Hardware for such applications is sold by vendors who specialize in legacy tech, no one in their right mind should be trying to run a 5960X with 16GB RAM on a 32-bit OS...
Hardware for such applications is sold by vendors who specialize in legacy tech, no one in their right mind should be trying to run a 5960X with 16GB RAM on a 32-bit OS...There is a reason windows is still released with a 32bit variant. A lot of businesses own software that will not work correctly with a 64bit OS. The company I work for has software from two large companies that is installed on about 1500 desktops that require 32bit to get full functionality. The software is for document control and the other title is for accounting. The business isn't interested in spending potentially millions of dollars to get the software fully supported in 64bit and frankly there isn't any reason yet.
Sure, I'll try to stay consistent!By your reasoning since many hardcore overclockers will use a 32-bit OS for some 32-bit benches does that make them not right in the head?
Yes really, only a crazy person would do that. I'm surprised that the OP was even able to install a 32-bit OS on such hardware to begin with.Hardware for such applications is sold by vendors who specialize in legacy tech, no one in their right mind should be trying to run a 5960X with 16GB RAM on a 32-bit OS...
Any setting in BIOS to control memory remapping (above 4G) option?
Yes really, only a crazy person would do that.
It could by putting more RAM below 4GB. He is only getting 924MB (initially) and now 1.42GB with the beta BIOS. It should be at least 2.75GB addressable/useable RAM even supposing all devices enabled plus graphics card (which do not receive 1:1 mapping of dedicated VRAM into memory address space).It wouldn't matter in this case as the Windows OS itself is limiting address space to the first 4GB so any hardware / MMIO gets first pickings then what's left over can be used for DRAM. Extra DRAM remapped above the 4GB address limit is out of bounds for the OS although some 3rd Party software can make use of it.
Why would they bother to do anything at all that would allow Win9x/DOS to run on such high end hardware? or for that matter, why would anyone want to even use Win9x/DOS in the first place?Maybe this is intentional? Limiting the available physical RAM to the OS to 1GB, to allow Win9x/DOS to run properly?
Think, BIOS updaters. Not just the mainboard BIOS either, but some 3rd-party accessory card plugged in, or USB device plugged in. Supporting a DOS environment for flashing those devices, may have been a required development point for that board.Why would they bother to do anything at all that would allow Win9x/DOS to run on such high end hardware? or for that matter, why would anyone want to even use Win9x/DOS in the first place?
FreeDOS would be useful for that.Think, BIOS updaters. Not just the mainboard BIOS either, but some 3rd-party accessory card plugged in, or USB device plugged in. Supporting a DOS environment for flashing those devices, may have been a required development point for that board.
Which, still being a real-mode x86 OS (?), it requires that the platform firmware supports booting it. Hence my comments.FreeDOS would be useful for that.
Would modern hardware even be able to boot such OSes?Which, still being a real-mode x86 OS (?), it requires that the platform firmware supports booting it. Hence my comments.