Jump to content

FranceBB, heinoiganda and the other one


caliber

Recommended Posts

my other thread has been closed for no apparent reason.

if there was something against forum rules it would be better to just delete the necessary post

hence I have to start a new thread because I'm not getting any help throught private message. (this was the good recommendation of the moderator)

seems like FranceBB, heinoiganda and the autor of this bad patch don't care for me.

is anyone else successfully getting more than 4GB of RAM with XP x86 ???

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


It's not that I don't care; I could send you the link to download the Chinese patch or the Russian patch straight away, but I would rather not be banned.

There are rules and we can't just do whatever we want and redistribute protected softwares or modified version of the official DLLs made by Microsoft.

In order to get 64GB of RAM, the patches use a modified HAL (Hardware Abstraction Layer) which talks to the hardware at 36bit and to the software at 32bit. This way the kernel can execute 32bit programmes (that can use up to 2GB each) and can allocate as much memory as the system has. The reason why Microsoft limited PAE to 4 GB on consumer systems was that many consumer drivers were misbehaving as they weren't designed to work with PAE.

Check your PM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FranceBB said:

The reason why Microsoft limited PAE to 4 GB on consumer systems was that many consumer drivers were misbehaving as they weren't designed to work with PAE.

Check your PM.

thanks FranceBB

if there is no way to get this patch work I will reinstall Server 2003 SP1 once again but the problem is to find trouble free drivers.

could you share a screenshot of your system properties so I can see it's right that it can handle more than 4GB ??
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My patch is not bad but you have a bad driver in your system which doesn't support pae.

It is not my fault .

I didn't reply you as your word felt but indecent to me. 

Edited by Dibya
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, FranceBB said:

The reason why Microsoft limited PAE to 4 GB on consumer systems was that many consumer drivers were misbehaving as they weren't designed to work with PAE.

You mean the drivers weren't designed to handle physical addresses above 4GiB. The drivers obviously can handle PAE as the system is using PAE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, caliber said:

could you share a screenshot of your system properties so I can see it's right that it can handle more than 4GB ??
 

Fair enough, there you go:

N7ricKJ.png

Quote

You mean the drivers weren't designed to handle physical addresses above 4GiB.

Well, yes, that's what I meant. ^^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/30/2018 at 1:19 AM, rloew said:

You mean the drivers weren't designed to handle physical addresses above 4GiB. The drivers obviously can handle PAE as the system is using PAE.

 

On 12/30/2018 at 5:48 AM, FranceBB said:

Well, yes, that's what I meant. ^^

Not long ago, someone (who I can't remember) was wanting some application (might have been @heinoganda's certificate updater, but I can't remember that for sure either) modded to run on XP SP1. Anyway, the question came up "why do you want to stay on SP1?" And I replied that AIUI SP2/3 don't support PAE.

I was told that was wrong, but didn't really understand it until now. So SP2/3 do support PAE, but limit it to 4 GB (which mostly, but not entirely, defeats the purpose).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/30/2018 at 12:48 PM, FranceBB said:

Fair enough, there you go:

6.34GB out of how many ? 8GB ?

I have turned the virtual memory off and when the system reaches a litte over 2GB I get an error window and the browser(s) do instantly crash.

right after a fresh XP installation it usually recognizes 3.5GB but now only 3GB out of 8GB

that said, Firefox for unknown reason has never permormed well beyond 2GB or less whereas Chrome have never had such a problem 4, 5, 6 GB flawlessly executed (with virtual memory of course)

this is why I need more RAM because 2GB to me is quite a bit limited.
 

Edited by caliber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, caliber said:

6.34GB out of how many ? 8GB ?

I have turned the virtual memory off and when the system reaches a litte over 2GB I get an error window and the browser(s) do instantly crash.

right after a fresh XP installation it usually recognizes 3.5GB but now only 3GB out of 8GB

that said, Firefox for unknown reason has never permormed well beyond 2GB or less whereas Chrome have never had such a problem 4, 5, 6 GB flawlessly executed (with virtual memory of course)

this is why I need more RAM because 2GB to me is quite a bit limited.
 

No, it's actually the memory I allocated, as I have Linux (Fedora) as my main system and all the other OS are just Virtual Machines. My XP is slightly different as it's a physical hard disk with a physical installation of Windows that I've copied year after year, but it's fired up by a virtual hardware. Anyway, I tested it with 10.5 GB of RAM so far and it was absolutely fine. Just install the russian patch I sent you via PM. And please, make a Skype account so I can add you to the XP Forever group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...