Ken Blake, MVP

On Wed, 30 May 2007 14:26:28 -0400, "Rick Raisley"
<heavymetal-A-T-bellsouth-D-O-T-net> wrote:

>"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.am.invalid.domain> wrote in message
>news:tg9r53tl0fvqiothh8ij11n2deug5s7d5e@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 29 May 2007 20:09:00 -0700, Batz305
>> <Batz305@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>>
>> That is correct. 32-bit XP can use up to 4GB. However the 4GB address
>> space has to be shared with memory used for other devices. So Windows
>> (all 32-bit versions) 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.
>>
>
>I've heard that too. But if Windows has to allocate close to 1 GB of memory
>for other purposes when you have 4 GB of memory, wouldn't that be the case
>with 3 GB as well? That is, wouldn't it always take the 1 GB? If it
>/doesn't/ use it when you have 3 GB of memory, why does it have to with 4?



See the reply I just sent to Haydon.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup