|
Windows XP and 4GB RAM
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
23 product reviews
|
6. January 2008 @ 20:11 |
Link to this message
|
|
I used to have a Celeron D 2.93GHz and 1GB RAM which was recently upgraded to a Core2Quad 2.4GHz and 4GB RAM. The XP install was transfered over. I would like to know how to make my 32bit version of XP show the 4GB RAM in My Computer -> Properties instead of 3.25. I know this is possible with a /PAE command or something in the boot.ini file. I just have not been able to get it to work. How would I do this?
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
|
12. January 2008 @ 15:23 |
Link to this message
|
|
the space between 3.5 and 4GB is reserved for PCI addresses
1) Access cmd: Click on the Start type cmd in the Search Bar > and press Ctrl + Shift + Enter (this allows you to run cmd in administrative mode)
2) Type BCDEdit /set PAE forceenable
?BCDEdit is a boot configuration editor for the command line. Using the above command youâ??ve just enabled Physical Address Extension (PAE) which can address memory larger than 4 GB.
I think XP Pro only supports 4G, a self-imposed limitation put in my MS to make you buy Server if you want to use more memory, and apparently some memory just below 4G is reserved for PCI devices so you might only see 3G available. According to DriverGuru booting with /PAE will allow that memory to be seen but it won't help XP Pro support more than 4G phsysical memory.
|
|
adamryer
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
12. January 2008 @ 15:59 |
Link to this message
|
|
Its only showing 3.25Gb of memory because that is the max that a 32bit OS allows. The rest is reserved by the operating system. Upgrade to a 64 bit OS to utilize all your memory.
ASRock 890GX PRO 3, AMD Phenom II X2 555 BE, 8GB GSkill Sniper DDR3 1333,
Main HDD: WD Raptor 74GB 10,000rpm, Storage HDD: 1TB WD Caviar Black,
Lite-On iHAS124-04 --> LT Burner Max FW,
Samsung BX2331 23" LED Widescreen LCD,
Xbox 360 Premium 20GB --> Hitachi v0078fk --> LT+2.0
|
Junior Member
|
12. January 2008 @ 16:11 |
Link to this message
|
|
I don't recomend upgradeing to 64 bit OS just yet there is alot of compatibility issues
Operating systems such as Windows Vista x64 Edition are not automatically faster than their 32-bit counterparts. In some cases, they may even perform slower because of the larger pointers as well unrelated OS overhead. Overall, an application?s performance depends on what it is used for and how it is implemented. Emulated applications running within the Windows on Windows 64 layer will not be able to address any more memory than they could on a 32-bit system.
Drivers supported by Windows Vista x64 Edition will not necessarily be supported by the 64-bit edition of Windows XP. National Instruments will support Windows Vista x64 Edition with driver releases and software updates, but there are no plans for NI to support Windows XP x64 Edition
|
Junior Member
|
12. January 2008 @ 16:19 |
Link to this message
|
|
I belive I just said that "the space between 3.5 and 4GB is reserved for PCI addresses" it can also be less if you have more video ram
|
AfterDawn Addict
23 product reviews
|
12. January 2008 @ 18:34 |
Link to this message
|
|
What I did was I went back to 3GB in the XP computer and put the extra 1GB into my dad's PC so he now has 2GB. I really don't want to upgrade to 64bit OS because of drivers and compatibility issues (i saw problems with Vista x64 which is preventing me from going to XP x64.) I don't even think they still sell XP x64.
|
|
adamryer
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
13. January 2008 @ 15:06 |
Link to this message
|
yeah they still sell it. Im thinking of using it in my next build. I wanna try it out to see if it is faster then 32bit windows for the tasks that I perform. If it is not faster or if I have too many problems with it I will probably just install regular xp pro then. I know one program that I use is not compatible, itunes. But, I found a patch that makes it work properly.
ASRock 890GX PRO 3, AMD Phenom II X2 555 BE, 8GB GSkill Sniper DDR3 1333,
Main HDD: WD Raptor 74GB 10,000rpm, Storage HDD: 1TB WD Caviar Black,
Lite-On iHAS124-04 --> LT Burner Max FW,
Samsung BX2331 23" LED Widescreen LCD,
Xbox 360 Premium 20GB --> Hitachi v0078fk --> LT+2.0
|
|
Mordaunt
Junior Member
|
9. February 2008 @ 04:44 |
Link to this message
|
I just built a system from the groundfloor and installed xp x64 on it. I'm typing this on it. I also own a laptop that I purchased with vista home premium x32 installed.
I wanted to build a 64-bit system so I did the research. It's arguable. There are good reasons to go with vista x64 and good reasons to go with xp x64. It depends on your style and your tolerance for abuse. I finally decided to go with xp because xp is based on Server 2003, which is probably the most stable platform MS has ever produced.
You might put it something like this: do you want a shakey 64-bit DRM Nazi with better out-of-the-box driver support, or do you want a stable system that requires you to forage about a bit?
For instance. This xp x64 system I just built is based on an Asus M3A 770 socket AM2 motherboard using an MSI graphics card based on the NVidia 8500GT chip. Xp comes up with a god-awful generic vga driver. But when I put in the MSI driver cdrom and clicked to install the video drivers, it did absolutely nothing. Not a damn thing. I believe this is how the Chinese tell you that the driver is not appropriate for your platform. If I were running Vista x64, it probably would have installed like butter.
Well, I went out to the NVidia site, went through the dialog, downloaded an 8500GT driver specifically for xp x64 and installed it. Now I have a very nice NVidia console and a screaming video card.
The Asus M3A has onboard 8-channel Realtek audio. I installed the Realtek driver from the Asus CD and got, again, nothing. Alrightee then. I went out to Realtek's site and downloaded a driver for xp x64 that's about 6 days old. Installed it and I'm 8-channel all day, baby.
The last hurdle I have is getting a dvd video codec. Vista, being the DRM Nazi, has the codecs built-in. I just downloaded a 30-day trial of a codec put out by NVidia. I think NVidia probably knows how to build a video codec for their cards, plus it's only 20-bucks, and I feel warm toward NVidia for all the nice free drivers they've supplied the Linux community.
Now to the CHASE: how does it work? This MB will run memory clocked to 1066. I'm running 2 2gb sticks of OCZ DDR2 800, clocked at 800mhz.
This thing boots faster than any computer I've ever owned and appears to be rock solid. It's so fast, it's ANTICIPATORY. I'm happier than a pig in Vista.
64-bit, baby. Rocket Man.
m
|
AfterDawn Addict
23 product reviews
|
10. February 2008 @ 16:53 |
Link to this message
|
|
I thought about switching over to 64 bit windows but am holding back from that because I do not want to have to reformat my computer. This is exactly why I switched my windows install from my old celeron to the quad. I have so many programs and configurations on this computer that reformatting and restoring it all would take nearly a week of nonstop work.
|
Member
|
17. August 2008 @ 09:17 |
Link to this message
|
Wow so is Vista x64 slower then xp X64? because im on xp 32 at the moment and i have 4gbs of ram, i would love to unleash the rest of my memory lol.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
23 product reviews
|
17. August 2008 @ 12:32 |
Link to this message
|
|
Vista x64 isn't that stable yet especially with a Nvidia video card.
To answer your question, Vista anything is slower than XP anything.
|
