date:20100803

The article you linked actually proves my point. While the kernels of the MS
client OS editions are technically capable of using PAE and, therefore,
memory above 4GB, that memory is ignored or otherwise intentionally and
actively disabled.

>From http://geoffchappell.com/notes/windows/license/memory.htm:

"The 32-bit editions of Windows Vista all contain code for using physical
memory above 4GB. Microsoft just doesn't license you to use that code.",
then he shows screenshots of a Vista Ultimate 32-bit system with 8GB of
memory installed. However, note this line that follows after the
screenshots: "...to simulate having new license data from Microsoft, I have
modified the kernel just enough so that it ignores the two license values
that set memory limits, and I have started Windows in Test Mode so that it
tolerates a kernel that no longer has Microsoft's digital signature."

Granted, that's Vista, but the author then talks about changes made to the
HAL in Windows XP beginning with SP2 (and continued in SP3) that actually
makes memory above the 4GB address space unusable. From the KB article that
the author references as admission of the change: " Any system RAM that is
more than the 4 GB barrier would be made unaddressable by Windows and be
unusable in the system."

I did learn something here: apparently, XP RTM and XP SP1, while only
licensed for 4GB, did not actively prevent using memory above the 4GB
address space when PAE was enabled. It's likely this is simply because 4GB
was extremely uncommon during the timeframe that RTM/SP1 were considered
"current" patch levels. 

XP Professional and Corporate Edition (I assume that by CE you mean
Corporate, not XP Embedded) are no different than Home in this regard.

Basically, the whole page is a long winded explanation stating that Windows
is technically capable of using more than 4GB on a 32-bit system by using
PAE, but Microsoft actively disables this functionality in client operating
systems beginning with XP SP2. I didn't realize that it wasn't enforced
prior to SP2, but it's still essentially the argument I made from the
beginning.


NUMA is Non Uniform Memory Access. The idea here is that in modern
multi-socket systems that feature processors with integrated memory
controllers, not all of the address space is created equal. Processor A has
its own local memory, as does Processor B. While the memory attached to
processor B is available to threads executing on processor A, it must go
through processor B to get to it, which introduces extra latency. Operating
systems try to reduce this performance hit by trying to run threads on the
processor that has the thread's memory local to it. Apparently, Microsoft
chose to implement this NUMA-awareness in the PAE version of their kernels.

Greg


> -Original Message-
> From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-
> boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Soren
> Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 6:24 PM
> To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com
> Subject: Re: [H] new system build suggestions or upgrade
> 
> I know I'm mistaking when it comes to XP Home, but Pro/CE versions are
> different creatures, as you already know.
> 
> As Mr. Phiber correctly pointed out, no process can use more than 3GB RAM.
> (Hence the urban legend about XP/Vista not supporting more than 3GB
> RAM, which btw is almost true with the Home edition, which we all, of
> course, try to avoid :)
> 
> 3GB/process is plenty when using an AV system, as separate processes often
> are executed at the same time, using different processors, sometimes by
> direct allocation.
> 
> What's NUMA? (never heard of it, or I don't remember - I'll look it up)
> 
> Most apps for professional audio recording make use of the AWE API. I'm
not
> sure about professional image rendering progs, but the two systems I've
> built for this purpose make plenty use of the 32GB installed. And this
> happens with a default installation of the OS (XP CE).
> 
> To my knowledge, the PAE boot switch is only used if one wants to allocate
> more than 3GB RAM to the OS.
> 
> Thanks for the link, but I don't trust the MS sites about RAM and OS's
> anymore...
> 
> Soren
>

Re: [H] new system build suggestions or upgrade


OK, I'll dig them up for you.

Right now the time is 1:32 AM at my place, and my server is shut down for the 
day, so I'll post them when I get back to life..

Thane Sherrington wrote:

At 07:07 PM 03/08/2010, Soren wrote:
Still have some .reg files somewhere that originally was made for "RAM 
surf" with IE. They should be quite easy to edit to use a RAMdisk. 
I'll find them and post them, if you want them.


I'd be very interested in seeing them.

Maybe I should mention that I've only dealt with large amounts of RAM 
on XP CE editions. AFAIR, the Home version doesn't support more than 4GB.


That's fine.  I'm thinking of XP Pro anyway.

T

Re: [H] new system build suggestions or upgrade

Inline..

Thane Sherrington wrote:

At 10:51 PM 02/08/2010, Soren wrote:
Sorry, not entirely true. There seem to be a common misunderstanding
about the O/S allocation of RAM.

E.g. WinXP can only allocate 3GB RAM for the O/S, which is often
enterpreted as the whole system can only make use of 3GB RAM in total.
Actually, XP can only use 3GB RAM for the O/S, any remaining RAM is
kindly allocated to applications with a max of 32/64GB for 32/64bit
versions of the non-server O/S. The rest

So if I put 4GB in an XP 32 system, XP could potentially access 3GB for
itself, but the extra 1GB (generally unreported) will be used by other
applications?

If Pro/CE, yup. Home? Nogo.

The 4GB story is coming from the first release of Vista not reporting
the correct amount of installed RAM (e.g. 4GB or 8GB showed up as
3GB), which, quite understandable, lead to a great deal of confusion
among guys like us.

I'm pretty sure that Vista still reports 4+GB as 3.25GB or something
similar.

Heh, Vista is as Vista as Vista gets. This should be fixed with SP1. Tried
patching? (SP2 is also out)

Both Vista32 and W732 run smoothly on +8GB RAM, same with XP.

Do you have a link for this, or have some way of testing it, because
everything you say here (at least if I'm reading it right) goes against
what I've read elsewhere.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778%28VS.85%29.aspx

MS's many support sites about this subject has contradicting info, so one can always argue any side of the question by using the relevant link. I spent *many* hours
looking at their sites, and in the end I was more confused than enlightened.

However, this site clears the fog:

geoffchappell.com/notes/toc.htm

Re: [H] new system build suggestions or upgrade


I know I'm mistaking when it comes to XP Home, but Pro/CE versions are 
different creatures, as you already know.

As Mr. Phiber correctly pointed out, no process can use more than 3GB RAM. (Hence the urban legend about XP/Vista not supporting more than 3GB RAM, which btw is almost 
true with the Home edition, which we all, of course, try to avoid :)


3GB/process is plenty when using an AV system, as separate processes often are 
executed at the same time, using different processors, sometimes by direct 
allocation.

What's NUMA? (never heard of it, or I don't remember - I'll look it up)

Most apps for professional audio recording make use of the AWE API. I'm not sure about professional image rendering progs, but the two systems I've built for this purpose 
make plenty use of the 32GB installed. And this happens with a default installation of the OS (XP CE).


To my knowledge, the PAE boot switch is only used if one wants to allocate more 
than 3GB RAM to the OS.

Thanks for the link, but I don't trust the MS sites about RAM and OS's 
anymore...

Soren

Greg Sevart wrote:

I'm still quite confident that you're mistaken. Client Microsoft operating
systems and Server SKUs less than Enterprise simply will not use any more
than 4GB. They're technically capable of leveraging PAE to extend memory
usage, but they don't. They will use PAE to support DEP (and NUMA,
apparently), but that's it. Windows 7 and fully patched versions of Vista
will, however, _report_ all installed system memory, but it will not use one
byte more than 4GB. I'd be happy to eat my words if you can point out a
Microsoft-published document that definitively indicates that I'm incorrect,
but I don't believe that is the case.

This document also outlines memory limits of 32-bit Windows versions that is
marked current as of May 2010:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2267427

Even if I am somehow mistaken and it is somehow possible to use PAE to use
more than 4GB of memory under a MS Client OS edition, that still doesn't
change the fact that each 32-bit process still has a maximum of a 4GB VAS.
PAE and 4GT ("/3GB switch") don't change that. The application must then use
AWE (Address Windowing Extensions) to make use of any memory beyond
that--and the list of apps that use the AWE API is very small. The only one
that I know of offhand that does is Microsoft SQL Server.

Greg


-Original Message-
From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-
boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Soren
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 2:54 PM
To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com
Subject: Re: [H] new system build suggestions or upgrade

Heh... nice writeup, Greg, but not completely updated, if I humbly may say
so.

If one look at the MS support sites about this question, one will get as

many

different and contradicting explanations on the subject, as there are

support

numbers (Qxyz). Beats the crap out of most techs that I know.

However, I have built a large number of AV systems, and quite a number of
those are with more than 4GB RAM, even up to 32GB. They all use the
installed RAM without any problems, so I guess that at least *some* of

MS's

support sites are right, when some obviously aren't.

There is no "trickery" because the processor is not limited to 32 bits of
physical address in PAE mode. PAE mode adds a third level of page table
lookup and changes the page table entries (PTEs) from 4 bytes wide to 8
bytes wide. This gives more room for bits of physical page address, or

"page

frame number." In the first CPUs to implement PAE only four more bits were
implemented, for a total of 24, or 36 bits of physical address. Thereby
allowing 64 GB of ram to be directly addressed. No "trickery" is involved.

It's

the same address translation the MMU has been doing all along; the format
of the lookup tables (page tables) is just changed.

As you may see, this is not as much an O/S question, as it's a CPU

question.

Nowadays, no problems when using a high grade processor.

This site pretty much nails it:

geoffchappell.com/notes/toc.htm

BTW, one of the finer benefits from using a large amount of RAM, is that

the

swap file can be allocated to RAM, which makes makes the system very
responsive. This allocation usually takes place from top>down, depending

on

the method used (separate proggie, or just a .reg file).

./

Greg Sevart wrote:

Ummnot quite.

While it is technically possible to use more than 4GB of memory on a
32-bit OS with PAE, Microsoft client operating systems will NOT use
it. Even the Standard SKUs of their Server operating systems will not
use PAE--Enterprise or Datacenter is required. (This actually gets
even more convoluted--these OS editions DO use PAE to implement
NoExecute memory protection, but will not actually use more than 4GB).

Furthermore, I think you're confusing user mode memory ("apps") with
kernel memory ("O/S"). By default, 32-bit versions of Windows XP with
4GB or more memory installed will split the 4GB int

Re: [H] new system build suggestions or upgrade

2010-08-03 Thread FORC5

lets hope this does not become necessary in the future :-)


At 04:00 PM 8/3/2010, Greg Sevart Poked the stick with:
>The x64 editions absolutely can use more than 4GB. The Ultimate Edition W7
>SKU can use up to 192GB of memory.
>
>Greg
>

-- 
Tallyho ! ]:8)
Taglines below !
--
Life is unsure, always eat your dessert first.

Re: [H] new system build suggestions or upgrade


At 07:56 PM 03/08/2010, Robert Martin Jr. wrote:
Not to be overly simple, but can't you just open task manager and 
start opening
a bunch of memory hungry apps and see if total utilized physical 
memory is more

than 4GB? Seems like that would be pretty cut and dried :)

I only have 4 GB in my top 2 boxes or I would test the theory...


I would assume you'd also have to set the swap file to 0.

T

Re: [H] new system build suggestions or upgrade

Sorry, I should have re-specified in my reply that we're discussing x86
versions only. The 4GB question is a little complex, since 36-bit addressing
with PAE has been available in processors for some time. However, MS does
not use PAE in 32-bit versions of their client operating systems to allow
you to use more than 4GB; that's reserved for their higher end Server SKUs.
Soren insists that you can use more than 4GB of memory in a 32-bit client MS
operating system, and that's the current discussion.

The x64 editions absolutely can use more than 4GB. The Ultimate Edition W7
SKU can use up to 192GB of memory.

Greg

> -Original Message-
> From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-
> boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Brian Weeden
> Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 5:44 PM
> To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com
> Cc: hardware@hardwaregroup.com
> Subject: Re: [H] new system build suggestions or upgrade
> 
> Ah.
> 
> Well, of course 32-bit only supports 4gb.
> 
> ---
> Brian
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On 2010-08-03, at 6:33 PM, Thane Sherrington
>  wrote:
> 
> > At 07:26 PM 03/08/2010, Brian Weeden wrote:
> >> Um, I just opened a bunch of programs on my Win 7 Ultimate 64bit
> >> system with 8GB of RAM and it is reporting 4612 MB in use and 3578
free.
> >
> > Greg is talking 32 bit.
> >
> > T
> >

Re: [H] new system build suggestions or upgrade

2010-08-03 Thread Robert Martin Jr.

Not to be overly simple, but can't you just open task manager and start opening 
a bunch of memory hungry apps and see if total utilized physical memory is more 
than 4GB? Seems like that would be pretty cut and dried :)

I only have 4 GB in my top 2 boxes or I would test the theory...


lopaka



From: Greg Sevart 
To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com
Sent: Tue, August 3, 2010 2:42:59 PM
Subject: Re: [H] new system build suggestions or upgrade

I'm still quite confident that you're mistaken. Client Microsoft operating
systems and Server SKUs less than Enterprise simply will not use any more
than 4GB. They're technically capable of leveraging PAE to extend memory
usage, but they don't. They will use PAE to support DEP (and NUMA,
apparently), but that's it. Windows 7 and fully patched versions of Vista
will, however, _report_ all installed system memory, but it will not use one
byte more than 4GB. I'd be happy to eat my words if you can point out a
Microsoft-published document that definitively indicates that I'm incorrect,
but I don't believe that is the case.

This document also outlines memory limits of 32-bit Windows versions that is
marked current as of May 2010:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2267427

Even if I am somehow mistaken and it is somehow possible to use PAE to use
more than 4GB of memory under a MS Client OS edition, that still doesn't
change the fact that each 32-bit process still has a maximum of a 4GB VAS.
PAE and 4GT ("/3GB switch") don't change that. The application must then use
AWE (Address Windowing Extensions) to make use of any memory beyond
that--and the list of apps that use the AWE API is very small. The only one
that I know of offhand that does is Microsoft SQL Server.

Greg

> -Original Message-
> From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-
> boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Soren
> Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 2:54 PM
> To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com
> Subject: Re: [H] new system build suggestions or upgrade
> 
> Heh... nice writeup, Greg, but not completely updated, if I humbly may say
> so.
> 
> If one look at the MS support sites about this question, one will get as
many
> different and contradicting explanations on the subject, as there are
support
> numbers (Qxyz). Beats the crap out of most techs that I know.
> 
> However, I have built a large number of AV systems, and quite a number of
> those are with more than 4GB RAM, even up to 32GB. They all use the
> installed RAM without any problems, so I guess that at least *some* of
MS's
> support sites are right, when some obviously aren't.
> 
> There is no "trickery" because the processor is not limited to 32 bits of
> physical address in PAE mode. PAE mode adds a third level of page table
> lookup and changes the page table entries (PTEs) from 4 bytes wide to 8
> bytes wide. This gives more room for bits of physical page address, or
"page
> frame number." In the first CPUs to implement PAE only four more bits were
> implemented, for a total of 24, or 36 bits of physical address. Thereby
> allowing 64 GB of ram to be directly addressed. No "trickery" is involved.
It's
> the same address translation the MMU has been doing all along; the format
> of the lookup tables (page tables) is just changed.
> 
> As you may see, this is not as much an O/S question, as it's a CPU
question.
> Nowadays, no problems when using a high grade processor.
> 
> This site pretty much nails it:
> 
> geoffchappell.com/notes/toc.htm
> 
> BTW, one of the finer benefits from using a large amount of RAM, is that
the
> swap file can be allocated to RAM, which makes makes the system very
> responsive. This allocation usually takes place from top>down, depending
on
> the method used (separate proggie, or just a .reg file).
> 
> ./
> 
> Greg Sevart wrote:
> > Ummnot quite.
> >
> > While it is technically possible to use more than 4GB of memory on a
> > 32-bit OS with PAE, Microsoft client operating systems will NOT use
> > it. Even the Standard SKUs of their Server operating systems will not
> > use PAE--Enterprise or Datacenter is required. (This actually gets
> > even more convoluted--these OS editions DO use PAE to implement
> > NoExecute memory protection, but will not actually use more than 4GB).
> >
> > Furthermore, I think you're confusing user mode memory ("apps") with
> > kernel memory ("O/S"). By default, 32-bit versions of Windows XP with
> > 4GB or more memory installed will split the 4GB into 2GB of user space
> > and 2GB of kernel space. The kernel space is reserved for just
> > that--the Windows kernel, kernel mode drivers, etc. You can use the
> > /3GB switch (4GT) to move this 2/2 split into a 3/1 user/kernel split.
> > Absolutely anything over 4GB is not used, and that's true for 32-bit
> > versions of Windows XP, Windows Vista, or Windows 7.
> >
> > You may lose some of the 4GB address space for memory mapped devices,
> > such as video cards and other devices. This is why you

Re: [H] new system build suggestions or upgrade

2010-08-03 Thread Brian Weeden

Ah.

Well, of course 32-bit only supports 4gb.

---
Brian

Sent from my iPhone

On 2010-08-03, at 6:33 PM, Thane Sherrington  
wrote:

> At 07:26 PM 03/08/2010, Brian Weeden wrote:
>> Um, I just opened a bunch of programs on my Win 7 Ultimate 64bit system with
>> 8GB of RAM and it is reporting 4612 MB in use and 3578 free.
> 
> Greg is talking 32 bit.
> 
> T
> 
> 
>> ---
>> Brian Weeden
>> Technical Advisor
>> Secure World Foundation 
>> +1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
>> +1 (202) 683-8534 US
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Greg Sevart  wrote:
>> 
>> > I'm still quite confident that you're mistaken. Client Microsoft operating
>> > systems and Server SKUs less than Enterprise simply will not use any more
>> > than 4GB. They're technically capable of leveraging PAE to extend memory
>> > usage, but they don't. They will use PAE to support DEP (and NUMA,
>> > apparently), but that's it. Windows 7 and fully patched versions of Vista
>> > will, however, _report_ all installed system memory, but it will not use
>> > one
>> > byte more than 4GB. I'd be happy to eat my words if you can point out a
>> > Microsoft-published document that definitively indicates that I'm
>> > incorrect,
>> > but I don't believe that is the case.
>> >
>> > This document also outlines memory limits of 32-bit Windows versions that
>> > is
>> > marked current as of May 2010:
>> > http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2267427
>> >
>> > Even if I am somehow mistaken and it is somehow possible to use PAE to use
>> > more than 4GB of memory under a MS Client OS edition, that still doesn't
>> > change the fact that each 32-bit process still has a maximum of a 4GB VAS.
>> > PAE and 4GT ("/3GB switch") don't change that. The application must then
>> > use
>> > AWE (Address Windowing Extensions) to make use of any memory beyond
>> > that--and the list of apps that use the AWE API is very small. The only one
>> > that I know of offhand that does is Microsoft SQL Server.
>> >
>> > Greg
>> >
>> > > -Original Message-
>> > > From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-
>> > > boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Soren
>> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 2:54 PM
>> > > To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com
>> > > Subject: Re: [H] new system build suggestions or upgrade
>> > >
>> > > Heh... nice writeup, Greg, but not completely updated, if I humbly may
>> > say
>> > > so.
>> > >
>> > > If one look at the MS support sites about this question, one will get as
>> > many
>> > > different and contradicting explanations on the subject, as there are
>> > support
>> > > numbers (Qxyz). Beats the crap out of most techs that I know.
>> > >
>> > > However, I have built a large number of AV systems, and quite a number of
>> > > those are with more than 4GB RAM, even up to 32GB. They all use the
>> > > installed RAM without any problems, so I guess that at least *some* of
>> > MS's
>> > > support sites are right, when some obviously aren't.
>> > >
>> > > There is no "trickery" because the processor is not limited to 32 bits of
>> > > physical address in PAE mode. PAE mode adds a third level of page table
>> > > lookup and changes the page table entries (PTEs) from 4 bytes wide to 8
>> > > bytes wide. This gives more room for bits of physical page address, or
>> > "page
>> > > frame number." In the first CPUs to implement PAE only four more bits
>> > were
>> > > implemented, for a total of 24, or 36 bits of physical address. Thereby
>> > > allowing 64 GB of ram to be directly addressed. No "trickery" is
>> > involved.
>> > It's
>> > > the same address translation the MMU has been doing all along; the format
>> > > of the lookup tables (page tables) is just changed.
>> > >
>> > > As you may see, this is not as much an O/S question, as it's a CPU
>> > question.
>> > > Nowadays, no problems when using a high grade processor.
>> > >
>> > > This site pretty much nails it:
>> > >
>> > > geoffchappell.com/notes/toc.htm
>> > >
>> > > BTW, one of the finer benefits from using a large amount of RAM, is that
>> > the
>> > > swap file can be allocated to RAM, which makes makes the system very
>> > > responsive. This allocation usually takes place from top>down, depending
>> > on
>> > > the method used (separate proggie, or just a .reg file).
>> > >
>> > > ./
>> > >
>> > > Greg Sevart wrote:
>> > > > Ummnot quite.
>> > > >
>> > > > While it is technically possible to use more than 4GB of memory on a
>> > > > 32-bit OS with PAE, Microsoft client operating systems will NOT use
>> > > > it. Even the Standard SKUs of their Server operating systems will not
>> > > > use PAE--Enterprise or Datacenter is required. (This actually gets
>> > > > even more convoluted--these OS editions DO use PAE to implement
>> > > > NoExecute memory protection, but will not actually use more than 4GB).
>> > > >
>> > > > Furthermore, I think you're confusing user mode memory ("apps") with
>> > > > kernel memory ("O

Re: [H] new system build suggestions or upgrade


At 07:26 PM 03/08/2010, Brian Weeden wrote:

Um, I just opened a bunch of programs on my Win 7 Ultimate 64bit system with
8GB of RAM and it is reporting 4612 MB in use and 3578 free.


Greg is talking 32 bit.

T



---
Brian Weeden
Technical Advisor
Secure World Foundation 
+1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
+1 (202) 683-8534 US


On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Greg Sevart  wrote:

> I'm still quite confident that you're mistaken. Client Microsoft operating
> systems and Server SKUs less than Enterprise simply will not use any more
> than 4GB. They're technically capable of leveraging PAE to extend memory
> usage, but they don't. They will use PAE to support DEP (and NUMA,
> apparently), but that's it. Windows 7 and fully patched versions of Vista
> will, however, _report_ all installed system memory, but it will not use
> one
> byte more than 4GB. I'd be happy to eat my words if you can point out a
> Microsoft-published document that definitively indicates that I'm
> incorrect,
> but I don't believe that is the case.
>
> This document also outlines memory limits of 32-bit Windows versions that
> is
> marked current as of May 2010:
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2267427
>
> Even if I am somehow mistaken and it is somehow possible to use PAE to use
> more than 4GB of memory under a MS Client OS edition, that still doesn't
> change the fact that each 32-bit process still has a maximum of a 4GB VAS.
> PAE and 4GT ("/3GB switch") don't change that. The application must then
> use
> AWE (Address Windowing Extensions) to make use of any memory beyond
> that--and the list of apps that use the AWE API is very small. The only one
> that I know of offhand that does is Microsoft SQL Server.
>
> Greg
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-
> > boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Soren
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 2:54 PM
> > To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com
> > Subject: Re: [H] new system build suggestions or upgrade
> >
> > Heh... nice writeup, Greg, but not completely updated, if I humbly may
> say
> > so.
> >
> > If one look at the MS support sites about this question, one will get as
> many
> > different and contradicting explanations on the subject, as there are
> support
> > numbers (Qxyz). Beats the crap out of most techs that I know.
> >
> > However, I have built a large number of AV systems, and quite a number of
> > those are with more than 4GB RAM, even up to 32GB. They all use the
> > installed RAM without any problems, so I guess that at least *some* of
> MS's
> > support sites are right, when some obviously aren't.
> >
> > There is no "trickery" because the processor is not limited to 32 bits of
> > physical address in PAE mode. PAE mode adds a third level of page table
> > lookup and changes the page table entries (PTEs) from 4 bytes wide to 8
> > bytes wide. This gives more room for bits of physical page address, or
> "page
> > frame number." In the first CPUs to implement PAE only four more bits
> were
> > implemented, for a total of 24, or 36 bits of physical address. Thereby
> > allowing 64 GB of ram to be directly addressed. No "trickery" is
> involved.
> It's
> > the same address translation the MMU has been doing all along; the format
> > of the lookup tables (page tables) is just changed.
> >
> > As you may see, this is not as much an O/S question, as it's a CPU
> question.
> > Nowadays, no problems when using a high grade processor.
> >
> > This site pretty much nails it:
> >
> > geoffchappell.com/notes/toc.htm
> >
> > BTW, one of the finer benefits from using a large amount of RAM, is that
> the
> > swap file can be allocated to RAM, which makes makes the system very
> > responsive. This allocation usually takes place from top>down, depending
> on
> > the method used (separate proggie, or just a .reg file).
> >
> > ./
> >
> > Greg Sevart wrote:
> > > Ummnot quite.
> > >
> > > While it is technically possible to use more than 4GB of memory on a
> > > 32-bit OS with PAE, Microsoft client operating systems will NOT use
> > > it. Even the Standard SKUs of their Server operating systems will not
> > > use PAE--Enterprise or Datacenter is required. (This actually gets
> > > even more convoluted--these OS editions DO use PAE to implement
> > > NoExecute memory protection, but will not actually use more than 4GB).
> > >
> > > Furthermore, I think you're confusing user mode memory ("apps") with
> > > kernel memory ("O/S"). By default, 32-bit versions of Windows XP with
> > > 4GB or more memory installed will split the 4GB into 2GB of user space
> > > and 2GB of kernel space. The kernel space is reserved for just
> > > that--the Windows kernel, kernel mode drivers, etc. You can use the
> > > /3GB switch (4GT) to move this 2/2 split into a 3/1 user/kernel split.
> > > Absolutely anything over 4GB is not used, and that's true for 32-bit
> > > versions of Windows XP, Windows Vista, o

Re: [H] new system build suggestions or upgrade

2010-08-03 Thread Brian Weeden

Um, I just opened a bunch of programs on my Win 7 Ultimate 64bit system with
8GB of RAM and it is reporting 4612 MB in use and 3578 free.

---
Brian Weeden
Technical Advisor
Secure World Foundation 
+1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
+1 (202) 683-8534 US


On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Greg Sevart  wrote:

> I'm still quite confident that you're mistaken. Client Microsoft operating
> systems and Server SKUs less than Enterprise simply will not use any more
> than 4GB. They're technically capable of leveraging PAE to extend memory
> usage, but they don't. They will use PAE to support DEP (and NUMA,
> apparently), but that's it. Windows 7 and fully patched versions of Vista
> will, however, _report_ all installed system memory, but it will not use
> one
> byte more than 4GB. I'd be happy to eat my words if you can point out a
> Microsoft-published document that definitively indicates that I'm
> incorrect,
> but I don't believe that is the case.
>
> This document also outlines memory limits of 32-bit Windows versions that
> is
> marked current as of May 2010:
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2267427
>
> Even if I am somehow mistaken and it is somehow possible to use PAE to use
> more than 4GB of memory under a MS Client OS edition, that still doesn't
> change the fact that each 32-bit process still has a maximum of a 4GB VAS.
> PAE and 4GT ("/3GB switch") don't change that. The application must then
> use
> AWE (Address Windowing Extensions) to make use of any memory beyond
> that--and the list of apps that use the AWE API is very small. The only one
> that I know of offhand that does is Microsoft SQL Server.
>
> Greg
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-
> > boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Soren
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 2:54 PM
> > To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com
> > Subject: Re: [H] new system build suggestions or upgrade
> >
> > Heh... nice writeup, Greg, but not completely updated, if I humbly may
> say
> > so.
> >
> > If one look at the MS support sites about this question, one will get as
> many
> > different and contradicting explanations on the subject, as there are
> support
> > numbers (Qxyz). Beats the crap out of most techs that I know.
> >
> > However, I have built a large number of AV systems, and quite a number of
> > those are with more than 4GB RAM, even up to 32GB. They all use the
> > installed RAM without any problems, so I guess that at least *some* of
> MS's
> > support sites are right, when some obviously aren't.
> >
> > There is no "trickery" because the processor is not limited to 32 bits of
> > physical address in PAE mode. PAE mode adds a third level of page table
> > lookup and changes the page table entries (PTEs) from 4 bytes wide to 8
> > bytes wide. This gives more room for bits of physical page address, or
> "page
> > frame number." In the first CPUs to implement PAE only four more bits
> were
> > implemented, for a total of 24, or 36 bits of physical address. Thereby
> > allowing 64 GB of ram to be directly addressed. No "trickery" is
> involved.
> It's
> > the same address translation the MMU has been doing all along; the format
> > of the lookup tables (page tables) is just changed.
> >
> > As you may see, this is not as much an O/S question, as it's a CPU
> question.
> > Nowadays, no problems when using a high grade processor.
> >
> > This site pretty much nails it:
> >
> > geoffchappell.com/notes/toc.htm
> >
> > BTW, one of the finer benefits from using a large amount of RAM, is that
> the
> > swap file can be allocated to RAM, which makes makes the system very
> > responsive. This allocation usually takes place from top>down, depending
> on
> > the method used (separate proggie, or just a .reg file).
> >
> > ./
> >
> > Greg Sevart wrote:
> > > Ummnot quite.
> > >
> > > While it is technically possible to use more than 4GB of memory on a
> > > 32-bit OS with PAE, Microsoft client operating systems will NOT use
> > > it. Even the Standard SKUs of their Server operating systems will not
> > > use PAE--Enterprise or Datacenter is required. (This actually gets
> > > even more convoluted--these OS editions DO use PAE to implement
> > > NoExecute memory protection, but will not actually use more than 4GB).
> > >
> > > Furthermore, I think you're confusing user mode memory ("apps") with
> > > kernel memory ("O/S"). By default, 32-bit versions of Windows XP with
> > > 4GB or more memory installed will split the 4GB into 2GB of user space
> > > and 2GB of kernel space. The kernel space is reserved for just
> > > that--the Windows kernel, kernel mode drivers, etc. You can use the
> > > /3GB switch (4GT) to move this 2/2 split into a 3/1 user/kernel split.
> > > Absolutely anything over 4GB is not used, and that's true for 32-bit
> > > versions of Windows XP, Windows Vista, or Windows 7.
> > >
> > > You may lose some of the 4GB address space for memor

Re: [H] new system build suggestions or upgrade


At 07:07 PM 03/08/2010, Soren wrote:
Still have some .reg files somewhere that originally was made for 
"RAM surf" with IE. They should be quite easy to edit to use a 
RAMdisk. I'll find them and post them, if you want them.


I'd be very interested in seeing them.

Maybe I should mention that I've only dealt with large amounts of 
RAM on XP CE editions. AFAIR, the Home version doesn't support more than 4GB.


That's fine.  I'm thinking of XP Pro anyway.

T

Re: [H] new system build suggestions or upgrade

Still have some .reg files somewhere that originally was made for "RAM surf" with IE. They should be quite easy to edit to use a RAMdisk. I'll find them and post them, if 
you want them.


Maybe I should mention that I've only dealt with large amounts of RAM on XP CE 
editions. AFAIR, the Home version doesn't support more than 4GB.

Thane Sherrington wrote:

At 04:53 PM 03/08/2010, Soren wrote:

BTW, one of the finer benefits from using a large amount of RAM, is 
that the swap file can be allocated to RAM, which makes makes the 
system very responsive. This allocation usually takes place from 
top>down, depending on the method used (separate proggie, or just a 
.reg file).


Can tell me how to allocate the swap file to RAM?  I'm assuming you mean 
I can put 8GB in a 32bit system and use 4GB of that as a swap file?


T

Re: [H] connectify.me

2010-08-03 Thread Francisco Tapia

Yeah 3g is not working... tried a couple of different setup changes and no
dice.. so far the only one I can get to work well is to take a lan input and
make the laptop the wifi router... so much for windows wifi's :)


-Francisco
http://sqlthis.blogspot.com | Tsql and More...
http://bit.ly/sqlthis


On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 11:07 AM, Brian Weeden wrote:

> I've used it quite a bit when traveling to turn a hotel LAN connection into
> a personal WiFi hotspot, but I have not tried it with a 3G.
>
> ---
> Brian Weeden
> Technical Advisor
> Secure World Foundation 
> +1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
> +1 (202) 683-8534 US
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 2:00 PM, Francisco Tapia  wrote:
>
> > ok.. so maybe i found out a good reason to upgrade to windows 7.  At work
> I
> > have a 3g card in my work laptop, i'm taking a trip soon and wanted to
> find
> > out if I could share my 3g for my ipod touch... using connectify.me it
> > turns
> > out you can share your wifi signal with other devices so it you're at a
> > hotspot and they charge you per device to get some signal.. you can pass
> it
> > on to your ipod touch... wifi ipad or other devices you might have... i
> > thought this tool was pretty cool during testing but it turns out I can't
> > seem to share the 3g connection was wondering if anyone out there has
> tried
> > it?
> >
> > thanks,
> > -Francisco
> > http://sqlthis.blogspot.com | Tsql and More...
> > http://bit.ly/sqlthis
> >
>

Re: [H] new system build suggestions or upgrade

I'm still quite confident that you're mistaken. Client Microsoft operating
systems and Server SKUs less than Enterprise simply will not use any more
than 4GB. They're technically capable of leveraging PAE to extend memory
usage, but they don't. They will use PAE to support DEP (and NUMA,
apparently), but that's it. Windows 7 and fully patched versions of Vista
will, however, _report_ all installed system memory, but it will not use one
byte more than 4GB. I'd be happy to eat my words if you can point out a
Microsoft-published document that definitively indicates that I'm incorrect,
but I don't believe that is the case.

This document also outlines memory limits of 32-bit Windows versions that is
marked current as of May 2010:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2267427

Even if I am somehow mistaken and it is somehow possible to use PAE to use
more than 4GB of memory under a MS Client OS edition, that still doesn't
change the fact that each 32-bit process still has a maximum of a 4GB VAS.
PAE and 4GT ("/3GB switch") don't change that. The application must then use
AWE (Address Windowing Extensions) to make use of any memory beyond
that--and the list of apps that use the AWE API is very small. The only one
that I know of offhand that does is Microsoft SQL Server.

Greg

> -Original Message-
> From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-
> boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Soren
> Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 2:54 PM
> To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com
> Subject: Re: [H] new system build suggestions or upgrade
> 
> Heh... nice writeup, Greg, but not completely updated, if I humbly may say
> so.
> 
> If one look at the MS support sites about this question, one will get as
many
> different and contradicting explanations on the subject, as there are
support
> numbers (Qxyz). Beats the crap out of most techs that I know.
> 
> However, I have built a large number of AV systems, and quite a number of
> those are with more than 4GB RAM, even up to 32GB. They all use the
> installed RAM without any problems, so I guess that at least *some* of
MS's
> support sites are right, when some obviously aren't.
> 
> There is no "trickery" because the processor is not limited to 32 bits of
> physical address in PAE mode. PAE mode adds a third level of page table
> lookup and changes the page table entries (PTEs) from 4 bytes wide to 8
> bytes wide. This gives more room for bits of physical page address, or
"page
> frame number." In the first CPUs to implement PAE only four more bits were
> implemented, for a total of 24, or 36 bits of physical address. Thereby
> allowing 64 GB of ram to be directly addressed. No "trickery" is involved.
It's
> the same address translation the MMU has been doing all along; the format
> of the lookup tables (page tables) is just changed.
> 
> As you may see, this is not as much an O/S question, as it's a CPU
question.
> Nowadays, no problems when using a high grade processor.
> 
> This site pretty much nails it:
> 
> geoffchappell.com/notes/toc.htm
> 
> BTW, one of the finer benefits from using a large amount of RAM, is that
the
> swap file can be allocated to RAM, which makes makes the system very
> responsive. This allocation usually takes place from top>down, depending
on
> the method used (separate proggie, or just a .reg file).
> 
> ./
> 
> Greg Sevart wrote:
> > Ummnot quite.
> >
> > While it is technically possible to use more than 4GB of memory on a
> > 32-bit OS with PAE, Microsoft client operating systems will NOT use
> > it. Even the Standard SKUs of their Server operating systems will not
> > use PAE--Enterprise or Datacenter is required. (This actually gets
> > even more convoluted--these OS editions DO use PAE to implement
> > NoExecute memory protection, but will not actually use more than 4GB).
> >
> > Furthermore, I think you're confusing user mode memory ("apps") with
> > kernel memory ("O/S"). By default, 32-bit versions of Windows XP with
> > 4GB or more memory installed will split the 4GB into 2GB of user space
> > and 2GB of kernel space. The kernel space is reserved for just
> > that--the Windows kernel, kernel mode drivers, etc. You can use the
> > /3GB switch (4GT) to move this 2/2 split into a 3/1 user/kernel split.
> > Absolutely anything over 4GB is not used, and that's true for 32-bit
> > versions of Windows XP, Windows Vista, or Windows 7.
> >
> > You may lose some of the 4GB address space for memory mapped devices,
> > such as video cards and other devices. This is why you will frequently
> > see a 32-bit system with 4GB of memory only report 2.8-3.8GB. There's
> > no requirement that these devices be mapped to actual memory, just
> > that they have memory address space--so 64-bit systems with chipsets
> > that support it will remap actual installed RAM around the mapped
> > devices. This means that on supported systems and 64-bit OS editions,
> > you don't lose any memory to memory-mapped hardware devices.
> >
> > In short: If you're runn

Re: [H] new system build suggestions or upgrade


At 04:53 PM 03/08/2010, Soren wrote:

BTW, one of the finer benefits from using a large amount of RAM, is 
that the swap file can be allocated to RAM, which makes makes the 
system very responsive. This allocation usually takes place from 
top>down, depending on the method used (separate proggie, or just a .reg file).


Can tell me how to allocate the swap file to RAM?  I'm assuming you 
mean I can put 8GB in a 32bit system and use 4GB of that as a swap file?


T

Re: [H] new system build suggestions or upgrade

2010-08-03 Thread Bryan Seitz

On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 09:53:48PM +0200, Soren wrote:
> Heh... nice writeup, Greg, but not completely updated, if I humbly may say so.
> 
> If one look at the MS support sites about this question, one will get as many 
> different and contradicting explanations on the subject, as there are support 
> numbers 
> (Qxyz). Beats the crap out of most techs that I know.
> 
> However, I have built a large number of AV systems, and quite a number of 
> those are with more than 4GB RAM, even up to 32GB. They all use the installed 
> RAM without any 
> problems, so I guess that at least *some* of MS's support sites are right, 
> when some obviously aren't.
> 
> There is no "trickery" because the processor is not limited to 32 bits of 
> physical address in PAE mode. PAE mode adds a third level of page table 
> lookup and changes the 
> page table entries (PTEs) from 4 bytes wide to 8 bytes wide. This gives more 
> room for bits of physical page address, or "page frame number." In the first 
> CPUs to 
> implement PAE only four more bits were implemented, for a total of 24, or 36 
> bits of physical address. Thereby allowing 64 GB of ram to be directly 
> addressed. No 
> "trickery" is involved. It's the same address translation the MMU has been 
> doing all along; the format of the lookup tables (page tables) is just 
> changed.

A single process cannot use more than 3GB though.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778%28VS.85%29.aspx

-- 
 
Bryan G. Seitz

Re: [H] new system build suggestions or upgrade


Heh... nice writeup, Greg, but not completely updated, if I humbly may say so.

If one look at the MS support sites about this question, one will get as many different and contradicting explanations on the subject, as there are support numbers 
(Qxyz). Beats the crap out of most techs that I know.


However, I have built a large number of AV systems, and quite a number of those are with more than 4GB RAM, even up to 32GB. They all use the installed RAM without any 
problems, so I guess that at least *some* of MS's support sites are right, when some obviously aren't.


There is no "trickery" because the processor is not limited to 32 bits of physical address in PAE mode. PAE mode adds a third level of page table lookup and changes the 
page table entries (PTEs) from 4 bytes wide to 8 bytes wide. This gives more room for bits of physical page address, or "page frame number." In the first CPUs to 
implement PAE only four more bits were implemented, for a total of 24, or 36 bits of physical address. Thereby allowing 64 GB of ram to be directly addressed. No 
"trickery" is involved. It's the same address translation the MMU has been doing all along; the format of the lookup tables (page tables) is just changed.


As you may see, this is not as much an O/S question, as it's a CPU question. 
Nowadays, no problems when using a high grade processor.

This site pretty much nails it:

geoffchappell.com/notes/toc.htm

BTW, one of the finer benefits from using a large amount of RAM, is that the swap file can be allocated to RAM, which makes makes the system very responsive. This 
allocation usually takes place from top>down, depending on the method used (separate proggie, or just a .reg file).


./

Greg Sevart wrote:

Ummnot quite.

While it is technically possible to use more than 4GB of memory on a 32-bit
OS with PAE, Microsoft client operating systems will NOT use it. Even the
Standard SKUs of their Server operating systems will not use PAE--Enterprise
or Datacenter is required. (This actually gets even more convoluted--these
OS editions DO use PAE to implement NoExecute memory protection, but will
not actually use more than 4GB).

Furthermore, I think you're confusing user mode memory ("apps") with kernel
memory ("O/S"). By default, 32-bit versions of Windows XP with 4GB or more
memory installed will split the 4GB into 2GB of user space and 2GB of kernel
space. The kernel space is reserved for just that--the Windows kernel,
kernel mode drivers, etc. You can use the /3GB switch (4GT) to move this 2/2
split into a 3/1 user/kernel split. Absolutely anything over 4GB is not
used, and that's true for 32-bit versions of Windows XP, Windows Vista, or
Windows 7. 


You may lose some of the 4GB address space for memory mapped devices, such
as video cards and other devices. This is why you will frequently see a
32-bit system with 4GB of memory only report 2.8-3.8GB. There's no
requirement that these devices be mapped to actual memory, just that they
have memory address space--so 64-bit systems with chipsets that support it
will remap actual installed RAM around the mapped devices. This means that
on supported systems and 64-bit OS editions, you don't lose any memory to
memory-mapped hardware devices.

In short: If you're running 32-bit versions of Windows XP, Windows Vista,
Windows 7, or Windows Server 2003/2008 Standard Edition, 4GB is your limit,
and some of that will always be reserved for hardware and kernel space.
Period.
If you're running 64-bit versions of the above, your limit essentially
depends on whatever MS has licensed for that OS edition. As examples,
Windows 7 Home Premium is 16GB, Professional is 192GB. Windows Server 2008
R2 Enterprise is 2TB. More detail, and the limits for all Windows OS
editions from 2000 to 7/2008 R2, can be found here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778(VS.85).aspx 


Greg


-Original Message-
From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-
boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Soren
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 8:51 PM
To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com
Subject: Re: [H] new system build suggestions or upgrade

Sorry, not entirely true. There seem to be a common misunderstanding
about the O/S allocation of RAM.

E.g. WinXP can only allocate 3GB RAM for the O/S, which is often
enterpreted as the whole system can only make use of 3GB RAM in total.

Actually, XP can only use 3GB RAM for the O/S, any remaining RAM is kindly
allocated to applications with a max of 32/64GB for 32/64bit versions of

the

non-server O/S.
The rest is plain BS. XP typically uses less than 200MB, btw.

The 4GB story is coming from the first release of Vista not reporting the
correct amount of installed RAM (e.g. 4GB or 8GB showed up as 3GB), which,
quite understandable, lead to a great deal of confusion among guys like

us.

Both Vista32 and W732 run smoothly on +8GB RAM, same with XP.

The 64bit thing is driven by the market.

Someone wrote:

If you need 4G or more RAM then y

Re: [H] connectify.me

2010-08-03 Thread Brian Weeden

I've used it quite a bit when traveling to turn a hotel LAN connection into
a personal WiFi hotspot, but I have not tried it with a 3G.

---
Brian Weeden
Technical Advisor
Secure World Foundation 
+1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
+1 (202) 683-8534 US


On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 2:00 PM, Francisco Tapia  wrote:

> ok.. so maybe i found out a good reason to upgrade to windows 7.  At work I
> have a 3g card in my work laptop, i'm taking a trip soon and wanted to find
> out if I could share my 3g for my ipod touch... using connectify.me it
> turns
> out you can share your wifi signal with other devices so it you're at a
> hotspot and they charge you per device to get some signal.. you can pass it
> on to your ipod touch... wifi ipad or other devices you might have... i
> thought this tool was pretty cool during testing but it turns out I can't
> seem to share the 3g connection was wondering if anyone out there has tried
> it?
>
> thanks,
> -Francisco
> http://sqlthis.blogspot.com | Tsql and More...
> http://bit.ly/sqlthis
>

[H] connectify.me

2010-08-03 Thread Francisco Tapia

ok.. so maybe i found out a good reason to upgrade to windows 7.  At work I
have a 3g card in my work laptop, i'm taking a trip soon and wanted to find
out if I could share my 3g for my ipod touch... using connectify.me it turns
out you can share your wifi signal with other devices so it you're at a
hotspot and they charge you per device to get some signal.. you can pass it
on to your ipod touch... wifi ipad or other devices you might have... i
thought this tool was pretty cool during testing but it turns out I can't
seem to share the 3g connection was wondering if anyone out there has tried
it?

thanks,
-Francisco
http://sqlthis.blogspot.com | Tsql and More...
http://bit.ly/sqlthis

Re: [H] {Spam?} Re: new system build suggestions or upgrade


At 09:41 AM 03/08/2010, Christopher Fisk wrote:

On Tue, 3 Aug 2010, Thane Sherrington wrote:


Both Vista32 and W732 run smoothly on +8GB RAM, same with XP.


Do you have a link for this, or have some way of testing it, 
because everything you say here (at least if I'm reading it right) 
goes against what I've read elsewhere. 
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778%28VS.85%29.aspx


Oh they'll run with 8GB of memory installed... won't address 
anything more than 4GB but it won't cause a crash or anything.


Well yeah, but what's the point? :)

T

Re: [H] come on guys

Not a great many. Until 10.7's my work machine (4xxx series) would always
fail during installation and require a command line install workaround. It
was a common enough issue that my brother actually wrote an article
detailing the workaround and posted it on various forums. I also just
rebuilt one of my bench machines (890GX with built-in 4xxx series GPU).
Clean install, but the video converter failed to install. Trying to
reinstall the drivers resulted in a fubar CCC. I also hate that the Express
install method includes a game demo and other garbage ("Communication
Opt-In") that has no business in a device driver.

I'm not trying to say that nvidia is perfect, but I am trying to impress
upon the collective that ATI is not perfect either. Both nvidia and ATI
should be embarrassed.

Greg

> -Original Message-
> From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-
> boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Thane Sherrington
> Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 3:57 AM
> To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com
> Subject: Re: [H] come on guys
> 
> At 04:12 PM 02/08/2010, Greg Sevart wrote:
> >And ATI drivers frequently don't install properly, can cause
> >bluescreens
> 
> How many have you installed recently?  I install about 15 a month, and
> except for some wonkyness with the Catalyst Control Center (mostly in XP),
> I've never had driver install issues.  (Or at least no more issues with
ATI than I
> have with NVidia, whose installer often announces that it can't find an
NVidia
> card in the machine.
> 
> T
>

[H] {Spam?} Re: come on guys

2010-08-03 Thread Christopher Fisk


On Mon, 2 Aug 2010, Scoobydo wrote:

Bummer, my 5770 has run flawlessly since last year with every driver release 
to date. Bad card me thinks..


Yeah, the driver restarting is very much an indication of a bad card. 
Replace it and move on.



Christopher Fisk
--
Niska: "Do you know the writings of Shan Yu?"
Mal: "You starting a book club."
--Episode #10, "War Stories"

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

[H] {Spam?} Re: new system build suggestions or upgrade

2010-08-03 Thread Christopher Fisk


On Tue, 3 Aug 2010, Thane Sherrington wrote:


Both Vista32 and W732 run smoothly on +8GB RAM, same with XP.


Do you have a link for this, or have some way of testing it, because 
everything you say here (at least if I'm reading it right) goes against what 
I've read elsewhere. 
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778%28VS.85%29.aspx


Oh they'll run with 8GB of memory installed... won't address anything more 
than 4GB but it won't cause a crash or anything.



Christopher Fisk
--
 84C does not require better cooling... It requires the heatsink 
be reattached.


--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

[H] {Spam?} Re: Disk Clone Software

2010-08-03 Thread Christopher Fisk


On Tue, 3 Aug 2010, Soren wrote:


OK, that demands a stab in return ;)

You did remember to go AHCI>IDE in your BIOS before trying?

If yes, I may have some suggestions for you later.


Yes, for the non-raid drives.  They were still not seen.

The final solution was to run ghost from within a BART disk to get my 
clone done.



Either way, it is already done =)


Christopher Fisk

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: [H] new system build suggestions or upgrade


At 10:51 PM 02/08/2010, Soren wrote:
Sorry, not entirely true. There seem to be a common misunderstanding 
about the O/S allocation of RAM.


E.g. WinXP can only allocate 3GB RAM for the O/S, which is often 
enterpreted as the whole system can only make use of 3GB RAM in total.
Actually, XP can only use 3GB RAM for the O/S, any remaining RAM is 
kindly allocated to applications with a max of 32/64GB for 32/64bit 
versions of the non-server O/S. The rest


So if I put 4GB in an XP 32 system, XP could potentially access 3GB 
for itself, but the extra 1GB (generally unreported) will be used by 
other applications?


The 4GB story is coming from the first release of Vista not 
reporting the correct amount of installed RAM (e.g. 4GB or 8GB 
showed up as 3GB), which, quite understandable, lead to a great deal 
of confusion among guys like us.


I'm pretty sure that Vista still reports 4+GB as 3.25GB or something similar.


Both Vista32 and W732 run smoothly on +8GB RAM, same with XP.


Do you have a link for this, or have some way of testing it, because 
everything you say here (at least if I'm reading it right) goes 
against what I've read 
elsewhere.  http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778%28VS.85%29.aspx


T

Re: [H] come on guys


At 04:12 PM 02/08/2010, Greg Sevart wrote:

And ATI drivers frequently don't install properly, can cause bluescreens


How many have you installed recently?  I install about 15 a month, 
and except for some wonkyness with the Catalyst Control Center 
(mostly in XP), I've never had driver install issues.  (Or at least 
no more issues with ATI than I have with NVidia, whose installer 
often announces that it can't find an NVidia card in the machine.


T

Re: [H] new system build suggestions or upgrade