Hi Chris,
> Remember when IBM put all the ROMs at 640k because "no-one would ever
> need that much RAM"?
Indeed, still talk about that with the old pc buffs.
> 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?
I honestly don't know on this one. I can't see where that much system
address space is required, but then again you never know. I think it's more
along the lines of an arbitrary point chosen as the cut off line, and
anything above it is marked as reserved, used or not.
> Does addressability still need to be contiguous, in the post-286 age?
I don't believe so, but again I don't know for sure.
--
Best of Luck,
Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
Windows help -
www.rickrogers.org
My thoughts
http://rick-mvp.blogspot.com
"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote in
message news:8ctub3hnif62dminvm16l1eir7utaellan@4ax.com...
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>>------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
> The most accurate diagnostic instrument
> in medicine is the Retrospectoscope
>>------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -