ravi@xanadu.com (Ravi Pandya) (05/30/91)
Has anyone had any success at all trying to get Windows 3.0 Enhanced Mode to recognize the existence of over 16 Mb of RAM? I have 32 Mb of RAM, and a couple of applications that can make good use of it, and this limitation is infuriating. I have spent several days trying various combinations and options of HIMEM, QEMM, EMM386, etc. to try and get anything useful out of it, and have been spectacularly unsuccessful. The "documentation" and "error messages" that Windows provides have not been any help at all. Nor has Microsoft Online, a very expensive and not particularly useful service. (And Microsoft has the gall to raise the price to $2500 a year!!!) Why on earth is this limitation there in the first place? I can understand the reason in 286 mode, but in 386 enhanced mode it is unexcusable. Is it the same kind of short-sighted laziness that led to the original DOS 640k limit? 16 Mb is only an order of magnitude beyond a reasonable current configuration, which means a lot of people will be bumping their noses on it fairly soon. Is Windows 3.1 / 4.0 going to be any better? What about OS/2 2.0? --ravi Ravi Pandya Xanadu Operating Company 550 California Avenue Suite 101 Palo Alto, CA 94306 415 856 4112 ext 122 415 856 2251 fax ravi@xanadu.com
lair@ellis.uchicago.edu (Scott A. Laird) (05/31/91)
In article <1991May30.000945.12529@xanadu.com> ravi@xanadu.com (Ravi Pandya) writes: >Has anyone had any success at all trying to get Windows 3.0 Enhanced >Mode to recognize the existence of over 16 Mb of RAM? I have 32 Mb of Windows is still more or less a 286 app, with segments and 24-bit addressing, and shouldn't be able to directly access 32 Mb of RAM. Nothing designed to run on a 286 can use more than 16 Mb of extended memory. Even in 386 enhanced mode, Windows is still only capable of 16 Mb, because the computer is still more or less running like a 286, it is just using virtual memory and the virtual-86 mode for running DOS apps. It still shouldn't be capable of 32-bit addressing. >Why on earth is this limitation there in the first place? I can >understand the reason in 286 mode, but in 386 enhanced mode it is >unexcusable. Is it the same kind of short-sighted laziness that led to >the original DOS 640k limit? 16 Mb is only an order of magnitude >beyond a reasonable current configuration, which means a lot of people >will be bumping their noses on it fairly soon. Is Windows 3.1 / 4.0 >going to be any better? What about OS/2 2.0? Like I said, the limit is a hardware limit on the 286 chip. OS/2 1.x has the same problem. I suppose the reason for the 640k limit is with the hardware on the 808x, so the two are related. Both OS/2 2.0 and Windows 4.0 are supposed to be capable of 32-bit addressing, as well as running Windows 3.0 apps. That means that there is no 16 Mb limit. I believe OS/2 2.0 can use more or less the full 4 Gb available (assuming that you managed to install all of it :-), and Windows 4.0 is, from what I've heard, limited to 2 Gb. Oh well. Both should be big enough for quite a while. I would be suprised (shocked, more likely) if any PC is capable of having 4 Gb installed before the end of the decade. I know there are a few machines now available now that can do it, but none are aimed at the PC market niche. Few people could afford a PC with $200,000 in RAM, and for word processing, etc it isn't that useful. Now for fluid flow simulations, its another story, but I don't believe many of those run under Windows... Hope this does some good... > --ravi > > Ravi Pandya > Xanadu Operating Company > 550 California Avenue > Suite 101 > Palo Alto, CA 94306 > 415 856 4112 ext 122 > 415 856 2251 fax > ravi@xanadu.com Scott. -- Scott A. Laird | "But this goes to 18,446,744,073,709,551,616" lair@midway.uchicago.edu | - Nigel on his 64-bit computer The University of Chicago |
leoh@hardy.hdw.csd.harris.com (Leo Hinds) (05/31/91)
In article <1991May30.000945.12529@xanadu.com> ravi@xanadu.com (Ravi Pandya) writes: >Has anyone had any success at all trying to get Windows 3.0 Enhanced >Why on earth is this limitation there in the first place? I can >understand the reason in 286 mode, but in 386 enhanced mode it is >unexcusable. I think you have hit the nail on the head ... win3 (sometimes referred to as win/16) is a 16 bit implementation, leading one to conclude that it has the same overall limitations as a 286 (16MB of memory). When (if?) win/32 makes it out, then it would appear logical (to me) that it would be able to support considerably more memory. leoh@hdw.csd.harris.com Leo Hinds (305)973-5229 Gfx ... gfx ... :-) whfg orpnhfr V "ebg"grq zl fvtangher svyr lbh guvax V nz n creireg ?!!!!!!? ... znlor arkg gvzr
mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Doug McDonald) (05/31/91)
In article <1991May30.174414.19047@midway.uchicago.edu> lair@ellis.uchicago.edu (Scott A. Laird) writes: >In article <1991May30.000945.12529@xanadu.com> ravi@xanadu.com (Ravi Pandya) writes: >>Has anyone had any success at all trying to get Windows 3.0 Enhanced >>Mode to recognize the existence of over 16 Mb of RAM? I have 32 Mb of > >Windows is still more or less a 286 app, with segments and 24-bit addressing, >and shouldn't be able to directly access 32 Mb of RAM. Nothing designed to >run on a 286 can use more than 16 Mb of extended memory. Even in 386 enhanced >mode, Windows is still only capable of 16 Mb, because the computer is still >more or less running like a 286, it is just using virtual memory and the >virtual-86 mode for running DOS apps. It still shouldn't be capable of >32-bit addressing. > I do not understand this. In 386 enhanced mode, Windows 3.0 uses virtual 8086 mode for DOS programs. It should be able to run those above 16 megs. Does it? Doug McDonald
risto@tuura.UUCP (Risto Lankinen) (06/03/91)
mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Doug McDonald) writes: >In article <1991May30.174414.19047@midway.uchicago.edu> lair@ellis.uchicago.edu (Scott A. Laird) writes: >>In article <1991May30.000945.12529@xanadu.com> ravi@xanadu.com (Ravi Pandya) writes: >>>Has anyone had any success at all trying to get Windows 3.0 Enhanced >>>Mode to recognize the existence of over 16 Mb of RAM? I have 32 Mb of >> >>Windows is still more or less a 286 app, with segments and 24-bit addressing, >>and shouldn't be able to directly access 32 Mb of RAM. Nothing designed to >>run on a 286 can use more than 16 Mb of extended memory. >I do not understand this. In 386 enhanced mode, Windows 3.0 uses virtual >8086 mode for DOS programs. It should be able to run those above 16 megs. >Does it? Hi! I don't have the hardware, so I can't check it out, but how is it with the EISA or MCA buses? Doesn't the AT-bus have 24 address pins only, so that there's no 'standard' way to access the memory above 2^24, even if the CPU were capable of addressing a greater amount of memory? The way to go, in addition to having CPU >= 386 , would be to increase the number of address pins, which both EISA and MCA do. As said, I'm only guessing... can anyone confirm? Terveisin: Risto Lankinen -- Risto Lankinen / product specialist *************************************** Nokia Data Systems, Technology Dept * 2 3 * THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK * 2 +1 is PRIME! Now working on 2 -1 * replies: risto@yj.data.nokia.fi ***************************************
pena@brainware.fi (Olli-Matti Penttinen) (06/03/91)
In article <1190@tuura.UUCP> risto@tuura.UUCP (Risto Lankinen) writes: >>>Has anyone had any success at all trying to get Windows 3.0 Enhanced >>>Mode to recognize the existence of over 16 Mb of RAM? I have 32 Mb of >> >>Windows is still more or less a 286 app, with segments and 24-bit addressing, >>and shouldn't be able to directly access 32 Mb of RAM. Nothing designed to >>run on a 286 can use more than 16 Mb of extended memory. >I do not understand this. In 386 enhanced mode, Windows 3.0 uses virtual >8086 mode for DOS programs. It should be able to run those above 16 megs. >Does it? Hi! I don't have the hardware, so I can't check it out, but how is it with the EISA or MCA buses? Doesn't the AT-bus have 24 address pins only, so that there's no 'standard' way to access the memory above 2^24, even if the CPU were capable of addressing a greater amount of memory? The way to go, in addition to having CPU >= 386 , would be to increase the number of address pins, which both EISA and MCA do. As said, I'm only guessing... can anyone confirm? Terveisin: Risto Lankinen -- Risto Lankinen / product specialist *************************************** Nokia Data Systems, Technology Dept * 2 3 * THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK * 2 +1 is PRIME! Now working on 2 -1 * replies: risto@yj.data.nokia.fi *************************************** Yes, that exactly is the case. BTW, the same problem occurs with all Unix implementations for ISA bus machines, as well. One possible way of (partially) solving the problem is to let each task own max. 16 MB and let the MMU logic take care of the rest. Inherently machine dependent and doesn't work with Windows, of course :-) ==pena -- Olli-Matti Penttinen <pena@brainware.fi> | "When in doubt, use brute force." Brainware Oy | --Ken Thompson P.O.Box 330 +---------------------------------- 02151 ESPOO, Finland Tel. +358 0 4354 2565 Fax. +358 0 461 617
archer@stlvm2.vnet.ibm.com ("Gary D. Archer") (06/05/91)
ravi@xanadu.com (Ravi Pandya) writes:
->Has anyone had any success at all trying to get Windows 3.0 Enhanced
->Mode to recognize the existence of over 16 Mb of RAM? I have 32 Mb of
->RAM, and a couple of applications that can make good use of it, and
->this limitation is infuriating. I have spent several days trying
Some DMA chips couldn't support >16Megs, this might be the reason.
Have you tried using a disk cache program (such as Hyperdisk) to
use 16megs?
->going to be any better? What about OS/2 2.0?
OS/2 2.0 can support > 16megs of memory
--
Gary Archer, SSPD Software, IBM San Jose, CA
"I'm not an Official IBM spokesman, my opinions are my own, not IBM's."
Internet: archer@stlvm6.vnet.ibm.com
Phone : (408) 284-6387donc@microsoft.UUCP (Don CORBITT) (06/05/91)
In article <1991May30.174414.19047@midway.uchicago.edu> lair@ellis.uchicago.edu (Scott A. Laird) writes: >In article <1991May30.000945.12529@xanadu.com> ravi@xanadu.com (Ravi Pandya) writes: >>Has anyone had any success at all trying to get Windows 3.0 Enhanced >>Mode to recognize the existence of over 16 Mb of RAM? I have 32 Mb of > >Windows is still more or less a 286 app, with segments and 24-bit addressing, >and shouldn't be able to directly access 32 Mb of RAM. [continued discussion on why win 3.0 can't use features of 386] This is a very good argument, unfortunately it turns out to be incorrect. Win 3.0 in Enchanted mode allows the creation of 32 bit apps, or 16 bit apps using 32 bit registers and addresses. I have no specific information about the 16 MB limit on 3.0. However, there is nothing in Windows 3.x design to enforce such a limit. It is very possible to allocate 8MB, and use the 386 32 bit registers to directly access any byte in that block of memory. In fact, there are already 32 bit applications shipping on windows 3.0. It turns out that a complete 32 bit app requires a mapping layer for the API calls, so we don't advertise Win3 as a 32 bit operating system. But if you want to fiddle with a rrreeeaaallllyyy bbbbiiiiigggg chunk of memory, and you have the RAM (or disk space), you can do it today with minimal effort. (This minimal effort includes a compiler that knows about 32 bit addressing, or writing 80386 assembly language. But that's the case in any OS.) -- Don Corbitt, uunet!microsoft!donc, MSWinDev Mail flames, post apologies. Support short signatures, 3 lines max.