Originally Posted by thinkwelldesigns
None???? Hello? Software exists right now that benefits from 64 bit processing. But duh, the vastly higher ram ceiling of 64 bit can hardly be reached with 1 gig modules.
Which is what the software needs, but RAM hasn't done well at providing.
First off, once again, what does DDR3 have to do with how 64 bit code is accepted? Nothing. 64 bit Windows for example could address more than 4 gigs since DDR. How does DDR3 make 64 widespread?
Second off, there have been 2 gig sticks since DDR (albeit very limited). That's right, DDR. Now there are COMMON 2 gig sticks of DDR2. We don't need DDR3 to need an OS that can address more than 3.5GB of memory. We did it with DDR and again with DDR2. DDR3 is irrelevant to the need for the current 64bit OSes.
Third, I'm unaware of a 32bit limitation on ram size outside of microsoft simply not coding for it. If someone else has hard proof to the contrary, please correct me.
And what does having current 64 bit benefiting software have to do with DDR3? Once again, how does DDR3 make 64 bit easier to implement on the grand scale? If you're going to say because its capacity will push the need for more 64 bit software, the current hardware already can/does make it necessary
. Also, read the above paragraph.
It's cool that you don't agree with me, bud, but at least answer the legitimate questions asked and/or rebut the points made.
EDIT: 64bit acceptance is 99.9% due to drivers/programs being coded for 32bit and 0.1% due to inadequate ability of DDR/DDR2 to have enough capacity.
EDIT EDIT: It's not a windows problem, however, the rest of my points still stand.
To be perfectly clear, this isn't a Windows problem-- it's an x86 hardware problem. The memory hole is quite literally invisible to the CPU, no matter what 32-bit operating system you choose.