Sign in to follow this  

>4GB ram in win x86 possible?

Recommended Posts

slumdogtrillionaire    34

http://www.overclock.net/t/596932/guide-make-32-bit-os-support-128gb-of-ram

legit stuff it seems.

the article says windows xp sp0 could support more than 4 gb ram but the ram limits were imposed to make server editions sell. not sure about that claim but xp era server editions could support 64gb ram so it might be true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Server_2003

what do you guys make of this?

any patches for xp sp3?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jason S.    1,231

"x86 processor hardware-architecture is augmented with additional address lines used to select the additional memory, so physical address size increases from 32 bits to 36 bits. This, theoretically, increases maximum physical memory size from 4 GB to 64 GB - although the actual amount increased depends on the OS. The 32-bit size of the virtual address is not changed, so regular application software continues to use instructions with 32-bit addresses and (in a flat memory model) is limited to 4 gigabytes of virtual address space. The operating system uses page tables to map this 4-GB address space into the 64 GB of physical memory. The mapping is typically applied differently for each process. In this way, the extra memory is useful even though no single regular application can access it all simultaneously."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension#Design

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Haggis    981

Its not a Software limitation

A 32-bit processor uses addresses that are 32 bits long. There are only 4,294,967,296, or 4GB, possible 32-bit addresses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jason S.    1,231

Its not a Software limitation

what if youre using a 64-bit CPU w/ a 32-bit OS?

i still dont think PAE is worth it, or going to work at all, based on what i read in the wiki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
slumdogtrillionaire    34

what if youre using a 64-bit CPU w/ a 32-bit OS?

i still dont think PAE is worth it, or going to work at all, based on what i read in the wiki

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

Its not a Software limitation

righto!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
f0rk_b0mb    698

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Haggis    981
what if youre using a 64-bit CPU w/ a 32-bit OS? i still dont think PAE is worth it, or going to work at all, based on what i read in the wiki

OP dide say using x86 not x64 or x86-64

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Co-ords    158

... forget it, already mentioned...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raa    1,379

We've been over this numerous times. Yes it's possible to have more ram but severe limitations apply, and it's generally accepted that it provides no benefit for most situations.

Just install x64 and be done with it, or live with the architectural limitation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
slumdogtrillionaire    34

We've been over this numerous times. Yes it's possible to have more ram but severe limitations apply, and it's generally accepted that it provides no benefit for most situations.

Just install x64 and be done with it, or live with the architectural limitation.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psionicinversion    180

cant go higher than that. dunno why you dont want to use 64bit OS, its probably faster. at least in win 7+ anyway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nefarious Trigger    6,607

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

Wow, we're STILL on this after all these years?

It's not stable. PAE has some serious issues under XP.

But you will ignore whatever is said here and do it anyway, so why even ask...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
slumdogtrillionaire    34

cant go higher than that. dunno why you dont want to use 64bit OS, its probably faster. at least in win 7+ anyway

because big boys do it different... no really... this is just a curiosity.

Wow, we're STILL on this after all these years?

It's not stable. PAE has some serious issues under XP.

But you will ignore whatever is said here and do it anyway, so why even ask...

<snipped>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+fusi0n    1,550

There are some switches and stuff you can do.. but it doesn't really WORK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
articuno1au    1,264

because big boys do it different... no really... this is just a curiosity.

no im not nik lousy...

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
n_K    1,598

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eric    1,512

[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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
slumdogtrillionaire    34

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Bryan R.    1,060

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

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
slumdogtrillionaire    34

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

welcome back to the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nefarious Trigger    6,607

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.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShareShiz    112

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Bryan R.    1,060

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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
siah1214    1,432

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

-Andrea Borman

Fixed?

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
slumdogtrillionaire    34

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..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.