If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Using my extra RAM for other things in an old, updated 32-bit XP Pro. SP3.
On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 00:36:37 -0500, Yousuf Khan
wrote: On 22/12/2010 6:10 PM, Ant wrote: On 12/22/2010 1:35 PM PT, Ken Blake, MVP typed: Note that the hardware is using the address *space*, not the actual RAM itself. If you have a greater amount of RAM, the rest of the RAM goes unused because there is no address space to map it to. Dang. So I can't use it at all for anything. Why not upgrade to Windows 7 64-bit? What is it that you have that can't run on it? Several points he 1. An upgrade from 32-bit Windows to 64-bit Windows is not possible. He would have to do a clean installation of 64-bit Windows to get there. 2. He couldn't even upgrade to 32-bit Windows 7. An upgrade from XP to Windows 7 is not possible, and again, he would have to do a clean installation. 3. He's presently seeing 2.5GB of his 6GB. It depends on what applications he runs, but it would be very rare for anyone running XP with 2.5GB to see any improvement by having more RAM available. 4. It's similarly unlikely that he would see any improvement in performance by running Windows 7 with 6GB over Windows XP with 2.5GB. There are, in my view, several good reasons to go to Windows 7, but that's not one of them. -- Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003 Please Reply to the Newsgroup |
Ads |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Using my extra RAM for other things in an old, updated 32-bitXP Pro. SP3.
On 12/25/2010 7:36 AM PT, Ken Blake, MVP typed:
Why not upgrade to Windows 7 64-bit? What is it that you have that can't run on it? Several points he 1. An upgrade from 32-bit Windows to 64-bit Windows is not possible. He would have to do a clean installation of 64-bit Windows to get there. 2. He couldn't even upgrade to 32-bit Windows 7. An upgrade from XP to Windows 7 is not possible, and again, he would have to do a clean installation. Yeah. Even if I could do an OS upgrade, it would be too messy and ugly. Clean, from scratch, is better. 3. He's presently seeing 2.5GB of his 6GB. It depends on what applications he runs, but it would be very rare for anyone running XP with 2.5GB to see any improvement by having more RAM available. I just wished I could have my 512 MB back to have 3 GB. Dang hardwares (ATI Radeon 4870 videoc card?)! 4. It's similarly unlikely that he would see any improvement in performance by running Windows 7 with 6GB over Windows XP with 2.5GB. There are, in my view, several good reasons to go to Windows 7, but that's not one of them. Yeah, I will just wait until I am forced. I am happy with it. Again, I bought 6 GB because it was cheap and on sale. I didn't know the unused RAM could not be used for other stuff like RAM drive/disk. I will just keep the RAM for future OS'. You never know. My old XP might commit suicide to force me to install an 64-bit OS! I only back up my personal datas anyways. Other stuff, I don't care. -- "... Ooh, we haven't done that in a long time. I love picnics. I'll bring my ant jar." --The Berenstain Bears (unknown episode) /\___/\ Phil./Ant @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site) / /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net | |o o| | \ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link. ( ) If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed. Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Using my extra RAM for other things in an old, updated 32-bitXPPro. SP3.
On 25/12/2010 6:34 AM, Ant wrote:
On 12/24/2010 9:38 PM PT, Yousuf Khan typed: I've got 8GB installed on Win 7 64-bit, and I've often seen it go over 5GB usage. Usually that happens with buggy software running and eating up memory. Which buggy softwares from your side? The only ones that leak for me is Mozilla's SeaMonkey v2.0.11 since I use it like crazy (multiple extensions, crazy numbers of tabs at once, etc.) and Outlook 2007 at work and home with both updated XP Pro. SP3 (home) and 64-bit W7 HP (work). Actually, interestingly, the biggest memory leaker that I have is Mozilla's Thunderbird. That and Windows' own SVCHOST.EXE program usually end up eating most of the memory on my system. But I think SVCHOST is affected by Thunderbird, so they may be related. Yousuf Khan |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Using my extra RAM for other things in an old, updated 32-bitXPPro. SP3.
On 25/12/2010 11:59 AM, Ant wrote:
On 12/25/2010 7:36 AM PT, Ken Blake, MVP typed: Why not upgrade to Windows 7 64-bit? What is it that you have that can't run on it? Several points he 1. An upgrade from 32-bit Windows to 64-bit Windows is not possible. He would have to do a clean installation of 64-bit Windows to get there. 2. He couldn't even upgrade to 32-bit Windows 7. An upgrade from XP to Windows 7 is not possible, and again, he would have to do a clean installation. Yeah. Even if I could do an OS upgrade, it would be too messy and ugly. Clean, from scratch, is better. Well, that's your only choice when going from XP to 7, so your wish is fulfilled. 3. He's presently seeing 2.5GB of his 6GB. It depends on what applications he runs, but it would be very rare for anyone running XP with 2.5GB to see any improvement by having more RAM available. I just wished I could have my 512 MB back to have 3 GB. Dang hardwares (ATI Radeon 4870 videoc card?)! XP's handling of newer aspects of PCs is braindead, not just the extra RAM that's now available, but also things such as IRQs. XP seems to think it's stuck still living in a world of AT-style 16 IRQ's, in a modern world of 1000's of available ACPI-style IRQ's. As a result far too many IRQ's get shared between totally unrelated hardware under XP. It becomes a nightmare pinpointing hardware errors when it happens. Windows Vista and 7 are much closer to the way Linux handles IRQs now. Distributes them out amongst 16,000+ IRQ ports, and only shares them if they are really part of the same peripheral. 4. It's similarly unlikely that he would see any improvement in performance by running Windows 7 with 6GB over Windows XP with 2.5GB. There are, in my view, several good reasons to go to Windows 7, but that's not one of them. Yeah, I will just wait until I am forced. I am happy with it. Again, I bought 6 GB because it was cheap and on sale. I didn't know the unused RAM could not be used for other stuff like RAM drive/disk. I will just keep the RAM for future OS'. You never know. My old XP might commit suicide to force me to install an 64-bit OS! I only back up my personal datas anyways. Other stuff, I don't care. While I waited for 64-bit Windows to mature, I did have 64-bit Ubuntu running on my system, even before I went over 4GB. I'd been running 64-bit Ubuntu since version 5.04. It was fairly mature already at that point, and just as well supported as 32-bit Ubuntu. Yousuf Khan |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Using my extra RAM for other things in an old, updated 32-bitXPPro. SP3.
On 12/25/2010 9:34 PM PT, Yousuf Khan typed:
2. He couldn't even upgrade to 32-bit Windows 7. An upgrade from XP to Windows 7 is not possible, and again, he would have to do a clean installation. Yeah. Even if I could do an OS upgrade, it would be too messy and ugly. Clean, from scratch, is better. Well, that's your only choice when going from XP to 7, so your wish is fulfilled. Only Vista can depending on the correct bit, right? 3. He's presently seeing 2.5GB of his 6GB. It depends on what applications he runs, but it would be very rare for anyone running XP with 2.5GB to see any improvement by having more RAM available. I just wished I could have my 512 MB back to have 3 GB. Dang hardwares (ATI Radeon 4870 videoc card?)! XP's handling of newer aspects of PCs is braindead, not just the extra RAM that's now available, but also things such as IRQs. XP seems to think it's stuck still living in a world of AT-style 16 IRQ's, in a modern world of 1000's of available ACPI-style IRQ's. As a result far too many IRQ's get shared between totally unrelated hardware under XP. It becomes a nightmare pinpointing hardware errors when it happens. Windows Vista and 7 are much closer to the way Linux handles IRQs now. Distributes them out amongst 16,000+ IRQ ports, and only shares them if they are really part of the same peripheral. 16K? Wow. 4. It's similarly unlikely that he would see any improvement in performance by running Windows 7 with 6GB over Windows XP with 2.5GB. There are, in my view, several good reasons to go to Windows 7, but that's not one of them. Yeah, I will just wait until I am forced. I am happy with it. Again, I bought 6 GB because it was cheap and on sale. I didn't know the unused RAM could not be used for other stuff like RAM drive/disk. I will just keep the RAM for future OS'. You never know. My old XP might commit suicide to force me to install an 64-bit OS! I only back up my personal datas anyways. Other stuff, I don't care. While I waited for 64-bit Windows to mature, I did have 64-bit Ubuntu running on my system, even before I went over 4GB. I'd been running 64-bit Ubuntu since version 5.04. It was fairly mature already at that point, and just as well supported as 32-bit Ubuntu. Cool. I still use 32-bit because it works fine. It only had 2-3 GB of RAM on the old Debian installation from 2005. Maybe I will go 64-bit when I reinstall it from scratch whenever that is. -- "Look not to the windmill's turning while the ant still burrows." --unknown /\___/\ Phil./Ant @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site) / /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net | |o o| | \ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link. ( ) If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed. Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer. |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Using my extra RAM for other things in an old, updated 32-bitXPPro. SP3.
On 26/12/2010 12:07 PM, Ant wrote:
On 12/25/2010 9:34 PM PT, Yousuf Khan typed: Well, that's your only choice when going from XP to 7, so your wish is fulfilled. Only Vista can depending on the correct bit, right? Yeah, 32-bit XP to 32-bit Vista will work, 32-bit XP to 64-bit Vista won't. XP to anything on Windows 7 won't upgrade. However, Windows 7 does offer to back up all of your old Windows files into a new directory structure called "Windows.old", which can be used to revert to XP at a later time. Your old "settings and documents" folders will also be backed up here. Windows Vista and 7 are much closer to the way Linux handles IRQs now. Distributes them out amongst 16,000+ IRQ ports, and only shares them if they are really part of the same peripheral. 16K? Wow. Yeah, I don't expect to ever see an IRQ-related problem in these newer systems. While I waited for 64-bit Windows to mature, I did have 64-bit Ubuntu running on my system, even before I went over 4GB. I'd been running 64-bit Ubuntu since version 5.04. It was fairly mature already at that point, and just as well supported as 32-bit Ubuntu. Cool. I still use 32-bit because it works fine. It only had 2-3 GB of RAM on the old Debian installation from 2005. Maybe I will go 64-bit when I reinstall it from scratch whenever that is. As far as I'm concerned, with any distribution of Linux, I see no reason why anybody should be running 32-bit Linux at all, even if they don't have more than 4GB of RAM installed. Yousuf Khan |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Using my extra RAM for other things in an old, updated 32-bitXP Pro. SP3.
Ant wrote:
Hello. A couple days ago, I upgraded my old 32-bit Windows XP Pro. SP3 (IE6) system/computer/system to an Intel i7 with 6 GB of RAM. I know that 32-bit operating systems/OS' cannot see all that RAM due to old software designs' limitations. Currently, my working Windows only sees about 2.5 GB of physical RAM (shouldn't it be 3 GB though?). I heard that I can use the unused memory for other things like a RAM drive for swap files, %temp%, etc. How do I do that? And yes, I will get 64-bit W7 or another OS one day. At this time, I am not going to do that since XP Pro. SP3 does fine for what I need. Thank you in advance. I quite accidentally came across the Ramdisk product: http://memory.dataram.com/products-a...tware/ramdisk? which does exactly what you want, as long as your motherboard has Physical Address Extensions enabled. If it does, you can have a nice 2GB ramdisk for free. I didn't read this thread carefully, so I don't know if this product was mentioned, or not. Sorry if it was. -- You'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone. -- Whoever bans a book, shall be banished. Whoever burns a book, shall burn. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Using my extra RAM for other things in an old, updated 32-bitXP Pro. SP3.
On 1/15/2011 3:19 PM PT, Patok typed:
A couple days ago, I upgraded my old 32-bit Windows XP Pro. SP3 (IE6) system/computer/system to an Intel i7 with 6 GB of RAM. I know that 32-bit operating systems/OS' cannot see all that RAM due to old software designs' limitations. Currently, my working Windows only sees about 2.5 GB of physical RAM (shouldn't it be 3 GB though?). I heard that I can use the unused memory for other things like a RAM drive for swap files, %temp%, etc. How do I do that? And yes, I will get 64-bit W7 or another OS one day. At this time, I am not going to do that since XP Pro. SP3 does fine for what I need. Thank you in advance. I quite accidentally came across the Ramdisk product: http://memory.dataram.com/products-a...tware/ramdisk? which does exactly what you want, as long as your motherboard has Physical Address Extensions enabled. If it does, you can have a nice 2GB ramdisk for free. I didn't read this thread carefully, so I don't know if this product was mentioned, or not. Sorry if it was. Oooh, I think that's the program I heard about. Free for 4 GB and less. Sweet. -- "I used to command a battalion of German ants." --Tom /\___/\ Phil./Ant @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site) / /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net | |o o| | \ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link. ( ) If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed. Ant is/was listening to a song on this computer: Meco - Empire Medley |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Using my extra RAM for other things in an old, updated 32-bitXP Pro. SP3.
Ant wrote:
On 1/15/2011 3:19 PM PT, Patok typed: A couple days ago, I upgraded my old 32-bit Windows XP Pro. SP3 (IE6) system/computer/system to an Intel i7 with 6 GB of RAM. I know that 32-bit operating systems/OS' cannot see all that RAM due to old software designs' limitations. Currently, my working Windows only sees about 2.5 GB of physical RAM (shouldn't it be 3 GB though?). I heard that I can use the unused memory for other things like a RAM drive for swap files, %temp%, etc. How do I do that? And yes, I will get 64-bit W7 or another OS one day. At this time, I am not going to do that since XP Pro. SP3 does fine for what I need. Thank you in advance. I quite accidentally came across the Ramdisk product: http://memory.dataram.com/products-a...tware/ramdisk? which does exactly what you want, as long as your motherboard has Physical Address Extensions enabled. If it does, you can have a nice 2GB ramdisk for free. I didn't read this thread carefully, so I don't know if this product was mentioned, or not. Sorry if it was. Oooh, I think that's the program I heard about. Free for 4 GB and less. Sweet. I'm testing it now, and I can't believe what it's doing :-) I never thought I'd see WinXP SP3 x32, access memory above 4GB. But that's what they've managed to do, and claim to be doing it via PAE. Pretty amazing. I'm using mine as a Page File, as a test :-) It also passed my HDTune test case. The last time I evaluated the program, it crashed in the first 30 seconds, as the first thing I tried on it was HDTune benchmark. The following is collected while the software is using 2GB above the 4GB mark with WinXP x32. So now it passes my test case. You'll notice, there is a slight difference in performance, between the first 1GB and second 1GB of the Ramdisk. http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/8...am2gbabove.gif I installed 6GB RAM, and in theory, WinXP x32 can't see the RAM above the 4GB mark. But that Ramdisk is now running on the 2GB above the 4GB mark. I figured for sure, it would crash or error out, or not allow it. Paul |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Using my extra RAM for other things in an old, updated 32-bitXP Pro. SP3.
On 1/16/2011 11:35 AM PT, Paul typed:
I quite accidentally came across the Ramdisk product: http://memory.dataram.com/products-a...tware/ramdisk? which does exactly what you want, as long as your motherboard has Physical Address Extensions enabled. If it does, you can have a nice 2GB ramdisk for free. I didn't read this thread carefully, so I don't know if this product was mentioned, or not. Sorry if it was. Oooh, I think that's the program I heard about. Free for 4 GB and less. Sweet. I'm testing it now, and I can't believe what it's doing :-) I never thought I'd see WinXP SP3 x32, access memory above 4GB. But that's what they've managed to do, and claim to be doing it via PAE. Pretty amazing. I'm using mine as a Page File, as a test :-) It also passed my HDTune test case. The last time I evaluated the program, it crashed in the first 30 seconds, as the first thing I tried on it was HDTune benchmark. The following is collected while the software is using 2GB above the 4GB mark with WinXP x32. So now it passes my test case. You'll notice, there is a slight difference in performance, between the first 1GB and second 1GB of the Ramdisk. http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/8...am2gbabove.gif I installed 6GB RAM, and in theory, WinXP x32 can't see the RAM above the 4GB mark. But that Ramdisk is now running on the 2GB above the 4GB mark. I figured for sure, it would crash or error out, or not allow it. Nice. I haven't tried it yet. I am not sure when. Way too busy now. -- "Since the world began, we have never exterminated. We probably shall never exterminate as much as one single insect species. If there was ever an example of an insect we cannot destroy, the fire ant is it." --an entomologist quote mentioned by Leonard Nimoy on In The Search Of: Deadly Ants (1978) /\___/\ Phil./Ant @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site) / /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net | |o o| | \ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link. ( ) If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed. Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Using my extra RAM for other things in an old, updated 32-bitXP Pro. SP3.
Paul wrote:
Ant wrote: On 1/15/2011 3:19 PM PT, Patok typed: I quite accidentally came across the Ramdisk product: http://memory.dataram.com/products-a...tware/ramdisk? which does exactly what you want, as long as your motherboard has Physical Address Extensions enabled. If it does, you can have a nice 2GB ramdisk for free. I didn't read this thread carefully, so I don't know if this product was mentioned, or not. Sorry if it was. Oooh, I think that's the program I heard about. Free for 4 GB and less. Sweet. I'm testing it now, and I can't believe what it's doing :-) I never thought I'd see WinXP SP3 x32, access memory above 4GB. But that's what they've managed to do, and claim to be doing it via PAE. Pretty amazing. I'm using mine as a Page File, as a test :-) This is actually the most sensible usage for the Ramdisk in XP32, come to think of it. That way, you effectively use the entire memory for... memory! Heh. Please report back if there are any problems with such usage. From the description of how Ramdisk works (in the PDF manual), it should be fine, but who knows. -- You'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone. -- Whoever bans a book, shall be banished. Whoever burns a book, shall burn. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Using my extra RAM for other things in an old, updated 32-bit XP Pro. SP3.
On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 16:35:27 -0500, Patok
wrote: Paul wrote: I'm using mine as a Page File, as a test :-) This is actually the most sensible usage for the Ramdisk in XP32, come to think of it. That way, you effectively use the entire memory for... memory! Heh. Please report back if there are any problems with such usage. From the description of how Ramdisk works (in the PDF manual), it should be fine, but who knows. Actually, it makes no sense to use a RAM disk as a page file. Using RAM as a page file takes RAM away from Windows use. Windows having less RAM means that it will use the page file more. So you take the RAM away from RAM with one hand and give it back with the other. It's like borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. You achieve nothing, but you incur the extra overhead of the RAM disk. -- Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003 Please Reply to the Newsgroup |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Using my extra RAM for other things in an old, updated 32-bitXP Pro. SP3.
Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 16:35:27 -0500, Patok wrote: Paul wrote: I'm using mine as a Page File, as a test :-) This is actually the most sensible usage for the Ramdisk in XP32, come to think of it. That way, you effectively use the entire memory for... memory! Heh. Please report back if there are any problems with such usage. From the description of how Ramdisk works (in the PDF manual), it should be fine, but who knows. Actually, it makes no sense to use a RAM disk as a page file. Using RAM as a page file takes RAM away from Windows use. Windows having less RAM means that it will use the page file more. So you take the RAM away from RAM with one hand and give it back with the other. It's like borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. You achieve nothing, but you incur the extra overhead of the RAM disk. Actually, you didn't read carefully enough. We're talking about using the memory above 4GB for a ram disk, on a XP32 system that can't normally access memory above 4GB. That way, we effectively increase the XP memory to whatever memory the machine actually has. You would have a point for XP64, or for a machine with less than 4GB total memory, but we're not talking about that. -- You'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone. -- Whoever bans a book, shall be banished. Whoever burns a book, shall burn. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Using my extra RAM for other things in an old, updated 32-bitXP Pro. SP3.
Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 16:35:27 -0500, Patok wrote: Paul wrote: I'm using mine as a Page File, as a test :-) This is actually the most sensible usage for the Ramdisk in XP32, come to think of it. That way, you effectively use the entire memory for... memory! Heh. Please report back if there are any problems with such usage. From the description of how Ramdisk works (in the PDF manual), it should be fine, but who knows. Actually, it makes no sense to use a RAM disk as a page file. Using RAM as a page file takes RAM away from Windows use. Windows having less RAM means that it will use the page file more. So you take the RAM away from RAM with one hand and give it back with the other. It's like borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. You achieve nothing, but you incur the extra overhead of the RAM disk. Ken, if I'd loaded the ramdisk, with memory from below 4GB, it would be dumb. But this is memory, which according to accepted rules, can't be accessed. The developer of that program, figured out how to do it (somehow). So to take advantage of 2GB of RAM which normally would not be functional at all in WinXP, using that Ramdisk program makes more of the 6GB usable (one way or another). It means the 2GB in no-mans-land, is now adding to the page file. This is a guess as to how my system is set up. There is 6GB of RAM installed, and the Memory Remap feature in the BIOS, lifts the fourth gigabyte of RAM, above the 4GB mark. That splits the RAM into two 3GB chunks, with a 1GB space for hardware in between. Total address range is 7GB, 6GB for RAM, 1GB for hardware. X \ X \__ Ramdisk using memory up here. 2GB of 3GB available up here, is usable. X / X I/O space for video and system busses X \ X \___ WinXP SP3 x32, normally reports "3071MB free" X / This is the conventional memory For some reason, the Ramdisk program thinks that only 2GB is available above the 4GB mark, so I have to go back into the BIOS in a moment and verify again that I have remapping turned on. I plan to run my other benchmark case, which is to try to run 16 copies of SuperPI 1.5 running 32M, and see whether WinXP continues to crash out the programs or not. I was having problems with that in some testing a couple days ago. Now that I have a decent pagefile, I'll have a chance to re-test. Win2K was passing my test case, and WinXP was failing, and now that I have a better page file, it'll be interesting to see if that helps or not. ******* Oh, another thing. My first dumb move with the new setup, was to select "hibernate" when I shut down a few hours ago, to go out for some exercise. When I came back, the system fell on its face because the new pagefile was gone :-) It came back up on the second try. Paul |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|