4GB DDR2 on WinXP 32bit - question

[casperog]

GOODLUCK !! i hope there advice helped

[lmgava]

but I think it's time this thread died.

Wouldn't be nice ? But you lied to us before.

Try stop posting.

[Jito463]

*sigh*

I have several comments to make about your own incorrect "assumptions", but I think it's time this thread died. I've had my say, and have nothing to apologize for.

[lmgava]

You apparently didn't understand what I was saying. I'm sorry you apparently don't get it.

No Jito, you didn't understand.

Every person here talked about how the 32bit OS 4 GB limit is further reduced by adding (for example) a 256, 512, or 1GB video card. So the RAM on the card have an impact on how much RAM you get available in your OS.

STOP. WE WERE ALL TALKING ABOUT THIS.

You continuosly posted things like

"No, the amount of VGA RAM has nothing to do with the 4GB limitation in Windows."

Yes. We know that. No one is telling the amount of video RAM is the *cause* of the 4 GB limit. We are telling the amount of video RAM furtherly reduce that 4 GB value.

"Your video card could have 8MB of RAM on it, and you'd still only be able to use up to 3GB max out of 4GB for applications."

That's a little more of 3 GB, but anyway.
The point is not this, it's that if you have a SLI configuration, for example, with two 512 MB card, you lost 1GB of your system RAM to that. We are simply telling that.

You missed that and started to say "you are spreading crap" (he was not), "the amount of VGA RAM has nothing to do with the 4GB limitation in Windows" (TRUE, and so ?? We know that thank you).

Furthermore "Since you apparently don't have a clue what you're talking about ..."

You were wrong there too. You didn't (again) understand what he was saying.

"I think I see where the confusion lies now."

Me too.

YOU didn't understand. YOU don't understant, and YOU (probably) will not understand.

"I'm not posting in this thread anymore, as it appears I'm not getting through anyway. I have better things to do with my time."

This was 3 post ago and you missed 3 occasions to apologize to FISKER_Q. You didn't understand his post (he was correct on both issues) and you started to say people was spreading crap.

[Jito463]

Ok, I think this thread has gone as far as it's going to go. But Obvious, I've said the exact same thing the whole time. You apparently didn't understand what I was saying. I'm sorry you apparently don't get it.

You can say what you will about me, but I've been consistent throughout. Since you've obviously got your mind set about me, I'm not going to try and convince you otherwise.

[lmgava]

What am I talking about?

I believe he was addressing me, switch the view to the threaded mode to confirm this.
I'm glad I'm not holding my breath, as I said.

I wish this forum had an ignore button.

User control panel -> Buddy/Ignore list

http://www.daemon-tools.cc/dtcc/profile.php?do=editlis

[obvious]

What am I talking about? Try http://www.daemon-tools.cc/dtcc/show...8&postcount=25

Yay, I haven't given one of these out yet this year. Have a "bullshitter of the year" award. You twist and turn like a twisty turny thing. It's not funny any more. It's sickening. I wish this forum had an ignore button. I dont post here often but when I saw the level of bullshit you were spreading WHILE AT THE SAME TIME TELLING OTHERS NOT TO SPREAD CRAP, I had to say something.

[Jito463]

What are you talking about? This is what I was saying all along. That certain parts of RAM are reserved for hardware by the OS, hence why only a certain amount of RAM can be allocated to applications. Maybe I didn't say it clearly enough, and for that I'm sorry if I was unclear. But I never said anything contradictory. I've been adamant about one point this whole time. System RAM and VC RAM are independant. I/O points mapped to System RAM does not mean the same thing as VC RAM mapped to System RAM.

[lmgava]

Finally
I've rarely seen anyone back down so slowly.

Well, it seem to me something is still missing, but I don't suggest anyone to hold his breath for that.

If you know what I mean.

[obvious]

Finally

I've rarely seen anyone back down so slowly.

[Jito463]

I think I see where the confusion lies now. Yes, the I/O mapping for the VC RAM must be mapped to system RAM, but it's not the actual RAM itself that's included. It's the I/O calls for the RAM.

[mwb1100]

Yup, thank you, but it's the same posted by Fisker_q in this same thread :

http://www.daemon-tools.cc/dtcc/showpost.php?p=88687&postcount=14

Heh... you're right, I missed that. There's an awful lot of noise in this thread, and I guess the useful bits got obscured.

[lmgava]

Hey everybody! Here's a link to a good overview of the inability of x86 32-bit processors from being able to use the entire physical 4GB of RAM in a system:

Yup, thank you, but it's the same posted by Fisker_q in this same thread :

http://www.daemon-tools.cc/dtcc/showpost.php?p=88687&postcount=14

No problem anyway, better post it some more time maybe, just to be sure any people interested in this matter get the facts as they are

I will repeat my previous link too

http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2006/08/14/699521.aspx

Cheers !

[obvious]

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605

For example, if you have a video card that has 256 MB of onboard memory, that memory must be mapped within the first 4 GB of address space. If 4 GB of system memory is already installed, part of that address space must be reserved by the graphics memory mapping. Graphics memory mapping overwrites a part of the system memory. These conditions reduce the total amount of system memory that is available to the operating system.

Video card RAM is ADDRESSED AS SYSTEM RAM.
What a knob-end.

[FISKER_Q]

Pointless is right. I'm not posting in this thread anymore, as it appears I'm not getting through anyway. I have better things to do with my time.

No you're not getting through, and you know why?

You're counter-arguments are that "we are spreading crap", you are unable to provide any factual arguments backed up by just one source to prove your point.

And we already established that you meant something else than the original poster did.

Had you come to this thread without resorting to namecalling and other derogatory remarks, provided some sources to your claims, this would've been a totally different story.

But you didn't.