-
AMD deep-dives Zen 5 architecture — Ryzen 9000 and AI 300 benchmarks, RDNA 3.5 GPU, XDNA 2, and more
-
Amazon Prime Day: Best Tech and PC Hardware Deals!
- Status
coldsleep
Distinguished
- Dec 18, 2009
- 2,475
- 0
- 19,960
What are the specs of your system? Have you made sure that all of the following items apply?
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605
Please verify that:
* chipset supports 8GB (or more) address space
* CPU supports x64 instruction set
* motherboard & bios support more than 4 GB
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605
Please verify that:
* chipset supports 8GB (or more) address space
* CPU supports x64 instruction set
* motherboard & bios support more than 4 GB
Nice of you to keep replying to me. As you and others can tell, I have much to learn. Tom's Hardware Guide seems to be the absolute best place I've found.
I have yet to build or buy a new system. I'm investigating and learning about options that will determine the best "bang for the buck."
I do not want to spend money on a system that #1 doesn't do what I want it to do, and #2 spend money on a system that doesn't have a future upgrade path.
This will be the last computer I can afford for several years (living on SS), so I need to invest as wisely as possible.
I've followed the "Building a Gaming System" series of articles with great interest. Didn't understand a lot of it. But, the most disappointing result for me was that at the very end of the contest, the products changed from what they started with (due to availability and price changes, etc.) AND there was no update to the FINAL LIST OF PRODUCTS AND PRICES CURRENT AS OF JANUARY 2010.
Had such an update been posted (based upon the many expert comments on this forum about substitutions, etc.), I might have already purchased a new system for around $700.00 to $850.00 that would serve my goals. No update was presented for users like me who require the "shopping list" compiled by expert users on this forum! Oh, well. I'm still trying to learn.
I appreciate everyone's patience with me. Like I said, this is my only opportunity to invest in my computing-happiness for quite awhile. I do not want to experience "Buyer's Remorse" next week! Heh heh.
FranciscoNET
Distinguished
- Jan 26, 2010
- 1
- 0
- 18,510
Ok, I am in the same boat with the poster finding out how to bypass Microsoft's Imposed Max limitations of 4GB of PAE'd (Physical Address Extension) memory in my current Windows XP Professional SP3 x86 (32 bits). I know that Windows 2003 Server Enterprise can address up to 32 GB of RAM when the /PAE switch is used in boot.ini given the fact that Windows XP, being 32 bits *JUST* like Windows Server 2003 Enterprise 32 bits, Windows XP 32 Bits cannot address more than 4GB of RAM with /PAE. Further research done by me tells me that this is by Microsoft's Design, that its some "Licensing" crap limiting users how much ram they can have.
Now, here is my situation. I have Windows XP 32Bits installed in my computer with 8GB of RAM and only 3.5GB is being reported even with using the /PAE switch. I would like to know where can I obtain a HACK that will patch up my system (or should I say Kernel) to allocate a higher number of /PAE RAM? I know that x64 is slightly better than /PAE but I do not want to go 64 bit at this time because my computer manufacturer (HP) doesn't have drivers for Windows XP x64 (even though I do have the CD, just cant use it because of that), ahh dont even think of suggesting Windows Vista x64, I had that crap and had to remove it because it was too slow and unstable, and most of my productivity software didn't just work under it. Windows 7, forget it, I haven't tried it yet, just heard that Windows 7 is a revamped version of Windows Vista, its giving a few random problems to a few users, I dont feel like going there, if my productivity softwares didn't function under Vista, I dont have a good expectation of them functioning under Windows 7.
So.... Where is the hack (or work around) to remove Microsoft's /PAE limitations of 4GB Max RAM on 32bit Windows XP?
Note:
I am smelling as of now that the hack could be as easy as using files from the original Windows XP SP0 CD which, according to an earlier poster here, supported a /PAE greater than 4GB before Microsoft removed that functionality under SP1 without giving the users the CHOICE to re-activate it (at their own risk) (Maybe its a simple registry key that needs to be modified to allow this?).
Also, just in case if there is no way of hacking XP to support a bigger /PAE. Is there any way I can get Windows XP's System Properties to display the RAM value being reported in system BIOS? (8GB) and not just 3.5GB as current? I work as a full time computer technician and I do receive customers from time to time requesting me to remove Windows Vista x64 (or 32) and install XP downgrade (utilizing the Microsoft Downgrade Rights) in their 6/8GB RAM systems while not being able to install the 64 bits version of XP simply because I was only able to find drivers for 32 bits XP for these "Vista Only" machines, and then, even though their systems ends up much, and I mean MUCH faster than how it used to run under Vista, it is sometimes difficult explaining to the customer why XP is reporting 3.5GB of RAM when Vista used to report 8GB before. (I currently tell them about the PHYSICAL (2^32) 32Bits architectural limitations of 4 GB, and most of them understands immediately while a few of them requires a few more speeches before they are able to understand and leave me alone about it)
This project that I am trying to do in seeing if I can hack Windows XP to support a greater /PAE value other than Microsoft's Imposed /PAE limitation is only EXPERIMENTAL. 1) I just want to know HOW it can be done (I know it CAN be done due to my 32 bit Windows Server 2003 example above) 2) After I am able to accomplish this, I want to see, being the first hand witness to my self, HOW stable would this be?, 3) How higher can I go in terms of RAM without sacrificing stability/performance/issue, IF ANY. I have enough tests bench here with me, I want to do tests and tweaks on my own, I do not want to rely on some other organization, etc telling me why they feel this should'nt be done, etc. I know not all drivers will behave erratically if XP's /PAE limitations would be to be lifted, and if then, I am pretty sure I might be able to find a good work around to stabilize these drivers under these kinds of (unlimited) /PAE'd environment. Also, I know that software would have to use the /PAE'd environment to "profit" from the higher memory areas above 3.5GB and that most software will simply be operating under the 3.5GB umbrella, but what I am mostly looking here is for the privilege of "seeing" 8GB under System Properties and under Task Manager (even though if the system is truly using just 3.5GB most of the time) so customers wont bug me about this.
Thanks.
Now, here is my situation. I have Windows XP 32Bits installed in my computer with 8GB of RAM and only 3.5GB is being reported even with using the /PAE switch. I would like to know where can I obtain a HACK that will patch up my system (or should I say Kernel) to allocate a higher number of /PAE RAM? I know that x64 is slightly better than /PAE but I do not want to go 64 bit at this time because my computer manufacturer (HP) doesn't have drivers for Windows XP x64 (even though I do have the CD, just cant use it because of that), ahh dont even think of suggesting Windows Vista x64, I had that crap and had to remove it because it was too slow and unstable, and most of my productivity software didn't just work under it. Windows 7, forget it, I haven't tried it yet, just heard that Windows 7 is a revamped version of Windows Vista, its giving a few random problems to a few users, I dont feel like going there, if my productivity softwares didn't function under Vista, I dont have a good expectation of them functioning under Windows 7.
So.... Where is the hack (or work around) to remove Microsoft's /PAE limitations of 4GB Max RAM on 32bit Windows XP?
Note:
I am smelling as of now that the hack could be as easy as using files from the original Windows XP SP0 CD which, according to an earlier poster here, supported a /PAE greater than 4GB before Microsoft removed that functionality under SP1 without giving the users the CHOICE to re-activate it (at their own risk) (Maybe its a simple registry key that needs to be modified to allow this?).
Also, just in case if there is no way of hacking XP to support a bigger /PAE. Is there any way I can get Windows XP's System Properties to display the RAM value being reported in system BIOS? (8GB) and not just 3.5GB as current? I work as a full time computer technician and I do receive customers from time to time requesting me to remove Windows Vista x64 (or 32) and install XP downgrade (utilizing the Microsoft Downgrade Rights) in their 6/8GB RAM systems while not being able to install the 64 bits version of XP simply because I was only able to find drivers for 32 bits XP for these "Vista Only" machines, and then, even though their systems ends up much, and I mean MUCH faster than how it used to run under Vista, it is sometimes difficult explaining to the customer why XP is reporting 3.5GB of RAM when Vista used to report 8GB before. (I currently tell them about the PHYSICAL (2^32) 32Bits architectural limitations of 4 GB, and most of them understands immediately while a few of them requires a few more speeches before they are able to understand and leave me alone about it)
This project that I am trying to do in seeing if I can hack Windows XP to support a greater /PAE value other than Microsoft's Imposed /PAE limitation is only EXPERIMENTAL. 1) I just want to know HOW it can be done (I know it CAN be done due to my 32 bit Windows Server 2003 example above) 2) After I am able to accomplish this, I want to see, being the first hand witness to my self, HOW stable would this be?, 3) How higher can I go in terms of RAM without sacrificing stability/performance/issue, IF ANY. I have enough tests bench here with me, I want to do tests and tweaks on my own, I do not want to rely on some other organization, etc telling me why they feel this should'nt be done, etc. I know not all drivers will behave erratically if XP's /PAE limitations would be to be lifted, and if then, I am pretty sure I might be able to find a good work around to stabilize these drivers under these kinds of (unlimited) /PAE'd environment. Also, I know that software would have to use the /PAE'd environment to "profit" from the higher memory areas above 3.5GB and that most software will simply be operating under the 3.5GB umbrella, but what I am mostly looking here is for the privilege of "seeing" 8GB under System Properties and under Task Manager (even though if the system is truly using just 3.5GB most of the time) so customers wont bug me about this.
Thanks.
JMESUN
Distinguished
- Jul 14, 2009
- 13
- 0
- 18,510
FIRST off im lazy, so bare with me on this. i run xp home 32bit. on a Nforce 680i LT SLI board.. i had 2gb of corsair cm2x1024-6400c4. 444412 (dash it yourself)..i went to frys to up grade. so i went and of course they were out of corsair so i went with patriot, and these were the best availbe at the store on that day at that time march 14 2010. pc2 6400 800mhz 555512
i use the duel channel of coarse. My question is xp shows i only have 2.75 BG availble.. everywhere else it recognizes the 4gb. i understand that some of this is allocated to certain areas but it is bs when i have my mcp in xp and they allways said 4gb. I WONDERING IF THERE are any tricks or something i can do so that it recongizes more of my memory (or free up more of it)or would it be better to run one of the 2bg with one of the 1gb. also does anyone recommend reseting cmos on the board?
All that wage war know my name
i use the duel channel of coarse. My question is xp shows i only have 2.75 BG availble.. everywhere else it recognizes the 4gb. i understand that some of this is allocated to certain areas but it is bs when i have my mcp in xp and they allways said 4gb. I WONDERING IF THERE are any tricks or something i can do so that it recongizes more of my memory (or free up more of it)or would it be better to run one of the 2bg with one of the 1gb. also does anyone recommend reseting cmos on the board?
All that wage war know my name
But why wen i put 2gb(1gb + 1gb) on my windows xp system 32 bit system and when windows is loading computer restart.I have 4 slots of ram and my pc support 4gb max ram is DDR PC2700 333mhz but when i put only 1 gb it works (if i have mistakes in writing sorry)
overlytall
Distinguished
- Apr 16, 2010
- 1
- 0
- 18,510
Just read through this for both help and then amusement.
Firstly Microsoft Clickety
This little gem, if you scroll halfway down, says that Windows XP 32bit has an limit of 4gb. Physical memory, the memory you install.
The /3gb switch allows you to change the way the machine allocates memory. By default a 32bit operating splits the memory in half, half for the running of your OS and the other for user processes. If you do this;
Open c:\boot.ini
Add the /3gb switch like the below and reboot
[operating systems]
multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS="Microsoft Windows XP Professional" /noexecute=optin /fastdetect /3gb
You will allocate 3gb of the physical memory to user processes and 1gb will be used for the OS. Before you do this read this Techie Doc. There is no point changing the memory allocation
Xp Sp3 recognises 3.5gb of memory installed, even when you have more physically in there, because...
Detailed Description of missing .5gb thingy and yes it says its for Vista but the same rules apply to all 32bit operating systems.
I hope this clears up some of your questions. If you wish to test the amount of memory your machine can have and the type of memory your system can upgrade too try this baby Crucial Memory
_
Overlytall
Firstly Microsoft Clickety
This little gem, if you scroll halfway down, says that Windows XP 32bit has an limit of 4gb. Physical memory, the memory you install.
The /3gb switch allows you to change the way the machine allocates memory. By default a 32bit operating splits the memory in half, half for the running of your OS and the other for user processes. If you do this;
Open c:\boot.ini
Add the /3gb switch like the below and reboot
[operating systems]
multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS="Microsoft Windows XP Professional" /noexecute=optin /fastdetect /3gb
You will allocate 3gb of the physical memory to user processes and 1gb will be used for the OS. Before you do this read this Techie Doc. There is no point changing the memory allocation
Xp Sp3 recognises 3.5gb of memory installed, even when you have more physically in there, because...
Detailed Description of missing .5gb thingy and yes it says its for Vista but the same rules apply to all 32bit operating systems.
I hope this clears up some of your questions. If you wish to test the amount of memory your machine can have and the type of memory your system can upgrade too try this baby Crucial Memory
_
Overlytall
freealx
Distinguished
- Jul 9, 2010
- 1
- 0
- 18,510
i m using 8 gb ram with nvidia quardro fx 1800 graphic card with window 7 but showing 8gb physical memory but not using it......it using only 1 to 4 gb physical memory .............yyyyyyyyyyy
I'm sure you guys already wrote this sometime. But i'm going for a plain answer.
All 32bit verisions of Windows Xp x32 and Vista x86 supports up to 3gb of ram.
All 32bit verisions of Windows 7 except the starter supports 4gig of ram. The starter supports 2gig.
Vista Basic x64: 8 GB
Vista Home Premium x64: 16 GB
Vista Business/Enterprise/Ultimate x64: 128 GB
Windows 7 Starter x64: 2 GB
Windows 7 Home Basic x64: 8 GB
Windows 7 Home Premium x64: 16 GB
Windows 7 Professional/Enterprise/Ultimate x64: 192GB.
All 32bit verisions of Windows Xp x32 and Vista x86 supports up to 3gb of ram.
All 32bit verisions of Windows 7 except the starter supports 4gig of ram. The starter supports 2gig.
Vista Basic x64: 8 GB
Vista Home Premium x64: 16 GB
Vista Business/Enterprise/Ultimate x64: 128 GB
Windows 7 Starter x64: 2 GB
Windows 7 Home Basic x64: 8 GB
Windows 7 Home Premium x64: 16 GB
Windows 7 Professional/Enterprise/Ultimate x64: 192GB.
My windows 7 Pro, started with 8 GB DDR3; just substituted a 4 GB strip for one 2GB strip ~ 10GB RAM system RAM; the ancillary processes RAM dependent or influenced run faster and smoother; e.g., font rendering is better and the graphics in simple online banking for example are better rendered and faster on screen; is it worth the Price of admission with DDR3 modules; it's nicer to see for sure.
font Blacks are darker, for example.
Found 4 GB DDR3 240-pin vendor $90 to $160 per strip. (October 2010)
It's money; the 2 GB modules can be re-sold as RAM modules don't "wear out" in the classic sense; PC boards can be defective by mishandling.
font Blacks are darker, for example.
Found 4 GB DDR3 240-pin vendor $90 to $160 per strip. (October 2010)
It's money; the 2 GB modules can be re-sold as RAM modules don't "wear out" in the classic sense; PC boards can be defective by mishandling.
I am running Vista 32 bit, the motherboard now has 6GB memory in preparation for an upgrade to Windows 7 64bit.
Didnt expect Vista to use more than 4GB from the above comments,
yet it reports 6GB under system memory in control panel.
This in addition to 0.75GB graphics card.
CPUID CPU-Z also reports 6GB
I can understand CPU-Z may work below the OS to detect actual ram installed,
but how would Vista report 6GB if it cant use it.
How can I detect if the memory is really useable?
Didnt expect Vista to use more than 4GB from the above comments,
yet it reports 6GB under system memory in control panel.
This in addition to 0.75GB graphics card.
CPUID CPU-Z also reports 6GB
I can understand CPU-Z may work below the OS to detect actual ram installed,
but how would Vista report 6GB if it cant use it.
How can I detect if the memory is really useable?
g00fysmiley
Distinguished
- Apr 30, 2010
- 2,175
- 0
- 19,860
holy thread ressurection batman... this thing started in 2006... start your own new thread robin
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Question How to network multiple PCs together with a Netgear modem ?- Started by Lendstop11
- Replies: 11
-
-
-
Question installed new cpu and pc not posting, but i’ve tried literally everything
- Started by Fayzd
- Replies: 4
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram