Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Can Vista Process More Than 2gb?


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 reflex2326

reflex2326

  • Members
  • 11 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:04:15 AM

Posted 23 August 2007 - 06:57 PM

i know xp doesnt use more than 2g of ram, does vista

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 Mr Alpha

Mr Alpha

  • Members
  • 1,875 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Finland
  • Local time:11:15 AM

Posted 23 August 2007 - 07:07 PM

The 64-bit versions of Vista can address from 8GB to 128GB+ depending on version. The 32 bit versions have the same limits as XP.
"Anyone who cannot form a community with others, or who does not need to because he is self-sufficient [...] is either a beast or a god." Aristotle
Intel Core 2 Quad | XFX 780i SLI | 8GB Corsair | Gigabyte GeForce 8800GTX | Auzentech X-Fi Prelude| Logitech G15 | Logitech MX Revolution | LG Flatron L2000C | Logitech Z-5500 Digital

#3 mand0

mand0

  • Members
  • 144 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northern Virginia, USA
  • Local time:04:15 AM

Posted 23 August 2007 - 10:27 PM

i know xp doesnt use more than 2g of ram, does vista


Not quite. Here's some reading for you, here and here.

#4 xx66stangxx

xx66stangxx

  • Members
  • 139 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:O.C.
  • Local time:12:15 AM

Posted 24 August 2007 - 12:16 AM

i currently have 4gb of RAM on my Vista x64, runs fine without any BIOS changes

#5 usasma

usasma

    Still visually handicapped (avatar is memory developed by my Dad


  • BSOD Kernel Dump Expert
  • 25,091 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southeastern CT, USA
  • Local time:04:15 AM

Posted 24 August 2007 - 06:18 AM

I have 4 gB of RAM on 2 Vista 32 bit systems now, and it's working just fine. Both systems only admit to 3.326 gB of RAM, but there are no issues with running programs or operating.
My browser caused a flood of traffic, sio my IP address was banned. Hope to fix it soon. Will get back to posting as soon as Im able.

- John  (my website: http://www.carrona.org/ )**If you need a more detailed explanation, please ask for it. I have the Knack. **  If I haven't replied in 48 hours, please send me a message. My eye problems have recently increased and I'm having difficult reading posts. (23 Nov 2017)FYI - I am completely blind in the right eye and ~30% blind in the left eye.<p>If the eye problems get worse suddenly, I may not be able to respond.If that's the case and help is needed, please PM a staff member for assistance.

#6 RandomUser

RandomUser

  • Members
  • 518 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:04:15 AM

Posted 25 August 2007 - 12:34 AM

Ok let's make a correction of two

The gentleman speaking about the correct useable space is somewhat correct. XP has a limit of 2gb Virtual Address Space, and and 2gb kernel address space foe the purposes of use. You may change this to 3gb and 1gb using a switch in the boot loader.

this page is just a reference. MS if you read this, I nested deep in the site for accuracy.
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx

here is the KB
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605

Backing of this
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/291988

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms791558.aspx

So it is true, and important to know how to use it.
In some form or fashion 32bit vista can use 6gb in total. two gigs are relocated in some fashion to make this work.
The MS Article didn't provide enough info so I'm left with having to reply when they fix that. I filled the survey question
on that aricle so it would be corrected hopefully. Will post If I see a change.

#7 usasma

usasma

    Still visually handicapped (avatar is memory developed by my Dad


  • BSOD Kernel Dump Expert
  • 25,091 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southeastern CT, USA
  • Local time:04:15 AM

Posted 10 December 2007 - 05:59 PM

Here's a link that states that the use of the PAE (Physical Address Extension) can enable 32 bit versions of Windows to use more than 4 gB of physical memory: http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366796.aspx

With PAE enabled, the operating system moves from two-level linear address translation to three-level address translation. The extra layer of translation provides access to physical memory beyond 4 GB. Instead of a linear address being split into three separate fields for indexing into memory tables, it is split into four separate fields: a 2-bit field, two 9-bit fields, and a 12-bit field that corresponds to the page size implemented by Intel Architecture (4 KB).


Following the BCD Edit link ( http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=93291 ) leads you to a page that discusses the implementation of PAE when the system boots or with hot swappable memory (only available in Server OS's now). It sends us to this link that RandomUser already posted: http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid&ID=929605

That link discusses (in the More Information section) the problems with using PAE - and the consequent driver failures that may occur. And it states that DMA transfers and memory allocation are the most common problems caused by it.

Not a nice picture - but it sure makes me want to try it out. FWIW - the article also states that the maximum memory available will be 3.12 gB - on my system I've got 3.26 gB, so I'm not sure of the validity of it all.
My browser caused a flood of traffic, sio my IP address was banned. Hope to fix it soon. Will get back to posting as soon as Im able.

- John  (my website: http://www.carrona.org/ )**If you need a more detailed explanation, please ask for it. I have the Knack. **  If I haven't replied in 48 hours, please send me a message. My eye problems have recently increased and I'm having difficult reading posts. (23 Nov 2017)FYI - I am completely blind in the right eye and ~30% blind in the left eye.<p>If the eye problems get worse suddenly, I may not be able to respond.If that's the case and help is needed, please PM a staff member for assistance.

#8 steelhoof

steelhoof

  • Members
  • 8 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:12:15 AM

Posted 27 December 2007 - 07:41 PM

I am reminded of the LIM memory tricks of the 80's. They allowed more memory in DOS, but never as a native actuality. The result was better performance for big spreadsheets and such, but not much else was helped. If you need more ram, then use 64bit hardware with an OS that will support it natively. Seriously consider something NOT produced by Microsoft. :huh:




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users