On 2/6/2022 5:48 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Feb 2022 17:03:30 -0000, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 05 Feb 2022 22:37:50 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 03 Feb 2022 12:18:35 -0700, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Home or Professional. Right-click on any bank space on the task bar.
>>>
>>> My understanding is that Home doesn't work with more than 16gb of RAM.
>>> True or untrue?
>>
>>
>>
>> Untrue.
>>
>> 32-bit Home - 4MB
>> 64-bit Home - 128MB
>
> GB, not MB.
>
>>> I'm using Pro and have 64 gb DDR4)
>>
>> OK, but that's a *lot* of RAM for almost everyone. What do you do that
>> warrants having so much?
>
> I have that much aswell.  What century are you living in?

Kens setup is designed for easy XMP application.

If you buy DDR4-4400 sticks, you buy 2x8GB for example,
go in the BIOS, turn on XPM and boom, done. You can run
the various memory testers as you would usually do, but you
can expect the shit will "just work".

If you insist on filling all the slots with RAM, you may
need to do extra work, and there's no guarantees on
what performance level you'll end up with. That's why my
4930K with 8 sticks in it, doesn't run at max memory speed.
I found a web page a few days ago that said "the IMC doesn't
like to run that high with 8 sticks". So at least I've seen
an explanation for why it behaved that way.

So what Ken has, is a machine that was "easily tuned for
max performance". His turbo is turned on. His cooler
is huge and can "take anything".

That's the beauty of doing your own builds -- depending
on what you select, the build can be "easy" or the
build can be "hard". Your choice.

Paul

On 2/6/2022 11:21 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 23:11:06 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
> <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> But with the Windows 11 upgrade, it's like me giving you the next one up of the model you already have.
>>
>> In fact the real title of Windows 11 is something like 10.0.2.
>
> I haven't seen it yet but if it's the typical Microsoft it's with a
> spiffy new interface to disguise that fact.
>

I guarantee the right-click menu in W11 File Explorer will drive you crazy.
I hope that's fixed after the incoming patch tuesday. We'll see
if they've come to their senses yet.

The objectionable part, is the usage of two different font
sizes, in the two different sections of the menu. Surely
the drug addict who made that menu, could have made the
decorations in it consistent.

The design style, sure, it's a taste thing, and I'm sure
somebody likes it. But at least the fonts should be
the same throughout it. Not greasy font at top level,
sharp font at second level. Make up your mind.

Selecting "More Options" here, is what causes the second
level of menu to appear (shown on the right). This is two
pictures taken, with the second level menu pasted next to the
first level one so you can compare their designs.

https://i.postimg.cc/fTXQNGKv/W11-two-level-menu.gif

The scissors and trash icons on the ends of the top of
the menu, they're easy to understand, but the other
icons I'm not sure what they are. And there is no
balloon help for the icons up there. Today I was noticing
that the icons can be on the top or on the bottom
of the first level menu, implying some sort of
context sensitive behavior. I still don't understand
how the menu is deciding where to put the icons.

Paul

On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 at 16:19:18, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote
(my responses usually follow points raised):
>On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 20:48:15 +0000, Windows 11 User <Win11@win11.win11>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Untrue.
>>>
>>> 32-bit Home - 4MB
>>> 64-bit Home - 128MB
>>>
>>
>>Even the above two lines are wrong and misleading. You won't find 4MB
>>and 128MB ram in any of the modern machines.
>
>
>They are *not* wrong. Those *are* the maximum amounts supported.
>Whether they are commonly found is another issue entirely.

I think W11U was pointing out the previous posters error of using M
where he meant G (-:

(Not an uncommon error, especially for we older folk; my first "PC" did
indeed have 4M. [My first _computer_ had 1K, later expanded to 8K.])
>
>And by the way, 128GB is certainly not commonly found, but 4GB on a
>32bit Home machine *is* common--probably most common.

Or - since the whole of the 4G can't be accessed - 3G. (That's what this
has. Running 7-32 - and fine unless opening lots of lazy web pages.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Purgamentum init, exit purgamentum." Translation: "Garbage in, garbage out."

On 2/7/2022 6:23 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 at 16:19:18, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
>> On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 20:48:15 +0000, Windows 11 User <Win11@win11.win11>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Untrue.
>>>>
>>>> 32-bit Home - 4MB
>>>> 64-bit Home - 128MB
>>>>
>>>
>>> Even the above two lines are wrong and misleading. You won't find 4MB
>>> and 128MB ram in any of the modern machines.
>>
>>
>> They are *not* wrong.  Those *are* the maximum amounts supported.
>> Whether they are commonly found is another issue entirely.
>
> I think W11U was pointing out the previous posters error of using M where he meant G (-:
>
> (Not an uncommon error, especially for we older folk; my first "PC" did indeed have 4M. [My first _computer_ had 1K, later expanded to 8K.])
>>
>> And by the way, 128GB is certainly not commonly found, but 4GB on a
>> 32bit Home machine *is* common--probably most common.
>
> Or - since the whole of the 4G can't be accessed - 3G. (That's what this has. Running 7-32 - and fine unless opening lots of lazy web pages.)

The constraint in a 32 bit OS (even though PAE was enabled),
was that you have a 4GB address space to work with. They didn't
implement it as a memory limit. It's implemented as an address
limit, based on the theory the hardware cannot access above that limit.

4G -----------
I/O space for PCI \
I/O space for AGP \___ quantized in 256MB chunks
I/O space for PCIe /
-----------
DRAM memory access here
0G -----------

If you installed a "really small" video card, one with very little
VRAM on it, you could actually get a declaration of 3.5GB free. I can
do that with my PCI FX5200 that I use for flashing other video cards.
It has a small VRAM on it.

4G -----------
I/O space for PCI 256MB
I/O space for AGP 256MB (could be a 128MB card)
3.5G -----------
DRAM memory access here
0G -----------

But many people have slightly bigger video cards, so the
config would look like this.

4G -----------
...
...
3.0G -----------
DRAM memory access here
0G -----------

The SLI people, might see this. There weren't as many
complaints about this happening. But there were a few reports.
That would be a couple PCIe video cards and no AGP.

4G -----------
...
...
2.0G -----------
DRAM memory access here
0G -----------

Paul

Paul wrote:
> On 2/6/2022 2:37 PM, ...w¡ñ§±¤ñ wrote:
>> Ken Blake wrote:
>>> On Sat, 05 Feb 2022 22:37:50 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 03 Feb 2022 12:18:35 -0700, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Home or Professional. Right-click on any bank space on the task bar.
>>>>
>>>> My understanding is that Home doesn't work with more than 16gb of RAM.
>>>> True or untrue?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Untrue.
>>>
>>> 32-bit Home - 4MB
>>> 64-bit Home - 128MB
>>>
>>>> I'm using Pro and have 64 gb DDR4)
>>>
>>> OK, but that's a *lot* of RAM for almost everyone. What do you do that
>>> warrants having so much?
>>>
>> Need to multiply those 32/64 bit MB numbers up a bit
>>
>> :) I've done the same when typing when I should have copy/pasted.
>>
>
> I must admit, I copy/pasted. It's because I love
> editing those excess <tab> characters that web pages
> are so generously fitted with.
>
> Maybe you know the answer. The Microsoft web page has a column for x86
> (32-bit)
> Windows 11. I didn't think such a thing existed. Is there actually
> a 32-bit version alive and well somewhere ?
>
>    Paul
>
Have not looked for that web page.
Care to provide the link?

--
....w¡ñ§±¤ñ
msft mvp 2007-2020

Ken Blake wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 20:48:15 +0000, Windows 11 User <Win11@win11.win11>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Untrue.
>>>
>>> 32-bit Home - 4MB
>>> 64-bit Home - 128MB
>>>
>>
>> Even the above two lines are wrong and misleading. You won't find 4MB
>> and 128MB ram in any of the modern machines.
>
>
> They are *not* wrong. Those *are* the maximum amounts supported.
> Whether they are commonly found is another issue entirely.
>
> And by the way, 128GB is certainly not commonly found, but 4GB on a
> 32bit Home machine *is* common--probably most common.
>

Hi, Ken.
- the previous posters' comments(also a separate post of mine) were with
respect to your reply
32 bit Home - 4MB and 64 bit Home - 128MB
i.e. MB = Megabytes

The maximum amounts are GB - Gigabytes 4GB and 128 GB

--
....w¡ñ§±¤ñ

On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 12:00:30 -0700, ...w�񧱤� <winstonmvp@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Ken Blake wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 20:48:15 +0000, Windows 11 User <Win11@win11.win11>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Untrue.
>>>>
>>>> 32-bit Home - 4MB
>>>> 64-bit Home - 128MB
>>>>
>>>
>>> Even the above two lines are wrong and misleading. You won't find 4MB
>>> and 128MB ram in any of the modern machines.
>>
>>
>> They are *not* wrong. Those *are* the maximum amounts supported.
>> Whether they are commonly found is another issue entirely.
>>
>> And by the way, 128GB is certainly not commonly found, but 4GB on a
>> 32bit Home machine *is* common--probably most common.
>>
>
>Hi, Ken.
>- the previous posters' comments(also a separate post of mine) were with
>respect to your reply
> 32 bit Home - 4MB and 64 bit Home - 128MB
>i.e. MB = Megabytes
>
>
>The maximum amounts are GB - Gigabytes 4GB and 128 GB

OOPs! Yes, you're right of courser--thanks. A brain fart. But he might
have simply pointed out what my error was instead of posting the way
he did.

It's interesting that in my reply to him, I correctly used GB instead
of MB, and still hadn't noticed my original error.

On Mon, 07 Feb 2022 04:25:02 -0000, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

> On Tue, 01 Feb 2022 11:03:48 -0600, Char Jackson <none@none.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> I've been seeing reports of 400+ miles on a charge, although I'm not
>> sure what vehicle that was, and saw a story the other day about a
>> Mercedes (?) that went 700 miles on a charge. There was a companion
>> story about an EV prototype that went from LA to NY and spent about 2.5
>> hours of that trip on a charger. Battery technology seems to be creeping
>> up.
>
> Presumably that would vary with terrain? Point of my question is that
> over the last 20+ years I laugh at every car salesman who quotes
> expected gas mileage at me since the car dealerships locally are at
> sea level whereas my home is about 280 meters above that though still
> within the same community.
>
> My more serious question is, do electrics draw more power when hill
> climbing?

Yes, but unlike gas engines, they regain most of it when going back down.

On Mon, 07 Feb 2022 04:39:01 -0000, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

> On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 20:44:14 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
> <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>> The machine I'm typing on (the
>>> "Replacement For The Typing Machine Machine"), the CPU is
>>> too old for Windows 11. But just fine for Windows 10.
>>>
>>> It's the new machine that is buzzword compliant (5600G).
>>> It has enough toys to pass.
>>
>> What is 5600G?
>
> Well there are a lot of old machines out there still used for special
> purposes.

You still didn't say what 5600G referred to.

> For instance I've got a 10 year old I7 laptop with Office 2010
> installed which I normally use only to drive my projector when I'm
> giving speeches - normally I prepare the PowerPoint (or other
> presentation software), save it to a USB stick, mount it on the old
> laptop and connect the cable to the projector.
>
> It was a pretty spiffy machine in the day but continues to do a fine
> job doing what I now use it for.

The daftest thing I ever saw was a widescreen laptop connected to a 4:3 projector. The laptop recognised it was a 4:3 projector and transmitted the image with tramlines top and bottom. The projector recognised the laptop was widescreen and placed tramlines left and right. The net result was a small image in the middle of the projection screen.

On Mon, 07 Feb 2022 06:05:42 -0000, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

> On 2/6/2022 3:48 PM, Windows 11 User wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Untrue.
>>>
>>> 32-bit Home - 4MB
>>> 64-bit Home - 128MB
>>>
>>
>> Even the above two lines are wrong and misleading. You won't find 4MB
>> and 128MB ram in any of the modern machines.
>>
>> These newsgroups have become the cesspit of misinformation and
>> conspiracies about everything including Covid-19 and dodgy investments.
>>
>>
>
> You can actually. It's a bit nuanced, but the
> raw capability is there to "software limit" what the OS
> is allowed to use. The explanation in the past was,
> "this is easier than unplugging DIMMs when testing".
>
> https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/devtest/boot-parameters-to-manipulate-memory
>
> You can pare down free ram with a BCDEDIT change.
>
> If you want to set the machine to use only 128MB out of
> the 64GB you have on board, you can do that! When it crashes
> and burns, no problemo, boot the installer DVD, run Command Prompt,
> issue another bcdedit (offline style) command and change the
> MAXMEM setting to a more pleasing value.
>
> MAXMEM was available in Windows XP as well. And maybe
> even earlier, but I forget.
>
> *******
>
> The above two lines were an honest typo, and don't
> need to be dwelt upon.
>
> *******
>
> I've run Windows 10 in a VM, with the VM set to 256MB.
> Today, I'm not sure that would work, but if you
> reinstall 10240, that will work. Something called
> "Memory Compressor" would run railed on one core,
> but there's enough RAM to use notepad if you want.
> The slack might be 8MB or so (the memory compressor
> doesn't try to free up much more than that much slack).
>
> You can also use Russinoviches "TestLimit64.exe" program,
> to apply memory pressure to systems and see what their
> core memory usage is like. On current versions of
> both Windows 10 and Windows 11, I'm seeing 2.8GB as the
> core memory amount. That's why it would be interesting
> to dial them down again (like in a VM), and see if they
> survive with really low settings now. I can run Windows 11
> fully enabled (no tricks) in VMWare Workstation 16,
> and then dial it down there. But VirtualBox isn't ready
> for that yet, and won't be for a while.

Can you use similar tricks to make windows remove it's limit and run in 256GB?

On Mon, 07 Feb 2022 06:15:31 -0000, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

> On 2/6/2022 5:48 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Sun, 06 Feb 2022 17:03:30 -0000, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 05 Feb 2022 22:37:50 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 03 Feb 2022 12:18:35 -0700, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Home or Professional. Right-click on any bank space on the task bar.
>>>>
>>>> My understanding is that Home doesn't work with more than 16gb of RAM.
>>>> True or untrue?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Untrue.
>>>
>>> 32-bit Home - 4MB
>>> 64-bit Home - 128MB
>>
>> GB, not MB.
>>
>>>> I'm using Pro and have 64 gb DDR4)
>>>
>>> OK, but that's a *lot* of RAM for almost everyone. What do you do that
>>> warrants having so much?
>>
>> I have that much aswell. What century are you living in?
>
> Kens setup is designed for easy XMP application.
>
> If you buy DDR4-4400 sticks, you buy 2x8GB for example,
> go in the BIOS, turn on XPM and boom, done. You can run
> the various memory testers as you would usually do, but you
> can expect the shit will "just work".
>
> If you insist on filling all the slots with RAM, you may
> need to do extra work, and there's no guarantees on
> what performance level you'll end up with. That's why my
> 4930K with 8 sticks in it, doesn't run at max memory speed.
> I found a web page a few days ago that said "the IMC doesn't
> like to run that high with 8 sticks". So at least I've seen
> an explanation for why it behaved that way.
>
> So what Ken has, is a machine that was "easily tuned for
> max performance". His turbo is turned on. His cooler
> is huge and can "take anything".
>
> That's the beauty of doing your own builds -- depending
> on what you select, the build can be "easy" or the
> build can be "hard". Your choice.

If your PC can't go full speed with max RAM, you bought a shoddy motherboard.

On Mon, 07 Feb 2022 06:30:32 -0000, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

> On 2/6/2022 11:21 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 23:11:06 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
>> <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> But with the Windows 11 upgrade, it's like me giving you the next one up of the model you already have.
>>>
>>> In fact the real title of Windows 11 is something like 10.0.2.
>>
>> I haven't seen it yet but if it's the typical Microsoft it's with a
>> spiffy new interface to disguise that fact.
>
> I guarantee the right-click menu in W11 File Explorer will drive you crazy.
> I hope that's fixed after the incoming patch tuesday. We'll see
> if they've come to their senses yet.
>
> The objectionable part, is the usage of two different font
> sizes, in the two different sections of the menu. Surely
> the drug addict who made that menu, could have made the
> decorations in it consistent.
>
> The design style, sure, it's a taste thing, and I'm sure
> somebody likes it. But at least the fonts should be
> the same throughout it. Not greasy font at top level,
> sharp font at second level. Make up your mind.
>
> Selecting "More Options" here, is what causes the second
> level of menu to appear (shown on the right). This is two
> pictures taken, with the second level menu pasted next to the
> first level one so you can compare their designs.
>
> https://i.postimg.cc/fTXQNGKv/W11-two-level-menu.gif
>
> The scissors and trash icons on the ends of the top of
> the menu, they're easy to understand, but the other
> icons I'm not sure what they are. And there is no
> balloon help for the icons up there. Today I was noticing
> that the icons can be on the top or on the bottom
> of the first level menu, implying some sort of
> context sensitive behavior. I still don't understand
> how the menu is deciding where to put the icons.

I immediately installed two programs to revert everything to Windows 10 or previous style.

On Mon, 07 Feb 2022 04:21:58 -0000, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

> On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 23:11:06 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
> <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> But with the Windows 11 upgrade, it's like me giving you the next one up of the model you already have.
>>
>> In fact the real title of Windows 11 is something like 10.0.2.
>
> I haven't seen it yet but if it's the typical Microsoft it's with a
> spiffy new interface to disguise that fact.

They have fucked the interface, but they must have changed something in the core what with all this TPM and CPU requirements. Although it's odd that it just works without them if you hack the installer.

On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 at 11:45:33, ...w¡ñ§±¤ñ <winstonmvp@gmail.com> wrote
(my responses usually follow points raised):
>Paul wrote:
[]
>> Maybe you know the answer. The Microsoft web page has a column for
>>x86 (32-bit)
>> Windows 11. I didn't think such a thing existed. Is there actually
>> a 32-bit version alive and well somewhere ?
>>    Paul
>>
>Have not looked for that web page.
>Care to provide the link?
>
I too would be interested; I'd heard no mention of an 11-32, and several
statements that there wasn't going to be one.
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

What's awful about weird views is not the views. It's the intolerance. If
someone wants to worship the Duke of Edinburgh or a pineapple, fine. But don't
kill me if I don't agree. - Tim Rice, Radio Times 15-21 October 2011.

On 2/7/2022 3:24 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Feb 2022 04:25:02 -0000, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 01 Feb 2022 11:03:48 -0600, Char Jackson <none@none.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I've been seeing reports of 400+ miles on a charge, although I'm not
>>> sure what vehicle that was, and saw a story the other day about a
>>> Mercedes (?) that went 700 miles on a charge. There was a companion
>>> story about an EV prototype that went from LA to NY and spent about 2.5
>>> hours of that trip on a charger. Battery technology seems to be creeping
>>> up.
>>
>> Presumably that would vary with terrain? Point of my question is that
>> over the last 20+ years I laugh at every car salesman who quotes
>> expected gas mileage at me since the car dealerships locally are at
>> sea level whereas my home is about 280 meters above that though still
>> within the same community.
>>
>> My more serious question is, do electrics draw more power when hill
>> climbing?
>
> Yes, but unlike gas engines, they regain most of it when going back down.

When they mine on the top of a mountain, and bring the goods
down the hill, the BEV earth movers have net power output.

https://www.autoblog.com/2019/08/26/edumper-electric-mining-truck-self-charging/

There was another article, claiming some of these truck designs,
in an "inverted mine", you drain the batteries back into the grid,
to make more room for the regeneration charging that happens.

In the above article, the truck going up the hill weighs 45 tons.
The truck coming down the hill weighs 110 tons. And the regenerative
braking done using the electric motor, can then have net power
output.

It's not a perpetual motion machine, because what the machine is doing,
is harvesting the potential energy of a boulder sitting on the top of
a mountain. Once the mountain is chewed to bits and leveled, there
is no more free electricity to be had.

For home owners of BEVs, hardly any of their usage follows
that pattern. You're not hauling boulders in your Leaf, from
the top of some mountain. Regular BEVs, lose most of their energy
as wind resistance and tire friction. That's why the Mercedes announced
the other day, has a drag coefficient of 0.17 . To increase the range.

Paul

On 2/7/2022 3:27 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Feb 2022 04:39:01 -0000, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 20:44:14 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
>> <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> The machine I'm typing on (the
>>>> "Replacement For The Typing Machine Machine"), the CPU is
>>>> too old for Windows 11. But just fine for Windows 10.
>>>>
>>>> It's the new machine that is buzzword compliant (5600G).
>>>> It has enough toys to pass.
>>>
>>> What is 5600G?
>>
>> Well there are a lot of old machines out there still used for special
>> purposes.
>
> You still didn't say what 5600G referred to.

You can find processors on CPU-World. In Google, do a site
search using site:cpu-world.com plus the name of the CPU.

https://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Zen/AMD-Ryzen%205%205600G.html

Paul

On 2/7/2022 1:45 PM, ...w¡ñ§±¤ñ wrote:

>> I must admit, I copy/pasted. It's because I love
>> editing those excess <tab> characters that web pages
>> are so generously fitted with.
>>
>> Maybe you know the answer. The Microsoft web page has a column for x86 (32-bit)
>> Windows 11. I didn't think such a thing existed. Is there actually
>> a 32-bit version alive and well somewhere ?
>>
>>     Paul
>>
> Have not looked for that web page.
> Care to provide the link?

MID: <stnu5f$13c4$1@gioia.aioe.org>

http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3Cstnu5f%2413c4%241%40gioia.aioe.org%3E

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/memory/memory-limits-for-windows-releases

Paul

On 2/7/2022 3:32 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Feb 2022 06:05:42 -0000, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 2/6/2022 3:48 PM, Windows 11 User wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Untrue.
>>>>
>>>> 32-bit Home - 4MB
>>>> 64-bit Home - 128MB
>>>>
>>>
>>> Even the above two lines are wrong and misleading. You won't find 4MB
>>> and 128MB ram in any of the modern machines.
>>>
>>> These newsgroups have become the cesspit of misinformation and
>>> conspiracies about everything including Covid-19 and dodgy investments.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You can actually. It's a bit nuanced, but the
>> raw capability is there to "software limit" what the OS
>> is allowed to use. The explanation in the past was,
>> "this is easier than unplugging DIMMs when testing".
>>
>> https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/devtest/boot-parameters-to-manipulate-memory
>>
>> You can pare down free ram with a BCDEDIT change.
>>
>> If you want to set the machine to use only 128MB out of
>> the 64GB you have on board, you can do that! When it crashes
>> and burns, no problemo, boot the installer DVD, run Command Prompt,
>> issue another bcdedit (offline style) command and change the
>> MAXMEM setting to a more pleasing value.
>>
>> MAXMEM was available in Windows XP as well. And maybe
>> even earlier, but I forget.
>>
>> *******
>>
>> The above two lines were an honest typo, and don't
>> need to be dwelt upon.
>>
>> *******
>>
>> I've run Windows 10 in a VM, with the VM set to 256MB.
>> Today, I'm not sure that would work, but if you
>> reinstall 10240, that will work. Something called
>> "Memory Compressor" would run railed on one core,
>> but there's enough RAM to use notepad if you want.
>> The slack might be 8MB or so (the memory compressor
>> doesn't try to free up much more than that much slack).
>>
>> You can also use Russinoviches "TestLimit64.exe" program,
>> to apply memory pressure to systems and see what their
>> core memory usage is like. On current versions of
>> both Windows 10 and Windows 11, I'm seeing 2.8GB as the
>> core memory amount. That's why it would be interesting
>> to dial them down again (like in a VM), and see if they
>> survive with really low settings now. I can run Windows 11
>> fully enabled (no tricks) in VMWare Workstation 16,
>> and then dial it down there. But VirtualBox isn't ready
>> for that yet, and won't be for a while.
>
> Can you use similar tricks to make windows remove it's limit and run in 256GB?

No. It's not some license-buster technique. It's to allow
testing low memory situations, without unplugging any DIMMs.

Paul

On 2/7/2022 3:33 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:

>
> If your PC can't go full speed with max RAM, you bought a shoddy motherboard.

I already explained, some other enthusiast-class person reported
the IMC on the processor, cannot do it. The SI on the channels
is good, because if you install half the memory (one DIMM per channel),
it does run at high speed. I already turned up the voltage into the yellow zone
on the IMC -- I'm not turning it up into the red zone.

It's a quad channel CPU running eight sticks. I tried relaxing Trcd first,
the command rate was already CR2, VDimm was turned up to the max recommended
(which is what the DIMMs have printed on the tin). I tried the few tricks I know,
and that's why it took several days to tune&test to that point. It was the
best I could do, without abusing the hardware. I'm not trying to set records
on HWBOT with the thing -- I want it stable. And the memory is excellent where
it is. No complaints about the Hynix chips on the DIMMs. They're apparently
the kind of chips, they hardly need binning. The manufacturer can just slap
them on a module, and all the DIMMs pass. It's not like some tortured DIMMs
I've had in the past, where increasing the clock 5 MHz leads to a shower of
errors. These are good DIMMs as DIMMs go.

*******

The DIMMs on the AMD 5600G were more of the same. Only the amazing thing
in that case, is I just switched on XMP (which should only work with two sticks)
and it worked with four sticks. Just like that. Which says the silicon on
this one, is more than capable.

https://i.postimg.cc/BZYR3B7x/cpuz.gif

Paul

On Mon, 07 Feb 2022 21:30:29 -0000, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

> On 2/7/2022 3:33 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>
>>
>> If your PC can't go full speed with max RAM, you bought a shoddy motherboard.
>
> I already explained, some other enthusiast-class person reported
> the IMC on the processor, cannot do it. The SI on the channels
> is good, because if you install half the memory (one DIMM per channel),
> it does run at high speed. I already turned up the voltage into the yellow zone
> on the IMC -- I'm not turning it up into the red zone.
>
> It's a quad channel CPU running eight sticks. I tried relaxing Trcd first,
> the command rate was already CR2, VDimm was turned up to the max recommended
> (which is what the DIMMs have printed on the tin). I tried the few tricks I know,
> and that's why it took several days to tune&test to that point. It was the
> best I could do, without abusing the hardware. I'm not trying to set records
> on HWBOT with the thing -- I want it stable. And the memory is excellent where
> it is. No complaints about the Hynix chips on the DIMMs. They're apparently
> the kind of chips, they hardly need binning. The manufacturer can just slap
> them on a module, and all the DIMMs pass. It's not like some tortured DIMMs
> I've had in the past, where increasing the clock 5 MHz leads to a shower of
> errors. These are good DIMMs as DIMMs go.
>
> *******
>
> The DIMMs on the AMD 5600G were more of the same. Only the amazing thing
> in that case, is I just switched on XMP (which should only work with two sticks)
> and it worked with four sticks. Just like that. Which says the silicon on
> this one, is more than capable.
>
> https://i.postimg.cc/BZYR3B7x/cpuz.gif

Since my CPU (AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT) will go up to 4133MHz RAM, and the fastest memory I could find is 3200MHz, I doubt the CPU would drop below 3200MHz if I added more sticks. And I can find no information on the internet that it drops at all.

On Mon, 07 Feb 2022 21:12:02 -0000, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

> On 2/7/2022 3:32 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Feb 2022 06:05:42 -0000, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/6/2022 3:48 PM, Windows 11 User wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Untrue.
>>>>>
>>>>> 32-bit Home - 4MB
>>>>> 64-bit Home - 128MB
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Even the above two lines are wrong and misleading. You won't find 4MB
>>>> and 128MB ram in any of the modern machines.
>>>>
>>>> These newsgroups have become the cesspit of misinformation and
>>>> conspiracies about everything including Covid-19 and dodgy investments.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> You can actually. It's a bit nuanced, but the
>>> raw capability is there to "software limit" what the OS
>>> is allowed to use. The explanation in the past was,
>>> "this is easier than unplugging DIMMs when testing".
>>>
>>> https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/devtest/boot-parameters-to-manipulate-memory
>>>
>>> You can pare down free ram with a BCDEDIT change.
>>>
>>> If you want to set the machine to use only 128MB out of
>>> the 64GB you have on board, you can do that! When it crashes
>>> and burns, no problemo, boot the installer DVD, run Command Prompt,
>>> issue another bcdedit (offline style) command and change the
>>> MAXMEM setting to a more pleasing value.
>>>
>>> MAXMEM was available in Windows XP as well. And maybe
>>> even earlier, but I forget.
>>>
>>> *******
>>>
>>> The above two lines were an honest typo, and don't
>>> need to be dwelt upon.
>>>
>>> *******
>>>
>>> I've run Windows 10 in a VM, with the VM set to 256MB.
>>> Today, I'm not sure that would work, but if you
>>> reinstall 10240, that will work. Something called
>>> "Memory Compressor" would run railed on one core,
>>> but there's enough RAM to use notepad if you want.
>>> The slack might be 8MB or so (the memory compressor
>>> doesn't try to free up much more than that much slack).
>>>
>>> You can also use Russinoviches "TestLimit64.exe" program,
>>> to apply memory pressure to systems and see what their
>>> core memory usage is like. On current versions of
>>> both Windows 10 and Windows 11, I'm seeing 2.8GB as the
>>> core memory amount. That's why it would be interesting
>>> to dial them down again (like in a VM), and see if they
>>> survive with really low settings now. I can run Windows 11
>>> fully enabled (no tricks) in VMWare Workstation 16,
>>> and then dial it down there. But VirtualBox isn't ready
>>> for that yet, and won't be for a while.
>>
>> Can you use similar tricks to make windows remove it's limit and run in 256GB?
>
> No. It's not some license-buster technique. It's to allow
> testing low memory situations, without unplugging any DIMMs.

So the limit is actually a bug, not a deliberate sabotage?
"Nobody will ever need more than 640KB of RAM" - Bill Gates.

On Mon, 07 Feb 2022 21:01:44 -0000, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

> On 2/7/2022 3:24 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Feb 2022 04:25:02 -0000, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 01 Feb 2022 11:03:48 -0600, Char Jackson <none@none.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've been seeing reports of 400+ miles on a charge, although I'm not
>>>> sure what vehicle that was, and saw a story the other day about a
>>>> Mercedes (?) that went 700 miles on a charge. There was a companion
>>>> story about an EV prototype that went from LA to NY and spent about 2.5
>>>> hours of that trip on a charger. Battery technology seems to be creeping
>>>> up.
>>>
>>> Presumably that would vary with terrain? Point of my question is that
>>> over the last 20+ years I laugh at every car salesman who quotes
>>> expected gas mileage at me since the car dealerships locally are at
>>> sea level whereas my home is about 280 meters above that though still
>>> within the same community.
>>>
>>> My more serious question is, do electrics draw more power when hill
>>> climbing?
>>
>> Yes, but unlike gas engines, they regain most of it when going back down.
>
> When they mine on the top of a mountain, and bring the goods
> down the hill, the BEV earth movers have net power output.
>
> https://www.autoblog.com/2019/08/26/edumper-electric-mining-truck-self-charging/
>
> There was another article, claiming some of these truck designs,
> in an "inverted mine", you drain the batteries back into the grid,
> to make more room for the regeneration charging that happens.
>
> In the above article, the truck going up the hill weighs 45 tons.
> The truck coming down the hill weighs 110 tons. And the regenerative
> braking done using the electric motor, can then have net power
> output.

Cool!

> It's not a perpetual motion machine, because what the machine is doing,
> is harvesting the potential energy of a boulder sitting on the top of
> a mountain. Once the mountain is chewed to bits and leveled, there
> is no more free electricity to be had.
>
> For home owners of BEVs, hardly any of their usage follows
> that pattern. You're not hauling boulders in your Leaf, from
> the top of some mountain. Regular BEVs, lose most of their energy
> as wind resistance and tire friction. That's why the Mercedes announced
> the other day, has a drag coefficient of 0.17 . To increase the range.

On Mon, 07 Feb 2022 11:23:54 -0000, J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

> On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 at 16:19:18, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote
> (my responses usually follow points raised):
>> On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 20:48:15 +0000, Windows 11 User <Win11@win11.win11>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Untrue.
>>>>
>>>> 32-bit Home - 4MB
>>>> 64-bit Home - 128MB
>>>>
>>>
>>> Even the above two lines are wrong and misleading. You won't find 4MB
>>> and 128MB ram in any of the modern machines.
>>
>>
>> They are *not* wrong. Those *are* the maximum amounts supported.
>> Whether they are commonly found is another issue entirely.
>
> I think W11U was pointing out the previous posters error of using M
> where he meant G (-:
>
> (Not an uncommon error,

Why can't people just say "a common error"? I had to use a calculator to match up the negatives!

> especially for we older folk; my first "PC" did
> indeed have 4M. [My first _computer_ had 1K, later expanded to 8K.])

My first computer had 16KB. My first PC had 1MB. Fucking DOS upper memory blocks....

>> And by the way, 128GB is certainly not commonly found,

I have 64GB and could upgrade to 128GB, but it doesn't need it. Anything you don't use goes to disk cache, so it gets used.

I installed 64GB to run Large Hadron Collider simulations on all 24 cores at once, using 2GB per core, which totals 48GB plus OS etc, so 32GB was useless.

>> but 4GB on a
>> 32bit Home machine *is* common--probably most common.

4GB with Windows 7 took 4 times longer just to boot. 8GB is the minimum you should have for that.

> Or - since the whole of the 4G can't be accessed - 3G. (That's what this
> has. Running 7-32 - and fine unless opening lots of lazy web pages.)

Paul wrote:
>>>
>>> Maybe you know the answer. The Microsoft web page has a column for
>>> x86 (32-bit)
>>> Windows 11. I didn't think such a thing existed. Is there actually
>>> a 32-bit version alive and well somewhere ?
>>>
>>>     Paul
>>>
>> Have not looked for that web page.
>> Care to provide the link?
>
> MID: <stnu5f$13c4$1@gioia.aioe.org>
>
> http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3Cstnu5f%2413c4%241%40gioia.aioe.org%3E
>
>
> https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/memory/memory-limits-for-windows-releases
>
>
>    Paul

Thanks, thought you might have meant another location than the link
earlier in this same thread.

Well, I pinged/nudged 3 folks. Three responses(two from MSFT, one from a
well known author on Windows). I would have asked the guy who
discovered the Sony rootkit, but he's busy with Azure of late.

I won't identify the answerer source.
Take your pick(1, 2, 3, or any combination or all),
1. Applies to 32 bit application use of memory on Win11 64 bit systems
2. Long standing terminolgy where x86 applies to the instruction set for
both 32 and 64 bit CPU's
3. Looks like someone copied and pasted from Win10.

Oh, your earlier question.
32 bit version of Windows 11?
Microsoft doesn't sell or license Win 11-32 bit on new machines, the
only other possible hole(IoT) looks like its been closed with the advent
of Win11 Enterprise for IoT which has similar requirements for
Win11E/IoT. IoT systems with earlier versions of Win10(pre
2004)continue to receive feature and security updates and 32 bit media
availability in non-OEM channels supporting a variety of upgrade paths.

--
....w¡ñ§±¤ñ

Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> posted this:

> On Thu, 03 Feb 2022 21:56:25 -0000, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 10:13:58 -0500, Wolffan <akwolffan@zoho.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> And you usually can’t tell in advance which ch
>>> ip you have. One of may
>>> reasons why I decline to screw with the TPM on my machines.
>>
>> Agreed - but then if/when I go win 11 I intend to have it done by my
>> favorite tech who built the machine in the first place.
>>
>> It would be equivalent to a mid-level corporate file server with 64 gb
>
>> DDR4 RAM, a high end graphics card (top 20 on the PassCard list which
>> of course a server wouldn't have), 20 Tb on 4 drives (one of which I
>> have Bitlocker on which makes me wonder whether or not I'm golden for
>> TPM) plus a couple more 8Tb externals
>>
>> Basically what would be the best way to investigate suitability? Both
>> for TPM and Win 11?
>
>
> 20Tb is a lot of porn.

Not if you spread it over several encrypted hard drives and call it "art".

Hope this helps.

--

I AM Bucky Breeder, (*(^;

And *NO*, that is *NOT* a Jedi Light Saber I have in my pocket!

But that doesn't necessarily mean I'm happy to see you either.