>4GB ram in win x86 possible?


Recommended Posts

xendrome

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Xenomorph

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
DrCheese

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Noir Angel

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
+Frank B.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
+DonC

"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!

Link to post
Share on other sites
DrCheese

"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

=/

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
+Frank B.

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

=/

You're colin-uk-ing.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
ViperAFK

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....

Link to post
Share on other sites
xendrome

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
n_K

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
NJ Louch
- Andrea Borman

Epic post is epic. Literally laughed out loud!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
The_Decryptor

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)

Link to post
Share on other sites
slumdogtrillionaire

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:

Link to post
Share on other sites
The_Decryptor

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.)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
slumdogtrillionaire

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
Eric

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.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
+LostCat

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
slumdogtrillionaire
(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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
+LostCat

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct2D

Internet Explorer 9 and Mozilla Firefox 4 and later use Direct2D and DirectWrite for improved performance and visual quality.

Your information seems quite dated and it's definately not faster.

I also spent a good five months using IE10.

Link to post
Share on other sites
slumdogtrillionaire

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct2D

Your information seems quite dated and it's definately not faster.

I also spent a good five months using IE10.

install xp and run it. lets not waste time on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
+LostCat

install xp and run it. lets not waste time on this.

I just threw away my XP and XP x64 CDs, So yes, I won't waste time on them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
slumdogtrillionaire

I just threw away my XP and XP x64 CDs, So yes, I won't waste time on them.

relax man. take it easy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
+LostCat

relax man. take it easy.

Just saying, I just did it a few days ago :) (I'm overcaffeinated and underfed and can't be arsed to go fix that heh, but nevermind that.)

I should toss Vista too since I'll never use it again, but I liked Vista.

Link to post
Share on other sites
pickypg

Why bother looking for hacks that require paging in the OS? It's certainly possible that a 32-bit OS can access more than 32-bit's worth of RAM (4 GB) via paging, but there is definitely a performance hit in doing so.

If you already have a 64-bit processor, then I see no reason to punish yourself with a 32-bit OS.

To be clear, 32-bits represents 2 to 32nd power, 232, number of uniquely mappable addresses, which is 4294967296, better known as 4 giga[bytes]. Each address, in a modern processor, is a single byte, which is why the number of addresses equals the number of bytes. As pointed out by others, there are processor extensions that can enable further memory mapping, but similar to that being done for 16-bit processors, it was done as a stop-gap for those unable to get 64-bit processors.

Besides, most consumer motherboards do not support more than 4 GB of RAM for 32-bit processors. And if you are going to buy a new motherboard, then you should definitely buy a 64-bit processor.

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

This is unlikely considering that 64-bit processors have wider registers (64-bits) to push more data through the pipes. It should be the same or better.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.