Big RamDiisk, Lots of RAM, etc.

[98SE]

@Jaclaz

Too funny.  Dream Big!  Well Big within the limits of the OS code available.  If W10 could do beyond 2TB I would state that but I doubt the person doing the modding can create code from scratch but just copy and paste or hexedit it.  I would prefer a hexedit method but if MS intentionally limited W10 to 2TB and didn't write memory routines to go beyond that I doubt Dibya could perform a miracle unless he had the W10 source code and the XP source code to do some tinkering and recompile a newer build.

But back in the day Bill Gates used to think 640KB was enough memory...

As for real world... 4GB yes this is common only on laptops but a majority of them now have 8GB and 16GB.  Desktops usually had 8TB a few years back.  16TB and 32TB quite common now due to cheap DDR3 memory and DDR4 memory has now 16GB memory modules so you only need 4 of them for 64GB DDR4 glory.  Server class doubles to 128GB DDR4.  Those use ECC Registered memory which is the most expensive.

Don't drool or fall out of your seat but 128GB may not be so small after all.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/samsung-128gb-ddr4-server-datacenter/

Do we need that much memory?  Not the normal computer user but I use it for a large ramdrive to do video editing.  It's not good to wear down a SSD drive doing this.  Does every one of my machines have 32GB nope.  Some only have 4GB like you said since they run fine in XP.  But when the memory goes on sale I try to grab them at a discount before they get discontinued and skyrocket.

Where are you located? - Ah profile says Italy - no wonder!  Perhaps it may take a few years for the prices to drop in your region?

Edited April 22, 2017 by 98SE

[dencorso]

To create a big ramdisk all one needs is the Gavotte Ramdisk, which is free and has been available for a long time.
None of Dibya's mods are required for it.

[jaclaz]

11 hours ago, 98SE said:

Do we need that much memory?  Not the normal computer user but I use it for a large ramdrive to do video editing.  It's not good to wear down a SSD drive doing this.  Does every one of my machines have 32GB nope.  Some only have 4GB like you said since they run fine in XP.  But when the memory goes on sale I try to grab them at a discount before they get discontinued and skyrocket.

Where are you located? - Ah profile says Italy - no wonder!  Perhaps it may take a few years for the prices to drop in your region?

Nahhh, now you have narrowed it to a small niche (video editing, and presumably professional level video editing) that of course represents a teeny-tiny amount of users worldwide.

At least here in Italy the "issue" is not about prices (which are not all-in-all that mich higher than other countries) it is about uses.

All the people I know that are - even slightly - connected with graphics at a professional or semi-professional level, be it  design, photography or video will be using their stupidly expensive Mac systems or - more recently - Hackintoshes.

jaclaz
 

[heinoganda]

22 hours ago, dencorso said:

None of Dibya's mods are required for it.

It is better those mods are not needed, in any case, because up to the present state the security update KB4011981 of March 2017 was not applied (Windows_XP_128GB_double_pae_addon_final_byDibya). Specifically, the files are ntkrnlpa.exe and ntkrpamp.exe, both version 5.1.2600.7146. Current file version of KB4011981 is 5.1.2600.7197. 

[98SE]

On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 2:20 AM, jaclaz said:

Nahhh, now you have narrowed it to a small niche (video editing, and presumably professional level video editing) that of course represents a teeny-tiny amount of users worldwide.

At least here in Italy the "issue" is not about prices (which are not all-in-all that mich higher than other countries) it is about uses.

All the people I know that are - even slightly - connected with graphics at a professional or semi-professional level, be it  design, photography or video will be using their stupidly expensive Mac systems or - more recently - Hackintoshes.

jaclaz
 

Not just for video editing.  Anything that can store a file or files that large.  I also use it to install software onto the Ramdrive so it will run faster with almost no delay if any.  Ramdrives are not limited to use for just video editing I was just listing one example of where it would be useful to store a video file and edit it off the Ramdrive temporarily.  Using it as a temp folder and browser temp location is the primary use for it which anyone can make use of right away.  32GB is not a lot of memory and if you do think it is a lot then I find that strange since that capacity has been set since Sandy Bridge over 5 years ago.  If you look at Windows 7 it uses about 8GB minimum to function correctly and even then it wants more memory.

As for Macintosh / Hackintosh I don't believe those are the best machines to video edit.  Perhaps for people who don't know how to use a computer or modify one and prefer buying machines preloaded with the OS and all software ready to go.  Or they go for the aesthetics of it and feel better using one.  Most Macintosh now cannot be upgraded easily and all integrated.  Lots are soldered CPU chips and come with proprietary motherboard power supply inputs instead of standard ATX.  It would be much easier if they made standard motherboards with CPU sockets and ATX power supply connectors.  Just because you see a bunch of professionals or media users only on Macs it doesn't mean the Windows equivalent software is inferior.  They are paying more because they want a dumbed down system that is easy to use.  A prime example of that is the iPhone.  Compare that to a Galaxy Note and you will see how much more you can do with it.  I think there are some situations where MAC cannot compete with Windows.  I've yet to find someone on the same level of expertise on a MAC as I would be on a PC.  If I could find someone like this I would trade tips to see if it could be done on a MAC.  The amount of refinement and tweaking on a PC I don't think is possible on a MAC.  And for those to even venture to making a Hackintosh it isn't an easy project and most likely they are PC users who are doing it not genuine regular MAC users trying to save money.

Edited April 24, 2017 by 98SE

[98SE]

On Saturday, April 22, 2017 at 3:13 PM, dencorso said:

To create a big ramdisk all one needs is the Gavotte Ramdisk, which is free and has been available for a long time.
None of Dibya's mods are required for it.

I tried that a long time ago.  That does not tap into the memory above 3.2GB on standard XP SP3.  Unless it has been updated to do so recently?  Or are you referring to using that on the 128GB memory mod?  I doubt that the Gavotte Ramdisk will work with memory above 3.2GB without that 128GB patch.

Edited April 28, 2017 by 98SE

[dencorso]

On 4/24/2017 at 4:42 PM, 98SE said:

I doubt that the Gavotte Ramdisk will work with memory above 3.2GB without that 128GB patch.

Then how do you explain I have a working 12.4GiB RamDisk on XP SP3, on a machine having 16GiB?
You just need this version of the Gavotte and to set these values in the registry:
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\Memory Management]
"DisablePagingExecutive"=dword:00000001
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\RRamdisk\Parameters]
"UsePAE"=dword:00000001
and these command-line options to boot.ini (in case you want PAE but not DEP, else the default is OK):
/noexecute=alwaysoff /fastdetect /pae
Believe me: this is quite old news.

[98SE]

On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 1:13 PM, dencorso said:

Then how do you explain I have a working 12.4GiB RamDisk on XP SP3, on a machine having 16GiB?
You just need this version of the Gavotte and to set these values in the registry:
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\Memory Management]
"DisablePagingExecutive"=dword:00000001
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\RRamdisk\Parameters]
"UsePAE"=dword:00000001
and these command-line options to boot.ini (in case you want PAE but not DEP, else the default is OK):
/noexecute=alwaysoff /fastdetect /pae
Believe me: this is quite old news.

Interesting old thread but the one I'm using can handle up to 1TB and usable also on W7 and W10 and can be altered on the fly change image size without rebooting.  I do have one system that has an issue where it can't recognize all 4 Ram slots so 16GB was limiting since the Ramdrive was around 13GB.  However a 28.7GB one on the 32GB I'm using is actually a good chunk and more useful.  In time 128GB will be normal soon enough.  Tweaking the registry just to get this to work might be good for a one time permanent setting but I prefer something that can be adjusted quickly.  Looks like the programmer is Chinese so that's going to be tough seeing if there will be an updated version or source code to manipulate and hard to say if it is still being updated for other OS.  This might be good for playing around with if it were made for use in Win98 or a DOS version for a huge RAM drive.  Recent chipsets have crippled the high memory region.

Edited April 26, 2017 by 98SE

[TrevMUN]

On 4/23/2017 at 5:20 AM, jaclaz said:

Nahhh, now you have narrowed it to a small niche (video editing, and presumably professional level video editing) that of course represents a teeny-tiny amount of users worldwide.

This is one reason why I need as much RAM as I can get. My desktop rig's been hurting for an overhaul for years. Between my multitasking, browsing, gaming habits, and the actual work that I do (a *lot* of multimedia, particularly video editing and 3D modeling/animation) the 4 GB I put in there from the last overhaul simply isn't cutting it anymore. My desktop's forced to use virtual memory usually within a day or two of booting up.

If only I could scrape together the money on an overhaul ...

This RAMDisk stuff sounds incredibly interesting and might be an ideal way of keeping an XP or XP64 machine secure. Maybe with the next overhaul I do, I'll consider setting up a fresh install using one.

[jaclaz]

7 hours ago, 98SE said:

Looks like the programmer is Chinese so that's going to be tough seeing if there will be an updated version or source code to manipulate and hard to say if it is still being updated for other OS.

But you can get a full refund of the price paid anytime, no questions asked, though, an integral lifetime warranty for the money you invested in Gavotte's .

Now, you may like (or not like) the fact that the good guy that wrote it is Chinese, and of course whine as much as you want about the lack of (choose one or more) source code, new versions, whatever, still it remains the best possible solution for an XP system with (too) much memory it is has been proved in years of daily use to be very, very stable.

About the graphic professionals I know I will gladly pass to them your opinion about their utter incompetence in computing matters, I am pretty sure that the ones that built and use hackintoshes will be delighted by these news (the ones that use original Macs are actually a little "hip" anyway and probably deserve it).

While you are at it, you could also tell me how Hasselblads are overrated as professional photo cameras and that there is much more value per buck in (say) Nikons, and I may even agree with you, still all the professional photographers I know use Hasselblads (and Macs) this is only a reported fact in my experience.

@TrevMun

What you describe (unlike what 98Se described, which is the use of excess memory to create a ramdisk, i.e. and exceptionally fast temporary storage, very useful for some heavy computing typical of graphic/video editing) seems more like "OS crust".

You need to have enough memory for the *whatever* processes you need to run (peak usage) then the sheer moment the program(s) is/are terminated they MUST free ALL the memory.

If your system starts swapping when you use "program A", then it is "peak usage" and you need more memory (and - if it is the case - an Operating System capable of managing that additional memory), if the system starts swapping after a day or two of use (and after "program A", "program B" and "program C" have been used without a need for swapping as a peak within the program) then it means that some processes are not releasing correctly memory after having been terminated (or have not been properly terminated).

The rule of the thumb is as follows:
1) if you have 4 Gb and an OS that can manage only 3.25 or 3.5 GB and that 3.25/3.5 Gb are enough (peak usage) for you use of the computer, it's OK and you can make optionally a 0.5-0.75 Gb ramdisk for temporary storage
2) if you have 6 Gb you can enlarge this ramdisk to 2.5-2.75 Gb still remaining within the "plain" 32 bit OS
3) if you have 8 Gb it makes a lot of sense to switch to a 64 bit OS or try one of the patches to access more RAM

But if the issue is with the programs in use (or the configuration, or whatever) that "builds up" RAM usage over time, adding more RAM is only a way to postpone a needed reboot.

jaclaz
 

[98SE]

6 hours ago, jaclaz said:

But you can get a full refund of the price paid anytime, no questions asked, though, an integral lifetime warranty for the money you invested in Gavotte's .

Now, you may like (or not like) the fact that the good guy that wrote it is Chinese, and of course whine as much as you want about the lack of (choose one or more) source code, new versions, whatever, still it remains the best possible solution for an XP system with (too) much memory it is has been proved in years of daily use to be very, very stable.

About the graphic professionals I know I will gladly pass to them your opinion about their utter incompetence in computing matters, I am pretty sure that the ones that built and use hackintoshes will be delighted by these news (the ones that use original Macs are actually a little "hip" anyway and probably deserve it).

While you are at it, you could also tell me how Hasselblads are overrated as professional photo cameras and that there is much more value per buck in (say) Nikons, and I may even agree with you, still all the professional photographers I know use Hasselblads (and Macs) this is only a reported fact in my experience.

I think you totally missed everything I said.  First off your assumption I said he was Chinese is a negative.  I actually like the fact he was Chinese because a program name like "Gavotte" you may think he might be Italian or other but definitely not Chinese.  I was referring to the translation barrier since that site linked I cannot read easily and you have no idea what my race is to make any negative assumption as I could be of the same.  As for any whining, I didn't whine I am merely pointing out that I am using a better Ramdisk program for XP and even if an inferior or not as robust program is free that doesn't mean I'll use it because it is "free".  I will gladly use a free program that is superior to one that you have to pay for after thoroughly testing it.  I did the research years ago and tested plenty of Ramdrives including the free one mentioned which I did not like at the time probably in the early stages of my research where it could not tap into the unused memory above 3.2GB on XP at the time before settling on the one that I preferred.  If the free one actually performed and was easier to use and manipulate in all categories I would be stating such.  Even if the one I'm using was free and written by a Chinese programmer as well I would still pick it over the Gavotte.  I was using Ramdrives back in the old DOS days as well so this Ramdrive issue you have or assumption I picked the wrong one is false.  You may be upset that I didn't choose a free Ramdisk program as my finalist but that doesn't mean everyone will choose a program based on cost but on usability, performance, and overall function for what they are trying to achieve with it.  As for a free program to mess around with I welcome that but I see it more useful if an equivalent was written for DOS and 98SE.  The program I'm using already has XP-W10 covered and performs better in every way possible that I require.

As for your buddies that use Macs.  I actually helped plenty of people who purposely bought overpriced Macs thinking they were easy to use and perhaps stylish compared to a PC.  One owned a colorful iMAC with an all in one body case that only had one memory slot for expansion and one stick of 256KB as default installed memory.  What happened is over the years was guaranteed obsolescence.  Apple knew one memory slot was limiting and they also knew if they couldn't screw you with the limited memory slots they would get you down the road by forcing a MAC OS minimum to use certain programs or even limited what MAC OS you could upgrade to based on your model.  I didn't know him at the time he bought the iMAC but he spent quite a bundle for it from what I was told and he complained it was getting so slow doing things like Finale and browsing after he updated the MAC OS later years ago.  I researched the max memory that system could handle, ordered it, and installed it for him and was able to get it to 1GB.  8 times the memory jump of what he originally had.  He noticed it booted faster and loaded programs much quicker.  I thought he was good to go for many years but I was mistaken.  Another hurdle loomed not even a year later.  The browser started requiring a certain MAC OS minimum in order to install and use it or else he was stranded once again.  Digging much older versions of browser alternatives to Safari only stalled this issue momentarily.  He could still use Firefox on the much older MAC OS and even then there were even limits on what MAC OS he can upgrade to due to his model.  Now even an equivalent spec performing PC on XP doesn't have this limitation.  You can go back to a Pentium 4 and still run XP today and hop on the internet browsing still with many options and not need to upgrade the OS or the computer.  You can still use a browser such as Firefox or Opera and many others on the internet still and not be limited by an OS issue like on the MAC.  If you're honestly telling me you would prefer to be spending your money on a MAC vs an equivalent performing PC and not think it was not a wise decision?  It's all about the money when it comes to Apple.  You choose a MAC it's for the preloaded OS and software, the stylish all in one look, and easy to use one button mouse.  Not to mention the limited expansion capabilities and even memory isn't always maxed out according to the chipset.  I compared multiple MacBooks and PC laptops of the "same generation" and what did I find?  Macbooks usually capped out at 8GB whereas the PC equivalent could go up to 16GB?  Same generation Intel CPU should have the same limits.  They aren't using a Motorola or some Apple CPU so why limit it?  You tell me why you'd want to limit yourself to a machine that you will pay more for and get less?  Most of these modern MACs don't even use socketed Intel CPUs anymore so even upgrading one isn't possible that way anymore.  There were a few of the Mac Minis years ago you could still upgrade them that way.  If you're trying to tell me you think most MAC users appreciate this pattern of paying a lot for something that cannot run a browser which doesn't require that much performance anyhow and only because of their MAC OS version?  Again you may find maybe a few MAC users who actually are as hardcore and into their machines as PC users but probably a small fraction of those exist today but most PC users that build hackintoshes probably started with the PC first and not the other way around.  All Macs now can run Windows so it's much easier to do it that way than the other way around to make a hackintosh.  It's all about marketing for Apple to suck in the gullible with big wallets.  If Apple didn't do such a good job appealing to those types of people no one would buy them.  I remember back then in school Apple computer would donate old Apple ][s and B/W Macs computers to schools and libraries as a way to snag interest among kids and the parents would end up buying them for home.  So your experiences may be due to location but here where Apple started not far from me is how things are.

"While you are at it, you could also tell me how Hasselblads are overrated as professional photo cameras and that there is much more value per buck in (say) Nikons, and I may even agree with you, still all the professional photographers I know use Hasselblads (and Macs) this is only a reported fact in my experience."

I don't deal with digital SLRs or cameras of that sort.  I mainly edit video footage caught for film or TV and edit it post.  IF they can afford such high quality cameras it's no wonder they bought an expensive MAC.  IF someone told them hey I can buy you a MAC for $3,000 or build you a hackintosh double the performance specs for $2500 do you honestly think they would not go with the later deal?  I'm sure no self respecting Hasselblad owner would turn such a deal down if the software they used worked for both MAC and WIN PC and why wouldn't it today since MACs are now Intel CPU based so there is no reason why a software company today would purposely limit its product or features specifically for MAC or WIN PC due to this unless they were biased in some way or had some shady agreement with Apple.

Edited April 26, 2017 by 98SE

[98SE]

12 hours ago, TrevMUN said:

This is one reason why I need as much RAM as I can get. My desktop rig's been hurting for an overhaul for years. Between my multitasking, browsing, gaming habits, and the actual work that I do (a *lot* of multimedia, particularly video editing and 3D modeling/animation) the 4 GB I put in there from the last overhaul simply isn't cutting it anymore. My desktop's forced to use virtual memory usually within a day or two of booting up.

If only I could scrape together the money on an overhaul ...

This RAMDisk stuff sounds incredibly interesting and might be an ideal way of keeping an XP or XP64 machine secure. Maybe with the next overhaul I do, I'll consider setting up a fresh install using one.

It is a useful feature to have on XP.  Especially when before the Ramdrive could use the memory range above 3.2GB instead of just sitting there untapped.  It hurts to see 16GB or 32GB sitting in your computer running XP SP3.  You're thinking I got 3 Memory modules just sitting there sucking up power doing nothing.  That's the reason I kept digging for the ultimate tool to make use of it.  Even the first 8GB module you feel cheapened using only half of it.  That's when the Ramdrive comes to save the day and make XP quite useful.  I would say that the pagefile placed on the Ramdrive is a necessity for me.  Running 8 DVR windows and Browsing at the same time it creeps in another 2GB on top of the 3.2GB.  But you can probably use a 4.8GB pagefile and not require much more than that the OS will tap into from normal usage.  So 24GB left over of Ramdrive space is still useful for most other things and there are many instead of the Ram just sitting there looking nice with all your memory slots filled.

Edited April 26, 2017 by 98SE

[98SE]

6 hours ago, jaclaz said:

@TrevMun

What you describe (unlike what 98Se described, which is the use of excess memory to create a ramdisk, i.e. and exceptionally fast temporary storage, very useful for some heavy computing typical of graphic/video editing) seems more like "OS crust".

You need to have enough memory for the *whatever* processes you need to run (peak usage) then the sheer moment the program(s) is/are terminated they MUST free ALL the memory.

If your system starts swapping when you use "program A", then it is "peak usage" and you need more memory (and - if it is the case - an Operating System capable of managing that additional memory), if the system starts swapping after a day or two of use (and after "program A", "program B" and "program C" have been used without a need for swapping as a peak within the program) then it means that some processes are not releasing correctly memory after having been terminated (or have not been properly terminated).

The rule of the thumb is as follows:
1) if you have 4 Gb and an OS that can manage only 3.25 or 3.5 GB and that 3.25/3.5 Gb are enough (peak usage) for you use of the computer, it's OK and you can make optionally a 0.5-0.75 Gb ramdisk for temporary storage
2) if you have 6 Gb you can enlarge this ramdisk to 2.5-2.75 Gb still remaining within the "plain" 32 bit OS
3) if you have 8 Gb it makes a lot of sense to switch to a 64 bit OS or try one of the patches to access more RAM

But if the issue is with the programs in use (or the configuration, or whatever) that "builds up" RAM usage over time, adding more RAM is only a way to postpone a needed reboot.

jaclaz
 

I'm not entirely sure what you meant by "OS crust" or whether this is a good thing or bad thing.  I'll assume "OS crust" to be a good thing in a case of a nice home baked pie.  The crust part is the best.   Now using a Ramdrive is a nice feature as I described in my scenario.  It's not the perfect use of a Ramdrive but one of the many I employ from time to time.  When cutting a video file and using the output destination to Ramdrive rather than using the same source drive as the destination the file is written much more quickly and then after I inspect the video file and then make any fine tune adjustments and recopy the end result back to the source drive.  Sometimes I use the Ramdrive because I ran out of hard drive space and I recorded a TV channel and let it continuously record so I have to edit out that TV show out and get the space back.  Say you were recording for 5 hours.  Usually 8GB per hour in HD.  40GB file to deal with.   0 bytes left on Recording drive.  Use my video cutter and output just the 1 hour TV show to the Ramdrive.  Inspect the time duration is accurate and then delete the original source file.  Then move the newly cut 1 hour video file back to my Source drive that had 40GB freed up now being filled up with the 8GB cut file and I have 32GB free afterwards.  I continue this process as many times as I need to free up space from recordings that went on too long or I decided I only want so and so footage extracted and purge the rest.  Doing this strictly on the same hard drive or even an SSD would be much slower and painfully slow.  However doing comparisons between XP and W7 because USB 3.0 is currently only possible on W7 there is a tremendous boost in transferring the files back and forth from Ramdrive.  If only a proper USB 3.0 driver for XP could be achieved it would actually make XP a beast of an OS combined with a > 3.2GB memory patch so more base memory could be used for individual programs.  Especially useful in my situation since I multitask a lot.  The only thing missing would be a nice thing to have one day is DX12.0 and W7 software compatibility.  But that would be a huge project for someone to even achieve.  I'd rather just keep with XP and W7 with DX12.0 patched and skip W10 altogether.

While specifically trying to hammer down if X memory is installed you should only use X amount for the Ramdrive is interesting.

Even though XP SP3 freaks out around 1.5GB in Firefox where it slows to a crawl or freezes up and you end the task, you can still open up other browsers like Opera or SeaMonkey to spread the memory usage around.  This was one way of getting around some of the issues where the Firefox Browser just didn't or couldn't use more memory despite whatever pagefile size you have set.

Edited April 26, 2017 by 98SE

[TrevMUN]

I should probably clarify, @jaclaz and @98SE: my desktop rig runs XP64, so my only real concern when I go for that overhaul (since I'll be looking to take advantage of DDR4 if possible) is making sure I get hardware with drivers that support that OS. Despite XP64's reputation, that's not actually been a problem for me in the past ... but, now that Microsoft has EOL'd the XP family, it probably will be.

My laptop runs XP32, and also has 4 GB of RAM. Although that particular laptop, when I bought it, was optimized for multimedia development and long battery life, I prefer to use my desktop rig where possible since that's where the muscle is.

As for the RAM Disk stuff, it was a few pages ago, but @NT Five was talking about the security benefits of running XP with a RAM disk. That's what I was thinking of concerning my comments about having my desktop OS run on one with my next overhaul. Still, @98SE, what you were saying is also really interesting. I didn't think about a RAM disk acting as a workaround for granting XP access to more memory than Microsoft's limitations.

[dencorso]

@TrevMUN: Well, on a Ramdisk of at least 4GiB (say, in a machine with 8 GiB, of which I have a couple), the Gavotte can be the host to the pagefile and XP is happy with it, provided one sets "DisablePagingExecutive"=dword:00000001 as I posted above (to prevent the dreaded "Page Fault on Non-Paged Area" BSOD). It'll work equally well on x86 7 SP1 and Vista SP2, too. I don't know about 8+.

@98SE: Since you don't object to paying for good software, you should consider buying RLoew's non-XMS Ramdisk, which can make available to DOS and Win 9x all unused RAM available on your machine and is current and supported.