Win XP 64 - 4 Gig memory

[Viper GTS]

Not all motherboards support the remap necessary for support of a full 4 GB.

For example, I had a Dell Dimension 8400 that would not support it. 64-bit CPU, 64-bit OS, but still limited in the total amount of RAM I could use.

If you can't find an option in the BIOS to deal with it the board probably doesn't support it.

Time to upgrade.

Viper GTS

 

[Nothinman]

OK, we are not referring to the same thing then.

I know what you're talking about, I'm just trying to get you to realize that you're using the wrong terminology.

Most users with 8GB of ram can set it to "No paging file." For gamers, this means you don't have the long wait alt-tab between games, apps and OS since memory is stored is the physical ram instead of swapping the pagefile between ram and the hard disk.

Unless you're using most or all of your memory the pagefile won't be used anyway so the difference should be minimal with it disabled.

 

[The Borg]

Thanks guys. I have checked the BIOS, nothing there. Durting POST I get 340.... which is way less than 4 gig.

So, I am a bit screwed. I am just suprised that I have lost so much.

Time for an upgrade - later in the year with Nahalem!!!

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
No, that changes the size of the pagefile not the available VM. There is always the maximum amount of VM available

Virtual memory= pagefile. He's using the correct term.

on a 32-bit system that's 4G per-process and on AMD64 that's 256TB since AMD64 only does 48-bits virtual and 36-bits physical right now but can be extended without breaking compatibilty.

What you are calling VM isn't VM at all. You are referring to virtual adrress space, which is completely different. Also, all Athlon 64's have 40-bit physical VAS. It's the Intel processors that are limited to 36-bit VAS, except for the second generation Itaniums.

 

[Nothinman]

Virtual memory= pagefile. He's using the correct term.

Not according to everyone who knows what they're talking about.

What you are calling VM isn't VM at all. You are referring to virtual adrress space, which is completely different. Also, all Athlon 64's have 40-bit physical VAS. It's the Intel processors that are limited to 36-bit VAS, except for the second generation Itaniums.

They're not different at all, the two are pretty much synonymous.

And I only got like an hr sleep last night so maybe I'm just being slow but isn't "physical VAS" an oxymoron since the whole point of virtual addressing is so that you're not using physical addresses?

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
Not according to everyone who knows what they're talking about.

Then you should explain to the people who write the OS's how they're wrong.

They're not different at all, the two are pretty much synonymous.

Not according to the experts, who do this for a living.

And I only got like an hr sleep last night so maybe I'm just being slow but isn't "physical VAS" an oxymoron since the whole point of virtual addressing is so that you're not using physical addresses?

It seems like it would be an oxymoron. I only used that term because you had already used it, and I didn't want there to be any misunderstanding. Although, if you think about it, the term actually makes some sense, since the processor's physical characteristics determine how much VAS it can address. The experts call it logical addressing vs physical addressing. While both A64's and all 64-bit Intel chips have up to 48-bit virtual address space, the A64's have 40-bit physical, and the Intels only have 36-bit.

 

[Nothinman]

Then you should explain to the people who write the OS's how they're wrong.

By Chris Tull, Web designer and technology writer

I highly doubt a web designer/technical writer has done any work on any OS' internals.

Not according to the experts, who do this for a living.

That one doesn't even have an author listed but I'm sure it was yet another technical writer who's never even seen a compiler.

Although, if you think about it, the term actually makes some sense, since the processor's physical characteristics determine how much VAS it can address.

That's one helluva stretch. Of course some physical aspect of the CPU determines how much memory (virtual and physical) that it can address but other physical characteristics also determine how fast the CPU can run and you don't here people talking about physical and virtual Ghz.

While both A64's and all 64-bit Intel chips have up to 48-bit virtual address space, the A64's have 40-bit physical, and the Intels only have 36-bit.

Which is a nice thing to know about the difference between AMD and Intel's AMD64 CPUs it's totally irrelevant to the conversation.

Virtual memory and Virtual address space are almost the same thing. The only difference is that VM is a generic term meaning memory addressed via virtual addresses while VAS is slightly more specific and means the range of addresses used in the VM.

If we were talking about physical memory and physical address space the former would usually be used to refer to the real, physical piece of memory while the latter would be used to refer to the range of addresses that cover that amount of memory. There is a minor difference but it's so small that the terms are virtually interchangeable to most people.

 

[pallejr]

About virtual "memory" vs "address space". You could take Intel's technical papers as an example, they use "memory" a lot.

Personally, I would say it depends on the context. "Virtual memory" can referer to how the CPU handles memory access, if the topic is on this, or it can referer to fake ram provided by the harddrive through a paging file.

 

[Nothinman]

or it can referer to fake ram provided by the harddrive through a paging file.

Only by people who don't actually understand the terminology. I know a lot of non-technical people who refer to their case and all of it's contents as the CPU, does make it any way correct? No, of course not.

 

[pallejr]

Could you find a better example to compare it to? I'm talking about context. The meaning of a word can change very much, depending on the context in which it is used. In Windows, virtual memory is also defined as "physical ram + paging file", not just in the gui, but in all of their technical documentation. It is all about context.

CPU is a very specific term, so yes, calling the entire computer for a CPU is very wrong.

 

[Nothinman]

In Windows, virtual memory is also defined as "physical ram + paging file", not just in the gui, but in all of their technical documentation. It is all about context.

Not even in all of their documentation, it depends on who wrote it. Lots of the user documentation use it that way but a lot of the MSDN docs use the terms properly. But in any case the pagefile is not a part of VM, it's a facility used by the VM subsystem but they are 2 distinct parts of the system.

 

[pallejr]

Again: Context.

Context 1: Memory management. You're stuck here.

Context 2: Something involved in memory management, that makes you able to use more "RAM" than you have installed. I see no problem in calling this "something" for "virtual memory".

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
That's one helluva stretch. Of course some physical aspect of the CPU determines how much memory (virtual and physical) that it can address but other physical characteristics also determine how fast the CPU can run and you don't here people talking about physical and virtual Ghz.

So tell us, why exactly did you use the term to begin with?😕

Which is a nice thing to know about the difference between AMD and Intel's AMD64 CPUs it's totally irrelevant to the conversation.

Uh, no it's not. The only reason I mentioned it was because you had incorrectly said this:

Originally posted by: Nothinman
and on AMD64 that's 256TB since AMD64 only does 48-bits virtual and 36-bits physical right now but can be extended without breaking compatibilty.

Virtual memory and Virtual address space are almost the same thing. The only difference is that VM is a generic term meaning memory addressed via virtual addresses while VAS is slightly more specific and means the range of addresses used in the VM.

If we were talking about physical memory and physical address space the former would usually be used to refer to the real, physical piece of memory while the latter would be used to refer to the range of addresses that cover that amount of memory. There is a minor difference but it's so small that the terms are virtually interchangeable to most people.

Keep telling yourself that. If you repeat it enough times, maybe you'll convince yourself that you weren't wrong twice in this thread. Everyone who has read it, though, knows you were.

Lots of the user documentation use it that way but a lot of the MSDN docs use the terms properly. But in any case the pagefile is not a part of VM,

Hmmm, I see no links backing up that claim. I wonder why?

 

[Deadtrees]

Originally posted by: inhotep

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Yes you can, by adjusting the size under System Properties. If you have more RAM that means you can use less virtual memories. You really start using memory management so that you can use the correct terms.

No, that changes the size of the pagefile not the available VM. There is always the maximum amount of VM available, on a 32-bit system that's 4G per-process and on AMD64 that's 256TB since AMD64 only does 48-bits virtual and 36-bits physical right now but can be extended without breaking compatibilty.

OK, we are not referring to the same thing then. I'm talking about the "Virtual memory" in Window's System Properties Advanced section, where you can manage it manually or automatically.
You can manually manage the paging file size for all drive; "custom size, system managed size or "no paging file."

Most users with 8GB of ram can set it to "No paging file." For gamers, this means you don't have the long wait alt-tab between games, apps and OS since memory is stored is the physical ram instead of swapping the pagefile between ram and the hard disk.

Originally posted by: inhotep

Originally posted by: Nothinman

In addition, with more ram you can use less virtual memory.

No you can't, the amount of virtual memory is a constant. You really need to read up on memory management so that you can use the correct terms.

Yes you can, by adjusting the size under System Properties. If you have more RAM that means you can use less virtual memories. You really start using memory management so that you can use the correct terms.

You DO need 'pagefile' even if you have tons of RAM. Programs such as Photoshop requires 'pagefile' to work. If you don't, you'll run into problems sooner or later.

 

[Nothinman]

Uh, no it's not. The only reason I mentioned it was because you had incorrectly said this:

True it was an omission on my part but the fact that I left out the difference in Intel's AMD64 implementation doesn't change the meaning of the term VM or VAS.

Hmmm, I see no links backing up that claim. I wonder why?

Because I'm at work and have already wasted too much time trying to educate you? It's not too difficult to poke around in MS KB articles and their MSDN articles and see that different writers use the terms differently.

 

[themisfit610]

You DO need 'pagefile' even if you have tons of RAM. Programs such as Photoshop requires 'pagefile' to work. If you don't, you'll run into problems sooner or later.

Word.

Photoshop loves lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of RAM 🙂

~MiSfit

 

[Lorne]

Deadtree, Photoshop creates its own pagefile seperate from windowz, But thats not saying windowz doesnt doesnt use its own pagefile to cache Photoshops memory manipulations and pagefile.