Windows XP 32 bit support more than 4 GB RAM?

[t0yrobo]

If your gonna get a new OS, and you really should. Don't dick around with XP x64, just get 7. Find someone with a .edu email and you can order it for $30.
But really though a lot of programs don't make good use of that extra ram, unless you're doing photo/video or 3d work I can't imagine it'd make a very large difference.

[nova1313]

I've been running 7 (obtained legally via MSDN before anyone jumps down my throat) for a few weeks now both at home and on my development machine at work. It is very stable and very fast. If you have a new machine you really should consider getting it. You will not regret it (you will regret vista!)

[Anayo]

Lately I put a new PC together.
...
Well, I have Windows XP 32 bit on this machine, and apparently this only supports 4 GB.

So, you get brand, spanking new hardware (read: 8 GB of RAM) but you're using some eight year old OS? Do you see were I'm going with this?

Because I'm not a fan of planned obsolescence, that's why. As far as I researched the only advantage to be gained with something newer (read: Vista 64 bit) would be Direct X10 support and support for more than 4 GB of RAM. It's just a question of whether that's really worth $200. I can already play Fallout 3 and Bioshock beautifully, so I doubt Direct X10 is going to do much for me. Also, 4 GB is a hell of a lot more than the 1.5 GB I had on my old machine.

I'm also burned by the experience a close friend of mine had with getting Vista when it just came out. I know it's supposed to be better now, but his was unreliable and crappy, and to top it off a lot of Windows XP programs randomly wouldn't work with it (such as Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic.) I don't want to upgrade to something new and make the unpleasant discovery that a lot of my old programs suddenly don't work. I've heard Windows 7 is supposed to be better, though, so I'd be interested to hear reports from anyone who knows more about it.

[Majors]

Because I'm not a fan of planned obsolescence, that's why. As far as I researched the only advantage to be gained with something newer (read: Vista 64 bit) would be Direct X10 support and support for more than 4 GB of RAM.

That was enough for me, but I work for an .edu and get it for free.

On Vista I could not get Omikron to run at all and Crysis had sound issues. With Win7, both work. Of course I'm replying to your post on my Fedora server 'cause I'm to lazy to boot up my main (Dual boot, XP and Win7).

End of the day, it's just an OS...programs are where it's at!

[Niode]

I wouldn't bother upgrading to XP 64bit. I tried to use it for a while and it's buggy as hell. Nothing works with it. Not even 64 bit software. The .exe has to be written with support for xp 64bit into it. If it doesn't it simply won't work, or will work but will be practically useless. Just because it's an x64 binary doesn't mean it automatically works with XP x64. If you are lucky you can get .msi to run, but you need to use Orca to change the OS verification.

My printer didn't work, my crossfire gaming adaptor (360 wireless controller) would work then for some reason stopped working, my MOTU 828 didn't work, neither did my Mackie Onyx, none of the media keys worked on my keyboard. There was a whole stream of shit that just didn't work with it. Vista worked with them all perfectly in 64 bit mode (if the drivers were there, if not it just used the 32 bit drivers through a compatibility layer) never had any problems.

XP x64 is a steaming pile of shit. You would be better off getting Linux, it's actually more compatible. In fact you'd be able to access all of your ram in 32bit ubuntu if you use the server kernel. Or if you use Debian just use the -bigmem option at install.

Seriously though, if you want to make the most of that ram you should upgrade to Windows 7, I hated it at first but it has grown on me. It's definitely usable, it's nowhere near as good as OS X mind, but it's a step in the right direction for a Windows OS.

[gtmtnbiker]

I wouldn't bother upgrading to XP 64bit. I tried to use it for a while and it's buggy as hell. Nothing works with it. Not even 64 bit software. The .exe has to be written with support for xp 64bit into it. If it doesn't it simply won't work, or will work but will be practically useless. Just because it's an x64 binary doesn't mean it automatically works with XP x64. If you are lucky you can get .msi to run, but you need to use Orca to change the OS verification.

At this point, I would suggest someone to use Vista x64 or & 7 x64 instead of XP x64. But I don't know why you had a lot of trouble with XP x64.

I haven't found it to be buggy as hell. I've been using it for at least 2 years. Sure, some legacy programs are confused because x86 programs install to \program files (x86) instead of \program files and registry keys are in \wow32on64 (something like that).

What do you mean by .exe has to be written with support for xp64 built into it? A program on Windows is either x86 or x64. If it's the latter, then it's a 64-bit program. What were some x64 programs that you found that didn't work? I would think that if a vendor was doing x64, they would take the trouble to test/verify on the x64 operating systems (XP, 2003, etc)

[Niode]

It's regarding drivers. If the exe is compatible with x64 is has to be made explicit that XP x64 belongs in this group otherwise it says 'this software is only compatible with 64 bit systems' or something along those lines, and the 32 bit drivers simply refuse to work stating it should be installed on a 32bit system or flatly refusing to work/installing broken drivers. There isn't a way to jury rig these .exe files to work on x64 unlike MSI files, at least with .MSI you can edit them with Orca, exe files need reverse engineering for them to work.

That's pretty much my entire experience with hardware on XP x64. They either worked after faffing with the installer, or they didn't work at all and had no work around. I'm sorry but faffing with an installer is something I don't have time to do these days. Not even on Linux.