Can somebody really buy a modern multi-core PC running 64 bit Windowswith 32 GB RAM and use it only


R

RayLopez99

I was reviewing a review of Microsoft Office 2013 (which apparently is buggy) and a reviewer mentioned he had a modern multi-core PC running 64 bit Windows with 32 GB RAM but since it would not run Office 2013, he gave it to his wife to use only for email and light web surfing.

I assume he was a troll or MSFT hater. Because I assume that "out of the box", with no customization, a 64 bit version of Windows 7 or 8 should run Office 2013 ok. True or false?

RL
 
Ad

Advertisements

P

Paul

RayLopez99 said:
I was reviewing a review of Microsoft Office 2013 (which apparently is buggy) and a reviewer mentioned he had a modern multi-core PC running 64 bit Windows with 32 GB RAM but since it would not run Office 2013, he gave it to his wife to use only for email and light web surfing.

I assume he was a troll or MSFT hater. Because I assume that "out of the box", with no customization, a 64 bit version of Windows 7 or 8 should run Office 2013 ok. True or false?

RL

With that much RAM, the machine has
probably never completed memory test :)

http://www.memtest.org

Paul
 
L

Loren Pechtel

I was reviewing a review of Microsoft Office 2013 (which apparently is buggy) and a reviewer mentioned he had a modern multi-core PC running 64 bit Windows with 32 GB RAM but since it would not run Office 2013, he gave it to his wife to use only for email and light web surfing.

I assume he was a troll or MSFT hater. Because I assume that "out of the box", with no customization, a 64 bit version of Windows 7 or 8 should run Office 2013 ok. True or false?

Probably a troll but maybe there was something wrong that Office
didn't like.
 
R

RayLopez99

Probably a troll but maybe there was something wrong that Office

didn't like.

Another possibility that Paul alluded to: it could be that by having 32 GBof RAM (is that normal for a 64-bit OS? seems high) he has and is having amemory problem that he thinks is a software problem. Is it possible to load Windows to do 'light' chores with say only the first 2GB of your 32 GB of RAM? That way, even if your upper memory above the first 2GB is bad, youcan still use Windows? That would explain (or it's conceivable) how this user's system can do light chores like surfing the web, but can't load or use Office.

RL
 
P

Paul

RayLopez99 said:
Another possibility that Paul alluded to: it could be that by having 32 GB of RAM (is that normal for a 64-bit OS? seems high) he has and is having a memory problem that he thinks is a software problem. Is it possible to load Windows to do 'light' chores with say only the first 2GB of your 32 GB of RAM? That way, even if your upper memory above the first 2GB is bad, you can still use Windows? That would explain (or it's conceivable) how this user's system can do light chores like surfing the web, but can't load or use Office.

RL

Yes. You can do that in Windows, restrict the amount of
physical RAM used. Things like /MAXMEM in boot.ini.

In bcdedit, it's truncatememory.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/ff542205(v=vs.85).aspx

You could trim it down to 2GB from 32GB if you wanted.
Without having to pull any DIMMs out of the computer.

Paul
 
P

Paul

Timothy said:
Where is mention of "truncatememory"?

*TimDaniels*

It's part way down the referenced web page.

/MAXMEM= truncatememory BcdLibraryInteger_TruncatePhysicalMemory

Even Windows 98 has such facilities. That's how, as a joke,
I could run Windows 98 on a Core2 system here with 2GB of memory.
Just a matter of adjusting the MaxPhysAddr for only 512MB. Windows 98
becomes unstable if it sees any more than about 1GB or so. Depending
on video card memory, the number can be lower than that. I used to
have trouble with 768MB available.

HTH,
Paul
 
Ad

Advertisements

P

Paul

Timothy said:
"Paul" replied:

Sorry to be obtuse - the Microsoft write-up isn't clear on how to set
that. What is listed is the boot.ini equivalent to runcatememory, but it
doesn't say how to set the value in the BCD:

"Mapping Boot.ini Options to BCDEdit Options and Elements

"The following table provides a mapping from the boot options used in
operating
systems prior to Windows Vista (in Boot.ini), to the BCDEdit options and
the BCD
elements used in Windows Vista and later versions of Windows. For
information
about the BCD boot elements see BCD Reference on MSDN."

And then the referenced MSDN page,
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa362675.aspx,
is about the BCD WMI Provider Classes.

Is there a description somewhere on how to tell Win7 to truncate memory
to 2GB?

*TimDaniels*

Some examples of the "beginning" of the necessary command.
I used some of the terms from this, as a search term on the
microsoft.com site.

http://www.terabyteunlimited.com/kb/article.php?id=411

"bcdedit /store c:\boot\bcd /set {default} device partition=c:
bcdedit /store c:\boot\bcd /set {default} osdevice partition=c:
bcdedit /store c:\boot\bcd /set {bootmgr} device partition=c:
bcdedit /store c:\boot\bcd /set {memdiag} device partition=c:
"

In the example here:

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc731245(v=WS.10).aspx

bcdedit /enum all /store c:\boot\bcd

That dumps the existing info, including the necessary "identifier"
and "field" values. (That command would work for a Windows 7 installation
on a single partition, where the BCD happens to be on C: and not
on SYSTEM RESERVED.) So my guess at a command would be:

bcdedit /store c:\boot\bcd /set {current} truncatememory 1073741824

This page has the necessary details on the parameter to pass.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/ff542202(v=vs.85).aspx

truncatememory address

Limits the amount of physical memory available to Windows. When you use
this option, Windows ignores all memory at or above the specified
physical address. Specify the address in bytes.

For example, the following command sets the physical address limit
at 1 GB. You can specify the address in decimal (1073741824) or
hexadecimal (0x40000000).

bcdedit /set {49916baf-0e08-11db-9af4-000bdbd316a0} truncatememory 0x40000000

I think the /store option is for doing BCD entries on things like
other disks. Things like the GUID option, would be the next level
of addressing. So something like this might be enough to get the
job done on a single-boot system.

"[{ID}]

The {ID} is the GUID that is associated with the boot entry. If you do
not specify an {ID}, the command modifies the current operating system
boot entry. If a boot entry is specified, the GUID associated with the
boot entry must be enclosed in braces { }. To view the GUID identifiers
for all of the active boot entries, use the bcdedit /enum command. The
identifier for the current boot entry is {current}. For more information
about this option, use the following command: bcdedit /? ID

Note If you are using Windows PowerShell, you must use quotes around
the boot entry identifier, for example:
"{49916baf-0e08-11db-9af4-000bdbd316a0}" or "{current}"
"

I think I'll give {current} a try. I have a VM I can test in.

bcdedit /set {current} truncatememory 0x40000000

I've successfully managed to use the bcdedit command to change
Windows 7 from two partitions to a one partition setup, and I
got it right on the first try (no restore from backup
required) :) The command looks pretty ugly, without a
good reference web page to work from.

This is before using the command, and doing the enum...
This is only a portion of it, enough to establish content.

Windows Boot Manager
--------------------
identifier {bootmgr}
device partition=\Device\HarddiskVolume1
description Windows Boot Manager
locale en-US
inherit {globalsettings}
default {current}
resumeobject {716ee71a-1368-11e2-964c-e102db56de33}
displayorder {current}
toolsdisplayorder {memdiag}
timeout 30

Windows Boot Loader
-------------------
identifier {current}
device partition=C:
path \Windows\system32\winload.exe
description Windows 7
locale en-US
inherit {bootloadersettings}
recoverysequence {716ee71c-1368-11e2-964c-e102db56de33}
recoveryenabled Yes
osdevice partition=C:
systemroot \Windows
resumeobject {716ee71a-1368-11e2-964c-e102db56de33}
nx OptIn

And this is after the truncatememory is added...

Windows Boot Manager
--------------------
identifier {bootmgr}
device partition=\Device\HarddiskVolume1
description Windows Boot Manager
locale en-US
inherit {globalsettings}
default {current}
resumeobject {716ee71a-1368-11e2-964c-e102db56de33}
displayorder {current}
toolsdisplayorder {memdiag}
timeout 30

Windows Boot Loader
-------------------
identifier {current}
device partition=C:
path \Windows\system32\winload.exe
description Windows 7
locale en-US
inherit {bootloadersettings}
recoverysequence {716ee71c-1368-11e2-964c-e102db56de33}
truncatememory 0x40000000 <---
recoveryenabled Yes
osdevice partition=C:
systemroot \Windows
resumeobject {716ee71a-1368-11e2-964c-e102db56de33}
nx OptIn

I presume using /delete would remove it again.

If you need a (temporary) VM to work in, you can get one here.
Some of these are *huge* downloads, but they're handy tools
for testing. I use the Windows Virtual PC version and then
run them in VPC2007, just because Microsoft doesn't want me to.
Windows 8 won't run in just anything, so the environments
there are going to be a bit more limited (VirtualBox maybe).

http://www.modern.ie/en-us/virtualization-tools#downloads

I just rebooted the VM, and the new memory value seems
to be in effect.

Paul
 
H

Hench

I was reviewing a review of Microsoft Office 2013 (which apparently is buggy) and a reviewer mentioned he had a modern multi-core PC running 64 bit Windows with 32 GB RAM but since it would not run Office 2013, he gave it to his wife to use only for email and light web surfing.

I assume he was a troll or MSFT hater. Because I assume that "out of the box", with no customization, a 64 bit version of Windows 7 or 8 should run Office 2013 ok. True or false?

RL


I have a quad core 3770k with 32 gb of ram but only use office 2007.
but I email using my iPhone.

Seriously.
 
B

bruce56

I was reviewing a review of Microsoft Office 2013 (which apparently is buggy) and a reviewer mentioned he had a modern multi-core PC running 64 bit Windows with 32 GB RAM but since it would not run Office 2013, he gave it to his wife to use only for email and light web surfing.

I have an old PC (Cedar Mill 3.6 GHz with DDR2 and 7200 RPM disk) that I use
for e-mail. In case of some malicious e-mail screwing the PC I did not use it for other important data.
However, it became inadequate for web browsing over a year ago.
So much javascript, animations and other crap in many websites
that CPU use whacks 100%.
So I now use a workstation with Sandy Bridge-E and 16 GiB of RAM to surf
the web most of the time.
 
B

bruce56

It's part way down the referenced web page.



/MAXMEM= truncatememory BcdLibraryInteger_TruncatePhysicalMemory



Even Windows 98 has such facilities. That's how, as a joke,

I could run Windows 98 on a Core2 system here with 2GB of memory.

Just a matter of adjusting the MaxPhysAddr for only 512MB. Windows 98

becomes unstable if it sees any more than about 1GB or so. Depending

on video card memory, the number can be lower than that. I used to

have trouble with 768MB available.

Win 9x had 2 seperate problems that limited useable RAM to 768 MiB.
Perhaps because of that, many PCs of that era had 3 RAM slots with
maximum 256 MiB each, although the chipsets could handle 1 GiB.
 
P

Paul

Win 9x had 2 seperate problems that limited useable RAM to 768 MiB.
Perhaps because of that, many PCs of that era had 3 RAM slots with
maximum 256 MiB each, although the chipsets could handle 1 GiB.

Well, mine was worse than that.

Mine would nominally accept 4x256MB. (They put four slots on it.)
But for some reason, the AGP slot and graphics subsystem would become
unstable, when more than 2x256 were installed. It didn't
matter whether Windows or Linux was installed, the same
thing happened. Just a little updating of desktop graphics
(2D stuff), and the box became unstable.

So mine had an actual hardware problem. And at the time,
I couldn't find an exact match on the symptoms. (It
wasn't the so-called "Photoshop bug" for 440BX. That bug
is a lack of bypass capacitance on a bus termination network,
and required a long string of 1's or 0's on the bus, to upset
the voltage.) Originally, like your suggestion, I was laying
the blame at the feet of Windows, but one day I tried Linux
in the box, and a little mouse movement in the desktop, open
a menu or two, and kaboom. So that's when I knew it was
actually a hardware problem.

By conventional standards, I should have been able to use
four sticks at PC100 speeds. Three sticks should have been
fine. But only two sticks were stable, and the difference
was night and day. With two sticks, I could run Prime95 for
days on end. No errors to be seen. It didn't seem to be
purely a memory problem, because the stability behavior
was too abrupt for that. And of the pool of four sticks,
I could use any pair I wanted with the same results. The
RAM was good.

When Win98 was installed on that box, I didn't need to
limit the memory, because the hardware wouldn't really
let me go further. As a joke, I have since installed
Win98 on a Core2 system with DDR2 memory, and since
2GB of RAM was installed, I needed to trim that down
with the config file. Only one core works in Win98,
while the processor had two cores. It was pretty
damn fast, even though it was only using half the CPU.

Paul
 
Ad

Advertisements

F

Flasherly

I have an old PC (Cedar Mill 3.6 GHz with DDR2 and 7200 RPM disk) that I use
for e-mail. In case of some malicious e-mail screwing the PC I did not use it for other important data.
However, it became inadequate for web browsing over a year ago.
So much javascript, animations and other crap in many websites
that CPU use whacks 100%.
So I now use a workstation with Sandy Bridge-E and 16 GiB of RAM to surf
the web most of the time.

I'm heavily restricted, insofar as browsers goes. I run three
simultaneously, as need be or according to the nature of the site:
TOR/Vidalia Onion for anonymity and two more FireFox engine/variations
subsequent for drilling down. Of course I can't hit every garbage
pail full of scripts and whatnot out there -- regardless upward WWW
mobility trends, though get by limping along with the larger sites
when offering them my money for buying computer parts and such.

My more powerful computer I keep for multimedia and use this 1st gen.
working Intel dualcore (not a shared distribution core misnomer), S775
for browsing with a luxurious 2gig. But, I've been on the Web with
512meg and two floppies for swapping programs realtime before, so I
guess it's a matter of relative priorities.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top