BIOS UPdate

PC eye

banned
I found the free MS tool there not too good for anything when that was given a try. For actually seeing something old run in through a virtual window try running an 8bit app on a Vista machine. No way you say?



Surprise! "Look it's Duke!" t's also likely the DOSBox 6.2 will work on a 64bit edition of Vista as well as on the 32bit editions. (Too bad they never did come out with Duke Nukem Forever)
 

tyttebøvs

New Member
In 32 bit Windows operating systems, the total addressable space available is 4GB. Why? A 32bit CPU can only address 2^32bit = 4294967296 or 4GB TOTAL.

The real "why" was explained earlier. You cannot blame the CPU. The limitation is 100% artificially made by Microsoft. Windows runs in DEP (and therefore PAE) mode by default, and if the kernel wasn't crippled, you would have access to as much as you would in a 64bit OS.
 

PC eye

banned
Due to the initial complaints seen about Vista companies like Dell suddenly started seeing 3gb of memory over 1gb coming on their new models. Lately other brands like Acer are now seeing the 64bit editions rather then 32bit offered for business or consumer. The AMD AM2 X2 models are seen there that you would see on another model running a 32bit edition.

Reportedly a 64bit OS utilizes things better while in actuality not being any faster then the equivalent 32bit edition. The 64bit editions of Vista have their limitations with Home Basic seeing a max of 8gb with Premium sees upto 16gb. The Business, Ultimate, and Enterprise 64bit editions are able to see upto 128gb being more server orientated.
 

PC eye

banned
The MS page there points out the limitations seen on the different editions of each version. You'll note the 64bit editions for Server 2003 as well as 2008 see upto 2TB capability there.
 

Okedokey

Well-Known Member
The real "why" was explained earlier. You cannot blame the CPU. The limitation is 100% artificially made by Microsoft. Windows runs in DEP (and therefore PAE) mode by default, and if the kernel wasn't crippled, you would have access to as much as you would in a 64bit OS.

Source? MS cannot even get companies to support 32 Vista drivers in time, how on earth do you think they are going to be able to get PAE-aware kernel drivers for all possible hardware? They are not - and you think that is MS's fault? Regardless this is a fanciful explanation, as the REAL (i.e. practical/now/actual) reason is what i explained.
 

PC eye

banned
Good grief! Just think back to a few years after 98SE was out and people were still having fun trying to find drivers for that old version! Why do you think XP Pro64 was the actual ME II flop?! Vista would have to be relabeled ME III for that.
 

StrangleHold

Moderator
Staff member
Vista is to Windows 2000 as ME is to 98, they are just better at covering up and white washing the problems of what its not compared to what it was suppost to be, then they were 8 years ago.

Why do you think they are trying to get code name Windows 7 out so fast. Its just windows 2000 with a truck load of garbage on top of it and could not be fixed if they tried. Just a get us by OS till they can get a OS out thats what Vista was suppost to be.
 

PC eye

banned
Looking for miraculous events or something? Gee? ME IV in 2010? Thinking about a Mac! :p

"I'd like to order a Big Mac if you don't mind." "you again with all that fast food MS tosses your way!"

Why do you think SP3 wasn't released until Vista had been out for some time? Have to get the sales of a new version going first before seeing an older one fixed.
 

tyttebøvs

New Member
Source? MS cannot even get companies to support 32 Vista drivers in time, how on earth do you think they are going to be able to get PAE-aware kernel drivers for all possible hardware? They are not - and you think that is MS's fault? Regardless this is a fanciful explanation, as the REAL (i.e. practical/now/actual) reason is what i explained.

I was not talking about drivers. You blamed the CPU. I referred back to the real why, which stated that bad drivers was one of the sources to as why they crippled the kernel.

A *good* driver will work on all systems, because it doesn't care about hardware specific addressing.

Edit: Before SP2, they allowed as much address space as necessary to fully address 4GB of RAM (plus MMIO).
 
Last edited:

tyttebøvs

New Member
Nothing to do with MS? It has everything to do with them. They program the memory manager, they chose to put in the limitation. And one reason they put that limitation in is because there are some bad drivers that will mess up some systems. It is not a hardware limitation (well, it can be, but the same goes for a 64bit OS).

Edit: I see your edit. "Why? A 32bit OS can only address 2^32bit". That is not true either, which you and others have already stated.
 
Last edited:

Okedokey

Well-Known Member
But hang on...by definition, a 32-bit processor uses 32 bits to refer to the location of each byte of memory. 2^32 = 4.2 billion, which means a memory address that's 32 bits long can only refer to 4.2 billion unique locations (i.e. 4 GB). How is this MS?
 
Last edited:

Okedokey

Well-Known Member
Yes i did, but the requirement that ALL drivers be PAE aware is not within the reasonable control of MS. They cannot even get 3rd party vendors to produce 32bit drivers for Vista, let alone 64bit or PAE aware drivers. How is this MS's fault? I am not condoning this, i am simply stating the fact that currently the ONLY way to address more than 4GB of memory on a computer that you and I have, is to use 64bit OS, regardless of the OS provider.
 

tyttebøvs

New Member
I am agreeing with you, that some drivers break. But going from there to saying that a 32bit OS/CPU cannot go above 4GB is faulty.

And as I said, if the driver is written according to the guidelines, it will not break. Many other 32bit OSes will gladly go above 4GB.

Another thing about the guidelines. You can adjust the layout of the virtual address space, so the user space gets bigger than 2GB. But some applications takes shortcuts, and will break if they are allowed to expand beyond 2GB. Therefore, Microsoft put in "another limitation" on this, so that an application needs to be marked "largeaddressaware" to use more than 2GB.

So, it is all about the driver developers. They forced Microsoft to cripple their kernel.
 
Last edited:

Okedokey

Well-Known Member
The only OS that can claim to do this is via PAE is Apple and they can only od this because they make the hardware and the software - all others face the same issue as MS regarding the PAE driver issue.
 

tyttebøvs

New Member
The only OS that can claim to do this is via PAE is Apple and they can only od this because they make the hardware and the software - all others face the same issue as MS regarding the PAE driver issue.

Huh? Check back in the thread. jdbennet also posted a microsoft-link. I also mentioned that XP before SP2 was allowed to break the 4G barrier, to allow full 4GB RAM.

All Linux versions can do. Etc. ..
 

tyttebøvs

New Member
"the same restrictions apply" I'm not following you. What?

Check Microsoft server editions. Check Linux. How much memory can they address in PAE mode? A lot more than 4GB that is for sure.
 

Okedokey

Well-Known Member
We are not talking about MS server editions (i mentioned those previously), or Linux. Answer this, how do you address more than 4GB in Vista 32bit under the current driver limitations? You cannot, that is the point of this thread. Of course it is possible, i am not saying it is not, but under the current situation with non-PAE aware drivers, (not all MS's fault), it is not available. All of this has been said previously. You are just arguing for the sake of it, the point is, the OP wondered why his OS/bios showed less than 4GB of RAM, the question has been answered.

If you would like to show how smart you are and argue the merits of one OS to another, start your own thread.
 
Top