Windows 7 32-bit with full 4 GB or 8 GB RAM support

Discussion in 'alt.windows7.general' started by Tester, Jul 6, 2011.

  1. Tester

    Tester Guest

    Get your daily fix from here:

    <http://www.unawave.de/windows-7-tipps/32-bit-ram-barrier.html?lang=EN>

    Now no more blaming Microshit for not giving full 4 GB Ram on your 32
    bit windows 7!

    Get your penile dysfunction corrected as well at the same link.
     
    Tester, Jul 6, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Beware! Was: Windows 7 32-bit with full 4 GB or 8 GB RAM support

    On 07/06/11 12:53 am, Tester wrote:

    > Get your daily fix from here:
    >
    > <http://www.unawave.de/windows-7-tipps/32-bit-ram-barrier.html?lang=EN>


    I see many reports that the ntkrlICE.exe file is a virus.

    Perce
     
    Percival P. Cassidy, Jul 6, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Tester

    SC Tom Guest

    Re: Beware! Was: Windows 7 32-bit with full 4 GB or 8 GB RAM support

    "Percival P. Cassidy" <> wrote in message
    news:iv1in8$1d0$...
    > On 07/06/11 12:53 am, Tester wrote:
    >
    >> Get your daily fix from here:
    >>
    >> <http://www.unawave.de/windows-7-tipps/32-bit-ram-barrier.html?lang=EN>

    >
    > I see many reports that the ntkrlICE.exe file is a virus.
    >
    > Perce


    A year or so ago, I downloaded and installed this kernel patch/replacement.
    Although Zone Alarm marked it as a virus, I was never able to confirm or
    deny that it truly is. Once installed, I ran a full system scan with ZA,
    SuperAntiSpyware, MalwareBytes, and another AV program from a protected USB
    pen drive (I don't recall which one it was), and Sophos Anti-Rootkit. None
    of them found anything, not even ZA which had marked the compressed file as
    dangerous.
    I have since uninstalled it since I don't run anything heavy enough to
    require all of the RAM that I have installed. The only problem I saw with it
    was the inability to get into Safe Mode if I had to without jumping through
    a lot of hoops.
    --
    SC Tom
     
    SC Tom, Jul 6, 2011
    #3
  4. Tester

    Yousuf Khan Guest

    Re: Beware! Was: Windows 7 32-bit with full 4 GB or 8 GB RAM support

    On 06/07/2011 7:59 AM, Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
    > On 07/06/11 12:53 am, Tester wrote:
    >
    >> Get your daily fix from here:
    >>
    >> <http://www.unawave.de/windows-7-tipps/32-bit-ram-barrier.html?lang=EN>

    >
    > I see many reports that the ntkrlICE.exe file is a virus.
    >
    > Perce


    A lot of programs like registration key generators are usually
    classified as malware by most virus programs. They typically don't want
    you getting something for nothing.

    Yousuf Khan
     
    Yousuf Khan, Jul 6, 2011
    #4
  5. Tester

    Yousuf Khan Guest

    On 06/07/2011 12:53 AM, Tester wrote:
    >
    > Get your daily fix from here:
    >
    > <http://www.unawave.de/windows-7-tipps/32-bit-ram-barrier.html?lang=EN>
    >
    > Now no more blaming Microshit for not giving full 4 GB Ram on your 32
    > bit windows 7!
    >
    > Get your penile dysfunction corrected as well at the same link.


    When Intel introduced the 32-bit x86 mode, many people noticed that the
    actual memory limit went way beyond 32-bit, it was actually more like
    46-bit (or 64 TB). This was a result of using the segment-based memory
    management mechanism. Using segments a 16-bit processor like the
    original 8086 was able to address 1 MB of memory instead of just 64 KB,
    which is the norm for a 16-bit processor, making it an effective 20-bit
    address space. And then Intel later modified the segment mechanism with
    the still 16-bit 286 processor, but the segment mechanism allowed that
    to address all of the way upto 1 GB of memory making it an effective
    30-bit processor (although it was physically limited to only 24-bits or
    16 MB).

    Using segments, each 32-bit program could be put into its own private 4
    GB address space, and each program wouldn't know that there are other
    programs also assigned 4 GB of space. Each segment adds an effective
    14-bits to the overall address space. And the programs themselves could
    go beyond the 4 GB limit if they were segment-aware and they could
    request additional 4 GB segments of their own. However, this segment
    based memory addressing was incompatible with Unix programs which were
    designed to run on multiple architectures (including x86), this would've
    meant putting in special code when porting to x86 Unixes to make the
    programs segment-aware. So they never bothered with this memory model,
    and instead most operating systems just simplified everything by putting
    everything into the same single 4 GB segment, and ignoring all
    references to segments. Windows adopted this model too for the majority
    of applications, they call it the "flat address space" model. However,
    some enterprise applications that require as much memory as is possible,
    like the Oracle database have made itself segment-aware and can use the
    multiple segments in a 32-bit environment.

    When AMD introduced the 64-bit version of x86, they finally acknowledged
    the lack of use that the segment model gets and completely dropped it
    from the 64-bit mode. Everything in 64-bit mode is fully flat, and there
    is no remaining option to sneakily use segments to address more memory.
    The segment registers are still there in 64-bit mode, but they are
    vestigial and they point to exactly the same starting point in memory;
    there is no option to set them to different locations like there used to be.

    Yousuf Khan
     
    Yousuf Khan, Jul 6, 2011
    #5
  6. Tester

    kdogs Guest

    Tester wrote on 07/06/2011 00:53 ET
    > Get your daily fix from here
    >
    > <http://www.unawave.de/windows-7-tipps/32-bit-ram-barrier.html?lang=EN
    >
    > Now no more blaming Microshit for not giving full 4 GB Ram on your 3
    > bit windows 7
    >
    > Get your penile dysfunction corrected as well at the same link
    >

    Any OS has two types 84x bit (32 is what most people know it buy) and 64x bi
    there is no way to use over 4 GB of ram in a 84x bit O
    also if you have video memory it takes it out of the total ra
    e.g. 512mb graphics and 4GB ram = 3.5GB of usable ra
    so if you have over at total of 4GB of ram you should be using a 64x bit O
    64x Bit OS can be different amounts depending on the type of O
    for windows 7 it is home basic: 8GB, home premium: 16GB, professional: 24GB
    an
    enterprise/ultimate: 128+GB
     
    kdogs, Jul 13, 2011
    #6
  7. In message <>, kdogs
    <> writes:
    []
    also if you have video memory it takes it out of the total ram
    e.g. 512mb graphics and 4GB ram = 3.5GB of usable ram

    []
    Only if you have a "shared graphics RAM" system. If you have a graphics
    card with its own on-board RAM, then it isn't taken out of the main RAM.

    If you have a desktop system where the motherboard has integrated
    graphics, it is likely to use shared RAM. (Mobos with on-board graphics
    that actually had its own memory have existed, though I don't think
    there are any these days.) Laptops can use shared RAM or have an
    independent "graphics card", though it might not be a physically
    separate card.

    The main disadvantage of shared graphics RAM is not so much that it
    takes some of the main RAM, but that it adversely affects the speed of
    the system, since the graphics accesses are over the same buses. Only
    relevant if you're doing high-performance things; shared-graphics
    systems are in general cheaper, and fine for most run-of-the-mill work.
    --
    J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

    If mankind minus one were of one opinion, then mankind is no more justified in
    silencing the one than the one - if he had the power - would be justified in
    silencing mankind. -John Stuart Mill, philosopher and economist (1806-1873)
     
    J. P. Gilliver (John), Jul 13, 2011
    #7
  8. Tester

    Tim Slattery Guest

    "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <> wrote:

    >In message <>, kdogs
    ><> writes:
    >[]
    > also if you have video memory it takes it out of the total ram
    > e.g. 512mb graphics and 4GB ram = 3.5GB of usable ram
    >
    >[]
    >Only if you have a "shared graphics RAM" system. If you have a graphics
    >card with its own on-board RAM, then it isn't taken out of the main RAM.


    Not exactly. A 32-bit system can address 4GB of memory, regardless of
    where that memory physically resides. If your video board contains
    ..5GB of memory, then you'll only be able to access 3.5GB of your
    system RAM (minus address space needed to access your BIOS and a few
    other things).

    see http://members.cox.net/slatteryt/RAM.html

    --
    Tim Slattery

    http://members.cox.net/slatteryt
     
    Tim Slattery, Jul 14, 2011
    #8
  9. Tester

    Paul Guest

    Tim Slattery wrote:
    > "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <> wrote:
    >
    >> In message <>, kdogs
    >> <> writes:
    >> []
    >> also if you have video memory it takes it out of the total ram
    >> e.g. 512mb graphics and 4GB ram = 3.5GB of usable ram
    >>
    >> []
    >> Only if you have a "shared graphics RAM" system. If you have a graphics
    >> card with its own on-board RAM, then it isn't taken out of the main RAM.

    >
    > Not exactly. A 32-bit system can address 4GB of memory, regardless of
    > where that memory physically resides. If your video board contains
    > .5GB of memory, then you'll only be able to access 3.5GB of your
    > system RAM (minus address space needed to access your BIOS and a few
    > other things).
    >
    > see http://members.cox.net/slatteryt/RAM.html
    >


    When you say that, are you taking PAE into account ?

    In my testing, I've now come to call this a "memory license",
    because the limitation is artificial. PAE allows up to
    64GB of memory to be accessible from a 32 bit OS, with
    a limitation being placed on how much any one process
    can access by itself. To use all of the 64GB of memory,
    you'd have to run a number of programs at the same time.

    One test case I ran was:

    1) WinXP SP3 x32 bit (PAE enabled, "licensed" for 4GB)
    2) Install 6GB memory in computer (X48 chipset, PAE capable)
    Not all motherboards support PAE, for the record.
    3) Install this RAMDISK and set it to use memory above 4GB.
    http://memory.dataram.com/products-and-services/software/ramdisk

    The end result, is a system which is *using* more than 4GB
    of memory, but with the restriction that the RAM above
    4GB is being used for storage and not for programs. Free
    memory reported might be 3.1GB, at the same time as a 2GB
    RAMDISK is operational. Total usable about 5.1GB.

    What that test case showed me, is there isn't a hardware limit.
    So I now call the 4GB limit of the x32 OS a "license", like is
    mentioned here. Since Microsoft chose to enable PAE on SP3,
    it means PAE is still in effect.

    http://www.geoffchappell.com/viewer.htm?doc=notes/windows/license/memory.htm

    Since my test case allowed *some* usage of the unlicensed
    memory, it would mean a 6GB installation of RAM would not
    be a total loss.

    When I had that configuration set up, as another test, I put
    the pagefile on the RAMDISK. I was able to run multiple
    programs, causing them to swap out as the total memory
    usage passed 3.1GB. Due to the speed of the RAMDISK, there
    was virtually no slowdown as I passed the 3.1GB point. Without
    the RAMDISK, my system would be disk constrained during
    swap and behave in an annoying manner.

    What's wrong with that idea, of using the RAMDISK for pagefile,
    is the RAMDISK software wasn't perfect. In four days of
    testing, I had two "anomalies", one of which was a game which
    exited immediately when started. Another, was a program which
    was running, but had no icon in the bar at the bottom of the
    screen, and which had to be killed with Task Manager. I stopped
    using the setup in that way, and unplugged the extra memory,
    leaving my usual 4GB (3.1 free) configuration.

    Paul
     
    Paul, Jul 14, 2011
    #9
  10. In message <>, Tim Slattery
    <> writes:
    >"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <> wrote:
    >
    >>In message <>, kdogs
    >><> writes:
    >>[]
    >> also if you have video memory it takes it out of the total ram
    >> e.g. 512mb graphics and 4GB ram = 3.5GB of usable ram
    >>
    >>[]
    >>Only if you have a "shared graphics RAM" system. If you have a graphics
    >>card with its own on-board RAM, then it isn't taken out of the main RAM.

    >
    >Not exactly. A 32-bit system can address 4GB of memory, regardless of
    >where that memory physically resides. If your video board contains
    >.5GB of memory, then you'll only be able to access 3.5GB of your
    >system RAM (minus address space needed to access your BIOS and a few
    >other things).
    >
    >see http://members.cox.net/slatteryt/RAM.html
    >

    I don't need to. If a graphics card has its own RAM, it is not the main
    processor that is addressing it, but the graphics processor. Modern
    graphics processors are quite powerful computers in their own right.
    --
    J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

    Electricians do it 'till it Hz.
     
    J. P. Gilliver (John), Jul 14, 2011
    #10
  11. Tester

    Tim Slattery Guest

    Paul <> wrote:

    >Tim Slattery wrote:
    >> "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> In message <>, kdogs
    >>> <> writes:
    >>> []
    >>> also if you have video memory it takes it out of the total ram
    >>> e.g. 512mb graphics and 4GB ram = 3.5GB of usable ram
    >>>
    >>> []
    >>> Only if you have a "shared graphics RAM" system. If you have a graphics
    >>> card with its own on-board RAM, then it isn't taken out of the main RAM.

    >>
    >> Not exactly. A 32-bit system can address 4GB of memory, regardless of
    >> where that memory physically resides. If your video board contains
    >> .5GB of memory, then you'll only be able to access 3.5GB of your
    >> system RAM (minus address space needed to access your BIOS and a few
    >> other things).
    >>
    >> see http://members.cox.net/slatteryt/RAM.html
    >>

    >
    >When you say that, are you taking PAE into account ?


    No, just because MS client systems don't implement it. Therefore it
    affects very few of us.

    >In my testing, I've now come to call this a "memory license",
    >because the limitation is artificial. PAE allows up to
    >64GB of memory to be accessible from a 32 bit OS,


    Right, it's a kludge that allows a few more bits in the address space.

    --
    Tim Slattery

    http://members.cox.net/slatteryt
     
    Tim Slattery, Jul 14, 2011
    #11
  12. Tester

    Tim Slattery Guest

    "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <> wrote:


    >I don't need to. If a graphics card has its own RAM, it is not the main
    >processor that is addressing it, but the graphics processor. Modern
    >graphics processors are quite powerful computers in their own right.


    Possible with a modern GPU, I don't know. For "normal" graphics cards,
    part of the 32-bit address space is mapped to its onboard memory.

    --
    Tim Slattery

    http://members.cox.net/slatteryt
     
    Tim Slattery, Jul 14, 2011
    #12
  13. In message <>, Tim Slattery
    <> writes:
    >"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>I don't need to. If a graphics card has its own RAM, it is not the main
    >>processor that is addressing it, but the graphics processor. Modern
    >>graphics processors are quite powerful computers in their own right.

    >
    >Possible with a modern GPU, I don't know. For "normal" graphics cards,
    >part of the 32-bit address space is mapped to its onboard memory.
    >

    I didn't think processorless graphics cards had been made for some
    years.

    I could believe that a small section of the RAM might be in the main
    processor's memory map, to provide the BIOS boot screens and maybe a
    safe mode screen, but surely not most of it. I'm not even sure about
    that: my - many years old (the first generation of AGP, I think) -
    desktop machine, when turned on, displays the name of the graphics card
    for a second or two before it displays the BIOS, so I'm not even sure
    this veteran doesn't have its own processor.
    --
    J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

    Electricians do it 'till it Hz.
     
    J. P. Gilliver (John), Jul 14, 2011
    #13
  14. Tester

    Paul Guest

    J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
    > In message <>, Tim Slattery
    > <> writes:
    >> "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> In message <>, kdogs
    >>> <> writes:
    >>> []
    >>> also if you have video memory it takes it out of the total ram
    >>> e.g. 512mb graphics and 4GB ram = 3.5GB of usable ram
    >>>
    >>> []
    >>> Only if you have a "shared graphics RAM" system. If you have a graphics
    >>> card with its own on-board RAM, then it isn't taken out of the main RAM.

    >>
    >> Not exactly. A 32-bit system can address 4GB of memory, regardless of
    >> where that memory physically resides. If your video board contains
    >> .5GB of memory, then you'll only be able to access 3.5GB of your
    >> system RAM (minus address space needed to access your BIOS and a few
    >> other things).
    >>
    >> see http://members.cox.net/slatteryt/RAM.html
    >>

    > I don't need to. If a graphics card has its own RAM, it is not the main
    > processor that is addressing it, but the graphics processor. Modern
    > graphics processors are quite powerful computers in their own right.


    Not if the memory is effectively dual-ported and accessible
    from either CPU or GPU.

    The problem is, finding a nice technical article, that shows
    all the possibilities.

    You can go to Device Manager, navigate down to your video card,
    check the Resource tab, and notice the memory ranges defined in
    there. Perhaps that is evidence enough, that they're mapped ???

    Paul
     
    Paul, Jul 14, 2011
    #14
  15. Tester

    Paul Guest

    Paul wrote:
    > J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
    >> In message <>, Tim Slattery
    >> <> writes:
    >>> "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> In message <>, kdogs
    >>>> <> writes:
    >>>> []
    >>>> also if you have video memory it takes it out of the total ram
    >>>> e.g. 512mb graphics and 4GB ram = 3.5GB of usable ram
    >>>>
    >>>> []
    >>>> Only if you have a "shared graphics RAM" system. If you have a graphics
    >>>> card with its own on-board RAM, then it isn't taken out of the main
    >>>> RAM.
    >>>
    >>> Not exactly. A 32-bit system can address 4GB of memory, regardless of
    >>> where that memory physically resides. If your video board contains
    >>> .5GB of memory, then you'll only be able to access 3.5GB of your
    >>> system RAM (minus address space needed to access your BIOS and a few
    >>> other things).
    >>>
    >>> see http://members.cox.net/slatteryt/RAM.html
    >>>

    >> I don't need to. If a graphics card has its own RAM, it is not the
    >> main processor that is addressing it, but the graphics processor.
    >> Modern graphics processors are quite powerful computers in their own
    >> right.

    >
    > Not if the memory is effectively dual-ported and accessible
    > from either CPU or GPU.
    >
    > The problem is, finding a nice technical article, that shows
    > all the possibilities.
    >
    > You can go to Device Manager, navigate down to your video card,
    > check the Resource tab, and notice the memory ranges defined in
    > there. Perhaps that is evidence enough, that they're mapped ???
    >
    > Paul


    See, for example, the fearless Skybuck's recent experiments
    with a GT520 video card. He wrote a "memory performance test",
    comparing CUDA access to local graphics memory, versus CPU host
    processor access to the same local graphics memory. And for the
    processor to do that, the memory must be mapped somehow. (And
    it is, by the BIOS during POST.)

    http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cg...b23b$5419acc3$1.nb.home.nl>

    Cuda memory transactions per second: 63777878.5898704829000000
    CPU memory transactions per second : 134797918.7549603890000000

    As far as I know, that test is testing graphics memory, and not
    system main memory.

    Paul
     
    Paul, Jul 14, 2011
    #15
  16. In message <ivnk5e$hvs$>, Paul <>
    writes:
    >J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
    >> In message <>, Tim Slattery
    >><> writes:
    >>> "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <> wrote:

    []
    >> I don't need to. If a graphics card has its own RAM, it is not the
    >>main processor that is addressing it, but the graphics processor.
    >>Modern graphics processors are quite powerful computers in their own
    >>right.

    >
    >Not if the memory is effectively dual-ported and accessible
    >from either CPU or GPU.
    >
    >The problem is, finding a nice technical article, that shows
    >all the possibilities.
    >
    >You can go to Device Manager, navigate down to your video card,
    >check the Resource tab, and notice the memory ranges defined in
    >there. Perhaps that is evidence enough, that they're mapped ???
    >
    > Paul


    It certainly would be. On this machine, it is, but then I knew this one
    had shared memory anyway. I don't have a machine with a modern separate
    graphics card turned on at the moment.
    --
    J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

    Electricians do it 'till it Hz.
     
    J. P. Gilliver (John), Jul 15, 2011
    #16
  17. Tester

    Paul Guest

    J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
    > In message <ivnk5e$hvs$>, Paul <> writes:
    >> J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
    >>> In message <>, Tim Slattery
    >>> <> writes:
    >>>> "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <> wrote:

    > []
    >>> I don't need to. If a graphics card has its own RAM, it is not the
    >>> main processor that is addressing it, but the graphics processor.
    >>> Modern graphics processors are quite powerful computers in their own
    >>> right.

    >>
    >> Not if the memory is effectively dual-ported and accessible
    >> from either CPU or GPU.
    >>
    >> The problem is, finding a nice technical article, that shows
    >> all the possibilities.
    >>
    >> You can go to Device Manager, navigate down to your video card,
    >> check the Resource tab, and notice the memory ranges defined in
    >> there. Perhaps that is evidence enough, that they're mapped ???
    >>
    >> Paul

    >
    > It certainly would be. On this machine, it is, but then I knew this one
    > had shared memory anyway. I don't have a machine with a modern separate
    > graphics card turned on at the moment.


    OK, I used Device Manager, and selected "View - Resource by Type".
    I can see this listed in the "Memory" section.

    There are several areas marked as belonging to my video card,
    but this is the main one.

    C0000000 - DFFFFFFF Nvidia GeForce 7900 GT/GTO

    The card has 512MB onboard memory. Subtracting those two numbers,
    gives 0x1FFFFFFF. Converting to decimal with a calculator gives 512M.

    There are two other entries.

    FC000000 - FCFFFFFF Nvidia GeForce 7900 GT/GTO
    FD000000 - FDFFFFFF Nvidia GeForce 7900 GT/GTO

    Those work out to 16MB a piece. They could be config space,
    but I don't know how to tell what they're used for. The
    first one, it's a bit easier to guess, based on the size.

    Paul
     
    Paul, Jul 15, 2011
    #17
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. sudesh

    Windows 7 support for 32 bit

    sudesh, Feb 25, 2010, in forum: Windows 7 Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    882
    Nibiru2012
    Feb 25, 2010
  2. Nibiru2012

    End of support for Windows XP SP2 and Windows Vista RTM

    Nibiru2012, Apr 8, 2010, in forum: General Discussion
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    3,203
    m1r2hud
    Jun 16, 2011
  3. unawave
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    8,639
    Nibiru2012
    Sep 11, 2010
  4. ajmitch51

    Windows Help and Support

    ajmitch51, Jun 8, 2011, in forum: Software
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    3,281
    ajmitch51
    Jun 13, 2011
  5. JMH
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    2,713
    Habibk20
    Sep 10, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page