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

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.

Zepher wrote in post #4861761
Explain this,

You don't have a laptop.

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...

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.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

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

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.

cosworth wrote in post #4862910
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.c​om/systems/a20080218PD​210.html

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

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.

chauncey wrote in post #5006289
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"?

BigBlueDodge wrote in post #4846594
...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.

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.

For those considering going beyond the 4gb limit with a 64bit windoz based OS, the following read might be of interest: http://www6.tomshardwa​re.com …ista_workshop/p​age12.html

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.

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.

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.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #4757963

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