Xref: utzoo comp.windows.ms:13260 comp.windows.ms.programmer:2794
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!midway!ellis.uchicago.edu!lair
From: lair@ellis.uchicago.edu (Scott A. Laird)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms,comp.windows.ms.programmer
Subject: Re: Over 16 Meg
Keywords: win3 16mb qemm himem
Message-ID: <1991May30.174414.19047@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: 30 May 91 17:44:14 GMT
References: <1991May30.000945.12529@xanadu.com>
Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (NewsMistress)
Organization: University of Chicago
Lines: 56

In article <1991May30.000945.12529@xanadu.com> ravi@xanadu.com (Ravi Pandya) writes:
>Has anyone had any success at all trying to get Windows 3.0 Enhanced
>Mode to recognize the existence of over 16 Mb of RAM? I have 32 Mb of

Windows is still more or less a 286 app, with segments and 24-bit addressing,
and shouldn't be able to directly access 32 Mb of RAM.  Nothing designed to
run on a 286 can use more than 16 Mb of extended memory.  Even in 386 enhanced
mode, Windows is still only capable of 16 Mb, because the computer is still
more or less running like a 286, it is just using virtual memory and the
virtual-86 mode for running DOS apps.  It still shouldn't be capable of
32-bit addressing.

>Why on earth is this limitation there in the first place? I can
>understand the reason in 286 mode, but in 386 enhanced mode it is
>unexcusable. Is it the same kind of short-sighted laziness that led to
>the original DOS 640k limit? 16 Mb is only an order of magnitude
>beyond a reasonable current configuration, which means a lot of people
>will be bumping their noses on it fairly soon. Is Windows 3.1 / 4.0
>going to be any better? What about OS/2 2.0?

Like I said, the limit is a hardware limit on the 286 chip.  OS/2 1.x has
the same problem.  I suppose the reason for the 640k limit is with the
hardware on the 808x, so the two are related.  

Both OS/2 2.0 and Windows 4.0 are supposed to be capable of 32-bit addressing,
as well as running Windows 3.0 apps.  That means that there is no 16 Mb limit.
I believe OS/2 2.0 can use more or less the full 4 Gb available (assuming that
you managed to install all of it :-), and Windows 4.0 is, from what I've heard,
limited to 2 Gb.  Oh well.  Both should be big enough for quite a while.
I would be suprised (shocked, more likely) if any PC is capable of having 4 Gb
installed before the end of the decade.  I know there are a few machines now 
available now that can do it, but none are aimed at the PC market niche.  Few
people could afford a PC with $200,000 in RAM, and for word processing, etc
it isn't that useful.  Now for fluid flow simulations, its another story,
but I don't believe many of those run under Windows...

Hope this does some good...

>	--ravi
>
>	Ravi Pandya
>	Xanadu Operating Company
>	550 California Avenue
>	Suite 101
>	Palo Alto, CA 94306
>	415 856 4112 ext 122
>	415 856 2251 fax
>	ravi@xanadu.com

Scott.


-- 
Scott A. Laird            |  "But this goes to 18,446,744,073,709,551,616"
lair@midway.uchicago.edu  |  		   - Nigel on his 64-bit computer
The University of Chicago |