Current RAM requirement

Here you can discuss ReactOS related topics.

Moderator: Moderator Team

User avatar
Black_Fox
Posts: 1584
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 9:44 pm
Location: Czechia

Re: Current RAM requirement

Post by Black_Fox »

Mna. talks about this bug, not 32-bit limitations.

PurpleGurl
Posts: 1788
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 5:11 am
Location: USA

Re: Current RAM requirement

Post by PurpleGurl »

Black_Fox wrote:Mna. talks about this bug, not 32-bit limitations.
So it is sort of a "wrap-around" bug. Yuck. I think even Windows has problems up there too under certain circumstances. I know with Windows 98, for instance, there are at least 2 high memory bugs. The first affects machines with more than 512MB, and the other is at another place, and I guess has to do with not only the virtual memory issue, but the adapter space issue too. I think XP has its own challenges when going over 3 GB.

Now, it seems that more correct behavior would be not to recognize the memory causing the trouble rather than wrap around, lock up, show low memory, or whatever.

hto
Developer
Posts: 2193
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 3:43 pm

Post by hto »

The upper limit is more then 4G. As I remember, there was some PAE code in ROS kernel, but it is now rotten, probably.

PurpleGurl
Posts: 1788
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 5:11 am
Location: USA

Re:

Post by PurpleGurl »

hto wrote:The upper limit is more than 4G. As I remember, there was some PAE code in ROS kernel, but it is now rotten, probably.

So the processors use 36-bit addressing, the 4 gb limit is imposed by Microsoft, and that the true limit is 64 gb? Goodness! Just learned a few new things. Thank you! And then Microsoft limits their limit further by addressing swap space and devices in some of that space, hence the issues past 3.5 gb.

I think this is one area where we can easily surpass Windows. And similar when we get to SMP support, that we don't have to impose MS limits on the number of physical CPUs allowed. I can see how ROS could be used in all markets. I mean, impose no artificial hardware limits, and keep OS junk to a minimum, allowing others to install whatever they would like. A lot of the Windows variations impose different artificial limits and include various different add-ons and utilities. But for us, it makes more sense to support the maximum hardware available as much as possible without imposed limits, and to not load it down with software crap.

Mna.
Posts: 122
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 3:13 pm

Re:

Post by Mna. »

hto wrote:The upper limit is more than 4G. As I remember, there was some PAE code in ROS kernel, but it is now rotten, probably.
Thanks for pointing this out.
Another good link on RAM upper limits subject is 3 GB barrier article. One or more cases described there could be what is with ROS now

nicamarvin2005
Posts: 151
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 12:03 am

Re: Current RAM requirement

Post by nicamarvin2005 »

The GDI handle manager rewrite does not decrease memory requirement directly. It fixes a memory leak and also eliminates a great deal of overhead from applications using handles during their run. That is going to reduce the memory usage of builtin programs that run like explorer or whatever, but how much is saved depends on how many handles an application uses over its lifetime.
here a few examples

here Reactos 0.3.6 Release using 78MB RAM and stable, I was able to run 64 but kept crashing before geting to computer properties.. :x
[ external image ]

Here Reactos 0.3.13 Release and Today's Trunks, both using 62MB of RAM, if you go below that I will start giving you error codes
[ external image ] [ external image ]

and also ARWINSS, somehow ARWINSS can't be made to run on 62 or even 70 MB of RAM without issues, so here running 74MB just fine and later running 72 with some issues
[ external image ] [ external image ]

Go Reactos... :ugeek:

Artlav
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 4:53 pm
Location: Moscow

Re: Current RAM requirement

Post by Artlav »

Tried running .13 on a 366Mhz Celeron with 32 Mb of RAM, and failed.
It gets to installing drivers, then hangs solid.

For the record, Windows 98 works pretty darn good on the same system.

Z98
Release Engineer
Posts: 3379
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 8:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Current RAM requirement

Post by Z98 »

Not sure why Win98's ability to run well on a system means anything to ReactOS.

PurpleGurl
Posts: 1788
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 5:11 am
Location: USA

Re: Current RAM requirement

Post by PurpleGurl »

Z98 wrote:Not sure why Win98's ability to run well on a system means anything to ReactOS.
Well, if an older machine won't even run 98, it probably won't run Reactos, though if RAM were the issue, it might. Many newer machines don't come with drivers for Windows 98 or ME (and some of the manufacturers say that is not possible even if they wanted to make such drivers).

When I upgraded one machine from 98 to 2000, I found that it ran even better under 2000. The NT kernel is much more stable and the 95/98/ME one. With the 95 to ME transition, it seemed it kept getting worse. Sure, 98 and ME can do things that 95 cannot, but 95 was the most stable of the 3, and Windows 98 RTM was more stable than SE, particularly after applying all the MS patches. Some speculated MS deliberately sabotaged 98 in favor of ME or XP. I have no proof, but I cannot help but wonder. Yet, even with the shortcomings of 98, there are people still using it. There is an Unofficial Service Pack, KernelEX to run some XP software, and even an alternative heap manager. So 98 is not dead, and it requires no activation.

Anyway, when I installed 2K from using 98, I was impressed. I could leave the machine on days at a time without needing to reboot. Try that with 95/98/ME. I could heavily manipulate my files without the shell hanging and without error messages, stalling, and blue screens. When I ran into trouble, I was more able to regain control of the machine. I think, from what I read, the GUI is hooked in at a lower level than the user program space. So I/O gets more priority in 2K/XP than in 95/98/ME.

livestrong2109
Posts: 133
Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 4:42 pm

Re: Current RAM requirement

Post by livestrong2109 »

:shock: Windows 95 was more stable for you than 98..? I find that really hard to believe..!

In any case it seems explore is using more memory than it really should be... almost 30mb disable explore and ROS seems to run stable on only 55mb of ram. I've got explore 95 running stable with less than 59mb in VBox with trunk. So for those of you who don't need the shell....
Wesley Howard
ROS Contributor - Web Developer

nicamarvin2005
Posts: 151
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 12:03 am

Re: Current RAM requirement

Post by nicamarvin2005 »

For the record, Windows 98 works pretty darn good on the same system.
What's your point? I made a VeryLight windows XP SP3 that boots and runs with only 38 MB or Ram... :geek:


I am sure that once Reactos becomes more stable and reaches 1.X and further it could be made to run sircles around XP... ;) but Not yet... :x

here a pic of that Light XP SP3
[ external image ]

Artlav
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 4:53 pm
Location: Moscow

Re: Current RAM requirement

Post by Artlav »

nicamarvin2005 wrote:What's your point?
Nothing evil, just noting that a useful Windows version can run on such a machine, so it's not impossible for ROS to be able to as well.

nicamarvin2005
Posts: 151
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 12:03 am

Re: Current RAM requirement

Post by nicamarvin2005 »

Nothing evil, just noting that a useful Windows version can run on such a machine, so it's not impossible for ROS to be able to as well.
Yo! I know will run sircles around XP just because its OpenSource, but not at the moment, that will be for the future and one of its almost limitless future use, to give life back to old computers in the third and forth world, I will be Buying an inexpencive 6 Core Worstation for Virtualization duties... :geek:

Z98
Release Engineer
Posts: 3379
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 8:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Current RAM requirement

Post by Z98 »

Considering the number of applications these days whose minimum requirements exceed 32MB, I'm not sure I would consider ROS' ability/inability to run on such a system to be something I'm terribly worried about.

nicamarvin2005
Posts: 151
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 12:03 am

Re: Current RAM requirement

Post by nicamarvin2005 »

Considering the number of applications these days whose minimum requirements exceed 32MB, I'm not sure I would consider ROS' ability/inability to run on such a system to be something I'm terribly worried about
Correct...but if the badly code and closed source XP can me made to run in like 40 MB why would Reactos aspire not to exceed that feat? I for one want a Bare bone ROS to do it just for bragging rights... 8-)

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests