Quote: "Is that true?
I may be wrong but I thought you could use more than 4GB on a 32bit system but the OS would only show 3.5GB of it."
Windows XP could only use 4GB, and yeah only shows 3.5GB
That is mostly down to how you calculate it though.. as not only do you have to take in to account the 1024-block demoninations, but also the table for each memory allocation.
In any-case Vista 32bit is capable of using up to the amount the processor and chipset can; by making each 4GB a relative partition.
You end up loosing more in the primary partition mind to compensate, as the table is built on that due to it being the one it can actively access directly without passing the 64bit/128bit address pointer; but realistically it works just fine as is.
The amount of memory you can max is directly related to the processor memory address bit.
x86-32, 4GB
x86-64, 16GB
PPC-64 (uses a 128bit memory parition), 64GB
GPU (128-512bit), 64-256GB
Actually quite shocking that graphics processors are just so far advanced in this sense compared to desktop processors.
Mind you technically speaking you can knock off about 5% from each for the allocation table.
Quote: "unless they sort themselves out like OSX does supporting 32bit and 64bit at once apparently"
From what I understand Microsoft haven't done this, mainly due to how the x86-64 are designed.
PowerPC processors, going between 32-bit and 64-bit essentially gives you double the registers... almost literally.
x86 however they're completely different architectures, which is a shame in a way as it means the move doesn't make as much sense as to 32bit; but in the same way the industry is trying to weene us off of the old flawed design of the x86.
Can't say I'm that upset about it, but we'll see in time if it was the right move.
I can say this about Windows 64bit, and you will see a performance increase. It isn't much; but it is enough to be noticeable.
