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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Defjr
  • Start date Start date
Re: When can I use all 8gigs of my memory MS???

So you are saying that the KB article is wrong?

John

Colin Barnhorst wrote:

> Dennis is correct.
>
> "John John (MVP)" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
> news:%230GW6oZnIHA.3636@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
>> dennis wrote:
>>
>>> John John (MVP) wrote:
>>>
>>>> I strongly believe that the KB article is right and that for driver
>>>> compatibility reasons the RAM is limited to 3.12 GB.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Driver compatibility is about not going above 4 GB, which is possible
>>> when Windows go into pae mode. So available RAM is 4 GB - memory
>>> mapped IO
>>
>>
>> Even with PAE enabled 32-bit Windows workstation versions cannot
>> access RAM above the 4GB arena. I shall agree to disagree with your
>> interpretation of the KB article and hope that a Microsoft engineer
>> informs us of the facts.
>>
>> John
>
>
 
Re: When can I use all 8gigs of my memory MS???

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.

"John John (MVP)" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
news:ujom03bnIHA.3636@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> So you are saying that the KB article is wrong?
>
> John
>
> Colin Barnhorst wrote:
>
>> Dennis is correct.
>>
>> "John John (MVP)" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
>> news:%230GW6oZnIHA.3636@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>
>>> dennis wrote:
>>>
>>>> John John (MVP) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I strongly believe that the KB article is right and that for driver
>>>>> compatibility reasons the RAM is limited to 3.12 GB.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Driver compatibility is about not going above 4 GB, which is possible
>>>> when Windows go into pae mode. So available RAM is 4 GB - memory mapped
>>>> IO
>>>
>>>
>>> Even with PAE enabled 32-bit Windows workstation versions cannot access
>>> RAM above the 4GB arena. I shall agree to disagree with your
>>> interpretation of the KB article and hope that a Microsoft engineer
>>> informs us of the facts.
>>>
>>> John
>>
 
Re: When can I use all 8gigs of my memory MS???

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.

"Zootal" <msnews@zootal.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:%23puDs0anIHA.1212@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> It's not worth the trouble. XP 64 is my main OS on this box, XP32 is there
> just in case.
>
> "Colin Barnhorst" <c.barnhorst@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:7DE758E7-7C56-4DEE-B61A-022DD42CE091@microsoft.com...
>> Check the manual for your mobo on your options for closing memory holes
>> and such. You probably can gain a small amount but not the whole thing.
>>
>> "Zootal" <msnews@zootal.nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23L4Eu8XnIHA.2328@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>I just booted to XP SP2 32 bit using the /nopae switch, and it still told
>>>me I had 3.00 GB of ram. This is an Asus M2A32.MVP board, Phenom 9600,
>>>4GB of ram (four 1GB sticks). I'm open to playing with this if anyone has
>>>any ideas as to what I could do to get it to see more memory in XP32. I
>>>don't use XP32, and I have the partition backed up, so I'm not concerned
>>>about corrupting it to the point of needing to be wiped and restored.
>>>
>>> XP64 tells me I have 4.00 GB ram.
>>>
>>> "John John (MVP)" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
>>> news:O8AZPnWnIHA.536@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>> Actually, if we are to believe Microsoft articles, to avoid driver
>>>> compatibility issues they *do* throttle the available RAM to 3.12GB on
>>>> Vista 32-bit SP1. I'm not 100% sure but I think that disabling DEP (nx
>>>> AlwaysOff) may remove the limit and allow users to see a bit more RAM
>>>> if
>>>> the hardware is using less addresses than the imposed limit.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure how Windows 32-bit XP2 handles the driver compatibility
>>>> issues. If you have an XP SP2 box with 4GB RAM Colin, you could do
>>>> tests
>>>> with and without the /nopae switch (DEP disabled or enabled) and let us
>>>> know the results. Disabling PAE automatically disables DEP.
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>> Colin Barnhorst wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> That is NOT something MS did at all. It is the BIOS on your mobo that
>>>>> is
>>>>> reserving the space. My systems show from 2.5GB to 3.5GB, depending
>>>>> on
>>>>> the hardware on the system. There is simply no such thing as a 3.2GB
>>>>> limit. The often quoted knowlegebase article that gives 3.12GB does so
>>>>> as
>>>>> an example in order to illustrate how the memory available for user
>>>>> programs is calculated. It is no more valid for your system than a
>>>>> TurboTax example would be for your real return.
>>>>>
>>>>> <miso@sushi.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:d384203d-a73b-40b3-8c7e-de524ddeb5eb@m1g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Apr 12, 3:34 pm, DevilsPGD <spam_narf_s...@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In message <40B437F3-D856-4A95-AB63-B93D7BCF5...@microsoft.com>
>>>>>>> Defjr
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <De...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> >if you have less than 4 gigs of memory(why that magic number keeps
>>>>>>> >showing up is beyond me)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2^32 is 4GB. If you're using a 32bit integer for address ranges,
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>> can't access memory above 4GB.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you're an operating system, this isn't a big deal, you just don't
>>>>>>> offer access to memory above 4GB at all and life is good.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Applications can usually survive as the operating system's virtual
>>>>>>> memory subsystem already remaps memory requests.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, drivers don't have that luxury as they deal directly with
>>>>>>> hardware.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just to be clear here, while 2**32 is 4G, MS didn't see fit to allow
>>>>>> their 32 bit OS to see 4G. The limit is around 3.2G. In some
>>>>>> situations, I believe the Intel chip set is the limiting factor
>>>>>> regarding available memory.
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
 
Re: When can I use all 8gigs of my memory MS???

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

Colin Barnhorst wrote:

> 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.
>
> "John John (MVP)" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
> news:ujom03bnIHA.3636@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
>> So you are saying that the KB article is wrong?
>>
>> John
>>
>> Colin Barnhorst wrote:
>>
>>> Dennis is correct.
>>>
>>> "John John (MVP)" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
>>> news:%230GW6oZnIHA.3636@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>>> dennis wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> John John (MVP) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I strongly believe that the KB article is right and that for
>>>>>> driver compatibility reasons the RAM is limited to 3.12 GB.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Driver compatibility is about not going above 4 GB, which is
>>>>> possible when Windows go into pae mode. So available RAM is 4 GB -
>>>>> memory mapped IO
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Even with PAE enabled 32-bit Windows workstation versions cannot
>>>> access RAM above the 4GB arena. I shall agree to disagree with your
>>>> interpretation of the KB article and hope that a Microsoft engineer
>>>> informs us of the facts.
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>
>>>
 
Re: When can I use all 8gigs of my memory MS???

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!

"Colin Barnhorst" <c.barnhorst@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:A787049F-2662-4198-8638-E67FB0216F03@microsoft.com...
> 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.
>
> "Zootal" <msnews@zootal.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:%23puDs0anIHA.1212@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> It's not worth the trouble. XP 64 is my main OS on this box, XP32 is
>> there just in case.
>>
>> "Colin Barnhorst" <c.barnhorst@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:7DE758E7-7C56-4DEE-B61A-022DD42CE091@microsoft.com...
>>> Check the manual for your mobo on your options for closing memory holes
>>> and such. You probably can gain a small amount but not the whole thing.
>>>
>>> "Zootal" <msnews@zootal.nospam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:%23L4Eu8XnIHA.2328@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>>I just booted to XP SP2 32 bit using the /nopae switch, and it still
>>>>told me I had 3.00 GB of ram. This is an Asus M2A32.MVP board, Phenom
>>>>9600, 4GB of ram (four 1GB sticks). I'm open to playing with this if
>>>>anyone has any ideas as to what I could do to get it to see more memory
>>>>in XP32. I don't use XP32, and I have the partition backed up, so I'm
>>>>not concerned about corrupting it to the point of needing to be wiped
>>>>and restored.
>>>>
>>>> XP64 tells me I have 4.00 GB ram.
>>>>
>>>> "John John (MVP)" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
>>>> news:O8AZPnWnIHA.536@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>>> Actually, if we are to believe Microsoft articles, to avoid driver
>>>>> compatibility issues they *do* throttle the available RAM to 3.12GB on
>>>>> Vista 32-bit SP1. I'm not 100% sure but I think that disabling DEP
>>>>> (nx
>>>>> AlwaysOff) may remove the limit and allow users to see a bit more RAM
>>>>> if
>>>>> the hardware is using less addresses than the imposed limit.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure how Windows 32-bit XP2 handles the driver compatibility
>>>>> issues. If you have an XP SP2 box with 4GB RAM Colin, you could do
>>>>> tests
>>>>> with and without the /nopae switch (DEP disabled or enabled) and let
>>>>> us
>>>>> know the results. Disabling PAE automatically disables DEP.
>>>>>
>>>>> John
>>>>>
>>>>> Colin Barnhorst wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> That is NOT something MS did at all. It is the BIOS on your mobo
>>>>>> that is
>>>>>> reserving the space. My systems show from 2.5GB to 3.5GB, depending
>>>>>> on
>>>>>> the hardware on the system. There is simply no such thing as a 3.2GB
>>>>>> limit. The often quoted knowlegebase article that gives 3.12GB does
>>>>>> so as
>>>>>> an example in order to illustrate how the memory available for user
>>>>>> programs is calculated. It is no more valid for your system than a
>>>>>> TurboTax example would be for your real return.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <miso@sushi.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:d384203d-a73b-40b3-8c7e-de524ddeb5eb@m1g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 3:34 pm, DevilsPGD <spam_narf_s...@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In message <40B437F3-D856-4A95-AB63-B93D7BCF5...@microsoft.com>
>>>>>>>> Defjr
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <De...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> >if you have less than 4 gigs of memory(why that magic number keeps
>>>>>>>> >showing up is beyond me)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2^32 is 4GB. If you're using a 32bit integer for address ranges,
>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>> can't access memory above 4GB.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you're an operating system, this isn't a big deal, you just
>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>> offer access to memory above 4GB at all and life is good.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Applications can usually survive as the operating system's virtual
>>>>>>>> memory subsystem already remaps memory requests.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> However, drivers don't have that luxury as they deal directly with
>>>>>>>> hardware.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just to be clear here, while 2**32 is 4G, MS didn't see fit to allow
>>>>>>> their 32 bit OS to see 4G. The limit is around 3.2G. In some
>>>>>>> situations, I believe the Intel chip set is the limiting factor
>>>>>>> regarding available memory.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
 
Re: When can I use all 8gigs of my memory MS???

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.

"John John (MVP)" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
news:O415I6cnIHA.5692@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> 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
>
> Colin Barnhorst wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>> "John John (MVP)" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
>> news:ujom03bnIHA.3636@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>
>>> So you are saying that the KB article is wrong?
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> Colin Barnhorst wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dennis is correct.
>>>>
>>>> "John John (MVP)" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
>>>> news:%230GW6oZnIHA.3636@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>>
>>>>> dennis wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> John John (MVP) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I strongly believe that the KB article is right and that for driver
>>>>>>> compatibility reasons the RAM is limited to 3.12 GB.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Driver compatibility is about not going above 4 GB, which is possible
>>>>>> when Windows go into pae mode. So available RAM is 4 GB - memory
>>>>>> mapped IO
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Even with PAE enabled 32-bit Windows workstation versions cannot
>>>>> access RAM above the 4GB arena. I shall agree to disagree with your
>>>>> interpretation of the KB article and hope that a Microsoft engineer
>>>>> informs us of the facts.
>>>>>
>>>>> John
>>>>
>>>>
 
Re: When can I use all 8gigs of my memory MS???

John John (MVP) wrote:
> Now, why would Microsoft even mention the word "limit" when explaining
> the problem? If there are no imposed limits why even talk about it?

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

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

dennis wrote:
> John John (MVP) wrote:
>
>> Now, why would Microsoft even mention the word "limit" when explaining
>> the problem? If there are no imposed limits why even talk about it?
>
>
> 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
 
Re: When can I use all 8gigs of my memory MS???

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

Colin Barnhorst wrote:

> 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.
>
> "John John (MVP)" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
> news:O415I6cnIHA.5692@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
>> 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
>>
>> Colin Barnhorst wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> "John John (MVP)" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
>>> news:ujom03bnIHA.3636@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>>> So you are saying that the KB article is wrong?
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>> Colin Barnhorst wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dennis is correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> "John John (MVP)" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
>>>>> news:%230GW6oZnIHA.3636@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>>>
>>>>>> dennis wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John John (MVP) wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I strongly believe that the KB article is right and that for
>>>>>>>> driver compatibility reasons the RAM is limited to 3.12 GB.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Driver compatibility is about not going above 4 GB, which is
>>>>>>> possible when Windows go into pae mode. So available RAM is 4 GB
>>>>>>> - memory mapped IO
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even with PAE enabled 32-bit Windows workstation versions cannot
>>>>>> access RAM above the 4GB arena. I shall agree to disagree with
>>>>>> your interpretation of the KB article and hope that a Microsoft
>>>>>> engineer informs us of the facts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>
 
Re: When can I use all 8gigs of my memory MS???

John John (MVP) wrote:
> 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.

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

Defjr <Defjr@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

> On the Vista compatibility page of this website it lists the
> Hauppauge PVR150MCE/ PVR500MCE tuner as Compliant, and works with
> 64 bit, and it does.....if you have less than 4 gigs of memory(why
> that magic number keeps showing up is beyond me). Hauppauge says
> they will not be looking into the problem anytime soon, as they
> are working on their "new" product line, but has offered to RMA
> the card for a new model that will work(all beit a single tuner
> model).

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, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project:
http://improve-usenet.org
 
Re: When can I use all 8gigs of my memory MS???

dennis wrote:

> John John (MVP) wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>
> 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

No it did not, it never did.

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

John John (MVP) wrote:

>> 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
>
> No it did not, it never did.

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

In message <9F8B03E6-47CD-4051-8B3D-E99AAB7B6098@microsoft.com> "Colin
Barnhorst" <c.barnhorst@comcast.net> wrote:

>More like 16TB, but x64 Windows is limited to 128GB at this time.
>
>See the table in http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx.
>
>Notice that there are edition specific limits for both client and server
>editions. It can be very confusing.

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

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.

"DevilsPGD" <spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net> wrote in message
news:p9180414l3ajgd3makrrpvkrdtbhcp2jl5@4ax.com...
> In message <9F8B03E6-47CD-4051-8B3D-E99AAB7B6098@microsoft.com> "Colin
> Barnhorst" <c.barnhorst@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>More like 16TB, but x64 Windows is limited to 128GB at this time.
>>
>>See the table in http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx.
>>
>>Notice that there are edition specific limits for both client and server
>>editions. It can be very confusing.
>
> 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.
 
Re: When can I use all 8gigs of my memory MS???

Notice in the definitive KB on this subject at
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx
that there is no mention of 3.12GB under the 32bit column. The limit is
always 4GB.

"John John (MVP)" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
news:uVyEI%23onIHA.3780@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> dennis wrote:
>
>> John John (MVP) wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> 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
>
> No it did not, it never did.
>
> John
 
RE: When can I use all 8gigs of my memory MS???

Well it has been a while since my last post, and I wanted to explain why this
IS a microsoft issue. First, all components are on Microsofts website listed
as CERTIFIED for VISTA. Which means 32 and 64 bit. If Microsoft is going to
hand out these Logos like candy at halloween, then they are shooting
themselves in the foot. Hauppauge is at fault for the non working PVR500MCE
with +4 gigs of RAM, but MS is at fault for allowing them to say it worked.
To prove my point, here are just a couple of examples:
http://www.hauppauge.co.uk/board/showthread.php?t=14947
http://forums.creative.com/creativelabs/board/message?board.id=soundblaster&thread.id=116332
So if MS and the readers/ posters on this forum do not want people getting
irate with these issues, simple, just make the standards concrete. Do not let
a company say its good, and accept it. They post these products on the
compatibility list with no side notes of "some features may not work", or
"+4G of RAM causes issues".
I have managed to resolve my issues, this is all for the next guy that has
the same problems even if with a different product. It is just a shame that
the so called "informed" belittle, or make fun of somebody because they are
angry, to wit they are intitled to. When a consumer reads on the
manufacturer, and MS website it works, it better work. If not, there should
be NO doubt the customer is the one being wronged. A closing note:
Thank you to those few (you know who you are) that actually helped, and did
not focus on the "flaming" as it is sometimes called. I call it speaking my
mind. Thanks and see you all later.
 
Re: When can I use all 8gigs of my memory MS???


"Defjr" <Defjr@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BB7B00A4-47FA-4F87-80CE-336B8C2907DB@microsoft.com...
> Well it has been a while since my last post, and I wanted to explain why this
> IS a microsoft issue. First, all components are on Microsofts website listed
> as CERTIFIED for VISTA. Which means 32 and 64 bit.

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
 
Back
Top