExecute, these limits are applied - if you use PAE explicitly, this
    > doesn't happen.
    >
    >> The use of the /PAE switch is different for 32-bit Server products than

    >
    >
    > > it is for Workstation products.

    >
    > This changed in XP SP2.


    No, it hasn't. Regardless of which switch is used or not used in the
    boot.ini file Windows XP computers with 4GB of RAM installed cannot see
    or use all of the installed RAM if one of the Service Packs is
    installed. The information on the memory addressing and the use of /PAE
    in the article that you point to applies to servers only, it does not
    apply to Windows XP.

    Physical Address Extension - PAE Memory and Windows
    http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/PAEdrv.mspx

    How PAE X86 Works
    http://technet2.microsoft.com/windo...2454-4222-841a-c6d5aa1fc54c1033.mspx?mfr=true

    The system memory that is reported in the System Information dialog box
    in Windows Vista is less than you expect if 4 GB of RAM is installed

    Who ate my memory?
    http://blogs.msdn.com/dcook/archive/2007/03/25/who-ate-my-memory.aspx

    The RAM reported by the System Properties dialog box and the System
    Information tool is less than you expect in Windows Vista or in Windows
    XP Service Pack 2
    http://support.microsoft.com/kb/888137

    John
    John John, Mar 22, 2008
    #16
    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. =?Utf-8?B?RFdhdHNvbg==?=

    64 bit hardware, compatibility with 32 bit OS

    =?Utf-8?B?RFdhdHNvbg==?=, Apr 14, 2007, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    461
    =?Utf-8?B?RFdhdHNvbg==?=
    Apr 14, 2007
  2. =?Utf-8?B?SmFtZXMgRGF2aWQgTGVl?=

    Windows Vista 64 bit compatibility issues.

    =?Utf-8?B?SmFtZXMgRGF2aWQgTGVl?=, Sep 17, 2007, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    753
    R. C. White
    Oct 16, 2007
  3. BP
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,103
    PhilSweet
    Dec 19, 2008
  4. Homer J. Simpson
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    747
    Jim Barry
    Jan 19, 2009
  5. Richard
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    10,918
    nice get
    Jul 11, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page