Getting XP Pro to see 4GB of memory

[D. Spencer Hines]

However, when buying a computer it's important to think in terms NOT just of
how much memory you need NOW ---- but what you'll need in two or three
years.

DSH

"Shenan Stanley" <newshelper@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:OeMJ4hzSIHA.5524@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> Unknown wrote:

>> Not a bug. Hardware architecture limits memory addressing to about 3.2
>> gig.
>
> jorgen wrote:
>> The x86 architecture includes PAE, which expands the address space well
>> above 4G. Both xp and vista includes a PAE kernel, but limits the
>> physical address space to 4G anyway> The x86 architecture includes PAE,
>> which expands the address space well above 4G. Both xp and vista includes
>> a PAE kernel, but limits the physical address space to 4G anyway
>
> Bob Peters wrote:
>> Not trying to be sarcastic here, but am actually curious:
>>
>> You shop for a decent new motherboard, you're usually looking at a
>> capacity for 8G on one that's "Designed for Windows XP" and "Windows
>> Vista Certified." (at the time I'm writing this)
>
> Who is the 'you' that you (Bob Peters) is referring to here in the
> statement, "... you're usually looking at a capacity for 8G on one ..."?
>
> I know if I am looking for a motherboard/computer for Windows XP, I look
> for one with a maximum capacity of 4GB if I plan on running 32bit
> Windows/etc. If I might later install something that might use more
> (VMWare ESX, *nix, 64bit Windows, etc...) I might look for a board that
> supports more. If I find a better board that supports a maximum of 256GB
> of memory for a few bucks more - but because of the FSB and other
> features, it is better overall - sure, I'll blow the extra few dollars -
> but not because it supports the extra RAM necessarily - but because it has
> other features I want.
>
> You (Bob Peters) seem to imply that the mysterious 'you' referred to will
> only look for two things. RAM capacity and OS compatibility. I look at
> FSB, CPU type, onboard USB capability, onboard audio, onboard NIC, HDD
> controller type/capacity, RAID or not and even the type of casde it will
> fit in. I like to get as much as *I* would need for now and 3-5 years in
> the future as I can given a price restraint and what I plan on doing with
> it in that timeframe.
>
>> What's the point if you can only address half of that, max?
>
> Why'd you (Bob Peters in this case) bother to spec something you did not
> need and whether or not it supports it does not mean you have to utilize
> it. I bet you have driven cars that will easily go 120MPH or faster... Did
> you have to go that fast all the time because the car had that ability? I
> bet you've bought a pack of gum, a six-pack of beer or a bag of candy when
> you knew only a few would resolve your current craving.
>
>> Surely the hardware can't require 4G behind the scenes, even if
>> you're building a monster gaming rig to go gunning for the Angry
>> German Kid in "Unreal."
>
> I do not understand here - are you making the same point I am? What do
> you mean, "... the hardware can't require 4G behind the scenes ..."?
>
>> Is the higher capability entirely for those early adapters who are
>> going 64-bit even without many goodies yet compatible?
>
> It's for anyone who thinks they might need it. Each person is different.
> Some may be happy with a 400MHz machine with 128MB memory running Windows
> XP (I've seen it and even read about such people in these newsgroups.)
> Others may need 1.8GHz with 512MB memory for minimal performance with
> their office apps. Others might need 3.0GHz with 1GB memory for their
> smaller graphical editing (2D usually.) Others might be better off with
> the latest AutoDesk product, Core2Dua 3.0GHz Xeon and 3.5GB memory for
> their 3D modeling. It all depends on the 'you' that you (Bob Peters) was
> referring to.
>
> --
> Shenan Stanley
> MS-MVP
> --
> How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

 

[Shenan Stanley]

Unknown wrote:
> Not a bug. Hardware architecture limits memory addressing to about 3.2
> gig.

jorgen wrote:
> The x86 architecture includes PAE, which expands the address space well
> above 4G. Both xp and vista includes a PAE kernel, but limits the physical
> address space to 4G anyway> The x86 architecture includes PAE, which
> expands the address space well above 4G. Both xp and vista includes a PAE
> kernel, but limits the physical address space to 4G anyway

Bob Peters wrote:
> Not trying to be sarcastic here, but am actually curious:
>
> You shop for a decent new motherboard, you're usually looking at a
> capacity for 8G on one that's "Designed for Windows XP" and "Windows
> Vista Certified." (at the time I'm writing this)
>
> What's the point if you can only address half of that, max?
>
> Surely the hardware can't require 4G behind the scenes, even if
> you're building a monster gaming rig to go gunning for the Angry
> German Kid in "Unreal."
>
> Is the higher capability entirely for those early adapters who are
> going 64-bit even without many goodies yet compatible?

Shenan Stanley wrote:
> Who is the 'you' that you (Bob Peters) is referring to here in the
> statement, "... you're usually looking at a capacity for 8G on one
> ..."?
> I know if I am looking for a motherboard/computer for Windows XP, I
> look for one with a maximum capacity of 4GB if I plan on running
> 32bit Windows/etc. If I might later install something that might
> use more (VMWare ESX, *nix, 64bit Windows, etc...) I might look for
> a board that supports more. If I find a better board that supports
> a maximum of 256GB of memory for a few bucks more - but because of
> the FSB and other features, it is better overall - sure, I'll blow
> the extra few dollars - but not because it supports the extra RAM
> necessarily - but because it has other features I want.
>
> You (Bob Peters) seem to imply that the mysterious 'you' referred
> to will only look for two things. RAM capacity and OS
> compatibility. I look at FSB, CPU type, onboard USB capability,
> onboard audio, onboard NIC, HDD controller type/capacity, RAID or
> not and even the type of casde it will fit in. I like to get as
> much as *I* would need for now and 3-5 years in the future as I can
> given a price restraint and what I plan on doing with it in that
> timeframe.
> Why'd you (Bob Peters in this case) bother to spec something you
> did not need and whether or not it supports it does not mean you
> have to utilize it. I bet you have driven cars that will easily go
> 120MPH or faster... Did you have to go that fast all the time
> because the car had that ability? I bet you've bought a pack of
> gum, a six-pack of beer or a bag of candy when you knew only a few
> would resolve your current craving.
> I do not understand here - are you making the same point I am? What do you
> mean, "... the hardware can't require 4G behind the
> scenes ..."?
> It's for anyone who thinks they might need it. Each person is
> different. Some may be happy with a 400MHz machine with 128MB
> memory running Windows XP (I've seen it and even read about such
> people in these newsgroups.) Others may need 1.8GHz with 512MB
> memory for minimal performance with their office apps. Others
> might need 3.0GHz with 1GB memory for their smaller graphical
> editing (2D usually.) Others might be better off with the latest
> AutoDesk product, Core2Dua 3.0GHz Xeon and 3.5GB memory for their
> 3D modeling. It all depends on the 'you' that you (Bob Peters) was
> referring to.

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
> However, when buying a computer it's important to think in terms
> NOT just of how much memory you need NOW ---- but what you'll need
> in two or three years.


*grin*
I think I said that...

"I like to get as much as *I* would need for now and 3-5 years in the
future as I can given a price restraint and what I plan on doing with it in
that timeframe."

--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

 

[Xandros]

"Stan Brown" <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:MPG.21e1c5ff15d63b6498b343@news.individual.net...
> Sun, 30 Dec 2007 10:54:24 -0600 from Xandros
> <arron.neus*remove*@gmailcom>:
>>
>> "Bob Peters" <bob@bobpeters61pretenses.us> wrote in message
>> news:1199020172_9533@sp6iad.superfeed.net...
>> > VanguardLH wrote:
>> >> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/888137/en-us
>> >
>> > Limiting memory. Looks like a rather ugly bug introduced in SP2. I do
>> > hope that SP3 includes a fix for that when and if it ever comes out.
>>
>> This is by design. It is not a bug.
>
> The word "misfeature" is useful here -- intended behavior that seems
> remarkably ill-chosen.
>
> --
> Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA

"misfeature" - that pretty much sums up most Microsoft software designs.

--

Xandros

 

[Bob Peters]

Shenan Stanley wrote:

>
> Bob Peters wrote:
>> Not trying to be sarcastic here, but am actually curious:
>>
>> You shop for a decent new motherboard, you're usually looking at a
>> capacity for 8G on one that's "Designed for Windows XP" and "Windows
>> Vista Certified." (at the time I'm writing this)
>
> Who is the 'you' that you (Bob Peters) is referring to here in the
> statement, "... you're usually looking at a capacity for 8G on one ..."?
>
Dude, you need to interact more with humans. You're showing signs of
computer-like literalist thought process.

My use of "you" there was a very common framing of a generalization.
>
> You (Bob Peters) seem to imply that the mysterious 'you' referred to will
> only look for two things. RAM capacity and OS compatibility. I look at
> FSB, CPU type, onboard USB capability, onboard audio, onboard NIC, HDD
> controller type/capacity, RAID or not and even the type of casde it will fit
> in. I like to get as much as *I* would need for now and 3-5 years in the
> future as I can given a price restraint and what I plan on doing with it in
> that timeframe.
>
Actually, I want to do various multi-media and am hoping for room to
expand and stay useful until 2012. So for my current newly-built
computer, I looked for 3G SATA, Core2Quad CPU support (LGA775 socket,
specifically) and PCI Express x16 slots for the video card, rather than
the older AGP. Also, all the various ports I want, such as parallel for
my printer, a good ethernet port, at least one Firewire port and enough
USB2 for all my toys. As well as a couple of free PCI slots remaining
for that doodad I haven't yet imagined but will want in a couple of
years when it hits the market.

My approach is to consider the overall system and select a mobo that
fits everything it has to.

Such motherboards, or even the ones that aren't low-end to the point of
matching a $500 prefabbed PC, generally support up to 8G of RAM. At
least where I shopped for parts.

Not that one need buy that much memory. Mine does just fine for my
present purposes with only 2G of RAM. I'll buy more later if I need it
for something I have yet to add on or try doing.

>> Surely the hardware can't require 4G behind the scenes, even if
>> you're building a monster gaming rig to go gunning for the Angry
>> German Kid in "Unreal."
>
> I do not understand here - are you making the same point I am? What do you
> mean, "... the hardware can't require 4G behind the scenes ..."?
>
Sorry, but that's the most literal level I could reduce that one to.

>> Is the higher capability entirely for those early adapters who are
>> going 64-bit even without many goodies yet compatible?
>
> It's for anyone who thinks they might need it.
>
Or perhaps, I guess, for room to upgrade in the future when one wants
something that most people haven't yet imagined that'll come out in a
couple of years, and hopefully more 64-bits software will be available
by then.

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

 

[Bob Peters]

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 15:17:09 -0600, Bob Peters
> <bob@bobpeters61pretenses.us> wrote:
>
>> jorgen wrote:
>>> Unknown wrote:
>>>> Not a bug. Hardware architecture limits memory addressing to about 3.2
>>>> gig.
>>> The x86 architecture includes PAE, which expands the address space well
>>> above 4G. Both xp and vista includes a PAE kernel, but limits the
>>> physical address space to 4G anyway
>> Not trying to be sarcastic here, but am actually curious:
>>
>> You shop for a decent new motherboard, you're usually looking at a
>> capacity for 8G on one that's "Designed for Windows XP" and "Windows
>> Vista Certified." (at the time I'm writing this)
>>
>> What's the point if you can only address half of that, max?
>>
>> Surely the hardware can't require 4G behind the scenes, even if you're
>> building a monster gaming rig to go gunning for the Angry German Kid in
>> "Unreal."
>>
>> Is the higher capability entirely for those early adapters who are going
>> 64-bit even without many goodies yet compatible?
>
>
> Yes. It's for those running 64-bit Windows.
>
Thanks. That's what I thought.

> By the way, it would be a very rare occurrence for someone running
> 32-bit Windows XP to be able to effectively use more than 4GB (or even
> 3GB), even if the hardware/software supported it. Unless you run
> extremely memory-hungry applications, you can't come close to even
> using that much.
>

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

 

[Unknown]

You are mistaken.
"John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
news:e%23V9QMxSIHA.6060@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> No, I did not misinterpret your post. You said:
>
>> Hardware architecture limits memory addressing to about 3.2 gig.
>
> That is incorrect. Implementations in SP2 limits memory addressing to
> about 3.2GB, not the hardware architecture. Don't bother with a reply!
>
> John
>
> Unknown wrote:
>
>> Once again you read something into a post and misinterpret. 'The hardware
>> takes what it needs and the rest of the unused addresses are available
>> for memory'.
>> If that doesn't equate to 'hardware architecture limitation' what is it
>> in your words??
>> Since all memory is used (not all by programs) I think it to be brilliant
>> hardware design.
>> Think of all the hardware address bits saved.
>> "John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
>> news:Od03dSwSIHA.5016@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>
>>>It's not a bug and what you say is also incorrect. There was an
>>>"intentional" change made in SP2 to deliberately limit the available
>>>limit to about 3.2GB. The hardware architecture does not limit memory
>>>addressing, it takes what it needs and the rest of the unused addresses
>>>are available for the installed RAM, prior to SP2 that could be as high
>>>as 3.75GB, it all depends on the hardware installed in the box.
>>>
>>>The changes in SP2 were made for compatibility reason with some drivers,
>>>probably because of poorly written drivers if you ask me. In any case I
>>>think that it is a dumb fix, one of these Microsoft dillies! Because
>>>"some" drivers are screwy everybody, whether or not they have screwy
>>>drivers, should be denied the use of potentially available memory above
>>>3.2GB, what a kludge of a fix! Anyway, someone told me in another group
>>>that they have 4GB on XP 32-bit with SP2 and that they are able to see
>>>much more than the 3.2GB limit that was supposedly introduced with SP2 so
>>>I don't quite know what to make of this SP2 fix.
>>>
>>>John
>>>
>>>Unknown wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Not a bug. Hardware architecture limits memory addressing to about 3.2
>>>>gig.
>>>>"Bob Peters" <bob@bobpeters61pretenses.us> wrote in message
>>>>news:1199020172_9533@sp6iad.superfeed.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>VanguardLH wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>http://support.microsoft.com/kb/888137/en-us
>>>>>
>>>>>Limiting memory. Looks like a rather ugly bug introduced in SP2. I do
>>>>>hope that SP3 includes a fix for that when and if it ever comes out.
>>>>>
>>>>>Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
>>>>>----------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
>>>>>----------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>http://www.usenet.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>

 

[Unknown]

It is amazing how your egotistic superiority complex prevents you from
seeing or
recognizing other posters messages. What is it that you don't recognize
about
hardware architecture?
"John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
news:%23MbjROzSIHA.4104@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Tim Slattery wrote:
>
>> John John <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>No, I did not misinterpret your post. You said:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hardware architecture limits memory addressing to about 3.2 gig.
>>>
>>>That is incorrect. Implementations in SP2 limits memory addressing to
>>>about 3.2GB, not the hardware architecture. Don't bother with a reply!
>>
>>
>> That's not true.
>
> Having reread the article I see that the addressing in SP2 is only limited
> with the /PAE switch. Without PAE mode usable memory may be more than
> 3.12GB.
>
> John

 

[John John]

The hardware architecture does not limit the available RAM to "about 3.2
gig", as you incorrectly stated. The addressed taken from the T.O.M.
range can be as little as 200MB to as much as 1GB, or even more. There
is no artificial number as "about 3.2GB". The unavailable RAM isn't
lost, its addresses are shifted above the 4GB barrier and 32-bit
operating systems cannot use it unless they make use of Physical Address
Extension. Changes in SP2 PAE mode behaviour may further reduce the
available memory, you may have less available than before you applied SP2.

I know fully well why all 4GB of RAM isn't available on 32-bit operating
systems, I don't need lessons in hardware architecture from you. You
don't know what you are talking about and proof enough of that is that
only a short while ago you were arguing the video adapter memory had
nothing at all to do with the issue and that it didn't affect available
memory! Hardware architecture does not limit available RAM to about 3.2
gigs, if it does then perhaps you should explain why the OP stated that
he can see or use 3.62 gigs, that is about 462MB than your artificially
made up value of "about 3.2 gigs"! Take a hike troll.

John

Unknown wrote:

> It is amazing how your egotistic superiority complex prevents you from
> seeing or
> recognizing other posters messages. What is it that you don't recognize
> about
> hardware architecture?
> "John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
> news:%23MbjROzSIHA.4104@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
>>Tim Slattery wrote:
>>
>>
>>>John John <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>No, I did not misinterpret your post. You said:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Hardware architecture limits memory addressing to about 3.2 gig.
>>>>
>>>>That is incorrect. Implementations in SP2 limits memory addressing to
>>>>about 3.2GB, not the hardware architecture. Don't bother with a reply!
>>>
>>>
>>>That's not true.
>>
>>Having reread the article I see that the addressing in SP2 is only limited
>>with the /PAE switch. Without PAE mode usable memory may be more than
>>3.12GB.
>>
>>John
>
>
>

 

[Unknown]

Once again your egotistic superiority complex is showing. What is it that
you don't understand
about the word 'about'. Would 'estimated' suit you better?
Why can't the difference between 4gig and 3.2 gig be used? (without PAE).
You take a hike!

"John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
news:ujffbQKTIHA.6060@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> The hardware architecture does not limit the available RAM to "about 3.2
> gig", as you incorrectly stated. The addressed taken from the T.O.M.
> range can be as little as 200MB to as much as 1GB, or even more. There is
> no artificial number as "about 3.2GB". The unavailable RAM isn't lost,
> its addresses are shifted above the 4GB barrier and 32-bit operating
> systems cannot use it unless they make use of Physical Address Extension.
> Changes in SP2 PAE mode behaviour may further reduce the available memory,
> you may have less available than before you applied SP2.
>
> I know fully well why all 4GB of RAM isn't available on 32-bit operating
> systems, I don't need lessons in hardware architecture from you. You
> don't know what you are talking about and proof enough of that is that
> only a short while ago you were arguing the video adapter memory had
> nothing at all to do with the issue and that it didn't affect available
> memory! Hardware architecture does not limit available RAM to about 3.2
> gigs, if it does then perhaps you should explain why the OP stated that he
> can see or use 3.62 gigs, that is about 462MB than your artificially made
> up value of "about 3.2 gigs"! Take a hike troll.
>
> John
>
> Unknown wrote:
>
>> It is amazing how your egotistic superiority complex prevents you from
>> seeing or
>> recognizing other posters messages. What is it that you don't recognize
>> about
>> hardware architecture?
>> "John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
>> news:%23MbjROzSIHA.4104@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>
>>>Tim Slattery wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>John John <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>No, I did not misinterpret your post. You said:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Hardware architecture limits memory addressing to about 3.2 gig.
>>>>>
>>>>>That is incorrect. Implementations in SP2 limits memory addressing to
>>>>>about 3.2GB, not the hardware architecture. Don't bother with a reply!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That's not true.
>>>
>>>Having reread the article I see that the addressing in SP2 is only
>>>limited with the /PAE switch. Without PAE mode usable memory may be more
>>>than 3.12GB.
>>>
>>>John
>>
>>

 

[John John]

Your "about" could be off by as much as 500 megabytes one way or the
other, not a trivial amount when dealing with RAM. You cannot admit
that your statement was incorrect so in an effort to bolster up your
inaccurate information you are now trying to steer the conversation away
from your inaccurate statements, you truly are a useless troll!

John

Unknown wrote:

> Once again your egotistic superiority complex is showing. What is it that
> you don't understand
> about the word 'about'. Would 'estimated' suit you better?
> Why can't the difference between 4gig and 3.2 gig be used? (without PAE).
> You take a hike!
>
> "John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
> news:ujffbQKTIHA.6060@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
>>The hardware architecture does not limit the available RAM to "about 3.2
>>gig", as you incorrectly stated. The addressed taken from the T.O.M.
>>range can be as little as 200MB to as much as 1GB, or even more. There is
>>no artificial number as "about 3.2GB". The unavailable RAM isn't lost,
>>its addresses are shifted above the 4GB barrier and 32-bit operating
>>systems cannot use it unless they make use of Physical Address Extension.
>>Changes in SP2 PAE mode behaviour may further reduce the available memory,
>>you may have less available than before you applied SP2.
>>
>>I know fully well why all 4GB of RAM isn't available on 32-bit operating
>>systems, I don't need lessons in hardware architecture from you. You
>>don't know what you are talking about and proof enough of that is that
>>only a short while ago you were arguing the video adapter memory had
>>nothing at all to do with the issue and that it didn't affect available
>>memory! Hardware architecture does not limit available RAM to about 3.2
>>gigs, if it does then perhaps you should explain why the OP stated that he
>>can see or use 3.62 gigs, that is about 462MB than your artificially made
>>up value of "about 3.2 gigs"! Take a hike troll.
>>
>>John
>>
>>Unknown wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It is amazing how your egotistic superiority complex prevents you from
>>>seeing or
>>>recognizing other posters messages. What is it that you don't recognize
>>>about
>>>hardware architecture?
>>>"John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
>>>news:%23MbjROzSIHA.4104@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Tim Slattery wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>John John <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>No, I did not misinterpret your post. You said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Hardware architecture limits memory addressing to about 3.2 gig.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That is incorrect. Implementations in SP2 limits memory addressing to
>>>>>>about 3.2GB, not the hardware architecture. Don't bother with a reply!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>That's not true.
>>>>
>>>>Having reread the article I see that the addressing in SP2 is only
>>>>limited with the /PAE switch. Without PAE mode usable memory may be more
>>>>than 3.12GB.
>>>>
>>>>John
>>>
>>>
>

 

[Unknown]

And you are truly useless for responding to posts. Worse than a troll.
May I suggest (or you can preserve your ignorance if you so choose) that
you visit the MS site and read all about 'memory management'.
You'll discover the term 'mapped for other uses'.
If that isn't hardware architecture then you must have a completely
different vocabulary than everyone else on this newsgroup.
"John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
news:OUIecmKTIHA.3516@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Your "about" could be off by as much as 500 megabytes one way or the
> other, not a trivial amount when dealing with RAM. You cannot admit that
> your statement was incorrect so in an effort to bolster up your inaccurate
> information you are now trying to steer the conversation away from your
> inaccurate statements, you truly are a useless troll!
>
> John
>
> Unknown wrote:
>
>> Once again your egotistic superiority complex is showing. What is it that
>> you don't understand
>> about the word 'about'. Would 'estimated' suit you better?
>> Why can't the difference between 4gig and 3.2 gig be used? (without PAE).
>> You take a hike!
>>
>> "John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
>> news:ujffbQKTIHA.6060@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>
>>>The hardware architecture does not limit the available RAM to "about 3.2
>>>gig", as you incorrectly stated. The addressed taken from the T.O.M.
>>>range can be as little as 200MB to as much as 1GB, or even more. There
>>>is no artificial number as "about 3.2GB". The unavailable RAM isn't
>>>lost, its addresses are shifted above the 4GB barrier and 32-bit
>>>operating systems cannot use it unless they make use of Physical Address
>>>Extension. Changes in SP2 PAE mode behaviour may further reduce the
>>>available memory, you may have less available than before you applied
>>>SP2.
>>>
>>>I know fully well why all 4GB of RAM isn't available on 32-bit operating
>>>systems, I don't need lessons in hardware architecture from you. You
>>>don't know what you are talking about and proof enough of that is that
>>>only a short while ago you were arguing the video adapter memory had
>>>nothing at all to do with the issue and that it didn't affect available
>>>memory! Hardware architecture does not limit available RAM to about 3.2
>>>gigs, if it does then perhaps you should explain why the OP stated that
>>>he can see or use 3.62 gigs, that is about 462MB than your artificially
>>>made up value of "about 3.2 gigs"! Take a hike troll.
>>>
>>>John
>>>
>>>Unknown wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>It is amazing how your egotistic superiority complex prevents you from
>>>>seeing or
>>>>recognizing other posters messages. What is it that you don't recognize
>>>>about
>>>>hardware architecture?
>>>>"John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
>>>>news:%23MbjROzSIHA.4104@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Tim Slattery wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>John John <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No, I did not misinterpret your post. You said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Hardware architecture limits memory addressing to about 3.2 gig.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That is incorrect. Implementations in SP2 limits memory addressing
>>>>>>>to about 3.2GB, not the hardware architecture. Don't bother with a
>>>>>>>reply!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's not true.
>>>>>
>>>>>Having reread the article I see that the addressing in SP2 is only
>>>>>limited with the /PAE switch. Without PAE mode usable memory may be
>>>>>more than 3.12GB.
>>>>>
>>>>>John
>>>>
>>>>
>>

 

[jorgen]

Unknown wrote:
> May I suggest (or you can preserve your ignorance if you so choose) that
> you visit the MS site and read all about 'memory management'.
> You'll discover the term 'mapped for other uses'.
> If that isn't hardware architecture then you must have a completely
> different vocabulary than everyone else on this newsgroup.

It is a choice Microsoft made. If you have a state-of-the-art computer
that supports more than 4GB RAM and memory remapping (John John touched
the remapping subject), the limitation is in the OS not in the hardware.

 

[John John]

Where did I say that it wasn't hardware architecture? Nowhere! As
usual you make erroneous statements and then try to twist everything
around to suit your silly arguments. Once again, in case you didn't
understand it the first time, the hardware architecture does not limit
the RAM to "about 3.2 gigs", what will be available depends on what is
installed in the computer, it could be anything between 2.75 to 3.75GB.
Obviously you don't' understand anything about the issue, you keep on
insisting that the limit is "about 3.2 gigs".

John

Unknown wrote:

> And you are truly useless for responding to posts. Worse than a troll.
> May I suggest (or you can preserve your ignorance if you so choose) that
> you visit the MS site and read all about 'memory management'.
> You'll discover the term 'mapped for other uses'.
> If that isn't hardware architecture then you must have a completely
> different vocabulary than everyone else on this newsgroup.
> "John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
> news:OUIecmKTIHA.3516@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
>>Your "about" could be off by as much as 500 megabytes one way or the
>>other, not a trivial amount when dealing with RAM. You cannot admit that
>>your statement was incorrect so in an effort to bolster up your inaccurate
>>information you are now trying to steer the conversation away from your
>>inaccurate statements, you truly are a useless troll!
>>
>>John
>>
>>Unknown wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Once again your egotistic superiority complex is showing. What is it that
>>>you don't understand
>>>about the word 'about'. Would 'estimated' suit you better?
>>>Why can't the difference between 4gig and 3.2 gig be used? (without PAE).
>>>You take a hike!
>>>
>>>"John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
>>>news:ujffbQKTIHA.6060@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>>
>>>>The hardware architecture does not limit the available RAM to "about 3.2
>>>>gig", as you incorrectly stated. The addressed taken from the T.O.M.
>>>>range can be as little as 200MB to as much as 1GB, or even more. There
>>>>is no artificial number as "about 3.2GB". The unavailable RAM isn't
>>>>lost, its addresses are shifted above the 4GB barrier and 32-bit
>>>>operating systems cannot use it unless they make use of Physical Address
>>>>Extension. Changes in SP2 PAE mode behaviour may further reduce the
>>>>available memory, you may have less available than before you applied
>>>>SP2.
>>>>
>>>>I know fully well why all 4GB of RAM isn't available on 32-bit operating
>>>>systems, I don't need lessons in hardware architecture from you. You
>>>>don't know what you are talking about and proof enough of that is that
>>>>only a short while ago you were arguing the video adapter memory had
>>>>nothing at all to do with the issue and that it didn't affect available
>>>>memory! Hardware architecture does not limit available RAM to about 3.2
>>>>gigs, if it does then perhaps you should explain why the OP stated that
>>>>he can see or use 3.62 gigs, that is about 462MB than your artificially
>>>>made up value of "about 3.2 gigs"! Take a hike troll.
>>>>
>>>>John
>>>>
>>>>Unknown wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>It is amazing how your egotistic superiority complex prevents you from
>>>>>seeing or
>>>>>recognizing other posters messages. What is it that you don't recognize
>>>>>about
>>>>>hardware architecture?
>>>>>"John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
>>>>>news:%23MbjROzSIHA.4104@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Tim Slattery wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>John John <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No, I did not misinterpret your post. You said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Hardware architecture limits memory addressing to about 3.2 gig.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>That is incorrect. Implementations in SP2 limits memory addressing
>>>>>>>>to about 3.2GB, not the hardware architecture. Don't bother with a
>>>>>>>>reply!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That's not true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Having reread the article I see that the addressing in SP2 is only
>>>>>>limited with the /PAE switch. Without PAE mode usable memory may be
>>>>>>more than 3.12GB.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>John
>>>>>
>>>>>
>
>

 

[John]

Where did I say that it wasn't hardware architecture? Nowhere! As
usual you make erroneous statements and then try to twist everything
around to suit your silly arguments. Once again, in case you didn't
understand it the first time, the hardware architecture does not limit
the RAM to "about 3.2 gigs", what will be available depends on what is
installed in the computer, it could be anything between 2.75 to 3.75GB.
Obviously you don't' understand anything about the issue, you keep on
insisting that the limit is "about 3.2 gigs".

John

Unknown wrote:

> And you are truly useless for responding to posts. Worse than a troll.
> May I suggest (or you can preserve your ignorance if you so choose) that
> you visit the MS site and read all about 'memory management'.
> You'll discover the term 'mapped for other uses'.
> If that isn't hardware architecture then you must have a completely
> different vocabulary than everyone else on this newsgroup.
> "John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
> news:OUIecmKTIHA.3516@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
>>Your "about" could be off by as much as 500 megabytes one way or the
>>other, not a trivial amount when dealing with RAM. You cannot admit that
>>your statement was incorrect so in an effort to bolster up your inaccurate
>>information you are now trying to steer the conversation away from your
>>inaccurate statements, you truly are a useless troll!
>>
>>John
>>
>>Unknown wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Once again your egotistic superiority complex is showing. What is it that
>>>you don't understand
>>>about the word 'about'. Would 'estimated' suit you better?
>>>Why can't the difference between 4gig and 3.2 gig be used? (without PAE).
>>>You take a hike!
>>>
>>>"John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
>>>news:ujffbQKTIHA.6060@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>>
>>>>The hardware architecture does not limit the available RAM to "about 3.2
>>>>gig", as you incorrectly stated. The addressed taken from the T.O.M.
>>>>range can be as little as 200MB to as much as 1GB, or even more. There
>>>>is no artificial number as "about 3.2GB". The unavailable RAM isn't
>>>>lost, its addresses are shifted above the 4GB barrier and 32-bit
>>>>operating systems cannot use it unless they make use of Physical Address
>>>>Extension. Changes in SP2 PAE mode behaviour may further reduce the
>>>>available memory, you may have less available than before you applied
>>>>SP2.
>>>>
>>>>I know fully well why all 4GB of RAM isn't available on 32-bit operating
>>>>systems, I don't need lessons in hardware architecture from you. You
>>>>don't know what you are talking about and proof enough of that is that
>>>>only a short while ago you were arguing the video adapter memory had
>>>>nothing at all to do with the issue and that it didn't affect available
>>>>memory! Hardware architecture does not limit available RAM to about 3.2
>>>>gigs, if it does then perhaps you should explain why the OP stated that
>>>>he can see or use 3.62 gigs, that is about 462MB than your artificially
>>>>made up value of "about 3.2 gigs"! Take a hike troll.
>>>>
>>>>John
>>>>
>>>>Unknown wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>It is amazing how your egotistic superiority complex prevents you from
>>>>>seeing or
>>>>>recognizing other posters messages. What is it that you don't recognize
>>>>>about
>>>>>hardware architecture?
>>>>>"John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
>>>>>news:%23MbjROzSIHA.4104@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Tim Slattery wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>John John <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No, I did not misinterpret your post. You said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Hardware architecture limits memory addressing to about 3.2 gig.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>That is incorrect. Implementations in SP2 limits memory addressing
>>>>>>>>to about 3.2GB, not the hardware architecture. Don't bother with a
>>>>>>>>reply!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That's not true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Having reread the article I see that the addressing in SP2 is only
>>>>>>limited with the /PAE switch. Without PAE mode usable memory may be
>>>>>>more than 3.12GB.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>John
>>>>>
>>>>>
>
>

 

[Unknown]

Read your response to my first post. Who twists everything????
"John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
news:%23lu$RGNTIHA.3916@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Where did I say that it wasn't hardware architecture? Nowhere! As usual
> you make erroneous statements and then try to twist everything around to
> suit your silly arguments. Once again, in case you didn't understand it
> the first time, the hardware architecture does not limit the RAM to "about
> 3.2 gigs", what will be available depends on what is installed in the
> computer, it could be anything between 2.75 to 3.75GB.
WHAT DO YOU HAVE INSTALLED IN THE COMPUTER? SMOKE???????
> Obviously you don't' understand anything about the issue, you keep on
> insisting that the limit is "about 3.2 gigs".
>
> John
>
> Unknown wrote:
>
>> And you are truly useless for responding to posts. Worse than a troll.
>> May I suggest (or you can preserve your ignorance if you so choose) that
>> you visit the MS site and read all about 'memory management'.
>> You'll discover the term 'mapped for other uses'.
>> If that isn't hardware architecture then you must have a completely
>> different vocabulary than everyone else on this newsgroup.
>> "John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
>> news:OUIecmKTIHA.3516@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>
>>>Your "about" could be off by as much as 500 megabytes one way or the
>>>other, not a trivial amount when dealing with RAM. You cannot admit that
>>>your statement was incorrect so in an effort to bolster up your
>>>inaccurate information you are now trying to steer the conversation away
>>>from your inaccurate statements, you truly are a useless troll!
>>>
>>>John
>>>
>>>Unknown wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Once again your egotistic superiority complex is showing. What is it
>>>>that you don't understand
>>>>about the word 'about'. Would 'estimated' suit you better?
>>>>Why can't the difference between 4gig and 3.2 gig be used? (without
>>>>PAE).
>>>>You take a hike!
>>>>
>>>>"John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
>>>>news:ujffbQKTIHA.6060@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The hardware architecture does not limit the available RAM to "about
>>>>>3.2 gig", as you incorrectly stated. The addressed taken from the
>>>>>T.O.M. range can be as little as 200MB to as much as 1GB, or even more.
>>>>>There is no artificial number as "about 3.2GB". The unavailable RAM
>>>>>isn't lost, its addresses are shifted above the 4GB barrier and 32-bit
>>>>>operating systems cannot use it unless they make use of Physical
>>>>>Address Extension. Changes in SP2 PAE mode behaviour may further reduce
>>>>>the available memory, you may have less available than before you
>>>>>applied SP2.
>>>>>
>>>>>I know fully well why all 4GB of RAM isn't available on 32-bit
>>>>>operating systems, I don't need lessons in hardware architecture from
>>>>>you. You don't know what you are talking about and proof enough of
>>>>>that is that only a short while ago you were arguing the video adapter
>>>>>memory had nothing at all to do with the issue and that it didn't
>>>>>affect available memory! Hardware architecture does not limit
>>>>>available RAM to about 3.2 gigs, if it does then perhaps you should
>>>>>explain why the OP stated that he can see or use 3.62 gigs, that is
>>>>>about 462MB than your artificially made up value of "about 3.2 gigs"!
>>>>>Take a hike troll.
>>>>>
>>>>>John
>>>>>
>>>>>Unknown wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>It is amazing how your egotistic superiority complex prevents you from
>>>>>>seeing or
>>>>>>recognizing other posters messages. What is it that you don't
>>>>>>recognize about
>>>>>>hardware architecture?
>>>>>>"John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:%23MbjROzSIHA.4104@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Tim Slattery wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>John John <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>No, I did not misinterpret your post. You said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Hardware architecture limits memory addressing to about 3.2 gig.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>That is incorrect. Implementations in SP2 limits memory addressing
>>>>>>>>>to about 3.2GB, not the hardware architecture. Don't bother with a
>>>>>>>>>reply!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>That's not true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Having reread the article I see that the addressing in SP2 is only
>>>>>>>limited with the /PAE switch. Without PAE mode usable memory may be
>>>>>>>more than 3.12GB.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>John
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>

 

[John John]

The hardware architecture does not limit memory to any fixed artificial
value as you incorrectly stated. The usable or available memory will
depend on what hardware is installed in the computer. Now get lost
troll, I'm done with your nonsense.

John

Unknown wrote:

> Read your response to my first post. Who twists everything????
> "John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
> news:%23lu$RGNTIHA.3916@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
>>Where did I say that it wasn't hardware architecture? Nowhere! As usual
>>you make erroneous statements and then try to twist everything around to
>>suit your silly arguments. Once again, in case you didn't understand it
>>the first time, the hardware architecture does not limit the RAM to "about
>>3.2 gigs", what will be available depends on what is installed in the
>>computer, it could be anything between 2.75 to 3.75GB.
>
> WHAT DO YOU HAVE INSTALLED IN THE COMPUTER? SMOKE???????
>
>> Obviously you don't' understand anything about the issue, you keep on
>>insisting that the limit is "about 3.2 gigs".
>>
>>John
>>
>>Unknown wrote:
>>
>>
>>>And you are truly useless for responding to posts. Worse than a troll.
>>>May I suggest (or you can preserve your ignorance if you so choose) that
>>>you visit the MS site and read all about 'memory management'.
>>>You'll discover the term 'mapped for other uses'.
>>>If that isn't hardware architecture then you must have a completely
>>>different vocabulary than everyone else on this newsgroup.
>>>"John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
>>>news:OUIecmKTIHA.3516@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Your "about" could be off by as much as 500 megabytes one way or the
>>>>other, not a trivial amount when dealing with RAM. You cannot admit that
>>>>your statement was incorrect so in an effort to bolster up your
>>>>inaccurate information you are now trying to steer the conversation away
>>>
>>>>from your inaccurate statements, you truly are a useless troll!
>>>
>>>>John
>>>>
>>>>Unknown wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Once again your egotistic superiority complex is showing. What is it
>>>>>that you don't understand
>>>>>about the word 'about'. Would 'estimated' suit you better?
>>>>>Why can't the difference between 4gig and 3.2 gig be used? (without
>>>>>PAE).
>>>>>You take a hike!
>>>>>
>>>>>"John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
>>>>>news:ujffbQKTIHA.6060@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>The hardware architecture does not limit the available RAM to "about
>>>>>>3.2 gig", as you incorrectly stated. The addressed taken from the
>>>>>>T.O.M. range can be as little as 200MB to as much as 1GB, or even more.
>>>>>>There is no artificial number as "about 3.2GB". The unavailable RAM
>>>>>>isn't lost, its addresses are shifted above the 4GB barrier and 32-bit
>>>>>>operating systems cannot use it unless they make use of Physical
>>>>>>Address Extension. Changes in SP2 PAE mode behaviour may further reduce
>>>>>>the available memory, you may have less available than before you
>>>>>>applied SP2.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I know fully well why all 4GB of RAM isn't available on 32-bit
>>>>>>operating systems, I don't need lessons in hardware architecture from
>>>>>>you. You don't know what you are talking about and proof enough of
>>>>>>that is that only a short while ago you were arguing the video adapter
>>>>>>memory had nothing at all to do with the issue and that it didn't
>>>>>>affect available memory! Hardware architecture does not limit
>>>>>>available RAM to about 3.2 gigs, if it does then perhaps you should
>>>>>>explain why the OP stated that he can see or use 3.62 gigs, that is
>>>>>>about 462MB than your artificially made up value of "about 3.2 gigs"!
>>>>>>Take a hike troll.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>John
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Unknown wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It is amazing how your egotistic superiority complex prevents you from
>>>>>>>seeing or
>>>>>>>recognizing other posters messages. What is it that you don't
>>>>>>>recognize about
>>>>>>>hardware architecture?
>>>>>>>"John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:%23MbjROzSIHA.4104@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Tim Slattery wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>John John <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>No, I did not misinterpret your post. You said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Hardware architecture limits memory addressing to about 3.2 gig.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>That is incorrect. Implementations in SP2 limits memory addressing
>>>>>>>>>>to about 3.2GB, not the hardware architecture. Don't bother with a
>>>>>>>>>>reply!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>That's not true.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Having reread the article I see that the addressing in SP2 is only
>>>>>>>>limited with the /PAE switch. Without PAE mode usable memory may be
>>>>>>>>more than 3.12GB.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>John
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>

 

[Unknown]

How stupid can you possibly get? I never once said the hardware architecture
limits memory to an artificial value. You seem to have a knack of reading
something and
interpreting it so that you can present an argument. If that isn't your
egotistical
superiority complex, I don't know what is.
You get lost!
If the usable or available memory is dependant on the hardware installed
is that not hardware architecture? What's with you? Why are you so dense?
Do you speak, read and write English?
"John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
news:ODW8OkVTIHA.4360@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> The hardware architecture does not limit memory to any fixed artificial
> value as you incorrectly stated. The usable or available memory will
> depend on what hardware is installed in the computer. Now get lost troll,
> I'm done with your nonsense.
>
> John
>
> Unknown wrote:
>
>> Read your response to my first post. Who twists everything????
>> "John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
>> news:%23lu$RGNTIHA.3916@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>
>>>Where did I say that it wasn't hardware architecture? Nowhere! As usual
>>>you make erroneous statements and then try to twist everything around to
>>>suit your silly arguments. Once again, in case you didn't understand it
>>>the first time, the hardware architecture does not limit the RAM to
>>>"about 3.2 gigs", what will be available depends on what is installed in
>>>the computer, it could be anything between 2.75 to 3.75GB.
>>
>> WHAT DO YOU HAVE INSTALLED IN THE COMPUTER? SMOKE???????
>>
>>> Obviously you don't' understand anything about the issue, you keep on
>>> insisting that the limit is "about 3.2 gigs".
>>>
>>>John
>>>
>>>Unknown wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>And you are truly useless for responding to posts. Worse than a troll.
>>>>May I suggest (or you can preserve your ignorance if you so choose) that
>>>>you visit the MS site and read all about 'memory management'.
>>>>You'll discover the term 'mapped for other uses'.
>>>>If that isn't hardware architecture then you must have a completely
>>>>different vocabulary than everyone else on this newsgroup.
>>>>"John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
>>>>news:OUIecmKTIHA.3516@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Your "about" could be off by as much as 500 megabytes one way or the
>>>>>other, not a trivial amount when dealing with RAM. You cannot admit
>>>>>that your statement was incorrect so in an effort to bolster up your
>>>>>inaccurate information you are now trying to steer the conversation
>>>>>away
>>>>
>>>>>from your inaccurate statements, you truly are a useless troll!
>>>>
>>>>>John
>>>>>
>>>>>Unknown wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Once again your egotistic superiority complex is showing. What is it
>>>>>>that you don't understand
>>>>>>about the word 'about'. Would 'estimated' suit you better?
>>>>>>Why can't the difference between 4gig and 3.2 gig be used? (without
>>>>>>PAE).
>>>>>>You take a hike!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:ujffbQKTIHA.6060@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The hardware architecture does not limit the available RAM to "about
>>>>>>>3.2 gig", as you incorrectly stated. The addressed taken from the
>>>>>>>T.O.M. range can be as little as 200MB to as much as 1GB, or even
>>>>>>>more. There is no artificial number as "about 3.2GB". The
>>>>>>>unavailable RAM isn't lost, its addresses are shifted above the 4GB
>>>>>>>barrier and 32-bit operating systems cannot use it unless they make
>>>>>>>use of Physical Address Extension. Changes in SP2 PAE mode behaviour
>>>>>>>may further reduce the available memory, you may have less available
>>>>>>>than before you applied SP2.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I know fully well why all 4GB of RAM isn't available on 32-bit
>>>>>>>operating systems, I don't need lessons in hardware architecture from
>>>>>>>you. You don't know what you are talking about and proof enough of
>>>>>>>that is that only a short while ago you were arguing the video
>>>>>>>adapter memory had nothing at all to do with the issue and that it
>>>>>>>didn't affect available memory! Hardware architecture does not limit
>>>>>>>available RAM to about 3.2 gigs, if it does then perhaps you should
>>>>>>>explain why the OP stated that he can see or use 3.62 gigs, that is
>>>>>>>about 462MB than your artificially made up value of "about 3.2 gigs"!
>>>>>>>Take a hike troll.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>John
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Unknown wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It is amazing how your egotistic superiority complex prevents you
>>>>>>>>from seeing or
>>>>>>>>recognizing other posters messages. What is it that you don't
>>>>>>>>recognize about
>>>>>>>>hardware architecture?
>>>>>>>>"John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:%23MbjROzSIHA.4104@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Tim Slattery wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>John John <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>No, I did not misinterpret your post. You said:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Hardware architecture limits memory addressing to about 3.2 gig.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>That is incorrect. Implementations in SP2 limits memory
>>>>>>>>>>>addressing to about 3.2GB, not the hardware architecture. Don't
>>>>>>>>>>>bother with a reply!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>That's not true.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Having reread the article I see that the addressing in SP2 is only
>>>>>>>>>limited with the /PAE switch. Without PAE mode usable memory may
>>>>>>>>>be more than 3.12GB.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>John
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>
>

 

[John John]

Are you ever pathetic!

Learner wrote
> Just upgraded my Windows XP SP2 box to 4GB of memory. My BIOS sees 4096MB.
> I've added the /PAE option to boot.ini but it still says "3.62GB of RAM"
> when I look at system properties. what am I missing?

VanguardLH wrote:
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/888137/en-us

Bob Peters wrote:
> Limiting memory. Looks like a rather ugly bug introduced in SP2. I do
> hope that SP3 includes a fix for that when and if it ever comes out.

The Unknown Troll wrote:
> Not a bug. Hardware architecture limits memory addressing to about 3.2 gig.

Whose word were those? Where did the "about 3.2 gig" come from? Is
that not a made up artificial number that you pulled out of a hat? Once
again, I repeat, the hardware architecture does not limit memory
addressing to any particular value, the available memory could be
anything between about 2.75 gigs to 3.7 gigs, it all depends on what
hardware is installed in the box, it does not limit it to about 3.2
gigs! The op posted that he is able to see or use 3.62 gigs, in this
case your made up figure of 3.2 gigs is off by 462 megabytes!

It is not I who has a superiority complex, it is you who cannot accept
that you made an error and move on, you simply cannot admit that you
erred. I do not disagree that this is a hardware issue, what I am
telling you is that there is no "about 3.2 gigs" hardware wise, I have
seen users posting that they can only see 2.75 Gigs, and others like the
above poster that can see much more. You on the other hand keep on
insisting that the hardware architecture limits available RAM to "about
3.2 gigs", that if FALSE! Now screw off!

John

Unknown wrote:

> How stupid can you possibly get? I never once said the hardware architecture
> limits memory to an artificial value. You seem to have a knack of reading
> something and
> interpreting it so that you can present an argument. If that isn't your
> egotistical
> superiority complex, I don't know what is.
> You get lost!
> If the usable or available memory is dependant on the hardware installed
> is that not hardware architecture? What's with you? Why are you so dense?
> Do you speak, read and write English?
> "John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
> news:ODW8OkVTIHA.4360@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
>>The hardware architecture does not limit memory to any fixed artificial
>>value as you incorrectly stated. The usable or available memory will
>>depend on what hardware is installed in the computer. Now get lost troll,
>>I'm done with your nonsense.
>>
>>John
>>
>>Unknown wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Read your response to my first post. Who twists everything????
>>>"John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
>>>news:%23lu$RGNTIHA.3916@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Where did I say that it wasn't hardware architecture? Nowhere! As usual
>>>>you make erroneous statements and then try to twist everything around to
>>>>suit your silly arguments. Once again, in case you didn't understand it
>>>>the first time, the hardware architecture does not limit the RAM to
>>>>"about 3.2 gigs", what will be available depends on what is installed in
>>>>the computer, it could be anything between 2.75 to 3.75GB.
>>>
>>>WHAT DO YOU HAVE INSTALLED IN THE COMPUTER? SMOKE???????
>>>
>>>
>>>>Obviously you don't' understand anything about the issue, you keep on
>>>>insisting that the limit is "about 3.2 gigs".
>>>>
>>>>John
>>>>
>>>>Unknown wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>And you are truly useless for responding to posts. Worse than a troll.
>>>>>May I suggest (or you can preserve your ignorance if you so choose) that
>>>>>you visit the MS site and read all about 'memory management'.
>>>>>You'll discover the term 'mapped for other uses'.
>>>>>If that isn't hardware architecture then you must have a completely
>>>>>different vocabulary than everyone else on this newsgroup.
>>>>>"John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
>>>>>news:OUIecmKTIHA.3516@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Your "about" could be off by as much as 500 megabytes one way or the
>>>>>>other, not a trivial amount when dealing with RAM. You cannot admit
>>>>>>that your statement was incorrect so in an effort to bolster up your
>>>>>>inaccurate information you are now trying to steer the conversation
>>>>>>away
>>>>>
>>>>>>from your inaccurate statements, you truly are a useless troll!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>John
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Unknown wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Once again your egotistic superiority complex is showing. What is it
>>>>>>>that you don't understand
>>>>>>>about the word 'about'. Would 'estimated' suit you better?
>>>>>>>Why can't the difference between 4gig and 3.2 gig be used? (without
>>>>>>>PAE).
>>>>>>>You take a hike!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:ujffbQKTIHA.6060@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The hardware architecture does not limit the available RAM to "about
>>>>>>>>3.2 gig", as you incorrectly stated. The addressed taken from the
>>>>>>>>T.O.M. range can be as little as 200MB to as much as 1GB, or even
>>>>>>>>more. There is no artificial number as "about 3.2GB". The
>>>>>>>>unavailable RAM isn't lost, its addresses are shifted above the 4GB
>>>>>>>>barrier and 32-bit operating systems cannot use it unless they make
>>>>>>>>use of Physical Address Extension. Changes in SP2 PAE mode behaviour
>>>>>>>>may further reduce the available memory, you may have less available
>>>>>>>>than before you applied SP2.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I know fully well why all 4GB of RAM isn't available on 32-bit
>>>>>>>>operating systems, I don't need lessons in hardware architecture from
>>>>>>>>you. You don't know what you are talking about and proof enough of
>>>>>>>>that is that only a short while ago you were arguing the video
>>>>>>>>adapter memory had nothing at all to do with the issue and that it
>>>>>>>>didn't affect available memory! Hardware architecture does not limit
>>>>>>>>available RAM to about 3.2 gigs, if it does then perhaps you should
>>>>>>>>explain why the OP stated that he can see or use 3.62 gigs, that is
>>>>>>>>about 462MB than your artificially made up value of "about 3.2 gigs"!
>>>>>>>>Take a hike troll.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>John
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Unknown wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>It is amazing how your egotistic superiority complex prevents you
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>from seeing or
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>recognizing other posters messages. What is it that you don't
>>>>>>>>>recognize about
>>>>>>>>>hardware architecture?
>>>>>>>>>"John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>news:%23MbjROzSIHA.4104@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Tim Slattery wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>John John <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>No, I did not misinterpret your post. You said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hardware architecture limits memory addressing to about 3.2 gig.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>That is incorrect. Implementations in SP2 limits memory
>>>>>>>>>>>>addressing to about 3.2GB, not the hardware architecture. Don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>bother with a reply!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>That's not true.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Having reread the article I see that the addressing in SP2 is only
>>>>>>>>>>limited with the /PAE switch. Without PAE mode usable memory may
>>>>>>>>>>be more than 3.12GB.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>John
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>
>

 

[Unknown]

You seem to want to do anything but admit you are EVER wrong. Goes back to
your
egotistical superiority complex personality. Do you know the definition of
about?
Would you expect a responder to say 'if you have this or that installed'
your memory
availability is xxx megabytes?
"John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
news:umjRHxXTIHA.3400@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Are you ever pathetic!
>
> Learner wrote
>> Just upgraded my Windows XP SP2 box to 4GB of memory. My BIOS sees
>> 4096MB.
>> I've added the /PAE option to boot.ini but it still says "3.62GB of RAM"
>> when I look at system properties. what am I missing?
>
> VanguardLH wrote:
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/888137/en-us
>
> Bob Peters wrote:
>> Limiting memory. Looks like a rather ugly bug introduced in SP2. I do
>> hope that SP3 includes a fix for that when and if it ever comes out.
>
> The Unknown Troll wrote:
>> Not a bug. Hardware architecture limits memory addressing to about 3.2
>> gig.
>
> Whose word were those? Where did the "about 3.2 gig" come from? Is that
> not a made up artificial number that you pulled out of a hat?
No stupid, it is an approximation.
> Once again, I repeat, the hardware architecture does not limit memory
> addressing to any particular value,
Who said anything about a particular value?? Only you trying to bail out.

> anything between about 2.75 gigs to 3.7 gigs, it all depends on what
> hardware is installed in the box, it does not limit it to about 3.2 gigs!
I did NOT use the word 'limit'. Can't you read English?

>The op posted that he is able to see or use 3.62 gigs, in this
> case your made up figure of 3.2 gigs is off by 462 megabytes!
>
> It is not I who has a superiority complex, it is you who cannot accept
> that you made an error and move on, you simply cannot admit that you
> erred. I do not disagree that this is a hardware issue,
That is all I said it was. Hardware architecture.

>what I am telling you is that there is no "about 3.2 gigs" hardware wise,
>I have seen users posting that they can only see 2.75 Gigs, and others like
>the above poster that can see much more. You on the other hand keep on
>insisting that the hardware architecture limits available RAM to "about 3.2
>gigs", that if FALSE! Now screw off.

Would it suit you if I said 'depending on the hardware installed about 3.2
gigs'?
I doubt it. Your personality wouldn't allow that.
Why don't you go push the power on switch on the rear of your computer.

In the meantime LEARN the English Language. (maybe you're unable?)

>
> John
>
> Unknown wrote:
>
>> How stupid can you possibly get? I never once said the hardware
>> architecture
>> limits memory to an artificial value. You seem to have a knack of reading
>> something and
>> interpreting it so that you can present an argument. If that isn't your
>> egotistical
>> superiority complex, I don't know what is.
>> You get lost!
>> If the usable or available memory is dependant on the hardware installed
>> is that not hardware architecture? What's with you? Why are you so dense?
>> Do you speak, read and write English?
>> "John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
>> news:ODW8OkVTIHA.4360@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>
>>>The hardware architecture does not limit memory to any fixed artificial
>>>value as you incorrectly stated. The usable or available memory will
>>>depend on what hardware is installed in the computer. Now get lost
>>>troll, I'm done with your nonsense.
>>>
>>>John
>>>
>>>Unknown wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Read your response to my first post. Who twists everything????
>>>>"John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
>>>>news:%23lu$RGNTIHA.3916@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Where did I say that it wasn't hardware architecture? Nowhere! As
>>>>>usual you make erroneous statements and then try to twist everything
>>>>>around to suit your silly arguments. Once again, in case you didn't
>>>>>understand it the first time, the hardware architecture does not limit
>>>>>the RAM to "about 3.2 gigs", what will be available depends on what is
>>>>>installed in the computer, it could be anything between 2.75 to 3.75GB.
>>>>
>>>>WHAT DO YOU HAVE INSTALLED IN THE COMPUTER? SMOKE???????
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Obviously you don't' understand anything about the issue, you keep on
>>>>>insisting that the limit is "about 3.2 gigs".
>>>>>
>>>>>John
>>>>>
>>>>>Unknown wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>And you are truly useless for responding to posts. Worse than a troll.
>>>>>>May I suggest (or you can preserve your ignorance if you so choose)
>>>>>>that
>>>>>>you visit the MS site and read all about 'memory management'.
>>>>>>You'll discover the term 'mapped for other uses'.
>>>>>>If that isn't hardware architecture then you must have a completely
>>>>>>different vocabulary than everyone else on this newsgroup.
>>>>>>"John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:OUIecmKTIHA.3516@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Your "about" could be off by as much as 500 megabytes one way or the
>>>>>>>other, not a trivial amount when dealing with RAM. You cannot admit
>>>>>>>that your statement was incorrect so in an effort to bolster up your
>>>>>>>inaccurate information you are now trying to steer the conversation
>>>>>>>away
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>from your inaccurate statements, you truly are a useless troll!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>John
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Unknown wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Once again your egotistic superiority complex is showing. What is it
>>>>>>>>that you don't understand
>>>>>>>>about the word 'about'. Would 'estimated' suit you better?
>>>>>>>>Why can't the difference between 4gig and 3.2 gig be used? (without
>>>>>>>>PAE).
>>>>>>>>You take a hike!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:ujffbQKTIHA.6060@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The hardware architecture does not limit the available RAM to
>>>>>>>>>"about 3.2 gig", as you incorrectly stated. The addressed taken
>>>>>>>>>from the T.O.M. range can be as little as 200MB to as much as 1GB,
>>>>>>>>>or even more. There is no artificial number as "about 3.2GB". The
>>>>>>>>>unavailable RAM isn't lost, its addresses are shifted above the 4GB
>>>>>>>>>barrier and 32-bit operating systems cannot use it unless they make
>>>>>>>>>use of Physical Address Extension. Changes in SP2 PAE mode
>>>>>>>>>behaviour may further reduce the available memory, you may have
>>>>>>>>>less available than before you applied SP2.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I know fully well why all 4GB of RAM isn't available on 32-bit
>>>>>>>>>operating systems, I don't need lessons in hardware architecture
>>>>>>>>>from you. You don't know what you are talking about and proof
>>>>>>>>>enough of that is that only a short while ago you were arguing the
>>>>>>>>>video adapter memory had nothing at all to do with the issue and
>>>>>>>>>that it didn't affect available memory! Hardware architecture does
>>>>>>>>>not limit available RAM to about 3.2 gigs, if it does then perhaps
>>>>>>>>>you should explain why the OP stated that he can see or use 3.62
>>>>>>>>>gigs, that is about 462MB than your artificially made up value of
>>>>>>>>>"about 3.2 gigs"! Take a hike troll.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>John
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Unknown wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>It is amazing how your egotistic superiority complex prevents you
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>from seeing or
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>recognizing other posters messages. What is it that you don't
>>>>>>>>>>recognize about
>>>>>>>>>>hardware architecture?
>>>>>>>>>>"John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>news:%23MbjROzSIHA.4104@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Tim Slattery wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>John John <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>No, I did not misinterpret your post. You said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hardware architecture limits memory addressing to about 3.2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>gig.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>That is incorrect. Implementations in SP2 limits memory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>addressing to about 3.2GB, not the hardware architecture.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Don't bother with a reply!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>That's not true.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Having reread the article I see that the addressing in SP2 is
>>>>>>>>>>>only limited with the /PAE switch. Without PAE mode usable
>>>>>>>>>>>memory may be more than 3.12GB.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>John
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>
>