How much Memory can Vista 32 bit support?

[Peter Foldes]

Ray

It is your stand that is inaccurate. You will never see your system as you describe
use more than 3.5 gigs of physical memory. Even if you hack it is not possible.

But if you say so Ray then it must be that in front of your eyes ONLY

--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

"ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message news:6qvjfkFeq3l2U1@mid.individual.net...
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:23:53 +0000, Steve Thackery wrote:
>
>>> But it DOES exist and is a way for a 32 bit OS (it sure as hell ain't a
>>> 64 bit OS) to address more than 4gb. You can quibble about whether it
>>> is a '32 bit OS' or a '36 bit OS' if you want (though it obviously is
>>> not a 36 bit OS either, IMHO, since the 4gb per process limitaion
>>> remains.
>>
>> Guys: Ray obviously has to have the last word. I'd let him, if I were
>> you!
>>
>> ;-)
>>
>> SteveT
>
> No, I simply don't like to see innaccuracies stand.

[Bob Campbell]

"Peter Foldes" <okf122@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23cb11GVYJHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Not quite true.

Yes, true.

> Not all 32 bit systems are restricted to this. For example the 32 bit W2K3
> and 8 Enterprise versions can see and handle up to 64 gig's in memory . My
> 32 bit W2K3 Enterprise at present is handling more than 4 x that of a 32
> bit Vista or XP .

But those are using the PAE hack. When you turn on PAE (Physical Address
Extension) you now have 36 bits of address space. So you are no longer
bound by the 32 bit limit.

Again, it is mathematically impossible for a 32 bit OS to address more than
4 GB. PAE turns it into a sort-of-but-not-really 36 bit OS. That's why PAE
is a kludge.

[Bob Campbell]

"James Kosin" <jkosin@support.intcomgrp.com> wrote in message
news:giecto$ksv$1@beta.intcomgrp.com...
>> That's why it is a kludge. It gives a 32 bit OS 36 bits of address
>> space but keeps all of the other limitations of 32 bits. The very
>> definition of a hack.
> Kludge or not, it is the basic premise for how virtual memory works as
> well; so, everyone has to get use to it.

No, it has nothing to do with virtual memory. PAE allows more PHYSICAL
memory to be addressed. All of the other 32 bit limitations remain.

[ray]

On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 15:59:39 -0500, Bob Campbell wrote:

> "James Kosin" <jkosin@support.intcomgrp.com> wrote in message
> news:giecto$ksv$1@beta.intcomgrp.com...
>>> That's why it is a kludge. It gives a 32 bit OS 36 bits of address
>>> space but keeps all of the other limitations of 32 bits. The very
>>> definition of a hack.
>> Kludge or not, it is the basic premise for how virtual memory works as
>> well; so, everyone has to get use to it.
>
> No, it has nothing to do with virtual memory. PAE allows more PHYSICAL
> memory to be addressed. All of the other 32 bit limitations remain.

EXACTLY! Just as I said, it is a 32 bit OS accessing more than 4gb.

[Bob Campbell]

"ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message
news:6r0277Ff3tbqU1@mid.individual.net...

> EXACTLY! Just as I said, it is a 32 bit OS accessing more than 4gb.


But it is addressing more than 4 GB because it has 36 bits of address space,
and the hardware has 36 address lines. Therefore it is no longer "a 32 bit
OS". It is a 36 bit/32 bit hybrid. A hack. A kludge.

Once again, it is mathematically impossible for a 32 bit OS to address more
than 4 GB. Once you turn on PAE, it is no longer a 32 bit OS. It is a
32/36 bit hybrid.

[Not Even Me]

I have a V6 under the hood and a V10 in the bed of my truck, does that mean
I have a V16?
It's the same with RAM, you may be able to see it, but can you USE it all?
Due to the addressing allocation limit of 4GB in a 32 bit OS, only 4GB TOTAL
can be seen.
So if you have a 1GB video card, you're already down to 3GB.
Other overhead (NIC, Soundcard, modem, IDE controller, etc) all use a small
amount of memory and each of those reduce the total available for use by the
OS.

<ray rod> wrote in message
news:20081217193632f17raymondrodriguez221@gmail.com...
> Well mine sees more than 4Gb
> 32 bit vista home premium..do not believe then see my attachment here>>>>
> http://www.mypcclinic.com/forums/sho...028#post229028
>
> Can anyone of you experts explain?

[Bob Campbell]

"Not Even Me" <cargod01@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uUhxoZaYJHA.5156@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> So if you have a 1GB video card, you're already down to 3GB.
> Other overhead (NIC, Soundcard, modem, IDE controller, etc) all use a
> small amount of memory and each of those reduce the total available for
> use by the OS.

Yep. This 3.2 GB limit out of 4 GB total is *exactly* the same situation
as the "640K limit" of DOS. You had 20 bits of address space which gave
you 1 MB total. 360K was reserved for video cards and other resources, so
you were left with 640K of useable RAM.

1 MB seemed like a lot of RAM in 1981. 4 GB seemed like a lot of RAM in
1995. 16 EB seems like a lot of RAM today. I wonder when we will be
whining about the "14.5 EB limit" and "Why can't I use all 16 EB of RAM I
installed?"!!!!!

You needed more than 20 bits then to use more than 640K. You need more
than 32 bits today to use more than 3.2 GB. Whether that is 36 bits with
PAE or a real 64 bit OS does not matter. With 32 bits you are limited to
something less than 4 GB.

[Ian D]

"Bob Campbell" <bob@bob.bob> wrote in message
news:VMydndi-vcOtDdbUnZ2dnUVZ_ozinZ2d@supernews.com...
> "Not Even Me" <cargod01@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uUhxoZaYJHA.5156@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> So if you have a 1GB video card, you're already down to 3GB.
>> Other overhead (NIC, Soundcard, modem, IDE controller, etc) all use a
>> small amount of memory and each of those reduce the total available for
>> use by the OS.
>
> Yep. This 3.2 GB limit out of 4 GB total is *exactly* the same situation
> as the "640K limit" of DOS. You had 20 bits of address space which gave
> you 1 MB total. 360K was reserved for video cards and other resources,
> so you were left with 640K of useable RAM.
>
> 1 MB seemed like a lot of RAM in 1981. 4 GB seemed like a lot of RAM in
> 1995. 16 EB seems like a lot of RAM today. I wonder when we will be
> whining about the "14.5 EB limit" and "Why can't I use all 16 EB of RAM I
> installed?"!!!!!
>
> You needed more than 20 bits then to use more than 640K. You need more
> than 32 bits today to use more than 3.2 GB. Whether that is 36 bits with
> PAE or a real 64 bit OS does not matter. With 32 bits you are limited to
> something less than 4 GB.
>
>

PAE uses page switching. To access, say 16GB, you would have 4
pages of 4GB each. The 32 bit OS would allow access to only one
page at a time. The page switching kludge isn't too bad for accessing
data, but running code that may cross a page boundary would present
a bit of a programming challenge.

It's all becoming irrelevant. I noticed in the latest Bestbuy flyer that
half the desktop systems have from 4 to 8 GB of RAM, and run 64
bit Vista, and all for $1k, or less. In another year only low end PCs
will be 32 bit. This may accelerate the development of true 64 bit
applications.

[ray]

On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 12:00:15 -0500, Ian D wrote:

> "Bob Campbell" <bob@bob.bob> wrote in message
> news:VMydndi-vcOtDdbUnZ2dnUVZ_ozinZ2d@supernews.com...
>> "Not Even Me" <cargod01@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:uUhxoZaYJHA.5156@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> So if you have a 1GB video card, you're already down to 3GB. Other
>>> overhead (NIC, Soundcard, modem, IDE controller, etc) all use a small
>>> amount of memory and each of those reduce the total available for use
>>> by the OS.
>>
>> Yep. This 3.2 GB limit out of 4 GB total is *exactly* the same
>> situation as the "640K limit" of DOS. You had 20 bits of address
>> space which gave you 1 MB total. 360K was reserved for video cards
>> and other resources, so you were left with 640K of useable RAM.
>>
>> 1 MB seemed like a lot of RAM in 1981. 4 GB seemed like a lot of RAM
>> in 1995. 16 EB seems like a lot of RAM today. I wonder when we will
>> be whining about the "14.5 EB limit" and "Why can't I use all 16 EB of
>> RAM I installed?"!!!!!
>>
>> You needed more than 20 bits then to use more than 640K. You need
>> more than 32 bits today to use more than 3.2 GB. Whether that is 36
>> bits with PAE or a real 64 bit OS does not matter. With 32 bits you
>> are limited to something less than 4 GB.
>>
>>
>>
> PAE uses page switching. To access, say 16GB, you would have 4 pages of
> 4GB each. The 32 bit OS would allow access to only one page at a time.
> The page switching kludge isn't too bad for accessing data, but running
> code that may cross a page boundary would present a bit of a programming
> challenge.
>
> It's all becoming irrelevant. I noticed in the latest Bestbuy flyer that
> half the desktop systems have from 4 to 8 GB of RAM, and run 64 bit
> Vista, and all for $1k, or less. In another year only low end PCs will
> be 32 bit. This may accelerate the development of true 64 bit
> applications.

True 64 bit applications have been around for years. In the mid 90's I was
running true 64 bit applications on a DEC Alpha - it is just MS who is so
far behind and trying to play catchup.

[Bob Campbell]

"Ian D" <taurus@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:OCGREtfYJHA.1532@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
> It's all becoming irrelevant. I noticed in the latest Bestbuy flyer that
> half the desktop systems have from 4 to 8 GB of RAM, and run 64
> bit Vista, and all for $1k, or less. In another year only low end PCs
> will be 32 bit. This may accelerate the development of true 64 bit
> applications.

Yep. I was in Sam's the other day. Every desktop machine there has 64 bit
Vista and 4 GB minimum. The "deluxe" machines had 6 GB. I was stunned.

64 bit is mainstream right now.

[Bob Campbell]

"ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message
news:6r25vnFfbc2lU2@mid.individual.net...
>
> True 64 bit applications have been around for years. In the mid 90's I was
> running true 64 bit applications on a DEC Alpha - it is just MS who is so
> far behind and trying to play catchup.


Yeah, because there are so many DEC Alpha machines on desktops and in homes
today! Those probably cost $50,000 in 1995 also. Today they cost
$1,000.

MS isn't "far behind and playing catchup" with anything. 64 bit hardware
has only recently become widely (and cheaply) available. There is no
"catching up" going on, it is just the natural evolution of PCs.

[Shawn B.]

>> It's all becoming irrelevant. I noticed in the latest Bestbuy flyer that
>> half the desktop systems have from 4 to 8 GB of RAM, and run 64
>> bit Vista, and all for $1k, or less. In another year only low end PCs
>> will be 32 bit. This may accelerate the development of true 64 bit
>> applications.
>
> Yep. I was in Sam's the other day. Every desktop machine there has 64
> bit Vista and 4 GB minimum. The "deluxe" machines had 6 GB. I was
> stunned.
>
> 64 bit is mainstream right now.

I just purchased two Dell Studio XP 435MT's (Core i7, 12GB RAM) for $1,499
including a 24" widescreen monitor with Vista 64-bit. I'm thinking there
are just two main factors that will lead to wide spread adoption of 64-bit
(from the manufacturing and software side)

1) volume of 64-bit OS sold/installed
2) Microsoft's commitment to 64-bit (their plans to only support 64-bit OS
in the future, for example, as well as whether they make a native 64-bit
version of Office or other main software). For example, Exchange server
2007+ is 64-bit only. If they did that for BizTalk, SharePoint, SQL Server,
and possibly Office, then everyone will take 64-bit more seriously.

But it isn't just Microsoft and the *NIX crowd, it's the software vendors.
Right now there is lots of software I would love to have 64-bit only but the
software vendors don't provide the 64-bit option.
Borland/CodeGear/Embarcadero Delphi for example, does not even compile to
64-bit code yet. Visual Studio, while can build 64-bit images, is still
very much a 32-bit application, as well as Office, and many device drivers.

With time, things will improve. The mere fact that most new system's sold
today are 64-bit OS (on the Windows side) is a good indication that we're on
our way to greater industry support for 64-bit everything.

Thanks,
Shawn

[B. Smith]

"Bob Campbell" <bob@bob.bob> wrote in message
news:bLadnV0yTqGokNHUnZ2dnUVZ_jGdnZ2d@supernews.com...
> "Ian D" <taurus@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:OCGREtfYJHA.1532@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>
>> It's all becoming irrelevant. I noticed in the latest Bestbuy flyer that
>> half the desktop systems have from 4 to 8 GB of RAM, and run 64
>> bit Vista, and all for $1k, or less. In another year only low end PCs
>> will be 32 bit. This may accelerate the development of true 64 bit
>> applications.
>
> Yep. I was in Sam's the other day. Every desktop machine there has 64
> bit Vista and 4 GB minimum. The "deluxe" machines had 6 GB. I was
> stunned.
>
> 64 bit is mainstream right now.


It is not.
And at least one of the best buy PC's with 8GB RAM is a friggen dog.
I saw it.
Ran like crap.
You must like sheit shoveled down your throat.
Crappy machines loaded down with useless RAM...low end graphics, and crapola
CPU's.
Merry Christmas....LOL.
I'd give dirt before I'd give one of those PC's.

[Syaoran Clow]

Hey guys,
You know what's weird?
My friend is running a 32bit windows XP Pro
and he is seeing 5gb of ram when he goes into task manager.
In reality he has 6gb of ram installed, but seems like windows reserved 1 gb for something else. Anyway he can see 5 not 3.... isn't that weird?
So I am basically wondering why this is possible!!!
Thanks ~



Colin Barnhorst wrote:

All 32bit operating systems can see a maximum of 4GB.
16-Dec-06

All 32bit operating systems can see a maximum of 4GB. It is a mathematical
limit, not the OS. Vista x86 like XP x86 will show a little over 3GB on
System Properties. This is normal. The "missing" ram is not really
missing. It is used by the system and not presented to the user. There is
a range of addresses at the upper end of 4GB that is reserved. In a system
with less than 4GB these are logical addresses and are handled by the system
that way. However, when the system has 4GB it must block out physical ram
to protect the reserved addresses. In addition, the BIOS will reserve some
additional address space for use by devices detected by the BIOS.

"Jon Acord" <JOn@theacords.biz> wrote in message
news:3AEB6966-1AE2-4C29-B289-65298D7BFDF1@microsoft.com...

Previous Posts In This Thread:

On Saturday, December 16, 2006 8:46 PM
JO wrote:

How much Memory can Vista 32 bit support?
My machine has 4 GB of RAM. I need to know absolutely if Vista 32 Bit RTM
will support this? I know for a fact that Windows XP Professional 32 bit
only supports up to 3 GB. I am certain Vista 64 will. Please do not answer
this question unless you are certain.

Thank you

On Saturday, December 16, 2006 8:53 PM
Rick Rogers wrote:

Hi,I'm certain that you will not be able to use all 4GB with the x86 version.
Hi,

I'm certain that you will not be able to use all 4GB with the x86 version.
This is a limitation of 32-bit processing. There is only 4GB of addressing
space and some of this is used by the system. How much depends on the
hardware, but it is the remainder that can be used by memory addressing. So,
the max you can address is 4GB minus however much your system requires. This
figure could be 3.2GB, or only 2.9GB, or some other figure entirely.

Yes, you are correct that the x64 version will allow you to use all 4GB.
There are a tremendously larger amount of addresses available under 64-bit
processing.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
Windows help - www.rickrogers.org

"Jon Acord" <JOn@theacords.biz> wrote in message
news:3AEB6966-1AE2-4C29-B289-65298D7BFDF1@microsoft.com...

On Saturday, December 16, 2006 8:56 PM
Colin Barnhorst wrote:

All 32bit operating systems can see a maximum of 4GB.
All 32bit operating systems can see a maximum of 4GB. It is a mathematical
limit, not the OS. Vista x86 like XP x86 will show a little over 3GB on
System Properties. This is normal. The "missing" ram is not really
missing. It is used by the system and not presented to the user. There is
a range of addresses at the upper end of 4GB that is reserved. In a system
with less than 4GB these are logical addresses and are handled by the system
that way. However, when the system has 4GB it must block out physical ram
to protect the reserved addresses. In addition, the BIOS will reserve some
additional address space for use by devices detected by the BIOS.

"Jon Acord" <JOn@theacords.biz> wrote in message
news:3AEB6966-1AE2-4C29-B289-65298D7BFDF1@microsoft.com...

On Saturday, December 16, 2006 9:15 PM
JO wrote:

Colin, Rick, I thank you both for the response.
Colin, Rick, I thank you both for the response. Being a technet
subscriber, I have been agonizing (yes i read the other threads on this)
whether I should go with 64 bit or 32 bit. Colin, if I understand you, the 4
GB of RAM will be used as needed by Vista 32 bit, but just not seen by the
OS, is that correct?

Seasons Greetings to one and all who read this!

On Saturday, December 16, 2006 9:22 PM
Colin Barnhorst wrote:

By the OS and the BIOS.
By the OS and the BIOS.

In a 64bit system the OS uses much higher logical address spaces so the OS
will see all 4GB of physical ram. Only when you had 128GB of physical ram
on a 64bit system would you see any physical ram reserved.

"Jon Acord" <JOn@theacords.biz> wrote in message
news:AFC477F7-5247-4B44-996E-D429B1DC6305@microsoft.com...

On Saturday, December 16, 2006 9:23 PM
Colin Barnhorst wrote:

The "missing" ram is seen by the OS, just not by the user.
The "missing" ram is seen by the OS, just not by the user.

On Saturday, December 16, 2006 9:34 PM
JO wrote:

Colin, the problem I am facing is that I have an ultra ATA Adaptec card.
Colin, the problem I am facing is that I have an ultra ATA Adaptec card. It
is impossible to find 64 bit drivers. It may never be supported. I need
this card. It works fine with Vista 32 bit. However, I have 4 Gb of RAM.
My wife is arguing with me to upgrade to the 32 bit version of Vista, and
remove a RAM chip, as she believes that Vista 32 will not use it in any way.
So, my question, if I upgrade to vista 32 bit,
will the OS be able to use the extra RAM? Or will it just be a dummy chip
sitting there? I understand I won't see it except when the PC posts during
startup..

On Saturday, December 16, 2006 9:40 PM
JO wrote:

Thank You!
Thank You! It is being used, just not seen in the properties. I believe I
will go with the 32 bit version and keep the extra RAM! ;) I am in Henderson
Nevada, where is everyone else at?

On Saturday, December 16, 2006 9:53 PM
Tom Lake wrote:

Re: How much Memory can Vista 32 bit support?
Why not go with the 64-bit version and actually be able to USE all 4GB?

Tom Lake
Malone, NY

On Saturday, December 16, 2006 9:55 PM
JO wrote:

Whereas I do technical support VIA the phone for a living it is different when
Whereas I do technical support VIA the phone for a living it is different
when it is your own hardware. I did find an article on MS that addresses
this issue specifically: for one and all:

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system...AE/PAEmem.mspx

On Saturday, December 16, 2006 10:03 PM
JO wrote:

Re: How much Memory can Vista 32 bit support?
Tom: Because it is almost impossible to find some 64 bit drivers for my
hardware.
As I study the problem further, I see that Windows 32 bit actually does use
up to 4 GB of RAM. The system apparently reserves 1 GB of RAM for use, such
as onboard graphics, etc.

On Saturday, December 16, 2006 10:03 PM
Colin Barnhorst wrote:

The ram allocation will done on the same principles as XP.
The ram allocation will done on the same principles as XP.

It is not a dummy chip under Vista any more than it is under XP.

It relieves the OS from having to use logical address space translation but
because it is system address space the OS must fence it off to keep user
programs from colliding with the system. There is no difference between XP
and Vista in this regard except that Vista may fence off a little more than
XP needed.

Vista does indeed use the space. The user can't tell much difference
between 3GB and 4GB but the OS sure can.

"Jon Acord" <JOn@theacords.biz> wrote in message
news:99DB05D7-C3D0-4A99-982A-8A6E38C62E8E@microsoft.com...

On Saturday, December 16, 2006 10:04 PM
Colin Barnhorst wrote:

Re: How much Memory can Vista 32 bit support?
He cannot find a 64bit driver for a needed card.

On Saturday, December 16, 2006 10:18 PM
Colin Barnhorst wrote:

I believe that the PAE swich only applies to 32bit editions of Server.
I believe that the PAE swich only applies to 32bit editions of Server.

On Saturday, December 16, 2006 10:39 PM
JO wrote:

From what I've learned, the XP boot.
From what I've learned, the XP boot.ini by default addresses 2 GB of RAM for
programs.

however, if you add a 3 GB parameter to Windows XP boot.ini, this will be
allocated as needed by the OS thus:

[boot loader]
timeout=30
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" /noexecute=optin /fastdetect /3GB

I simply added the 3GB and restarted, with no noticeable difference. The
missing 1 GB belongs to Windows XP. I presume when I upgrade to Vista 32 bit
it will be similar.

On Saturday, December 16, 2006 10:53 PM
JO wrote:

Re: How much Memory can Vista 32 bit support?
A word of caution: You might have seen the occasional Windows Server
deployment in which there was a /3GB switch used in the server???s BOOT.INI
file. The /3GB switch changes the memory allocation so that Windows is only
allocated 1 GB of address space, and user mode processes are allocated 3 GB
of address space. Splitting the address space like this helps Windows to
better manage high demand applications such as Exchange Server. However,
Windows is configured to have a 2 GB address space for the operating system
for a reason. If you use the /3GB switch, you can severely impact Windows
ability to run multiple applications simultaneously. Furthermore, you should
never use the /3GB switch on Small Business Server or on a domain controller.

On Saturday, December 16, 2006 10:55 PM
JO wrote:

Re: How much Memory can Vista 32 bit support?
More wisdom: So what does this 4 GB limit mean for 32-bit machines running a
Windows operating system? Windows is designed to address a full 4 GB memory
space. Windows splits the 4 GB of available memory address space into two
separate 2 GB address spaces. One of the 2 GB address spaces is used by the
Windows operating system, and the other 2 GB address space is used for user
mode processes (applications).

On Sunday, December 17, 2006 12:40 AM
Mike C. wrote:

It's not just Windows, it's all systems.
It's not just Windows, it's all systems. This is not OS specific, this is a
result of the BIOS. The system cna only "address" up to 32-bits of ram. When
hardware communicates, you're really just sending data to it just like you
would store data in memory. This is why hardware in your system uses a
"memory range".

There is no way around it in 32-bit processing, no special switches, no file
replacements, no nothing. The maximum addressable space is 4GB--period. Your
SYSTEM (not OS) has to use a certain amount of that to be able to
communicate with devices.

A 64-bit OS does not run into this limitation.


"Jon Acord" <JOn@theacords.biz> wrote in message
news:3AAB32B6-78E6-4430-81F3-74515D8DFCAE@microsoft.com...

On Sunday, December 17, 2006 6:59 AM
Tim Draper wrote:

Re: How much Memory can Vista 32 bit support?
Jon Acord wrote:

1st hand experience m8...... i have 4x 1gb sticks in my rig. ran 32bit
vista, and it was the same ram limitaion than XP 32bit does - around
2.8gb seeable/useable.

for me to see ALL 4gb (4096mb to be precise) i've had to goto vista 64bit.
not quite as simple as that tho..... different versions of vista have
max limitations

see http://support.teloep.org/vistaver.htm for more info. gives both
32bit and 64bit limitations.

so just ya know, 100% definate on above info. 1st hand experience.
tim

On Wednesday, December 17, 2008 7:36 PM
ray rod wrote:

So how much RAM does a 32 bit OS see?
Well mine sees more than 4Gb
32 bit vista home premium..do not believe then see my attachment here>>>> http://www.mypcclinic.com/forums/sho...028#post229028

Can anyone of you experts explain?

On Wednesday, December 17, 2008 7:38 PM
ray rod wrote:

So first hand experiences experts how much
Well mine sees more than 4Gb
32 bit vista home premium..do not believe then see my attachment here>>>> http://www.mypcclinic.com/forums/sho...028#post229028

Can anyone of you experts explain?
why mine sees all of 8GB?

On Wednesday, December 17, 2008 7:45 PM
ray rod wrote:

Ok experience experts how do u explain this?
I have 4 sticks of 2gb each pc-6400 so why does vista 32 bit home premium see 8gb of ram
do not believe..see my attachment here>>>> http://www.mypcclinic.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23401

On Thursday, February 12, 2009 11:29 PM
tony nelson wrote:

32 bit operating systems
2 raised to the 32nd power is 4gig. So a 32 bit system can address 4gig of distinct memory space or addresses (actually 2^32 is a bit more than 4gig). The video card and other I/O devices are mapped into this same memory space, therefore, not all the ram will be used because the system cannot address both video and system memory in the same address space. It's one or the other. For instance, if you have a 256meg video card then the system can address 4gig minus 256meg of the ram. This is probably why Dell only puts 3gig of ram in their Vista machines. Now, if you have a 64 bit system then it's 2 raised to the 64th power. Reason for using 2 is because a computer is a binary machine so there are only 2 states, on or off.


Submitted via EggHeadCafe - Software Developer Portal of Choice
Silverlight: Handling Cross-Domain Images and Gifs
http://www.eggheadcafe.com/tutorials...dling-cro.aspx

Are you retarded

--
..
--
"Syaoran Clow" wrote in message news:200912315016xnicorobin@gmail.com...
> Hey guys,
> You know what's weird?
> My friend is running a 32bit windows XP Pro
> and he is seeing 5gb of ram when he goes into task manager.
> In reality he has 6gb of ram installed, but seems like windows reserved 1
> gb for something else. Anyway he can see 5 not 3.... isn't that weird?
> So I am basically wondering why this is possible!!!
> Thanks ~
>
>
>
> Colin Barnhorst wrote:
>
> All 32bit operating systems can see a maximum of 4GB.
> 16-Dec-06
>
> All 32bit operating systems can see a maximum of 4GB. It is a
> mathematical
> limit, not the OS. Vista x86 like XP x86 will show a little over 3GB on
> System Properties. This is normal. The "missing" ram is not really
> missing. It is used by the system and not presented to the user. There
> is
> a range of addresses at the upper end of 4GB that is reserved. In a
> system
> with less than 4GB these are logical addresses and are handled by the
> system
> that way. However, when the system has 4GB it must block out physical ram
> to protect the reserved addresses. In addition, the BIOS will reserve
> some
> additional address space for use by devices detected by the BIOS.
>
> "Jon Acord" <JOn@theacords.biz> wrote in message
> news:3AEB6966-1AE2-4C29-B289-65298D7BFDF1@microsoft.com...
>
> Previous Posts In This Thread:
>
> On Saturday, December 16, 2006 8:46 PM
> JO wrote:
>
> How much Memory can Vista 32 bit support?
> My machine has 4 GB of RAM. I need to know absolutely if Vista 32 Bit RTM
> will support this? I know for a fact that Windows XP Professional 32 bit
> only supports up to 3 GB. I am certain Vista 64 will. Please do not
> answer
> this question unless you are certain.
>
> Thank you
>
> On Saturday, December 16, 2006 8:53 PM
> Rick Rogers wrote:
>
> Hi,I'm certain that you will not be able to use all 4GB with the x86
> version.
> Hi,
>
> I'm certain that you will not be able to use all 4GB with the x86 version.
> This is a limitation of 32-bit processing. There is only 4GB of addressing
> space and some of this is used by the system. How much depends on the
> hardware, but it is the remainder that can be used by memory addressing.
> So,
> the max you can address is 4GB minus however much your system requires.
> This
> figure could be 3.2GB, or only 2.9GB, or some other figure entirely.
>
> Yes, you are correct that the x64 version will allow you to use all 4GB.
> There are a tremendously larger amount of addresses available under 64-bit
> processing.
>
> --
> Best of Luck,
>
> Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
> Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
>
> "Jon Acord" <JOn@theacords.biz> wrote in message
> news:3AEB6966-1AE2-4C29-B289-65298D7BFDF1@microsoft.com...
>
> On Saturday, December 16, 2006 8:56 PM
> Colin Barnhorst wrote:
>
> All 32bit operating systems can see a maximum of 4GB.
> All 32bit operating systems can see a maximum of 4GB. It is a
> mathematical
> limit, not the OS. Vista x86 like XP x86 will show a little over 3GB on
> System Properties. This is normal. The "missing" ram is not really
> missing. It is used by the system and not presented to the user. There
> is
> a range of addresses at the upper end of 4GB that is reserved. In a
> system
> with less than 4GB these are logical addresses and are handled by the
> system
> that way. However, when the system has 4GB it must block out physical ram
> to protect the reserved addresses. In addition, the BIOS will reserve
> some
> additional address space for use by devices detected by the BIOS.
>
> "Jon Acord" <JOn@theacords.biz> wrote in message
> news:3AEB6966-1AE2-4C29-B289-65298D7BFDF1@microsoft.com...
>
> On Saturday, December 16, 2006 9:15 PM
> JO wrote:
>
> Colin, Rick, I thank you both for the response.
> Colin, Rick, I thank you both for the response. Being a technet
> subscriber, I have been agonizing (yes i read the other threads on this)
> whether I should go with 64 bit or 32 bit. Colin, if I understand you,
> the 4
> GB of RAM will be used as needed by Vista 32 bit, but just not seen by the
> OS, is that correct?
>
> Seasons Greetings to one and all who read this!
>
> On Saturday, December 16, 2006 9:22 PM
> Colin Barnhorst wrote:
>
> By the OS and the BIOS.
> By the OS and the BIOS.
>
> In a 64bit system the OS uses much higher logical address spaces so the OS
> will see all 4GB of physical ram. Only when you had 128GB of physical ram
> on a 64bit system would you see any physical ram reserved.
>
> "Jon Acord" <JOn@theacords.biz> wrote in message
> news:AFC477F7-5247-4B44-996E-D429B1DC6305@microsoft.com...
>
> On Saturday, December 16, 2006 9:23 PM
> Colin Barnhorst wrote:
>
> The "missing" ram is seen by the OS, just not by the user.
> The "missing" ram is seen by the OS, just not by the user.
>
> On Saturday, December 16, 2006 9:34 PM
> JO wrote:
>
> Colin, the problem I am facing is that I have an ultra ATA Adaptec card.
> Colin, the problem I am facing is that I have an ultra ATA Adaptec card.
> It
> is impossible to find 64 bit drivers. It may never be supported. I need
> this card. It works fine with Vista 32 bit. However, I have 4 Gb of
> RAM.
> My wife is arguing with me to upgrade to the 32 bit version of Vista, and
> remove a RAM chip, as she believes that Vista 32 will not use it in any
> way.
> So, my question, if I upgrade to vista 32 bit,
> will the OS be able to use the extra RAM? Or will it just be a dummy chip
> sitting there? I understand I won't see it except when the PC posts during
> startup..
>
> On Saturday, December 16, 2006 9:40 PM
> JO wrote:
>
> Thank You!
> Thank You! It is being used, just not seen in the properties. I believe
> I
> will go with the 32 bit version and keep the extra RAM! ;) I am in
> Henderson
> Nevada, where is everyone else at?
>
> On Saturday, December 16, 2006 9:53 PM
> Tom Lake wrote:
>
> Re: How much Memory can Vista 32 bit support?
> Why not go with the 64-bit version and actually be able to USE all 4GB?
>
> Tom Lake
> Malone, NY
>
> On Saturday, December 16, 2006 9:55 PM
> JO wrote:
>
> Whereas I do technical support VIA the phone for a living it is different
> when
> Whereas I do technical support VIA the phone for a living it is different
> when it is your own hardware. I did find an article on MS that addresses
> this issue specifically: for one and all:
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system...AE/PAEmem.mspx
>
> On Saturday, December 16, 2006 10:03 PM
> JO wrote:
>
> Re: How much Memory can Vista 32 bit support?
> Tom: Because it is almost impossible to find some 64 bit drivers for my
> hardware.
> As I study the problem further, I see that Windows 32 bit actually does
> use
> up to 4 GB of RAM. The system apparently reserves 1 GB of RAM for use,
> such
> as onboard graphics, etc.
>
> On Saturday, December 16, 2006 10:03 PM
> Colin Barnhorst wrote:
>
> The ram allocation will done on the same principles as XP.
> The ram allocation will done on the same principles as XP.
>
> It is not a dummy chip under Vista any more than it is under XP.
>
> It relieves the OS from having to use logical address space translation
> but
> because it is system address space the OS must fence it off to keep user
> programs from colliding with the system. There is no difference between
> XP
> and Vista in this regard except that Vista may fence off a little more
> than
> XP needed.
>
> Vista does indeed use the space. The user can't tell much difference
> between 3GB and 4GB but the OS sure can.
>
> "Jon Acord" <JOn@theacords.biz> wrote in message
> news:99DB05D7-C3D0-4A99-982A-8A6E38C62E8E@microsoft.com...
>
> On Saturday, December 16, 2006 10:04 PM
> Colin Barnhorst wrote:
>
> Re: How much Memory can Vista 32 bit support?
> He cannot find a 64bit driver for a needed card.
>
> On Saturday, December 16, 2006 10:18 PM
> Colin Barnhorst wrote:
>
> I believe that the PAE swich only applies to 32bit editions of Server.
> I believe that the PAE swich only applies to 32bit editions of Server.
>
> On Saturday, December 16, 2006 10:39 PM
> JO wrote:
>
> From what I've learned, the XP boot.
> From what I've learned, the XP boot.ini by default addresses 2 GB of RAM
> for
> programs.
>
> however, if you add a 3 GB parameter to Windows XP boot.ini, this will be
> allocated as needed by the OS thus:
>
> [boot loader]
> timeout=30
> 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" /noexecute=optin /fastdetect /3GB
>
> I simply added the 3GB and restarted, with no noticeable difference. The
> missing 1 GB belongs to Windows XP. I presume when I upgrade to Vista 32
> bit
> it will be similar.
>
> On Saturday, December 16, 2006 10:53 PM
> JO wrote:
>
> Re: How much Memory can Vista 32 bit support?
> A word of caution: You might have seen the occasional Windows Server
> deployment in which there was a /3GB switch used in the server???s
> BOOT.INI
> file. The /3GB switch changes the memory allocation so that Windows is
> only
> allocated 1 GB of address space, and user mode processes are allocated 3
> GB
> of address space. Splitting the address space like this helps Windows to
> better manage high demand applications such as Exchange Server. However,
> Windows is configured to have a 2 GB address space for the operating
> system
> for a reason. If you use the /3GB switch, you can severely impact Windows
> ability to run multiple applications simultaneously. Furthermore, you
> should
> never use the /3GB switch on Small Business Server or on a domain
> controller.
>
> On Saturday, December 16, 2006 10:55 PM
> JO wrote:
>
> Re: How much Memory can Vista 32 bit support?
> More wisdom: So what does this 4 GB limit mean for 32-bit machines
> running a
> Windows operating system? Windows is designed to address a full 4 GB
> memory
> space. Windows splits the 4 GB of available memory address space into two
> separate 2 GB address spaces. One of the 2 GB address spaces is used by
> the
> Windows operating system, and the other 2 GB address space is used for
> user
> mode processes (applications).
>
> On Sunday, December 17, 2006 12:40 AM
> Mike C. wrote:
>
> It's not just Windows, it's all systems.
> It's not just Windows, it's all systems. This is not OS specific, this is
> a
> result of the BIOS. The system cna only "address" up to 32-bits of ram.
> When
> hardware communicates, you're really just sending data to it just like you
> would store data in memory. This is why hardware in your system uses a
> "memory range".
>
> There is no way around it in 32-bit processing, no special switches, no
> file
> replacements, no nothing. The maximum addressable space is 4GB--period.
> Your
> SYSTEM (not OS) has to use a certain amount of that to be able to
> communicate with devices.
>
> A 64-bit OS does not run into this limitation.
>
>
> "Jon Acord" <JOn@theacords.biz> wrote in message
> news:3AAB32B6-78E6-4430-81F3-74515D8DFCAE@microsoft.com...
>
> On Sunday, December 17, 2006 6:59 AM
> Tim Draper wrote:
>
> Re: How much Memory can Vista 32 bit support?
> Jon Acord wrote:
>
> 1st hand experience m8...... i have 4x 1gb sticks in my rig. ran 32bit
> vista, and it was the same ram limitaion than XP 32bit does - around
> 2.8gb seeable/useable.
>
> for me to see ALL 4gb (4096mb to be precise) i've had to goto vista 64bit.
> not quite as simple as that tho..... different versions of vista have
> max limitations
>
> see http://support.teloep.org/vistaver.htm for more info. gives both
> 32bit and 64bit limitations.
>
> so just ya know, 100% definate on above info. 1st hand experience.
> tim
>
> On Wednesday, December 17, 2008 7:36 PM
> ray rod wrote:
>
> So how much RAM does a 32 bit OS see?
> Well mine sees more than 4Gb
> 32 bit vista home premium..do not believe then see my attachment here>>>>
> http://www.mypcclinic.com/forums/sho...028#post229028
>
> Can anyone of you experts explain?
>
> On Wednesday, December 17, 2008 7:38 PM
> ray rod wrote:
>
> So first hand experiences experts how much
> Well mine sees more than 4Gb
> 32 bit vista home premium..do not believe then see my attachment here>>>>
> http://www.mypcclinic.com/forums/sho...028#post229028
>
> Can anyone of you experts explain?
> why mine sees all of 8GB?
>
> On Wednesday, December 17, 2008 7:45 PM
> ray rod wrote:
>
> Ok experience experts how do u explain this?
> I have 4 sticks of 2gb each pc-6400 so why does vista 32 bit home premium
> see 8gb of ram
> do not believe..see my attachment here>>>>
> http://www.mypcclinic.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23401
>
> On Thursday, February 12, 2009 11:29 PM
> tony nelson wrote:
>
> 32 bit operating systems
> 2 raised to the 32nd power is 4gig. So a 32 bit system can address 4gig of
> distinct memory space or addresses (actually 2^32 is a bit more than
> 4gig). The video card and other I/O devices are mapped into this same
> memory space, therefore, not all the ram will be used because the system
> cannot address both video and system memory in the same address space.
> It's one or the other. For instance, if you have a 256meg video card then
> the system can address 4gig minus 256meg of the ram. This is probably why
> Dell only puts 3gig of ram in their Vista machines. Now, if you have a 64
> bit system then it's 2 raised to the 64th power. Reason for using 2 is
> because a computer is a binary machine so there are only 2 states, on or
> off.
>
>
> Submitted via EggHeadCafe - Software Developer Portal of Choice
> Silverlight: Handling Cross-Domain Images and Gifs
> http://www.eggheadcafe.com/tutorials...dling-cro.aspx