Vista Tutorial - Does vista support 4gb or not

some say that vista 32 bit only supports 2 gigs of RAM some say 4GB of RAM. I
have a 8800GTS and am getting 4GB G skill RAM and was wondering if the 4 GB
only wrks on the 64 bit processor or the 32 bit aswell????

Im lost guys please tell me from experience wich is it?????

"Batz305" <Batz305@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote
> some say that vista 32 bit only supports 2 gigs of RAM

Those that say that are wrong.

> some say 4GB of RAM.

That is correct.

> I have a 8800GTS and am getting 4GB G skill RAM and was wondering if the 4
> GB
> only wrks on the 64 bit processor or the 32 bit aswell????
>
> Im lost guys please tell me from experience wich is it?????

A 32bit OS, including XP and Vista, can address up to 4GB of RAM, however
some of that RAM is used by hardware devices, so what is seen in the OS, if
4GB is installed, is somewhere between 2.7 and 3.5 GB, approx. If you want
to use all four GB for the OS then you'll need a 64bit OS.

--
Rock [MS-MVP User/Shell]

with 32 bit and 4 gigs of ram you will only see about 3.2
with 64 bit and 4 gigs of ram you should see all 4 gigs.
one other variable is the motherboard.
"Batz305" <Batz305@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B237443E-98FF-43C9-879F-73D6343DF36E@microsoft.com...
> some say that vista 32 bit only supports 2 gigs of RAM some say 4GB of
> RAM. I
> have a 8800GTS and am getting 4GB G skill RAM and was wondering if the 4
> GB
> only wrks on the 64 bit processor or the 32 bit aswell????
>
> Im lost guys please tell me from experience wich is it?????

On Tue, 29 May 2007 20:09:00 -0700, Batz305
<Batz305@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>some say that vista 32 bit only supports 2 gigs of RAM



Those who say that are incorrect.


>some say 4GB of RAM. I



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.



>have a 8800GTS and am getting 4GB G skill RAM and was wondering if the 4 GB
>only wrks on the 64 bit processor or the 32 bit aswell????
>
>Im lost guys please tell me from experience wich is it?????

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

Hello Ken

As you mentioned, 1GB is used for hardware. You also mentioned that
installing more than GAB of RAM is a waste of money.

So, the question is, are there any benefits for Windows allocating GAB of
RAM for hardware? If not, why does it do it?




"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.am.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:tg9r53tl0fvqiothh8ij11n2deug5s7d5e@4ax.com...
>
> 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.
>

Lets try again without spell-check defaulting to change!

Hello Ken

As you mentioned, 1GB is used for hardware. You also mentioned that
installing more than 3GB of RAM is a waste of money.

So, the question is, are there any benefits for Windows allocating 1GB of
RAM for hardware? If not, why does it do it?


>
> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.am.invalid.domain> wrote in message
> news:tg9r53tl0fvqiothh8ij11n2deug5s7d5e@4ax.com...
>>
>> 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.
>>
>

"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?

--
Regards,

Rick Raisley

On Wed, 30 May 2007 18:51:29 +0100, "Haydon" <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>Lets try again without spell-check defaulting to change!
>
>Hello Ken
>
>As you mentioned, 1GB is used for hardware. You also mentioned that
>installing more than 3GB of RAM is a waste of money.
>
>So, the question is, are there any benefits for Windows allocating 1GB of
>RAM for hardware? If not, why does it do it?



No it doesn't allocate any RAM at all. It uses about 1GB of the
available 4GB address space. So the address space just isn't there for
more than about 3GB to use.

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

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

The OS is not allocating the memory. Let me see if I can explain this.
In the old model, the processor at a RAM buss and an I/O buss, and
the OS could use all the RAM. In the new model, many devices
actually look like "RAM" to do OS. It reads a certain memory address
and it gets the value of some device, instead of memory, or it writes
to a certain memory address and it sets the value of some device.
The mother board manufacturer, and perhiperal manufactures all
have a hand in using memory for I/O. Since a 32 bit processor can only
access 4 gigs of RAM, if you put 4 gigs in, some of the address space
will be stolen by the memory mapped hardware. If you have a 64 bit
processor, there are plenty of memory addresses to go around, and
everyone is happy.

Note this is very simplified, and there is really no new model, as memory
addressed hardware has been around forever, but in the past, it was
rare to be able to get enough RAM for this to be a problem.

-- Larry Maturo


"Haydon" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:V8adnbPS64InJMDbnZ2dneKdnZypnZ2d@pipex.net...
> Lets try again without spell-check defaulting to change!
>
> Hello Ken
>
> As you mentioned, 1GB is used for hardware. You also mentioned that
> installing more than 3GB of RAM is a waste of money.
>
> So, the question is, are there any benefits for Windows allocating 1GB of
> RAM for hardware? If not, why does it do it?
>
>
>>
>> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.am.invalid.domain> wrote in message
>> news:tg9r53tl0fvqiothh8ij11n2deug5s7d5e@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>