|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
John John
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 10:30 pm Post subject: Re: Getting XP Pro to see 4GB of memory |
 |
|
Tim Slattery wrote:
| Quote: | John John <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
No, I did not misinterpret your post. You said:
Hardware architecture limits memory addressing to about 3.2 gig.
That is incorrect. Implementations in SP2 limits memory addressing to
about 3.2GB, not the hardware architecture. Don't bother with a reply!
That's not true.
|
Having reread the article I see that the addressing in SP2 is only
limited with the /PAE switch. Without PAE mode usable memory may be
more than 3.12GB.
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Google
Sponsor
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 10:30 pm Post subject: Advertisement |
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ken Blake, MVP
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 10:54 pm Post subject: Re: Getting XP Pro to see 4GB of memory |
|
|
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 15:17:09 -0600, Bob Peters
<bob@bobpeters61pretenses.us> wrote:
| Quote: | jorgen wrote:
Unknown wrote:
Not a bug. Hardware architecture limits memory addressing to about 3.2
gig.
The x86 architecture includes PAE, which expands the address space well
above 4G. Both xp and vista includes a PAE kernel, but limits the
physical address space to 4G anyway
Not trying to be sarcastic here, but am actually curious:
You shop for a decent new motherboard, you're usually looking at a
capacity for 8G on one that's "Designed for Windows XP" and "Windows
Vista Certified." (at the time I'm writing this)
What's the point if you can only address half of that, max?
Surely the hardware can't require 4G behind the scenes, even if you're
building a monster gaming rig to go gunning for the Angry German Kid in
"Unreal."
Is the higher capability entirely for those early adapters who are going
64-bit even without many goodies yet compatible?
|
Yes. It's for those running 64-bit Windows.
By the way, it would be a very rare occurrence for someone running
32-bit Windows XP to be able to effectively use more than 4GB (or even
3GB), even if the hardware/software supported it. Unless you run
extremely memory-hungry applications, you can't come close to even
using that much.
--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shenan Stanley
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 11:05 pm Post subject: Re: Getting XP Pro to see 4GB of memory |
|
|
Unknown wrote:
| Quote: | Not a bug. Hardware architecture limits memory addressing to about 3.2
gig.
|
jorgen wrote:
| Quote: | The x86 architecture includes PAE, which expands the address space well
above 4G. Both xp and vista includes a PAE kernel, but limits the physical
address space to 4G anyway> The x86 architecture includes PAE, which
expands the address space well above 4G. Both xp and vista includes a PAE
kernel, but limits the physical address space to 4G anyway
|
Bob Peters wrote:
| Quote: | Not trying to be sarcastic here, but am actually curious:
You shop for a decent new motherboard, you're usually looking at a
capacity for 8G on one that's "Designed for Windows XP" and "Windows
Vista Certified." (at the time I'm writing this)
|
Who is the 'you' that you (Bob Peters) is referring to here in the
statement, "... you're usually looking at a capacity for 8G on one ..."?
I know if I am looking for a motherboard/computer for Windows XP, I look for
one with a maximum capacity of 4GB if I plan on running 32bit Windows/etc.
If I might later install something that might use more (VMWare ESX, *nix,
64bit Windows, etc...) I might look for a board that supports more. If I
find a better board that supports a maximum of 256GB of memory for a few
bucks more - but because of the FSB and other features, it is better
overall - sure, I'll blow the extra few dollars - but not because it
supports the extra RAM necessarily - but because it has other features I
want.
You (Bob Peters) seem to imply that the mysterious 'you' referred to will
only look for two things. RAM capacity and OS compatibility. I look at
FSB, CPU type, onboard USB capability, onboard audio, onboard NIC, HDD
controller type/capacity, RAID or not and even the type of casde it will fit
in. I like to get as much as *I* would need for now and 3-5 years in the
future as I can given a price restraint and what I plan on doing with it in
that timeframe.
| Quote: | What's the point if you can only address half of that, max?
|
Why'd you (Bob Peters in this case) bother to spec something you did not
need and whether or not it supports it does not mean you have to utilize it.
I bet you have driven cars that will easily go 120MPH or faster... Did you
have to go that fast all the time because the car had that ability? I bet
you've bought a pack of gum, a six-pack of beer or a bag of candy when you
knew only a few would resolve your current craving.
| Quote: | Surely the hardware can't require 4G behind the scenes, even if
you're building a monster gaming rig to go gunning for the Angry
German Kid in "Unreal."
|
I do not understand here - are you making the same point I am? What do you
mean, "... the hardware can't require 4G behind the scenes ..."?
| Quote: | Is the higher capability entirely for those early adapters who are
going 64-bit even without many goodies yet compatible?
|
It's for anyone who thinks they might need it. Each person is different.
Some may be happy with a 400MHz machine with 128MB memory running Windows XP
(I've seen it and even read about such people in these newsgroups.) Others
may need 1.8GHz with 512MB memory for minimal performance with their office
apps. Others might need 3.0GHz with 1GB memory for their smaller graphical
editing (2D usually.) Others might be better off with the latest AutoDesk
product, Core2Dua 3.0GHz Xeon and 3.5GB memory for their 3D modeling. It
all depends on the 'you' that you (Bob Peters) was referring to.
--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shenan Stanley
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 1:07 am Post subject: Re: Getting XP Pro to see 4GB of memory |
|
|
Unknown wrote:
| Quote: | Not a bug. Hardware architecture limits memory addressing to about 3.2
gig.
|
jorgen wrote:
| Quote: | The x86 architecture includes PAE, which expands the address space well
above 4G. Both xp and vista includes a PAE kernel, but limits the physical
address space to 4G anyway> The x86 architecture includes PAE, which
expands the address space well above 4G. Both xp and vista includes a PAE
kernel, but limits the physical address space to 4G anyway
|
Bob Peters wrote:
| Quote: | Not trying to be sarcastic here, but am actually curious:
You shop for a decent new motherboard, you're usually looking at a
capacity for 8G on one that's "Designed for Windows XP" and "Windows
Vista Certified." (at the time I'm writing this)
What's the point if you can only address half of that, max?
Surely the hardware can't require 4G behind the scenes, even if
you're building a monster gaming rig to go gunning for the Angry
German Kid in "Unreal."
Is the higher capability entirely for those early adapters who are
going 64-bit even without many goodies yet compatible?
|
Shenan Stanley wrote:
| Quote: | Who is the 'you' that you (Bob Peters) is referring to here in the
statement, "... you're usually looking at a capacity for 8G on one
..."?
I know if I am looking for a motherboard/computer for Windows XP, I
look for one with a maximum capacity of 4GB if I plan on running
32bit Windows/etc. If I might later install something that might
use more (VMWare ESX, *nix, 64bit Windows, etc...) I might look for
a board that supports more. If I find a better board that supports
a maximum of 256GB of memory for a few bucks more - but because of
the FSB and other features, it is better overall - sure, I'll blow
the extra few dollars - but not because it supports the extra RAM
necessarily - but because it has other features I want.
You (Bob Peters) seem to imply that the mysterious 'you' referred
to will only look for two things. RAM capacity and OS
compatibility. I look at FSB, CPU type, onboard USB capability,
onboard audio, onboard NIC, HDD controller type/capacity, RAID or
not and even the type of casde it will fit in. I like to get as
much as *I* would need for now and 3-5 years in the future as I can
given a price restraint and what I plan on doing with it in that
timeframe.
Why'd you (Bob Peters in this case) bother to spec something you
did not need and whether or not it supports it does not mean you
have to utilize it. I bet you have driven cars that will easily go
120MPH or faster... Did you have to go that fast all the time
because the car had that ability? I bet you've bought a pack of
gum, a six-pack of beer or a bag of candy when you knew only a few
would resolve your current craving.
I do not understand here - are you making the same point I am? What do you
mean, "... the hardware can't require 4G behind the
scenes ..."?
It's for anyone who thinks they might need it. Each person is
different. Some may be happy with a 400MHz machine with 128MB
memory running Windows XP (I've seen it and even read about such
people in these newsgroups.) Others may need 1.8GHz with 512MB
memory for minimal performance with their office apps. Others
might need 3.0GHz with 1GB memory for their smaller graphical
editing (2D usually.) Others might be better off with the latest
AutoDesk product, Core2Dua 3.0GHz Xeon and 3.5GB memory for their
3D modeling. It all depends on the 'you' that you (Bob Peters) was
referring to.
|
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
| Quote: | However, when buying a computer it's important to think in terms
NOT just of how much memory you need NOW ---- but what you'll need
in two or three years.
|
*grin*
I think I said that...
"I like to get as much as *I* would need for now and 3-5 years in the
future as I can given a price restraint and what I plan on doing with it in
that timeframe."
--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Xandros
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 1:09 am Post subject: Re: Getting XP Pro to see 4GB of memory |
|
|
"Stan Brown" <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:MPG.21e1c5ff15d63b6498b343@news.individual.net...
| Quote: | Sun, 30 Dec 2007 10:54:24 -0600 from Xandros
arron.neus*remove*@gmailcom>:
"Bob Peters" <bob@bobpeters61pretenses.us> wrote in message
news:1199020172_9533@sp6iad.superfeed.net...
VanguardLH wrote:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/888137/en-us
Limiting memory. Looks like a rather ugly bug introduced in SP2. I do
hope that SP3 includes a fix for that when and if it ever comes out.
This is by design. It is not a bug.
The word "misfeature" is useful here -- intended behavior that seems
remarkably ill-chosen.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
|
"misfeature" - that pretty much sums up most Microsoft software designs.
--
Xandros |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob Peters
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 1:15 am Post subject: Re: Getting XP Pro to see 4GB of memory |
|
|
Shenan Stanley wrote:
| Quote: |
Bob Peters wrote:
Not trying to be sarcastic here, but am actually curious:
You shop for a decent new motherboard, you're usually looking at a
capacity for 8G on one that's "Designed for Windows XP" and "Windows
Vista Certified." (at the time I'm writing this)
Who is the 'you' that you (Bob Peters) is referring to here in the
statement, "... you're usually looking at a capacity for 8G on one ..."?
Dude, you need to interact more with humans. You're showing signs of |
computer-like literalist thought process.
My use of "you" there was a very common framing of a generalization.
| Quote: |
You (Bob Peters) seem to imply that the mysterious 'you' referred to will
only look for two things. RAM capacity and OS compatibility. I look at
FSB, CPU type, onboard USB capability, onboard audio, onboard NIC, HDD
controller type/capacity, RAID or not and even the type of casde it will fit
in. I like to get as much as *I* would need for now and 3-5 years in the
future as I can given a price restraint and what I plan on doing with it in
that timeframe.
Actually, I want to do various multi-media and am hoping for room to |
expand and stay useful until 2012. So for my current newly-built
computer, I looked for 3G SATA, Core2Quad CPU support (LGA775 socket,
specifically) and PCI Express x16 slots for the video card, rather than
the older AGP. Also, all the various ports I want, such as parallel for
my printer, a good ethernet port, at least one Firewire port and enough
USB2 for all my toys. As well as a couple of free PCI slots remaining
for that doodad I haven't yet imagined but will want in a couple of
years when it hits the market.
My approach is to consider the overall system and select a mobo that
fits everything it has to.
Such motherboards, or even the ones that aren't low-end to the point of
matching a $500 prefabbed PC, generally support up to 8G of RAM. At
least where I shopped for parts.
Not that one need buy that much memory. Mine does just fine for my
present purposes with only 2G of RAM. I'll buy more later if I need it
for something I have yet to add on or try doing.
| Quote: | Surely the hardware can't require 4G behind the scenes, even if
you're building a monster gaming rig to go gunning for the Angry
German Kid in "Unreal."
I do not understand here - are you making the same point I am? What do you
mean, "... the hardware can't require 4G behind the scenes ..."?
Sorry, but that's the most literal level I could reduce that one to. |
| Quote: | Is the higher capability entirely for those early adapters who are
going 64-bit even without many goodies yet compatible?
It's for anyone who thinks they might need it.
Or perhaps, I guess, for room to upgrade in the future when one wants |
something that most people haven't yet imagined that'll come out in a
couple of years, and hopefully more 64-bits software will be available
by then.
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob Peters
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 1:17 am Post subject: Re: Getting XP Pro to see 4GB of memory |
|
|
Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
| Quote: | On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 15:17:09 -0600, Bob Peters
bob@bobpeters61pretenses.us> wrote:
jorgen wrote:
Unknown wrote:
Not a bug. Hardware architecture limits memory addressing to about 3.2
gig.
The x86 architecture includes PAE, which expands the address space well
above 4G. Both xp and vista includes a PAE kernel, but limits the
physical address space to 4G anyway
Not trying to be sarcastic here, but am actually curious:
You shop for a decent new motherboard, you're usually looking at a
capacity for 8G on one that's "Designed for Windows XP" and "Windows
Vista Certified." (at the time I'm writing this)
What's the point if you can only address half of that, max?
Surely the hardware can't require 4G behind the scenes, even if you're
building a monster gaming rig to go gunning for the Angry German Kid in
"Unreal."
Is the higher capability entirely for those early adapters who are going
64-bit even without many goodies yet compatible?
Yes. It's for those running 64-bit Windows.
Thanks. That's what I thought. |
| Quote: | By the way, it would be a very rare occurrence for someone running
32-bit Windows XP to be able to effectively use more than 4GB (or even
3GB), even if the hardware/software supported it. Unless you run
extremely memory-hungry applications, you can't come close to even
using that much.
|
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
