Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, mac_h8r1, Nemesis
RamDisk Plus 9 has a most unique feature. Our patent pending technology can access memory beyond the limitation imposed by a Windows 32-bit operating system! In other words, RamDisk Plus 9 can use "unmanaged" Windows' memory e.g. above 4GB. It can also use the stubbornly inaccessable memory between 3.2GB and 4GB.
bhtooefr wrote:Yeah, I suspect they're using the (almost forgotten) PSE-36 mode to pull this off, as -- unlike PAE -- it doesn't require any messing with the paging mechanism that the OS is using (and would be unhappy to have messed with). I think they'd be forced to use large pages in that "high memory" (IIRC) but that would fit well with a RAM disk anyway. Doing something like that as an experiment has crossed my mind a couple of times but I've never bothered to follow up.My guess is they're using a kernel-mode driver and doing some of their own memory management to get at that bit.
mako wrote:I found something interesting while looking at ramdisks. These guys claim that they're able to get at the RAM from 3.2GB-4GB, plus the RAM beyond the 4GB limit of 32-bit operating systems.RamDisk Plus 9 has a most unique feature. Our patent pending technology can access memory beyond the limitation imposed by a Windows 32-bit operating system! In other words, RamDisk Plus 9 can use "unmanaged" Windows' memory e.g. above 4GB. It can also use the stubbornly inaccessable memory between 3.2GB and 4GB.
So I decided to try it out. I made a 768MB ramdisk and according to the program it's living in the 3.2GB-4GB gap of my XP 32-bit system. This seems almost too good to be true, doesn't it? I wonder how it works.
bhtooefr wrote:If it works, I'd put a swapfile there.
bhtooefr wrote:Yes, there is benefit, and I believe it'll have full-performance dual channel that just going to 3 GiB will not have.
heruur wrote::o
aff_tim wrote:It's only a problem if you're still using some obsolete 32-bit operating system from eight years ago. If you switched to a modern 64-bit OS three years ago, or if you buy the latest 64-bit operating system when it is released just two months from now, you won't have to worry about that silly old "4 GiB barrier" problem from way back in 2001.TR system guide wrote:which means a 1 gig video card is a real system resource hog!...including video RAM. In practice, that means 32-bit versions of Windows will only let you use 3 to 3.5GB of actual system memory...
JustAnEngineer wrote:aff_tim wrote:It's only a problem if you're still using some obsolete 32-bit operating system from eight years ago. If you switched to a modern 64-bit OS three years ago, or if you buy the latest 64-bit operating system when it is released just two months from now, you won't have to worry about that silly old "4 GiB barrier" problem from way back in 2001.TR system guide wrote:which means a 1 gig video card is a real system resource hog!...including video RAM. In practice, that means 32-bit versions of Windows will only let you use 3 to 3.5GB of actual system memory...
JustAnEngineer wrote:It's only a problem if you're still using some obsolete 32-bit operating system from eight years ago. If you switched to a modern 64-bit OS three years ago, or if you buy the latest 64-bit operating system when it is released just two months from now, you won't have to worry about that silly old "4 GiB barrier" problem from way back in 2001.
just brew it! wrote:Interesting. Well, if your old socket-754 system needs to be retired for a new LGA-1156 Lynnfield system to take advantage of gobs of memory with Windows 7, join us in the SBA forum in a couple of months.JustAnEngineer wrote:Some of the early motherboards which supported 64-bit CPUs still did not support more than 32 bits of physical address. I've seen a number of Socket 754 boards which were limited to 4 GB of physical RAM, even though most of the CPUs designed for that socket had 64-bit capability. So depending on exactly when you bought your 64-bit-capable system, you may still need to upgrade the motherboard/CPU/RAM to use more than 4 GB.It's only a problem if you're still using some obsolete 32-bit operating system from eight years ago. If you switched to a modern 64-bit OS three years ago, or if you buy the latest 64-bit operating system when it is released just two months from now, you won't have to worry about that silly old "4 GiB barrier" problem from way back in 2001.
aff_tim wrote:JustAnEngineer wrote:aff_tim wrote:It's only a problem if you're still using some obsolete 32-bit operating system from eight years ago. If you switched to a modern 64-bit OS three years ago, or if you buy the latest 64-bit operating system when it is released just two months from now, you won't have to worry about that silly old "4 GiB barrier" problem from way back in 2001.which means a 1 gig video card is a real system resource hog!
on almost any add on card / add on device comment on newegg .. the 2 eggs poster are almost all using a 64 bit OS
(if you discount the old motherboards & such )
just reporting observed facts .. I cannot even count to 64 bits.. not enough digits.
aff_tim wrote:Newegg comments are "facts"?
I think newegg user comments on usability / drivers accurately depict what that user experienced.
a HUGE % of driver issues are by users with 64 bit OS.
I skip the 5 egg (be true to your school, US #1 types) & 1 egg (POed types) & focus on 2, 3 & 4 egg
I definitely review user comments before I purchase.
The 2 egg comments are dominated by 64 bit os. that is a fact. if those users are not truthful then that is a separate issue.
SuperSpy wrote:Everyone who commented on newegg claims they are an expert but I don't think most of them really are. Also enthusiast != people who know what they are doing. So I learn to take those comments with a huge bucket of salt.Those statistics don't mean much without some kind of baseline of how many of the people posting on newegg reviews are using an x64 OS. Newegg has quite an enthusiast following, so I'd guess that number is quite high.
aff_tim wrote:Windows can use all the memory that isn't being shadowed by memory-mapped devices. Video cards are (usually) memory-mapped devices, and thus are part of the unavailable memory, not in addition to it. In other words, a big chunk of the difference between the 4GB of theoretically available memory and the 3.xGB that is actually available is the memory consumed by the video card. There's no requirement that all the memory on the video card be memory-mapped, either, so you could have (say) a 1GB card that shadows less than 1GB of system memory.What about the Tech Report article that states "video memory" counts in the 4 gig limit?
as I read that article, the 3.x gig that 32 bit windows can use includes the video card memory?
UberGerbil wrote:aff_tim wrote:What about the Tech Report article that states "video memory" counts in the 4 gig limit?
as I read that article, the 3.x gig that 32 bit windows can use includes the video card memory?
Windows can use all the memory that isn't being shadowed by memory-mapped devices. Video cards are (usually) memory-mapped devices, and thus are part of the unavailable memory, not in addition to it. In other words, a big chunk of the difference between the 4GB of theoretically available memory and the 3.xGB that is actually available is the memory consumed by the video card. There's no requirement that all the memory on the video card be memory-mapped, either, so you could have (say) a 1GB card that shadows less than 1GB of system memory.