Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Releases Boot Camp 1.2

Auggh!

Oh damn, just sprang for Parallels because it supported Vista and I didn't have a full copy of XP to use with Boot Camp. I wonder if there's any advantage to having Parallels and Boot Camp [rubs chin]...
 
joncelli said:
Oh damn, just sprang for Parallels because it supported Vista and I didn't have a full copy of XP to use with Boot Camp. I wonder if there's any advantage to having Parallels and Boot Camp [rubs chin]...
Click to expand...
Less rebooting and full system hardware resource support as well.
 
:(

anyone else getting a blue screen of death halfway through the driver install?

Im just doing the driver update and about halfway through BAM.

:(
 
slffl said:
Nice! Between this and Parallels being able to use the Bootcamp partition, I'm in heaven :)
Click to expand...

Ohhh, it can? I'm a serious Mac newbie and I'm still wrapping my head around how Parallels is used. How does this work?
 
toysblack said:
Hi,
I just installed the new drivers from bootcamp 1.2 b on XP 32-bit
I thought that the Chipset drivers or something will help to recognize the whole RAM on our Macpros ( 4GB) but it doesn't...
Does somebody know a way to do that ? We have huge 3D scenes to render, and 2 more GB will be useful !

Florian.
Click to expand...

XP doesn't recognize more than 2GB...
 
not true

cgc said:
XP doesn't recognize more than 2GB...
Click to expand...

Perhaps true on a MacIntel, but not true on a real PC.

XP can recognize 4 GiB minus whatever address space is reserved by the system for I/O space, VRAM mapping and other system needs.

Code: 
[INDENT]C:\> psinfo \\localhost

PsInfo v1.74 - Local and remote system information viewer
Copyright (C) 2001-2005 Mark Russinovich
Sysinternals - www.sysinternals.com

System information for \\localhost:
Uptime:                    15 days 19 hours 22 minutes 19 seconds
Kernel version:            Microsoft Windows XP, Multiprocessor Free
Product type:              Professional
Product version:           5.1
Service pack:              2
Kernel build number:       2600
Registered organization:
Registered owner:
Install date:              2003-05-14, 14:33:46
Activation status:         Activated
IE version:                7.0000
System root:               C:\WinXP
Processors:                2
Processor speed:           3.0 GHz
Processor type:            Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU
Physical memory:          [COLOR="DarkRed"][B] 3584 MB[/B][/COLOR]
Video driver:              NVIDIA Quadro4 900 XGL[/INDENT]
 

Attachments

  • t.jpg
    t.jpg
    41.6 KB · Views: 111
I ran into an issue with bootcamp 1.2 if anyone has a solution please share.

I had XP installed and working fine with the bluetooth keyboard and mouse on my Mac Pro. But now with bootcamp 1.2 I can't hold the option key to select which OS to boot. Also since 1.2 I can no longer select the startup disk in windows and choose Macintosh HD because no matter what I do it boots to XP but if I plug in a usb keyboard I am able to select the OS and boot into OSX and at that point I can select Macintosh HD as my startup disk. And that works fine. But my main issue is without the use of the option key on my bluetooth reliably I am forced to ditch that keyboard since I can't select the startup disk in windows. I did try repairing the permissions on the Macintosh HD and that made no difference as far as the startup disk selection in windows.

Does anyone have any ideas?
 
Software Update for Windows is not new. It's been out for a while now. New for Vista maybe. But not for Windows XP.
 
aaaarggghhh!!!!!

Blue screen of death!!!!!!!!!! :eek:

Is there a way to "restore" back to a prior date like on a traditional Windows XP system? :confused:

Inserted the "updated" Mac Drivers CD and midway into the upgrade... POOF! $%&!# BLUE SCREEN OF DEATH :mad:
 
AidenShaw said:
Perhaps true on a MacIntel, but not true on a real PC.

XP can recognize 4 GiB minus whatever address space is reserved by the system for I/O space, VRAM mapping and other system needs.
Click to expand...

XP Professional can 'recognize' up to 4 GB of RAM, and the server editions can recognize up to 64 GB, thanks to an extension to the 32-bit Intel Architecture called 'Physical Address Extension' (PAE) that gives the 32-bit IA32 (x86) architecture a 36-bit memory space. But, execution is still limited to 4 GB per program.

As for how it works with 4 GB (or, indeed, any amount above 2 GB,) it is odd. Regardless of how much physical RAM you have, as long as you have virtual memory turned on, Windows will allocate up to 4 GB of RAM to each program. Of this, a dedicated 2 GB is given to the program, and 2 GB is 'shared' kernel memory. (i.e. the Windows kernel uses up to 2 GB, and this same 2 GB is shared among all programs, for executing kernel-level processes.) This means each given 32-bit program on 32-bit Windows really only gets 2 GB of RAM to use, regardless of how much memory is actually in the system. You can hack Windows to allow up to 3 GB per program, which reduces the 'shared kernel' memory to 1 GB. (On a workstation, this can be a major help if you use memory-intensive programs, but on a server, especially a terminal server, this is a BAD thing.)

64-bit Windows, of course, allows full access to all 64-bit programs.
 
ehurtley said:
As for how it works with 4 GB (or, indeed, any amount above 2 GB,) it is odd.
Click to expand...
Actually, it can be "odd" even if you have less than 2 GiB of RAM - since the "oddity" is how virtual memory is laid out.

ehurtley said:
Regardless of how much physical RAM you have, as long as you have virtual memory turned on
Click to expand...
I didn't think that it was conceivable to run NT with virtual memory turned off. Is this a brain fart from OS9 days?


ehurtley said:
Windows will allocate up to 4 GB of RAM to each program. Of this, a dedicated 2 GB is given to the program, and 2 GB is 'shared' kernel memory. (i.e. the Windows kernel uses up to 2 GB, and this same 2 GB is shared among all programs, for executing kernel-level processes.)
Click to expand...

No, No, No.

*Every* process gets 4 GiB of virtual memory - 2 GiB to the private area and 2 GiB to shared system memory.

Not RAM, but virtual addresses potentially mapped to RAM. Very big difference - even if you have a system with 256 MiB of RAM - you still have the potential of a 2 GiB user space.

ehurtley said:
This means each given 32-bit program on 32-bit Windows really only gets 2 GB of RAM to use, regardless of how much memory is actually in the system.
Click to expand...

Each 32-bit process gets 2 GiB of virtual memory to use, regardless of how much physical memory is actually in the system.

ehurtley said:
You can hack Windows to allow up to 3 GB per program, which reduces the 'shared kernel' memory to 1 GB.
Click to expand...
This is not a "hack" - there's a documented and supported boot qualifier to change the process/system region from 2Gib/2Gib to 3Gib/1GiB. In "boot.ini", add the qualifier "/3GB" to the boot command line.

Note that this won't really change anything unless a program is compiled with the option "I understand what /3GB means and want to run with the extended user virtual address space".

I use this often when running SQL Server on a 32-bit system - it lets SQL Server use an extra gig of cache.

Other server apps with a single memory-intensive process would similarly benefit - but servers running many smaller apps would see little or no benefit.

ehurtley said:
64-bit Windows, of course, allows full access to all 64-bit programs.
Click to expand...

Finally, something that I have no argument with.... ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back