Re: [H] new system build suggestions or upgrade - for T
At 09:12 AM 05/08/2010, Soren wrote: Finally, I found it. Use on your own risk, of course. If anyone wants to try this, back up your registry beforehand. With the current settings, it allows to surf the internet with IE 5 in RAM only. Pls. pay attention to the last entry for settings of RAM disk size, drive letter, etc. Thanks, I'll give it a try. T ---start of .reg file: REGEDIT [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Internet Settings\Cache\Paths] "Paths"=dword:0004 "Directory"="Z:\\Temporary Internet Files\\Content.IE5" [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Internet Settings\Cache\Paths\path1] "CachePath"="Z:\\Temporary Internet Files\\Content.IE5\\Cache1" [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Internet Settings\Cache\Paths\path2] "CachePath"="Z:\\Temporary Internet Files\\Content.IE5\\Cache2" [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Internet Settings\Cache\Paths\path3] "CachePath"="Z:\\Temporary Internet Files\\Content.IE5\\Cache3" [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Internet Settings\Cache\Paths\path4] "CachePath"="Z:\\Temporary Internet Files\\Content.IE5\\Cache4" [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Internet Settings\Cache\Special Paths\Cookies] "Directory"="Z:\\Cookies" "CachePrefix"="Cookie:" [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Internet Settings\Cache\Special Paths\History] "Directory"="Z:\\History" [HKEY_USERS\.DEFAULT\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\ProfileReconciliation\Cookies] "CentralFile"="Cookies" "LocalFile"="Cookies" "Name"="*.*" "DefaultDir"="Z:\\Cookies" "MustBeRelative"=dword:0001 "Default"=dword:0001 "RegKey"="Software\\Microsoft\\Windows\\CurrentVersion\\Explorer\\User Shell Folders" "RegValue"="Cookies" [HKEY_USERS\.DEFAULT\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\ProfileReconciliation\History] "CentralFile"="History" "LocalFile"="History" "Name"="*.*" "DefaultDir"="Z:\\History" "MustBeRelative"=dword:0001 "Default"=dword:0001 "RegKey"="Software\\Microsoft\\Windows\\CurrentVersion\\Explorer\\User Shell Folders" "RegValue"="History" [HKEY_USERS\.DEFAULT\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\Shell Folders] "Cookies"="Z:\\Cookies" "Recent"="Z:\\Recent" "Cache"="Z:\\Temporary Internet Files" "History"="Z:\\History" [HKEY_USERS\.DEFAULT\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\User Shell Folders] "Cookies"="Z:\\Cookies" "Recent"="Z:\\Recent" "Cache"="Z:\\Temporary Internet Files" "History"="Z:\\History" [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Internet Settings\Url History] "Directory"="Z:\\History" [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\Ramdisk\Parameters] "BreakOnEntry"=dword: "DebugLevel"=dword: "DebugComp"=dword: "DiskSize"=dword:01f0 "DriveLetter"="Z:" "RootDirEntries"=dword:0200 "SectorsPerCluster"=dword:0002 ---end of file 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 - for T
Finally, I found it. Use on your own risk, of course. If anyone wants to try this, back up your registry beforehand. With the current settings, it allows to surf the internet with IE 5 in RAM only. Pls. pay attention to the last entry for settings of RAM disk size, drive letter, etc. ---start of .reg file: REGEDIT [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Internet Settings\Cache\Paths] "Paths"=dword:0004 "Directory"="Z:\\Temporary Internet Files\\Content.IE5" [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Internet Settings\Cache\Paths\path1] "CachePath"="Z:\\Temporary Internet Files\\Content.IE5\\Cache1" [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Internet Settings\Cache\Paths\path2] "CachePath"="Z:\\Temporary Internet Files\\Content.IE5\\Cache2" [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Internet Settings\Cache\Paths\path3] "CachePath"="Z:\\Temporary Internet Files\\Content.IE5\\Cache3" [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Internet Settings\Cache\Paths\path4] "CachePath"="Z:\\Temporary Internet Files\\Content.IE5\\Cache4" [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Internet Settings\Cache\Special Paths\Cookies] "Directory"="Z:\\Cookies" "CachePrefix"="Cookie:" [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Internet Settings\Cache\Special Paths\History] "Directory"="Z:\\History" [HKEY_USERS\.DEFAULT\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\ProfileReconciliation\Cookies] "CentralFile"="Cookies" "LocalFile"="Cookies" "Name"="*.*" "DefaultDir"="Z:\\Cookies" "MustBeRelative"=dword:0001 "Default"=dword:0001 "RegKey"="Software\\Microsoft\\Windows\\CurrentVersion\\Explorer\\User Shell Folders" "RegValue"="Cookies" [HKEY_USERS\.DEFAULT\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\ProfileReconciliation\History] "CentralFile"="History" "LocalFile"="History" "Name"="*.*" "DefaultDir"="Z:\\History" "MustBeRelative"=dword:0001 "Default"=dword:0001 "RegKey"="Software\\Microsoft\\Windows\\CurrentVersion\\Explorer\\User Shell Folders" "RegValue"="History" [HKEY_USERS\.DEFAULT\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\Shell Folders] "Cookies"="Z:\\Cookies" "Recent"="Z:\\Recent" "Cache"="Z:\\Temporary Internet Files" "History"="Z:\\History" [HKEY_USERS\.DEFAULT\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\User Shell Folders] "Cookies"="Z:\\Cookies" "Recent"="Z:\\Recent" "Cache"="Z:\\Temporary Internet Files" "History"="Z:\\History" [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Internet Settings\Url History] "Directory"="Z:\\History" [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\Ramdisk\Parameters] "BreakOnEntry"=dword: "DebugLevel"=dword: "DebugComp"=dword: "DiskSize"=dword:01f0 "DriveLetter"="Z:" "RootDirEntries"=dword:0200 "SectorsPerCluster"=dword:0002 ---end of file 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
Can tell me how to allocate the swap file to RAM? T Just go to System / Advanced Tab / Performance settings /Advanced/virtual Memory change Then just make sure all drives are set to no paging file. The OS won't use a pagefile which means it must use RAM. Be advised that a very few programs won't accept this. Using a RAM drive for a swap file doesn't work well... some programs see it for what it is, and won't accept it. More importantly it wastes a huge amount of RAM that could be better put to use just about anywhere else. I'm assuming you mean I can put 8GB in a 32bit system and use 4GB of that as a swap file? if that is what you have in mind you are much better off getting a small SSD and putting your swap file there. MS writes that this is the ideal place to put a swap file. m
Re: [H] new system build suggestions or upgrade
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 S
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
Re: [H] new system build suggestions or upgrade
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
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,
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
>
>
>> ---
>> Brian Weeden
>> Technical Advisor
>> Secure World Foundation <http://www.secureworldfoundation.org>
>> +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
>> > >
&
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 <http://www.secureworldfoundation.org>
+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).
Re: [H] new system build suggestions or upgrade
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 <http://www.secureworldfoundation.org>
+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 u
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] 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 repor
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
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, s
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] new system build suggestions or upgrade
At 12:54 PM 02/08/2010, JRS wrote: Thane: Thanx for the link to the latest video card hierarchy.. :) Now we just need one for all the new processors for those of us who have not been paying attention lately.. . :) Try this one: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/21?vs=46 T
Re: [H] new system build suggestions or upgrade
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 you're going to need 64 bit
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 you're going to need 64 bit
Re: [H] new system build suggestions or upgrade
Thane: Thanx for the link to the latest video card hierarchy.. :) Now we just need one for all the new processors for those of us who have not been paying attention lately.. . :) > I'd probably move to an I3 or i5 (I think these are better bang for > buck than I7.) If you need 4G or more RAM then you're going to need > 64 bit, which can be a bit iffy, but doable. I'd go with the Pro > version so you can run Virtual XP in case you need it. For video I'd > go here: > http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-radeon-hd-geforce-gtx,2676.html > > T
Re: [H] new system build suggestions or upgrade
At 05:13 PM 29/07/2010, Anthony A Riederer wrote: It is time for me to upgrade. If I were to piece something up. What is the preferences on MB, CPU, Video, etc. Today? I currently have a core 2 Duo E6300 @1.86 on an Asus P5Q Deluxe, 4GB DDR2 and a Radeon 1600 vid. I know its dinosaur crap from around 2007 before my brain injury. I am recovered enough to start playing some games again, etc. Should I upgrade the proc, and vid on my existing setup which is running fine, or ditch it and start new again. If I start over what is the collectives recommendations? Price and performance are important here. I do some gaming, and video stuff etc. I'd probably move to an I3 or i5 (I think these are better bang for buck than I7.) If you need 4G or more RAM then you're going to need 64 bit, which can be a bit iffy, but doable. I'd go with the Pro version so you can run Virtual XP in case you need it. For video I'd go here: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-radeon-hd-geforce-gtx,2676.html T
Re: [H] new system build suggestions or upgrade
Anthony, I fully understand both your frustration and emotion. The bad news is that I just do not have any suggestions about the new "bleeding edge" stuff. I use 3 clients very similar to your machine and I have zero trouble from any of them playing games, surfing, doing office tasks, whatever. No. I do not view movies, do massive audio stuff, run servers, use RAID, etc. ATM, I can not tell if AMD is a better bang-4-buck. Suspect if you choose AMD, your current P5Q-Deluxe is toast and you start with new m/b. I have no opinion on AMD's latest batch of cpus. Mine are old "Barton" (post TBird) devices and continue to just truck on well in XPproSP3. If your machine were mine: o-I might think about a faster E8-series cpu (like E8400! ?if still around?), o-think about ?perhaps? an nVidia video card (I like my 9600GT cards; yes, old), o-maybe a bigger/newer psu. You did not mention OS. Did read "2007"; so maybe Vista or XP? If you choose to move to Win7, I have to leave comments to the collective. HTH, Duncan On 07/30/2010 08:02, Anthony A Riederer wrote: Thanks for the reply. Is an AMD rig a better bang for the buck? I used to be a lot more up on the hardware. I used to have a computer business where I did a lot of system building. I was forced to close it when I suffered my traumatic brain injury. So I don't have the distribution channels I used to have. Which sucks right now. So now I am trying to play catch up on the latest hardware. Come on people I need more suggestions. I value your opinions. Anthony -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Bobby Heid Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 4:46 PM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] new system build suggestions or upgrade I have been really happy with my Intel Core I7-920 on an Asus P6T mb. I have an Nvidia GTX 285 video card that is pretty nice. Although the latest 4xx series probably blows it away at the same price. I am running Win 7 Ultimate 64 with 6GB RAM. I am planning on upping the RAM to 12GB soon. Bobby -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Anthony A Riederer Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 4:14 PM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: [H] new system build suggestions or upgrade It is time for me to upgrade. If I were to piece something up. What is the preferences on MB, CPU, Video, etc. Today? I currently have a core 2 Duo E6300 @1.86 on an Asus P5Q Deluxe, 4GB DDR2 and a Radeon 1600 vid. I know its dinosaur crap from around 2007 before my brain injury. I am recovered enough to start playing some games again, etc. Should I upgrade the proc, and vid on my existing setup which is running fine, or ditch it and start new again. If I start over what is the collectives recommendations? Price and performance are important here. I do some gaming, and video stuff etc. -Anthony aka Tony
Re: [H] new system build suggestions or upgrade
Thanks for the reply. Is an AMD rig a better bang for the buck? I used to be a lot more up on the hardware. I used to have a computer business where I did a lot of system building. I was forced to close it when I suffered my traumatic brain injury. So I don't have the distribution channels I used to have. Which sucks right now. So now I am trying to play catch up on the latest hardware. Come on people I need more suggestions. I value your opinions. Anthony -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Bobby Heid Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 4:46 PM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] new system build suggestions or upgrade I have been really happy with my Intel Core I7-920 on an Asus P6T mb. I have an Nvidia GTX 285 video card that is pretty nice. Although the latest 4xx series probably blows it away at the same price. I am running Win 7 Ultimate 64 with 6GB RAM. I am planning on upping the RAM to 12GB soon. Bobby -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Anthony A Riederer Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 4:14 PM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: [H] new system build suggestions or upgrade It is time for me to upgrade. If I were to piece something up. What is the preferences on MB, CPU, Video, etc. Today? I currently have a core 2 Duo E6300 @1.86 on an Asus P5Q Deluxe, 4GB DDR2 and a Radeon 1600 vid. I know its dinosaur crap from around 2007 before my brain injury. I am recovered enough to start playing some games again, etc. Should I upgrade the proc, and vid on my existing setup which is running fine, or ditch it and start new again. If I start over what is the collectives recommendations? Price and performance are important here. I do some gaming, and video stuff etc. -Anthony aka Tony
Re: [H] new system build suggestions or upgrade
Mine's an old(er) Core 2 Duo system too.. Does anyone, have a definitive breakdown or chart of all the Core i3's, i5's, and i7's? I have not looked at a new PC in at least a couple years since I use the iMac most of the time these days.. :) On Jul 29, 2010, at 1:13 PM, Anthony A Riederer wrote: > It is time for me to upgrade. If I were to piece something up. What is the > preferences on MB, CPU, Video, etc. Today? I currently have a core 2 Duo > E6300 @1.86 on an Asus P5Q Deluxe, 4GB DDR2 and a Radeon 1600 vid. I know > its dinosaur crap from around 2007 before my brain injury. I am recovered > enough to start playing some games again, etc. Should I upgrade the proc, > and vid on my existing setup which is running fine, or ditch it and start > new again. If I start over what is the collectives recommendations? Price > and performance are important here. I do some gaming, and video stuff etc. > > -Anthony aka Tony > > > -- JRS stei...@pacbell.net Facts do not cease to exist just because they are ignored.
Re: [H] new system build suggestions or upgrade
Tony, First, if you wish to quote a price (minus vid crd and case), I may be interested! Last, I run 3 clients very close to yours. Mine are Asus P5Q3 Intel E8400 2GB DDR3 Nvidia 9600GT The above stack runs so well, I'm thinking of building another one. Best, Duncan On 07/29/2010 16:13, Anthony A Riederer wrote: It is time for me to upgrade. If I were to piece something up. What is the preferences on MB, CPU, Video, etc. Today? I currently have a core 2 Duo E6300 @1.86 on an Asus P5Q Deluxe, 4GB DDR2 and a Radeon 1600 vid. I know its dinosaur crap from around 2007 before my brain injury. I am recovered enough to start playing some games again, etc. Should I upgrade the proc, and vid on my existing setup which is running fine, or ditch it and start new again. If I start over what is the collectives recommendations? Price and performance are important here. I do some gaming, and video stuff etc. -Anthony aka Tony
Re: [H] new system build suggestions or upgrade
I have a similar system as Bobby accept I have a Rampage II Extreme mobo and a Nvidia 295 vid card. So far this system has run every game I've thrown at it at high framerates using a monitor running at a 1920x1200 resolution. I've been very happy with this system. I don't really know what to recommend because it's hard to make a recommendation on what you should buy without knowing the maximum amount of money you are willing to spend. Let us know this and we can be more helpful. > I have been really happy with my Intel Core I7-920 on an Asus P6T mb. I > have an Nvidia GTX 285 video card that is pretty nice. Although the > latest > 4xx series probably blows it away at the same price. I am running Win 7 > Ultimate 64 with 6GB RAM. I am planning on upping the RAM to 12GB soon. > > Bobby > > -Original Message- > From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com > [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Anthony A > Riederer > Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 4:14 PM > To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com > Subject: [H] new system build suggestions or upgrade > > It is time for me to upgrade. If I were to piece something up. What is the > preferences on MB, CPU, Video, etc. Today? I currently have a core 2 Duo > E6300 @1.86 on an Asus P5Q Deluxe, 4GB DDR2 and a Radeon 1600 vid. I know > its dinosaur crap from around 2007 before my brain injury. I am recovered > enough to start playing some games again, etc. Should I upgrade the proc, > and vid on my existing setup which is running fine, or ditch it and start > new again. If I start over what is the collectives recommendations? Price > and performance are important here. I do some gaming, and video stuff etc. > > -Anthony aka Tony > > > > > >
Re: [H] new system build suggestions or upgrade
I have been really happy with my Intel Core I7-920 on an Asus P6T mb. I have an Nvidia GTX 285 video card that is pretty nice. Although the latest 4xx series probably blows it away at the same price. I am running Win 7 Ultimate 64 with 6GB RAM. I am planning on upping the RAM to 12GB soon. Bobby -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Anthony A Riederer Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 4:14 PM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: [H] new system build suggestions or upgrade It is time for me to upgrade. If I were to piece something up. What is the preferences on MB, CPU, Video, etc. Today? I currently have a core 2 Duo E6300 @1.86 on an Asus P5Q Deluxe, 4GB DDR2 and a Radeon 1600 vid. I know its dinosaur crap from around 2007 before my brain injury. I am recovered enough to start playing some games again, etc. Should I upgrade the proc, and vid on my existing setup which is running fine, or ditch it and start new again. If I start over what is the collectives recommendations? Price and performance are important here. I do some gaming, and video stuff etc. -Anthony aka Tony
[H] new system build suggestions or upgrade
It is time for me to upgrade. If I were to piece something up. What is the preferences on MB, CPU, Video, etc. Today? I currently have a core 2 Duo E6300 @1.86 on an Asus P5Q Deluxe, 4GB DDR2 and a Radeon 1600 vid. I know its dinosaur crap from around 2007 before my brain injury. I am recovered enough to start playing some games again, etc. Should I upgrade the proc, and vid on my existing setup which is running fine, or ditch it and start new again. If I start over what is the collectives recommendations? Price and performance are important here. I do some gaming, and video stuff etc. -Anthony aka Tony
