Can Vista (home,premium.ultimate) 32-bit read 4-8GB of ram?

[MraK]

I have been boggled by the aspect that in order for your system to read 4-8GB of memory in your computer, you need Vista (regardless if its 32 or 64 bit) or Windows XP Pro 64-bit.

As you all may know Im building a high-end gaming rig and i was under the concept that in order for your system to read 4-8GB of memory, you need Vista and XP Pro 64-bit.

What is the fact? I just don't want to end up with Vista 64-bit just so my system could read 4-8GB, where in actuality it wont matter what Vista you get.

need help ASAP coz im about to order the OS in a few days:laugh:

 

[13Gigatons]

NO....only 3.2GB will be mapped.

 

[Genx87]

Why are you boggled? Vista 32 and XP are 32bit operating systems with a 32bit memory address space.

If you are building a high end gaming rig Vista 64 is the only way to go imo.

 

[Crusty]

4gb or more you need Vista 64 if you want to use it all correctly.

 

[Nothinman]

Why are you boggled? Vista 32 and XP are 32bit operating systems with a 32bit memory address space.

Because PAE has existed since the Pentium Pro so that up to 64G of physical memory could be addressed.

 

[13Gigatons]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Why are you boggled? Vista 32 and XP are 32bit operating systems with a 32bit memory address space.

Because PAE has existed since the Pentium Pro so that up to 64G of physical memory could be addressed.

Windows

PAE is supported in the following versions of 32-bit Windows:[9][10]
Version Maximum Physical Memory
Windows 2000 Advanced Server 8 GB
Windows 2000 Datacenter Server 32 GB
Windows XP [11] 4 GB
Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition 32 GB
Windows Server 2003 R2 (or SP1) Enterprise Edition 64 GB
Windows Server 2003 Datacenter Edition [12] 64 GB
Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition 4 GB
Windows Vista 4 GB
Windows Server 2008 Enterprise or Datacenter Edition 64 GB
Windows Server 2008 other editions 4 GB

Windows XP SP2 and later by default on processors with the no-execute (NX) or execute-disable (XD) feature runs in PAE mode in order to allow NX. The NX (or XD) bit resides in bit 63 of the page table entry, and without PAE, page table entries only have 32 bits; therefore PAE mode is required if the NX feature is to be exploited. However, desktop versions of Windows (Windows XP, Windows Vista) limit physical address space to 4 GB for driver compatibility reasons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension

 

[Scotteq]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Why are you boggled? Vista 32 and XP are 32bit operating systems with a 32bit memory address space.

Because PAE has existed since the Pentium Pro so that up to 64G of physical memory could be addressed.

For the purposes of memory remapping, PAE is disabled in consumer versions of Windows. It's only used for DEP. Why? Because enabling it for more RAM requires device drivers which are Large Address Aware. If it isn't (and most aren't), then the instant the device attempted a DMA operation, the computer will crash. IT Professionals know about this, and can demand/write the proper drivers for business apps. So the full functionality is in NT, and Server 2003/6.

You can also have it if you choose to *not* patch XP Pro. Of course, you can drop trou, fill your shorts with honey, and sit on a fire ant nest, too... Doing this would not only be amusing and worthy of videotaping for YouTube, but would also deliver the opportunity for endless debate about which of these two alternatives is more painful to the "end" user.


Anyways - Why is this so?? Because hundreds of thousanes of device drivers would have to be rewritten to be Large Address Aware, and this represents a huge burden on developers/manufacturers everywhere for a feature that benefits only a few enthusiasts. Therefore Microsoft and their software/hardware partners made the pragmatic decision to not force their partners to do that, so nobody has to deal with millions of dumbfounded dhips*ts calling support lines about their computers crashing. Besides, if you really do 'need' the extra RAM, there are perfectly good 64 bit operating systems available for consumers: XP/Vista x64.

 

[Scotteq]

For the OP:


In 32 bit Windows operating systems, the total addressable space available is 4GB. If you install a total of 4GB worth of RAM, the system will detect/use/display less than 4GB of total memory because of address space allocation for other critical functions, such as:

- System BIOS (including motherboard, add-on cards, etc..)
- Motherboards resources
- Memory mapped I/O
- Configuration for AGP/PCI-Ex/PCI
- Other memory allocations for PCI devices

Different onboard devices and different add-on cards (devices) will result of different total memory size. e.g. more PCI cards installed will require more memory resources, resulting of less memory free for other uses.

This limitation applies to most chipsets & Windows XP/Vista 32-bit version operating systems. Again, this is a limitation of the Operating System not having enough address space to allocate to the system *and* the RAM. Not allocating address space to devices renders them inoperable. Not allocating addresses to RAM simply results in the unaddressed section not being used in an otherwise fully functional computer. Therefore the OS designers assign RAM last.


If you install a Windows operating system, and if more than 3GB memory is required for your system, then the below conditions must be met:

1. A memory controller which supports memory swap functionality is used. The latest chipsets like Intel 975X, 955X, Nvidia NF4 SLI Intel Edition, Nvidia NF4 SLI X16, AMD K8 and newer architectures can support the memory swap function.

2. Installation of Windows XP Pro X64 Ed. (64-bit), Windows Vista 64, or other OS which can provide more than 4GB worth of address space.



Note: Windows Vista 32bit SP1 will display the installed amount of RAM. This is a display change only. You may look in the system tray to see the actual usage.



In plain English: The OS (XP or Vista) only has 4GB worth of addresses. There are a significant number if things OTHER than Memory which must use these. If you install a full 4GB of RAM, then the OS runs out, and will only be able to use whatever happened to get an address.

 

[Nothinman]

I know all of that, I was speaking in the general sense about PAE being available. I also find it funny that on one hand people talk about all of the power and influence that MS has over the industry and then on the other they say that MS can't even get hardware manufacturers to fix their drivers to work with PAE.

 

[Scotteq]

I look at it as a matter of Pragmatism: Being able to remap memory to a space larger than the 4GB currently available on the desktop really benefits only a few enthusiasts. Business users will be on server editions of Windows anyhow. But enabling that would force the industry to spend millions and millions of dollars rewriting all of their device drivers to be Large Address Aware. The cost/benefit just doesn't exist. And while Microsoft do have a huge amount of influence in the industry, it's also a matter of business reality that you don't f*ck over your partners without good reason.

You can't unload that on your business partners all at once. Instead, they protect their business partners from a VERY expensive disruption by locking the feature out of the desktop as a first step. Second, they enforce driver coding practices on a new release (Vista), and then move forward from there (Win 7??).

It would be one thing if PAE was the only alternative, and people who would be otherwise perfectly served with desktop editions were forced to pay BIG bucks for server side operating systems. But that isn't the case - Anyone can buy XP64 or Vista 64, at consumer prices, and run all the RAM their Mobo can handle. So the only people who are actually inconvenienced are XP32 users who refuse to make the jump.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
I know all of that, I was speaking in the general sense about PAE being available. I also find it funny that on one hand people talk about all of the power and influence that MS has over the industry and then on the other they say that MS can't even get hardware manufacturers to fix their drivers to work with PAE.

Why would MS want or force hardware manufacturers to write drivers for consumer level products using an extension created to get around the 32bit addressing space limitations in the enterprise world?

On the desktop 32bit equals 4GB and always has. Get 64 Bit Vista if you want 4+GB.

 

[Nothinman]

I look at it as a matter of Pragmatism: Being able to remap memory to a space larger than the 4GB currently available on the desktop really benefits only a few enthusiasts.

2G is the average in a new machine now, 4G will be soon so it's more than just a few enthusiasts.

Business users will be on server editions of Windows anyhow.

Business users get Windows Server on their desktops? That's news to me.

But enabling that would force the industry to spend millions and millions of dollars rewriting all of their device drivers to be Large Address Aware.

Call me naive but I'm pretty sure that MS has an API that lets a driver specify an upper memory limit for DMA because there's a ton of devices that can't even do the full 32-bits, so it wouldn't require a rewrite unless the manufacturer wanted to actually take advantage of the extra memory.

So the only people who are actually inconvenienced are XP32 users who refuse to make the jump.

i.e. a huge portion of their userbase. And the refusal to make the jump could be for any number of reasons not the least of which is probably the desire to not waste money on another Windows license.

 

[pallejr]

The driver can indeed reqeust a memory buffer below 4G. One change in the new memory manager in Vista is to allocate memory from the top-down, instead of bottom-up, for this exact purpose, so as much ram below 4G as possible will be free. If the driver developers from the very beginning followed the guidelines from Microsoft to the point, the problem wouldn't exist.

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

I look at it as a matter of Pragmatism: Being able to remap memory to a space larger than the 4GB currently available on the desktop really benefits only a few enthusiasts.

2G is the average in a new machine now, 4G will be soon so it's more than just a few enthusiasts.

Business users will be on server editions of Windows anyhow.

Business users get Windows Server on their desktops? That's news to me.

But enabling that would force the industry to spend millions and millions of dollars rewriting all of their device drivers to be Large Address Aware.

Call me naive but I'm pretty sure that MS has an API that lets a driver specify an upper memory limit for DMA because there's a ton of devices that can't even do the full 32-bits, so it wouldn't require a rewrite unless the manufacturer wanted to actually take advantage of the extra memory.

So the only people who are actually inconvenienced are XP32 users who refuse to make the jump.

i.e. a huge portion of their userbase. And the refusal to make the jump could be for any number of reasons not the least of which is probably the desire to not waste money on another Windows license.

Either way, PAE was an ugly, dirty hack designed at a time when only servers would need that much memory. True 64bit CPUs and operating systems using them were always intended to be the real solution to the limitations of 32bit computing. The bottom line is that if someone wants to use 4GB or more of RAM, they need to get an operating system that can properly address that much RAM.

I'm going to be quite happy when PAE is stricken from any tech manuals or documentation, it brings up too many bad memories of XMS/EMS.

 

[pallejr]

Originally posted by: ViRGE
Either way, PAE was an ugly, dirty hack designed at a time when only servers would need that much memory. True 64bit CPUs and operating systems using them were always intended to be the real solution to the limitations of 32bit computing. The bottom line is that if someone wants to use 4GB or more of RAM, they need to get an operating system that can properly address that much RAM.

I'm going to be quite happy when PAE is stricken from any tech manuals or documentation, it brings up too many bad memories of XMS/EMS.

It is not that ugly. Why do you want it to be that ugly? 32bit systems can indeed address more than 4GB in a properly fashion in PAE mode. You just need to spread it across multiple processes, or use some API, with a bit of overhead, to address it all in a single one.

 

[Nothinman]

If the driver developers from the very beginning followed the guidelines from Microsoft to the point, the problem wouldn't exist.

Which is one of the reasons that I hate closed source products. When you're doing something just for compensation you generally only do the very minimum to make it work. And with no one able to see the source you can make it as ugly as you want.

Either way, PAE was an ugly, dirty hack designed at a time when only servers would need that much memory.

It's not a hack at all, all it does is add an extra level of pagetables to extend the physical addressing to 36-bits. Using things like AWE in Windows is ugly but that's independent from PAE.

 

[Scotteq]

Nothingman - I don't know what company you work at, but around here we get the bare minumum needed to do the job on the desktop. Sometimes less. For the great majority of business users, that means continuing to beat the poor P4 + 512 MB into the ground until it finally fails and they're forced to purchase another bare minimum box. The exception is if you have a business case for a more heavy duty machine. BY FAR, this is the reality of the 'corporate desktop'.

IMHO, You are mixing business and home usage in order to shore up a (weak) point - I can say for a fact, there are no business desktops around here with 2GB of RAM. Home users?? Yup! But not businesses. That kind of horsepower simply isn't needed to do spreadsheets, client apps, and web surfing.

On the server side?? Oh yeah!! If you're a software developer or do heavy video/rendering, CAD or other specialized app?? Yup! But in those cases the company also invests in the appropriate specialized machine to do it. So if you need more than 4GB of memory, then you get a machine that's capable of handling it. Then, of course, you beat it into the ground until it fails and forces a replacement.

So the point stands: PAE isn't needed on the desktop, except for a few enthusiasts. If you really do need more RAM, then you either go with a server OS or a 64 bit OS. These *are* available - And if you don't like Vista, XP64 is still perfectly viable.

Call me naive but I'm pretty sure that MS has an API that lets a driver specify an upper memory limit for DMA because there's a ton of devices that can't even do the full 32-bits, so it wouldn't require a rewrite unless the manufacturer wanted to actually take advantage of the extra memory.

Hate to point this out, but to do this then thousands and thousands of drivers would need to be rewritten. This is the same reason my PAE isn't enabled on desktop versions of windows. Look - the point is that MSFT did NOT want to force the thousands of businesses to rewrite their code for PAE. I think it's ridiculous to come back at it saying it's not necessary to be Large Address Aware because there's an API to specify upper memory limit - Dude: To use it you have to rewrite the driver!!

Better and far far more cost effective to just let the old stuff die. Enforce proper coding practices with a new release, and move on. It would be a different story if there were no alternative to PAE. But there is: If you really do need the extra RAM, you use an appropriate OS (NT, Server 2003/6, XP64 and/or Vista 64), and get on with your work. If you don't need it, then there's no reason to upgrade in the first place, so the entire argument is pointless.

 

[Nothinman]

Lifer - I don't know what company you work at, but around here we get the bare minumum needed to do the job on the desktop. Sometimes less. For the great majority of business users, that means continuing to beat the poor P4 + 512 MB into the ground until it finally fails and they're forced to purchase another bare minimum box. The exception is if you have a business case for a more heavy duty machine. BY FAR, this is the reality of the 'corporate desktop'.

I'm going to assume that was directed at me.

That all depends heavily on the company. Of course companies are going to be conservative in what they purchase and I don't doubt there's very few business machines out there with 4G of memory. But you're the one that said: "Business users will be on server editions of Windows anyhow.". And right now Windows Server is a lot more expensive than 4G of memory so the statement made absolutely no sense.

IMHO, You are mixing business and home usage in order to make your (weak) point - I can say for a fact, there are no business desktops around here with 2GB of RAM. Home users?? Yup! But not businesses. That kind of horsepower simply isn't needed to do spreadsheets, client apps, and web surfing.

My machine at work here has 3G in it. Business and home usage should be mixed, lots of people work from home and lots of people goof off at work. And there's just no technical reason to differentiate the two.

And IME most of those "enterprise client apps" are huge pieces of crap that do need tons of memory to run well but that doesn't mean most businesses don't just force their users to deal with the fact that they really need 2x as much memory as they have. My Windows VM here has a commit charge of almost 900M and that's with only 5 or so things running, not counting background stuff obviously. Anyone with less than 1G these days is in sad shape.

So the point stands: PAE isn't needed on the desktop, except for a few enthusiasts.

Actually it is since it's the only way to get NX without running in long-mode. There's a reason that PAE is enabled by default in XP SP2 no matter how much memory you have.

If you really do need more RAM, then you either go with a server OS or a 64 bit OS. These *are* available - And if you don't like Vista, XP64 is still perfectly viable.

So you really think it's a good idea to force users to buy a whole new license, and a Windows Server Enterprise license at that if they don't want a 64-bit OS, just to use a little bit more memory?

 

[Scotteq]

I see - So we're having this discussion because of semantics. Fine.

Nobody's 'forcing' anyone to do anything. But as a practical matter, 32 bits on the desktop is limited to 4GB of address space, and therefore 3~ish GB of RAM depending configuration. The reason why is the exceedingly high level of industry~wide cost involved in rewriting existing code to handle PAE for a limited benefit. Saying that there's an API to set address limits is fine and well - but incorporating that *still* requires rewriting. So what's gained?? Less of an effort rewriting all this stuff??

Say Microsoft went ahead an unilaterally did that, what happens? The instant a driver or app attempts a DMA operation to a location mapped elsewhere under PAE, the computer will crash. Multiplied by many thousands of drivers/applications, and multiplied again by millions of users. And you guys think there is/was a sh*tstorm over Vista??? No product manager in his right mind would inflict that on the user base. N E V E R

I fully understand that people want the feature without changing anything in their current config. But there are very valid technical and business reasons why that won't happen. I'm sorry it's hard to accept, but... <shrug>

There *are* alternatives to PAE in the form of server and 64 bit editions of the OS. So can we agree that if you really need the extra memory, then an appropriate OS is available to you? And that if there's an actual issue driving a business case for doing so, then there's no reason to not get it done? Granted that individuals may not like it, but XP64 and Vista 64 are certainly valid alternatives on the desktop.

For a fact - if a numbskull like me can build a functional and reliable 64 bit desktop from parts, then there's zero reason an IT professional can't do the same. And from a user perspective they're the Same Look, Same Feel, and run the same apps. You seriously could go to your mother's house, swap her XP x86 installation for XP x64, reinstall her apps/favorites/data, and she would never notice the difference. Vista?? Exact same look/feel. The only difference a casual user would see is two icons for Explorer instead of just one.



Another use for PAE is for DEP, by the way... Security stuff..

 

[pallejr]

Scotteq, you repeatly state that drivers needs to be written explicitly to handle PAE - that is not true. What they need is to not assume things about all possible hardware configurations out there. Follow the rules, and it will work.

It is a bit like assuming the user space portion of the virtual address space will always be 2GB. Well, it wont. Windows deals with that by making sure only programs with a special bit will be able to grow past 2G, so code that cannot handle addresses larger than 2G (because they use the rest of the bits in the address for other things) don't crash.

 

[Scotteq]

Originally posted by: pallejr
Scotteq, you repeatly state that drivers needs to be written explicitly to handle PAE - that is not true. What they need is to not assume things about all possible hardware configurations out there. Follow the rules, and it will work.

I understand this. I understand that Best Practices are called that for a reason. And that from a technical perspective it's on the developers of said apps/accessories to do things properly.

But I also understand that for years and years developers *didn't* follow the rules, and because of that there are thousands of drivers/apps out there which *aren't* compliant. They write/call directly to the kernel. They call memory addresses directly. Blah blah blah... They're not Large Address Aware. They dont' limit their memory space. They don't speak to the OS like they should, instead going directly to the kernel for the sake of more speed. These are the reason that MSFT haven't made the feature available on the desktop. Enabling it would cause the systems using this stuff to suffer random crashes. Therefore opening up PAE for the extra memory usage would force the industry to rewrite all this stuff. They're not going to do it, since it's a huge expense to do that for items which were already sold and therefore won't bring in revenue.

And Microsoft won't make them do it - Because it would then be Microsoft's fault for 'breaking' all of these devices/apps on the end users.

Microsoft is trying to enforce the rules with Vista, and look where it's getting them - "It's Microsoft's fault that drivers aren't available...." "It's Microsoft's fault that <insert years old gear> doesn't work any more and people have to buy a new one." "Oh My GAWWD - My <application I've used for years under XP> doesn't work any more, what a Piece of Sh*t Operating System..."

Well No Kidding - A lot of this stuff was coded badly in the first place. Yet, when Microsoft starts enforcing the Rules with the new OS, it's MSFT's fault for changing things.


I understand that the technical facility exists to use more RAM on a 32 bit OS than is currently the case. I understand that people dont' want to change, and that there are dependencies, interdependencies, and items depending on items which depend on other things which make it a bigger deal than just 'swapping the OS'. But it's far from a freebie.


Knowing that allowing full usage of PAE on the desktop would break a lot of things that have been working for years: If you were a Product Manager at Microsoft, would you *really* retroactively take away thos shortcuts that have worked for the life of the OS?? Would you really turn XP into Vista??

No. Nobody in their right mind would do that.


Instead, you enforce the rules where you hadn't before with a new OS, and let the old stuff die a quiet death. As pointed out, there are alternatives should someone really need the extra RAM.

 

[Nothinman]

Saying that there's an API to set address limits is fine and well - but incorporating that *still* requires rewriting. So what's gained?? Less of an effort rewriting all this stuff??

Rewriting is extreme, at most it requires a minor adjustment and another run through QA. I know neither are free but chances are they're still doing work on the driver anyway. And if your driver is bad enough that it does need a full rewrite then I don't want to use it anyway.

Say Microsoft went ahead an unilaterally did that, what happens? The instant a driver or app attempts a DMA operation to a location mapped elsewhere under PAE, the computer will crash. Multiplied by many thousands of drivers/applications, and multiplied again by millions of users. And you guys think there is/was a sh*tstorm over Vista??? No product manager in his right mind would inflict that on the user base. N E V E R

Apps don't do DMA so they'll never be affected, but for the drivers that are their users will cry for a few months as driver developers fix their code. Or the developers don't fix it and those people turn of PAE and live with less memory. Sure people would complain but those with good drivers would be able to properly use their hardware.

I fully understand that people want the feature without changing anything in their current config. But there are very valid technical and business reasons why that won't happen. I'm sorry it's hard to accept, but... <shrug>

The technical reasons are questionable at best.

Granted that individuals may not like it, but XP64 and Vista 64 are certainly valid alternatives on the desktop.

Both of which require new licenses which cost more than the memory itself, so how is that a good compromise?

 

[Scotteq]

Both of which require new licenses which cost more than the memory itself, so how is that a good compromise?

If you're upgrading an existing installation, it's not a compromise. It's a 'Cost of Doing Business'. If you're building/buying new, then it's a moot point, since you have to buy the OS anyhow. The bottom line is if your tool is inadequate, you get one that is appropriate to the task at hand.

Apps don't do DMA so they'll never be affected, but for the drivers that are their users will cry for a few months as driver developers fix their code. Or the developers don't fix it and those people turn of PAE and live with less memory. Sure people would complain but those with good drivers would be able to properly use their hardware.

By making such a change - in effect retroactively enforcing proper coding practices - it would be Microsoft who are the ones breaking all that stuff. I'll use the Vista example again. Microsoft decided to enforce 'proper' drivers and allow them to only speak to the OS instead of directly to the kernel. Look what happened?? They get absolutely crucified for it. And that was on a new OS. Doing the same to your installed base would break the stuff they have already invested in. This is a far far different, and hugely more sensitive subject - from Social, Business, and especially LEGAL points of view. And Microsoft would be the ones responsible for making the change.


Theories about who things should or should not be notwithstanding, there is the very ugly reality of what is already out there that needs to continue to work. Very powerful corporations have very deep investments in the OS. And Microsoft have a responsibility to not unnecessarily screw over the installed base. Making this change *would* do that. It could/would be easily proven that "...MSFT knew the change could cause widespread problems in the installed base, and yet they recklessly proceeded..." Especially when there *are* alternatives - Whether you want to buy a licence or not, the OSs exist that do provide for the extra RAM.

They'd be absolutely nuts to allow it. And if you need it, a proper tool is available.



Look - You have your technical knowledge/theories about how (you believe?) it should be. I'm coming from a business/practical perspective about why it is how it is. It's clear to me that we aren't going to come to an agreement. I'm tempted to point out that when all is said and done, I have 8GB of RAM happily living on my machine, while others waste time complaining about not being able to use PAE they way they want, for free. Theories are well and good. But where the rubber meets the road, if the theory doesn't work then it's not a good theory.

 

[Nothinman]

If you're upgrading an existing installation, it's not a compromise. It's a 'Cost of Doing Business'.

Not at all, if you have a part that works in both the old and new systems why would you replace it?

The bottom line is if your tool is inadequate, you get one that is appropriate to the task at hand.

But in this case the tool is only inadequate because MS deemed it so and for, IMO, bad reasons.

By making such a change - in effect retroactively enforcing proper coding practices - it would be Microsoft who are the ones breaking all that stuff.

So make it go the other way again. I'm assuming every driver that wants to do DMA has to tell the kernel at some point to give it a range that it can DMA to/from so let that API default to <4G addresses and add another call to enable address >4G so that developers who know their driver works with them can use them. Now, I've never looked at the Windows DDK and the Windows source is closed so I can't look there but it seems like an extremely simple thing to do.

I'll use the Vista example again. Microsoft decided to enforce 'proper' drivers and allow them to only speak to the OS instead of directly to the kernel.

That sentence makes no sense. With Vista MS moved some drivers out of the kernel and into userspace (i.e. audio and most of video IIRC) but that's nowhere near comparable because that's a complete redesign. And the people who only really care about the sound change are Creative's users which are pretty stupid for paying for a Creative card in the first place. Everyone else is happy because of the per-app sound preferences ability for the video driver to recover from some previously BSOD-causing failures.

Doing the same to your installed base would break the stuff they have already invested in.

Pure speculation. Some drivers would break but without the source you can't even begin to guess how many. And the fact that many work fine on Windows Server Enterprise suggests that more would work fine than you're suggesting.

Theories about who things should or should not be notwithstanding, there is the very ugly reality of what is already out there that needs to continue to work. Very powerful corporations have very deep investments in the OS. And Microsoft have a responsibility to not unnecessarily screw over the installed base. Making this change *would* do that. It could/would be easily proven that "...MSFT knew the change could cause widespread problems in the installed base, and yet they recklessly proceeded..." Especially when there *are* alternatives - Whether you want to buy a licence or not, the OSs exist that do provide for the extra RAM.

They've already made far reaching changes that cause huge breakages in the past and nothing happened. This would just be another footnote in technology history.

I'm tempted to point out that when all is said and done, I have 8GB of RAM happily living on my machine, while others waste time complaining about not being able to use PAE they way they want, for free.

Feel free to point it out because I'm not one of those users. Although technically I'm not using PAE since I've installed a 64-bit kernel on my system but I've got the tools to use all of my system's memory.

 

[Scotteq]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

If you're upgrading an existing installation, it's not a compromise. It's a 'Cost of Doing Business'.

Not at all, if you have a part that works in both the old and new systems why would you replace it?

You're misreading - The tool you have now is inadequate because it doesn't support the amount of RAM you want to put in it. Since that is the case, then if there were enough of a reason you will replace it with one that does.

And it is not lost on me that you did exactly that with your own machine.

As for the rest - You're obviously arguing with the wrong person. You may do better writing Microsoft. Though they obviously disagree with your Point of View since prior to SP2 XP supported memory remapping under PAE, but that was removed. Must've had a reason for that. Should they reply, I'm sure we all will be interested in the real answer.