What, another Winows OS

[ianhind]

Ben

No onboard graphics but I think is known to be a problem - if you read the motherboard specs they indicate not all of 4Gb will be found. So I went looking and found:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605/en-us

Anyone remember the days of "640k is all anyone will ever need" because the I/O was mapped above that? Looks like we've hit a similar problem of trying to fit I/O mapping into the 4Gb addressable space.

And seems like someone else has figured this out too:

http://blogs.msdn.com/dcook/archive/200 ... emory.aspx

So 64-bit OS here we come.

And maybe server motherboards show more RAM since they don't have all the extra USB/sound/etc bits that eat I/O?

Ian

[TSR2]

Cheers for that Ian. I've never come accross that problem before. I had 4GB in my old work laptop prior to Vista and it saw just under 4GB; which was due to the crappy onboard graphics. I wonder did HP find a way to make the system properties show 4GB by frigging it? :think:
Certainly never had the issue on server boards, but they almost all have separate SCSI controllers.

Good find!

[DaveB]

A few of the guys who have given it a go recently have specs way below yours and are getting (by their own comments) good performance.

My hand is up.. I was one of those! SP2 did the trick for my old dog.. XP3200(non 64-bit).. 3gig DDR 333.. 256mb Nvidia 6800GT.. Asus A7N8X-E Deluxe mobo.. 160gb and 500gb SATA HD's ;-) However.. every time WinXP comes up with the box 'You have unused icons on your desktop'.. FSX is always in there

ATB

DaveB :tab:

[tonymadge]

'You have unused icons on your desktop'.. FSX is always in there

[Quixoticish]

There's a good article here on exactly why you can't get the full 4GB of RAM on a 32 bit OS:

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000811.html

[TSR2]

Being pedantic, but you can on certain hardware it seems ;-)