Windows XP Memory question..

[Spivonious]

32-bit allows for addressing 4GB of memory. Since Windows can directly access the video card memory (look at the DirectX API), that means only 3GB will show up in system properties. But don't worry! The 4GB is there and can be used. It just doesn't show up in the properties. You just can't use it all at once, since it wouldn't know how to address it.

See Guyver's post for how Windows XP uses the memory.

IMO, anything over 2GB on XP is a waste, unless you actually have an application that will greatly benefit from the extra memory.

[Guyver1]

a few games can crash as they can go over the 2Gb allocation, I guess some really heavy 3D work in Miya etc could also try to access more than 2Gb.

One of the tweaking sites did an experiement with a few applications about a year back seeing which ones try to allocate more than 2GB, a few games did and as soon as they try to access more than 2Gb they would crash.

The /3GB switch is useful if your a heavy gamer or 3D modeller (the applications themselves must have the LARGEBLOCKADDRESS switch enabled to make use of the /3GB switch)

[Spivonious]

Yeah I remember Anandtech did a piece about Supreme Commander and how it uses all the RAM it can get, but you had to play on an enormous map with lots of units and for a long time before it went over the limit.



Of course, the easy way out of this problem is to upgrade to a 64-bit OS. I'm running Vista 64 with no problems and my friend has XP 64 running with no problems.

[Guyver1]

64 bit driver support = BAD!

especially on XP.

[Guyver1]

and not really relevant when the apps themselves are not 64bit and are simply running in 32bit mode, which negates the extra RAM anyway :/

[GWARGHOUL]

Yep... its a shame that all x64 processors are capable of running in x386 mode but the applications that they run are not capable of flexing either way.

[Spivonious]

64 bit driver support = BAD!

I would have agreed with you a few years ago, but it's rare to find a device made within the past 2-3 years that doesn't have a 64-bit driver these days.

When I tried out Beta 2 of Vista 64 I had lots of trouble getting drivers and apps to work on it. But ever since RTM I've had no problems (except with my X-Fi, but it's always had basic playback at least).

I wish more apps were available in 64-bit, but a lot of apps wouldn't take advantage of it anyway. IE7, WMP, and Halflife 2 are the only 64-bit apps I have.

It would get rid of the memory problems though, since the OS itself is 64-bit. I believe the OS is still given 2GB but the rest is available for apps to use.

[Soap]

Yep... its a shame that all x64 processors are capable of running in x386 mode but the applications that they run are not capable of flexing either way.

True and its called microsoft monopoly.

[hippietim]

True and its called microsoft monopoly.

What does 32-bit vs. 64-bit have to do with that? You make absolutely no sense at all.

Windows has been available for 64-bit CPUs for many years on the MIPS, Itanium, Alpha, and x64. And they've all supported running 64-bit and 32-bit applications concurrently and fully integrated. How is that a bad thing in any way?

[hippietim]

and not really relevant when the apps themselves are not 64bit and are simply running in 32bit mode, which negates the extra RAM anyway :/

Not true at all. 32-bit apps running on 64-bit OSs still benefit from more RAM since they can be mapped to different portions of system memory and actually get to see more RAM for themselves than if they were running on a 32-bit OS.

Having said that, who the hell is running individual apps that require more than 2GB of RAM anyhow? Other than huge-scale video processing, poorly written web services, and a few other vertical software categories, most apps don't come anywhere near 2GB.

[GWARGHOUL]

Its the latest version of pong, dude.

[OnlineStageGear]

Having said that, who the hell is running individual apps that require more than 2GB of RAM anyhow? Other than huge-scale video processing, poorly written web services, and a few other vertical software categories, most apps don't come anywhere near 2GB.

True Dat. I have yet to see a machine come to me that has even come close to needing 4 gigs of Ram.

[GWARGHOUL]

You haven't seen the new Pong 12.4.

System minimum requirements are 4tb of hard drive space, 3 blu-ray (with read AND write capabilities... ya see it uses it as a ram disk also, because its such an intense program), 3GB of RAM, and a 1GB video card, and at least a 900 watt super power supply, and 9 fans and a room temperature of 75 degrees or less, or 4 liquid cooling systems.

[Guyver1]

Having said that, who the hell is running individual apps that require more than 2GB of RAM anyhow? Other than huge-scale video processing, poorly written web services, and a few other vertical software categories, most apps don't come anywhere near 2GB.

Games, high end games, alot come VERY close to 2GB and sometimes top it, the next gen of PC games will surpass the 2GB barrier easily.

and the only way to combat the 2GB crash barrier is to move to 64bit.

[Soap]

Games, high end games, alot come VERY close to 2GB and sometimes top it, the next gen of PC games will surpass the 2GB barrier easily.

and the only way to combat the 2GB crash barrier is to move to 64bit.

Yep.