![]() |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
Isnt that switch related to non execute memory protection (included in AMD64) that XP-SP2 makes use of it?
I just played with boot.ini and put the /PAE option. Its true, SICE resets my computer...without /PAE works great ![]() Good observation, maybe Compuware didnt make that PAE test
|
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
Just 2 let people know who maybe forget or never read the announcement topics, v3.2 is on his way 2 the ftp.
|
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
panzer22... guy, I really, really, really love you! You just made my life more bright, you enlightened it more than you can imagine, and if you were a pretty girl (there is no evidence you aren't, but pretty girls usually don't tend to hang around on boards like this), I'd kiss you all over to show you how much I appreciated your post! thanks!!
Now I feel much better behind my computer, I used to feel so weak without the raw power of winice that allows me to debug down to the raw metal![EDIT JMI: People, People, People, use the small button on the far right to Reply without quote, unless the quote is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to make the response CLEAR. Here is was not, so I deleted the Quote.] Last edited by JMI; 02-11-2005 at 02:52. |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
more about PAE
I read, it is also possible to activate PAE on Win2000+SP4+AMD64.
But with XPSP2, Mirosoft has activated PAE to make windows more secure. It could be, that some other system-tools will not work with WXP+SP2+AMD64, so you have to disable it in boot.ini |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
@panzer22:
Are you sure you understood what PAE is used for? PAE is an extension which was introduced to allow CPUs to access more than 4 GB of RAM, by increasing the maximum addressable memory location from 32 bits to 36 bits (so a total of 64 GB RAM is addressable). It has nothing to do with the execution prevention introduced in WinXP SP2 and doesn't make Windows more or less secure in any way. In fact, the PAE extension has been available since WinNT 4.0 SP3 came out. |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
That all meens - If I'm upgrade my WinXP+SP1 (+MSBlast protection) to SP2, PAE will be turned ON, event with 768Mb RAM? And I'll have to turn it off by my hands...
Becouse all says that they hav'd this problem... Or Somebodys turn On Some Security tools (MS Firewall, Automatic Updates \I've turned them off\, ...)?
|
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
hxxp://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/maintain/sp2mempr.mspx
It turns on to allow for the use of DEP if you have a processor that supports the function. Quote:
PAE still active |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
Kennus, can you show me your boot.ini
|
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
Code:
[boot loader] timeout=15 default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS [operating systems] multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS="Microsoft Windows XP Professional" /fastdetect /noguiboot /NoExecute=AlwaysOff /noPae multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(1)partition(1)\WINDOWS="Windows XP Professional x64 Edition" /fastdetect /noguiboot Go figure why it doesn't turn off
|
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
Maybe you have BIOS settings for this problem. I once worked with a 8x Xeon MP computer with 16 GB RAM installed and its BIOS contained a setting like (I don't remember the exact words): "enable memory hole above 4G". When you enabled it, Windows wasn't able to detect more than 4 GB of RAM. Although I don't know if this had an effect on the PAE settings.
|
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hello,
Has anyone managed to debug with Visual Sofice with DS3.2? I use as target Win64XP with AMD64 but as soon as I start remote debugging , Visual sofitce stays infinitelly retrieving the target information and of course, the target is totally hang. With DS3.1 this problem does not happen (though the problem I have with DS3.1 is context switching everytime that I trace a single instruction). Anyone has managed to use Visual softice with success in this environment? Thanks |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
Kennus, it seams to be all right with your boot.ini
I have no idea :-( I think, it is time to switch to DS3.2 ;-) |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thanks for the idea Kerlingen but that would only be applicable with more then 4 GBs of RAM (and I tried it anyway)
which I don't have (wish I did though!). Finally got ahold of DS 3.2 and it works perfectly
|
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi
I would like to ear some opinions about new version DriverStudio 3.2 I don't have 64bits processor but I have some troubles with DriverStudio 3.1 and older. tia ramon |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
Then read this thread:
http://www.exetools.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6914 and Search for DS 3.1 to find discussions of issues with DS 3.1 in other threads. Don't ask for a repeat here. Regards,
__________________
JMI |
![]() |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| DriverStudio | Git | General Discussion | 0 | 04-13-2009 18:58 |
| Driverstudio 3.x and amd 64 | runet | General Discussion | 5 | 04-17-2005 00:12 |
| DriverStudio 3.1 & W2K | assembler | General Discussion | 9 | 03-30-2004 13:44 |