memory above 4 gig???

  • Thread starter Thread starter joeg561 via WindowsKB.com
  • Start date Start date
J

joeg561 via WindowsKB.com

I recently increased my memory from 2 gig to 4 gig . use pc3200 ddr2 4 x
1024 sticks. flashed my bios to the newest release . mother board sees 4 -
1024 sticks, went into vista and it sees 3.0 gig.. when I do an analysis of
computer by vista it shows four slots filled with 1024 sticks. don't share
memory with video card. it has its own 512mb.

why can't vista see and use entire 4gig???
 
joeg561 via WindowsKB.com said:
I recently increased my memory from 2 gig to 4 gig . use pc3200 ddr2 4 x
1024 sticks. flashed my bios to the newest release . mother board sees 4 -
1024 sticks, went into vista and it sees 3.0 gig.. when I do an analysis
of
computer by vista it shows four slots filled with 1024 sticks. don't share
memory with video card. it has its own 512mb.

why can't vista see and use entire 4gig???
Click to expand...

It is your motherboard, not Vista. Some motherboard chipsets have that
unfortunate limitation when four 1GB memory sticks are used.
 
according to manufacturer, abit AV8-3rd eye/AV8 supports 4 gb of ddr 400
dual channel memory
I recently increased my memory from 2 gig to 4 gig . use pc3200 ddr2 4 x
1024 sticks. flashed my bios to the newest release . mother board sees 4 -
Click to expand...
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
why can't vista see and use entire 4gig???
Click to expand...

It is your motherboard, not Vista. Some motherboard chipsets have that
unfortunate limitation when four 1GB memory sticks are used.
Click to expand...
 
yep 32 bit, does this mean that vista will not use all 4gb if it can't see it
and why doesn't vista notify people of this limitation before people spend
the money on memory. I won't go to 64 bit because of the driver and program
support problems and from all reports, 64 is not faster than 32 as of yet
Vista 32-bit?

You won't see all 4GB with ANY 32-bit OS.
I recently increased my memory from 2 gig to 4 gig . use pc3200 ddr2 4 x
1024 sticks. flashed my bios to the newest release . mother board sees 4 -
Click to expand...
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
why can't vista see and use entire 4gig???
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
ALL 4GB is being used. But not all is available for running programs.

You know, of course, that YOU bear the responsibility for understanding the
limitations of 32-bit OSs.

Search Microsoft.com or Google for the memory limitations of 32-bit OSs and you
will find thousands of explanations and discussions. Or search these
newsgroups, especially the vista.general group.

--
I Bleed Blue and Gold
GO BEARS!


joeg561 via WindowsKB.com said:
yep 32 bit, does this mean that vista will not use all 4gb if it can't see it
and why doesn't vista notify people of this limitation before people spend
the money on memory. I won't go to 64 bit because of the driver and program
support problems and from all reports, 64 is not faster than 32 as of yet
Vista 32-bit?

You won't see all 4GB with ANY 32-bit OS.
I recently increased my memory from 2 gig to 4 gig . use pc3200 ddr2 4 x
1024 sticks. flashed my bios to the newest release . mother board sees 4 -
Click to expand...
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
why can't vista see and use entire 4gig???
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
If you search around, there are a lot of places that tell you that Vista
(and other 32Bit) doesn't support more than 4GB of address space. There are
lots of articles saying why.

64Bit Vista doesn't have too many problems with hardware drivers, unless you
are running older hardware. I'm among one of the ones that hasn't had any
issues, and all drivers work fine on my 64 Bit system. Getting better every
day!

--
Dustin Harper
(e-mail address removed)
http://www.vistarip.com

--
joeg561 via WindowsKB.com said:
yep 32 bit, does this mean that vista will not use all 4gb if it can't see
it
and why doesn't vista notify people of this limitation before people spend
the money on memory. I won't go to 64 bit because of the driver and
program
support problems and from all reports, 64 is not faster than 32 as of yet
Vista 32-bit?

You won't see all 4GB with ANY 32-bit OS.
I recently increased my memory from 2 gig to 4 gig . use pc3200 ddr2 4 x
1024 sticks. flashed my bios to the newest release . mother board sees
4 -
Click to expand...
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
why can't vista see and use entire 4gig???
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Joeg561

The system memory that is reported in the System Information dialog box in
Windows Vista is less than you expect if 4 GB of RAM is installed:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605


--

Ronnie Vernon
Microsoft MVP
Windows Shell/User


joeg561 via WindowsKB.com said:
yep 32 bit, does this mean that vista will not use all 4gb if it can't see
it
and why doesn't vista notify people of this limitation before people spend
the money on memory. I won't go to 64 bit because of the driver and
program
support problems and from all reports, 64 is not faster than 32 as of yet
Vista 32-bit?

You won't see all 4GB with ANY 32-bit OS.
I recently increased my memory from 2 gig to 4 gig . use pc3200 ddr2 4 x
1024 sticks. flashed my bios to the newest release . mother board sees
4 -
Click to expand...
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
why can't vista see and use entire 4gig???
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
It is your motherboard, not Vista. Some motherboard chipsets have that
unfortunate limitation when four 1GB memory sticks are used.
Click to expand...


No, this isn't at all correct. 32-bit Vista has an address space of
4GB. However the 4GB address space has to be shared with memory used
for other devices. So Windows (not just XP but all 32-bit versions,
including 32-bit Vista) can't use that entire 4GB for itself.

How much it can use is around 3GB, but depends on what devices are
installed. It's normally a little more than 3GB. So installing more
than about 3GB of RAM is usually a waste of money.
 
why would "Vista" notify anyone of this?

it's a 32-bit thing.

the 32-bit platform has been around for a long time, and has always had this
issue.

it's not a Vista thing either, as any 32-bit version of Windows won't work
with 4 gigs of RAM.





joeg561 via WindowsKB.com said:
yep 32 bit, does this mean that vista will not use all 4gb if it can't see
it
and why doesn't vista notify people of this limitation before people spend
the money on memory. I won't go to 64 bit because of the driver and
program
support problems and from all reports, 64 is not faster than 32 as of yet
Vista 32-bit?

You won't see all 4GB with ANY 32-bit OS.
I recently increased my memory from 2 gig to 4 gig . use pc3200 ddr2 4 x
1024 sticks. flashed my bios to the newest release . mother board sees
4 -
Click to expand...
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
why can't vista see and use entire 4gig???
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
ALL 4GB is being used. But not all is available for running programs.

No it isn't. The only way to make use of that last 0.8G or so is to use the
remap facility which some BIOSs support.

If it's not remapped, it's unuseable because it occupies the same address
space as the memory-mapped I/O (such as video card, etc).

Steve
 
Ken Blake said:
No, this isn't at all correct. 32-bit Vista has an address space of
4GB. However the 4GB address space has to be shared with memory used
for other devices. So Windows (not just XP but all 32-bit versions,
including 32-bit Vista) can't use that entire 4GB for itself.

How much it can use is around 3GB, but depends on what devices are
installed. It's normally a little more than 3GB. So installing more
than about 3GB of RAM is usually a waste of money.
Click to expand...

You are correct. The best use of a four memory slot motherboard would be
two 1GB sticks and two 512MB sticks of the same sort of memory.

The real best use would probably be two 1GM sticks because Windows can run
anything promptly with that amount of memory.
 
You are correct. The best use of a four memory slot motherboard would be
two 1GB sticks and two 512MB sticks of the same sort of memory.

The real best use would probably be two 1GM sticks because Windows can run
anything promptly with that amount of memory.
Click to expand...


Anything? No, not true. If you do significant photo or video editing,
3GB of memory will very likely provide a significant performance
improvement over 2GB.
 
Ken Blake said:
Anything? No, not true. If you do significant photo or video editing,
3GB of memory will very likely provide a significant performance
improvement over 2GB.
Click to expand...

I noticed that some of the enthusiasts and pros like yourself do recommend
two 1GB and two 512MB of memory to maximize the performance without spending
for memory that will not be used.

The 3GB memory thing is an oddity and I am surprized that it has gone on
this long without a resolution.

I always see video editing being used as an example. If that many people
are really doing a lot of video editing they should be using a workstation,
not an ordinary home PC. The vast majority of people use their PC for the
internet anyhow and that does not take much horsepower.
 
RickyBobby said:
I noticed that some of the enthusiasts and pros like yourself do recommend
two 1GB and two 512MB of memory to maximize the performance without
spending for memory that will not be used.

The 3GB memory thing is an oddity and I am surprized that it has gone on
this long without a resolution.

I always see video editing being used as an example. If that many people
are really doing a lot of video editing they should be using a
workstation, not an ordinary home PC. The vast majority of people use
their PC for the internet anyhow and that does not take much horsepower.
Click to expand...
*********************************************

There ain't too much to resolve. A 32bit system (running Win, Linux, etc)
only can address 4GB.

Start with your 4g limit, and them subtract the system devices that have
memory addresses, such as:
Video Card
Sound Card
NIC card
Legacy Ports (Com / LPT)
BIOS
....and so on
And then what is left is what can be seen to the OS of the RAM installed
 
Nope, the OS is not what is causing the limitation, it is the motherboard.
Since the motherboard still has to be compatible with 32-bit OS's (not only
Windows), it has to address 4gb of memory. It then allocates hardware
starting at the top and working down. If you have 4gb of RAM in the machine,
the top part will be blocked off by the motherboard and there is nothing in
any OS that can alleviate this. If the motherboard supports loading hardware
addresses above 4gb, you can then use 32-bit Windows with PAE enabled and
you should be fine, but only some very modern motherboards allow this.
 
Back
Top