Welcome to Vista Banter. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have access to ask questions and reply to others posts, upload your own photos and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact support. |
|
Hardware and Windows Vista Hardware issues in relation to Windows Vista. (microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices) |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
ram ..please help
dennis;738953 Wrote: Applications don't address physical memory, they only access their virtual address space. So it doesn't matter where in physical ram an application's virtual address space points to. It can be below or above 4G, it doesn't matter. Dennis, You have absolutely no idea what your talking about do you?...Please stop wasting yours and our time talking such complete rubbish. I have never heard so much bull****. dmex -- dmex *'' (http://www.VistaX64.com) * |
|
|||
ram ..please help
If you want to argue that PAE is treated as a value-added item and therefore
Marketing decided to "withhold" some of its functionality from Windows clients for price differentiation purposes, go ahead. They do that stuff all the time. That's why the Snipping Tool isn't in Vista Home Basic. However I personally don't think there was anything like that decision making involved with PAE. PAE showed up around 8 years ago, if I remember correctly. Think back to what Windows client computers were back then. A typical consumer box at Best Buy or Comp USA was going out the door with WinME and 128mb of ram with mobos whose memory controllers were limited to 512mb of ram. The hardware simply didn't support any more. DDR hadn't even shown up. By late 2001 machines were being sold with XP Home and 256mb of ram. It cost the buyer a couple of hundred bucks to upgrade to 512mb and mobos with three memory slots did not support anything more than 768mb. The four-slot ones could support 2GB but 512mb memory sticks were horribly expensive and machines usually sold with 256mb (two sticks). A few folks added more. While all this was going on Enterprise class server boxes that could support 4+GB cost between $10k and $20k. The push for 4+GB was coming from medium and large enterprises with large SQL and Exchange loads. Enter PAE (there were other schemes as well). MS was not solving a general problem with PAE. They were addressing a need expressed by enterprise users. So they developed Windows 2000 Advanced Server and all later Enterprise server editions to enable PAE if needed. There wasn't a need to address the issue on the client side. So why would they? When Intel developed the data execution bit for the later Pentium 4s in order to support DEP it turned out that PAE could also address a conflict sometimes encountered with DEP. That's when MS wrote PAE support into the service packs that were releasing for W2k and XP. But only to address the problem. Folks weren't running desktops with 4GB of memory at that time, much less ones with more than 4GB. However, workstation users were and that's when MS wrote XP Pro x64 to address that memory need. I don't think MS has ever considered PAE as a suitable solution for consumers and workstation users in addressing memory needs. There can be a perf hit with it and I think the judgement to provide 64bit consumer operating systems like Vista was the better choice. "dennis" wrote in message ... Colin Barnhorst wrote: Where do you get the idea that MS chose not to let the clients "go there." They inherently don't "go there." The only "choice" MS made was to program a capability into the Windows Server editions that enables them to "go there." The capability to enable PAE to leverage additional addressable memory is something that has to be programmed into an OS, not something that is programmed out of one. Okay, again. You said it yourself: both xp and vista comes with a PAE kernel, to support DEP. When you enter PAE mode the CPU makes it both mathematically and technically possible to address more than 4GB. So now the OS developer has a *choice*. Microsoft choose *not* to support more than 4GB in the PAE kernel (starting from XP/SP2), because there exist bad drivers out there. *This* is what we're talking about, at least I am. |
|
|||
ram ..please help
dmex wrote:
Dennis, You have absolutely no idea what your talking about do you?...Please stop wasting yours and our time talking such complete rubbish. I have never heard so much bull****. Come again? |
|
|||
ram ..please help
It is a nice story, but still not what we are talking about. We are
talking about what is technically possible. And the fact is, you can address more than 4GB in PAE mode. Microsoft just choose not to do so in XP/SP2 and Vista. Colin Barnhorst wrote: If you want to argue that PAE is treated as a value-added item and therefore Marketing decided to "withhold" some of its functionality from Windows clients for price differentiation purposes, go ahead. They do that stuff all the time. That's why the Snipping Tool isn't in Vista Home Basic. However I personally don't think there was anything like that decision making involved with PAE. PAE showed up around 8 years ago, if I remember correctly. Think back to what Windows client computers were back then. A typical consumer box at Best Buy or Comp USA was going out the door with WinME and 128mb of ram with mobos whose memory controllers were limited to 512mb of ram. The hardware simply didn't support any more. DDR hadn't even shown up. By late 2001 machines were being sold with XP Home and 256mb of ram. It cost the buyer a couple of hundred bucks to upgrade to 512mb and mobos with three memory slots did not support anything more than 768mb. The four-slot ones could support 2GB but 512mb memory sticks were horribly expensive and machines usually sold with 256mb (two sticks). A few folks added more. While all this was going on Enterprise class server boxes that could support 4+GB cost between $10k and $20k. The push for 4+GB was coming from medium and large enterprises with large SQL and Exchange loads. Enter PAE (there were other schemes as well). MS was not solving a general problem with PAE. They were addressing a need expressed by enterprise users. So they developed Windows 2000 Advanced Server and all later Enterprise server editions to enable PAE if needed. There wasn't a need to address the issue on the client side. So why would they? When Intel developed the data execution bit for the later Pentium 4s in order to support DEP it turned out that PAE could also address a conflict sometimes encountered with DEP. That's when MS wrote PAE support into the service packs that were releasing for W2k and XP. But only to address the problem. Folks weren't running desktops with 4GB of memory at that time, much less ones with more than 4GB. However, workstation users were and that's when MS wrote XP Pro x64 to address that memory need. I don't think MS has ever considered PAE as a suitable solution for consumers and workstation users in addressing memory needs. There can be a perf hit with it and I think the judgement to provide 64bit consumer operating systems like Vista was the better choice. |
|
|||
ram ..please help
Dennis, Colin's original statement was right, it is mathematically
impossible to address more using 32 bits. It is possible using 32 bits AND something else to physically achieve what "Looks like" addressing more but this is by ADDING something - the limit is real if nothing extra is added. The Commodore 64 really had 64K, but also a 32K ROM BASIC and a IIRC 2K which today we might call an OS or BIOS. 64K WAS the physical limit, but the ROM overlaid it and could be turned off, which we did all the time to load games. I personally wrote software that could both use the BASIC and page it our for storage, then back in again for use. But I could NOT use BASIC routines and the underlying RAM at the same time. So I think we are down to semantics here where nobody is actually "Wrong" but disagree about descriptions. I never owned a 96K Commodore but was able to use more than 64K. Note Colin's mention somewhere here of a "Performance Hit", that is why. dennis wrote: It is a nice story, but still not what we are talking about. We are talking about what is technically possible. And the fact is, you can address more than 4GB in PAE mode. Microsoft just choose not to do so in XP/SP2 and Vista. Colin Barnhorst wrote: If you want to argue that PAE is treated as a value-added item and therefore Marketing decided to "withhold" some of its functionality from Windows clients for price differentiation purposes, go ahead. They do that stuff all the time. That's why the Snipping Tool isn't in Vista Home Basic. However I personally don't think there was anything like that decision making involved with PAE. PAE showed up around 8 years ago, if I remember correctly. Think back to what Windows client computers were back then. A typical consumer box at Best Buy or Comp USA was going out the door with WinME and 128mb of ram with mobos whose memory controllers were limited to 512mb of ram. The hardware simply didn't support any more. DDR hadn't even shown up. By late 2001 machines were being sold with XP Home and 256mb of ram. It cost the buyer a couple of hundred bucks to upgrade to 512mb and mobos with three memory slots did not support anything more than 768mb. The four-slot ones could support 2GB but 512mb memory sticks were horribly expensive and machines usually sold with 256mb (two sticks). A few folks added more. While all this was going on Enterprise class server boxes that could support 4+GB cost between $10k and $20k. The push for 4+GB was coming from medium and large enterprises with large SQL and Exchange loads. Enter PAE (there were other schemes as well). MS was not solving a general problem with PAE. They were addressing a need expressed by enterprise users. So they developed Windows 2000 Advanced Server and all later Enterprise server editions to enable PAE if needed. There wasn't a need to address the issue on the client side. So why would they? When Intel developed the data execution bit for the later Pentium 4s in order to support DEP it turned out that PAE could also address a conflict sometimes encountered with DEP. That's when MS wrote PAE support into the service packs that were releasing for W2k and XP. But only to address the problem. Folks weren't running desktops with 4GB of memory at that time, much less ones with more than 4GB. However, workstation users were and that's when MS wrote XP Pro x64 to address that memory need. I don't think MS has ever considered PAE as a suitable solution for consumers and workstation users in addressing memory needs. There can be a perf hit with it and I think the judgement to provide 64bit consumer operating systems like Vista was the better choice. |
|
|||
ram ..please help
dennis wrote:
SCSIraidGURU wrote: You can only access a theoretical maximum of 4GB in 32-bit OS. Most computers are lucky to address 3.25 GB with newer video cards installed. 64-bit Ultimate can address 128GB of RAM and huge paging file. /pae switch does not allow you to break the 4GB 32-bit rule. I used it to help NUMA memory management on my AMD server boards. 2^ 32 =4294967296 =4GB I suspect that you don't know fully how memory access works in a x86 cpu running in paging mode. The only thing that cannot change is the size of the virtual address space, which is always 4GB. The physical one can be much larger. Btw, 32bit xp/vista supports up to 16TB per paging file when the PAE kernel is loaded. Yes but that is paging, and there will be a performance hit because you can't suddenly yank the rug (OS) from under the CPU. |
|
|||
ram ..please help
Charlie Tame wrote:
Dennis, Colin's original statement was right, it is mathematically impossible to address more using 32 bits. It is possible using 32 bits AND something else to physically achieve what "Looks like" addressing more but this is by ADDING something - the limit is real if nothing extra is added. Note Colin's mention somewhere here of a "Performance Hit", that is why. PAE mode adds another layer to the page table, and extends it from 32 to 64 bits. This allows for more than 32 bit to be used for addressing memory. So it is very mathematically possible to address more than 4GB. The "performance hit" is very small. Most people are already running in PAE mode, due to DEP support. |
|
|||
ram ..please help
Charlie Tame wrote:
Yes but that is paging, and there will be a performance hit because you can't suddenly yank the rug (OS) from under the CPU. Windows only runs in one mode: paging mode. Thus, the OS needs to supply the CPU with a page table to lookup the physical address. What PAE does is to change the layout of this table. |
|
|||
ram ..please help
dennis wrote:
Charlie Tame wrote: Dennis, Colin's original statement was right, it is mathematically impossible to address more using 32 bits. It is possible using 32 bits AND something else to physically achieve what "Looks like" addressing more but this is by ADDING something - the limit is real if nothing extra is added. Note Colin's mention somewhere here of a "Performance Hit", that is why. PAE mode adds another layer to the page table, and extends it from 32 to 64 bits. This allows for more than 32 bit to be used for addressing memory. So it is very mathematically possible to address more than 4GB. The "performance hit" is very small. Most people are already running in PAE mode, due to DEP support. Yes, I am just saying there are bigger fish to fry and I think there is nitpicking but no real argument... been there done that (with you) and it really does not help anyone. We all face a bigger problem with ISPs now. FWIW I think Microsoft has done a good job trying to stay impartial and an even better job at keeping the business in friendly territories.... |
|
|||
ram ..please help
Applications use both Physical RAM and Paging file. You can disable all paging and still get programs to function. Applications like many A/V and CAD apps will not work without paging to swap pages with. The paging file in Vista does more than just virtual memory. -- SCSIraidGURU Michael A. McKenney 'www.SCSIraidGURU.com' (http://www.SCSIraidGURU.com) Supermicro X7DWA-N server board pair of Intel E5430 quad core 2.66 GHz Xeons 16GB DDR667 SAS RAID eVGA 8800 GTS 640 MB video card |