Venice is here.....

[apesoccer]

Page file...well...off hand i don't remember. I have 2x512 of physical RAM in there now. I've fooled with the page file some, and i can't remember if i put it back to the original size.

But in regards to RAM...it was my understanding that Win XP (32), 2000, could only address up to 4gb of physical ram, and a single program could only address 2gb of ram (or 3gb with a different boot in XP). However, most motherboards (including my asus a8n-sli deluxe, say in the manual that it is only capable of using up to 4 gb of ram). I wondered if this is because you can only put a max size of 1gb sticks in each slot...or...I thought that maybe, since 64bit xp was written specifically to be able to use more RAM, that perhaps the board companies were really only baseing the 4gb max on the fact that Windows (32bit), until Win XP (64bit), could only handle 4gb. Similar to Windows 98 and its problems with going up to and over 512mb of RAM (where you could actually put more ram in a board then the operating system could handle).

Current machines running F@H:
AMD: [64 3500+][64 3000+][2500+][2000+][1.3x2][366]
Intel: [X 3.0x3][P4 3.0x2][P4 2.4x5][P4 1.4]

"...and i'm not gay" RX8 -Greatest Quote of ALL Time

 

[endyen]

Nope. 32 bit os can only address up to 4 gigs of memory. That includes what it allocates for itself (2 gigs usually for windows). It includes bothe virtual and ram memory.

 

[endyen]

I should add that the addresses are spaced out, in case of future need, so that a task that is only using 3 kb of memory may tie up a couple of megs of addressing.

 

[apesoccer]

=D What did you say nope to? If vm is turned off (assuming it doesn't automatically turn off when you have 4gb in), wouldn't that mean you could use 4gb of physical ram? Or am i still missing something? Are you saying, even if you put 4gb in, you can only access 3gb of it?

Current machines running F@H:
AMD: [64 3500+][64 3000+][2500+][2000+][1.3x2][366]
Intel: [X 3.0x3][P4 3.0x2][P4 2.4x5][P4 1.4]

"...and i'm not gay" RX8 -Greatest Quote of ALL Time

 

[P4Man]

>If vm is turned off

And just why would you turn it off ?? Oh, because under certain circumstances, its faster with VM turned off. Blame MS's windows that isn't too clever in deciding what to page in and out ram, but mostly, blame 32 bit limitations that result in VM fragmentation that slows things down, when really, VM is supposed to speed things up (for instance by freeing up RAM to use as diskcache), as well as allow you to have nearly unlimited memory resources for your apps. Virtual memory has gotten a reputation for being "bad", but until we started hitting the 32 bit limitations, VM was a God sent, for both speed and ability to run large apps. With 64 bit OSs, I expect VM to become as usefull again as it has always been; no matter how much ram you have, its almost always better to use that RAM somehow (like for diskcaching) than having an iddle app occupy it for no reason.

>wouldn't that mean you could use 4gb of physical ram? Or am
>i still missing something? Are you saying, even if you put
>4gb in, you can only access 3gb of it?

Lets try and clear this up once more.. A 32 bit OS can only provide apps with a 32 bit memory space (4GB), be it virtual or physical memory. This space, however, is divided into two segments, each 2 GB, one for the OS itselve, one for the applications. That is not a silly MS thing, this is basically a necessity, and applies to all major OS's out there. Well, some, like windows (using /3GB) and linux can limit the OS segement to just one GB, but there are plenty of ifs and buts. The remaining 2 (or 3GB) is as much memory space as an application can ever see and therefore use.

Now if you run more than 1 app at the time, it changes a bit. Each app will still be limited to 2GB memory space (virtual or physical, doesn't matter, in most cases the app doesnt even know), but you could run several of those, meaning, you could make use of more than 4GB RAM as well. Only that the OS has to be able to address that physical RAM above 4GB, and that again requires tricks and hacks on a 32 bit OS that make things hard and fairly slow. But it can be done, as long as you remember that a single app/process will always be limited to 2 or 3 GB memory on a 32 bit OS.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

 

[Crashman]

The RAM limit on 64-bit processors just happens to be 1GB per slot. If the memory controller could support 8 slots and 16 sides, it could support 8GB. But the memory controller can't, and the market for 8 slot PC boards really isn't that big anyways.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

 

[The_I]

But you must admit that it's kind of ironic that after building the first 64 bit processor for the descop AMD decides to equipt it with a memory-controller that efficiently gives it the same limit as the 64 bit part breaks...

 

[Crashman]

Not really, look at what the market offers for RAM.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

 

[The_I]

You're right of course, but the fact that you can't get the right ram anyway kind of spoils the idea of 64 bits in the first place... But of course it's probably a good idea to have processor-technology adopt early to more than 4 gb memory, as far as I've heard the 386 to was a 32 bit processor way before you could have more than the 64 mb ram 16 bits limits you to, right?

 

[Crashman]

I had a 486 board with 16 SIMM slots, all 16-bit (30-pin). It was intended to support 16MB of those things, I never tried 4MB SIMMs in that board (who had that many to test with?).

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

 

[apesoccer]

Thx! I hadn't ever even considered that virtual ram would be considered part of that 4gb. I just hadn't thought it through i guess. Of course i don't have 4gb in any machine, so i hadn't had any reason to actually do so. Heh. OK thx!

Current machines running F@H:
AMD: [64 3500+][64 3000+][2500+][2000+][1.3x2][366]
Intel: [X 3.0x3][P4 3.0x2][P4 2.4x5][P4 1.4]

"...and i'm not gay" RX8 -Greatest Quote of ALL Time

 

[P4Man]

>I hadn't ever even considered that virtual ram would be
>considered part of that 4gb.

Don't feel bad, very few people do. Even on this board, you will keep reading the "no one needs 4GB RAM" nonsense even today. And even fewer realize you also have to subtract the 2 GB the OS reserves for itselve and for device drivers. And blessed but extremely rare are those that understand this poses problems well before you hit the 2GB/process brick wall. As you get closer to this limit, VM fragmentation starts hurting performance badly. Compare it to a harddisk that is as good as full... and your wife claiming you don't need a bigger harddisk, you still have 15 Mb free space

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

 

[apesoccer]

<shivers down my spine> ... You really scared me there, i thought i'd gone and done something drunkedly last night with some gal i still don't know (but apparently posted on the internet about). Marriage...what a scary scary thing. That's almost as scary as me having kids...but not quite. <wipes forehead>

Please, for my mental well being, please no more of those kinds of analogies. Thx! heh.

Long live bachlorhood!!! (ps...does your wife have any sisters?)

Current machines running F@H:
AMD: [64 3500+][64 3000+][2500+][2000+][1.3x2][366]
Intel: [X 3.0x3][P4 3.0x2][P4 2.4x5][P4 1.4]

"...and i'm not gay" RX8 -Greatest Quote of ALL Time

 

[slvr_phoenix]

Even on this board, you will keep reading the "no one needs 4GB RAM" nonsense even today.

I can't believe that you're still perpetuating this stupid argument. Show me <i>one</i> person who says that "<b><font color=red>no</font color=red></b> one needs 4GB". The argument, as it was, was that the <i>average</i> user doesn't need <i>greater</i> than 4GB <i>yet</i>.

<pre> <font color=purple>I express to you a hex value 84 with my ten binary 'digits'. </font color=purple></pre><p>@ 185K -> 200,000 miles or bust!

 

[ChipDeath]

Now I feel bad about encouraging Chipdeath to get a winnie. I know he'll want one of these.

I'd love one :frown: ...

But I needed a new rig months back, and I'm happy enough with the winnie ATM

---
Winnie 3200+ @ ~2.5Ghz, ~1.41V
1Gb @ 209Mhz, 2T, 3-5-5-10
Asus 6800GT 128Mb

 

[P4Man]

>Show me one person who says that "no one needs 4GB". The
>argument, as it was, was that the average user doesn't need
>greater than 4GB yet.

Fine, replace "no one" with "average Joe" in my statement, and the argument is still just as silly and factually irrelevant since the limit is not 4 GB RAM, but 2GB VM. Happy now ?

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =