RE: filmscanners: RE: Win2k and application RAM
Sorry guys, it came earlier than that. VAX/VMS had exactly the same kind of split and the architect of VMS also designed the NT kernel. The 4GB is 4GB simply because that's the addressing range you get from 32 bits. So a flat address space on a 32-bit processor is inherently 4GB wide. VMS and then NT split the process address space in half, and gave half to the private process space and the other half to shared system space. Making it a 50-50 split is just one of those broad-brush simplifications that you make if you want to avoid any hint of segments. A flat address space just _had_ to be unbearably attractive to Microsoft after all the hassle they had been through during the growth from 8086 to 80386. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Finley) wrote: I don't think there is an alpha port, no. The split comes originally from the MIPS version of NT though, not Alpha. mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mark Edmonds Sent: 09 March 2001 20:13 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: RE: Win2k and application RAM I can confirm the 2GB split between OS and App RAM. It is something to do with the Alpha port of NT I think and to keep things consistent for the coders, Microsoft translated the Alpha restriction to the Pentium version. I believe W2K has the same problem but I don't think there is an Alpha port of W2K - can this be confirmed? Mark In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Well, that's not how it does its memory management. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rob Geraghty Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 2:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: RE: Win2k and application RAM AFAIK the maximum addressable space is 4GB regardless of the combination of RAM/Virtual. I seriously doubt that the OS would eat anything like 1 or 2 GB since Win2K runs happily in 128MB, so that would leave most of the 4GB available to applications. Rob
Re: filmscanners: RE: Win2k and application RAM
"Ramesh Kumar_C" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think one year back Microsoft stopped support to Alpha. There is no Win2000 on Alpha. NT4 runs nicely on Alpha, but no colour management. Rob
Re: filmscanners: RE: Win2k and application RAM
I can confirm the 2GB split between OS and App RAM. It is something to do with the Alpha port of NT I think and to keep things consistent for the coders, Microsoft translated the Alpha restriction to the Pentium version. I believe W2K has the same problem but I don't think there is an Alpha port of W2K - can this be confirmed? Mark In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Well, that's not how it does its memory management. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rob Geraghty Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 2:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: RE: Win2k and application RAM AFAIK the maximum addressable space is 4GB regardless of the combination of RAM/Virtual. I seriously doubt that the OS would eat anything like 1 or 2 GB since Win2K runs happily in 128MB, so that would leave most of the 4GB available to applications. Rob
RE: filmscanners: RE: Win2k and application RAM
I think one year back Microsoft stopped support to Alpha. There is no Win2000 on Alpha. Bye Ramesh -Original Message- From: Mark Edmonds [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 12:13 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: RE: Win2k and application RAM I can confirm the 2GB split between OS and App RAM. It is something to do with the Alpha port of NT I think and to keep things consistent for the coders, Microsoft translated the Alpha restriction to the Pentium version. I believe W2K has the same problem but I don't think there is an Alpha port of W2K - can this be confirmed? Mark In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Well, that's not how it does its memory management. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rob Geraghty Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 2:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: RE: Win2k and application RAM AFAIK the maximum addressable space is 4GB regardless of the combination of RAM/Virtual. I seriously doubt that the OS would eat anything like 1 or 2 GB since Win2K runs happily in 128MB, so that would leave most of the 4GB available to applications. Rob
RE: filmscanners: RE: Win2k and application RAM
I don't think there is an alpha port, no. The split comes originally from the MIPS version of NT though, not Alpha. mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mark Edmonds Sent: 09 March 2001 20:13 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: RE: Win2k and application RAM I can confirm the 2GB split between OS and App RAM. It is something to do with the Alpha port of NT I think and to keep things consistent for the coders, Microsoft translated the Alpha restriction to the Pentium version. I believe W2K has the same problem but I don't think there is an Alpha port of W2K - can this be confirmed? Mark In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Well, that's not how it does its memory management. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rob Geraghty Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 2:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: RE: Win2k and application RAM AFAIK the maximum addressable space is 4GB regardless of the combination of RAM/Virtual. I seriously doubt that the OS would eat anything like 1 or 2 GB since Win2K runs happily in 128MB, so that would leave most of the 4GB available to applications. Rob
RE: filmscanners: RE: Win2k and application RAM
With the Windows 2000 family of operating systems, only Windows 2000 DataCenter Server can access 64GB memory. The standard Windows 2000 Professional and Server editions have a maximum of 4Gbyte. Advanced Server can handle 8 GByte, but only with Xeon processors. mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of uoton Sent: 07 March 2001 07:24 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: RE: Win2k and application RAM Mike Finley wrote: I don't think this is right. There is a total 4GB adressable space, including virtual memory. Some of this is probably reserved for the operating system, probably reducing the maximum for the application to 2GB, possibly 3GB. If I have time I'll look into this when I'm in the office mike I happened to be assembling a new PC in the past few days. 4GB is not the max Intel CPU can address. With paging under protected mode the max is actually 64GB. Only systems classified as servers will have that kind of memory capacity. I picked up an IWILL main board cheap (less than $100) which claims to support 1.28GB. Well, it does not. I put in two 512MB and one 256MB dimm into it, it only sees 768MB. I settled with only 512 in it. It is a single CPU PC. I managed to get a 933MHz Pent III for it. The reason to replace my old one with this new PC is for my Minolta scanner. I bought it used a few months back. It is a Dimage Multi I. I am planning to spend another $100 for the software update to make the model from I to II, which has the ROC and GEM features that have really made me dream about it for a long time. Well, ROC and GEM will lengthen the scan time much much longer. It will demand lots of memory and CPU speed. I have access to a server that supports up to 4GB with 2 CPUs in it. I'll see if I can make a comparison between my new PC and that server to see if more memory and CPU will really help much. The server has exactly 4GB of memory in it. However, I am a little reluctant at this point to jump in and get the software update before someone can tell me that ROC and GEM really work great. Quoton
Re: filmscanners: RE: Win2k and application RAM
I think you will find that it will see all the memory IF its matched to the board. you can check your boards needs by visiting www.crucial.com just have your motherboard number and revision handy. I had a similar problem but bought 4x256mb dimms from them and my machine fairly whizzes along now. regards Michael Wilkinson. 106 Holyhead Road,Ketley, Telford.Shropshire TF 15 DJ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.infocus-photography.co.uk For Trannies and Negs from Digital Files ## - Original Message - From: "uoton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: RE: Win2k and application RAM : 1.28GB. Well, it does not. I put in two 512MB and one 256MB dimm into it, it : only sees : 768MB. I settled with only 512 in it.
Re: filmscanners: RE: Win2k and application RAM
At 11:51 07-03-01 +, you wrote: I think you will find that it will see all the memory IF its matched to the board. you can check your boards needs by visiting www.crucial.com just have your motherboard number and revision handy. I had a similar problem but bought 4x256mb dimms from them and my machine fairly whizzes along now. regards Michael Wilkinson. And don't forget that they have a European site for those who live in Europe Stuart http://www.crucial.com/uk/ 106 Holyhead Road,Ketley, Telford.Shropshire TF 15 DJ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.infocus-photography.co.uk For Trannies and Negs from Digital Files ## - Original Message - From: "uoton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: RE: Win2k and application RAM : 1.28GB. Well, it does not. I put in two 512MB and one 256MB dimm into it, it : only sees : 768MB. I settled with only 512 in it.
RE: filmscanners: RE: Win2k and application RAM
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (shAf) wrote: Mike writes ... I don't think this is right. There is a total 4GB adressable space, including virtual memory. Some of this is probably reserved for the operating system, probably reducing the maximum for the application to 2GB, I just checked, you are correct ... not 4Gb ... each app is allocated 2Gb (a MIPS throwback). VAX/VMS got there first! The origins of the NT kernel as written by Dave Cutler and team of RSX11 and VMS fame mean that NT has quite a few VMS-alike features under the skin. The division of the 4G address space between system and process is the same principle as VMS. My goodness though, call me an old'n but I never really thought we would be pushing the 4G limits in the same way as once upon a time there was a 640K and even earlier 64K limit :-) (... reference Minasi's "Mastering Windows 2000 Professional" ...) shAf :o) PAUL GRAHAM writes ... I'm planning to get one of the new 4000 dpi medium format scanners for my 6x7 negs, ... ... Got a bit freaked out when I saw that a scan of this size in 16 bit is 624 Mb. (8 bit: 312 Mb) ... Mac OS only allows a max of 1Gb Ram to any one program (eg Photoshop), does Windows 2000 have similar ... The memory allocated by Win2k for each program is 4Gb, which, I believe, includes virtual memory. shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: RE: Win2k and application RAM
I don't think this is right. There is a total 4GB adressable space, including virtual memory. Some of this is probably reserved for the operating system, probably reducing the maximum for the application to 2GB, possibly 3GB. If I have time I'll look into this when I'm in the office mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of shAf Sent: 06 March 2001 15:18 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: RE: Win2k and application RAM PAUL GRAHAM writes ... I'm planning to get one of the new 4000 dpi medium format scanners for my 6x7 negs, ... ... Got a bit freaked out when I saw that a scan of this size in 16 bit is 624 Mb. (8 bit: 312 Mb) ... Mac OS only allows a max of 1Gb Ram to any one program (eg Photoshop), does Windows 2000 have similar ... The memory allocated by Win2k for each program is 4Gb, which, I believe, includes virtual memory. shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: RE: Win2k and application RAM
Mike writes ... I don't think this is right. There is a total 4GB adressable space, including virtual memory. Some of this is probably reserved for the operating system, probably reducing the maximum for the application to 2GB, I just checked, you are correct ... not 4Gb ... each app is allocated 2Gb (a MIPS throwback). (... reference Minasi's "Mastering Windows 2000 Professional" ...) shAf :o) PAUL GRAHAM writes ... I'm planning to get one of the new 4000 dpi medium format scanners for my 6x7 negs, ... ... Got a bit freaked out when I saw that a scan of this size in 16 bit is 624 Mb. (8 bit: 312 Mb) ... Mac OS only allows a max of 1Gb Ram to any one program (eg Photoshop), does Windows 2000 have similar ... The memory allocated by Win2k for each program is 4Gb, which, I believe, includes virtual memory. shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: RE: Win2k and application RAM
Mike wrote: I don't think this is right. There is a total 4GB adressable space, including virtual memory. Some of this is probably reserved for the operating system, probably reducing the maximum for the application to 2GB, possibly 3GB. If I have time I'll look into this when I'm in the office AFAIK the maximum addressable space is 4GB regardless of the combination of RAM/Virtual. I seriously doubt that the OS would eat anything like 1 or 2 GB since Win2K runs happily in 128MB, so that would leave most of the 4GB available to applications. As I mentioned earlier, a much more important consideration would be processor speed and disk drive speed. RAID and fast drives would be essential to avoid waiting for ages just to load and save files. Using different spindles for the OS, working files and scratch space would probably help. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
RE: filmscanners: RE: Win2k and application RAM
Well, that's not how it does its memory management. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rob Geraghty Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 2:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: RE: Win2k and application RAM AFAIK the maximum addressable space is 4GB regardless of the combination of RAM/Virtual. I seriously doubt that the OS would eat anything like 1 or 2 GB since Win2K runs happily in 128MB, so that would leave most of the 4GB available to applications. Rob
RE: filmscanners: RE: Win2k and application RAM
Used to be that NT gave 2G to the OS and 2G to the application. Don't know what Win 2K does. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mike Finley Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 1:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: RE: Win2k and application RAM I don't think this is right. There is a total 4GB adressable space, including virtual memory. Some of this is probably reserved for the operating system, probably reducing the maximum for the application to 2GB, possibly 3GB. If I have time I'll look into this when I'm in the office mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of shAf Sent: 06 March 2001 15:18 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: RE: Win2k and application RAM PAUL GRAHAM writes ... I'm planning to get one of the new 4000 dpi medium format scanners for my 6x7 negs, ... ... Got a bit freaked out when I saw that a scan of this size in 16 bit is 624 Mb. (8 bit: 312 Mb) ... Mac OS only allows a max of 1Gb Ram to any one program (eg Photoshop), does Windows 2000 have similar ... The memory allocated by Win2k for each program is 4Gb, which, I believe, includes virtual memory. shAf :o)
