ramdisk to get more than 3gb ram in xp

Im working on a new system build but I want to continue to use windows xp because of the plugins i own,  ive herd problems of some of them working in windows 7 64bit.  I'm doing studio work so being stable is important. Is there a way I can use ramdisk in order to access more plug-ins in my session by using the unallocated space as a page file? Ill have 16gb of physical ram to play around with. The problem I'm having is some projects get pretty big so ram gets eaten pretty quickly in xp. 

See this article.

http://www.pcworld.idg.co...ce_win_xp_pro_ramdisk/

Basically, if your system only had 1 GB of memory you could use a RAMdisk to increase that to 4GB (of which only 3GB can be used) which is the limit for 32-bit O/S. If you already have 3 or 4GB installed, it wouldn't help to use a RAMdisk.

I recommend you upgrade to Windows 7 64-bit and then you are only limited by the amount of memory you actually have. (Windows 7 Home - up to 16GB, Windows 7 Pro - I think its 256GB). With Windows 7 you can also use Flash Memory to boost performance (ReadyBoost).

There is no way around the addressing limitation of 32-bit Windows. Even a ramdisk is subject to that limitation. The exception is when the RAM is completely outside the operating system's address space, such as when it's in a separate computer or a solid-state disk. Sadly, 12GB of your 16GB is being wasted under XP. Being able to address more memory is the principle motivation for the migration to 64-bit systems.

Personally, I have not made that leap (to 64 bits) myself, for the same reasons as you. Too many compatibility issues. XP is stable and reliable, and because I am not big on software samplers I don't have the need for gobs of RAM and therefore enjoy the luxury of being able to stay with XP for a while longer.

The good news is that compatibility problems are being sorted out and becoming less of a problem as time goes by. Vendors are releasing 64-bit versions of their products, usually as free upgrades, and interim workarounds such as BitBridge and JBridge are available during the transition period.

Ask yourself the key question, which is whether you really need more memory in the first place. If you're working in a studio recording people for pay, you're probably dealing mainly with audio files rather than samples. That is not a particularly memory-intensive scenario.

Your stated objective is to accommodate "more plugins", but most plugins are not particularly RAM-hungry. Sample libraries are, but the plugins that drive them are not. DSP plugins such as compressors, equalizers and time-based effects are also not big consumers of RAM.

More likely your limitations are not because of insufficient RAM, but rather insufficient CPU horsepower. Presumably, your new system will have a faster more powerful CPU, which will help a lot. If it still can't handle all the plugins you want to use, consider moving some of the processing to coprocessors such as a UAD-2, Powercore or even a Muse Receptor. Or farming out some of the work to a separate computer.

bitflipper There is no way around the addressing limitation of 32-bit Windows. Even a ramdisk is subject to that limitation. The exception is when the RAM is completely outside the operating system's address space, such as when it's in a separate computer or a solid-state disk. Sadly, 12GB of your 16GB is being wasted under XP. Being able to address more memory is the principle motivation for the migration to 64-bit systems. Personally, I have not made that leap (to 64 bits) myself, for the same reasons as you. Too many compatibility issues. XP is stable and reliable, and because I am not big on software samplers I don't have the need for gobs of RAM and therefore enjoy the luxury of being able to stay with XP for a while longer. The good news is that compatibility problems are being sorted out and becoming less of a problem as time goes by. Vendors are releasing 64-bit versions of their products, usually as free upgrades, and interim workarounds such as BitBridge and JBridge are available during the transition period. Ask yourself the key question, which is whether you really need more memory in the first place. If you're working in a studio recording people for pay, you're probably dealing mainly with audio files rather than samples. That is not a particularly memory-intensive scenario. Your stated objective is to accommodate "more plugins", but most plugins are not particularly RAM-hungry. Sample libraries are, but the plugins that drive them are not. DSP plugins such as compressors, equalizers and time-based effects are also not big consumers of RAM. More likely your limitations are not because of insufficient RAM, but rather insufficient CPU horsepower. Presumably, your new system will have a faster more powerful CPU, which will help a lot. If it still can't handle all the plugins you want to use, consider moving some of the processing to coprocessors such as a UAD-2, Powercore or even a Muse Receptor. Or farming out some of the work to a separate computer.

This is just an XP and "value" Vista and 7 issue. The bigger 32 bit versions of Windows as well as OSX and Linux can address more than 4gb of RAM. Also, your video RAM comes right off the top so if you have a 1gb video card, XP32 can only address 3gb of RAM.

The bigger 32 bit versions of Windows as well as OSX and Linux can address more than 4gb of RAM.

So some versions of 32-bit Windows use a different binary numbering system than others?

A ram disk exists in ram. Therefore a 3 gig ramdisk would require 3 gig of ram to exist.

Readyboost is not a good idea. USB is way slower than a hard disk.

A good use for the ram disk: clip images.  Use one of the auto-ramdisk tools to create a ramdisk, point sonar to it for the clip images, when the machine is powered off the ramdisk contents are stored to a disk file, when the computer is started the software creates the ramdisk and copies the contents of a disk file to the ram disk. Way faster than a disk folder. Used this techniqe for storage database index files far far away, long long ago.

But, need lots of ram for this. Prolly would be good for streaming samples, specially with way gobs of ram and 64 bit OS.

Not reasonable for plugs. These are loaded into ram within the host program.

32 bit address space:  4,294,967,296 addresses/addresses    Billion

64 bit address space:  18,446,744,073,709,600,000   addresses/ levels Quintillion

If you put the pagefile on the ramdisk, it will use that for virtual memory.

I don't recomend it though. The ram was not designed to do this on you board. If you want to do something like this. That's probably why I had problems with my  puter. Eventually I'll get Win 7 64bit and all the ram will be used.

I saw years ago that you could get a PCI card and install memory on it and use it as a hard disk. I have no idea if these cards still exist. I never kept up with it.

John

This is just an XP and "value" Vista and 7 issue. The bigger 32 bit versions of Windows as well as OSX and Linux can address more than 4gb of RAM. Also, your video RAM comes right off the top so if you have a 1gb video card, XP32 can only address 3gb of RAM.

Where do you get this from? Why did you make a very similar statement in another thread? What you think about this is wrong. Video memory is not taken from RAM unless you are using a laptop with no video RAM. The address space for video is set in the BIOS. It is a very small "window" that allows for the transfer of data to the video card. What you are thinking is no longer the case for all MS OSs since XP SP3.

Am I? Are you sure?

Read this and get back to me.

http://msdn.microsoft.com...366778%28VS.85%29.aspx

jm24


I am happy I have read this post since I am not goning to move to full 64 for a while.

Filling the board to 8 gig and using the extra for ramdisks is a great idea: pagefile, image files, samples,... A faster computer without lots of extra cost and bother.

(Prolly have to disable pagefile on hard disks to get the os to use the ram disk "first.")

I was not aware that such utilities will do what must be done to make accessable all the bytes all of the time for all of the people.

However, I do not understand placing plugs in such a space. Most plugs are small and will be completely loaded upon access. Larger ones should load routines as needed, which should not be unloaded until the project is closed.

So, what am I senseless about?

J

It is a waste of time and money. Drives are plenty fast enough to use for page files.

jm24 Yes, but it will be fun to play with such to learn. =========================================== And: FYI for win 7 do not use the /3g switch: To enable 4GT, use the BCDEdit /set command to set the increaseuserva boot entry option to a value between 2048 (2 GB) and 3072 (3 GB). http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb613473(v=VS.85).aspx I wonder what the CW dudes recommend about this config change since some programs may not be happy? J

If you want to play, you need  one of these. http://www.eworldsale.com...roduct_8613_29082.html

Put your pagefile on that bad boy with your extra RAM in it.

John

10Ten

John

This is just an XP and "value" Vista and 7 issue. The bigger 32 bit versions of Windows as well as OSX and Linux can address more than 4gb of RAM. Also, your video RAM comes right off the top so if you have a 1gb video card, XP32 can only address 3gb of RAM.

Where do you get this from? Why did you make a very similar statement in another thread? What you think about this is wrong. Video memory is not taken from RAM unless you are using a laptop with no video RAM. The address space for video is set in the BIOS. It is a very small "window" that allows for the transfer of data to the video card. What you are thinking is no longer the case for all MS OSs since XP SP3.

Am I? Are you sure? Read this and get back to me. http://msdn.microsoft.com...366778%28VS.85%29.aspx

I am not sure why you posted that link. Where does it say video memory takes memory from RAM?

That page tells you everything you need to know about RAM in Windows. Whether not you choose to read it is up to you. I would suggest looking up the definitions of words like "limit", "total" and "system" to help you understand.

John


Why are you arguing? Simply state why you think having a gig of video memory is going to take that amount from system memory.

Explain why you believe that your video card exists outside of your OS. All video card RAM is is system RAM that is tied directly to your GPU. It isn't special and it doesn't exist in some nether region.  In general you don't even need it, it's just faster than normal RAM if you are doing video intensive stuff (games mostly).

John

Explain why you believe that your video card exists outside of your OS. All video card RAM is is system RAM that is tied directly to your GPU. It isn't special and it doesn't exist in some nether region. In general you don't even need it, it's just faster than normal RAM if you are doing video intensive stuff (games mostly).

Thats not how it works. The GPU is a computer on its own. The data is sent to it as totally different and apart from what goes on in the CPU. Think of it as networked to the CPU. Again you set the video transfer window size in the BIOS. I hope you know that we are talking about desktop computers and not laptop computers. 

Once the data is in the GPU the OS has nothing to do with it. It needs its own memory to process the data it has at its own rate. Don't think of the video sub system as the same as a device. Its an entire sub system with all the needs of a computer to work and all that is on the card. The OS does not set aside the memory the video card uses. It doesn't even see it as part of system memory.

If you think about it, if what you are saying were true then there would never have been a need to have any memory on any graphics card. We know that even in the DOS days display cards had memory.

From the Vista support pages.

For example, if you have a video card that has 256 MB of onboard memory, that memory must be mapped within the first 4 GB of address space. If 4 GB of system memory is already installed, part of that address space must be reserved by the graphics memory mapping. Graphics memory mapping overwrites a part of the system memory. These conditions reduce the total amount of system memory that is available to the operating system. The reduction in available system memory depends on the devices that are installed in the computer. However, to avoid potential driver compatibility issues, the 32-bit versions of Windows Vista limit the total available memory to 3.12 GB. See the "More information" section for information about potential driver compatibility issues.


Video card memory does not and can not exist outside of the system that the OS operates. I explained what video card memory was for (speed) and the fact that RAM on video cards is most ofter cheaper than system RAM and there is a limit to the slots for system RAM.

John


Here is a link that will better explain what I am saying.

I know what you are saying and I have shown you twice what Microsoft themselves say happens in a 32bit OS with graphics memory. This is not about sharing system memory with a graphics adapter, this is about total system memory and the way Windows uses it. The total memory in a 32 bit OS (except those that can use /PAE) is 4gb. This number includes dedicated video memory as I have shown twice. I'm done believe whatever you want.

John


If I use a 1 gb video card with 1 gb of system memory then I will have no user memory according to you. I don't think that is true.

Reading is fundamental.