Jump to content



Photo

>4GB ram in win x86 possible?


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

#31 +DonC

DonC

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 16-August 07
  • Location: England

Posted 12 April 2013 - 17:14

"I want to stay with 16 bit segmented memory." <-- Said no one ever.

I can't believe that, though pretty much everyone has access to 64 bit clean software now, that you want to complicate your life with PAE. Embrace 64 bit and be done with it!


#32 DrCheese

DrCheese

    Tell me i'm your national anthem

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

Posted 12 April 2013 - 17:19

"I want to stay with 16 bit segmented memory." <-- Said no one ever.

I can't believe that, though pretty much everyone has access to 64 bit clean software now, that you want to complicate your life with PAE. Embrace 64 bit and be done with it!


But but... the benchmarks... but but I love XP... but but

=/

#33 +Frank B.

Frank B.

    Member N° 1,302

  • Tech Issues Solved: 9
  • Joined: 18-September 01
  • Location: Frankfurt, DE
  • OS: OS X 10.9.3
  • Phone: Sony Xperia Z2

Posted 12 April 2013 - 17:21

But but... the benchmarks... but but I love XP... but but

=/

You're colin-uk-ing.

#34 ViperAFK

ViperAFK

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 2
  • Joined: 07-March 06
  • Location: Vermont

Posted 12 April 2013 - 17:43

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


This is totally false. There are certain cases where 32 bit is a little faster and some where 64 bit is, but there's not really much difference, besides actually being able to use all your memory in 64-bit.

Hanging on to XP/32 bit is ill advised, especially considering XP support is ending soon. I'd definitely recommend you upgrade to windows 7 or 8 64 bit....

#35 xendrome

xendrome

    In God We Trust; All Others We Monitor

  • Tech Issues Solved: 9
  • Joined: 05-December 01
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro x64

Posted 12 April 2013 - 17:45

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.


And there was a 64bit version of XP based on Windows 2003 Server.

"I want to stay with 16 bit segmented memory." <-- Said no one ever.

I can't believe that, though pretty much everyone has access to 64 bit clean software now, that you want to complicate your life with PAE. Embrace 64 bit and be done with it!


Steve Gibson probably did.. lol

#36 n_K

n_K

    Neowinian Senior

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

Posted 13 April 2013 - 00:00

And there was a 64bit version of XP based on Windows 2003 Server.

Very true, support for it was dropped pretty quick and it was withdrawn from sale.
The only place I've ever seen is being used legally (not using pirated media/keys) was at uni. on some VMs for network security training.

#37 +Nik L

Nik L

    Where's my pants?

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

Posted 13 April 2013 - 00:06

- Andrea Borman

Epic post is epic. Literally laughed out loud!

#38 The_Decryptor

The_Decryptor

    STEAL THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

  • Tech Issues Solved: 4
  • Joined: 28-September 02
  • Location: Sol System
  • OS: iSymbian 9.2 SP24.8 Mars Bar

Posted 13 April 2013 - 00:58

At this point in time it'd be easier to just run each app in a separate XP VM and give it it's own dedicated 4GB RAM segment, you'd have less compatibility issues than patching the kernel to allow access to the extra memory PAE allows (32bit Windows already uses PAE for things like the NX bit, but disallows using it for memory because drivers and such suck, a situation which isn't going to improve due to how old XP is)

#39 Riva

Riva

    Neowinian

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 11-February 07

Posted 13 April 2013 - 01:01

Why does it matter? Windows XP is so old.

#40 OP slumdogtrillionaire

slumdogtrillionaire

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 10-September 09

Posted 13 April 2013 - 02:01

PAE isn't worth it. I hade 4gb of ram on my XP machine too and I just dealed with it. If it's an issue, you can build a pretty cheap 64 bit pc. Windows XP x64 is a very nice OS, and I enjoyed useing it, that is, if your not up for upgradeing your OS.


srsly ive got dreamspark premium and decent quadcore hardware. xp is still low overhead great compatibility no cleartype font mess snappy graphics os... besides ... if it would support >4gb why EVER move?

Why does it matter? Windows XP is so old.

shallowness is the moto these days?

At this point in time it'd be easier to just run each app in a separate XP VM and give it it's own dedicated 4GB RAM segment, you'd have less compatibility issues than patching the kernel to allow access to the extra memory PAE allows (32bit Windows already uses PAE for things like the NX bit, but disallows using it for memory because drivers and such suck, a situation which isn't going to improve due to how old XP is)


no way around it i guess.

Epic post is epic. Literally laughed out loud!


it touched my heart too... :woot:

#41 The_Decryptor

The_Decryptor

    STEAL THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

  • Tech Issues Solved: 4
  • Joined: 28-September 02
  • Location: Sol System
  • OS: iSymbian 9.2 SP24.8 Mars Bar

Posted 13 April 2013 - 02:05

XP pre-dates multicore CPUs, it isn't optimised for them in the slightest (let alone low power/scaling stuff which CPUs do now). Newer versions of Windows make much better use of the underlying hardware (DWM offloads all desktop drawing to the GPU, Direct2D/DirectWrite offloads all application drawing to the GPU, etc.)

#42 OP slumdogtrillionaire

slumdogtrillionaire

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 10-September 09

Posted 13 April 2013 - 02:18

XP pre-dates multicore CPUs, it isn't optimised for them in the slightest (let alone low power/scaling stuff which CPUs do now). Newer versions of Windows make much better use of the underlying hardware (DWM offloads all desktop drawing to the GPU, Direct2D/DirectWrite offloads all application drawing to the GPU, etc.)


sure but real world experience shows the slowness of gui in the modern systems despite the more powerful hardware.. besides we are going offtrack.. lets stick to enabling PAE for xp and if it is possible to go beyond 4gb

#43 Eric

Eric

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 11
  • Joined: 02-August 06
  • Location: Greenville, SC

Posted 13 April 2013 - 02:24

sure but real world experience shows the slowness of gui in the modern systems despite the more powerful hardware.. besides we are going offtrack.. lets stick to enabling PAE for xp and if it is possible to go beyond 4gb


Aero is most definitely not slower than Luna. Where are you getting that from? Aero uses the GPU, Luna does not.

Here is everything you need regarding Windows, x86 and PAE: http://msdn.microsof...e/gg487512.aspx

As I said before, you basically need to have 32-bit drivers that understand it and the application needs to be written for PAE to be able to use it properly.

#44 TheExperiment

TheExperiment

    Reality Bomb

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 11-October 03
  • Location: Everywhere
  • OS: 8.1 x64

Posted 13 April 2013 - 02:34

Core 2 Duo/Quad had slight performance issues with 64 bit as I recall.

As far as I know they don't apply to any other architecture.

Aero is most definitely not slower than Luna. Where are you getting that from? Aero uses the GPU, Luna does not.

He's probably getting that from a crappy youtube video showing scrolling through hundreds of files in a directory going slower (though Vista and up probably show more detail in their icons which makes it an unreasonable and useless comparison, considering the only time an enduser would do something like it is approximately never.)

Even if it was relevant, Direct2D alone makes XP seriously dated in display tech.

#45 OP slumdogtrillionaire

slumdogtrillionaire

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 10-September 09

Posted 13 April 2013 - 02:43

(though Vista and up probably show more detail in their icons which makes it an unreasonable and useless comparison, considering the only time an enduser would do something like it is approximately never.

Even if it was relevant, Direct2D alone makes XP seriously dated in display tech.


dated is still faster if you use a web browser other than ie.... which i suppose everyone does ALL the time.

Aero is most definitely not slower than Luna. Where are you getting that from? Aero uses the GPU, Luna does not.

Here is everything you need regarding Windows, x86 and PAE: http://msdn.microsof...e/gg487512.aspx

As I said before, you basically need to have 32-bit drivers that understand it and the application needs to be written for PAE to be able to use it properly.


im looking for hacks mainly.



Click here to login or here to register to remove this ad, it's free!