64-bit Support

[armsys]

Does anyone run UR on 64-bit Windows?
Does UR perform faster?
Would you recommend Windows 7 64-bit version?
Armstrong

[mikeg]

I'm getting ready to build a new system that will be running Windows 7 Professional 64-bit as the OS. So, I'd also like to hear any experiences.

[armsys]

Originally posted by mikeg
I'm getting ready to build a new system that will be running Windows 7 Professional 64-bit as the OS. So, I'd also like to hear any experiences.
Hi Mike,
I'm not sure if UR will run on Windows 7 Pro 64-bit.
I'm not sure if UR will perform significantly faster on Windows 7 Pro 64-bit.
BTW, does Microsoft Office (Word, Access, Visio,...etc.) support Windows 7 Pro 64-bit?
Hope someone would be kind enough to share their Windows 7 64-bit experience with us?
Thanks.
Armstrong

[kinook]

We have tested UR v4 on all x64 (64-bit) Windows operating systems (XP, 2003, Vista, 2008, and 7).

I wouldn't expect much difference in performance vs. running in 32-bit Windows on the same hardware.

I would only recommend installing 64-bit Windows if your machine has more than 2GB of RAM.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778(VS.85).aspx

[armsys]

Originally posted by kinook
We have tested UR v4 on all x64 (64-bit) Windows operating systems (XP, 2003, Vista, 2008, and 7).

I wouldn't expect much difference in performance vs. running in 32-bit Windows on the same hardware.

I would only recommend installing 64-bit Windows if your machine has more than 2GB of RAM.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778(VS.85).aspx
Hi Kinook,
Thanks for your valuable feedback.
If that's the case, it doesn't make any sense to upgrade to Windows 7 Pro 64-bit from Windows XP at great cost.
Armstrong

[mikeg]

Originally posted by armsys
I'm not sure if UR will run on Windows 7 Pro 64-bit.
I'm not sure if UR will perform significantly faster on Windows 7 Pro 64-bit.
Thanks Armstrong. As far as UR on 64-bit Win 7, I am primarily interested in compatibility which Kinook has now confirmed. Your original post asks about performance impact, but I was/am not expecting a significant performance impact (also commented on by Kinook).

I've upgraded several database servers at work to 64 bit OS. This was due to need for expanding memory headroom for large databases and/or memory hungry apps. Applications performing adequately within the 32-bit address space (4 GB minus overhead and restrictions depending on Windows Server edition) remain at 32-bit.

Getting back to UR and personal computers, UR is currently using less than 10 MB on my system, so it doesn't need additional memory.

However, like you I am interested to hear any Win 7 64-bit experiences in general. As you probably know, the potential downside of 64-bit and any new OS is application/driver compatibility. This has become less and less of an issue over time, but is still a concern. (Good news that UR has done well in testing.). In any case, Win 7 Pro and Ultimate will have an XP compatability mode just in case (basically a virtualized 32-bit XP environment from what I understand).

BTW, I've been waiting a long time to jump into 64-bit OS. The time is finally right for me with release of Windows 7 and better driver support. I run memory-hungry applications such as SQL Server, Visual Studio and VMware running multiple guest VM's. Also, my new system will have an SSD sys drive along with a larger conventional RAID-1 array for data. With 6 to 8 GB of RAM, paging to those drives will be reduced (another design goal).

Your decision to stick with 32-bit XP (or Vista for those already running Vista) really makes sense for most people. I'm currently running XP myself and would not bother to upgrade if I weren't building a new system.

[armsys]

Originally posted by mikeg
Thanks Armstrong. As far as UR on 64-bit Win 7, I am primarily interested in compatibility which Kinook has now confirmed. Your original post asks about performance impact, but I was/am not expecting a significant performance impact (also commented on by Kinook).

I've upgraded several database servers at work to 64 bit OS. This was due to need for expanding memory headroom for large databases and/or memory hungry apps. Applications performing adequately within the 32-bit address space (4 GB minus overhead and restrictions depending on Windows Server edition) remain at 32-bit.

Getting back to UR and personal computers, UR is currently using less than 10 MB on my system, so it doesn't need additional memory.

However, like you I am interested to hear any Win 7 64-bit experiences in general. As you probably know, the potential downside of 64-bit and any new OS is application/driver compatibility. This has become less and less of an issue over time, but is still a concern. (Good news that UR has done well in testing.). In any case, Win 7 Pro and Ultimate will have an XP compatability mode just in case (basically a virtualized 32-bit XP environment from what I understand).

BTW, I've been waiting a long time to jump into 64-bit OS. The time is finally right for me with release of Windows 7 and better driver support. I run memory-hungry applications such as SQL Server, Visual Studio and VMware running multiple guest VM's. Also, my new system will have an SSD sys drive along with a larger conventional RAID-1 array for data. With 6 to 8 GB of RAM, paging to those drives will be reduced (another design goal).

Your decision to stick with 32-bit XP (or Vista for those already running Vista) really makes sense for most people. I'm currently running XP myself and would not bother to upgrade if I weren't building a new system.
Hi Mike,
Thanks for sharing your valuable Win 64-bit experience.
If I'll upgrade to Win 7 64-bit, it's likely because of UR.
Incidentally, the config I contemplate is more or less similar to yours, including the SSD. Nonetheless, for the time being, I'm absolutely satisfied with Windows XP. Its performance is absolutely astounding partly because I disable most unneeded Windows services. I'm a realist. All I care about is the speed. Speed is everything. Now I abandon MingManager entirely.Now I use UR entirely because of its unrivaled speed to find info. In particular, I use UR in the court. Often UR helps me win the case. As such, I'm contented with UR running on Win XP.
Just my 2 cents.
Armstrong

[armsys]

Can Windows XP access the full 6GB of memory?
It has been widely rumored that Windows XP can only address 2GB of memory.
Armstrong

[$bill]

Rumor? I think it's just an attempt at simplification of a complicated issue.
You can read for yourself Microsoft's Technical Fellow Mark Russinovich's explanation at http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/archive/2008/07/21/3092070.aspx

32-bit Client Effective Memory Limits -
While 4GB is the licensed limit for 32-bit client SKUs, the effective limit is actually lower and dependent on the system's chipset and connected devices. The reason is...<snip>The result is that, if you have a system with 3GB or more of memory and you are running a 32-bit Windows client, you may not be getting the benefit of all of the RAM.

[mikeg]

Armstrong, I'm not sure what you're referring to when you ask "Can Windows XP access the full 6GB of memory?" Is this in reference to something in the current thread? Windows XP 32-bit cannot use or even see any more than 4GB of RAM.

32 vs. 64 bit addressing is not a trivial topic to understand or explain. A little more detail might help.

First, as indicated in my last post, the 32-bit address space is limited to 4GB. This is true no matter what OS you're running. An address space larger than 4GB requires more than 32 bits to represent.

Lets look at a 32-bit Windows XP system with 4GB of RAM installed. In this case, the default configuration reserves 2GB for OS kernel, device drivers, etc. In fact, memory reserved for bootstrap loader, essential devices such as keyboard, etc. results in Windows having less than 2GB available for it's kernel and reporting somewhat less than the total 4GB of installed RAM in system properties.

This configuration will leave the remaining 2GB for applications. For years, applications have been written with code libraries designed to function within a maximum of 2GB application memory space. (Due to multitasking and many systems with less physical RAM, typically even less than 2GB is available in real-world conditions. But that gets into virtual memory and paging which which is a whole discussion unto itself.)

Other Factors: In an effort to keep up with increasing application memory demands, several techniques were introduced in Windows 32-bit operating systems as stop-gap measures until greater adoption of 64-bit addressing.

One solution was the Windows "3GB switch" which squeezes the OS kernel into 1 GB and reserves up to 3GB for memory-hungry apps. Relatively few apps are designed to detect and link to this additional memory. Using the 3 GB boot switch can also cause instability if used with device drivers that are expecting to use memory in that range.

Physical Address Extensions (PAE) is another stop-gap 32-bit technology that basically reserves some address space below the 4GB line to create address extensions above the 4GB line (think of these extensions as 4GB_address_space_2, 3, 4, etc.).

Generally speaking, only high-end 32-bit operating systems, such as Windows Server Enterprise can make use of PAE. Even then, relatively few apps are capable of even seeing this additional memory. Most user apps would still be confined to the original 2GB application memory space below the 4GB line.

Conclusion: The technology kludge briefly outlined above is why 64-bit is the way to go if you really need a system that can address more than 4GB of RAM. That's why I'll be using Win 7 64-bit on my new system (reasons for 6 to 8 GB of RAM were explained earlier).

Even though 64-bit is gradually emerging into the mainstream, most home Windows users should be fine with 2 to 4GB of RAM for quite some time to come. Meawhile, the number of PC's running comfortably with 1GB or less is shrinking, but if that's still enough for your needs, don't let anyone sell you more RAM or a new OS!