Jump to content



Photo

>4GB ram in win x86 possible?


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

#76 OP slumdogtrillionaire

slumdogtrillionaire

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 10-September 09

Posted 13 April 2013 - 15:15

He's one of the reasons why after 12 years, XP still has ~40% market share. The scary thing is that there are many, many systems admins that think like this, and mistake their own stubbornness, and unwillingness to adapt, as maintaining high standards.


scared for whom? srsly :shiftyninja:


More to the point, there are lots of people with not very much money >.<

Enabling PAE on XP will only enable access to 4GB of RAM >.>



pae is automatically enabled on xp sp3 + x86_64 processors... this thread is about going beyond 4gb... where is the vast array of expertise when after 5 pages the subject of the thread is not even grasped.? :/


#77 articuno1au

articuno1au

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 2
  • Joined: 20-March 11
  • Location: Brisbane, Australia

Posted 13 April 2013 - 15:17

.

YOU CAN'T DO IT!


5 Pages. Back at you..

#78 TheExperiment

TheExperiment

    Reality Bomb

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

Posted 13 April 2013 - 15:54

where is the vast array of expertise when after 5 pages the subject of the thread is not even grasped.? :/

It's already in the thread. Over 4GB is not supported by the OS and hacking it in would be against MS' license restrictions, which makes it something we can't help with.

Even if you could go over 3.25 (which I've seen no reason to believe) you're still using a chunk of that 4GB address space just for the vidcard (as well as all the other addressable hardware in the system.)

Use a 64 bit OS and your only limitation is yourself.

#79 xWhiplash

xWhiplash

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 07-March 08

Posted 13 April 2013 - 16:14

I have to ask again, with XP support ending in less than a year now, why not just upgrade?

#80 f0rk_b0mb

f0rk_b0mb

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 3
  • Joined: 02-June 12
  • Location: 'Murica
  • OS: Windows, Linux, OS X
  • Phone: Motorola Moto G

Posted 13 April 2013 - 17:28

What?

To the OP: Can't use more than 4GB RAM with a 32-bit OS. If you want to use more, you'll have to dump that dinosaur of an OS you seem hell bent on using.


Windows XP x64 was blazing fast compared to XP x86 and Vista. I actually dual booted with XP x64 because of the issues and lack of polish with Vista. After SP1, I went fully over to Vista, but still enjoyed using XP x64. The only real issues with it was trying to get TES: Oblivion to run.

I was trying to suggest to the op to upgrade his machine and use XP x64 because he is probably still obsessed with using XP.

#81 Kaze23

Kaze23

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 20-January 05
  • Location: Calgary, AB
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro x64 w/Update 1
  • Phone: iPhone 4S

Posted 13 April 2013 - 17:53

Windows XP x64 was blazing fast compared to XP x86 and Vista. I actually dual booted with XP x64 because of the issues and lack of polish with Vista. After SP1, I went fully over to Vista, but still enjoyed using XP x64. The only real issues with it was trying to get TES: Oblivion to run.

I was trying to suggest to the op to upgrade his machine and use XP x64 because he is probably still obsessed with using XP.


I won't deny it was fast, but it suffered from numerous compatibility issues, due to not actually being "XP" at its core. It was Server 2003 dressed up with the XP UI and most of the server components removed.

scared for whom? srsly :shiftyninja:

pae is automatically enabled on xp sp3 + x86_64 processors... this thread is about going beyond 4gb... where is the vast array of expertise when after 5 pages the subject of the thread is not even grasped.? :/


You're the one not grasping a lot of things.

1. If by some miracle you become capable of using more than 4 GB in Windows XP 32-bit, there will be literally no performance benefit. You're already wasting your relatively modern hardware by running that old eXPired OS.

2. Your perceptions of performance compared to more modern OS's is laughably wrong. 7 and 8 easily outperform XP on modern hardware. Why not simply install 7 or 8 x64 and install XP in a VM if you want to use it so much?

#82 f0rk_b0mb

f0rk_b0mb

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 3
  • Joined: 02-June 12
  • Location: 'Murica
  • OS: Windows, Linux, OS X
  • Phone: Motorola Moto G

Posted 13 April 2013 - 18:28

I won't deny it was fast, but it suffered from numerous compatibility issues, due to not actually being "XP" at its core. It was Server 2003 dressed up with the XP UI and most of the server components removed.


Yeah. Compatibility was hit or miss, however I really enjoyed it and it ran most of the stuff I threw at it. :)

You're the one not grasping a lot of things.

1. If by some miracle you become capable of using more than 4 GB in Windows XP 32-bit, there will be literally no performance benefit. You're already wasting your relatively modern hardware by running that old eXPired OS.

2. Your perceptions of performance compared to more modern OS's is laughably wrong. 7 and 8 easily outperform XP on modern hardware. Why not simply install 7 or 8 x64 and install XP in a VM if you want to use it so much?


1. I LOL'd @ eXPired
2. Agreed. Run XP in a VM. Modern OS's on modern hardware is faster and more optimized than XP.

#83 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 - 18:36

Yet MORE crap posted in this thread by people that simply do not have a clue about computing.
1) PAE is NOT automatically enabled on 64 bit, you don't use PAE because you're using the 64 bit instruction set, the OS is using 64 bit memory addressing and does the same with programs as it does on x32 with PAE but it is NOT PAE because you have 64 bits dedicated to memory addressing, you aren't borrowing extra bits which might or might not be being used by other programs, regardless, 32 bit programs on a 64 bit OS will only support 4GB of memory.
2) Enabling PAE can be done in boot.ini, you do not need any 'hacks'. There are hacks, for vista/7 for changing the amount of memory reserved for the kernel and program memory when using PAE, these are not mandatory.
3) A 64 bit processor does not have less 32 bit registers than a 32 bit processor, that is possibly the stupidest thing I've seen mentioned in this thread
4) Yes, a 64 bit processor is slower than a 32 bit processor because you're shifting twice as many bits. No, you will NEVER notice the slowdown because the difference in speed is so miniscule that even running a very intensive program for months at a time will not make you lose any worthwhile time.
5) 'Windows XP Professional x64 Edition (XP x64) isn't bad at all. Windows XP 64-bit Edition (XP 64-bit) on the other hand had isn't all that good because it wasn't supported well.' They're the same thing, there was no 64-bit XP home edition, there were 2 XP 64 bit editions, one was professional for x32-64 and the other was for ia64 itanium-2.
6) Lol at running XP in 2013 for 'high security', just no. You can run whatever OS you want, but XP isn't high security.

#84 greenwizard88

greenwizard88

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 28-November 04

Posted 13 April 2013 - 18:44

EDIT::
Might I just add Greenwizard, your app isn't really a productivity app, some might contend it does the exact opposite :p

Well, maybe, yes. :)

Where would you suggest I put it though?

#85 REM2000

REM2000

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 20-July 04
  • Location: UK

Posted 13 April 2013 - 18:45

Also bear in mind that x86 versions of Windows can only address 4GB which is split between in half for the process and VM, so effectively each process (app) can address up to 2GB unless you edit the boot.ini even then it's a little shaky.

Windows Vista started with the kernel optimizations of mutliple cores/cpu's. Windows 7 tuned this and Windows 8 has tuned this further.

http://channel9.msdn...nside-Windows-7

This is without the security and other optimizations.

Unless you're running legacy software that won't play in 7 or 8 i would recommend moving to a newer OS.

#86 Josh the Nerd

Josh the Nerd

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 05-June 08

Posted 13 April 2013 - 19:26

5) 'Windows XP Professional x64 Edition (XP x64) isn't bad at all. Windows XP 64-bit Edition (XP 64-bit) on the other hand had isn't all that good because it wasn't supported well.' They're the same thing, there was no 64-bit XP home edition, there were 2 XP 64 bit editions, one was professional for x32-64 and the other was for ia64 itanium-2.


"Windows XP Professional x64 Edition" is the name of the x86-64 edition. "Windows XP 64-bit Edition" is the name of the Itanium edition. So they're not the same thing (although the x64 edition was named "Windows XP 64-Bit Edition For 64-Bit Extended Systems" during its beta.)

#87 +Nik L

Nik L

    Where's my pants?

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

Posted 14 April 2013 - 00:31

lets not waste time on this.

Take your own advice...

#88 Yusuf M.

Yusuf M.

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 25-May 04
  • Location: Toronto, ON
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro
  • Phone: OnePlus One 64GB

Posted 14 April 2013 - 01:39

What started out as a question (that was answered quickly) turned into a debate about Windows XP's performance. Since this wasn't the OP's question, this thread has served its purpose.

Closed



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