[H] Bing Maps..
Has anyone played with the new one? Holy cow.. http://bing.com/maps/explore/ (requires silverlight) but jeez.. outside of insanely fluid, the modes to show different shots of locals from their db vs. flickr geotagged vs. time stamped and relative.. outside of minute-by-minute starmaps visibile from location.. Pretty wild stuff.
Re: [H] Win7 Ent 32-bit vs 64-bit?
Not as long as your BIOS has a hardware address space remap option that moves it above the installed memory. Without BIOS support to remap your assertion would be true. I have an Asus Rampage, X48 chipset which does this. I have also seen older 64bit laptops that DO NOT have the BIOS option (Toshiba for one) AND are brain dead wired for no more than 4GB installed thus 3.25GB total, lose lose. Another example is my Asus 1201N netbook which is Atom n330 dual core 64bit yet can't address more than 4GB. Why I am not exactly sure except I hear it shows up in BIOS but Vist/Win7 x64 listed as hardware reserved and unusable. Likely a BIOS support issue though people argue it's a chipset limitation imposed by Intel. On 4/30/2010 1:49 PM, Bino Gopal wrote: snip So doesn't that imply that based on the fact that I only have 4GB, I'll still be short some memory, unlike what some others said? Or to put it another way, like Gary said, what will the devices map into since they can't map to thin air (and apparently they still need to map). snip
Re: [H] Win7 Ent 32-bit vs 64-bit?
Not a bug, that's the Microsoft artificial memory map limit on 32bit OS to (ostensibly) prevent driver issues caused by brain dead drivers writing to 64bit addresses as if they were 32bit which is also why x64 is so draconian about signed drivers! In other words despite PAE MS prevents working outside 32bit/4GB memory space on32bit OS. This was the subject of much discussion a few months ago here and someone posted a link to the conspiracy guy who outed M$' secret agenda, LOL. Now assuming x64 hardware, switch to a x64 OS (caveat The BIOS must support the memory remapping feature) to get 4GB+ addressable w/ device memory mapped above that. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605 On 4/30/2010 3:35 PM, Bryan Seitz wrote: Yeah I've seen that bug too, even with /PAE etc still doesn't fix it. You should upgrade to Win7-64 :) On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 06:32:30PM -0400, Jason Carson wrote: I have 6 GB of RAM and a GeForce 295 with 1.7 GB of memory but am running WinXP 32 bit and my system only shows that I have 2.49 GB of RAM. Well, it does sort of sound like that. I have Win 7 ultimate with 6GB RAM. When I right-click on My Computer and select properties, it says I have 6.0GB. On my work machine (4GB RAM) with XP and 2 graphic cards, it says I have about 2.89GB RAM.
Re: [H] Win2K, MBAM, HDD flag
Sounds like mean the dirty bit that forces autochk to run chkdsk on boot but that's not related to anything antivirus wise. If you're BSODing even in safemode after any AV repair, then it's likely because now a system file is corrupted and needs to be replaced with a good copy. You could try boot logging mode to track down the file. Hopefully you've long since disabled the auto-reboot on crash option or it could be tricky to read the BSOD info. On 4/28/2010 5:53 AM, Joe User wrote: Hello, Does anyone know where Win2K Pro SP4 UR1 flags a drive for a scan? Not sure that's what I need but it's a start. Did a MBAM scan and it needed to reboot to remove the infection it found. Now it's BSOD'ing on start up in regular or safe mode. I need to clear this so I can log back on. Google isn't helping me, yet.
Re: [H] Bing Maps..
Could be greatest thing since sliced bread but that's not going to get SilverLight on any of my boxes! Hell I'm still battling fraking M$ adding their other dren to Firefox without warning. On 4/30/2010 11:16 PM, CW wrote: Has anyone played with the new one? Holy cow.. http://bing.com/maps/explore/ (requires silverlight) but jeez.. outside of insanely fluid, the modes to show different shots of locals from their db vs. flickr geotagged vs. time stamped and relative.. outside of minute-by-minute starmaps visibile from location.. Pretty wild stuff.
Re: [H] Bing Maps..
I'm personally not a huge fan of either Flash or Silverlight technologies, but I feel a lot more comfortable with SL than Flash on my managed systems... Adobe products, especially Flash and Acrobat/Reader, have become extraordinarily common attack vectors. I think that's attributable to both a poor or broken software security methodology and lack of a good centralized patch management system without bolting on another product. The SL maps really are quite impressive. Kinda steals some thunder out of Channel 9's video showing the Direct2D GPU-rendered IE9 navigating through Bing Maps. -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of maccrawj Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2010 2:50 AM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] Bing Maps.. Could be greatest thing since sliced bread but that's not going to get SilverLight on any of my boxes! Hell I'm still battling fraking M$ adding their other dren to Firefox without warning. On 4/30/2010 11:16 PM, CW wrote: Has anyone played with the new one? Holy cow.. http://bing.com/maps/explore/ (requires silverlight) but jeez.. outside of insanely fluid, the modes to show different shots of locals from their db vs. flickr geotagged vs. time stamped and relative.. outside of minute-by-minute starmaps visibile from location.. Pretty wild stuff.
Re: [H] Win7 Ent 32-bit vs 64-bit?
Well no, I've seen systems with 4G of memory show: 2.5G 2.8G 3.5G with /PAE :) On Sat, May 01, 2010 at 12:30:54AM -0700, maccrawj wrote: Not a bug, that's the Microsoft artificial memory map limit on 32bit OS to (ostensibly) prevent driver issues caused by brain dead drivers writing to 64bit addresses as if they were 32bit which is also why x64 is so draconian about signed drivers! In other words despite PAE MS prevents working outside 32bit/4GB memory space on32bit OS. This was the subject of much discussion a few months ago here and someone posted a link to the conspiracy guy who outed M$' secret agenda, LOL. Now assuming x64 hardware, switch to a x64 OS (caveat The BIOS must support the memory remapping feature) to get 4GB+ addressable w/ device memory mapped above that. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605 On 4/30/2010 3:35 PM, Bryan Seitz wrote: Yeah I've seen that bug too, even with /PAE etc still doesn't fix it. You should upgrade to Win7-64 :) On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 06:32:30PM -0400, Jason Carson wrote: I have 6 GB of RAM and a GeForce 295 with 1.7 GB of memory but am running WinXP 32 bit and my system only shows that I have 2.49 GB of RAM. Well, it does sort of sound like that. I have Win 7 ultimate with 6GB RAM. When I right-click on My Computer and select properties, it says I have 6.0GB. On my work machine (4GB RAM) with XP and 2 graphic cards, it says I have about 2.89GB RAM. -- Bryan G. Seitz
Re: [H] Bing Maps..
I actually like Silverlight (netflix uses it) and Bing... very scary that I like them. On Sat, May 01, 2010 at 12:49:53AM -0700, maccrawj wrote: Could be greatest thing since sliced bread but that's not going to get SilverLight on any of my boxes! Hell I'm still battling fraking M$ adding their other dren to Firefox without warning. On 4/30/2010 11:16 PM, CW wrote: Has anyone played with the new one? Holy cow.. http://bing.com/maps/explore/ (requires silverlight) but jeez.. outside of insanely fluid, the modes to show different shots of locals from their db vs. flickr geotagged vs. time stamped and relative.. outside of minute-by-minute starmaps visibile from location.. Pretty wild stuff. -- Bryan G. Seitz
Re: [H] Bing Maps..
I've kind of come to the same conclusion. The Adobe Flash plugin for Firefox was the bane of my existance.. with it in, memory leak in Firefox was insane, I'd get up to 500Mb in the task manager (and over) for a firefox instance in a few hours. Pulled it out, and Firefox went back to reasonable. The silverlight plugin thing doesn't seem to have an issue that I can find that way. And, to be honest, it actually just works the way I expect it to. I don't really ask a lot of a thing like silverlight except: don't screw up. Watched the NCAA's on ESPN (silverlight) and I use Netflix in mediacenter.. both like a charm. And since they are coming out with 720p/5.1 audio Silverlight from Netflix this summer... Somewhere along the line, Adobe just completely screwed their product, they either didn't grow it, didn't do something.. because right now, the flash plugin just sucks. Meanwhile, Silverlight freaking can use video cards for hardware acceleration (DXVA) so CPU usage is less, memory usage is less.. Hell, MS even went out and helps with a Linux/Unix version (Moonlight) that they work with.. Adobe? Yeah, not so much. ( http://www.go-mono.com/moonlight/prerelease.aspx ) Sometimes MS is an easy target to bash.. a bit too easy. So, when they actually get something right, it either gets overlooked, or it has to be enough of a dead-on that adoption happens (win7). I've ripped Flash off of several PCs and just went Silverlight. So far, I haven't found a site I care about I don't see in either H264 or Silverlight. -Original message- From: Greg Sevart ad...@xfury.net Date: Sat, 01 May 2010 04:09:57 -0700 To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] Bing Maps.. I'm personally not a huge fan of either Flash or Silverlight technologies, but I feel a lot more comfortable with SL than Flash on my managed systems... Adobe products, especially Flash and Acrobat/Reader, have become extraordinarily common attack vectors. I think that's attributable to both a poor or broken software security methodology and lack of a good centralized patch management system without bolting on another product. The SL maps really are quite impressive. Kinda steals some thunder out of Channel 9's video showing the Direct2D GPU-rendered IE9 navigating through Bing Maps. -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of maccrawj Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2010 2:50 AM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] Bing Maps.. Could be greatest thing since sliced bread but that's not going to get SilverLight on any of my boxes! Hell I'm still battling fraking M$ adding their other dren to Firefox without warning. On 4/30/2010 11:16 PM, CW wrote: Has anyone played with the new one? Holy cow.. http://bing.com/maps/explore/ (requires silverlight) but jeez.. outside of insanely fluid, the modes to show different shots of locals from their db vs. flickr geotagged vs. time stamped and relative.. outside of minute-by-minute starmaps visibile from location.. Pretty wild stuff.
Re: [H] Win7 Ent 32-bit vs 64-bit?
Sorry, your point/counterpoint is? Think I'm missing something here. On 5/1/2010 7:28 AM, Bryan Seitz wrote: Well no, I've seen systems with 4G of memory show: 2.5G 2.8G 3.5G with /PAE :) On Sat, May 01, 2010 at 12:30:54AM -0700, maccrawj wrote: Not a bug, that's the Microsoft artificial memory map limit on 32bit OS to (ostensibly) prevent driver issues caused by brain dead drivers writing to 64bit addresses as if they were 32bit which is also why x64 is so draconian about signed drivers! In other words despite PAE MS prevents working outside 32bit/4GB memory space on32bit OS. This was the subject of much discussion a few months ago here and someone posted a link to the conspiracy guy who outed M$' secret agenda, LOL. Now assuming x64 hardware, switch to a x64 OS (caveat The BIOS must support the memory remapping feature) to get 4GB+ addressable w/ device memory mapped above that. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605 On 4/30/2010 3:35 PM, Bryan Seitz wrote: Yeah I've seen that bug too, even with /PAE etc still doesn't fix it. You should upgrade to Win7-64 :) On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 06:32:30PM -0400, Jason Carson wrote: I have 6 GB of RAM and a GeForce 295 with 1.7 GB of memory but am running WinXP 32 bit and my system only shows that I have 2.49 GB of RAM. Well, it does sort of sound like that. I have Win 7 ultimate with 6GB RAM. When I right-click on My Computer and select properties, it says I have 6.0GB. On my work machine (4GB RAM) with XP and 2 graphic cards, it says I have about 2.89GB RAM.
Re: [H] Bing Maps..
Ditto. I'm not a huge fan of the plain bing search, but the extras--like mapping--are fantastic. Bing has a great iphone app too. Haven't used it a ton yet, but I think the bing map program beats the builtin maps app. Scott On May 1, 2010, at 10:29 AM, Bryan Seitz wrote: I actually like Silverlight (netflix uses it) and Bing... very scary that I like them. On Sat, May 01, 2010 at 12:49:53AM -0700, maccrawj wrote: Could be greatest thing since sliced bread but that's not going to get SilverLight on any of my boxes! Hell I'm still battling fraking M$ adding their other dren to Firefox without warning. On 4/30/2010 11:16 PM, CW wrote: Has anyone played with the new one? Holy cow.. http://bing.com/maps/explore/ (requires silverlight) but jeez.. outside of insanely fluid, the modes to show different shots of locals from their db vs. flickr geotagged vs. time stamped and relative.. outside of minute-by-minute starmaps visibile from location.. Pretty wild stuff. -- Bryan G. Seitz
Re: [H] Win7 Ent 32-bit vs 64-bit?
I'm not sure how this changes anything about the original post. The reason for those figures is all based on how things like BIOS handles shadowing, higher memory registers, PCI-E segments (for the 2.5G) etc. The 3.5G can -show- but it's because of the way the memory controller works there.. which would make me think it's far more likely you saw that on either a server board or using an AMD chip, which has the memory controller onboard. Some good explanation here: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2007/03/dude-wheres-my-4-gigabytes-of-ram.html -Original message- From: Bryan Seitz se...@bsd-unix.net Date: Sat, 01 May 2010 06:28:26 -0700 To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] Win7 Ent 32-bit vs 64-bit? Well no, I've seen systems with 4G of memory show: 2.5G 2.8G 3.5G with /PAE :) On Sat, May 01, 2010 at 12:30:54AM -0700, maccrawj wrote: Not a bug, that's the Microsoft artificial memory map limit on 32bit OS to (ostensibly) prevent driver issues caused by brain dead drivers writing to 64bit addresses as if they were 32bit which is also why x64 is so draconian about signed drivers! In other words despite PAE MS prevents working outside 32bit/4GB memory space on32bit OS. This was the subject of much discussion a few months ago here and someone posted a link to the conspiracy guy who outed M$' secret agenda, LOL. Now assuming x64 hardware, switch to a x64 OS (caveat The BIOS must support the memory remapping feature) to get 4GB+ addressable w/ device memory mapped above that. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605 On 4/30/2010 3:35 PM, Bryan Seitz wrote: Yeah I've seen that bug too, even with /PAE etc still doesn't fix it. You should upgrade to Win7-64 :) On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 06:32:30PM -0400, Jason Carson wrote: I have 6 GB of RAM and a GeForce 295 with 1.7 GB of memory but am running WinXP 32 bit and my system only shows that I have 2.49 GB of RAM. Well, it does sort of sound like that. I have Win 7 ultimate with 6GB RAM. When I right-click on My Computer and select properties, it says I have 6.0GB. On my work machine (4GB RAM) with XP and 2 graphic cards, it says I have about 2.89GB RAM. -- Bryan G. Seitz
Re: [H] Win7 Ent 32-bit vs 64-bit?
Look in the resource monitor...you can see exactly how your physical memory is used... Mine: Available 5325MB Cached 3731MB Total 8190MB Installed 8192MB Then it shows another catagory referred to as hardware reserved. On my system this amount is 2MB. Look at the difference between total and installed. 2MB. There is further breakdown given but I'm too lazy to type all that... But the fact is on a 64bit OS with the right CPU and chipset, you can essentially use all that ram...with some exceptions, obviously. But more physical RAM still means more available ram. On 4/30/2010 4:49 PM, Bino Gopal wrote: But from the MS article: Note When the physical RAM that is installed on a computer equals the address space that is supported by the chipset, the total system memory that is available to the operating system is always less than the physical RAM that is installed. For example, consider a computer that has an Intel 975X chipset that supports 8 GB of address space. If you install 8 GB of RAM, the system memory that is available to the operating system will be reduced by the PCI configuration requirements. In this scenario, PCI configuration requirements reduce the memory that is available to the operating system by an amount that is between approximately 200 MB and approximately 1 GB. The reduction depends on the configuration. So doesn't that imply that based on the fact that I only have 4GB, I'll still be short some memory, unlike what some others said? Or to put it another way, like Gary said, what will the devices map into since they can't map to thin air (and apparently they still need to map). And to put a further point on it, since the video card is a MMIO (memory-mapped I/O) device, I assume it'll take memory away from the max 4GB too. So the moral of the story is that sure I can upgrade to 64-bit Win7, but if I don't put more than 4GB of memory in the system, I should end up with exactly the same amount of memory as with 32-bit Win7 right?! Now, apps running faster is a whole 'nother reason and definitely worth doing it for that! ;) BINO From: bh...@sc.rr.com To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 22:32:12 -0400 Subject: Re: [H] Win7 Ent 32-bit vs 64-bit? It maps into the address space of whatever the 64-bit address space is (8 terabytes or something like that). When you have a 32-bit OS, the address space is only 4GB, the system maps in the hardware memory (BIOS, graphics card RAM, etc.) space from the top of the address space down. That is why you get between about 3-3.5GB of actual RAM when you have 4GB RAM on a 32-bit system. I know I'm not explaining this well, so take a look here: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2007/03/dude-wheres-my-4-gigabytes-of-ram.h tml and http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605 Bobby -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Gary VanderMolen Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 9:09 PM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] Win7 Ent 32-bit vs 64-bit? So what will they map into instead? As far as I know, the video has to map into RAM, regardless if the OS is 32-bit or 64-bit. Gary VanderMolen, Microsoft MVP (Mail) -Original Message- From: Bobby Heid IIRC, the BIOS and video RAM will not have to map into the 4GB address space (in 64-bit). He will have the whole address space for RAM. = No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.814 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2844 - Release Date: 04/30/10 02:27:00
Re: [H] Just a test
I received your email. I'll try disabling DKIM this weekend when I have time and see if that is the problem. It looks like your mailserver is inserting a DKIM signature, and the listserv software is not stripping it and/or re-signing it as it should be if any of your evaluated headers have been modified. When you're getting the message back that is purportedly from you, that evaluation could be failing and your mailserver may be dropping the message. I'd try disabling DKIM and see what happens. Of course, you may not get this message either, since I also DKIM sign on my mailserver. -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Jason Carson Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 10:17 PM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] Just a test Hmmm... I didn't receive the email I sent but you did. For some reason I am not receiving any of the emails I send to this list or another list I am on. Both are using different mailing lists software. Anyone have any idea why? Been a long while. Where've you been? Much has changed IMHO. Best, Duncan On 04/30/2010 21:06, Jason Carson wrote: Just testing. I sent an email to the list and someone responded to that email but I never received a copy of the email I sent.
[H] mount BRD
What do you use to mount a BRD iso file? thanks!
Re: [H] mount BRD
Slysoft. But why bother? --Original Message-- From: Winterlight Sender: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com ReplyTo: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: [H] mount BRD Sent: May 1, 2010 4:10 PM What do you use to mount a BRD iso file? thanks! Sent via BlackBerry
Re: [H] mount BRD
what do you mean? You can play it direct on something? At 02:13 PM 5/1/2010, you wrote: Slysoft. But why bother? --Original Message-- From: Winterlight Sender: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com ReplyTo: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: [H] mount BRD Sent: May 1, 2010 4:10 PM What do you use to mount a BRD iso file? thanks! Sent via BlackBerry
Re: [H] mount BRD
No, I'm just saying, how do you have a valid brd iso if you didn't use one in the beginning, and more then that.. Yes, tmt3 will. --Original Message-- From: Winterlight Sender: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com ReplyTo: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] mount BRD Sent: May 1, 2010 4:47 PM what do you mean? You can play it direct on something? At 02:13 PM 5/1/2010, you wrote: Slysoft. But why bother? --Original Message-- From: Winterlight Sender: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com ReplyTo: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: [H] mount BRD Sent: May 1, 2010 4:10 PM What do you use to mount a BRD iso file? thanks! Sent via BlackBerry Sent via BlackBerry
Re: [H] mount BRD
Ultra ISO -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Winterlight Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2010 4:11 PM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: [H] mount BRD What do you use to mount a BRD iso file? thanks!
Re: [H] Win7 Ent 32-bit vs 64-bit?
Seems to be a bug or a chipset thing if it's different on different systems, all with 4G of ram. Either way there's no reason to not use a 64 bit os in 2010. On Sat, May 01, 2010 at 10:43:14AM -0700, maccrawj wrote: Sorry, your point/counterpoint is? Think I'm missing something here. On 5/1/2010 7:28 AM, Bryan Seitz wrote: Well no, I've seen systems with 4G of memory show: 2.5G 2.8G 3.5G with /PAE :) On Sat, May 01, 2010 at 12:30:54AM -0700, maccrawj wrote: Not a bug, that's the Microsoft artificial memory map limit on 32bit OS to (ostensibly) prevent driver issues caused by brain dead drivers writing to 64bit addresses as if they were 32bit which is also why x64 is so draconian about signed drivers! In other words despite PAE MS prevents working outside 32bit/4GB memory space on32bit OS. This was the subject of much discussion a few months ago here and someone posted a link to the conspiracy guy who outed M$' secret agenda, LOL. Now assuming x64 hardware, switch to a x64 OS (caveat The BIOS must support the memory remapping feature) to get 4GB+ addressable w/ device memory mapped above that. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605 On 4/30/2010 3:35 PM, Bryan Seitz wrote: Yeah I've seen that bug too, even with /PAE etc still doesn't fix it. You should upgrade to Win7-64 :) On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 06:32:30PM -0400, Jason Carson wrote: I have 6 GB of RAM and a GeForce 295 with 1.7 GB of memory but am running WinXP 32 bit and my system only shows that I have 2.49 GB of RAM. Well, it does sort of sound like that. I have Win 7 ultimate with 6GB RAM. When I right-click on My Computer and select properties, it says I have 6.0GB. On my work machine (4GB RAM) with XP and 2 graphic cards, it says I have about 2.89GB RAM. -- Bryan G. Seitz
Re: [H] Win7 Ent 32-bit vs 64-bit?
Good info in that link except the PDF for memory hole is very dated (2004) only hinting at what is now the norm: Work is being done by the BIOS and/or chip manufacturers that will either remap physical memory or move device address space in order to eliminate the hole. This memory hole may be a thing of the past soon. The MS link I posted I think covers it all including expectations solutions: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605 Meanwhile KB929580 conflicts with KB929605 stated need for x64 OS: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929580 This problem occurs because the address space is limited to 4 GB in a 32-bit hardware environment. Memory may be relocated to make room for addresses that the basic input/output system (BIOS) reserves for hardware. However, because of this limitation, Windows Vista, Windows Server 2003, and Windows Server 2008 cannot access memory that is relocated above the 4 GB boundary. *But then goes on to say*: A 32-bit operating system can address memory that is relocated above the 4 GB boundary if the following conditions are true: * The computer is in Physical Address Extension (PAE) mode. * The computer has 4 GB of RAM. In this case, the operating system correctly reports how much memory is installed. Lastly, a break down of memory limits by OS: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx On 5/1/2010 11:24 AM, CW wrote: I'm not sure how this changes anything about the original post. The reason for those figures is all based on how things like BIOS handles shadowing, higher memory registers, PCI-E segments (for the 2.5G) etc. The 3.5G can -show- but it's because of the way the memory controller works there.. which would make me think it's far more likely you saw that on either a server board or using an AMD chip, which has the memory controller onboard. Some good explanation here: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2007/03/dude-wheres-my-4-gigabytes-of-ram.html snip
Re: [H] Win7 Ent 32-bit vs 64-bit?
Differing amounts of memory hole from differing configurations would be my guess before blaming a bug. Agreed, with driver support (on new devices at least) finally happening there is no reason to use x32. On 5/1/2010 3:16 PM, Bryan Seitz wrote: Seems to be a bug or a chipset thing if it's different on different systems, all with 4G of ram. Either way there's no reason to not use a 64 bit os in 2010. On Sat, May 01, 2010 at 10:43:14AM -0700, maccrawj wrote: Sorry, your point/counterpoint is? Think I'm missing something here. On 5/1/2010 7:28 AM, Bryan Seitz wrote: Well no, I've seen systems with 4G of memory show: 2.5G 2.8G 3.5G with /PAE :) snip
Re: [H] mount BRD
Not tried, but Daemon Tools? On 5/1/2010 2:10 PM, Winterlight wrote: What do you use to mount a BRD iso file? thanks!
