4Gb of Memory with 32-bit Vista? Possible?

crewxp · Sep 24, 2007

Hey, quick question. Is running 4gb of memory with 32-bit vista possible?

I can't run 64-bit, as the iphone isn't compatible with it... so I'm stuck with 32-bit.

Is there any way to install 4gb of memory, and still use the 4gb?

Thanks.

crewxp · Sep 24, 2007

haha, just saw the thread below me. Is Vista any different than XP in this issue?

runswindows95 · Sep 25, 2007

All 32-bit OS's max out at 3GB roughly. Far as fixes, if you search the forums, many solutions were posted.

yamla · Sep 25, 2007

runswindows95 is incorrect. I am running a 32-bit OS and have full access to my 4 GB of memory:

Linux greed 2.6.20-16-server #2 SMP Fri Aug 31 01:01:45 UTC 2007 i686 GNU/Linux
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 4148616 3911308 237308 0 59204 3235500
-/+ buffers/cache: 616604 3532012
Swap: 2104472 1936 2102536

plguzman · Sep 25, 2007

Well, you can read and see that he is talking about 32bit VISTA, no Linux. If was your intention to point that Linux can handle 4gb in 32bit, then good for you.

yamla · Sep 25, 2007

No, my intention was to point out that runswindows95 was incorrect when he stated that all 32-bit OS's max out at 3 GB. Windows XP SP2 maxes out around there as does Vista (32-bit). This is not a limitation fundamental to 32-bit OS's, though, and that was my only point. I'm sure other 32-bit operating systems also do not suffer from a 3 GB limitation.

In the Microsoft world, though, you'll need to go for a 64-bit OS.

hibye19013 · Sep 25, 2007

to answer the question: yes you can use 4 GB of memory in any 32-bit OS. 4GB is the limit with 32-bit

yamla · Sep 25, 2007

hibye19013 is incorrect. Vista and Windows XP SP2 will limit you to around 3 GB of RAM in their 32-bit flavours. You may be able to access a little more or a little less but it'll be around 3 GB.

firemist · Sep 25, 2007

@yamla

If you are running ANY of the standard motherboards in your system you do not have 4G of RAM available. You have 4G of address space (as does windows xp and vista) but just like those systems you cannot use all of it. The hardware uses memory mapping to communicate and will take part of the address space to do it. It does not matter what OS you are running.

If you look hard enough you will discover that those address are shown as "used" in your system.

yamla · Sep 25, 2007

I am using a fairly bog-standard Gigabyte K8NXP-SLI motherboard. I have 4 GB of RAM and I can use 4148616K of that. Granted, that's a little over 45 megs under the 4GB limit but don't forget that the operating system needs some of that space, etc. etc.

Still, 45 megs is really just a rounding error when you are talking about 4 GB. And given that this 45 megs is actually in use anyway (by the operating system), I think it is fair to say that I am able to use my 4 GB.

Right now, I'm using 3784784 K of my 4 GB.

zenmaster · Sep 25, 2007

yamla :

Not entirely true, you will just need some of the Server Versions of the Windows OS.
I presume MS has artificially limited Windows to the 4gb limit to increase sales of their more expensive OSes.

Note: You could also run XP SP0 (Perhaps SP1) and still get access to all 4gb if you use PAE. PAE is how Linux and the other bypass the 4gb limit on "32-bit" OS versions.

yamla · Sep 25, 2007

Zenmaster is correct about PAE. I believe their 32-bit consumer OS's were limited to around 3 GB, though, because they couldn't fix the driver issues.

I'm not sure that running a server version of Windows is a reasonable alternative for home users, particularly for gamers. I think you are better off going with the 64-bit version of Vista and just accepting that this is not a great option at the moment either. Still, if you have only 4 GB, you may be better served by going with a 32-bit Windows OS and just accepting that you are throwing away 1 GB or so of your RAM. It's certainly the option with the least hassle.

runswindows95 · Sep 25, 2007

Then again, the OP was asking about Windows, not Linux. I well aware that 32-bit Linux can use 4GB, but I didn't think the OP needed to know that because he was asking about MS anyway.

plguzman · Sep 25, 2007

yamla :

Anyway, Vista 64 is an awesome system. I would recommend to anybody installing a new OS to go 64. I forgot what a BSOD is, and I'm a heavy gamer. The only issue with the 64bit Vista is the driver signature thing, and there are workarounds for that. Even Rivatuner is signed now.

If you have a retail version of Windows Vista and you got only the 32bit version, you could ask Microsoft to ship the 64bit version to you for under $10.

zenmaster · Sep 25, 2007

yamla :

Oh I agree, It's not a home user's system, but I just like proving people wrong who try to act smart.

While Linux is a fine OS, it's not really the best choice for the Home User for a number of reasons.
Even Linux vendors will tell you that, so long as you don't ask a rabid MS hater.

Though you can play alot of games on Linux using Wine, life is much simpler with Windows.
And yes, I have 4 Linux systems in my Home Office.

I'm not a hater or proponent of Linux or Windows.
They both have their place.

niz · Sep 25, 2007

>> Anyway, Vista 64 is an awesome system.

Uhh no it REALLY isn't. I'm running it right now and its total crap compared to XP. It uses nearly half of my 2GB of ram even without any apps running. Everything runs much slower under vista than XP and since downgrading from XP to vista I can't play my own DVD's any more as vista whines about DRM paths.

Vista also uses 11GB of disk space compared to 2GB for XP, and it seems to be doing all sorts of network traffic that I haven't asked it to do, so god knows what Microsoft is up to. Ans before anyone suggests, No I don't have a virus.

If it wasn't for lack of DX10 support I'd go back to XP in a heartbeat.

enewmen · Sep 25, 2007

I beg to differ. For me, Vista 64 doesn't "suck".
Yes, it's a memory hog. However, after upgrading all drivers, installing patches, etc, all my old software runs fairly well. Even high tech games (made before Vista) like GRAW and Oblivion. Never had a DVD problem. The big news is after having it for 7+ months, I never had to re-install windows and rarely had to reboot.
Vista 32 will have a VERY short life, so I never suggest getting that-The worst of both worlds.
The only reason why I upgraded to Vista 64 quickly (from XP) was I wanted built-in support for RAID5 drivers.
What Microsoft "can" do, but won't, is make a Vista 64 Lean- just have a stripped OS with DX10 and none of the bloat.
BTW, I have 4 gigs and can use all 4 gigs. No surprise.

bornking · Sep 25, 2007

@ niz: I think you need to compare XP when it was relatively new to Vista 64. Not the current SP2 with fixes and updates to a virgin Vista 64.

I only say this because XP sucked when it was new, and I am running XP32 and Vista64 ultimate and vista is faster...in only the programs I have installed on it (office 07, photoshop, etc.) I know there are limitations but it is a new OS so give it time.

P.S. I am not a windows fan boy.

plguzman · Sep 25, 2007

"Uhh no it REALLY isn't. I'm running it right now and its total crap compared to XP. It uses nearly half of my 2GB of ram even without any apps running. Everything runs much slower under vista than XP and since downgrading from XP to vista I can't play my own DVD's any more as vista whines about DRM paths. "

Well, runs ok for me... I even turned off the pagefile and my Vista NOW (I just played 1 hour of World in Conflict, and came back to check the post) is using 1.6Gb (39%). Sure, it's a lot, but with 4gb you are just fine.

And regarding the speed, I have to say that Vista is much more responsive. Maybe it's just me, but what I just told you is absolutely true.

zenmaster · Sep 25, 2007

Well, Vista is not bad, but it's different than XP and you need to know what to expect.

1) It will take more resources to run. Vista 64 even more than Vista 32.
If your system is not up to snuff, it will not be the best way to go.

2) Vista 32 will have less support than XP for hardware software. Vista 64 even less. If you have older harderware and/or software it may not be the best option unless you dual boot.

3) Vista 64, with sufficient resources will be the future and provides more potential power then XP. Its the present for some but future for all.

notherdude · Sep 25, 2007

niz :

87% FUD!

hmm, I play 'my own' DVDs just fine on Vista. On WMP no less.

Disk space is cheap. 11 gig, sheesh, who cares?

Vista is 'using' 2 gig of my 4 gig with nothing but my browser running, OMG, it's killing my RAM, or maybe it's just doing massive precahching so my usual stuff will open instantly? Yea, that's it. I know, it does need more RAM than XP but not THAT much more. And so what? OS advance and need more resources, that's the way it goes.

About the 4 gig 32 bit problem, PAE, as I understnad it, is a hack, and it didn't work well when tried on xp 32 bit. 32 bit OS's are fundamentaly limited to 4 gig addressable memory, no matter the OS. Which means you will only be able to use about 3 gig of your system RAM if you have 4 installed. For really using your 4 gig you need to go 64.

32 bit OS will 'use' 4 gig of memory, sure, but some of that 4 gig is not your system RAM, it is your video RAM and other devices which have RAM on them, so you are not using 4 gig of your 'system RAM' i.e. the stuff you put in the slots. Reason being 32 bit OS can only 'address 4 gig total'. MS is not ripping us off on this! I'm pretty sure MAC is same and I thought LInux too. But I have no personal experience with it. I simply installed Linux 64.

If there is a way around this on Linux 32 then great, similar to PAE I'd guess, I bet it ain't optimal but I'm open to learning more. EDIT: Googling linux32 and 4 gig I se there is a 'hugemem' kernal on some distros which will use the 4 gig but it is usually referred to as a 'nasty hack' with a heavy performance penalty.

Anyway MS will give you 64 bit ver of your OS for a nominal fee and this is THE PROPER way to use 4 gig and above.

zenmaster · Sep 25, 2007

NotherDude,

Read a little about PAE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension

You will clearly see that it's a complete fallacy that 32-Bit Operating Systems can only address 4gb of RAM.

No, it's not a Hack.
The "32-Bit" CPUs were physically changed years and years ago to allow for 36-Bit addressing and the "32-Bit" operating systems were also written to support the 36-Bit addressing.

The main "issue" with PAE is lack of testing by developers.
Probably many who even lacked systems to test with large amounts of RAM.

The issue still continues today with 64-bit code.
Here is a RANT about such things.
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/Linus-Torvalds,news-26094.html

plguzman · Sep 25, 2007

I had just 1 problem when I upgraded from XP to Vista 64, and it was the printer driver. HP didn't make a Vista driver, but is compatable with another printer's driver in Vista, so it worked.

All my software run, even games that are 3 years old.

notherdude · Sep 25, 2007

zenmaster :

OK, I'm open to this. But I read that Wiki article and it didn't really say that much about PAE to address the many disparaging things I have read about it.. From the article:

Enabling PAE (by setting bit 5, PAE, of the system control register CR4) causes major changes to this scheme. By default, the size of each page remains as 4 KiB. Each entry in the page table and page directory is extended to 64 bits (8 bytes) rather than 32 to allow for additional address bits; the table size does not change, however, so each table now has only 512 entries. Because this allows only a quarter as many entries as the original scheme, an extra level of hierarchy must be added, so CR3 now points to the Page Directory Pointer Table, a short table which contains pointers to . .

Are you saying that a whole new software mapping layer comes without a performance penalty or other problems? If not I would call it a hack. It certainly sounds at least like a 'way around' what is a fundamental limitation of the 32 bit OS to address more than 4 gig. No?. A bit like the old DOS situation.

Not to argue. I'm happy to admit I am really only repeating what I have heard and read and I'd be happy to stand down on this but I need more than that Wiki. This stuff is a little beyond my full understanding.

dengamle · Sep 25, 2007

PAE adds a little bit overhead, but not much.

The page lookup in 64-bit is even more complex than PAE

4Gb of Memory with 32-bit Vista? Possible?

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Splendid

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Splendid

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Splendid

Distinguished

Splendid

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Share this page