When can I use all 8gigs of my memory MS???

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by Defjr, Mar 30, 2008.

  1. I agree with Dennis that the author did not keep qualifying with "for
    example." It is clear from the variations of the amount of memory available
    for user programs across different systems that there is no one magic number
    like 3.12.
     
    Colin Barnhorst, Apr 14, 2008
    #61
    1. Advertisements

  2. I'm in the same boat. I have been on 64bit Windows now for three years.
    Only my wife still uses 32bit Windows and she is about to buy a new laptop
    with VHP x64. I still maintain a computer with 32bit XP and Vista for
    testing purposes but I'd never go back to 32bits on my primary box. And of
    course I use serveral virtual machines with 32bit guests.
     
    Colin Barnhorst, Apr 14, 2008
    #62
    1. Advertisements

  3. This is an interesting conundrum, to say the least. The issue of not
    being able to "see" all the 4GB of RAM on 32-bit Windows version is well
    known and never has it been suggested that any Windows NT 32-bit version
    limits RAM to *anything* below 4GB, it has always been known that after
    the BIOS and hardware have their say that what ever was left over was
    what Windows 32-bit would see and use. Never, ever, has Microsoft said
    that any of their 32-bit operating systems *limit* RAM to any particular
    value under the 4GB barrier.

    Now, why would Microsoft even mention the word "limit" when explaining
    the problem? If there are no imposed limits why even talk about it? It
    makes no sense at all, if what you and dennis say is true then whoever
    wrote the KB article was half asleep when he or she wrote it and the
    guys who reviewed it before publishing it were sleepwalking! The
    article *clearly* states that there is an imposed limit on Vista,
    otherwise, as I said earlier, why even mention the word limits in the
    article?

    John
     
    John John (MVP), Apr 14, 2008
    #63
  4. Defjr

    Zootal Guest

    I think what made the biggest difference for me was not so much that I
    stepped up to a 64 bit OS, but that I went from a pentium 4 to a phenom
    9600. It may not be as fast as the Intel core microarchitecture, but the
    pentium 4 is a very inefficient processor (which is why Intel finally
    abandoned it and why AMD kicked Intels butt for so long). 4 cores makes a
    huge difference for me. One of these days I'll actually get around to
    profiling my common tasks under 32 bit XP versus 64 bit XP. I made such a
    huge cpu jump when I went to 64 bits, that I don't have anything to compare
    against. And yeah, those VMs are great!
     
    Zootal, Apr 14, 2008
    #64
  5. It would not be the first KB to have mistatements. In fact they pop up
    often. For example, KB 932795, "Installation choices for 64-bit consumer
    versions of Windows Vista" contains the instruction for XP Pro x64 users to
    first download and install the Windows Vista Upgrade Advisor tool. Problem?
    Of course. The tool, as it says on the download details page, only runs on
    32bit operating systems;

    "The Upgrade Advisor works with 32-bit versions of Windows XP and Windows
    Vista."

    Further on in the same KB there is advice for users of 32bit Vista to
    uninstall 32bit Vista and install XP before upgrading to Vista 64bit. Now I
    ask you, where is the purchaser of a first computer that has bought this
    first computer with 32bit Vista preinstalled supposed to get this XP?

    There is incorrect and ill-considered advice like this throughout the KBs.
     
    Colin Barnhorst, Apr 14, 2008
    #65
  6. Defjr

    dennis Guest

    http://support.microsoft.com/kb/888137

    "To reduce driver compatibility issues, Windows Vista and Windows XP
    Service Pack 2 include hardware abstraction layer (HAL) changes that
    mimic the 32-bit HAL DMA behavior. The modified HAL grants unlimited map
    registers when the computer is running in PAE mode. Additionally, the
    kernel memory manager ignores any physical address that is more than 4 GB"

    http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/pae_os.mspx

    "4 GB of physical RAM" before SP2
    vs "4 GB of physical address space" in SP2
     
    dennis, Apr 14, 2008
    #66
  7. I know all about that and what PAE is, we aren't talking about accessing
    RAM above 4GB. No Windows 32-bit workstation version ever gave access
    to RAM above the 4GB barrier, even with PAE enabled. The other article
    clearly states that SP1 on Vista imposes a limit at 3.12GB. This 3.12
    "limit" is another twist throw in with SP1.

    John
     
    John John (MVP), Apr 14, 2008
    #67
  8. I know that the MS KB has errors and misstatements, it's not that
    unusual. As for the article in question it isn't a simple misstatement,
    if you are right the article contains a glaring error. The statement
    made in that article is one that cannot be misinterpreted and one that
    has never before been made, in no uncertain terms it states that there
    is a specifically imposed limit under the 4GB barrier.

    John
     
    John John (MVP), Apr 14, 2008
    #68
  9. Defjr

    dennis Guest

    Take notice here:

    "4 GB of physical RAM" before SP2
    vs "4 GB of physical address space" in SP2

    Before SP2 XP did allow addresses above 4G
     
    dennis, Apr 14, 2008
    #69
  10. Defjr

    XS11E Guest

    One last thing, I have an AMD processor and it features "Cool & Quiet"
    technology. What this does is "throttle back" the CPU and the CPU fan
    when the computer is under light load.

    Hauppauge cards WILL NOT work if Cool & Quiet is enabled in the BIOS
    and the Cool & Quiet software is installed.

    Look for anything similar in your BIOS or software, anything that
    allows the Intel CPU to slow down if full power isn't needed. IF Intel
    has anything similar disable/uninstall/remove it and see if the tuner
    card will start working.
     
    XS11E, Apr 15, 2008
    #70
  11. No it did not, it never did.

    John
     
    John John (MVP), Apr 15, 2008
    #71
  12. Defjr

    dennis Guest

    Why all the fuss then, about the kernel in sp2 is ignoring addresses
    above 4 GB (as stated in those KBs)?

    And there is a big difference between RAM and address space.
     
    dennis, Apr 15, 2008
    #72
  13. Defjr

    DevilsPGD Guest

    In message <> "Colin
    16TB where?

    My understanding is that current desktop chipsets typically expose
    36-bits (64GB) of addressable physical address space, and that
    theoretically we'll have 64-bits of address space (16 exabytes)

    Obviously you're limited to the lessor of what your hardware can offer,
    what your operating system can offer, and what your budget can offer.
     
    DevilsPGD, Apr 15, 2008
    #73
  14. The page file limit for 64bit Windows is 16TB. The kernel mode virtual
    address space is 8TB so I assume the other 8TB is the user mode virtual
    address space. Charlie Russel goes over this in one of his papers.

    Notice in the KB under the 32bit column that there is no reference to 3.12GB
    anywhere. The reference is always to 4GB. The downward adjustments to 4GB
    that users see on their system properties pages are all due to BIOS mappings
    and such and not Windows itself.

    This whole thing will just get worse as users upgrade to Vista SP1 and begin
    seeing 4GB reported and jump to conclusions, not realizing that only the
    object being reported has changed, not the amount of memory available to the
    user (which is still reported as before when the user runs winver). I
    recommended to MS that they put both numbers on the system properties page.
    Personally I wish they had left it alone. Now it is really going to be
    confusing.
     
    Colin Barnhorst, Apr 15, 2008
    #74
  15. Colin Barnhorst, Apr 15, 2008
    #75
  16. Defjr

    Tom Lake Guest

    Why does certified for Vista mean both 32- and 64-bit?
    The Microsoft site just says:

    "The "Certified for Windows Vista" logo is a compatibility designation for
    applications and devices that have passed a rigorous testing program on
    computers that are running Windows Vista. The technical requirements
    for this designation target four core areas: reliability, security, compatibility
    with Windows Vista and future operating systems, and installation and removal."

    There's no mention of having to be compatible with both 32- and 64-bit versions.

    Tom Lake
     
    Tom Lake, May 2, 2008
    #76
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.