Misplaced Pages

Talk:Physical Address Extension: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 07:22, 13 October 2016 editClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,373,535 editsm Archiving 1 discussion to Talk:Physical Address Extension/Archives/2016/July. (BOT)← Previous edit Revision as of 08:30, 13 October 2016 edit undoJeh (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers19,611 edits "offset within page" does not come from the page-table entry: sock of indef-blocked user Janagewen - revertedNext edit →
Line 50: Line 50:


: You are of course correct - and nice catch, that's been on the page for a long time. You can of course make the change yourself if you want. Be ] ! ] (]) 03:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC) : You are of course correct - and nice catch, that's been on the page for a long time. You can of course make the change yourself if you want. Be ] ! ] (]) 03:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

: Why this British governed guy are welcome to change, why I cannot? Just because of the geolocation of my IPs, just because of Jeh dislike China. So this guy always messed up articles even though my suggestions are correct! So readers from China, please take care of this guy, ]. He might possibly attack you after he realise you come from China! ---Aaron Janagewen <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 04:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Revision as of 08:30, 13 October 2016

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Physical Address Extension article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconMicrosoft Windows: Computing Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft Windows, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microsoft Windows on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Microsoft WindowsWikipedia:WikiProject Microsoft WindowsTemplate:WikiProject Microsoft WindowsMicrosoft Windows
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as Mid-importance).
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconComputing Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.



Archives (Index)



This page is archived by ClueBot III.

according to Geoff Chappel", Microsoft may limit 32-bit versions of Windows to 4GB as a matter of its licensing policy

This was finally confirmed by Rusonnovich with Internals 6. 6th Edition came out in 2 parts; Book 1 & Book 2. Book 2 contains a fair bit of undocumented info not found elsewhere.


Page 320/321 lists physical memory support for all Windows versions, as on MSDN, AND the limiting factors, which are: "Licensing on 64-bit; licensing, hardware support, and driver compatibility on 32-bit" p320

problematic client driver ecosystem led to the decision for client editions to ignore physical memory that resides above 4 GB', even though they can theoretically address it p321

Exactly as Geoff Chappell said...:) It wasn't much of a secret tbh because AMD64 platforms running XP already made great use of 4-8GB RAM: No pagefile required. :) Great for servers.

Coming from Managed Services (Deployment), published material often proves more reliable than say MSDN libraries which can be rather ambiguous.......


No idea how to include a link to source which is Microsoft Windows Internals (6th Edition), Part 2, pages 320 & 321, As a wiki newbie so I apologise in advance for breaking any rules. :)


I saw some discussion also over absolute maximum RAM limits allowed by Microsoft...? The official maximum is 2TB, the limit doesn’t come from any implementation or hardware limitation, but because Microsoft will support only configurations it can test. The largest tested and supported memory configuration is currently 2TB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.188.27.154 (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

"offset within page" does not come from the page-table entry

The phrase should surely be . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.218.4.174 (talk) 23:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

You are of course correct - and nice catch, that's been on the page for a long time. You can of course make the change yourself if you want. Be WP:BOLD ! Jeh (talk) 03:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Categories: