Pages: 1 2

 

2011-02-01 12:43:15
Stubbee
Religions Hate Facts, Questions and Doubts
+223|7000|Reality
PAE sucks and can be a big pain to implement.
bandaid solution to crappy engineering. idiots should have thought of using 36 bit addresses from the beginning.

it is impossible for windows xp 32 bit to recognize 4GB of ram, 2^32 = 4GB. Google url=http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778%28v=vs.85%29.aspx#physical_memory_limits_windows_xp]32bit OS ram limitation.[/url]

Microsoft then decided to hide this problem with SP3, Device Manager now shows 4GB because it now reports installed RAM and not usable RAM.

Typically you get access to  3.25 of 4GB. The 'missing' RAM is reserved for windows and system stuff. However, it can be as low as 2.5GB if you have a lot of peripherals.

That being said you can use more than 4GB in a 32 bit system, if you use the extra RAM as a ramdisk.
The US economy is a giant Ponzi scheme. And 'to big to fail' is code speak for 'niahnahniahniahnah 99 percenters'
2011-02-02 03:12:23
Cheez
Herman is a warmaphrodite
+1,027|6696|King Of The Islands

Stubbee wrote:

Microsoft then decided to hide this problem with SP3, Device Manager now shows 4GB because it now reports installed RAM and not usable RAM.
Same in a Vista SP. Use dxdiag for true reading.
My state was founded by Batman. Your opinion is invalid.
2011-02-02 03:17:55
jaymz9350
Member
+54|6834

Stubbee wrote:

Microsoft then decided to hide this problem with SP3, Device Manager now shows 4GB because it now reports installed RAM and not usable RAM.
It's not a "problem" it's a limitation.  they probably got tired of people who don't know anything calling in and complaining because they bought 4 GB of RAM for a 32bit OS and are mad it's not there which isn't Microsoft's fault, it's the people who make uniformed purchases fault.
2011-02-02 17:54:15
Magna-Mike
Member
+5|6362

Cheez wrote:

Windows XP is a DECADE old. Holy faaaark.
lol ya i know but like mentioned, i am running an older computer...Like DDR400, AMD Athlon 64XP so one I don't want to install Windows 7, and two I don't want to pay $100+ for an OS I know nothing about. I really wish Windows offered some type of downloadable trial.

signa wrote:

the best bet is to max your ram to 4gb,  do a fresh install of xp with sp3, and turn off unneeded services using black vipers tweaks.  Thats the best your going to get xp running other than upgrading to a SSD, or moving your pagefile to another HDD.
That sounds very interesting, I will look into it. Could you tell me more about moving the pagefile to another HDD and what kind of performance increases I might get? Because I do have two WD 640 gig HDD's

Stubbee wrote:

Microsoft then decided to hide this problem with SP3, Device Manager now shows 4GB because it now reports installed RAM and not usable RAM.
This is interesting, I checked out Device Manager, but I don't know where to look under all the devices for RAM info?

Stubbee wrote:

Typically you get access to  3.25 of 4GB. The 'missing' RAM is reserved for windows and system stuff. However, it can be as low as 2.5GB if you have a lot of peripherals.

That being said you can use more than 4GB in a 32 bit system, if you use the extra RAM as a ramdisk.
So if what you first said above is true, than if I only had 2 gigs installed, wouldn't windows not show the amount it is using, thus displaying something like 1.5, or 1 on system properties? Or is it just some weird software coding thing like mentioned that makes it display less once more can be used?

I'm really curious about this ramdisk. I read the wiki on it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAM_disk

So I can literally use the extra RAM as storage space?? How big is this pagefile? Can I put that into RAM?

These are probably stupid questions, but I honestly am a beginner, and do not understand the finer points of computer technology.

Last edited by Magna-Mike (2011-02-02 18:03:42)

2011-02-02 18:32:50
HaiBai
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
+304|5741|Bolingbrook, Illinois
why would you have 4 gb of ram on such a shitty computer?
2011-02-02 19:58:31
Magna-Mike
Member
+5|6362

HaiBai wrote:

why would you have 4 gb of ram on such a shitty computer?
Because I extra sticks of RAM lying around? Kthnxbai
2011-02-02 22:26:40
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6363|eXtreme to the maX
Well thats lucky, I was about to stick another 2 gigs in my machine, maybe I'll just buy a new PC instead.
Fuck Israel
2011-02-03 00:32:56
Buckles
Cheeky Keen
+329|6813|Kent, UK
If you just stuck in "extra sticks of ram you had lying around", then you're probably going to be better off with just 2 matching 2gb sticks, rather than 4 mis-matched sticks and trying to force windows to see more of them.
2011-02-03 03:41:57
jaymz9350
Member
+54|6834

Magna-Mike wrote:

So if what you first said above is true, than if I only had 2 gigs installed, wouldn't windows not show the amount it is using, thus displaying something like 1.5, or 1 on system properties? Or is it just some weird software coding thing like mentioned that makes it display less once more can be used?
No if the total RAM allocation is less than 4 GB windows will show the full amount of RAM you have installed.  If it tops 4 GB (the 32 bit limit) it will show what's leftover after everything else is taken into account.  So if you had say 2GB of RAM and a 2 GB GPU you'd still lose some system RAM.
2011-02-03 17:37:50
Magna-Mike
Member
+5|6362
Actually Buckles, it is working quite nicely. I've had the memory in for about a week and I've had no issues at all. I should probably run MemTest or something similar.

Interesting that I have not mentioned it yet, but Windows XP (It is Pro btw) shows 3.25 gigs of RAM. I'm quite happy with that outcome. I might even start playing around with overclocking on this older rig, frankly because I think the performance boost is worth the risks. If something goes bad, I really wont mind that much.

Thanks for the clarification jaymz


Dilbert_X wrote:

Well thats lucky, I was about to stick another 2 gigs in my machine, maybe I'll just buy a new PC instead.
Indeed! I save a lot of hardware so I can try to make use of it again someday, if so desired. I have enough stuff around to build two other computers albeit they'll be running some NEARLY decade old hardware holy faaaaark

Last edited by Magna-Mike (2011-02-03 17:38:37)

2011-02-03 21:45:27
Stubbee
Religions Hate Facts, Questions and Doubts
+223|7000|Reality
So if what you first said above is true, than if I only had 2 gigs installed, wouldn't windows not show the amount it is using, thus displaying something like 1.5, or 1 on system properties? Or is it just some weird software coding thing like mentioned that makes it display less once more can be used?
I wasn't clear enough. The OS reserves the memory addresses regardless of if you actually have RAM installed at those addresses. It is an IO thing. So since the addresses are reserved for IO etc then it can't be used for RAM. PAE extends the address range so the IO etc can have reserve addresses in this extended range thus liberating the sub 4GB addresses for use with RAM. But as said it is a pain in the ass. Not every agrees on this, but it was for me when I tried. So many variables whether or not it will work.
The US economy is a giant Ponzi scheme. And 'to big to fail' is code speak for 'niahnahniahniahnah 99 percenters'
2011-02-06 06:53:53
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5435|Sydney
I'm pretty ignorant to this so if my question is dumb someone please explain why, but why do you need 4GB of RAM on a system that old? Surely everything you would want it to do bottlenecks at all other hardware in the system long before your RAM is maxed out, yeah?
2011-02-06 15:21:53
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6363|eXtreme to the maX
RAM is a cheap and easy upgrade, its so cheap now compared to five years ago its worth a go for a bit of performance improvement on an old system.
Fuck Israel
2011-02-06 16:18:30
13urnzz
Banned
+5,830|6754

/thread.
2011-02-11 21:10:26
signa
~~~~~
+50|6986|Michigan, USA
If you want that laptop to have a fast OS, try puppy linux.
2011-02-14 18:44:21
Magna-Mike
Member
+5|6362

signa wrote:

If you want that laptop to have a fast OS, try puppy linux.
Actually I have some new hardware components and I want to get it running tonight, but I am wondering what OS to install that would be free and downloadable because I cant get Windows 7.

I have  a DDR5 GPU, ASUS MOBO with Sata 6, USB 3, Core Unlocker, 4 gigs of DDR3 12800 RAM soooo, I kind of want to install Linux, and I know there are a lot of versions. I've used Linux Mint before, and enjoyed that.

I'm sure I can find it out, but I'll ask anyway since I know people around here are familiar with computer tech and programs, can popular PC games be played on some versions of Linux? WoW, BC2, Starcraft II to name a few...

Last edited by Magna-Mike (2011-02-14 18:52:51)

2011-02-15 19:51:39
signa
~~~~~
+50|6986|Michigan, USA

Magna-Mike wrote:

Actually I have some new hardware components and I want to get it running tonight, but I am wondering what OS to install that would be free and downloadable because I cant get Windows 7.
legally free?  (and current development) that pretty much limits you to linux.

Magna-Mike wrote:

I have  a DDR5 GPU, ASUS MOBO with Sata 6, USB 3, Core Unlocker, 4 gigs of DDR3 12800 RAM soooo, I kind of want to install Linux, and I know there are a lot of versions. I've used Linux Mint before, and enjoyed that.
There are lots of distributions of linux that are popular. distrowatch is a good source of linux news and keeps a list of the most major and popular distros.
If your looking for one to try out I would suggest:
- Mint 10 gnome  (based on ubuntu but comes with all the codecs and everything you need).
- Pclinuxos kde  (looks great.  rolling release means there is only 1 version of it and its always updated.)
- ubuntu 10 gnome  (the most popular distro?)
- or any distro listed on the "major" link above.

most of those also come in different desktops too: gnome, kde, flux/openbox, Xfce.
I usually go with gnome but kde is nice too.  The KDE version of pclinuxos looks awesome.
Flux and "X" version are considered lightweight for less system stress.

Magna-Mike wrote:

I'm sure I can find it out, but I'll ask anyway since I know people around here are familiar with computer tech and programs, can popular PC games be played on some versions of Linux? WoW, BC2, Starcraft II to name a few...
a lot of games are availible on linux, but most cutting edge FPS games arent.  I belive WoW is.  bc2 = no.  be sure to google to for a linux games list.
2011-02-16 07:52:20
.Sup
be nice
+2,646|6710|The Twilight Zone

Dilbert_X wrote:

RAM is a cheap and easy upgrade, its so cheap now compared to five years ago its worth a go for a bit of performance improvement on an old system.
True. Its been a while since I browsed shops for ram and was recently pleasantly surprised that 2GB of DDR3 ram is only 20€.
https://www.shrani.si/f/3H/7h/45GTw71U/untitled-1.png

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard