32-bit, 4Gig cap. is apparently BS

[Shan]

The site is back up. HOLY CRAP!!! This HUGE news if we can get this going!!!

Wow!!!

...and another wow!

Shane

[Shan]

...email sent to the developer of this.

Shane

[sunburst79]

I was reading it as something that got killed off for XP in SP2..

With 64bit hopefully not to far over the horizon hopefully its all moot.

Very interesting read.

[Shan]

Here's a PDF version of the info.

Shane

[mykhal c]

Originally Posted by sunburst79

Trampled Under Foot

no doubt!!! kashmir!!! houses of the holy!!!

[danander11]

I dunno... Black Dog was one of my first, if not most, favorite Zep tunes...


As for the memory thing... WAY above my computer intellect.. I'll wait and see what you guys do with it...

[mykhal c]

looks like from re-readin' the article, the /3GB limit would still be in place for any 'one' program that wants to use memory above the 4GB limit...due to the 32bit OS. but if one has say 6GB of ram then the all the ram could be accessed by the programs runnin' with no one program gettin' more than 3GB

[Shan]

Here is the reply I received from Geoff(the author of the article):

==== start ====

I'm sorry but I have to give you bad news on two counts.

First, Windows XP SP3 has the same behavior that the article describes for
SP2. (See the section "Windows XP SP2" under the heading "Past", near the
end of the article.) The kernel is PAE-capable but the HAL is crippled by
assuming that all physical memory addresses are below 4GB. No amount of
patching the kernel will suffice: you need a working HAL.

The person who goaded me into studying this for Windows XP SP2 tells me he
has fitted a HAL from Windows Server 2003 into Windows XP SP3, and plans to
write it up somewhere, some time. So, although I suspect that even he thinks
it's not recommendable, keep an eye out for his write-up, if you're
desperate.

Second, if your problem is with individual programs that need gigabytes of
memory, then your only path ahead is 64-bit Windows. Although 32-bit Windows
can use more physical memory than 4GB, it can give no more than 2GB to each
application (extendable to 3GB with minimal cooperation from the
application). Having 32-bit Windows use memory above 4GB would work for you
if you have multiple programs which each have moderate memory requirements
or if you want to configure the system to use lots of memory (e.g., for file
caching). It's no good to you if you have any program with huge memory
requirements.

==== end ====


So, it looks like we're somewhat out of luck for now.

Shane

[Keybeeetsss]

Ga'Dumete

I turn in early lasnite to wake up & see u guys have put in extra OT... Sucks about the SP2/3 thingy but stilllll... Somewhat nicse of a find...

[epu]

I'm a computer geek in the smallest sense of the word, but it makes total sense. All of those 8 Bit operating systems during the 80s used plenty of bank switching memory techniques to address memory over 64K. The Commodore 64, Commodore 128, Apple IIc are some examples which come to mind.

Every program that wanted to use the memory concurrently had to be loaded into its own address space, but no one program could use more than 64K of memory at one time . . .UNLESS the program was specifically written to throw MORE than 64K across two different banks, but a program couldn't say . . access 128k or 512k at once.

Hahaha. I'm barely 30, but still remember when I thought 512K was a whole bunch of memory lol!