HOW TO USE MORE THAN 3GB+ RAM IN XP PRO 32bit

[roisin]

Copied from here:
www.planetamd64.com/index.php?showtopic=38005

------------------------------------------------
** WARNING **
Windows keeps an enormous amount of junk in its 'swapfile', if you choose to use the RAM as detailed below, make sure to keep regular GHOST BACKUPS. If your system crashes, Windows is very unforgiving if it's precious swapfile isn't as it remembers it should be.
------------------------------------------------

The answer to this question is so simple, it begs the question how so many intelligent people who all spout technical jargon like a second language, haven't figured it out yet.

The performance benefits are pretty severe, and immediate. So lets see.. with the danger of sounding unintelligent by explaining this so anyone can understand, forgive the layman terminology.

1) Microsoft 32bit systems like XP have a limit on how much RAM they can utilize.
2) Get Ramdisk Plus for $39.95 (otherwise you're throwing money out by not using your extra RAM anyway )
3) If like me, you have 8GB RAM, the BIOS should register around 8192MB.. 1MB allocated to BIOS, 2900MB for Windows.. that leaves 4-5GB available to set as a Ramdisk - eg. Z:\
* In Ramdisk Plus you have to allocated 'unmanaged' RAM otherwise it will try to use the RAM Windows is using.
4) Open System Properties (right-click My Computer on Desktop) --> Advanced --> Performance [Settings] --> Advanced tab --> Virtual Memory [Change] --> Click your Hard Drives and check "No Paging File" then "set" .. Click Z:\ (Ram Disk) and choose Custom Size -- Initial Size 3070, Maximum Size 3070 (can't be bigger than your Ram Disk) or choose 'System Managed Size'
* When you exit it may ask you to restart the computer. You can do this after step 5.
5) Start -- Run -- Regedit [open] goto HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE --> SYSTEM --> CurrentControlSet --> Control --> Session Manager --> Memory Management --> [doubleclick] ClearPageFileAtShutdown and change option to "1" and click OK. The reason being the RAM will be purged when you power off, and there's no point with the system thinking the Pagefile will be available cached at boot.

You can set Z:\ to be used for temporary files, like Winrar, Firefox, Photoshop etc. It's up to you to decide how big the Swap File should be, if at all you want to use it. I just did this the other day, and the performance increase is amazing. And I'm using my extra RAM that all the experts said I 'couldn't'.

Good Luck !

------------------------------------------------​

You can change the Temporary Internet Folder to Z:\temp in IE's options, and Firefox Cache folder.

How to change the Firefox Cache folder:
1) You can change the option by first clicking on the address bar.
2) type about:config in the address bar, press enter and then click ok to the prompt.
3) Right-click on the page and select 'New-->String'.
string: browser.cache.disk.parent_directory
value: Z:\temp
* If Z:\ is your Ramdisk, and you chose in Ramdisk Plus to automatically create a 'temp' folder

I've been tweaking my settings, and I've put as much of the 'temp' folders on the Ramdisk as possible. Internet Explorer, Firefox. You can also easily set the default User temp folder in System Properties (right-click My Computer) --> Advanced --> Environmental Variables, the top window has the USER temporary folder options and they can easily be set to Z:\temp on your Ramdisk.

If you are letting Windows decide the size of your swapfile, it'll probably choose 3070MB which leaves nearly 2GB to be used as a scratch disk / temp directory.

------------------------------------------------
* UPDATE
After installing Fallout 3 my computer started going blue-screen with a 'win32k.sys' error message. The Fallout 3 installation does install a number of 'system updates' and Microsoft runtime software. All I can say is that it happened.

The reason I am writing this here, is that the error included some text Inline_Paging system, or some such before the computer reset.

Best advice I have is to uninstall the RAM Disk software before updating your Windows system. This means changing the options back to their original settings for the pagefile. Then restart your computer and uninstall Ramdisk Plus. If you cannot get it to work from the Control Panel --> Add/Remove Programs, then double-click on the installer and it should ask you if you want to remove it. THEN Install your game, or update and after restarting, you can install your Ramdisk software.

I am just trying to save you a headache in the long run, believe me. XP was never set up to place a Ramdisk in the working environment to handle system files, and there appears to be no redundancy if one 'updater' changes a file that is needed. You get the idea.
------------------------------------------------

*** Reference ***

www.hardforum.com​

"And that is what they fail to say.. even in a 64bit OS 32bit software is STILL entitled to only a max of 2gb of ram."

www.brianmadden.com​

"Wow32 will impose the same memory limitation on 32-bit applications. (i.e. each 32-bit app will only see a 2GB memory area.)"

AMD Athlon 6400 x2 Black Edition
8GB DDR2 6400
Dual 8800 GT 512MB SLI​

 

[outhouse]

get 64 bit like the rest of us

 

[attack]

Taking some of your post out of order, but you'll get the idea.

....it begs the question how so many intelligent people who all spout technical jargon like a second language....

** WARNING **
....If your system crashes, Windows is very unforgiving if it's precious swapfile isn't as it remembers it should be.....

------------------------------------------------
* UPDATE
After installing Fallout 3 my computer started going blue-screen with a 'win32k.sys' error message. The Fallout 3 installation does install a number of 'system updates' and Microsoft runtime software. All I can say is that it happened.

Spend 5 or 10 bucks whatever it is and buy the 64 bit OS.

 

[roisin]

get 64 bit like the rest of us

Oh don't get me wrong. I've tried the 64bit scene/dual-boot.. but 64bit's not as stable at running most of the 32bit games or software as an actual 32bit system.

And why would I spend money 'updating' software to 64bit versions when my 32bit versions work just fine?

Anyway, for anyone who is actually interested, amazing increase in speed for doing this.. and you get to utilize ALL your RAM in a 32bit environment.

PS: The system's rock stable. I'm just trying to save people headaches with the warnings.

 

[freeagent]

its not rock stable if you cant run games with a 64bit os

 

[ziggo0]

I made the switch over to a 64 bit os (Vista Ultimate) from being a hardcore XP 32 user...and despite getting used to Vista, it's been nothing but solid. XP 64 however felt very unstable...you can get a trial of Vista 64 for free and just keep re-using it...that's way to much work for no real gain. A fast HDD works well.

Edit: Something else, you don't HAVE to update software from 32 to 64bit...drivers yeah...but 32bit apps, just about all of them run just fine on 64bit.

 

[freeagent]

vista 64 is definately solid.

i miss aquamark

 

[Tyrinon]

Why can't you just make changes with PAE to use more than three gb of ram?

Anyway, the original post felt more like an advertisement for that Ramdisk program than anything, so I reported it.

 

[Automata]

Oh don't get me wrong. I've tried the 64bit scene/dual-boot.. but 64bit's not as stable at running most of the 32bit games or software as an actual 32bit system.

There is no reason it shouldn't be stable. I've been running XP 64bit for almost a year and I've never had an issue.

 

[TimoneX]

+1

XP64 though stillborn by MS is my OS of choice. It's XP stability and functionality w/ 64 bit memory addressing.

To the OP. I'm from a Commodore Amiga computer background where ramdisks were 2nd nature due to the fact that HDs were optional on many systems. While no doubt informative to some this information has been available and utilized for decades.

 

[roisin]

Tyrinon wrote: "Why can't you just make changes with PAE to use more than three gb of ram?

Anyway, the original post felt more like an advertisement for that Ramdisk program than anything, so I reported it."

Yeah, I had to have a little chat with the mod. thanks to that. If I'm not mistaken, (www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/PAEdrv.mspx) the /PAE extension is very limited with no guarantee to stability.

"Windows XP (all versions)-----4 GB of physical RAM*"
"* Total physical address space is limited to 4 GB on these versions of Windows."

I know a hell of a lot of guys using Vista, I've tried it, all of them. MS are fast-tracking Windows7 because noone wants that crap. Maybe, maybe the glitter of DX10 might attract a few for the limited amount of 64bit game engines that actually utilise DX10.. but we're living in the now. EVERY SINGLE person I know who use Vista hate it. Every person I know who uses it, wishes they had XP Drivers so they could wipe it. And some of those guys have tried EVERY edition of Vista since its pre-release.

Frankly MS need to reduce the DRM (Malware) in Vista, then you wouldn't need a supercomputer to run it. Between it asking permission from MS to open a file, to keeping a record of every file you ever opened, to stalling and asking permission to do any such thing. I'd rather install Linux to utilise more than 6GB RAM.

Talk about advertisement ? Most of the posts I've seen seem like an advertisement for Vista. I can only pity the average user, but word spreads, already nearly half of all new computer users are requesting XP from the shop, and if they don't give it, they go somewhere else. Actions speak louder than words.

It is well known that corporate spooks get paid to write on forums such as these, but I aint one of them. Ramdisk Plus, buy it or leave it it's just an option. The only option I found on Google that supports pagefiles. If you have anything constructive to say, like FREEWARE that does the same thing? Maybe then I'd appreciate the input rather than this hypocritical moaning about 'advertisements'.

 

[roisin]

TimoneX wrote: "To the OP. I'm from a Commodore Amiga computer background where ramdisks were 2nd nature due to the fact that HDs were optional on many systems. While no doubt informative to some this information has been available and utilized for decades."

Sure.. if you want to make a 24MB or 32MB ramdrive there is a limited version available for bootdisks. Nothing that supports pagefiles though, not the 3GB kind.

Hell if its so 2nd nature to you, find me a FREEWARE ramdrive software that supports pagefiles natviely! Please? Thanks!

 

[roisin]

SPEED

Let's not forget why I'm doing this — speed. It is fast.

It loads the Fallout 3 world in less than 2 seconds, and moves between doors near instant. High gfx setting and all. I've nearly forgotten what it's like to have to 'wait' for an application to load anymore, lol.

Now I'm gonna go play F3 besides wasting my time ...

 

[petteyg359]

I know a hell of a lot of guys using Vista, I've tried it, all of them. MS are fast-tracking Windows7 because noone wants that crap.

I guess I'm "noone".

EVERY SINGLE person I know who use Vista hate it. Every person I know who uses it, wishes they had XP Drivers so they could wipe it. And some of those guys have tried EVERY edition of Vista since its pre-release.

The above is one of the following, and none of them help anyone.
1. A huge exaggeration.
2. Based on a relatively small sample.
3. Based on a hand-picked sample for the sole purpose of emphasizing your preferred ideology.

Frankly MS need to reduce the DRM (Malware) in Vista, then you wouldn't need a supercomputer to run it. Between it asking permission from MS to open a file, to keeping a record of every file you ever opened, to stalling and asking permission to do any such thing. I'd rather install Linux to utilise more than 6GB RAM.

My system is not a supercomputer, and it runs Vista Ultimate 64-bit just fine. E8400 + 4GB + free ECS mobo is not a supercomputer, yet runs Vista Ultimate 64-bit just fine (obviously without Aero, in the case of the ECS board). It also ran it just fine with 2GB of memory. This is with retail Vista Ultimate, vLite is not involved. Vista does not ask MS for permission to open your files. Don't spread BS. Vista does not stall and ask permission to do "any such thing". You've screwed with UAC to make it far more intrusive than default if it does. Don't spread BS.

Talk about advertisement ? Most of the posts I've seen seem like an advertisement for Vista. I can only pity the average user, but word spreads, already nearly half of all new computer users are requesting XP from the shop, and if they don't give it, they go somewhere else. Actions speak louder than words.

I don't see that happening. You provide no documentation of your points, just the old, standard, boring Vista-bashing.

It is well known that corporate spooks get paid to write on forums such as these, but I ain't one of them. Ramdisk Plus, buy it or leave it it's just an option. The only option I found on Google that supports pagefiles. If you have anything constructive to say, like FREEWARE that does the same thing? Maybe then I'd appreciate the input rather than this hypocritical moaning about 'advertisements'.

Don't dig the hole deeper. OP was very close to just being an ad, and also rather rudely insulted pretty much every person on this forum who answers questions about 32-bit vs 64-bit, 4GB limit, PAE, etc.

Unless you're spending the wait time for FO3 to re-install every time you reboot, then you're having to wait for the multi-GB disk image to be saved on shutdown and loaded on startup. For the 6GB+ disk you're using to have room for Fallout 3, this is going to take a LONG time. Reading 6GB at 60MB/s (average STR for modern drives) is going to tack on 100 seconds to your startup time, assuming optimal conditions (including the drive being defragged so that the image file is contiguous). Writing that image on shutdown is going to take quite a bit longer. Don't say you never have to wait. I'll try the trial, but I seriously doubt I'll end up spending money on a product with features that I can obtain simply by rebooting to Vista Ultimate 64-bit...

EDIT: I've tried the trial. It leaves things to be desired...

• The interface for adding a new disk is pretty lame. It does not tell you how much RAM is available, whether OS or "unmanaged". You have to go to another dialog for that.
• It defaults to 32MB (a rather useless default, if you ask me).
• The "unmanaged" RAM configuration can automatically detect how much installed RAM there is, but doesn't detect how much RAM is on your video card, or how much to reserve for BIOS, etc. If it can query the installed RAM, it could at least go to the trouble of querying the amount that should be reserved.

As you stated above, using it for a swap file can easily cause crashes. Unless you have 16GB+ memory, so you can make a disk bigger than 6GB, as MANY modern games take more space than that, or if you want more than one game installed to this RAM disk, the tool isn't very useful. A potentially crashy swap file is quite useless, especially if your system rarely makes use of the swap space anyway.

 

[KonaKona]

I'm sure enough digging would find a freeware version of that program that was mentioned in OP, not to mention some particular unmentionable things that go on a lot round here.

In any case, another vote for "Just get a 64-bit OS already!". Seeing how you can get a 1TB drive for under 100$, its not much of a hassle to have XP64 for regular use and vista for DX10 stuff, not to mention much more simple.

 

[rainless]

I'm angry about a lot of things this holiday season... Vista isn't one of them.

From the time I've installed it til now (and I have it dual-booting Vista/XP) I've had ZERO complaints with Vista. I use it for games exclusively... and I haven't come across a game I installed that didn't work.

Just installed a new CPU/motherboard and... you know what? It was a LOT easier updating the drivers in Vista than it was XP. I had to go through at least 7 reboots to get everything back up and running in XP. Vista I had to go through about two.

No complaints here. I'm a big "anti-establishment" "anti-corporate" "anti-microsoft" kinda guy too... but from XP on... I've got nothing bad to say about their OSes.

 

[petteyg359]

When rainless says he has no problems with something, you know it has got to be damn good

 

[roisin]

Sheeple?

petteyg359 wrote: "I guess I'm "noone"."
1) You said it.

2) My preferred 'ideology' ? xD

petteyg359 wrote: "Don't spread BS."
3) I don't spread BS. Hell there's a whole piece of software to disable the Spyware MS built into XP.

petteyg359 wrote: "...just the old, standard, boring Vista-bashing."
4) Old? Standard? I guess you've said it all right there. My experiences seem to be 'standard' ..

petteyg359 wrote: "...rather rudely insulted pretty much every person on this forum who answers questions about 32-bit vs 64-bit, 4GB limit, PAE, etc."
Rude? Insulted? Did I said BS? Interesting how some guys mistake their OS for the GF.

petteyg359 wrote: "Unless you're spending the wait time for FO3 to re-install every time you reboot, then you're having to wait for the multi-GB disk image to be saved on shutdown and loaded on startup."
I don't know what kind of pot you're smoking lol, I never said anything about Installing FO3 to a ramdisk, nor that it had to backup anything to any hard drive.

petteyg359 wrote: "The interface for adding a new disk is pretty lame. It does not tell you how much RAM is available, whether OS or "unmanaged". You have to go to another dialog for that."
LOL I thought it was quite easy to use, and that's saying something. Yes you have to click twice to open another dialogue box to say how much of your 'Unmanaged' +4GB RAM is available. Which is pretty cool on a 32bit system You remind me of that guy on the Fightclub movie, when he was looking at the commercial for the thing that blows air up your a**. You remind me of the guy in the commercial, no pun intended. Click twice? jeez. Have to open another dialogue box, my god man.

petteyg359 wrote: "As you stated above, using it for a swap file can easily cause crashes. Unless you have 16GB+ memory,.."
WTF 16GB I have half that? NO. I said it was rock stable. did you learn english in a foreign country? Don't put any more words in my mouth because its starting to get insulting. The Swapfile is fine, as long as you tick the clearpagefile@shutdown option in XP, and clearing a ramdisk takes how long did I hear you say? No, no long waiting time. milliseconds.

petteyg359 wrote: "A potentially crashy swap file is quite useless, especially if your system rarely makes use of the swap space anyway. "
IF that were true, I'd tend to agree with you. I'm a bit of a perfectionist though, and wouldn't have wasted my time posting this unless the performance increase was spectacular. Which it is, which means the system utilizes the Swapfile for a lot more junk than we think, which it does. Which is why my computer runs like a super-computer now

petteyg359, I don't know about the social 'scene' here or what you .. guys like to do in your spare time. If I was frank and straightforward... well that's how I am. Take it or leave it. You claiming I am saying things I am not though, that is unacceptable.

If every person here with a techie question gets the answer "buy Vista buy Vista buy Vista" a poor baby-boomer may just buy it and find all his software not being able to run, and he won't be able to hear any answer to his problems over all the sheeple baying "vista" "vista" "VISTA" You should consider the name "Ideologically driven Vista sheeple"

LMAO I respect open mindedness and objectivity. petteyg359 you exhibit none of those traits. And if not being a sheep makes me unwelcome, well that's that. And what will happen is my Thread will be gone and the sheep can continue to bay at each other.

I don't think that will happen though, as they say; Empty vessels make the most noise.

PS: Oh, right I forgot. You're all using Vista. You can't even envisage an OS running without crashing at some point.

 

[roisin]

Vista down the drain...

petteyg359 wrote: "I don't see that happening. You provide no documentation of your points, just the old, standard, boring Vista-bashing."

Just to set the record straight, even if it is ridiculously off-topic. I guess this is what that liar petteyg359 called "...just the old, standard, boring Vista-bashing." .. Hard credible facts are always more satisfying, wouldn't you agree?

www.theregister.co.uk

The final shipment date of Microsoft's aged, yet distinctively non-Vista operating system has been extended yet again...

Windows XP was originally scheduled for OEM extinction on January 31, 2009. That deadline was given once, twice, three times the delay to mid-2010, provided the Windows XP licenses were for netbooks and low-cost PCs that can't handle Windows Vista - or perhaps more importantly, can and do support Linux.

(Hell my iPod nano can support Linux! LMFAO)

Microsoft has a problem, though, given the popular opinion of Windows Vista ranks just below Typhoid Mary in terms of "must-have" status. PC makers selling larger systems have been working around the January 2009 Windows XP expiration date by offering Windows-Vista-loaded machines with an option to downgrade to Windows XP.

http://stuff.techwhack.com

Customers are still preferring to buy new computers with Windows XP.

Microsoft has been trying to phase out this vintage operating system to get the market to adopt Windows Vista.

However, they have failed to do so even after two years of Vista availability.

The US based software giant has been forced to extend the availability of Windows XP once again.

www.informationweek.com

Microsoft needs to keep its older operating system on the market in order to appease business customers.

Microsoft in the past week announced yet another life extension for its supposedly retired Windows XP operating system, a sign that, despite almost two years on the market, Windows Vista is a no-go for most businesses.

(I wonder why oh why a "no-go" because of stability issues I presume..)

"Only 10% of 700 business executives recently surveyed by the Information Technology Industry Council and Sunbelt Software said their companies are using Windows Vista in the enterprise.

...Meanwhile, IT officials for the state of Maine say their organization plans to skip Vista for state workers and will jump directly from XP to Windows 7, which Microsoft has said it plans to release in 2010."

Why such resistance to Vista? IT managers have complained about the operating system's resource requirements -- it takes considerably more PC horsepower and memory to run than XP -- and its lack of compatibility with older software. In particular, new security features built into Vista's kernel tend to break applications built for previous versions of Windows.

As a result, Microsoft is under considerable pressure from business customers to maintain XP's availability.

On Friday, the company said it's extending the deadline for Windows XP sales to custom PC builders.

http://computerworld.com

Microsoft again extends Windows XP drop-dead date

December 22, 2008 (Computerworld) Microsoft Corp. has once again extended an impending deadline for Windows XP's demise, the company confirmed today.

System builders -- the smaller shops and computer dealers that build PCs to order -- will now be able to obtain Windows XP Professional licenses through at least May 30 and likely long after, according to a Microsoft spokeswoman. Previously, Microsoft had set Jan. 31 as its deadline for selling new XP licensees to the distributors that supply system builders.

Like, why the F*** do I have to provide 'documentation' ? EVERYONE knows these thing, unless you've been living with your head up your [insert explicit]. Like duh! Does MS own this website or something? Why are you all CLAIMING that system is the perfect OS of 'choice'? That is extremely suspicious. A few emails I will be sending to some friends to research what corporation owns what here.

 

[Automata]

Just to set the record straight, even if it is ridiculously off-topic. I guess this is what that liar petteyg359 called "...just the old, standard, boring Vista-bashing." .. Hard credible facts are always more satisfying, wouldn't you agree?.

Just as a heads up, direct insulting is against the rules here. You seem bent on forcing people to agree with you, which is rubbing off on the members here and is obvious by your and their posts. Please stop.