Memory usage beyond 32Bit limitations of Windows OS

[x-byte]

Nope, most modern motherboards support 4GB and more. It's a Windows restriction (that drivers can bypass, hence the clever RAM disk hack).

Yes it is. The problem is the CPU and it's architecture. It can not address more than 32 bit. It got nothing directly to do with RAM. Without PAE there is no way to work around the limit of 32-bit. And it's not a Windows restriction. Every 32-bit OS have this.

[hdood]

Yes it is. The problem is the CPU and it's architecture. It can not address more than 32 bit. It got nothing directly to do with RAM. Without PAE there is no way to work around the limit of 32-bit. And it's not a Windows restriction. Every 32-bit OS have this.

You're confused. Windows supports PAE (in fact, it's always enabled on modern machines because DEP requires 64-bit page tables), there is just an artificial restriction imposed for compatibility (drivers have to be written to support PAE) and licensing reasons. In other words, the memory is actually accessible to Windows, it just isn't made available.

[x-byte]

Ah, sorry. I thought this was about 32 bit addressing in general. I know Windows supports PAE in some versions.

[ToneKnee]

Nope, most modern motherboards support 4GB and more. It's a Windows restriction (that drivers can bypass, hence the clever RAM disk hack).

Wrong on so many levels.

[hdood]

Ah, sorry. I thought this was about 32 bit addressing in general. I know Windows supports PAE in some versions.

It's not "some versions", it's ALL of them, and it's always on by default on modern hardware. Always. The client editions simply have an artificial restriction on usable memory programmed in. A clever driver can still get access to it though, but it can't patch the memory manager to make it available as normal memory, it can just make it available to programs in some other way, such as a RAM disk.

We can argue all damn day about whether it's stupid or whatever, but that isn't the point at all. The point is that it IS possible, and DOES work, which means this thread and guide is no worse than any of the other stuff posted in this category.

Wrong on so many levels.

It isn't wrong in any way. Stop being an idiot. If you don't like this hack, don't use it.

[x-byte]

It's not "some versions", it's ALL of them, and it's always on by default on modern hardware. Always. The client editions simply have an artificial restriction on usable memory programmed in. A clever driver can still get access to it though, but it can't patch the memory manager to make it available as normal memory, it can just make it available to programs in some other way, such as a RAM disk.

We can argue all damn day about whether it's stupid or whatever, but that isn't the point at all. The point is that it IS possible, and DOES work, which means this thread and guide is no worse than any of the other stuff posted in this category.

..., yea. I didn't say that they didn't. Jeez.

If this was possible why is this the first time I have ever heard of this solution? I'm a bit skeptical still.

When using the ram disk you just move the pagefile to the RAM instead. Which is why you get better performance. Not really working around the 32-bit limitation as I can see it.

[DDStriker]

or you could just use a 64bit OS and stop being one of those people hindering OS progress and the crucial step into phasing out 32Bit.

peoples use of a 32 bit system does not hinder the natural progression to 64 bit

out of windows xp/vista/7 i prefer xp i don't like the changes made in vista/7 and the only real advantage to using vista/7 for me is to utilize more then 4GB of memory

i do hope to use the ramdisk as a means of extending beyond 4GB on a 32 bit system atleast till i find use for 64 bit instructions :p

Amen my brother !

I'm sorry, but if you have more than 4GB then you MUST go 64 bits and don't try to use this kind of half assed solution like the OP's one.

EPIC FAIL imho.

you don't HAVE to go 64 bits and this isn't really half assed solution its a rather clever one and allows you to utilize the extra memory on your favourite OS

i use vista on another machine and have played around with win7 and there just not for me (then again i heard 64 bit xp isn't as bad as it use to be i'll have to look into that again :p)

[ToneKnee]

It's not "some versions", it's ALL of them, and it's always on by default on modern hardware. Always. The client editions simply have an artificial restriction on usable memory programmed in. A clever driver can still get access to it though, but it can't patch the memory manager to make it available as normal memory, it can just make it available to programs in some other way, such as a RAM disk.

We can argue all damn day about whether it's stupid or whatever, but that isn't the point at all. The point is that it IS possible, and DOES work, which means this thread and guide is no worse than any of the other stuff posted in this category.

It isn't wrong in any way. Stop being an idiot. If you don't like this hack, don't use it.

Okay, repeat at me, and maybe you and JunkMail will get the idea.

It doesn't work.

It doesn't work..

It doesn't work...

It doesn't work....

peoples use of a 32 bit system does not hinder the natural progression to 64 bit

out of windows xp/vista/7 i prefer xp i don't like the changes made in vista/7 and the only real advantage to using vista/7 for me is to utilize more then 4GB of memory

i do hope to use the ramdisk as a means of extending beyond 4GB on a 32 bit system atleast till i find use for 64 bit instructions :p

you don't HAVE to go 64 bits and this isn't really half assed solution its a rather clever one and allows you to utilize the extra memory on your favourite OS

i use vista on another machine and have played around with win7 and there just not for me (then again i heard 64 bit xp isn't as bad as it use to be i'll have to look into that again :p)

Like srsly?

Windows XP 64-bit does exist you know. Windows Vista/7 is nothing about making use of extra memory, it has better memory management i.e. Superfetch and so on. Free memory is wasted memory, and what the OP is posting is a very half arsed idea, at best.

[DDStriker]

..., yea. I didn't say that they didn't. Jeez.

If this was possible why is this the first time I have ever heard of this solution? I'm a bit skeptical still.

When using the ram disk you just move the pagefile to the RAM instead. Which is why you get better performance. Not really working around the 32-bit limitation as I can see it.

The program can create a ramdisk using memory outside the 32bit boundary

3.2GB for your normal system

and whatever is left as a ramdrive (which can go beyond 4GB upto say 8GB) as a ramdisk

so when you run out of memory the system will go ahead and use the ramdisk (the other 4GB) its a good idea i've been wanting to try it out for a while since i saw the feature but i don't have more then 4GB of ram atm :p

[hdood]

When using the ram disk you just move the pagefile to the RAM instead. Which is why you get better performance. Not really working around the 32-bit limitation as I can see it.

Yes, that is all you're doing, but it means that you get SOME use out of the memory that would otherwise be completely unused. You could also use it to store temporary files or whatever else you wanted. In reality though, if you've spent money on that much memory, you might as well spend some on an x64 OS as well.

Okay, repeat at me, and maybe you and JunkMail will get the idea.

It doesn't work

Will you stop ****ing lying? How do you know it doesn't work if you haven't tried it? It's certainly technically possible. Why don't you stay out of the thread if you don't understand the subject, instead of derailing the thread with your moronic crap and being rude to someone who was just offering a neat tip? Did a 32-bit OS rape your wife, and this is your revenge?

[x-byte]

Out of memory? Windows uses the pagefile all the time. It have little to do with the amount of memory you have installed. I can see your thought process behind this, but I don't see how this goes outside the 32 bit limitation. It is a good idea, but nothing more.

If you have more technical info about this please share.

[ToneKnee]

1) I'm not lying, I have a better understanding of Windows memory usage than you.

2) What the OP is suggesting is inefficient method way of doing things.

3) If someone has 8GB's of memory, then why aren't they using 64-bit? Sounds like someone doesn't know how to use a computer.

hdood, you and the OP have completely missed the point that a few people on here have been telling you.

The page file is for redundancy. By putting it into the memory, not only are you messing around with Microsoft's Superfetch feature, you can harm your system by making the page file limited to a certain (low size), so if you have lots of programs, or a program with a memory leak, Windows will use the page file (it'll use it any way, even if you switch it off) and you're system will start acting very strangely, and report low memory problems.

Also, on the topic of Superfetch. Superfetch uses the page file to identify the commonly used programs and files so it can load them back into memory after every reboot/shutdown or after you have finished with a program and so on. If you put the page file into the memory, when you go to shut down windows, that page file will be deleted, and Windows will need to rebuild another one and Superfetch will have no frame of reference as to what files to fetch. This is why it's stupid.

RAMdisks are very good scratch disks, they are very fast, but the page file is not meant to be in the system memory, it completely defeats the purpose of it.

[hdood]

Out of memory? Windows uses the pagefile all the time. It have little to do with the amount of memory you have installed. I can see your thought process behind this, but I don't see how this goes outside the 32 bit limitation. It is a good idea, but nothing more.

It doesn't. On a normal system you shouldn't really be seeing any paging at all. It might be important to point out that the "page file usage" in XP and the page fault column in the task manager actually do not document page file use and are mislabeled.

And it goes beyond the 32-bit limit because normally you can only use 3.25GB. Once this runs out, it will resort to swapping.. to RAM above the 3.25GB barrier. It will be slower than if it could access the memory directly, but it's faster than paging to hard drive.

[ToneKnee]

It doesn't. On a normal system you shouldn't really be seeing any paging at all. It might be important to point out that the "page file usage" in XP and the page fault column in the task manager actually do not document page file use and are mislabeled.

And it goes beyond the 32-bit limit because normally you can only use 3.25GB. Once this runs out, it will resort to swapping.. to RAM above the 3.25GB barrier. It will be slower than if it could access the memory directly, but it's faster than paging to hard drive.

Windows will always use the page file, that's why mine is about 5GB's at the moment. That's because it's needed by Windows, but it doesn't mean windows is currently accessing it, it just uses it for redundancy, that's all.

And as you said about the swapping, that is completely correct, but if you have only made a 750MB page file in the memory, what will happen when that gets full as well? Windows will have no where to store the extra data, and of course, the program in question will crash, or the system will stop responding.

See why the OP's method is not recommended?

[hdood]

you can harm your system by making the page file limited to a certain (low size), so if you have lots of programs, or a program with a memory leak, Windows will use the page file (it'll use it any way, even if you switch it off) and you're system will start acting very strangely, and report low memory problems.

No. Windows does not have a "secret" page file that it goes and uses behind your back. If you turn off the page files, or if you have them set to a fixed size and they're full, it just runs out of memory and brings up error messages.

The other part about having a too small page file is of course true, and it does mean you have to pay more attention to programs that run wild, but we are talking about a hack that is sort of a last ditch effort at getting some use out of the memory without actually switching to x64 (for whatever reason).

Also, on the topic of Superfetch. Superfetch uses the page file to identify the commonly used programs and files so it can load them back into memory after every reboot/shutdown or after you have finished with a program and so on. If you put the page file into the memory, when you go to shut down windows, that page file will be deleted, and Windows will need to rebuild another one and Superfetch will have no frame of reference as to what files to fetch. This is why it's stupid.

The page file is not used across reboots, so this makes no difference. The SuperFetch database is separate. The only actual issue with disabling the page file or moving it from the boot volume is that you can no longer save crash dumps (because these are saved directly to the sectors occupied by the page file and then written out as crash dumps once the system reboots).

[Subject Delta]

The point, Frank and Tony, is that if you have a 32-bit OS and, say, 6GB RAM, you'll only be able to use 3.25 of it directly. The rest will be completely useless and just sit there. With a RAM disk driver, you can use the other 2.75GB as a RAM disk, which is at least better than nothing (although spending $50 on the software is a bit silly).

It might be a bit silly, but it's perfectly possible. So why be so damn hard on JunkMail?

Because it is criminally inefficient, and a waste of memory. There is no point installing that amount of memory if you don't use an OS that can take correct advantage of it, considering that 99% of all 32 bit applications work on X64 Windows, there is no earthly reason other than blind sighted stubbornness not to switch to X64 windows if you are going to splash out on large amounts of ram in the first place

I just don't see why people don't upgrade to 64 bit. I mean the only reason not to is if you use 16 bit applications. Even then those can be used in a VM. Personally i've been on 64bit for 2 years and I have yet to find an application which doesn't work.

Same here, its been good for me

It doesn't. On a normal system you shouldn't really be seeing any paging at all. It might be important to point out that the "page file usage" in XP and the page fault column in the task manager actually do not document page file use and are mislabeled.

And it goes beyond the 32-bit limit because normally you can only use 3.25GB. Once this runs out, it will resort to swapping.. to RAM above the 3.25GB barrier. It will be slower than if it could access the memory directly, but it's faster than paging to hard drive.

Microsoft have designed the page file for use on a physical hard drive for a reason, having it residing in memory has no performance benefit at all. Granted systems with large amounts of ram page less, but the page file should be left on the hard disk, not lumped into ram

[JunkMail]

Will you stop ****ing lying? How do you know it doesn't work if you haven't tried it? It's certainly technically possible. Why don't you stay out of the thread if you don't understand the subject, instead of derailing the thread with your moronic crap and being rude to someone who was just offering a neat tip? Did a 32-bit OS rape your wife, and this is your revenge?

I agree, he/she should be reported to moderator upon one more foul, untested, flaming, mis-guiding statements. I was not hoping 64Bit users here with that kind of attitude (which is exactly why I've sub-title "64Bit users get out") This thread is for those 32Bit users who feel comfortable and still want to continue with their experienced OS.

The last place where I was replying to these foul people made the main solution get LOST in pages so, this thread was created with full caution to avoid such deliberate attempt to bury a fine solution :( now for the last time, This thread under no circumstances is against 64Bit!

Well, I can't stop dudes from posting around but hey... my first post is what matters ;)

[x-byte]

I've been reading a little about PAE and the RAM limitation.

Correct me if I am wrong. But even with PAE there are still only 2GB of space to use at once. What PAE does is just creating tables with memory above the limit and can only be accessed 2GB at a time. Therefore this solution is pointless.

[DDStriker]

Like srsly?

Windows XP 64-bit does exist you know. Windows Vista/7 is nothing about making use of extra memory, it has better memory management i.e. Superfetch and so on. Free memory is wasted memory, and what the OP is posting is a very half arsed idea, at best.

Ya srsly :rolleyes:

I did mention 64 bit xp in my post but if you're not going to bother reading my entire post then don't bother replying :s

I know about Vista/7's better memory management but memory management in xp isn't bad enough to cause a problem

I'm assuming you have a better idea for getting around the 32 bit limitation without switching to a 64 bit platform? you do know there are still systems out there incapable of a 64 bit os?

DDR2 memory is incredibly cheap i could grab 4 2GB sticks and utilize 8GB of memory on this aging pc

If you find a better method of utilizing more memory then please do post it since this method is half parsed as you put it

also for the whole free memory is wasted memory crap i don't like the idea of windows loading data from my drive that i may not even use

you may not like having unused memory sitting in your system (which brings me to wonder why you even have that much memory if you yourself can't utilize it)

however i don't want windows loading from my drive data that i won't use its needless wear and tear i'd rather not put up with windows loading 4-24GB worth of data whenever i turn it on hard drives are fast enough to retrieve the data i need it may have some benefits but none of them seem to apply for me i prefer xp's prefetch

maybe when ssd's can sustain more read/writes before failing it will be worth considering but until then i'd rather keep disk activity at a minimal level

[ToneKnee]

No. Windows does not have a "secret" page file that it goes and uses behind your back. If you turn off the page files, or if you have them set to a fixed size and they're full, it just runs out of memory and brings up error messages.

The other part about having a too small page file is of course true, and it does mean you have to pay more attention to programs that run wild, but we are talking about a hack that is sort of a last ditch effort at getting some use out of the memory without actually switching to x64 (for whatever reason).

The page file is not used across reboots, so this makes no difference. The SuperFetch database is separate. The only actual issue with disabling the page file or moving it from the boot volume is that you can no longer save crash dumps (because these are saved directly to the sectors occupied by the page file and then written out as crash dumps once the system reboots).

The real issue is that disabling the page file is stupid. Moving it into the memory is just as stupid, and yes, Windows will always create a page file, just incase.

[Subject Delta]

I agree, he/she should be reported to moderator upon one more foul, untested, flaming, mis-guiding statements. I was not hoping 64Bit users here with that kind of attitude (which is exactly why I've sub-title "64Bit users get out") This thread is for those 32Bit users who feel comfortable and still want to continue with their experienced OS.

The last place where I was replying to these foul people made the main solution get LOST in pages so, this thread was created with full caution to avoid such deliberate attempt to bury a fine solution :p

I'd hate to have someone going behind my back and correcting all my mistakes as well ;) if you can't take the heat, don't jump into the fire. Whether you like it or not, your guide does nothing more than encourages people to cling to old technology for no reason and make inefficient use of their hardware.

I've been reading a little about PAE and the RAM limitation.

Correct me if I am wrong. But even with PAE there are still only 2GB of space to use at once. What PAE does is just creating tables with memory above the limit and can only be accessed 2GB at a time. Therefore this solution is pointless.

Yes, there is still only a 2GB address space, PAE only allows the system to recognise more overall memory

Ya srsly :rolleyes:

I did mention 64 bit xp in my post but if you're not going to bother reading my entire post then don't bother replying :s

I know about Vista/7's better memory management but memory management in xp isn't bad enough to cause a problem

I'm assuming you have a better idea for getting around the 32 bit limitation without switching to a 64 bit platform? you do know there are still systems out there incapable of a 64 bit os?

DDR2 memory is incredibly cheap i could grab 4 2GB sticks and utilize 8GB of memory on this aging pc

If you find a better method of utilizing more memory then please do post it since this method is half parsed as you put it

also for the whole free memory is wasted memory crap i don't like the idea of windows loading data from my drive that i may not even use

you may not like having unused memory sitting in your system (which brings me to wonder why you even have that much memory if you yourself can't utilize it)

however i don't want windows loading from my drive data that i won't use its needless wear and tear i'd rather not put up with windows loading 4-24GB worth of data whenever i turn it on hard drives are fast enough to retrieve the data i need it may have some benefits but none of them seem to apply for me i prefer xp's prefetch

maybe when ssd's can sustain more read/writes before failing it will be worth considering but until then i'd rather keep disk activity at a minimal level

Prefetch doesn't pre-load data, it optimises the loading process of applications, and libraries to reduce startup time and application loading time, and it is also present in Vista and 7.

[hdood]

Correct me if I am wrong. But even with PAE there are still only 2GB of space to use at once. What PAE does is just creating tables with memory above the limit and can only be accessed 2GB at a time. Therefore this solution is pointless.

No, 2GB is the size of a process's address space, which is a sort of list of addresses that can map to any resource on the system (like memory). Each process has its own separate address space, which means if you have 4GB of memory you could have two programs running simultaneously, each using 2GB. It's also possible for a single process to use more than 2GB, but then it has to map pages in physical RAM in and out of its address space manually, and this is not something you see often.

Because it is criminally inefficient, and a waste of memory. There is no point installing that amount of memory if you don't use an OS that can take correct advantage of it, considering that 99% of all 32 bit applications work on X64 Windows, there is no earthly reason other than blind sighted stubbornness not to switch to X64 windows if you are going to splash out on large amounts of ram in the first place

I actually agree, but that does not change the fact that this is a possible option that you could choose if you wanted to. Why flame JunkMail for posting about it? Fine, make a single post that says should upgrade to x64 instead if they can to get full use of their hardware, but leave it at that.

Moving it into the memory is just as stupid, and yes, Windows will always create a page file, just incase.

Incorrect.

[x-byte]

Actually there is 2GB of application space and 2GB of kernel space. This can be overrided with the 3GB switch. But then you limit the kernel to just 1GB on a 4GB system. So two programs can only access 1GB each without the 3GB switch.

[Subject Delta]

I actually agree, but that does not change the fact that this is a possible option that you could choose if you wanted to. Why flame JunkMail for posting about it? Fine, make a single post that says should upgrade to x64 instead if they can to get full use of their hardware, but leave it at that.

Because he keeps trying to dash whatever we post and claim we are wrong. Plus, I am not flaming anyone, I am pointing out the logical fallacy of some of his suggestions

[hdood]

Actually there is 2GB of application space and 2GB of kernel space. This can be overrided with the 3GB switch. But then you limit the kernel to just 1GB on a 4GB system. So two programs can only access 1GB each without the 3GB switch.

It's the virtual address space of each process that is divided into 2GB application and 2GB kernel, it isn't system wide. Each process has 2GB of kernel resources mapped into its address space for performance reasons. The 3GB switch does change this to 3/1GB, but it's a legacy option from a long time ago and limiting the kernel space to 1GB isn't practical on modern machines. Manual mapping of pages is of course possible for any process, so that technically a process can use any amount of available memory, not just 2 or 3GB.