On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 9:17 PM, Ken Schaefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> beyond that, which are not clear or well documented. The poorly >> documented/unclear part is that XP apparently sometimes recognizes >> much less than 4 GiB of RAM -- far more so than that which can be >> explained solely by other hardware using up physical address space. >> That isn't about PAE. > > Do we have any properly documented examples of this happening?
I don't have any references to hand, no. I had seen one really good blog post from an MS employee that seemed to make sense of it all, but now I can't find it again. :-( And I should qualify this by saying that it's entirely possible, even likely, that it's not Win XP alone that's causing these issues, but some combination of Win XP on certain motherboards, or maybe certain drivers, or some such thing. Unfortunately, there's so much murk and misinformation surrounding these issues that good information is hard to find. Trying to do a web search just finds cargo cult voodoo, repeatedly demonstrating that a little knowledge can be a dangerous think. That's part of the reason why I think it's important to be clear when stating what limits cause what -- virtual address size, address bus, PAE, motherboard, chipset, OS imposed, etc. > I'm also interested in where you may have found "poor documentation" around > this issue. Well, if it was well-documented, I'd have lots of references. :) -- Ben ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm> ~
