 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Windows Forum / Windows XP / Basics / March 2008Getting XP Pro to see 4GB of memory
Just upgraded my Windows XP SP2 box to 4GB of memory. My BIOS sees 4096MB. I've added the /PAE option to boot.ini but it still says "3.62GB of RAM" when I look at system properties. what am I missing? Below is the whole boot.ini: [boot loader] timeout=5 default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS [operating systems] multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS="Microsoft Windows XP Professional" /PAE /fastdetect /NoExecute=OptIn C:\CMDCONS\BOOTSECT.DAT="Microsoft Windows Recovery Console" /cmdcons > Just upgraded my Windows XP SP2 box to 4GB of memory. My BIOS sees > 4096MB. I've added the /PAE option to boot.ini but it still says [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > C:\CMDCONS\BOOTSECT.DAT="Microsoft Windows Recovery Console" > /cmdcons Install Windows XP x64 instead (if you have a 64bit capable system.) Otherwise - you are getting all you will get out of WIndows XP 32bit.  SignatureShenan Stanley MS-MVP -- How To Ask Questions The Smart Way http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html > Just upgraded my Windows XP SP2 box to 4GB of memory. My BIOS sees > 4096MB. > I've added the /PAE option to boot.ini but it still says "3.62GB of > RAM" > when I look at system properties. what am I missing? <snip> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/888137/en-us > 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. Sun, 30 Dec 2007 07:19:38 -0600 from Bob Peters <bob@bobpeters61pretenses.us>: > > 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. You might want to read the cited text before commenting. It's pretty obvious that this code is behaving as Microsoft intended. SignatureStan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com/ "If there's one thing I know, it's men. I ought to: it's been my life work." -- Marie Dressler, in /Dinner at Eight/ Not a bug. Hardware architecture limits memory addressing to about 3.2 gig. >> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/888137/en-us > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY ** > ---------------------------------------------------------- It's not a bug and what you say is also incorrect. There was an "intentional" change made in SP2 to deliberately limit the available limit to about 3.2GB. The hardware architecture does not limit memory addressing, it takes what it needs and the rest of the unused addresses are available for the installed RAM, prior to SP2 that could be as high as 3.75GB, it all depends on the hardware installed in the box. The changes in SP2 were made for compatibility reason with some drivers, probably because of poorly written drivers if you ask me. In any case I think that it is a dumb fix, one of these Microsoft dillies! Because "some" drivers are screwy everybody, whether or not they have screwy drivers, should be denied the use of potentially available memory above 3.2GB, what a kludge of a fix! Anyway, someone told me in another group that they have 4GB on XP 32-bit with SP2 and that they are able to see much more than the 3.2GB limit that was supposedly introduced with SP2 so I don't quite know what to make of this SP2 fix. John > Not a bug. Hardware architecture limits memory addressing to about 3.2 gig. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY ** >>---------------------------------------------------------- Once again you read something into a post and misinterpret. 'The hardware takes what it needs and the rest of the unused addresses are available for memory'. If that doesn't equate to 'hardware architecture limitation' what is it in your words?? Since all memory is used (not all by programs) I think it to be brilliant hardware design. Think of all the hardware address bits saved. > It's not a bug and what you say is also incorrect. There was an > "intentional" change made in SP2 to deliberately limit the available limit [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >>> ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY ** >>>---------------------------------------------------------- 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! John > Once again you read something into a post and misinterpret. 'The hardware > takes what it needs and the rest of the unused addresses are available for [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >>>> ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY ** >>>>---------------------------------------------------------- >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. SignatureTim Slattery MS MVP(Shell/User) Slattery_T@bls.gov http://members.cox.net/slatteryt >>No, I did not misinterpret your post. You said: >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > 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 It is amazing how your egotistic superiority complex prevents you from seeing or recognizing other posters messages. What is it that you don't recognize about hardware architecture? >>>No, I did not misinterpret your post. You said: >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > John The hardware architecture does not limit the available RAM to "about 3.2 gig", as you incorrectly stated. The addressed taken from the T.O.M. range can be as little as 200MB to as much as 1GB, or even more. There is no artificial number as "about 3.2GB". The unavailable RAM isn't lost, its addresses are shifted above the 4GB barrier and 32-bit operating systems cannot use it unless they make use of Physical Address Extension. Changes in SP2 PAE mode behaviour may further reduce the available memory, you may have less available than before you applied SP2. I know fully well why all 4GB of RAM isn't available on 32-bit operating systems, I don't need lessons in hardware architecture from you. You don't know what you are talking about and proof enough of that is that only a short while ago you were arguing the video adapter memory had nothing at all to do with the issue and that it didn't affect available memory! Hardware architecture does not limit available RAM to about 3.2 gigs, if it does then perhaps you should explain why the OP stated that he can see or use 3.62 gigs, that is about 462MB than your artificially made up value of "about 3.2 gigs"! Take a hike troll. John > It is amazing how your egotistic superiority complex prevents you from > seeing or [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> >>John Once again your egotistic superiority complex is showing. What is it that you don't understand about the word 'about'. Would 'estimated' suit you better? Why can't the difference between 4gig and 3.2 gig be used? (without PAE). You take a hike! > The hardware architecture does not limit the available RAM to "about 3.2 > gig", as you incorrectly stated. The addressed taken from the T.O.M. [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >>> >>>John Your "about" could be off by as much as 500 megabytes one way or the other, not a trivial amount when dealing with RAM. You cannot admit that your statement was incorrect so in an effort to bolster up your inaccurate information you are now trying to steer the conversation away from your inaccurate statements, you truly are a useless troll! John > Once again your egotistic superiority complex is showing. What is it that > you don't understand [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] >>>> >>>>John And you are truly useless for responding to posts. Worse than a troll. May I suggest (or you can preserve your ignorance if you so choose) that you visit the MS site and read all about 'memory management'. You'll discover the term 'mapped for other uses'. If that isn't hardware architecture then you must have a completely different vocabulary than everyone else on this newsgroup. > Your "about" could be off by as much as 500 megabytes one way or the > other, not a trivial amount when dealing with RAM. You cannot admit that [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] >>>>> >>>>>John > May I suggest (or you can preserve your ignorance if you so choose) that > you visit the MS site and read all about 'memory management'. > You'll discover the term 'mapped for other uses'. > If that isn't hardware architecture then you must have a completely > different vocabulary than everyone else on this newsgroup. It is a choice Microsoft made. If you have a state-of-the-art computer that supports more than 4GB RAM and memory remapping (John John touched the remapping subject), the limitation is in the OS not in the hardware. I know what you mean, I've got an ASUS P5B Premium motherboard that will take either XP or Vista. I'm running XP with built for 4 gigs but due to XP, running 2 gigs of memory. Solid box, 'been running great. Flight Sim X Deluxe with all the goodies set at max, the game runs great. SignatureDon Vancouver, USA >> May I suggest (or you can preserve your ignorance if you so choose) that >> you visit the MS site and read all about 'memory management'. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > that supports more than 4GB RAM and memory remapping (John John touched > the remapping subject), the limitation is in the OS not in the hardware. Where did I say that it wasn't hardware architecture? Nowhere! As usual you make erroneous statements and then try to twist everything around to suit your silly arguments. Once again, in case you didn't understand it the first time, the hardware architecture does not limit the RAM to "about 3.2 gigs", what will be available depends on what is installed in the computer, it could be anything between 2.75 to 3.75GB. Obviously you don't' understand anything about the issue, you keep on insisting that the limit is "about 3.2 gigs". John > And you are truly useless for responding to posts. Worse than a troll. > May I suggest (or you can preserve your ignorance if you so choose) that [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] >>>>>> >>>>>>John Read your response to my first post. Who twists everything???? > Where did I say that it wasn't hardware architecture? Nowhere! As usual > you make erroneous statements and then try to twist everything around to > suit your silly arguments. Once again, in case you didn't understand it > the first time, the hardware architecture does not limit the RAM to "about > 3.2 gigs", what will be available depends on what is installed in the > computer, it could be anything between 2.75 to 3.75GB. WHAT DO YOU HAVE INSTALLED IN THE COMPUTER? SMOKE??????? > Obviously you don't' understand anything about the issue, you keep on > insisting that the limit is "about 3.2 gigs". [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] >>>>>>> >>>>>>>John The hardware architecture does not limit memory to any fixed artificial value as you incorrectly stated. The usable or available memory will depend on what hardware is installed in the computer. Now get lost troll, I'm done with your nonsense. John > Read your response to my first post. Who twists everything???? > [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>John How stupid can you possibly get? I never once said the hardware architecture limits memory to an artificial value. You seem to have a knack of reading something and interpreting it so that you can present an argument. If that isn't your egotistical superiority complex, I don't know what is. You get lost! If the usable or available memory is dependant on the hardware installed is that not hardware architecture? What's with you? Why are you so dense? Do you speak, read and write English? > The hardware architecture does not limit memory to any fixed artificial > value as you incorrectly stated. The usable or available memory will [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>John Are you ever pathetic! Learner wrote > Just upgraded my Windows XP SP2 box to 4GB of memory. My BIOS sees 4096MB. > I've added the /PAE option to boot.ini but it still says "3.62GB of RAM" > when I look at system properties. what am I missing? VanguardLH wrote: > http://support.microsoft.com/kb/888137/en-us Bob Peters wrote: > 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. > Not a bug. Hardware architecture limits memory addressing to about 3.2 gig. Whose word were those? Where did the "about 3.2 gig" come from? Is that not a made up artificial number that you pulled out of a hat? Once again, I repeat, the hardware architecture does not limit memory addressing to any particular value, the available memory could be anything between about 2.75 gigs to 3.7 gigs, it all depends on what hardware is installed in the box, it does not limit it to about 3.2 gigs! The op posted that he is able to see or use 3.62 gigs, in this case your made up figure of 3.2 gigs is off by 462 megabytes! It is not I who has a superiority complex, it is you who cannot accept that you made an error and move on, you simply cannot admit that you erred. I do not disagree that this is a hardware issue, what I am telling you is that there is no "about 3.2 gigs" hardware wise, I have seen users posting that they can only see 2.75 Gigs, and others like the above poster that can see much more. You on the other hand keep on insisting that the hardware architecture limits available RAM to "about 3.2 gigs", that if FALSE! Now screw off! John > How stupid can you possibly get? I never once said the hardware architecture > limits memory to an artificial value. You seem to have a knack of reading [quoted text clipped - 100 lines] >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>John You seem to want to do anything but admit you are EVER wrong. Goes back to your egotistical superiority complex personality. Do you know the definition of about? Would you expect a responder to say 'if you have this or that installed' your memory availability is xxx megabytes? > Are you ever pathetic! > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Whose word were those? Where did the "about 3.2 gig" come from? Is that > not a made up artificial number that you pulled out of a hat? No stupid, it is an approximation. > Once again, I repeat, the hardware architecture does not limit memory > addressing to any particular value, Who said anything about a particular value?? Only you trying to bail out. > anything between about 2.75 gigs to 3.7 gigs, it all depends on what > hardware is installed in the box, it does not limit it to about 3.2 gigs! I did NOT use the word 'limit'. Can't you read English? >The op posted that he is able to see or use 3.62 gigs, in this > case your made up figure of 3.2 gigs is off by 462 megabytes! > > It is not I who has a superiority complex, it is you who cannot accept > that you made an error and move on, you simply cannot admit that you > erred. I do not disagree that this is a hardware issue, That is all I said it was. Hardware architecture. >what I am telling you is that there is no "about 3.2 gigs" hardware wise, >I have seen users posting that they can only see 2.75 Gigs, and others like >the above poster that can see much more. You on the other hand keep on >insisting that the hardware architecture limits available RAM to "about 3.2 >gigs", that if FALSE! Now screw off. Would it suit you if I said 'depending on the hardware installed about 3.2 gigs'? I doubt it. Your personality wouldn't allow that. Why don't you go push the power on switch on the rear of your computer. In the meantime LEARN the English Language. (maybe you're unable?) > John > [quoted text clipped - 105 lines] >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>John Where did I say that it wasn't hardware architecture? Nowhere! As usual you make erroneous statements and then try to twist everything around to suit your silly arguments. Once again, in case you didn't understand it the first time, the hardware architecture does not limit the RAM to "about 3.2 gigs", what will be available depends on what is installed in the computer, it could be anything between 2.75 to 3.75GB. Obviously you don't' understand anything about the issue, you keep on insisting that the limit is "about 3.2 gigs". John > And you are truly useless for responding to posts. Worse than a troll. > May I suggest (or you can preserve your ignorance if you so choose) that [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] >>>>>> >>>>>>John You are mistaken. > No, I did not misinterpret your post. You said: > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] >>>>> ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY ** >>>>>---------------------------------------------------------- > 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 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? > >> Not a bug. Hardware architecture limits memory addressing to about 3.2 > >> gig. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > 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. SignatureKen Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User Please Reply to the Newsgroup >>>> Not a bug. Hardware architecture limits memory addressing to about 3.2 >>>> gig. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Yes. It's for those running 64-bit Windows. Thanks. That's what I thought. > 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. Unknown wrote: > Not a bug. Hardware architecture limits memory addressing to about 3.2 > gig. jorgen wrote: > 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 > 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. > 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. > 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 ..."? > 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. SignatureShenan Stanley MS-MVP -- How To Ask Questions The Smart Way http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html 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. DSH > Unknown wrote: >> Not a bug. Hardware architecture limits memory addressing to about 3.2 >> gig. [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > their 3D modeling. It all depends on the 'you' that you (Bob Peters) was > referring to. Unknown wrote: > Not a bug. Hardware architecture limits memory addressing to about 3.2 > gig. jorgen wrote: > 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: > Not trying to be sarcastic here, but am actually curious: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Is the higher capability entirely for those early adapters who are > going 64-bit even without many goodies yet compatible? Shenan Stanley wrote: > 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 [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > 3D modeling. It all depends on the 'you' that you (Bob Peters) was > referring to. > 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." SignatureShenan Stanley MS-MVP -- How To Ask Questions The Smart Way http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html >> Not trying to be sarcastic here, but am actually curious: >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 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. > 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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. >> 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. >> 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. >> 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 So would someone like me, who has Asus Commando MB, with a Intel core 2 duo 6600 processor, and 4GB of ram running XP pro w/SP2 want to enable the /PAE switch and support in the bios, or is it just for people running this with more than 4GB? > So would someone like me, who has Asus Commando MB, with a Intel core 2 duo > 6600 processor, and 4GB of ram running XP pro w/SP2 want to enable the /PAE > switch and support in the bios, or is it just for people running this with > more than 4GB? You are probably already running PAE, which is needed to have hardware support for DEP. But Microsoft has cut off access to the address space above 4G anyway. You need one of their server editions for this, or change to Linux or something GMAN wrote: > So would someone like me, who has Asus Commando MB, with a Intel > core 2 duo 6600 processor, and 4GB of ram running XP pro w/SP2 > want to enable the /PAE switch and support in the bios, or is it > just for people running this with more than 4GB? > You are probably already running PAE, which is needed to have > hardware support for DEP. But Microsoft has cut off access to the > address space above 4G anyway. You need one of their server > editions for this, or change to Linux or something GMAN, You can run a 64bit OS if you need to access the full potential of 4GB or more of memory. How much of the 4GB that you currently have does your system show? (System properties --> General Tab) SignatureShenan Stanley MS-MVP -- How To Ask Questions The Smart Way http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html >GMAN wrote: >> So would someone like me, who has Asus Commando MB, with a Intel [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >more of memory. How much of the 4GB that you currently have does your >system show? (System properties --> General Tab) 2.93GB ram (Out of 4GB installed) I understand after reading a bit that my 640MB Nvidia 8800GTS card is taking at least that much address space, then the built in controllers, pci cards ,bios etc take their share. >> 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. SignatureXandros Exactly. >>> 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. Sun, 30 Dec 2007 10:54:24 -0600 from Xandros <arron.neus*remove*@gmailcom>: > >> 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. SignatureStan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com/ "If there's one thing I know, it's men. I ought to: it's been my life work." -- Marie Dressler, in /Dinner at Eight/ "...intended behavior that seems remarkably ill-chosen." Sorry I arrived late. Is this discussion about my mother-in-law? --- Leonard Grey Errare humanum est > Sun, 30 Dec 2007 10:54:24 -0600 from Xandros > <arron.neus*remove*@gmailcom>: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The word "misfeature" is useful here -- intended behavior that seems > remarkably ill-chosen. > Sun, 30 Dec 2007 10:54:24 -0600 from Xandros > <arron.neus*remove*@gmailcom>: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > The word "misfeature" is useful here -- intended behavior that seems > remarkably ill-chosen. "misfeature" - that pretty much sums up most Microsoft software designs. SignatureXandros >Just upgraded my Windows XP SP2 box to 4GB of memory. My BIOS sees 4096MB. >I've added the /PAE option to boot.ini but it still says "3.62GB of RAM" >when I look at system properties. what am I missing? I'd guess that your hardware doesn't support PAE. Your 32-bit system has a 4GB address space, but some of that must be used to access video RAM, BIOS, etc. See http://members.cox.net/slatteryt/RAM.html SignatureTim Slattery MS MVP(Shell/User) Slattery_T@bls.gov http://members.cox.net/slatteryt While MS seems to refuse to document RAMDRIVE.SYS, even that it exists, I had success using it in previous versions of windows. I created a Virtual Disk at boot and coppied an entire program into the virtual drive, (AUTOEXEC.BAT), (Then resetting the program's internal path statements to reflect the new path.) Increasing the applications speed drammatically. It worked great on a 486 with 16MB of RAM and Windows 3.3. While the linked article: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555223 , addresses the historical topic of this thread, I cannot find any authoritive docs on creating virtual disks in XP. The connection to the orig. topic, (this thread), is this, If a version of windows is unable to access all of the installed RAM that the BIOS can address, why not create a virtual disk in the excess RAM (config.sys), then redirect the Windows Pagefile to that Virtual Drive???? > Just upgraded my Windows XP SP2 box to 4GB of memory. My BIOS sees 4096MB. > I've added the /PAE option to boot.ini but it still says "3.62GB of RAM" [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Professional" /PAE /fastdetect /NoExecute=OptIn > C:\CMDCONS\BOOTSECT.DAT="Microsoft Windows Recovery Console" /cmdcons > While the linked article: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555223 , addresses > the historical topic of this thread, I cannot find any authoritive docs on [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > address, why not create a virtual disk in the excess RAM (config.sys), then > redirect the Windows Pagefile to that Virtual Drive???? The theme is exhaustively discussed in chap. 7 of Microsoft WindowsXP Inside Out (2001) which suggests the common objective is efficient use of RAM (i.e. all the RAM available) supplemented where necessary by a swap file. XP and NT handle this differently from Win3, Win95 and Win98 (signalled by giving this file a different name, unlike WIN386.SWP.) The Win3 RAMdrive created a pseudodrive (using hard drive space) for the same general purpose, and did not feature in NT and XP because rendered obsolete by Windows swap files/page files. It seems theoretically possible to plan speed trials of WinXP functions with and without RAM drives. Many users would be interested in the results, especially if they offered evidence that a RAMdrive made these functions faster. Presumably MS programmers made such trials in the 1990s. SignatureDon Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) >The connection to the orig. topic, (this thread), is this, If a version of >windows is unable to access all of the installed RAM that the BIOS can >address, why not create a virtual disk in the excess RAM (config.sys), then >redirect the Windows Pagefile to that Virtual Drive???? Because you would need to use some of your 4GB address space to access the ramdrive, further reducing the amount of your RAM that could be used for productive purposes. The only solution to the 4GB barrier is 64-bit hardware and software. SignatureTim Slattery MS MVP(Shell/User) Slattery_T@bls.gov http://members.cox.net/slatteryt > The only solution to the 4GB barrier is 64-bit hardware and software. Since the hardware allows it (some hardware, anyways), I bet some with the right knowledge would be able to write such a driver. A driver that goes in and does some magic with the page table. I once saw an article discussing the possibilities > The connection to the orig. topic, (this thread), is this, If a version of > windows is unable to access all of the installed RAM that the BIOS can > address, why not create a virtual disk in the excess RAM (config.sys), then > redirect the Windows Pagefile to that Virtual Drive???? Because the solutions that you propose don't work on NT operating systems, they are solutions for MS-DOS and MS-DOS based operating systems, autoexec.bat and config.sys are not used on NT systems. Secondly, the solution you propose does not change the fact that Microsoft 32-bit workstation operating systems cannot access RAM addressed above the 4GB barrier and using a ram drive won't change that fact. The use of RAM Disks is not completely unknown to NT class operating systems ( http://www.superspeed.com/ramdisk.php ) but using these "drives" does not magically remove memory limits or increase the maximum underlying usable RAM imposed by the operating system. Time to move on to 64-bit workstation operating system if you want to fully use 4GB or more of RAM, forget about DOS solutions. By the way, the use of Ram Drives on NT is not completely undocumented, Microsoft has long ago made some base information on this available, they have even made a tool available for creating such drives: FILE: Ramdisk.sys sample driver for Windows 2000 http://support.microsoft.com/kb/257405 I have never tried this Ramdisk.exe and I don't know if it works on Windows XP but I don't see why it wouldn't. You will have to try it and find out for yourself how well or not it works. Please note that the use of this Ramdisk is not recommended on production machines and that using this tool to deprive RAM to the operating system may create complete havoc on your machine! John Thank you all for your input. I'll continue to study this topic, but your advice is appreciated. Go to a 64 bit OS. My years of tech. supt. has forced me to seek DOS and Windows optimization tricks to overcome many PC and Windows shortcommings using multiple config.sys and autoexec.bat configurations. The XP RAMDRIVE.SYS file, i discovered, has an upper limit of 32MB, hardly enough for a Windows swap or page file anyway. > While MS seems to refuse to document RAMDRIVE.SYS, even that it exists, I > had success using it in previous versions of windows. I created a Virtual [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >> Professional" /PAE /fastdetect /NoExecute=OptIn >> C:\CMDCONS\BOOTSECT.DAT="Microsoft Windows Recovery Console" /cmdcons > Thank you all for your input. I'll continue to study this topic, but your > advice is appreciated. Go to a 64 bit OS. My years of tech. supt. has > forced me to seek DOS and Windows optimization tricks to overcome many PC > and Windows shortcommings using multiple config.sys and autoexec.bat > configurations. The XP RAMDRIVE.SYS file, i discovered, has an upper limit > of 32MB, hardly enough for a Windows swap or page file anyway. Even if were big enough for the page file, it would make no sense to use a RAM drive for the page file. It would *hurt* performance. It's like borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. You'd be taking memory away from Windows use, then giving it back in the form of a page file in a RAM drive. Since you would create extra need for paging in exactly the same amount as the size of the RAM drive page file, you would accomplish nothing except the extra overhead associated with the RAM drive. SignatureKen Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience Please Reply to the Newsgroup The orig problem this thread: "If a version of windows is unable to access all of the installed RAM that the BIOS can address, why not create a virtual disk in the excess RAM (config.sys), then redirect the Windows Pagefile to that Virtual Drive????" So if there were a way to use that Windows unaddressable memory was my query. Basic premise: RAM access is at least 1000 times faster than any disk access. Windows begins using it's pagefile much sooner than it needs to and with considerable RAM still available, (Depending on the specific system of course), so it might be worth using 1-200MB of 4GB RAM for the pagefile. Adding the basic windows RAM footprint, plus whatever RAM is used by common utilities and one or two common Applications still might leave enough RAM for a pagefile pointed to a "Virtual Disk" and the system would be faster without robbing Windows of any RAM it isn't using. Additionally, setting up Windows for general multi-tasking use could sacrafice optimization, (Performance), for a specific use. Perhaps several Hardware Profiles and several User Profiles, each comprising unique optimization for a specific application or function. would be, for some windows users, more desireable. >> Thank you all for your input. I'll continue to study this topic, but >> your [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > RAM drive page file, you would accomplish nothing except the extra > overhead associated with the RAM drive. At 4GB of ram paging should not be much of an issue anyway. > The orig problem this thread: > "If a version of windows is unable to access all of the installed RAM that [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] >> RAM drive page file, you would accomplish nothing except the extra >> overhead associated with the RAM drive. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.