Windows New Sandy Bridge with old XP = BSOD!

I don't have an SSD, and I yet looked into deeply.
pagefile can be demanding or not.. it really depends on your usage of your computer. Pagefile is your RAM backup to our SSD (or HDD), to accelerate context switch procedure. As RAM is never fragmented, when it comes to a point that you have free space, but not enough to fit a program in 1 slot, Windows (well any OS for that mater), performs a context switch process. That is, clear the RAM, and copy the page file back to the RAM in a nice compressed mater. This step was very visible in the old days as the computer essentially freeze for several seconds as the transfer happens (as the CPU can only access the RAM). As we have now a lot of memory, this event is much less visible, you really have to not restart or turn off your computer for a a while. But, page file backup still occurs. Of course, Page file has another purpose and that is extend your RAM, in the case you are out of memory, where processes switch between RAM to HDD (well SSD in your case).

It is generally not recommended to disable page file, as you are blocking context switch: what will happen is that Windows will tell you "you are low in virtual memory" and possibly crash the program you just executed, despite having Task manager says you have 512MB of RAM free, or even 1GB. But if you restart your computer often or turn it off, then it SHOULD be fine, and I think worth a try.

What I recommend, for the best experience possible, is to keep that in mind, and when you feel like you have the time to re-install Windows 7, to do so.

You can find the internet easily, on how to switch to AHCI without re-installing Windows. From forum comments it's really a hit & miss, and when it's a hit.. I have no idea if it's really fully turned on.

 

Some good advice. But I did encounter programs that go in the temp directory using AppData path, so if the temp director is moved the program will create it's own (if it's not THAT idiotic) or crash. I have seen bad programming, to even big software like from Adobe, and especially games. So if you have that problem... you know why. You could try to create a Temp dir where it normally is, and set the permission to everyone, to reduce any potential problem after you changed the path though.

oh, you need to restart your computer once you change the path of the Temp directory, as you have services and possibly programs running using it. So it won't actually change without a restart.

 

Thanks Goodbytes and AstralWanderer rep to both

You have alleviated my concerns.

I will wait for the next good excuse to reinstall windows (like a few days off work)

 

I don't think you know what you're talking about here. I have 2 1GB 460GTXs (SLIed) on a 6GB system and WinXP sees 3.25GB quite happily (whereas it should only see 2GB if GPU RAM was being mapped as you seem to suggest). I then use the remaining 2.75GB for a ramdisk.

...as long as you are happy to pay extra to remove a limitation that had no justification in the first place. But then Microsoft would doubtless be a far poorer company (or maybe far better at producing software) without people tolerating such flaws.

Win7 and Server 2008 share the same kernel as noted in this Intel blog.

Already done - Microsoft have tested on a 2TB RAM server.

Given that the Intel/AMD CPUs currently available are 64-bit, your suggestion on buying a 32-bit one seems rather anachronistic - 64-bit CPUs run 32-bit code perfectly well and as long as you are not running applications that genuinely require access to more than 2-3GB at a time, there's no reason to incur the downsides of 64-bit Windows.

So that's as close as you dare come to acknowledging that Microsoft produced a 32-bit OS with >4GB RAM support. Fair enough.

A 64-bit OS has offers next-to-no benefit for 32-bit software and 64-bit Windows has a number of downsides (compatibility, PatchGuard, dumb program files placement, reduced data throughput due to larger pointer sizes) so you'd almost certainly be better served with a well setup 32-bit installation.

Well, since your software collection is 32-bit, a better analogy would be using a dump truck to carry around 3 or 4 crates - a minivan would do it using less petrol (resources) with a higher speed and less cost. Programs that genuinely need more than 2-3GB will justify a 64-bit OS - the vast majority currently do not.

You're right that there's no way to compensate for bad programs, aside from not running them (and I steer well clear of Adobe myself). I've not encountered any crashes traceable to changing the Temp folder location but have occasionally noticed it reappearing in its old location under \Windows.

Linking from the default Temp folder to the new one using an NTFS junction point may be a better option though. I've only just come across this so will need to experiment further ("normal" shortcuts don't work properly on folders).

You're welcome N17 dizzi - hope our bitching has provided some entertainment as well. We like each other actually

 

Some people seem to forget that socalled 32 bit CPUs have been able to *physically* address 36 bits of memory for quite some time (Pentium Pro, 1995). Modern CPUs can even address 40 bits and more in 32 bit mode. Alas, with the advent of true 64 bit OSes it's a moot point.

 

It stops at some point OBVIOUSLY.

I don't know about you, but playing StarCraft 2 already makes my system consumes over 3 GB of RAM total, with IM, A/V, Outlook, firefox on the back open. That is another reason why changed my computer (DDR1 is long gone to upgrade to 4GB, CPU (AMD Athlon 64 X2 Socket 939, getting too week, was the second reason.)

What limitation?! No one has more than 16GB of RAM, other than the 2 or 3 on this forum (make the statistical sample yourself). And these guys went all in with the Ultimate edition.
I have Professional edition, because all student specials are on it, and MSDNAA give me one for free. But also, I NEED the Pro version. There is more to it than Domain joining, and I use most of these features almost everyday.

Same kernel does not mean same OS.
This article you pointed did not test Windows 7 with 2TB of RAM, they tested the Server edition of Windows.

At no point it said: We tested Windows 7 Pro/Ultimate/Enterprise with 2TB of RAM and it worked or did not work, and we did all the test t7hat we usually do to ensure that Windows 7 actually works properly or not.

Consumer vote with their wallet. Consumers told companies, "We want 64-bit", and this is what companies delivered.

Heuuu.. ok, thank you for agreeing with my point that 64-bit Windows runs 32-bit programs perfectly.

I KNOOOW, man! My CD player is such a down side to my car. And those stupid bumpers and air bags. I removed them... I don't do accidents so I don't need them. Stupid downside from oil companies to make more money by making the car heavier. Screw them! [/sarcasm]

huh? 64-bit CPU's don't consume more power to run 32-bit software. Putting 0's at the begging of an instruction (default - no current), doesn't take any time, heat, or anything really.

If it means anything, when I got my laptop, I change Vista 64-bit to Win7 32-bit, by mistake (wrong disk inserted). As I had school, I had to time to switch back, so I finished my setup (install drivers and few programs, and codecs). Used my laptop for 2 weeks. I then had time, put Win7 64-bit back, and everything, and I noticed an increase in battery life when playing videos. Difference? I used 64-bit codecs with Windows Media Player 12 64-bit. Granted not a scientific test, but a some benchmarks confirmed similar results. Of course, it all depends on the codecs you used, version, video size and format.
While I was able to play 3 movies (DVD ISO, backup using DVD shrink) of 1h and half fully, I was able to play another 4th movie (again DVD ISO back-up with DVD shrink). And still have a 15min or so left before the battery reached critical level. AND if you consider battery wear and tear. Windows 7 64-bit was installed AFTER the 32-bit.

Look why are we talking about this... we talk SOOOO MUCH about it on this forum at Vista release, it's not even funny. And people here did find 64-bit Windows better in some form (Vista and Win7) over the 32-bit version. That is like you coming and say "16-bit CPU are so much better than 32-bit, in fact no 'everyday' software actually needs 32-bit instructions".. it's like dude.. you missed the boat. You are why to late.

You are the only person on this forum that says the contrary. Why I applaud this kind of behavior. It's kinda silly at this point in time.

It's not like you can't use RAMDisk on 64-bit OS either. If you don't need the RAM, than well at least you have it for the "just in case" situation, and still use RAM Disk.

 

It bugged me all night so I reinstalled with AHCI, i've updated the firmware to 0006, disabled hibernation, system restore and pagefile down to 200mb (apparently it isn't beneficial to use another disc for the PF)


Ironically all i've noticed is booting up now takes about 7 extra seconds over legacy mode!! oh well at least trim is working!

 

yes, BIOS takes a bit more time to detect the AHCI drives. This is because of the hot swappable feature of the SATA controller. And also the SATA controller itself.
That is why on the BIOS, I only enable what I use. No firewire (I'll never use it), no Series port (same), no parallel port, I only have my eSATA and Marvell controller enabled and set to AHCI on my motherboard, Intel and Gigabyte one, disabled (else WOW it takes forever to boot in comaprison about an extra 10-15sec). If I use the Intel one, it detects my HDD faster, but I really don't like the Intel SATA controller on my X58 board. Intel did not do a good job (my last Intel chipset/CPU since my P3), and I can see Intel SATA controller isn't with a lot of I/O operations simultaneously.

Once Windows is installed on AHCI you are free to do what you want. You can even switch SATA controller, and Windows 7 will still boot, no problem. You are essentially free of any limitations.

Also you have to consider that Windows just lost it's prefetech feature, and any startup optimization. Over time, it will go faster and faster. My estimation is you should save up to 3 sec in Windows boot time from you 7 extra seconds.

 

thanks goodbytes, the small boot time difference is negligible