a 32 bit os can address 32 bits a second (i think thats what it means), so it can address up to 4 gigs. But some of that 4 gigs is used for your pc componets. So you would have to request alternate media from microsoft, which the request system is having problems at the moment. But I’m having the same problem as you right now, except i didn’t get the extra ram yet. i have 2 gigs at the moment.
and who needs enterprise. really. get ultimate instead.
From the Vista SP1 changelog:
“With SP1, Windows Vista will report the amount of system memory installed rather than report the amount of system memory available to the OS. Therefore 32-bit systems equipped with 4GB of RAM will report all 4BG in many places throughout the OS, such as the System Control Panel. However, this behavior is dependent on having a compatible BIOS, so not all users may notice this change.”
(cut from www.istartedsomething.com)
Hmmmmmm…
Coming in late, great post with a lot of passion.
Hey coolgamer, don’t forget that that number is 32 bits (8 bits is a byte and a byte is a single character - like a, b, c, etc.) times whatever processor speed you are using: e.g.: Celeron M 1 GHz single core processor (to keep the math easy) would look like this:
32 bits * 1 GHz/second = 32 billion bits/second or 4 billion “keyboard characters”/second.
Just think of the kind of damage a QX6850 C2E (or new QX9650) can do to a pile of data! Hmmm…, theoretically 384 billion for either of those procs.
Unfortunately, there’s a lot of bottle necks in front of this monster that slows the process down. These include - the FSB, Chipset, RAM and OS.
For all that have participated in this post - if you want to see 8 gig of RAM on a desktop running Vista you’ll need to belly up some cash for some new hardware. If you’re game…, try this on for size.
Get a mobo that has a P35 chipset or above (typically ICH9 Southbridge) - preferably X38 for gaming. Provides native addressability for 8 GB DDR2 800/1066 or 8 GB DDR3 1333 (DDR3=$$$). Pair this with the fastest C2D or C2Q/C2E processor you can afford a (read: minimum of 4 MB L2 cache) a video card that will keep up with this (like a nVidia 8800) and the fastest SATAs you can afford (any 72k/rpm 3Gb/sec drives will do) load yourself up Vista Home or above and you will see:
8 GB RAM in BIOS then, yes, in system properties you will see less. Why, cuz of most of what was discussed previously.
Windows is going to step in and take what it thinks it can get away with. This works on some sort of sliding/logrithmic scale where any day that ends in “y” it will often take more than its fair share of system resources. And, yes, all the other stuff that needs to be mapped by windows (read: operating system out of control of being in control!-), especially that darned page file, and all the other hardware devices that need a little memory fix to be happy.
However, after starting out with 8 gig you should end up somewhere in the mid 6 to low 7 gig range of available “physical” memory. You should also end up with a WEI score (Windows Experience Index) between 5.8 and 5.9 (yeah buddy!)
So, if you happen to have a few thousand dollars laying around, give it a try.
It works!
anyone think that possibly in 10 years ram will not even been used when large capacity very fast solid state drives replace hard disk.
Thanks Jeff,
Very clearly explained for a Dutch noob like me, who is just wondering which Vista to buy (32 vs 64) and how much memory - answer = 32 bit, with 3 gig Kingston. Best rgds, Berend.
Read this entire post, phew !
Lots of info on this, but lots of arguments also… Nice !!!
Can someone summarise this ?
From this I can see that you should not go for 4GB or more unless you get a 64bit CPU and a 64bit OS - XP64(God forbid) or Vista and have a nice chipset, probably the latest ones from Intel - say X38. Right ?
I wonder what the maximum amount of RAM is which could ever concievably be inserted into a motherboard, considering … lets say about 2**64 atoms per gram of silicon? Something tells me that the current 64-bit architecture will eventually be replaced by quantum computers using qbits, and a typical laptop will be running with about 640 qbits of RAM (640 qbits should be enough for anybody!).
In my case, XP reports physical memory of just over 3GB on my 4GB system. Can I configure the other 1GB as a Ram disk?
wow - i’ve read all the comments and I’m even more confused. I liked Griffiths explanation in the above comments but i’m still clueless on what OS i should get.
I’ll be getting a quad core over-clocked to say 3GHz and have 4 gigs of ram and an 8800gtx 512mb graphics card. Now i think I’ll stick with a 32bit OS to avoid any present software compatibility and driver problems - but should i still consider the 64bit OS?
Well here I am 8 months after the original article and the comments assuring me that “with Vista, x64 is a first-class citizen”.
And guess what?
Apple’s shiny new iPod Touch, a popular gift with geeks this year, supports Vista32 but doesn’t support Vista64.
Quote from the current “iPod Compatibility Chart” at http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=60971
(in light-grey smallprint in footnote 4 at the bottom of the table):
“This excludes Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, Windows XP Professional x64 Edition, and 64-bit editions of Windows Vista.”
Shame they didn’t mention this little detail on the iPod Touch tech specs page.
Looks like Vista64 is turning out to be a second-class citizen again.
Only problem is, some people may have the an older DDR dual channel chipset board like I do, and if they install only 3 GB of memory (say, 3 sticks of 1 GB each), then they lose the benefit of dual channel memory bandwidth performance. That’s why I went with 4 1GB sticks, even though Vista and XP only sees around 3.25 GB. I wanted the the dual channel performance boost, and that 4th stick acts as a “place holder” to guarantee that those other 3 sticks run at full DDR dual channel bandwidth. Hey, without it, an odd number of sticks runs at 1GB/second slower! Anyway, at least Vista XP both see 3GB + 256MB, (3.25 GB) so that last 4th stick is not a total loss.
well this is a lengthy thread indeed and people still posting, still confused. There are posters speaking in very authoritative tones on the inability of any 32bit OS to address 4GB of RAM, yet all OS vendors claiming they do in some or all releases, and servers out there with 4GB RAM running as we speak, on 32 bit OS, believe who you will.
BUT Is not this whole discussion forgetting one important aspect of modern processors? More than one core, or multi-cpu machines, is this the actual answer to servers getting more than 4GB addressed?
A niche group of people newly discovering this genre of problems have done so as a result of comparing their Windows Experience scores generated by Vista. Discovering my machine’s memory is reported below 4GB has indeed given me the necessary knowledge of and motivation to research the phenomenon. After discovering the cause, I do not regret acquiring the inexpensive 4(1 GB) sticks.
My logic is this:
Windows Kernel, from what I have read, likes to take roughly half of my ~4 GB of memory for itself, leaving the other two for applications. What would happen with only 2 GB total memory available? Would our dear Kernel still requisition half for itself, leaving only 1 GB for applications? If this is the case, I would feel better having a full 2 GB available for applications (I game as a side to working with Photoshop, databases, and AutoCAD).
If my logic is misguided or nave, please post a response to educate me on the fallout of such a scenario.
Regardless, with a 640 MB video card installed, I would rather have as much memory available for it to map into and still have sufficient space left for the OS and applications.
If people are getting hung up over the mere reporting scheme Microsoft’s OSs use to report available memory, well, Microsoft has heard them.
“With SP1, Windows Vista will report the amount of system memory installed rather than report the amount of system memory available to the OS. Therefore 32-bit systems equipped with 4GB of RAM will report all 4GB in many places throughout the OS, such as the System Control Panel. However, this behavior is dependent on having a compatible BIOS, so not all users may notice this change. “
Onepair –
From what I have gathered, you are correct. From a Microsoft KB article I cannot cite at the moment, a 256MB video card will take as much off the top of installed physical memory. To the loss are added other sub-OS system functions such as PCI device overheads.
Read my post directly above for my concern: if a system has only 2GB installed, for example, will the Kernel still take a half for itself, on top of what was taken out by before the OS got involved?
Bascule –
From what I have read, a server accessing over 4GB of physical memory has nothing to do with its processor count, but instead with how its OS handles PAE and, ultimately, hardware-enforced DEP.
From Microsoft MSDN Library’s Memory Limits for Windows Releases (http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx): Every 32-bit Server release is capable of using 4GB, save for: Server 2008 Standard; Web Server 2008; Storage Server 2003; Server 2003 R2, Standard Edition; Server 2003, Standard Edition SP1; Server 2003, Standard Edition; Server 2003, Web Edition; and SBS 2003.
None of those systems are allowing 4GB with the stipulation of multiple processors (or processor cores). However, a few systems are listed (probably other beyond those listed) as capped at eight total processors (I’m assuming 8 actual processor chips, not cores).
(Microsoft, http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/pae_os.mspx)
Very nice -
For the common man, get 32 bit and 4gigs and let the “pros” haggle
with what they will. RAM is cheap and 2x512 is @ same $ as 2x1024
One thing, from my readings it looks like people are saying that
the “system” (buses…etc) are using the non-appearing ram and what
you see left is for the OS/Apps. So, wouldn’t that mean that the
"whole" of the ram(4096) is actually being used, you just can’t see it?
Before I try this I thought I would ask a couple of questions (before we start…I am NO guru when it comes to computers, so bear with me please).
I run Vista64 with a total of 8GB, shows 3.83GB. Total VM of 9.58Gb, shows 5.94GB.
I’m trying to run Autodesk Inventor (32) and have a large assembly that “dumps” in the (roughly) 4GB area. I imagine I’m hitting the 4GB “limit”.
I’ve seen where adding /PAE will get me the full 4GB, but what about the other 4GB above that. Will I ever be able to access the full 8GB with Inventor?
Sorry for any “stupidity” on this, but I’m on a “non-supported” machine at the company I work for…so I’m the IT guy for this (and yes, we’re in trouble).
Thanks
Jim -
If you are running an x64 version of Vista, it should be expressing the availability of the 8GB (minus anything mapped into memory before the OS). Granted, what is mapped should be far less than 1 GB. What are some other components in your system (i.e. any GPU devices with large amounts of memory)? I will be in a position this Friday to see if my 640MB GPU will actually map 640MB into memory on boot, so I will know more about this possibility then.
Autodesk programs I believe are all multi-threaded with support for well over 8GB of RAM, so there should be no problems rooted in your application.
Again, if you are running any 64-bit OS, you should have access to your memory with no special boot options/switches (such as Physical Address Extension).
Step 1) Reconfirm your OS is truly 64-bit.
Step 2) Determine if your computer is mapping large video memory into system memory (if you have any big cards locally on your machine).
A very useful post. But I think if you want to map physical memory directly, prevent system paging your application memory to disk, or require more memory on 32-bit windows system, you can try to use AWE (address windowing extensions) API.
i have found a way for windows vista 32bit to see all 4 gb ram contact me on msn at ianshinobi@hotmail.com i can explain on how you might fix the problem