Jump to content



Photo

>4GB ram in win x86 possible?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
87 replies to this topic

#16 n_K

n_K

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 3
  • Joined: 19-March 06
  • Location: here.
  • OS: FreeDOS
  • Phone: Nokia 3315

Posted 12 April 2013 - 13:51

There's been some right FUD posted in this thread.
ALL x86 servers in the early 00's and 90's used PAE, how do you think it was possible to have dell servers with 4xP3's and 8GB of RAM?
I've used PAE on servers since I've had them, a generic AMD server, a dell 6350, dell 2650, dell 2950 - ALL have worked perfectly fine.
As said, you can only have 4GB per program unless it uses multiple threads and I'm not aware of anything that does that properly.
Because of how fast/high end graphics cards work though you probably WILL encounter problems using them and PAE which is why it's recommended normal PCs do not use PAE, as servers have only the most basic of GPU it doesn't really matter.

Why do you want > 4GB so badly anyway?


#17 Eric

Eric

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 12
  • Joined: 02-August 06
  • Location: Greenville, SC

Posted 12 April 2013 - 14:08

[Thread cleaned]

Stick to the topic. No name-calling.

Also, PAE really only works with software compiled to support it. There is pretty much no difference in x64/x86 for performance.

#18 OP slumdogtrillionaire

slumdogtrillionaire

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 10-September 09

Posted 12 April 2013 - 15:40

Why do you want > 4GB so badly anyway?


that was one of the main reasons to upgrade to a 64bit system.. more ram could be addressed... if that could be done with an x86 xp already then that would be one less reason to consider while upgrading.

PAE isn't really a consumer tool. I wasn't aware that XP could use it >.>

64bit is definitely faster for a lot of things. It's very rarely slower than 32bit, normally being on par.


64bit got a lot of flak initially for being much slower... some even questioned its necessity.

#19 +Bryan R.

Bryan R.

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 04-September 07
  • Location: Palm Beach, FL

Posted 12 April 2013 - 15:43

Did I just step into a thread from the mid-2000's? :rolleyes:

#20 OP slumdogtrillionaire

slumdogtrillionaire

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 10-September 09

Posted 12 April 2013 - 15:45

Did I just step into a thread from the mid-2000's? :rolleyes:


welcome back to the future.

#21 +Nik L

Nik L

    Where's my pants?

  • Tech Issues Solved: 2
  • Joined: 14-January 03

Posted 12 April 2013 - 15:46

some even questioned its necessity

Who? Sorry, the need for 64-bit was astoundingly obvious. Were a few things slower? Sure. But as software and drivers became optimised, that stopped being the case.

#22 ShareShiz

ShareShiz

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 21-June 11

Posted 12 April 2013 - 15:57

I thought there was only "3.25gbs USEABLE" out of 4gbs in a 32bit system.

#23 +Bryan R.

Bryan R.

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 04-September 07
  • Location: Palm Beach, FL

Posted 12 April 2013 - 15:59

that was one of the main reasons to upgrade to a 64bit system.. more ram could be addressed... if that could be done with an x86 xp already then that would be one less reason to consider while upgrading.

PAE is a workaround, not a solution to utilizing more than 4GB of memory. That is all that needs to be said about it now.

64bit got a lot of flak initially for being much slower... some even questioned its necessity.

64-bit itself did not get flak. At least not any flak that held any credence. Windows XP 64-bit Edition was not used widely because many drivers were not created for it. Personally, I used XP 64-bit for a long while and had the pleasure of using more than 4GB of memory without any workarounds or headaches.

64-bit is mainstream now. There's no reason to question it. There's no reason to hold on to the past. It's here, it's better, just use it. Debating this many years later is the pinnacle of pointlessness.

I thought there was only "3.25gbs USEABLE" out of 4gbs in a 32bit system.

Windows is not the only thing that requires memory (hint: motherbaord resources) and typical RAM is not the only source of memory in a computer (hint: video cards).

#24 siah1214

siah1214

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 2
  • Joined: 09-April 12

Posted 12 April 2013 - 16:02

not interested in either... im mainly interested in >4gb ram for xp 32bit use.
-Andrea Borman

Fixed?

#25 OP slumdogtrillionaire

slumdogtrillionaire

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 10-September 09

Posted 12 April 2013 - 16:32

Fixed?


vomit.

no name calling like the mod said...

:angry:

PAE is a workaround, not a solution to utilizing more than 4GB of memory. That is all that needs to be said about it now.
64-bit is mainstream now. There's no reason to question it. There's no reason to hold on to the past. It's here, it's better, just use it. Debating this many years later is the pinnacle of pointlessness.



there is no need to say that because it wasnt ever the case for creating this thread.

it is a what if thread..

#26 xendrome

xendrome

    In God We Trust; All Others We Monitor

  • Tech Issues Solved: 10
  • Joined: 05-December 01
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro x64

Posted 12 April 2013 - 16:34

I thought there was only "3.25gbs USEABLE" out of 4gbs in a 32bit system.


Total addressable space is 4GB, that includes ROMs, video RAM, etc. So it depends on the system hardware config.

#27 Xenomorph

Xenomorph

    Gerbil Warlord

  • Joined: 28-November 01

Posted 12 April 2013 - 16:59

What year is this?

The last time Microsoft released a 32-bit-only consumer OS was Windows XP, back in 2001. Twelve years ago.

Everything released in the past several years or so has worked with 64-bit. Windows, Linux, and Mac OS X.

#28 DrCheese

DrCheese

    Tell me i'm your national anthem

  • Joined: 31-August 03
  • Location: England!

Posted 12 April 2013 - 17:07

dont know 32 bit is just generally more reliable and fast, did see some benchmarks to that effect..


Maybe back in 1994, but not in 2013.

#29 Javik

Javik

    Beware the tyrrany of those that wield power

  • Tech Issues Solved: 2
  • Joined: 21-May 12

Posted 12 April 2013 - 17:11

Why would anyone still want to do this? All hardware that gets made is packaged with 64 bit drivers these days. It's far more stable than using PAE and with none of the annoying address space limitations.

#30 +Frank B.

Frank B.

    Member N° 1,302

  • Tech Issues Solved: 11
  • Joined: 18-September 01
  • Location: Frankfurt, DE
  • OS: OS X 10.10
  • Phone: iPhone 6

Posted 12 April 2013 - 17:14

As others said - this is an entirely pointless exercise. If you want to use XP, fine. Don't expect it to support modern hardware or large amounts of RAM however.