Jump to content

Welcome to MSFN Forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account



Photo

Get Windows XP x86 to recognize more than 4Gb with PAE?

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
70 replies to this topic

#51
xrayer

xrayer

    RayeR

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 154 posts
  • Joined 15-May 07
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Thanks dencorso, I think I'm fine with what I have, then. I have a 5.2.3790.3959 usbhub.sys and in the properties it mentions SP2.

 

I have a newer one, 5.2.3790.4555 , from some later hotfix update, props: 5.2.3790.4555 (srv03_sp2_qfe.090718-1230)

 

I got second time restart when launching BlazeDTV app for DVB so it's not just a coincidence. I googled hard and found a newer FlyDVB hybrid PCI tuner driver (2 years after current) that is unified for WinXP-Win8.1 so I could hope that it will help.


  • noric likes this
Win98(SE)CZ unofficial support site.
Running MSDOS 6.22, FreeDOS, Win98SE+KEX-4.5.2+nSP+nUSB, NT4.0-SP6, WinXP-SP3, Debian Linux
Gigabyte GA-P31-DS3L, Core 2 Duo E8500@3,6GHz, 4GB DDR2, GF7900GT/256M, SSD Samsung 840 Pro, WD1000FBYX SATA, SB Audigy 2


How to remove advertisement from MSFN

#52
GrofLuigi

GrofLuigi

    GroupPolicy Tattoo Artist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,368 posts
  • Joined 21-April 05
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
It's KB972659.

Just passing by, carry on...  :whistle:

GL
  • noric likes this

#53
dencorso

dencorso

    Iuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Supervisor
  • 6,187 posts
  • Joined 07-April 07
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

I have a newer one, v. 5.2.3790.4555 (srv03_sp2_qfe.090718-1230).

 

It's KB972659.


I stand corrected. Thanks! :thumbup

#54
noric

noric

    Newbie

  • Member
  • 12 posts
  • Joined 08-December 14
  • OS:XP Pro x86
  • Country: Country Flag

Thanks guys for the newer usbhub.sys!



#55
noric

noric

    Newbie

  • Member
  • 12 posts
  • Joined 08-December 14
  • OS:XP Pro x86
  • Country: Country Flag

Given we have enabled PAE, how could we make a single process use more than 2GB of memory? Do we still need to use the /3GB switch in boot.ini? Or is it enough to set the IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE flag in the executable?



#56
MagicAndre1981

MagicAndre1981

    after Windows 7 GA still Vista lover :)

  • Patrons
  • 6,196 posts
  • Joined 28-August 05
  • OS:Windows 8 x64
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

you still need the /3GB switch and IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE flag set.


Posted Image

#57
noric

noric

    Newbie

  • Member
  • 12 posts
  • Joined 08-December 14
  • OS:XP Pro x86
  • Country: Country Flag

Thanks.

I've just tried the /3GB switch (also paired with the /userva switch), but it doesn't work with my laptop.

With only the /3GB, the boot stalls with the bar continuously loading.

If I add the /userva, it boots to desktop but there's a problem with the graphics (very low resolution and very low number of colors). Don't know if maybe the Intel HD3000 graphics driver is at fault.

 

However, I've read that it's quite uncommon fot the /3GB switch to work on laptops.



#58
MagicAndre1981

MagicAndre1981

    after Windows 7 GA still Vista lover :)

  • Patrons
  • 6,196 posts
  • Joined 28-August 05
  • OS:Windows 8 x64
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

yes, Intel graphic drivers are buggy and don't work with PAE.


Posted Image

#59
noric

noric

    Newbie

  • Member
  • 12 posts
  • Joined 08-December 14
  • OS:XP Pro x86
  • Country: Country Flag

yes, Intel graphic drivers are buggy and don't work with PAE.

Well, in my case they do work with PAE (2D and 3D benchmarks yield the same result as without PAE). It's the /3GB switch that breaks everything, WITH OR WITHOUT PAE.



#60
xrayer

xrayer

    RayeR

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 154 posts
  • Joined 15-May 07
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Hi,

I found another compatability issue with XP PAE.

I have USB logic analyser and using driver and software from Saleae. Their's driver is based on winusb.sys that is some new universal MS filter/API for various usb classes. It adds top layer over low-level USB drivers. User can call functions via winusb.dll

The behavior is weird because I don't get any BSOD but instead if I select higher sample rate than 4MS/s the application freeze and sampling progress bar even doesn't move. But this application freeze also freeze entire OS, I cannot launch task manager and cannot turn off system normal way so reset buton is the only possibility. Sometimes it even feeze the mouse. When I select 4MS/s or lower everything works fine. When I disable XP64G and boot unpatched kernel it works fine for all sample rates up to 24MS/s. It is 100% predictable behavior, I tried many times. I also tried to update winusb.sys from win7 sp1 (6.1.7601.17514, previous was 6.1.7600.16385) but any change. I also tried newer one from Win8.1 but it doesn't work at all. But most probably winusb.sys is not the root of problem, it relies on low level drivers. I have replaced all usb*.sys drivers from win2003 so I don't have idea where else the problem can be burried...

Hm there's some depencies diagram I found that HIDUSB.SYS in my system is original from XP (5.1.2600.5512) so maybe replacement will help..


Win98(SE)CZ unofficial support site.
Running MSDOS 6.22, FreeDOS, Win98SE+KEX-4.5.2+nSP+nUSB, NT4.0-SP6, WinXP-SP3, Debian Linux
Gigabyte GA-P31-DS3L, Core 2 Duo E8500@3,6GHz, 4GB DDR2, GF7900GT/256M, SSD Samsung 840 Pro, WD1000FBYX SATA, SB Audigy 2

#61
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 15,014 posts
  • Joined 23-July 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

I found another compatability issue with XP PAE.

I have USB logic analyser and using driver and software from ...

 

Basically you are confirming that the MS choice of removing PAE from XP was - though a perverted one :w00t: - valid  :unsure: , what happened at the time, more or less was:

Since the hardware, but mainly the Third Party's software and particularly drivers suck (and suck big)[1] we remove the feature, limiting it to Server 2003(and ONLY on the Enterprise/Datacenter editions and - but senselessly limited to 8 Gb - on the lesser known "Windows Storage Server 2003") where both hardware and drivers are better checked, i.e. there is more money per unit involved... 

... since we are MS we will put the blame on the Third Parties and start senselessly pushing 64 bit computing, creating to both the end users and to the Third Parties involved, even those that were involved in the writing of those sucking drivers, every kind of new problem/issue.

This has the not-so trifling advantage that when we will starting pushing for a new (artificially made incompatible) disk partitioning structure and a new (artificially made incompatible) firmware, people won't be shocked by it, as they will by that time be used to all kind of arrogant, senseless or plainly stupid move we will make.

And of course, as soon as the issues caused by these two unneeded changes will start to fade away because people will either get used to them or find workarounds, we will make a couple new Operating Systems that will be made artificially incompatible even visually with anything else....

 

jaclaz 

 

 

 

[1] ... and maybe the fact that we changed three times in three years the understructure and the driver models, each time failing to provide complete documentation or to provide real-world working sampled more complex than hello-world-type simplified and largely malfunctioning sample drivers is marginally  involved in this ... :whistle:


  • j7n likes this

#62
xrayer

xrayer

    RayeR

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 154 posts
  • Joined 15-May 07
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Since the hardware, but mainly the Third Party's software and particularly drivers suck (and suck big)[1] we remove the feature, limiting it to Server 2003(and ONLY on the Enterprise/Datacenter editions and - but senselessly limited to 8 Gb - on the lesser known "Windows Storage Server 2003") where both hardware and drivers are better checked, i.e. there is more money per unit involved...

 

But in this case no 3rd party driver is involved (I don't count the plain inf file), winusb.sys is from microsoft same as low level usb*.sys drivers. So they give to other driver writers a bad example...

I tried with hidusb.sys from w2k3 but no change, as I expected this driver is used for HID devices, log. analyser is not a HID class.


Win98(SE)CZ unofficial support site.
Running MSDOS 6.22, FreeDOS, Win98SE+KEX-4.5.2+nSP+nUSB, NT4.0-SP6, WinXP-SP3, Debian Linux
Gigabyte GA-P31-DS3L, Core 2 Duo E8500@3,6GHz, 4GB DDR2, GF7900GT/256M, SSD Samsung 840 Pro, WD1000FBYX SATA, SB Audigy 2

#63
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 15,014 posts
  • Joined 23-July 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

 

But in this case no 3rd party driver is involved (I don't count the plain inf file), winusb.sys is from microsoft same as low level usb*.sys drivers. So they give to other driver writers a bad example...

 

 

Yep :yes:, that's the idea of note [1] in my post.

 

I know nothing or very little about drivers, mind you, but I have seen too many failed attempts to write proper drivers and too many subsequent revisions/versions of what should normally be a "plain enough" piece of code, and I suspect that - besides the complexity of the NT structure - there is a large amount of misssing or even plainly wrong documentation.

 

jaclaz



#64
dencorso

dencorso

    Iuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Supervisor
  • 6,187 posts
  • Joined 07-April 07
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

 I suspect that - besides the complexity of the NT structure - there is a large amount of misssing or even plainly wrong documentation.

 

That surely was the case in .VxD times (even the LE EXE format is, up-to-now, very poorly documented), then there were at least two installments of WDM drivers (the second of which is the one actually used in XP), and when that was becoming better understood and documented they've moved on to yet another model in 7+, besides the user-mode drivers they've been pushing onto us for sometime, which are backwards compatible to XP, sort of. :wacko: :crazy:



#65
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 15,014 posts
  • Joined 23-July 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

... on to yet another model in 7+

 

Wasn't the main "switch" in Vista :ph34r: ?

 

http://en.wikipedia....Model#Criticism

 

jaclaz



#66
dencorso

dencorso

    Iuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Supervisor
  • 6,187 posts
  • Joined 07-April 07
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

Well... 

 

AFAIK, there are, from the oldest to the newest:
1. Old static .VxDs (usually using the .386, not the .VxD extension), from Win 3.0 times.
2. Windows NT Driver Model, from NT incept time.
3. Newer .VxDs (usually using .VxD or .PDR extensions), from Win 95 up to ME (inclusive).
4. 9x/ME WDM drivers (usually using .SYS or .MPD extensions), from Win 95 OSR 2.x up to ME (inclusive).
5. NT-type WDM drivers (usually using .SYS or .MPD extensions), from Win 2k onwards.
6. KMDF drivers, portable backwards to 2k, with add-on installation required, native for Vista+
7. UMDF drivers, portable backwards to XP, with add-on installation required, native for Vista+
8. Yet another driver model being pushed now, IIRR, from 7 onwards, the ostensible reason for Intel producing USB 3.0 drivers suposedly impossible to backport... but I may be wrong and this further model may just be a bad dream conjured by my imagination.

Although WDM was initially intended to be binary and source compatible between Win 9x and Win 2k, this almost never has been the case, so specific drivers developed for one OS may sometimes be coerced to work on some other OS, although most times even that is not feasible. WDM drivers are designed to be forward-compatible, so that a WDM driver ought to run on a version of Windows newer than the one the driver was initially written for, but doing that would mean that the driver cannot take advantage of any new features introduced with the new windows version. OTOH, WDM drivers are generally not intended to be backward-compatible, so that a WDM rarely can run as-is on an earlier Windows version that the one it was intended for, unless wrapped or shimmed for that (a case-by-case solution, which sometimes works).



#67
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 15,014 posts
  • Joined 23-July 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

3. Newer .VxDs (usually using .VxD or .PDR extensions), from Win 95 up to ME (inclusive).
4. 9x/ME WDM drivers (usually using .SYS or .MPD extensions), from Win 95 OSR 2.x up to ME (inclusive).
5. NT-type WDM drivers (usually using .SYS or .MPD extensions), from Win 2k onwards.

Yep :), these three were the three in three years time I was referring to, but I seem to remember that there were also some slight differences for Windows 2003 drivers, possibly introduced with SP1 or SP2 (but cannot really say for sure), while I am pretty sure that for some reasons (but cannot really remember the specifics) I did keep some Windows 2000 Server installs because there were not available drivers for the 2003 and the 2k one's did not work (and thus went "forward compatibility" of the WDM's).

 

8. Yet another driver model being pushed now, IIRR, from 7 onwards, the ostensible reason for Intel producing USB 3.0 drivers suposedly impossible to backport... but I may be wrong and this further model may just be a bad dream conjured by my imagination.

To be fair I believe that - just like UEFI/GPT and their artificial or senseless incompatibilities - the main culprit in this case is more Intel than MS (but of course I may well be wrong).

 

jaclaz



#68
xrayer

xrayer

    RayeR

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 154 posts
  • Joined 15-May 07
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

One of my friend using PAE patch reported me another problem with HP Scannjet 3800 scanner - when command to scanning is sent it doesn't start and locks the scanner application that cannot be closed any way. Also it cause some corruption to Windows that cannot be restarted/shutdown normal way but freeze at last turning off screen. Again, when booted with original unpatched kernel it works fine. Seems similar issue like with my logic analyzer.

So XP64G patch has only limited usage and it would need some improvement that could make some workaround for that faulty drivers to not load them above 4GB and make sure they don't need handle any address >4GB (using some buffers in "low" mem), etc. simply so they can run same as on nonPAE system. I really don't know how complex modification would be needed...


Win98(SE)CZ unofficial support site.
Running MSDOS 6.22, FreeDOS, Win98SE+KEX-4.5.2+nSP+nUSB, NT4.0-SP6, WinXP-SP3, Debian Linux
Gigabyte GA-P31-DS3L, Core 2 Duo E8500@3,6GHz, 4GB DDR2, GF7900GT/256M, SSD Samsung 840 Pro, WD1000FBYX SATA, SB Audigy 2

#69
dencorso

dencorso

    Iuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Supervisor
  • 6,187 posts
  • Joined 07-April 07
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

Fact is that the mods discussed in this thread remain unreliable.

 

OTOH, simply activating /PAE on boot.ini and adding a Gavotte ramdisk using PAE remains a good option for those using XP x86 and having more than 3.2 GiB RAM. If the resulting ramdisk is big enough, after disabling the paging executive, one can even put the pagefile in it, besides things like the Temporary Internet Files...


  • j7n likes this

#70
noric

noric

    Newbie

  • Member
  • 12 posts
  • Joined 08-December 14
  • OS:XP Pro x86
  • Country: Country Flag

So XP64G patch has only limited usage and it would need some improvement that could make some workaround for that faulty drivers to not load them above 4GB and make sure they don't need handle any address >4GB (using some buffers in "low" mem), etc. simply so they can run same as on nonPAE system. I really don't know how complex modification would be needed...

Some time ago I stumbled upon this set of files that supposedly need to be replaced. I don't remember if I found it on a chinese site or on overclock.net. I haven't used it up to now, but here you are.


Edited by noric, Yesterday, 06:09 AM.


#71
xrayer

xrayer

    RayeR

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 154 posts
  • Joined 15-May 07
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag
Some time ago I stumbled upon this set of files that supposedly need to be replaced. I don't remember if I found it on a chinese site or on overclock.net. I haven't used it up to now, but here you are.
 

 

Thanks but this are the same files included in XP64G patch (from w2k3 server) that I have already replaced...

I have no idea what usb releated drivers should I replace more. Maybe I could install W2k3 server to a VM and then copy all *.sys drivers to XP to try if something will change...


Win98(SE)CZ unofficial support site.
Running MSDOS 6.22, FreeDOS, Win98SE+KEX-4.5.2+nSP+nUSB, NT4.0-SP6, WinXP-SP3, Debian Linux
Gigabyte GA-P31-DS3L, Core 2 Duo E8500@3,6GHz, 4GB DDR2, GF7900GT/256M, SSD Samsung 840 Pro, WD1000FBYX SATA, SB Audigy 2




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users