Paul wrote:

A few extra points:

1. The remapping should also work for PAE, theoretically allowing a
32-bit PAE system to access the whole 4GB on a 4GB machine.

2. XP has a 4GB limit regardless of technical limitations. I'm not sure
whether this is a 4GB physical address limit or a 4GB DRAM limit, or
what the limit is in any Vista version.

3. Even when the chipset supports remapping, the BIOS doesn't
necessarily bother, so even with a 64-bit OS you don't always get the
full 4GB.


--
John Jordan

Phil Weldon wrote:
This hasn't been true for a long time. Modern video cards use the same
DRAM types as everything else (SDR, DDR, DDR2, DDR3 etc.), although
takeup of newer DRAM technologies is faster in video cards because
compatibility isn't an issue.


--
John Jordan

In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt "johns" <johns321 (AT) moscow (DOT) com> wrote:

The obvious thing is *NEVER* buy the first round of an operating system;
especially from Micr$haft.

Windows 3.0 was crap; and didn't become what was promised until 3.1.
The best release of that OS was version 3.11

Windows 95 didn't really work worth shit until ....

Windows 98 wasn't worth a damn until Second Edition.

Windows XP was crap even when Service-Pack-1 was installed.
It wasn't until SP-2 that it started to look stable and possibly as good
as Win-98SE Now they're getting up to release-three of the .NET
addition; along with more fixes than you can shake a stick at.

So ... They come out with "Vista" which, of course, is buggier than a
windshield in Minnesota in May.

Wait until they at least come out with "Service Pack 1" or whatever
they'll call it for Vista. Preferably SP-2, or whatever they decide to
call the second big release.

Maybe by *then* it will work as well as XP does now.
Maybe.

--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_

In article <45ef1975$1_3 (AT) mk-nntp-2 (DOT) news.uk.tiscali.com>, Trimble
Bracegirdle says...

You need to enable "Hardware Memory Hole" in BIOS.

--
Conor

Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright
until you hear them speak.........

This thread has improved my understanding Re: XP & VISTA 32bit
RAM limitations .
But I'm really quite depressed to find I'm struggling with a situation I
thought
I'd left with Windows 98 ..when I tried to find out what it did with more
than 1Gig RAM.
(No Bunny actuarially knows for sure).
And that new n shiny VISTA still hasn't sorted this seems ridiculous.
Bring back Expanded Memory I say (sigh !) You knew where you were
with EMM386.EXE (or was it *.SYS ?). (Big sigh !).

I still can not understand who there is no utility that can be run & report
what the state of upper memory is & what extra can be installed ??
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") Mouse.

In article <45f05e1f$1_3 (AT) mk-nntp-2 (DOT) news.uk.tiscali.com>, Trimble
Bracegirdle says...
All the information is there on MS website.



--
Conor

Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright
until you hear them speak.........

Trimble Bracegirdle wrote:
Well, if you *really* want to know, go to control panel, administrative
tools, computer management, system tools, system information, hardware
resources, memory. Then see what's mapped where. 0xC8000000 is 3.5GB.

Note that many ranges will be mapped multiple times. Windows seems to
map "PCI bus" to the full range above RAM, and AGP and video card
mappings also overlap. The lowest non-PCI-bus, non-first-MB value should
tell you your RAM limit though.


--
John Jordan

John Jordan wrote:
Uh. Oops. 0xE0000000 is 3.5GB.

By the way, changing your AGP aperture size is likely to make a
significant difference to these address mappings.


--
John Jordan

In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt "Trimble Bracegirdle"
<no-spam (AT) Spam (DOT) Not> wrote:

Um ... It actually *downgrades* when more than 512meg is installed.
And, usually, to get best results with that much, you need tweaks.
(Not as bad a s Win-95 in that regard, but ....)

It pretty much stopped working (as did other memory managers) with
Win-98.

Generally, as a rule-of-thumb:
With Win-95, stick to under 256 meg, unless you want to tweak the
system.
With Win-98, stick to under 512 meg.
With Win-XP, stick to under 4 gig.
I have no idea of what Vista handles well.

With all those, make sure your BIOS recognizes what you have properly;
and *try* to stick to the same brand, size, and preferably even same run
of chips when installing. That's not always possible, but preferable.

--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_

I know what Vista handles well, as Vista has built-in diagnostics.
According to Vista's numerical rating system, anything over 2GB installed
for Vista would be a waste. My wife scores a 5.8 (Vista's score, not mine)
out of a possible 5.9 with exactly 2GB of RAM installed. What it would take
to get 5.9? Who frickin' cares??? -Dave