Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 85
  1. #61
    Super Moderator satrow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Cardiff, UK
    Posts
    2,085
    Thanks
    102
    Thanked 203 Times in 177 Posts
    Here's a take on Vista x86: http://www.geoffchappell.com/notes/w...nse/memory.htm, Xp isn't so different if you check what's possible with the Server 2003 equivalent:
    Physical Memory Limits: Windows Server 2003

    The following table specifies the limits on physical memory for Windows Server 2003. Limits over 4 GB for 32-bit Windows assume that PAE is enabled.
    Version Limit on X86 Limit on IA64

    Windows Server 2003, Datacenter Edition


    64 GB

    (16 GB with 4GT)


    512 GB

    Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition


    64 GB

    (16 GB with 4GT)


    512 GB

    Windows Server 2003, Standard Edition


    4 GB


    Windows Server 2003, Web Edition


    2 GB


    Windows Small Business Server 2003


    4 GB


    Windows Compute Cluster Server 2003


    32 GB

    Windows Storage Server 2003, Enterprise Edition


    8 GB


    Windows Storage Server 2003


    4 GB
    http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...its_windows_xp

    X86 Server 2003 can use/is licensed for, 64GB.

    The biggest problem is getting hardware (motherboard, etc.) with stable drivers.

    I'm not supporting trying this out, I would be likely to hit showstoppers, most users would be almost certain to.

    I've come across a few users who have taken this route to enable 4GB+ memory on XP x86 and, without a complete change in hardware/drivers, they were never likely to get a stable system.

    Way off topic for almost all XP users, I'm afraid.

  2. #62
    4 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New Hampshire USA
    Posts
    424
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 35 Times in 32 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by BruceR View Post
    The big difference between past and future is that until now XP's flaws and vulnerabilities were getting publicized and fixed (potentially). From now on they only get publicized.
    Please explain how that alleged difference applies to the specific situation under discussion here, where until now XP's flaws and vulnerabilities were getting publicized but NOT by and large getting fixed in FUN's systems whereas in the future they will also be getting publicized and not fixed.

    Quote Originally Posted by bbearren View Post
    It's the license, but it's also the architecture. 32-bit CPU's can read virtual address space to 232 bits. PAE (Physical Address Extension) capable processors can extend this virtual address space, but it's only useful with application support, which is not common.
    Ah - I see that satrow has already provided an extremely well-written article by Geoff Chappell to correct that assertion, saving me the effort of writing something off-the-cuff and far less detailed. The bottom line is that 1) there's no way to extend a 32-bit virtual address space: it's intrinsically limited to 4 GB of addressing; 2) there ARE ways to extend the amount of RAM (edit: I use the term RAM loosely here, since we're still talking about pages virtualized by the operating system) that a 32-bit application can make use of, by letting it dynamically map pieces of that 32-bit virtual address space around a much larger amount of physical RAM at its disposal (though of course never having direct access to more than a total of 4 GB at any one time, and any code or data in such mapped segments cannot be addressed directly until it has first been mapped to an expected range of virtual addresses, which is of course a lot slower than a simple direct virtual access but can usually be handled so as not to impact application performance too much); and 3) it's certainly POSSIBLE for a 32-bit operating system to map and make good use of more than 4 GB of ram transparently to applications (e.g., by allowing many more applications and parts thereof to remain resident in RAM rather than having to evict them to the paging file and by caching much more data in RAM).

    So it's less that 32-bit environments CAN'T use a lot more than 4 GB of RAM effectively than that it requires more folderol (by the OS and/or the application) to do so and may exact modest performance penalties compared with running a 64-bit architecture and addressing everything directly.
    Last edited by - bill; 2014-05-06 at 01:31.

  3. #63
    Super Moderator bbearren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Polk County, Florida
    Posts
    2,344
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 228 Times in 182 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by - bill View Post
    <--snip-->So it's less that 32-bit environments CAN'T use a lot more than 4 GB of RAM effectively than that it requires more folderol (by the OS and/or the application) to do so and may exact modest performance penalties compared with running a 64-bit architecture and addressing everything directly.
    ...what I said...
    Quote Originally Posted by bbearren View Post
    32-bit CPU's can read virtual address space to 232 bits. PAE (Physical Address Extension) capable processors can extend this virtual address space, but it's only useful with application support, which is not common.
    Create a new drive image before making system changes, in case you need to start over!

    "Let them that don't want it have memories of not gettin' any." "Gratitude is riches and complaint is poverty and the worst I ever had was wonderful." Brother Dave Gardner "Experience is what you get when you're looking for something else." Sir Thomas Robert Deware. "The problem is not the problem. The problem is your attitude about the problem. Do you understand?" Captain Jack Sparrow.
    Unleash Windows

  4. #64
    4 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New Hampshire USA
    Posts
    424
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 35 Times in 32 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by bbearren View Post
    ...what I said...
    Yes, I know what you said. It was incorrect in that 1) the virtual address space cannot be 'extended' and 2) the additional RAM can be put to good use without any application support (though can certainly also be put to additional good use with application changes)..

  5. #65
    Super Moderator bbearren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Polk County, Florida
    Posts
    2,344
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 228 Times in 182 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by - bill View Post
    Yes, I know what you said. It was incorrect in that 1) the virtual address space cannot be 'extended'
    The word "cannot" is not present in my posts related to this subject. Also,
    Quote Originally Posted by bbearren View Post
    PAE (Physical Address Extension) capable processors can extend this virtual address space
    From Lifehacker: "In any 32-bit operating system, you are limited to 4096 MB of RAM simply because the size of a 32-bit value will not allow any more. On a 32-bit system, each process is given 4 GB of virtual memory to play with, which is separated into 2 GB of user space that the application can actually use at a time.

    Savvy readers might point out that modern chips support PAE, a processor technology that allows the operating system to use a little bit more memory—up to 64 GB, but it also requires special application support that most applications don't have or necessarily need.

    A common misconception is that this is a Windows-specific problem, when in fact 32-bit Linux and Mac OS X have the same limitations and the same workarounds. 32-bit Linux uses a mapping table to allow access to the extra memory, and OS X Snow Leopard actually ships by default with a 32-bit kernel that can't access all the memory on older systems, even though most of the rest of the OS runs 64-bit processes.

    The 4 GB limit for Windows, at least, is also a factor of licensing—the home versions of 32-bit Windows, while technically being able to support PAE, have a hard limit of 4 GB for licensing and driver compatibility reasons."

    And that's the end of it from me on this issue.
    Create a new drive image before making system changes, in case you need to start over!

    "Let them that don't want it have memories of not gettin' any." "Gratitude is riches and complaint is poverty and the worst I ever had was wonderful." Brother Dave Gardner "Experience is what you get when you're looking for something else." Sir Thomas Robert Deware. "The problem is not the problem. The problem is your attitude about the problem. Do you understand?" Captain Jack Sparrow.
    Unleash Windows

  6. #66
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    2,684
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 331 Times in 300 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by - bill View Post
    Please explain how that alleged difference applies to the specific situation under discussion here, where until now XP's flaws and vulnerabilities were getting publicized but NOT by and large getting fixed in FUN's systems whereas in the future they will also be getting publicized and not fixed.
    In the past, flaws weren't getting fixed on some XP systems; in the future, any flaws affecting XP can't be fixed on millions of systems; they will provide a much bigger target.

  7. #67
    4 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New Hampshire USA
    Posts
    424
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 35 Times in 32 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by BruceR View Post
    In the past, flaws weren't getting fixed on some XP systems; in the future, any flaws affecting XP can't be fixed on millions of systems; they will provide a much bigger target.
    But also a diminishing target as the XP universe continues to dwindle. A better gauge of potential attractiveness to the bad guys may be the total XP-related target size (number of unpatched XP systems plus number of unpatched newer systems) in this specific area plus additional vulnerabilities cropping up in systems and software outside that applicable to XP, but in either case it's still just speculation - and still doesn't consider the mitigating effects of running decent and up-to-date third-party browser and security software on those unpatched XP systems.

    People seem to have strong opinions about this, though it's difficult for me to understand the motivation of those who insist that the sky is falling but have no obvious financial stake in convincing people to move off XP (perhaps they're just natural go-gooders who want to protect those whom they consider uninformed, and I do have some sympathy with such motivation even while also feeling that it's a bit condescending for my taste). And I admit that I have a somewhat contrarian nature, so when I see such warnings without real, quantitative substance behind them I tend to step up to the plate and question them (and in this case have years of experience running unpatched but otherwise well-protected Win2K systems to back up those questions).

    In any event, we'll see: tens or possibly hundreds of millions of those XP systems won't be going away any time soon, and a lot of them won't be running the 'decent up-to-date' third-party browser and security software that I just mentioned. My thesis here is that machines that DO run such software should be relatively safe, because I assume that people HERE interested in continuing to run XP in other than a well-isolated environment will have the sense to take such precautions.

  8. #68
    Super Moderator CLiNT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    California & Arizona
    Posts
    5,334
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked 467 Times in 429 Posts
    The only folks motivated and computer suave enough to take the necessary precautions will be the many companies that continue to use Windows XP and the
    advanced private users who, in practically all instances, do not need to be told how to run their systems.
    Even the above will ever increasingly find XP to be a very weak and anemic system bound with hardware limitations as each quarter passes.

    For the vast majority of the non technical Windows XP personal computer users, and they are the fastest dwindling user base, moving on from Windows XP is the most sound advice that can be given. Not providing such advice would be anathema. The article is spot on.
    Last edited by CLiNT; 2014-05-06 at 15:12.
    DRIVE IMAGING
    Invest a little time and energy in a well thought out BACKUP regimen and you will have minimal down time, and headache.

    Windows 8.1, 64 bit
    Motherboard: DX58SO2*Chipset: X58 Express/Intel ICH10*BIOS: SOX5820J.86A.0888.2012.0129.2203*Processor: Intel Core i7 CPU X 990
    GPU: Nvidia GTX 580*Memory: Corsair 12 GB, 4x3@1600*PSU: Corsair HX1000*Hard drives: REVO X2 160GB*OCZ VERT X3 120GB*5 mechanical storage drives (12 TB) total.

  9. #69
    4 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New Hampshire USA
    Posts
    424
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 35 Times in 32 Posts
    Dear me, you have misread my intent completely.

    Quote Originally Posted by bbearren View Post
    The word "cannot" is not present in my posts related to this subject.
    The incorrect statement (which indeed does not contain the word 'cannot') was:

    Quote Originally Posted by bbearren View Post
    PAE (Physical Address Extension) capable processors can extend this virtual address space
    The 32-bit virtual address space is in no way extendible: it's limited to 4 GB, period.

    Technically, your earlier statement

    Quote Originally Posted by bbearren View Post
    32-bit XP can only support 4GB of RAM.
    was incorrect as well: in fact, this restriction is only present in XP SP2 and later - see http://support.microsoft.com/kb/888137

    From Lifehacker: "In any 32-bit operating system, you are limited to 4096 MB of RAM simply because the size of a 32-bit value will not allow any more... Savvy readers might point out that modern chips support PAE, a processor technology that allows the operating system to use a little bit more memory—up to 64 GB, but it also requires special application support that most applications don't have or necessarily need.
    I appreciate Lifehacker and HowToGeek when I need guidance in areas I'm not familiar with, but in cases like this one I'm reminded that even the best tech writers (and I've worked with some of them) seldom get things exactly right without careful supervision.

    In this case, both of the statements which I chose to quote above are incorrect (and if you think about them are mutually exclusive as well). The size of the virtual address space does not constrain the amount of RAM which can be used effectively, and effective use of RAM above 4 GB by the operating system does not depend upon any in-application support (though in-application mechanisms can let individual applications make more effective use of large amounts of RAM as well). Trust me on this: I've written system code that takes advantage of both, though not on Windows systems.

  10. #70
    4 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New Hampshire USA
    Posts
    424
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 35 Times in 32 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by CLiNT View Post
    The only folks motivated and computer suave enough to take the necessary precautions will be the many companies that continue to use Windows XP and the
    advanced private users who, in practically all instances, do not need to be told how to run their systems.
    You really ought to be more careful about presenting personal opinion as absolute truth. In fact, people HERE who are eminently capable of making their XP systems reasonably secure DO seem interested in guidance about how to go about it and explanation of why it should work reasonably well.

    Even the above will ever increasingly find XP to be a very weak and anemic system bound with hardware limitations as each quarter passes.
    So what, if it still meets their wants and needs? That's really their assessment to make, after all.

    For the vast majority of the non technical Windows XP personal computer users, and they are the fastest dwindling user base, moving on from Windows XP is the most sound advice that can be given. Not providing such advice would be anathema. The article is spot on.
    My, your regard for the ability of people to make their own decisions when presented with explanations about what their options are (rather than simply being told the one option which the writer seems to consider valid, regardless of what their circumstances may be) seems to be low. Call me an optimist, but I at least want to give people the opportunity to make an informed choice on their own - even if I may personally think that some of their choices may not be the best ones.

  11. #71
    Super Moderator CLiNT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    California & Arizona
    Posts
    5,334
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked 467 Times in 429 Posts
    You really ought to be more careful about presenting personal opinion as absolute truth. In fact, people HERE who are eminently capable of making their XP systems reasonably secure DO seem interested in guidance about how to go about it and explanation of why it should work reasonably well.
    Not opinion. Most people don't have a clue about how to go about doing so, let alone frequenting tech forums. For those that do, that's fine, they'll have the best chances for
    the most successful & continued use of XP if that is their desire. But they are a MINORITY.
    So what, if it still meets their wants and needs? That's really their assessment to make, after all.
    True enough, but one has to wonder how much longer antiquated software will continue to be relevant or useful.
    Regardless, those in the know will find a way to work it out or move on.
    My, your regard for the ability of people to make their own decisions when presented with explanations about what their options are (rather than simply being told the one option which the writer seems to consider valid, regardless of what their circumstances may be) seems to be low. Call me an optimist, but I at least want to give people the opportunity to make an informed choice on their own - even if I may personally think that some of their choices may not be the best ones.
    When it comes to computing most people DO need to be told what to do and there is almost ZERO initiative amongst the average Windows user base.
    If we were talking about Linux then that would be a different matter completely.
    Again, those that have the minerals to step forward and seek out information relevant to their situation will be in a vastly better position to get what they want.
    But the vast majority are simply just "cattle". [that's a fact]
    Last edited by CLiNT; 2014-05-06 at 16:27.
    DRIVE IMAGING
    Invest a little time and energy in a well thought out BACKUP regimen and you will have minimal down time, and headache.

    Windows 8.1, 64 bit
    Motherboard: DX58SO2*Chipset: X58 Express/Intel ICH10*BIOS: SOX5820J.86A.0888.2012.0129.2203*Processor: Intel Core i7 CPU X 990
    GPU: Nvidia GTX 580*Memory: Corsair 12 GB, 4x3@1600*PSU: Corsair HX1000*Hard drives: REVO X2 160GB*OCZ VERT X3 120GB*5 mechanical storage drives (12 TB) total.

  12. #72
    4 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New Hampshire USA
    Posts
    424
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 35 Times in 32 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by CLiNT View Post
    Not opinion.
    Ah - I now seem to recall that you don't understand what the difference between fact and opinion is and aren't interested in learning. Forget that I brought it up again.

    Most people don't have a clue about how to go about doing so, let alone frequenting tech forums.
    So explaining that there are other options in such tech forums won't do any harm and for those interested in continuing to run XP may do some good.

    For those that do, that's fine, they'll have the best chances for
    the most successful & continued use of XP if that is their desire. But they are a MINORITY.
    Your earlier statements (the ones I responded to rather than this straw man above) were considerably broader than merely claiming that a only a simple minority of XP users could benefit from information about how to keep running it with reasonable security.

    the vast majority are simply just "cattle". [that's a fact]
    Not unless you have actual numbers to back it up (hint: one of those differences between fact and opinion that I was talking about before recalling that it likely wouldn't do any good). And while I happen to share that opinion, I also believe that at least some of those 'cattle' can rise to the occasion and learn something if they're motivated to and exposed to the opportunity.

  13. #73
    Super Moderator bbearren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Polk County, Florida
    Posts
    2,344
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 228 Times in 182 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by - bill View Post
    Dear me, you have misread my intent completely.
    You misread my post.
    Quote Originally Posted by - bill View Post
    The incorrect statement (which indeed does not contain the word 'cannot') was:
    Quote Originally Posted by bbearren View Post
    PAE (Physical Address Extension) capable processors can extend this virtual address space
    The 32-bit virtual address space is in no way extendible: it's limited to 4 GB, period.
    I did not use the words "32-bit virtual address space". I wrote "virtual address space".
    Quote Originally Posted by bbearren View Post
    32-bit CPU's can read virtual address space to 232 bits. PAE (Physical Address Extension) capable processors can extend this virtual address space
    -not "32-bit" virtual address space. PAE extends the "virtual address space" that can be read beyond 232.

    Quote Originally Posted by - bill View Post
    Technically, your earlier statement

    Quote Originally Posted by bbearren View Post
    32-bit XP can only support 4GB of RAM.
    was incorrect as well: in fact, this restriction is only present in XP SP2 and later
    Not. Check this Scott Dunn article in Windows Secrets from December 18, 2008. Be sure to click on the MSDN links. The article you linked primarily describes only the change in the way RAM is reported by the OS, not the RAM limitations per se.

    "For example, before you upgrade to Windows XP SP2, the System Properties dialog box may report approximately 3.87 GB of RAM. The System Information tool may report that the total physical memory is approximately 3,540.00 megabytes (MB). After you upgrade to Windows XP SP2, the System Properties dialog box may report approximately 3.12 GB of RAM, and the System Information tool may report that the total physical memory is approximately 2,770.00 MB."

    Quote Originally Posted by - bill View Post
    Trust me on this: I've written system code that takes advantage of both, though not on Windows systems.
    A couple of things, here. I've written some code in assembly language, myself; interesting, but tedious. And we are talking about Windows systems here; 32-bit Windows XP.

    Effective use of RAM in excess of supported configurations in XP requires fault-free, rock-solid drivers - for XP. That brings specific hardware issues into the mix, as well.
    Create a new drive image before making system changes, in case you need to start over!

    "Let them that don't want it have memories of not gettin' any." "Gratitude is riches and complaint is poverty and the worst I ever had was wonderful." Brother Dave Gardner "Experience is what you get when you're looking for something else." Sir Thomas Robert Deware. "The problem is not the problem. The problem is your attitude about the problem. Do you understand?" Captain Jack Sparrow.
    Unleash Windows

  14. #74
    Super Moderator CLiNT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    California & Arizona
    Posts
    5,334
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked 467 Times in 429 Posts
    Your earlier statements (the ones I responded to rather than this straw man above) were considerably broader than merely claiming that a only a simple minority of XP users could benefit from information about how to keep running it with reasonable security.
    You're wrong again here. Those are the minority as most users will be forced through attrition to either upgrade, buy a new system with a non XP OS when their systems no longer function, or change to another company's OS.
    Your advocating XP's continued use is a dead end in reality for most users as it will not be physically possible. It's a moot and irrelevant argument you are pursuing.
    The vast majority of XP users will NOT benefit from technical details on continuing to securely use XP because they will not follow through in the first place.
    We've been talking about securing Windows XP for over 10 years now, if they didn't get it then, they sure as hell are not going to get it now.

    Not unless you have actual numbers to back it up (hint: one of those differences between fact and opinion that I was talking about before recalling that it likely wouldn't do any good). And while I happen to share that opinion, I also believe that at least some of those 'cattle' can rise to the occasion and learn something if they're motivated to and exposed to the opportunity.
    Once again, not an opinion of mine, but a real world fact. I don't need to quote you numbers that you would undoubtedly disregard.
    Although it is possible for "some of those cattle to rise to the occasion" most of them won't, and also, it will usually be to their detriment that they take your advice and continue using Windows XP.
    Most people do not want to know technical details about their computers beyond getting what they need to do done.
    But for someone, like yourself, to advocate that the average non technical user strive to keep and maintain an antiquated OS beyond it's natural expiration is an affront to your own subjective political viewpoints & not anything whatsoever to do with "helping people". That is the kind of help most can do without.

    So explaining that there are other options in such tech forums won't do any harm and for those interested in continuing to run XP may do some good.
    I have no problem whatsoever in responding to user's requests for info on how to keep windows XP secure. We will always stride to help.
    We will NOT go out of our way to advocate keeping an antiquated and inherently insecure operating system.
    I find it ironic that you are not found more frequently in the XP forums "helping" people to secure their OS to the same extent that you seem passionate in debating here in this thread.

    Your earlier statements (the ones I responded to rather than this straw man above) were considerably broader than merely claiming that a only a simple minority of XP users could benefit from information about how to keep running it with reasonable security.
    I am confident that those that want to keep XP will do so with no input from me. Those that are not up to the mark do not need a mouthpiece like you advocating the continued usage of an antiquated OS that many will not be technically inclined to follow through on.
    Last edited by CLiNT; 2014-05-06 at 21:36.
    DRIVE IMAGING
    Invest a little time and energy in a well thought out BACKUP regimen and you will have minimal down time, and headache.

    Windows 8.1, 64 bit
    Motherboard: DX58SO2*Chipset: X58 Express/Intel ICH10*BIOS: SOX5820J.86A.0888.2012.0129.2203*Processor: Intel Core i7 CPU X 990
    GPU: Nvidia GTX 580*Memory: Corsair 12 GB, 4x3@1600*PSU: Corsair HX1000*Hard drives: REVO X2 160GB*OCZ VERT X3 120GB*5 mechanical storage drives (12 TB) total.

  15. #75
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia
    Posts
    3,816
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 166 Times in 153 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by CLiNT View Post
    most users will be forced through attrition to either upgrade, buy a new system with a non XP OS when their systems no longer function, or change to another company's OS.
    Upgrading the OS just because of a hardware upgrade is not a given. The mere fact that a new box might come with a new OS doesn't automatically mean an older OS can't be used on it...
    Cheers,

    Paul Edstein
    [MS MVP - Word]

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •