RAM issue - on Opteron

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Hi.
I have a question about RAM and WinXP. I know that XP has very bad RAM
management (when I say RAM I mean physical RAM), so it uses just a
half (or so) of avaliable RAM. Since I intend to buy over 2 GB of RAM
(I need lots of memory: 3D+video work), I'm not happy about it, but it
wouldn't be such a problem by it self (I can buy as twice as RAM).
However, I heard that XP can (support up to 4GB, but can) use only 2GB
of physical memory (RAM). Now, I intend to buy dual Opteron system.
That means that each procesor has it's own RAM (HyperTransport aside).
If I give each procesor 2 GB of RAM (4GM total), would it work, or
would XP see it as 4 GB?

Another thing; I heard that Win2K has much better RAM management than
XP. Is it true?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On 25 Mar 2005 16:35:35 -0800, xscript@net.hr (xscript) wrote:

>Hi.
>I have a question about RAM and WinXP. I know that XP has very bad RAM
>management (when I say RAM I mean physical RAM), so it uses just a
>half (or so) of avaliable RAM. Since I intend to buy over 2 GB of RAM
>(I need lots of memory: 3D+video work), I'm not happy about it, but it
>wouldn't be such a problem by it self (I can buy as twice as RAM).
>However, I heard that XP can (support up to 4GB, but can) use only 2GB
>of physical memory (RAM). Now, I intend to buy dual Opteron system.
>That means that each procesor has it's own RAM (HyperTransport aside).
>If I give each procesor 2 GB of RAM (4GM total), would it work, or
>would XP see it as 4 GB?
>
>Another thing; I heard that Win2K has much better RAM management than
>XP. Is it true?

http://www.support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;555223&SD=tech

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Connected <connected@somewhere.here> wrote in message news:<brc941huf567e5av9smcljr59f9fapucs4@4ax.com>...
> On 25 Mar 2005 16:35:35 -0800, xscript@net.hr (xscript) wrote:
>
> >Hi.
> >I have a question about RAM and WinXP. I know that XP has very bad RAM
> >management (when I say RAM I mean physical RAM), so it uses just a
> >half (or so) of avaliable RAM. Since I intend to buy over 2 GB of RAM
> >(I need lots of memory: 3D+video work), I'm not happy about it, but it
> >wouldn't be such a problem by it self (I can buy as twice as RAM).
> >However, I heard that XP can (support up to 4GB, but can) use only 2GB
> >of physical memory (RAM). Now, I intend to buy dual Opteron system.
> >That means that each procesor has it's own RAM (HyperTransport aside).
> >If I give each procesor 2 GB of RAM (4GM total), would it work, or
> >would XP see it as 4 GB?
> >
> >Another thing; I heard that Win2K has much better RAM management than
> >XP. Is it true?
>
> http://www.support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;555223&SD=tech


The given link doesn't answer either of the questions I've asked.

 

[Jack]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

xscript <xscript@net.hr> wrote:
: Hi.
: I have a question about RAM and WinXP. I know that XP has very bad
: RAM management (when I say RAM I mean physical RAM), so it uses
: just a half (or so) of avaliable RAM. Since I intend to buy over 2
: GB of RAM (I need lots of memory: 3D+video work), I'm not happy
: about it, but it wouldn't be such a problem by it self (I can buy
: as twice as RAM). However, I heard that XP can (support up to 4GB,
: but can) use only 2GB of physical memory (RAM). Now, I intend to
: buy dual Opteron system. That means that each procesor has it's own
: RAM (HyperTransport aside). If I give each procesor 2 GB of RAM
: (4GM total), would it work, or would XP see it as 4 GB?
:
: Another thing; I heard that Win2K has much better RAM management
: than XP. Is it true?

Can't really answer your question (I have no idea), but you should post it
in this NG:

comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips

There are some VERY smart people there, especially in the area of
hardware. Good luck, dude.

j.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"xscript" <xscript@net.hr> wrote...
>>I have a question about RAM and WinXP. I know that XP has very bad RAM
>>management (when I say RAM I mean physical RAM), so it uses just a
>>half (or so) of avaliable RAM. Since I intend to buy over 2 GB of RAM
>>(I need lots of memory: 3D+video work), I'm not happy about it, but it
>>wouldn't be such a problem by it self (I can buy as twice as RAM).
>>However, I heard that XP can (support up to 4GB, but can) use only 2GB
>>of physical memory (RAM). Now, I intend to buy dual Opteron system.
>>That means that each procesor has it's own RAM (HyperTransport aside).
>>If I give each procesor 2 GB of RAM (4GM total), would it work, or
>>would XP see it as 4 GB?
>>
>>Another thing; I heard that Win2K has much better RAM management than
>>XP. Is it true?
>>
>> http://www.support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;555223&SD=tech
>
>
> The given link doesn't answer either of the questions I've asked.

Actually, it does...

It gives several of the limitations and a couple of workarounds.

OTOH, you have NOT given us any information on what apps you are using, or
whether they might be AWE aware (look at the expanded article referred to in
the reference), or why you might even need 4 GB (or if your apps could even
use it).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

>"xscript" <xscript@net.hr> wrote...
>>>I have a question about RAM and WinXP. I know that XP has very bad RAM
>>>management (when I say RAM I mean physical RAM), so it uses just a
>>>half (or so) of avaliable RAM. Since I intend to buy over 2 GB of RAM
>>>(I need lots of memory: 3D+video work), I'm not happy about it, but it
>>>wouldn't be such a problem by it self (I can buy as twice as RAM).
>>>However, I heard that XP can (support up to 4GB, but can) use only 2GB
>>>of physical memory (RAM). Now, I intend to buy dual Opteron system.
>>>That means that each procesor has it's own RAM (HyperTransport aside).
>>>If I give each procesor 2 GB of RAM (4GM total), would it work, or
>>>would XP see it as 4 GB?


You need 64 bit-compiled apps running in a 64-bit OS to see more than
the 3GB limit that is tightly tied to the x86 architecture or for any
single process to see more than 3GB virtual address space, even on AMD
and Intel x96-64 hardware.

There is a switch in boot.ini that lets XP use 3GB of physcical ram.

There is in fact AWE, a way to use more than 4GB of RAM in 32-bit OS
but it (a) an AWE-capablle OS, Windows Server since NT days, (b) it
requires a mobo with AWE capability, typically server hardware, and
(c) an AWE-aware application. Oracle Server is the only one I've come
across. (d) each process is still limited to a 32 bit address space.

What application are you using ?

Bad management ? XP on x86 works fine for 99.99 percent of the market
it's aimed at, at least as far as phycical and virtual memory
limitations. For people that needed more memory there have been
64-bit systemns (mostly Unix, plus VMS) on the market for more than 10
years.

--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"xscript" <xscript@net.hr> wrote in message
news:697de698.0503260751.7169e256@posting.google.com...
> Connected <connected@somewhere.here> wrote in message
news:<brc941huf567e5av9smcljr59f9fapucs4@4ax.com>...
> > On 25 Mar 2005 16:35:35 -0800, xscript@net.hr (xscript) wrote:
> >
> > >Hi.
> > >I have a question about RAM and WinXP. I know that XP has very bad RAM
> > >management (when I say RAM I mean physical RAM), so it uses just a
> > >half (or so) of avaliable RAM. Since I intend to buy over 2 GB of RAM
> > >(I need lots of memory: 3D+video work), I'm not happy about it, but it
> > >wouldn't be such a problem by it self (I can buy as twice as RAM).
> > >However, I heard that XP can (support up to 4GB, but can) use only 2GB
> > >of physical memory (RAM). Now, I intend to buy dual Opteron system.
> > >That means that each procesor has it's own RAM (HyperTransport aside).
> > >If I give each procesor 2 GB of RAM (4GM total), would it work, or
> > >would XP see it as 4 GB?
> > >
> > >Another thing; I heard that Win2K has much better RAM management than
> > >XP. Is it true?
> >
> >
http://www.support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;555223&SD=tech
>
>
> The given link doesn't answer either of the questions I've asked.
How do you KNOW that WinXP has bad RAM management? What process/program
are you running that needs more than 2Gb of address space. If you have more
than 2Gb of RAM and windows is showing unused physical RAM, then either your
processes do not need more RAM, or the program is badly written and is not
requesting more RAM. An older version of a program may have its own internal
limits.
Mike.