Windows xp boot ini 4gb

Therefore, you might want to test your application under load, and examine the performance counters to determine whether your application benefits from the larger address space. This can help maintain overall system performance when the application requires more than 2 GB but less than 3 GB of address space. Setting this flag and then running the application on a system that does not have 4GT support should not affect the application. VirtualAlloc usually returns low addresses before high addresses.

Therefore, your process may not use very high addresses unless it allocates a lot of memory or has a fragmented virtual address space. Memory Limits for Windows Releases. Physical Address Extension.

Thank you, Carl -- I'll give it a try! Thank you, Carl. That did the trick -- but now that I have a problem connecting to the internet. I have to go over to the Acronis 11 website and see if their software has a problem with XP It never ends, does it.

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment. Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy! Already have an account? Sign in here. Donate to our annual general fundraising goal. This donation keeps our doors open and providing you service 24 x 7 x Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time.

While you believe it doesn't matter if it's Pro or Home, well the PAE as you call it was done as most user's were Pro user's and this took into account of Businesses. I still don't under stand when the Spec says Win XP supports 4gb while it will take around 1.

I'm not sure how to be much clearer. It is a change introduced in XP SP2 to work around driver bugs. Sorry, I know what you are saying, but what I was simply trying to say, it maybe a fix to sort that issue out, but surely it has produced another bug. Also is there any point of having mb, mb or higher graphics cards when you end up losing memory? Surely Physical memory is better than graphics memory or am I reading this all wrong, and you don;t actually lose any memory as it's all available?

Microsoft says it a hardware issue with my Motherboard, my Motherboard manufactures says it's not but how the OS addresses the memory. From what I understand the 1. The addressing takes up that space. All of this is consistent with what I have read but I am still confused as to why this kind of backward thinking was taken up in the first place given the lessons learned from the days when K or RAM was all anyone would ever need Since the system needs memory address space for the hardware, that space will overwrite RAM space therefore causing problems if Windows thinks it can use it.

I don't think there can be a fix to this because it is a hardware issue since motherboards assign the memory address space. But it is also a software issue as Windows is limited to how much RAM it can use anyway Even 64 bit has a limit Which in my opinion will be reached eventually. The hardware is limited because the OS is limited and the OS is limited because the Hardware is limited From what I understand the more RAM you have on a video card the better for faster high end graphics.

It is used for texture mapping and such. But the more video RAM you have on the card the more memory address space is required which takes up available RAM space. Anyway, that's what I know But what do I know?