cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)

On Sun, 5 Aug 2007 20:02:16 -0400, "Rick Rogers" wrote:

>You aren't fully reading the explanations. It is the addresses that are
>reserved for the system, and this is regardless of how much ram is
>installed. In XP you didn't see it because the amount of ram installed was
>nowhere near the 4GB of addressing space of this 32-bit OS. The /PAE switch
>allows for more addressing space, so then you can see it.

This is really funny, like deja vu all over again.

Remember when IBM put all the ROMs at 640k because "no-one would ever
need that much RAM"?

Still, the system mappings have to do somewhere, I guess. Do they
fill the top part of the map, or is it a matter of 5M worth of stull
scattered from 3.12G upwards, breaking contiguous addressability?

Does addressability still need to be contiguous, in the post-286 age?



>------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
The most accurate diagnostic instrument
in medicine is the Retrospectoscope
>------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -