Anybody know?

***zebadee*** · #1 04-12-2008, 06:36 PM

Hi

Anybody know why 32 bit OS's seem incapable of reconising 4GB of RAM or more.
Can't this be patched?
Not that it's a problem for me.
With my Vista Ultimate 64 bit.

**Charlie** · #2 04-12-2008, 06:52 PM

Has to do with the OS I think? MS should be able to pop out a hotfix for it I would think.

***zebadee*** · #3 04-12-2008, 06:57 PM

	Quote:			Originally Posted by Charlie
	Has to do with the OS I think? MS should be able to pop out a hotfix for it I would think.

Hi

This I know.

However if it was quickfixable (is there such a word? ).
Why haven't they done it.
Unless it is part of the "make you migrate to 64 bit" plan.

**oldjoe** · #4 04-12-2008, 07:09 PM

The limitation is determined by the software but not entirely. It is also dependent on the CPU capabilities. If I remember correctly, that limitation was originally applied because of hardware limitations.
Edit: I did some searching of my feeble mind and this is the best I can recall.
The reason that the OS cannot support more than 4GB is because of "memory mapping". Once it gets to the limit of 4GB it starts to allocate ram to the video cards and other devices. If you had a 512MB video card, you would see a minimum of 512MB reduction from available ram, if you had a 1GB video card, you would see a minimum of 1GB reduction from available ram and so on.
I read this on another forum:

	Quote:			Originally Posted by Masaki 7-11
	There is actually a way to get more than 4GB on a 32 bit operating system (and make it see all the ram); it is done through hardware memory mapping (instead of software) and is found mostly on servers for now. The 800 series of AMD chipsets are supposed to have hardware memory mapping on it making it so you can use 32-bit OS for any amount of ram as long as it is within the limits of the memory mapper and memory controller.

I also found this link that explains it technically:
Ask Dan: What's with the 3Gb memory barrier?

***simple*** · #5 04-13-2008, 02:04 AM

i thought they would have at least sorted this with vista at least get all the 4 gig showing aswell as the graphics etc, there is nothing more annoying than viewing 3.25 gig of ram knowing i splashed out on 4 decent sticks.

i thought vista ultimate 32 bit did but i have just found out that it just displays the same as xp did very dissapointing indeed this makes me want a 64bit version even more now. you think M/$ would have learned from xp but obviously it is a money market and they know it will push more people to 64bit operating systems aswell

another question i have is i know vista uses about 1 gig of ram on a regular install how much of this can you pull back by tweaking the settings and disabling a few things?

**Nextburner** · #6 04-13-2008, 02:12 AM

I just Vlited Vista 64 removed IE7 media player all non needed stuff like windows mail ect basically I completely stripped Vista 64 down and installed it.

the difference in ram usage was 978 with the full vista 64 install and 752 with the stripped version so IMHO even with tweaks your not going to gain much of anything LOL

***simple*** · #7 04-13-2008, 02:19 AM

have you tried disabling superfecth nextburner? to see how much this saves or will you try it

Ultimate DVDR Forums - View Single Post - vLite - Windows Vista configuration tool

**Nextburner** · #8 04-13-2008, 03:02 AM

	Quote:			Originally Posted by simple
	have you tried disabling superfecth nextburner? to see how much this saves or will you try it Ultimate DVDR Forums - View Single Post - vLite - Windows Vista configuration tool

I removed super fetch in my Vlited version LOL but I will have a look Simple thanks.

slytrans69 · #9 07-28-2008, 04:38 PM

Enable the "Memory Hole" in the BIOS.