porno türk porno rokettube
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Can somebody really buy a modern multi-core PC running 64 bit Windowswith 32 GB RAM and use it only for email? (a troll question)

  1. #1
    Ext User(RayLopez99) Guest

    Can somebody really buy a modern multi-core PC running 64 bit Windowswith 32 GB RAM and use it only for email? (a troll question)

    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

  2. #2
    Ext User(DC) Guest

    Re: Can somebody really buy a modern multi-core PC running 64 bit Windows with 32 GB RAM and use it only for email? (a troll question)

    On Mon, 7 Oct 2013 08:27:19 -0700 (PDT), RayLopez99 <raylopez88@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    >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?


    True.


    --

  3. #3
    Ext User(Paul) Guest

    Re: Can somebody really buy a modern multi-core PC running 64 bitWindows with 32 GB RAM and use it only for email? (a troll question)

    RayLopez99 wrote:
    > 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

  4. #4
    Ext User(RayLopez99) Guest

    Re: Can somebody really buy a modern multi-core PC running 64 bitWindows with 32 GB RAM and use it only for email? (a troll question)

    On Wednesday, October 9, 2013 11:56:15 PM UTC+8, Loren Pechtel wrote:
    > On Mon, 7 Oct 2013 08:27:19 -0700 (PDT), RayLopez99
    >
    > <raylopez88@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > >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 bitWindows 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.


    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

  5. #5
    Ext User(Loren Pechtel) Guest

    Re: Can somebody really buy a modern multi-core PC running 64 bit Windows with 32 GB RAM and use it only for email? (a troll question)

    On Mon, 7 Oct 2013 08:27:19 -0700 (PDT), RayLopez99
    <raylopez88@gmail.com> wrote:

    >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.

  6. #6
    Ext User(Paul) Guest

    Re: Can somebody really buy a modern multi-core PC running 64 bitWindows with 32 GB RAM and use it only for email? (a troll question)

    RayLopez99 wrote:
    > On Wednesday, October 9, 2013 11:56:15 PM UTC+8, Loren Pechtel wrote:
    >> On Mon, 7 Oct 2013 08:27:19 -0700 (PDT), RayLopez99
    >>
    >> <raylopez88@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> 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.

    >
    > 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/libr...(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

  7. #7
    Ext User(Timothy Daniels) Guest

    Re: Can somebody really buy a modern multi-core PC running 64 bit Windows with 32 GB RAM and use it only for email? (a troll question)


    "Paul" wrote:
    > 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/libr...(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



    Where is mention of "truncatememory"?

    *TimDaniels*


  8. #8
    Ext User(Paul) Guest

    Re: Can somebody really buy a modern multi-core PC running 64 bitWindows with 32 GB RAM and use it only for email? (a troll question)

    Timothy Daniels wrote:
    >
    > "Paul" wrote:
    >> 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/libr...(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

    >
    >
    > 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

  9. #9
    Ext User(Timothy Daniels) Guest

    Re: Can somebody really buy a modern multi-core PC running 64 bit Windows with 32 GB RAM and use it only for email? (a troll question)

    "Paul" replied:
    > Timothy Daniels wrote:
    >>
    >> "Paul" wrote:
    >>> 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/libr...(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

    >>
    >>
    >> 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


    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*

  10. #10
    Ext User(Paul) Guest

    Re: Can somebody really buy a modern multi-core PC running 64 bitWindows with 32 GB RAM and use it only for email? (a troll question)

    Timothy Daniels wrote:
    > "Paul" replied:
    >> Timothy Daniels wrote:
    >>>
    >>> "Paul" wrote:
    >>>> 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/libr...(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
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> 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

    >
    > 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/l...=WS.10%29.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/libr...=vs.85%29.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/virtualiz...ools#downloads

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

    Paul

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •