hello,
I have something interesting about that in
found another forum.
Make 4Gb-Ram usable under XP
-
-
Nice nonsense that !!
Sorry Streedevil, that didn't mean you, but the posters in the other forum!
So as a summary, from someone who has really already tried it (namely me: D) here are the results:
Is it possible to run XP with more than 4GB RAM?
Yes!XP can then use this memory for everything?
x64 yes, "normal" XP NO !!If someone wants to know exactly:
XP only has 32 bit addressing, even the PAE switch in the Boot.ini does not change anything.
Only with very special hardware combinations is it possible for the above switch to pass on the hardware-based emulation of a 36-bit address space to XP. (if only one part does not play along, there are only problems)
Think of it as an additional line in a letterhead, where the floor and the room number are added under the street and house number. Is completely uninteresting for the post office (here XP), only the distributor (i.e. the mainboard) within the company helps.
It works in a similar way with XP, an additional 4-bit long info is appended to each memory address.
This means that the mainboard assigns the same addresses to all memory modules (i.e. for as much RAM as a single memory module has) and, depending on the principle, the address also includes the information in which memory module the address is to be searched for.
(To all "professionals" who may know better: I know it's not that easy, but to explain it differently would require that everyone who reads this is an IT professional!)
With all of this address expansion (called remapping in the BIOS), however, there are repeated overlaps and incorrect addresses due to standards that are not clearly defined (after all, you also want to sell 64bit OS: D).
In the best case, XP recognizes the expanded RAM, but then makes errors in the addressing of the graphics card memory, or it produces errors in communication with the multimedia drivers. (In very rare In cases when you have bought EXACTLY the right hardware, it sometimes even works without errors )
If you are unlucky, it can lead to complete data loss and / or an operating system that is no longer working !!!
But that's not too bad, because this extension of the address space is originally only for database servers and the like. intended, and not for "home computers"
And such computers usually don't have 3D graphics cards or 5.1 sound cards built in (or these are not normally used: D), and such systems are put together by highly paid professionals who also know exactly with which hardware you can do itCONCLUSION:
It makes absolutely no sense to install more than 32 Gb of RAM in a 3,5bit XP on a home PC (with a good graphics card with 512 Mb then this gives exactly the addressable 4 Gb ) and then to tinker some "workarounds", it definitely doesn't bring any advantages !!
Then rather install the new 64bit Vista (again to the question: Why do you need the stupid Vista) or the x64 version of XP.
Although I would prefer to use Vista, with all the errors and problems it (still) has, there will definitely be more drivers and applications available than for XP x64.
The latter was actually only developed as a "server variant" and there are almost no drivers available, and most "normal" programs run poorly or not at all because of the lack of 16bit support. -
It makes absolutely no sense to install more than 32 Gb of RAM in a 3,5bit XP on a home PC (with a good graphics card with 512 Mb then this gives exactly the addressable 4 Gb ) and then to tinker some "workarounds", it definitely doesn't bring any advantages !!This thread is no longer the youngest, but you still stumble over it while Googling.
It is amazing the persistence with which any nonsense is attempted to outdo any nonsense with even worse nonsense, and the naturalness with which one pretends to know something, although false information is definitely being disseminated.The graphics memory of the graphics card has about as much to do with the RAM that can be addressed by Windows as my grandma did with Pamela Anderson (both are female, but that's about it). Of course, the addressable 4 GB memory only includes the ROM memory the video card - not the 512MB graphics memory). Otherwise, for example, a Windows system with 1 GB RAM and 2 pieces of 512 MB SLI graphics cards would have exactly ZERO RAM available).
-
Of course, the addressable 4 GB memory only includes the ROM memory the video card - not the 512MB graphics memory).
And of course - in the case of the graphics card - also the Address Remapping Table (GART). This is only for the sake of completeness - that is why the memory area used by the graphics card is usually larger than that of other hardware.
-
Quote
It is amazing the persistence with which any nonsense is attempted to outdo any nonsense with even worse nonsense, and the naturalness with which one pretends to know something, although false information is definitely being disseminated.
Yes, and that's exactly where I would classify your posts!
Sorry, but if you can't read and have no idea, you'd better have it written!let's make it a little easier so that you understand it too:
Fact 1:
A 32-bit operating system can only address a total of 4GB of RAM, regardless of where it is in the computer and which OS is used. (yes, Linux users can't do that either !!) If necessary, I'll be happy to do the math for you.Fact 2:
Graphics cards also have built-in RAMFact 3:
This RAM located on the Garka must also be addressed by the BS (because otherwise the graphics card cannot store any textures in its own RAM !!)So, and now the formula so that you also understand it:
4GB MAXIMUM of XP addressable RAM (this is not the built-in one, but the maximum that can be used by XP !!)
-
RAM of the graphics card (in this case we assume it is 512 MB)
=
3,5 GB maximum addressable remaining memory (that is what you can use in the form of RAM bars on the MB maximum !!)
So you don't pull the Graka RAM off the built-in RAM
(which also makes zero sense?!?)And you don't address a graphic ROM either, that would be just as stupid as addressing the ROM of the MB (i.e. the BIOS !!), since nobody is interested in the ROM during operation (there is only the graphics card BIOS on it)
what you mean is called "Video Bios Shading", but that doesn't do anything other than to write the graphics card BIOS into the RAM during the POST (Power On Self Test), since the main memory can be accessed more quickly during the POST, like on the built-in flash memory on the graphics card.
So what you are writing is COMPLETELY nonsense.
And because you're talking about GART, I recommend this page to you:
OperationQuoteIn the direct memory access model, the local memory on the graphics card (local frame buffer) is used as the primary graphics memory. 3D graphic structures, such as textures, are stored in the main memory, but not processed directly from there. Instead, this data is copied into the local graphics memory before rendering and only processed there. This form tends towards long, sequential data transfers on the address data bus. The associated access model is comparable to a simply linked list of physical addresses, so it does not require a contiguous memory area.
QuoteThe commissioning of an AGP device takes place in 3 stages:
Provision of the required resources through POST initialization (BIOS)
Activation of AGP features (operating system)
Activation of final storage management (operating system)
Regarding 1) First, the Power On Startup Test identifies all expansion cards (including AGP cards), creates a consistent table of all system addresses and allocates memory for all cards. The AGP card must fill in all required fields in the PCI configuration header (see Chapter 6.2 of the PCI specification 2.1). The procedure of having the AGP device initialized via the PCI bus has the advantage that the existing POST software does not need to be rewritten.Regarding 2) The operating system initializes the AGP features in the following way:
Allocate memory for the Graphics Address Remapping Table (GART)
initialize the address remapping hardware on the AGP card
set the parameters for the data transfer between chipset and card
set the type of main memory
activate the guidelines for the management of the AGP memory
to 3) Memory management depends on the operating system. It will therefore not be discussed further here.So do some research yourself before rolling around !!
If in doubt, feel free to call me, I've been building for 15!! Years of computers and even my own hardware, so I usually know what I'm saying.
And since I am also an MCSA for Windows Server 2003, I have also learned what which Windows version can and cannot do.
-
Yes, and that's exactly where I would classify your posts!
Sorry, but if you can't read and have no idea, you'd better have it written!let's make it a little easier so that you understand it too:
Although you are the forum admin here, the following also applies to you:
Many exclamation marks don't yet make truths.
Fact 1:
A 32-bit operating system can only address a total of 4GB of RAM, regardless of where it is in the computer and which OS is used. (yes, Linux users can't do that either !!) If necessary, I'll be happy to do the math for you.Thanks, not necessary - I had maths in my Abitur back then, and even if it was a long time ago, I haven't forgotten the basic arithmetic operations.
Nowhere in my post does it say that a 32 bit OS can address more than 4 GB of RAM. Just read it again if necessary.
Fact 2:
Graphics cards also have built-in RAM
I have never said otherwise.
Fact 3:
This RAM located on the Garka must also be addressed by the BS (because otherwise the graphics card cannot store any textures in its own RAM !!)Fortunately, there is still the BIOS on the graphics card.
So, and now the formula so that you also understand it:See above.
4GB MAXIMUM of XP addressable RAM (this is not the built-in one, but the maximum that can be used by XP !!)-
RAM of the graphics card (in this case we assume it is 512 MB)
=
3,5 GB maximum addressable remaining memory (that is what you can use in the form of RAM bars on the MB maximum !!)
As already mentioned - if only the amount of RAM minus the memory on the graphics card were available for Windows, Windows would not even start on a system with 1 GB RAM and a graphics card with 1 GB graphics memory. Just try it out. Then there is no need for any further discussion.
And you don't address a graphic ROM either, that would be just as stupid as addressing the ROM of the MB (i.e. the BIOS !!), since nobody is interested in the ROM during operation (there is only the graphics card BIOS on it)what you mean is called "Video Bios Shading", but that doesn't do anything other than to write the graphics card BIOS into the RAM during the POST (Power On Self Test), since the main memory can be accessed more quickly during the POST, like on the built-in flash memory on the graphics card.
So what you are writing is COMPLETELY nonsense.
And because you're talking about GART, I recommend this page to you:
OperationSo do some research yourself before rolling around !!
If in doubt, feel free to call me, I've been building for 15!! Years of computers and even my own hardware, so I usually know what I'm saying.
And since I am also an MCSA for Windows Server 2003, I have also learned what which Windows version can and cannot do.
Oh dear ... Cannot be commented further, as it is pure "filler material" with no great substantive value. I really believed that you didn't have to go over the basics all over again.
By the way, I've been in the business for 24 years, so I'm not too impressed, not even by any titles. You just collect them over the course of a long professional life, only some believe they have to use them as an argument when nothing works.One last well-meaning advice - as a forum admin you should be a role model in your argumentation, your demeanor and your formulations. And if you come across a headwind and run the risk of being blown up as a cream puff, you won't improve anything by trying to disparage your counterpart as a troll. Though people like to do this again and again, it usually leads to the fact that you not only give up the credibility in terms of specialist knowledge, but also the social skills of an administrator.
Personally, I don't care, the poor quality in both areas is overwhelming.Have fun - unfortunately there is no basis for a competent discussion here.
-
Hello
Since mutual inability to read is mentioned here, I would like to deny you fisherman this quality.
To avoid any misunderstandings:
Magic Mike is Forum moderator and no Site admin
So keep your eyes open in the forums.
Thanks -
One last well-meaning advice - as a forum admin you should be a role model in your argumentation, your demeanor and your formulations.
well as a forum user you should make your own
advice to take heart.
seldom have I seen such an arrogant act.
how gentle de oma always, how one calls into the forest
so switch it out. -
So what I really hate are people who don't read what you write but just tell rubbish.
So, I'll try one last time because you still don't seem to have read / understood it properly.
QuoteAs already mentioned - if only the amount of RAM minus the memory on the graphics card were available for Windows, Windows would not even start on a system with 1 GB RAM and a graphics card with 1 GB graphics memory. Just try it out. Then there is no need for any further discussion.
Nobody said that.
The RAM of the graphics card is NOT deducted from the RAM built into the computer (I have NOT written ANYWHERE, is complete nonsense and has NEVER been claimed by anyone.
It's about the MAXIMUM POSSIBLE RAM that XP can manage. This maximum possible amount is definitely 4GB. XP in the 32-bit version cannot address more RAM, we really don't need to discuss that, you can also call Microsoft and have this confirmed for you.
From this MAXIMUM ADDRESSABLE (as you can see we are not talking about built-in memory here either) you pull off the RAM of the graphics card (so NOT as you write from the BUILT-IN)
This gives you the MAXIMUM memory that can be addressed as RAM on the mainboard (this is the one we WANT to install)
So if I have to install two GraKas with 512MB RAM each in a system, I can only use 3GB RAM in this computer, since more built-in memory can no longer be used by XP.
Of course there are mainboards on which in principle more than 4GB RAM can be installed, but XP 32 will not be able to use this RAM.
QuoteFortunately, there is still the BIOS on the graphics card.
Unfortunately, this is also complete nonsense, because the BIOS of the GraKA (just like the BIOS of the mainboard) is only important when the computer is STARTed, as soon as the system has started, nobody is interested in the BIOS anymore, neither the GraKA nor anyone else Part of it calculator.
And unfortunately there is still no graphics card BIOS that takes over the memory management of the GraKa. If you had read the quotes on the linked page, that would have become clear, I had colored the corresponding areas red, but here again for you:
QuoteMemory management depends on the operating system
And you can find the basics you mentioned on the linked homepage PLEASE READ THEM before you post here, as you don't seem to have them after all.
Perhaps you should read the "filling material" instead of quoting it without comment.
If you continue to attack me or others personally instead of reading what is being written to you, your posts will simply be deleted by me without comment, because I have no desire to roll around, and certainly no desire that someone from the simplest basics of EDP does not Has a clue, and is not even willing to read what you post to him, the quality of the forum and the posts posted lousy.
And for this reason there is now also:
/ closed