That's where I get most confused, Chuck. I read with great delight about
Windows' ability to access beyond the first 2GB via your Microsoft MSDN link
but I keep getting folks over here telling me no, Windows only reads 2GB and
nothing more. The thing is you mentioned about modifying the boot.ini file
so that Windows can and will identify GB #3 and #4 and then assign them to
applications. That would be good but what does one write to modify this
file? Secondly with computers these days using unified or shared memory
architecture (with graphics adaptor), would GB #3 and #4 be assigned instead
to such devices to use so that the first 2GB can be left to the operating
system. I'm confused as you can see.
K.
2009/8/15 Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> If the hardware is capable of addressing more than 4GB via bank
> switching or direct 64 bit addressing, some suitable software should be
> able to use the upper memory without interfering with Windows claims on
> the lower 4GB... assuming that Windows agrees to let it.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
> Mike Lazzari wrote:
> >> Yes, XP only addressable to 2GB, as I memtioned below I have assigned
> 2.5GB
> >>> as RAMDISK with Vsuite Ramdisk, the software can access to the hidden
> >>> memory.
> > I've thought about setting up a RAMdisk as I had on my old 8086 but
> > don't see much benefit. In that box I had a big RAMdisk card full of
> > memory which originally cost over $2k. Maybe I'm wrong about the current
> > systems and should try a RAMdisk.
> >
> > First of all I thought that windows32bit could address something like
> > 3.2gb? At least that's what my computer reports depending on switches
> > set in boot.ini. I believe it reserves some of that memory for its own
> > use, e.g. addressing the video. Maybe that's where you get the +/-2gb
> > _usable_ memory. In any event the memory between the usable amount and
> > the addressable 3.2gb would not be available for a RAMdisk. Or at least
> > it would be counter productive as it reduces the usable amount addressed
> > directly by windows for apps. Perhaps it would be beneficial if you had
> > more that 4gb installed on a 32bit system.
> >
> > Secondly, How does windows address the RAMdisk? I assumed that it would
> > have to page it in/out in blocks using available memory? If so this
> > would increase the memory windows reserves and further reducing direct
> > access memory used for apps. Also this paging would be a bottleneck
> > slowing the RAMdisk memory. True, still much faster than a swap to hard
> > disk but wouldn't it be faster to just let windows use the memory and
> > paging block for apps? It seems to me that with 4gb of RAM on a 32bit
> > system a RAMdisk would have to be smaller than 1gb and that seems hardly
> > worthwhile. But my presumptions may easily be way out of date.
> >
> > Mike
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>
--
Khen Lim - Zone-10 LLC, Des Moines, Iowa, USA
"To sin by silence when we should protest makes cowards of people” - Emily
Cox
"All our dreams can come true, if we have the courage to pursue them" - Walt
Disney
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|