-=FAQ=- Why don't I see all my RAM? The 4GB limit.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Many posts these days about the 4GB limit to 32 bit OS (most versions of Windows in use)

This post is an attempt to clarify and summarize the reasons we never actually get to use the full 4 gigabytes of system RAM we just installed on a Windows 32 bit OS (this includes Windows XP, Vista and 2000.)


Oddly the reasons for this are not very well documented... anywhere!
MS has little to say on the subject other than the fact that there 32 bit OS are restricted to 4GB total, and that 2GB is taken by system OS and 2GB is available for apps. Although the right info is actually there, it is never explained in a way that takes into account what the actual limitation is that prevents your system from seeing all 4GB DIMM memory you just installed.
I don't quite understand why this is that MS is so silent on the subject in a easy to understand terms,. but it may be due to the fact that the missing RAM is due to your hardware, and MS does not want to discuss hardware?


Where's all my RAM? :
Let's start with the assumption that we have the correct hardware to handle the installed RAM, and 4GB of RAM installed.
The BIOS "sees" all 4GB in post, but Windows displays only 3.2GB RAM in system properties. So where's the rest? It's still there, but you can't use it all.

Heres is what is happening.
Windows can "address" 4GB of RAM total.
This total is not only reserved for your actual physical RAM Dimms you install,. The key word here is "address"

In Windows, hardware devices and ROM are mapped to memory space starting at 4G and down.

If you installed total 4GB memory, the system will detect less than 4GB of total memory because of address space allocation for other critical functions, such as:

- System BIOS (including motherboard, add-on cards, etc..)
- Motherboards resources
- Memory mapped I/O
- configuration for AGP/PCI-Ex/PCI
- Other memory allocations for PCI devices

Different onboard devices and different add-on cards (devices) will result of different total memory size visible to you and the OS.
e.g. more PCI cards installed will require more memory resources, resulting of less memory free for other uses.


Analogy time:
Let's use this word "address" for our analogy.
You are the OS, your installed memory are your workers,. the system hardware are your supervisors, and your (oue Windows) ability to contact all of the above is your "address book"
The Key again is your address book.
It can hold exactly 4,000 names, no more.

Example 1
You have 2,000 workers (2GB RAM installed)
You have a bunch of supervisors totaling 800 address book entries (system hardware requirements)

You organize your Address book in a hierarchical fashion, with the Workers starting at the back, but up top, are the Supervisors.

With 4,000 entries available, if you have 2,000 workers at the bottom of your directory, and 800 supervisor entries up top easier to find, the total addresses is 2,800 used in the book. You will be able to write down and contact all 2,000 workers.

Example 2:
You have 4,000 workers! (4GB RAM installed)
You have the same bunch of supervisors totaling 800 address book entries (system hardware requirements)

You start to write down the workers starting from the bottom of your address book but since you have 800 entries taken up top by the supervisors, you only have room to write in the contacts of 3,200 workers.

ie: You can use up to 4,000 but can only contact the 3,200 as those are the addresses you can fit in your book.
This is the 32bit limit.


Modern Machines suck up more resources:
As mentioned, the hardware installed will vary the amount of a hit you take on addressable DRAM considerably.
Recently a number of changes in both hardware and Windows has made more ram seem to go missing.
Some changes to the OS in SP2 and most Motherboard firmwares since then were written to alleviate some issues with driver conflicts. These same changes increased the amount of Address space reserved, and thus decreased the amount of RAM you will see in Windows. (this applies to Vista as well)
A good deal of the address book is being taken up by PCI resources.
It turns out that PCI -Express is even more demanding than PCI or AGP were, so these Mobos are taking even more of our RAM's bottom line.

Motherboards used to have a much more limited number of onboard features as compared to today.
Disk controllers and PS2 ports etc, but now we get dual Ethernet jacks, two or more USB2 controllers, RAID controllers, onbaord sound, (much more complex onboard sound), BIOS based antivirus protection, and on and on.
In 2002 The PCI bus itself took some resources, but you had to stuff those PCI slots with 4 or five cards to equal the amount of hardware that comes soldered on a Motherboard these days.

Graphics RAM is still RAM. Unless you have 4GB of RAM installed you'd never know it. but it too is taking up valuable room in your limited capacity address book.
Graphics RAM used to be a small number like 8 or 16MB,. now we have 512MB cards and with SLI we can install two of them. Bam! that's 1GB of your address book gone!


Want to see what's taking the Top end RAM? :

Here's a cool thing for the curious and trouble shooters among us. We can actuyally have Windows tell us exactly what hardware is sucking up address space and RAM resources,, and we can even find out how much for each (though that part will take a computer science degree and a translation effort on par with the Rosetta Stone and the dead sea scrolls! )

In WINXP
- Right Click on My Computer and select Properties.
- Select the Hardware Tab.
- Click on "Device Manager"
- In the top menu bar, click "view" and select "Resources by Type"
- Now click on the plus sign ( + ) next to "Memory"
Now you get a list of all the hardware that is grabbing memory and address ranges.
You also now get a real world view of what all this address nonsense means.
Those numbers [ in - brackets ] are actual memory address ranges.
With the right tools, you could use those numbers to see how much RAM each of those numbers represents.



Can I get any RAM back? :
It's often possible, but not always easy. It depends on hardware and software changes.
Software wise, the /PAE switch (http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/pae/default.mspx) Can help! but this is only if your hardware is up to the task. The HOW TO on the /PAE switch follows below.
On my system the /PAE switch added to teh BOOT.ini line of the XP32 OS worked immediately! A simple edit and reboot and I went from 2.5GB RAM available to the full 4GB.
But, my Motherbaord and hardware is made to handle as much as 32GB of RAM in a 64 bit OS, so the ONLY thing preventing this from working was Windows XP 32
YMMV.

Hardware:
Your Mobo may be taking more resources than required, and there may be ways of adjusting BIOS settings to get some back. Older Mobos had a setting for AGP that could effect things.
Certain unused hardware being disabled or removing unused cards should get some memory back.

The most you can usually get is approx 3.5 (without the /PAE switch) but these days with modern hardware this is rare. Norms are now in the 2.5-3GB range, with some dipping below 2.5


64 BIT OS
Windows 64 bit OS's can address 128GB of RAM. (potentially 64 bits can address far more, in the terabytes, but the current Windows OS' limit the addressable RAM to 128GB)
This means that when you install 4GB or 8 or 16 or 32 etc.. you will see essentially all of it as the "supervisors" are not touching the address space of the DRAM.

The /PAE Switch and Your Boot.ini file: You may be able to get all 4GB back!

Assuming your hardware will support it, and you are running the right version of an MS 32 bit OS, adding this line to your "boot.ini" file may give you full access to your 4GB of RAM.
To do this you need to do the following;

Go to your Boot drives ( C: usually ) root directory.
Make sure you can see "hidden and system files"
Right click on the semi transparent "boot.ini" file and select "open with"
Chose "notepad"
The text should read "similar" to this; ( might not be exact )



multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(2)\WINDOWS="Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition" /fastdetect /NoExecute=OptIn


In notepad, add "PAE" to the end of the line with a single space in between (no quotes)
Like so;

multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(2)\WINDOWS="Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition" /fastdetect /NoExecute=OptIn /PAE


Save the file,
Close "notepad"
Reboot.


249553

[quickben]

So does this mean that when my 8GB of DDR2 800 arrives, I can only use 3.2gb of it until I upgrade to Vista 64bit ?

[Leicca]

Sadly yes, we built two computers last month only to have this exact issue come up. From our understanding 32bit supported 4 gigs, but it did not IE: it only showed 2.5 gigs of the 4 gigs. We chose to purchase 64bit Vista and luckily were able to use the 32bit Vista on the kids computers.

[Bobster]

So does this mean that when my 8GB of DDR2 800 arrives, I can only use 3.2gb of it until I upgrade to Vista 64bit ?

and then prepare yourself for the headache that is Vista 64 with 8GB RAM

you'll need to install using just 2GB and then apply a patch that will allow you to run with the full 8! because you know when Microsoft wrote Vista 64, i bet none of them tested it with a machine with 8GB RAM in it!! i ran with 2GB with Vista 64 installed in anticipation for the 8GB i knew i needed to complete a job..

RAM came, i put it in and got nothing but reboots with it in until i applied the patch .. good one Microsoft..

[BigBlueDodge]

This topic is often discussed, but rarely understood. There are two issues at play, the hardware's ability to deal with 4+ GB and Windows ability to deal with 4+ GB of RAM.

When most people talk about a 32bit OS or a 64bit OS, they really don't understand what the 32/64 refers to. I'll try not to go to technical, but these numbers refer to the size of something called a "pointer". In technical terms, a "pointer" is something that refers to a memory location. There are 8 bits in a byte, so a 32bit OS will use pointers 4 bytes in size. A 64bit OS will use pointers 8bytes in size. A 4 byte pointer will be able to address a memory address locations from 0 to 4,294,967,295 (4 gigabyte or 2^32). This limitation is purely a mathmatical one. An 8 byte pointer will be able to address a memory location from 0 to 18,446,744,073,709,551,614 (16 Exibyte or 2^64). So the XXbit designation refers to the addressable memory range of the hardware/software platform. Higher bit counts means larger addressable ranges.

Now, from a hardware perspective, up until recently, the hardware (i.e motherboard) was designed to be able to support a 4GB addressable memory range. Hardware will typically talk to the OS by using memory locations. What would happen is that your motherboard's chipset would start mapping your hardware devices into this 4GB address range. It would start mapping the hardware devices to the high end of the range and work down, and it would map your RAM from the low range and work up. For example, lets assume you have 2 GB of RAM and your hardware devices requires 1 GB of address range. Your motherboard chipset will map your RAM from the 0-2GB range, and map your hardware from the 3-4GB range. Most users never realized this happened because up until recently no one used 4GB of ram. Now let's change the example to show what happens when a user installs 4GB of ram. Your motherboard chipset will map the RAM from the 0-4GB range. It will also map the hardware from the 3-4GB range. Your hardware devices take priority over your RAM, so essentially, your chipset will ignore the top 1GB of your RAM, and use that to address your hardware devices. The net effect is that you only see 3GB of RAM, even though you physically have 4GB of RAM installed. This is why people buy 4GB of RAM, and boot up XP and only see 3.25GB or 3.0GB being shown in the System Properties. This is how much your chipset is telling XP is available.

This limitation is not solved if you install a 64bit OS on an older motherboard. Your OS is limited by what the underlying motherboard chipset will expose to it. If your motherboard chipset was telling XP that only 3.25GB is available, then your motherboard will still tell 64bit Vista that 3.25GB is available. Nothing changes, and the motherboard will still act the same way. The newer motherboards have been updated in how they work memory ranges, and can map hardware devices to ranges above 4GB. Since these devices are mapped higher in the address range, that leaves more room for you RAM. 10 years from know we are probably going to hit this same issue again. Except then it will be "I installed 128GB of RAM but Windows is only showing 100GB available".


Now, on to Windows. Windows will allocate a block of memory for each process (process generally refers to an application). The amount of memory is limited by the bit architecture. A 32bit Windows OS will allocate 4GB of addressable memory space to each process. Windows calls this "virtual memory" because the actuall hardware may not contain 4GB, but Windows allows the process to think that there is 4GB there. A 64bit OS will allocate an even larger addressable memory range (up to 128GB for Windows Vista).

Now, the memory range Windows gives to each process is not solely dedidcated for the application running in that process. On a 32bit Windows OS, each process gets 4GB of address range. Of that 4GB range, 2GB is reserved for the application, and 2GB is reserved for Window's internal use. You may ask why 2GB is reserved for Windows. Well, when an application is started, a process is created. Windows creates internal data structures to track all sort of items about the application (such as it's windows, the fonts, blocks of memory, etc). Windows needs to store these data structures somewhere, so it stores them in the 2GB range of each process allocated for Windows. What this means, is that an application could only address up to 2GB of "virtual" memory. If you had 3GB installed, then your application could only use 2GB of it. Microsoft added a switch (the /3GB) that would change the ratio of memory allocated to the application versus Windows. Using the /3GB switch, will force Windows to use 3GB of the 4GB address range for the application, and only use 1GB of the 4GB range for Windows. By using this switch, applications can "see" 1GB more. So, let's talk theoreticals here. Let's assume that you had 4GB of RAM installed on your motherboard, and for example sake, your hardware devices didn't map into this address space, so Windows could see the full 4GB. When you start an application, such as Photoshop, the application can only use 2GB of your 4GB RAM using a default install. If you enable the /3GB switch, then Photoshop would be able to use 3GB of the 4GB of RAM.


So it boils down to this. If you are using an older motherboad that maps within a 4GB memory address range, it does not matter what XX bit OS you install, the hardware will limit the amount of RAM you can see.

If you are using a newer motherboard that can map above the 4GB range, then the XX bit OS you install will dictate how much RAM you can see. If you have 8GB on a new motherboard, and install 32 bit XP, or 32 bit Vista, then you will only be able to see 4GB of RAM. If you install 64 bit XP (Yes, there is a 64 bit version of XP), or 64Bit Vista, you will be able to see the full 8GB of your RAM.

If I had to guess, Microsoft is not saying much about this issue, as it is really a hardware problem and not a Windows problem. Why do they need to provide an explanation for a problem with the chipsets? Intel, AMD, and the like should be the one explaining this. Would you expect Microsoft to explain why your CPU melted, because you went into the BIOS and overclocked it?

[cosworth]

Also do not forget that laptop chipsets will not allow any addressing above 4gb. You can't usually install more than 4gb in a laptop, so this is not really an issue. But it comes into play when you have 4gb of DIMM ram and say 512 or 1gb of video RAM. Even using a 64bit OS, you will still only ever see 4gb minus the video ram.

With 64bit Vista on my Dell XPS m1710 with 4gb of ram and 512 of video ram, I still cna only allocate 3.3gb to applications.

A follow up to memory questions is why Vista "hogs" so much RAM. Well, it's a good thing:

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000688.html

[tommykjensen]

Also do not forget that laptop chipsets will not allow any addressing above 4gb. You can't usually install more than 4gb in a laptop, so this is not really an issue. But it comes into play when you have 4gb of DIMM ram and say 512 or 1gb of video RAM. Even using a 64bit OS, you will still only ever see 4gb minus the video ram.


Is this true for all laptop chipsets? Anybody know why? It doesn't make sense to me that just because it is a laptop it should not be possible to address more than 4 GB. I would love 8 Gb or more in the new laptop I am getting for work then I could run multiple VMware servers at the same time.

[cosworth]

As of today, yes all laptop chipsets are limited. I have yet to find one that addresses more than 4gb.

[Tony-S]

I'm pretty sure Santa Rosa chipset supports 8 gigs (MacBook Pros, some Win PC), but the problem is there are no 4 gig PC5300 DDR2 sticks for the 2 available slots.

[cosworth]

The 94PM chipset only does 4GB. The HP Compaq 6910p apparently does 8gb with a Santa Rosa 965GM chipset but I can't find too much on it. The same 965GM chipset is listed in other venues as being limited to 4gb.

With eight 32-bit floating-point execution units, I don't see it doing 8gb.

[Tony-S]

Jason - I don't claim to understand all the details, but on page 2 of this document (www.intel.com/business/casestudies/proof_of_concepts_dcs.pdf) it seems to suggest 8 gigs as the limit.

[BigBlueDodge]

Jason, I have a Lenovo T61p with 4GB RAM and a 512MB Video card runing Vista 64bit and I see the FULL 4GB of RAM on it. I'm quite sure that the latest gen of laptops can utilize the full 4GB and more. I can post a screen shot if necessary. I also have a Dell D820 with 4GB of RAM on it, but it is running an older chipset and it doesn't show me the full 4GB (I can only see 3.25GB)

[Tony-S]

Jason, I have a Lenova T61p

That seems to use the Santa Rosa chipset, just like the MacBooks and MacBook Pros, so the link I posted above should be relevant to your computer.

http://www.geek.com/thinkpad-t61p/

[Zepher]

Explain this,
http://www.transamws6.com/pics/pc/quad-server.jpg

[silvex]

Explain this,
http://www.transamws6.com/pics/pc/quad-server.jpg

That means your motherboard is able to physically address over 4GB regardless of the operating system. The Physical Address Extension (/PAE) lets windows "see" over the 4GB limit.

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/PAEdrv.mspx

http://technet2.microsoft.com/windowsserver/en/library/32da8fd0-23f4-4dd4-b5f0-f2b45bb042b31033.mspx?mfr=true

Supported HW listing
http://www.windowsservercatalog.com/results.aspx?bCatId=1283&avc=10

[Tony-S]

The previous gen of Macs (MacBook/Pro, iMac) had the same issue. You could put 4 gigs in them and they'd show up as 4 gigs on a hardware profile, but when you looked at memory usage there was only 3.3 gigs. The new boards are larger than this (8 gigs, I'm pretty sure). Of course, the Mac Pros do more than than that.

[cosworth]

Explain this,


You don't have a laptop. :D

Also BBD don't forget that Vista has an update that changes how it displays the RAM so that people have a clearer idea of what's going on. You may have this installed.

It does appear the Santa Rosa now support 8gb, might be time for an upgrade...

[Brian1cj]

More of an FYI than anything, but I think Vista SP1 will fix the issue. I've been using the release candidate for a while and after I installed it, my reported ram went from 3.5 to 4.0gb with 32-bit version.

[Tony-S]

Are you sure it's not just reporting physical RAM, vs. available RAM? Macs do the same.

[Brian1cj]

No, I'm not sure of anything really... I was wondering the same thing. It seems like Microsoft would have to make a lot of changes to address the remainder, and it would be much easier to mask the number to the physical amount rather than to address it properly.

That is my guess... corner-cutting.

[Tony-S]

It does appear the Santa Rosa now support 8gb, might be time for an upgrade...

Might want to wait a few more months, Jason:

http://www.digitimes.com/systems/a20080218PD210.html

[chauncey]

I was informed that PS CS3 can only utilize 32 bit, so having 64 bit is a moot point.

[Tony-S]

But there are advantages to having more RAM, even for PS. For instance, you can have larger RAM disks that can be used by PS and this can be extremely helpful for large images or complex image manipulations.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I was informed that PS CS3 can only utilize 32 bit, so having 64 bit is a moot point.

PSCS is indeed only 32 bit, but this hardly makes having moe ram available a moot point.
First of all, do you want PSCS to use 2.5GB of RAM or 4GB?
Clearly a full 4GB for large files and operations would be a huge advantage over only having access to 4GB.

Obviously your system uses some RAM, so to allocate all 4GB in a 64 bit OS to PSCS one would need more than 4GB of ram total. With a 32 bit OS you'd NEVER be able to give PSCS all 4GB.

However, I'm not sure what post your replying to, what statement you are addressing with your post?
The original post in this thread is not about 64 bit vs. 32 bit, so certainly the information which is only talking about 32 bit OS is not "moot"?

[CyberDyneSystems]

...If you have 8GB on a new motherboard, and install 32 bit XP, or 32 bit Vista, then you will only be able to see 4GB of RAM. ...



Well, if you were to read the point of the original post you might realize that you would NOT see all 4GB of your RAM.

This issue is the point of the original post, that despite having the correct hardware, when a 32 bit OS is installed one still can not see the full 4GB of RAM that the OS supports.

I'm not going to retype why here again in the same thread, but that was the point of the thread.

If I had to guess, Microsoft is not saying much about this issue, as it is really a hardware problem and not a Windows problem. Why do they need to provide an explanation for a problem with the chipsets? Intel, AMD, and the like should be the one explaining this. Would you expect Microsoft to explain why your CPU melted, because you went into the BIOS and overclocked it?

Your next point about MS's silence only half makes sense as again, the fact that the OS will not see all of your system RAM is not a hardware issue in this case, it is the limitation of the 32 bit OS alone. Again, this is clearly explained (IMHO) in the first post.
It's really outlined pretty clearly in the first few sentences what this thread was about.
Your reply is very helpful where it provides additional information, the info about needing the right type of hardware is especially important.
But you also seem to be missing some of the original point and challenging it as well in some cases. These aspects of your reply are adding to the confusion that the thread was posted to try and explain in the first place.

[Moppie]

For those considering going beyond the 4gb limit with a 64bit windoz based OS, the following read might be of interest: http://www6.tomshardware.com/2008/02/15/vista_workshop/page12.html

[CyberDyneSystems]

Tom's right this time :)

My system is dual boot to XP32 and XP 64.. when I reboot to XP 64to do post processing work, it's a little like swapping an almost empty scuba tank to a new fresh full one.. you can feel how much more relaxed the system is having double the RAM at it's disposal.

[BrantG]

Well it seems SP1 will fix the memory issue. I know people running it and all their memory is showing up now. Especially those with high end video cards which took up part of their memory before. SO might not be a reason to go 64bit OS.

[CyberDyneSystems]

SP1 for XP or Vista?
SP1 for XP does not fix it automatically (not all the time anyway) my system is SP1, and I had to manually add the /PAEswitch.
SP2 for XP might, haven't tried that.
I think your right if you are talking about SP1 for Vista. It might add PAE automatically.


Also I would not recommend going 64 bit to get full use of 4GB RAM, you go 64 bit when you want to use MORE than 4GB of ram, like 8GB or more. SP2, /PAE switch or Vista, none of these will get you to able to use more than 4GB system RAM in a 32 bit OS.

[Moppie]

The /PAE Switch and Your Boot.ini file: You may be able to get all 4GB back!
Assuming your hardware will support it, and you are running the right version of an MS 32 bit OS, adding this line to your "boot.ini" file may give you full access to your 4GB of RAM.To do this you need to do the following;

In Vista, in order to see the files you need to do the following:

Open "Folder options" (easiest way is to hit windows key, and type "folder options".

Goto "View"

Scroll down, you need to check: "Show hidden files and folders"
And UNCHECK: "Hide protected operating and system files" A warning text will pop up, which you also need to say yes to.

Now, you can edit your boot.ini file, and cause all the havoc in the world :)

[CyberDyneSystems]

SkyNet of course does the edits herself, and won't let me touch her Boot.i :)

[cosworth]

Well it seems SP1 will fix the memory issue. I know people running it and all their memory is showing up now. Especially those with high end video cards which took up part of their memory before. SO might not be a reason to go 64bit OS.

Don't be fooled, you're being fooled. The OS reports 4GB of RAM installed, not what's available to the OS.

You still can't address more than 4gb of ram with a 32 bit OS. Nothing has changed, it just shows what you think you bought.

[michael_]

i was going to upgrade my laptops ram from 2 x 1GB to 2 x 2GB, was also told today that 4GB wont be recognised, but like others if you put the 4GB will the graphics card take from the 4GB or 3.5gb? leaving just under 3GB vs 1.5GB with 2GB ram or if you put a 2GB stick with the 1GB stick will it be 2.5GB

[hughps]

Programs have to be specifically written to support PAE, and very few are (mostly database servers), and in some cases PAE can cause problems. Photoshop, for instance, will not benefit from PAE. In the latest XP service pack, the PAE switch is still there, but it doesn't actually do anything. Completely nonfunctional.

If you have >3GB of RAM, just get a 64 bit OS and be happy that you can use all your memory finally.

[DMax82]

Hey CDS, thanks for the great write-up. You must be a genius for phrasing the ram thing in a way that I can understand it! Anyways, I just have one more question. I am about to buy a Dell laptop and would like to upgrade the ram. Now, is there any reason for me to go to 4gb instead of 3gb? I would only really be gaining .2gb as I understand it, so that doesn't seem like a good investment to me. Thanks!

[Tony-S]

If the Dell uses the Mobile 9xx integrated video chipset from Intel, you might investigate if it takes a performance hit by not using matched pairs of RAM sticks. On Mac Minis and MacBooks (each with integrated GMA950 and GM964 video chipsets) there's about a 5% performance hit from not using dual-channel that matched RAM sticks provide.

[hughps]

Hey CDS, thanks for the great write-up. You must be a genius for phrasing the ram thing in a way that I can understand it! Anyways, I just have one more question. I am about to buy a Dell laptop and would like to upgrade the ram. Now, is there any reason for me to go to 4gb instead of 3gb? I would only really be gaining .2gb as I understand it, so that doesn't seem like a good investment to me. Thanks!

If you use a 64 bit OS (Vista 64 bit, for instance), you will definitely benefit from the additional RAM. On a 32 bit OS, you won't see much benefit at all.

[DMax82]

Thanks hugh and tony. It comes with 2gb and I will use that until I feel the need to upgrade to 3.

[cosworth]

i was going to upgrade my laptops ram from 2 x 1GB to 2 x 2GB, was also told today that 4GB wont be recognised, but like others if you put the 4GB will the graphics card take from the 4GB or 3.5gb? leaving just under 3GB vs 1.5GB with 2GB ram or if you put a 2GB stick with the 1GB stick will it be 2.5GB

From the 4.

[michael_]

excellent finally someone game me a clear answer.

thanks jason.

[12mnkys]

i will have to give this a shot tonight...

[mminnig]

Are there compatibility issues with choosing a 64bit version of Vista or will all of my software and drivers continue to function. For the minimal cost of going from 3GB to 4GB of RAM and 32bit to 64 Vista, I would love to have the added performance, but not if it comes at the expense of compatibility and headaches.

[SOT]

There can be some driver issues, there can also be some performance issues not huge ones but some. Examples include some single thread processing might be faster with the 32 bit version.

[Mathiau]

Are there compatibility issues with choosing a 64bit version of Vista or will all of my software and drivers continue to function. For the minimal cost of going from 3GB to 4GB of RAM and 32bit to 64 Vista, I would love to have the added performance, but not if it comes at the expense of compatibility and headaches.


check first on your items sites to see if they have drivers, many companies of older hardware, like printers, refuse to make new 64bit drivers, instead they want you to buy new hardware.

[Vascilli]

Oh man I love having 8GB of RAM. x64 is great.

[MaxxuM]

I scanned the last three pages and didn't find this bit of information. I won't get into all the technical jargon, but your (non integrated) video card memory effects available memory. The more video card memory you have the less available system ram you will have available due to memory mapping. It's a trade-off. Generally, if you have turned off all unnessesary features in the motherboards BIOS you'll be sitting around 3.5GB memory if you have a video card with 256MB, 3.2GB if its 512MB and so on. If you do a lot of video and use Windows XP/Vista 32Bit I would recommend you try to find a fast 256MB video card (and you don't play games). A very good choice would be the ATI X1950 series w/ 256MB.

As for 64Bit OS I wouldn't even bother using one unless I had at least 8GB memory. It does address more memory, but the trade off is that (in laymen terms) it uses larger memory blocks. This means that if you open a lot of smaller files they will still use the larger block size as larger files. In other words, it can potentially be less efficient than a 32Bit OS. I currently have 8GB on my PC and 32GB on my Mac Pro and can see this very often.

[Mike-DT6]

I'm just trying to follow the instructions to show all of my 4GB RAM (I'm using XP), but I don't appear to have a 'boot.ini' file anywhere.

I have searched all of C:\ and the search function doesn't find anything. I have got hidden files and folders enabled.

Any ideas where my 'boot.ini' file might be?

Thanks,

Mike

:-)

[Mike-DT6]

Okay, I've solved it now via Google! In case anyone else has this problem, here are the details (copied from WindowsITPro.com):

When your computer starts up, it uses the boot.ini file to find the instances of Windows 2000 or Windows NT (and other OSs, such as Windows Millennium Edition—Window Me—and Windows 98 ). It also specifies the amount of time to pause before the system automatically executes the default choice.

The boot.ini file is on the system partition at the root of the drive, usually C:\boot.ini. However, it's a hidden file, which is probably why you can't see it. Perform the following steps to find the file:

1. Start a Command session (Start, Run, cmd.exe).
2. Type the following command (ah stands for "attribute hidden"):

dir c:\boot.ini /ah

3. You should see the boot.ini file. If you can't find the file on the root of the C drive, you might have some boot software installed or the C drive isn't the active partition. Check the root of each drive with the dir /ah command.

To remove the hidden attribute from the boot.ini file, type the following command from a Command session:

attrib c:\boot.ini -s -h -r

This command removes the system (s), hidden (h), and read-only (r) flags. You must remove the system attribute to remove the hidden attribute. Now, you can modify the file. After you've modified it, you should reset the attributes:

attrib c:\boot.ini +s +h +r



UPDATE: I tried the boot.ini modification and it didn't work at all. Still showing 3.21GB of RAM. Absolutely typical for anytime I ever want anything to work.

Incidentally I'm using XP Professional, Service Pack 2, Version 2002. My motherboard is an Asus P5Q-EM with Intel E5200 CPU and 4GB of G.Skill DDR2 PC2-8500C5 1066MHz Dual Channel RAM.

Mike

:-)

[MaxxuM]

Okay, I've solved it now via Google! In case anyone else has this problem, here are the details (copied from WindowsITPro.com):



UPDATE: I tried the boot.ini modification and it didn't work at all. Still showing 3.21GB of RAM. Absolutely typical for anytime I ever want anything to work.

Incidentally I'm using XP Professional, Service Pack 2, Version 2002. My motherboard is an Asus P5Q-EM with Intel E5200 CPU and 4GB of G.Skill DDR2 PC2-8500C5 1066MHz Dual Channel RAM.

Mike

:-)

Windows XP can and does see all 4GB of memory. However, that is all a 32-bit OS can see - it's mathematics. If you read through the FAQ you'll see that video memory and certain ROM's are placed into memory which share the same memory space as Windows XP. The only way to increase what Windows XP 32-bit can use is to use a video card with less memory. If you move to a 256MB video card then you'll have around 3.5GB vs 3.2GB and so on. Windows XP/Vista/7 64-bit (and Servers) can address more memory. OS X (Apple) uses a different method of dealing with memory limitations by making (in laymen terms) spaces which 32-bit applications can address, which theoretically allows each program to address more than a 32-bit OS would typically allow.

[Mike-DT6]

Yes, I read it, but by the end I was still under the impression that I could be able to get the full 4GB of RAM to be available, as suggested by the example.

My motherboard was made to handle 16GB of RAM, in the same way that CyberDyneSystems' motherboard was made to handle 32GB, which I took to be the reason why it was possible to adjust things for it to make 4GB available.

Mike

:-)

[CyberDyneSystems]

It's definitely not a given that you will be able to see all the RAM,. regardless of the fixes offered to try.

From the FAQ;
"The most you can usually get is approx 3.5 but these days with modern hardware this is rare. Norms are now in the 2.5-3GB range, with some dipping below 2.5"

How much RAM do you have installed? 4GB?

And how much video RAM?

My guess is that you won't be able to free up any more... without going 64 bit.

Keep in mind, I have 8 GB of RAM on my machine, and yet in XP32 I can still only see 4GB.
If you have only 4GB, you are still limited by the amount of RAM being taken up by ROMS and Video.

[Mike-DT6]

Okay, I see now. :-) When you said in your article that you went from 2.5GB to the full 4GB I thought that 'full 4GB' meant that you had 4GB, which is what I have!

In my PC, XP still only shows 3.21GB, which is effectively the amount given at the beginning of the article, so I took that to be another suggestion that my PC was a good candidate for achieving something with the adjustments.

Anyway, it's not the end of the world. I just thought I would give it a try. I can see now that my set-up isn't capable of any more.

I am using onboard graphics (Q45 chip), so I expect that will be having an effect on things.

Mike

:-)

[CyberDyneSystems]

In all honesty Mike, that's just a theory on my part,. my answer is hazy because I'm not actually sure why it only works some of the time.
I do know that it's not a sure thing, but why?

I was mainly pointing out the RAM difference just to show there are other variables, that "may" effect it..