beyond 4 gigs ram in xp ???

[eofeapr]

Hey kids


Hello to all it's been a while,,, hope you are all well.

I tried to search and cannot find any info regarding XP and the 4 gig memory limitation so I gotta ask,,,k, has there been any work around or fix to allow XP to address more than 4 gigs of memory come down the pike ????


thnx in advance
joe

 

[taltamir]

it is called 64bit.

there is a workaround, but aside from being an utter waste of money to develop for windows XP 32bit, it also means that certain type of bad drives would blue screen your computer. No way ms would break existing drivers for windows XP 32bit (an EOL operating system) to work around the NATURAL LIMITATION of ALL 32BIT operating systems (it is not a bug, it is a natural limitation of 32bit) to get it to address more then 4GB (Actually it addresses a little under, typically 3.5GB)

 

[Keitero]

XP 64bit will see more than 4GB of RAM without any issues, but that is the only version of XP that will see a full 4GBs or more of RAM. It's not a limitation of XP but with how any 32bit OS accesses the RAM and the limits of the PCI addressing.

 

[eofeapr]

thank you both for quick reply...

Will Vista be the move for me then ???

I own so many PC apps that it pains me to even think of going to MAC for higher ram but what can you do,, things just change and it par for the course...


thanks again

 

[Quiksilver]

Only the 64-bit versions...

So...

Vista Home Basic 64 bit
Vista Home Premium 64 bit
Vista Ultimate 64 bit
Vista Business 64 bit
XP Professional 64 bit
XP Home 64 bit

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: eofeapr
Will Vista be the move for me then ???

Yes, as long as it is 64 bit Vista as mentioned. IMO it is a lot better than 64 bit XP in terms of driver support.

 

[eofeapr]

Thank you very much guys

it's very reassuring to hear from you that the 64 bit version is ok
I had tried the trail way back when vista first came out and was not very enthusiastic about 64 nor 32 bit versions

gonna have to consider the move


have a good night
joe

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: Zap

Originally posted by: eofeapr
Will Vista be the move for me then ???

Yes, as long as it is 64 bit Vista as mentioned. IMO it is a lot better than 64 bit XP in terms of driver support.

I have seen plenty of vista 64bit drivers that don't support XP 64bit (and say they never will), I have yet to see a SINGLE XP64bit driver that does not support vista 64bit. (I saw one very VERY early on, but it immidiately added vista 64bit support).

So I will have to disagree about that conclusion.

Also vista64bit comes with the biggest driver library ever in an MS OS (like all their latest operating systems). So you have to look for much fewer drivers.

I managed to cobble together a guide on how to get an HP laptop with a 64bit CPU that does NOT support 64bit operating systems (instead of providing drivers they said, get our newer model). And only vista 64 does it. Because it only misses 5 drivers, versus over a dozen on XP 64bit that you have to hunt down.

Also.. don't even TOUCH a vista version that is not SP1. Or XP older then SP1, or 2000, or 98 that isn't SE... well you get the gist of it. Until the first SP the windows OS is a buggy piece of work.

 

[pallejr]

Originally posted by: Keitero
It's not a limitation of XP but with how any 32bit OS accesses the RAM and the limits of the PCI addressing.

I think this has been said many times before. If you can access more than 4GB with a 64bit OS, you can do the exact same thing with a 32bit OS - if the developer choose to support it.

The limitations with PCI addressing does NOT go away just because you install a 64bit OS.

 

[Keitero]

Originally posted by: pallejr

Originally posted by: Keitero
It's not a limitation of XP but with how any 32bit OS accesses the RAM and the limits of the PCI addressing.

I think this has been said many times before. If you can access more than 4GB with a 64bit OS, you can do the exact same thing with a 32bit OS - if the developer choose to support it.

The limitations with PCI addressing does NOT go away just because you install a 64bit OS.

True, but with a 64 bit CPU, you can address more memory than current motherboards support anyway.

 

[tcsenter]

Originally posted by: Keitero
It's not a limitation of XP but with how any 32bit OS accesses the RAM and the limits of the PCI addressing.

It is a limitation of 32-bit OS with a proven work-around that was developed nearly 15 years ago. If it isn't a limitation of XP, care to explain why select 32-bit server OS from Microsoft and 32-bit Linux support up to 64GB RAM?

For example, 32-bit Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition supports up to 64GB RAM via PAE, depending on the Service Pack and Release Version. Other editions of Windows Server 2003 support only a maximum of 2GB or 4GB, because that is the artificial cap that Microsoft imposed on the kernel of those editions, with or without PAE. And it just so happens that editions supporting more than 4GB RAM cost hugely more than those that don't.

It is totally an artificial limit in imposed on Windows XP, particularly since Microsoft is already utilizing the PAE kernel by default on contemporary hardware.

I have seen plenty of vista 64-bit drivers that don't support XP 64-bit (and say they never will), I have yet to see a SINGLE XP64-bit driver that does not support vista 64-bit. (I saw one very VERY early on, but it immidiately added vista 64bit support).

He isn't talking about using XP drivers on Vista or vice versa, but XP 64-bit driver support for XP 64-bit.

Of course XP drivers will install on Vista, Vista is "compatible" with the XP driver model. Compatible as opposed to designed for. Windows DDK/WDM are generally forward compatible with the next operating system, but not necessarily fully functioning. e.g. Windows 98SE/ME WDM drivers can often be used on Windows 2000. Windows 2000 drivers can often be used on Windows XP. XP drivers can often be used on 2003. So on and so forth.

But compatible is not the same as full-featured, designed for, or "supporting". Start Windows in Safe Mode, which is Microsoft's name for "compatibility mode". Everything works alright (i.e. its compatible), but...

 

[taltamir]

He isn't talking about using XP drivers on Vista or vice versa, but XP 64-bit driver support for XP 64-bit.

You think I don't know that? It has nothing to do with what I said... lemme paraphrase.

I have seen many drivers that support XP 64bit (2003 kernel) and vista 64bit...
I have seen many drivers that support Vista 64bit and do NOT and will not support XP 64bit.
I have seen exactly 1 drivers that support XP64bit and not Vista64bit, and it added support for vista 64bit mere months after its release (aka, a long time ago).

As such I recommend Vista 64bit over XP 64bit in terms of compatbility.


Also... all drivers have to be written to work properly with PAE... if microsoft disabled the so called "artificial limitation" they would end up invalidating a lot of existing drivers, requiring them to be remade. That is NOT acceptable regardless of how much the OS costs. Especially considering that any of microsofts inexpensive 64bit operating systems can address "17.2 billion gigabytes, 16.8 million terabytes, or 16 exabytes of RAM". So, no, it isn't to sell more copies of their server operating systems which could address a mere 64GB of ram in 32bit.

 

[Chronoshock]

Originally posted by: taltamir

He isn't talking about using XP drivers on Vista or vice versa, but XP 64-bit driver support for XP 64-bit.

You think I don't know that? It has nothing to do with what I said... lemme paraphrase.

I have seen many drivers that support XP 64bit (2003 kernel) and vista 64bit...
I have seen many drivers that support Vista 64bit and do NOT and will not support XP 64bit.
I have seen exactly 1 drivers that support XP64bit and not Vista64bit, and it added support for vista 64bit mere months after its release (aka, a long time ago).

As such I recommend Vista 64bit over XP 64bit in terms of compatbility.


Also... all drivers have to be written to work properly with PAE... if microsoft disabled the so called "artificial limitation" they would end up invalidating a lot of existing drivers, requiring them to be remade. That is NOT acceptable regardless of how much the OS costs. Especially considering that any of microsofts inexpensive 64bit operating systems can address "17.2 billion gigabytes, 16.8 million terabytes, or 16 exabytes of RAM". So, no, it isn't to sell more copies of their server operating systems which could address a mere 64GB of ram in 32bit.

I'm very happy with my switch over to Vista x64, that being said I should point out a couple of things which didn't work properly. The first is sandboxie, an excellent sandboxing tool. It doesn't work specifically with Vista x64 due to PatchGuard (a feature added into XP x64, but it can be removed, whereas it's permanently in Vista). My only alternative is to use a more heavyweight VM.
Another thing that didn't work are the drivers for a PS/PS2 game controller to USB adapter. The EMS USB 2 adapter has drivers for XP x64 but not Vista x64 due to the small size of the development team (it's like 2 guys in China) and difficulty getting the driver signed. As a consequence I had to buy a new game controller.
Older versions of Alcohol Tools were unsupported by x64 (installation errored out), but they have since released an updated version.

Things are certainly a fair bit better than they were around release, but incompatibilities are still present (although uncommon).

 

[tcsenter]

Originally posted by: taltamir
You think I don't know that? It has nothing to do with what I said...

Actually, the point is that what you said had nothing to do with anything said by the person to whom you were responding (Zap).

He recommended Vista 64-bit over XP 64-bit for driver support reasons, and you disagreed with "that conclusion". Now you are saying that you were actually recommending Vista 64-bit over XP 64-bit for driver support reasons, when you were disagreeing with Zap's recommendation of Vista 64-bit over XP 64-bit for driver support reasons?

Are you f-cking high?

"Lemme paraphrase..."

Are you f-cking on drugs?

I have seen many drivers that support XP 64bit (2003 kernel) and vista 64bit...

Of course, for the reasons I stated. They install and run for the same reason that Windows 2000 drivers can be installed on Windows XP. Hell, even many Windows 98 WDM drivers can be installed and will function on Windows XP. That doesn't mean Windows 98 WDM drivers "support" Windows XP. It is the opposite, Windows XP can support those drivers.

I have yet to see a SINGLE XP64bit driver that does not support vista 64bit. (I saw one very VERY early on, but it immidiately added vista 64bit support).

Then you have extremely limited experience with or exposure to the spectrum of mainstream hardware. Among the numerous devices that maintain different function, class, or filter driver binaries and/or implementations for XP 64-bit and Vista 64-bit include (but certainly not limited to):

Intel Wired LAN
Intel Wireless LAN
NVIDIA chipsets*
ATI chipsets*
Realtek Audio
Realtek LAN

* = with some exceptions such as ACPI BIOS and SMBus devices

Need I go on? Common driver binaries and/or implementations covering both XP 64-bit and Vista 64-bit are in fact the exception, not the rule. Storage drivers are particularly unlikely, since most developers have begun using the Storport model in Vista but continue using the older SCSIport model for their XP 64-bit drivers. I excluded graphics hardware for the obvious reason (WDDM is unique to Vista).

Also... all drivers have to be written to work properly with PAE... if microsoft disabled the so called "artificial limitation" they would end up invalidating a lot of existing drivers, requiring them to be remade. That is NOT acceptable regardless of how much the OS costs.

So its perfectly acceptable for drivers to break a $5000 server system that might cost a company tens of thousands of dollars in downtime or data loss, but completely unacceptable for drivers to break a $500 home PC that might prevent someone from playing Mine Sweeper? Ooo-Kay!

If this dreaded problem were so, umm, dreaded, Microsoft would have "protected" those with the most to lose from encountering it - enterprise segments. Yet it did the exact opposite. The bottom line is, Microsoft is perfectly willing to expose you to this awful compatibility risk - for a hefty premium.

Especially considering that any of microsofts inexpensive 64bit operating systems can address "17.2 billion gigabytes, 16.8 million terabytes, or 16 exabytes of RAM". So, no, it isn't to sell more copies of their server operating systems which could address a mere 64GB of ram in 32bit.

Compatibility and hardware upgrade costs determine why someone would select 32-bit server OS with PAE over native 64-bit, not memory limits.

BTW, the most that any current Microsoft 64-bit Server SKU will support is 2TB. Microsoft only supports configurations it can actually test.

Next I suppose you're going to tell us that memory support for these SKUs are artificially capped for honest-to-goodness technical reasons rather than marketing ones?

- 32-bit Windows XP Starter Edition = 512MB
- 32-bit Server 2003 and Server 2008 Standard Edition = 4GB
- 64-bit Server 2008 Standard Edition = 32GB

We're all stocked up on bullsh-it here, thank you. Try selling that crap down the hall, last door on the left.

 

[pallejr]

Originally posted by: taltamir
Also... all drivers have to be written to work properly with PAE

If the driver is written "correctly", according to the guidelines, it will work on all systems. All hardware specific addressing should be taken care of by Windows.

 

[taltamir]

either he edited his post, or i misread it as him recommending 64XP over 64 vista...
which you seem very judgmental about considering you managed to do the same thing to my post the first time around. People can mix up what they read without being on crack, I assure you. (you should know, you did the same)

Then you have extremely limited experience with or exposure to the spectrum of mainstream hardware. Among the numerous devices that maintain different function, class, or filter driver binaries and/or implementations for XP 64-bit and Vista 64-bit include (but certainly not limited to):

1. it doesn't have to be the same driver, it can be a separate driver for the same device. Don't split hairs here...

2. Don't conveniently ignore the vice versa situation: tons of DEVICES have drivers that are 64bit vista but NOT 64bit XP (I even renamed it from drivers to devices having drivers because you somehow imagine there being any point to them being a "unified" driver. Rather then me talking about driver support being available for a piece of hardware).

3. EVERY SINGLE ONE of the drivers you listed HAS a vista64bit driver. So you are utterly wrong about that.

So its perfectly acceptable for drivers to break a $5000 server system that might cost a company tens of thousands of dollars in downtime or data loss, but completely unacceptable for drivers to break a $500 home PC that might prevent someone from playing Mine Sweeper? Ooo-Kay!

Those type of business QUALIFY hardware, they aren't gonna call MS tech support and complain, they are gonna buy hardware with drivers that work with PAE to begin with, thats the full time job of their IT DEPARTMENTS (aka, multiple people)