4gb ram + o/s

mattbrown91 · 2 Aug 2008 at 16:50

helmutcheese said:
XP64 = least MS supported OS ever.

Windows ME ?

ste_bla · 2 Aug 2008 at 21:10

Hmm

So will XP be able to fully work with 4gb (in total ram) as I've just found out an old retail copy [of xp] or shold I order vista (64?) ?

Lakeland · 2 Aug 2008 at 22:16

iirc, standard xp (ie not 64bit) can only take 3gb max, i could be wrong though, can someone confirm..

Fire Wizard · 2 Aug 2008 at 22:41

If you are using a 32-bit operating system which has an addressing range of 4GB, because devices such as your graphics card need to me mapped into the same addressing range to that of your physical memory, the amount of memory the system will be able to address will be less than 4GB. There is no "actual" amount a 32-bit system will be able to utilise; it is dependent on the hardware configuration of that particular system.

However, if you are using a 32-bit operating system and are looking at install 4GB of physical memory, you will or certainly shouldn't experience any problems due to that but as said, you will not be able to utilise all of the memory that you do have installed.

Phil2112 · 2 Aug 2008 at 23:07

However, if you are using a 32-bit operating system and are looking at install 4GB of physical memory, you will or certainly shouldn't experience any problems due to that but as said, you will not be able to utilise all of the memory that you do have installed.

Just had a look at my systems properties and it says "3.25GB of RAM",even though I have 4GB installed.I'm running windows XP home edtion that I had installed by OC so your right Fire Wizzard.I thought Vista had the problem with reading how much memory you had,,,,,,,shows what I know then!!!!!!!!! lol

Fire Wizard · 2 Aug 2008 at 23:14

Phil2112 said:
I thought Vista had the problem with reading how much memory you had

Hiya Phil2112, would you care to elaborate on the above please? I'm just interested to know what you actually mean.

Aod · 3 Aug 2008 at 00:01

Fire Wizard said:
Hiya Phil2112, would you care to elaborate on the above please? I'm just interested to know what you actually mean.

its not a "problem", its just that vista 32 can only utilise about 3.5 GB of ramzors, even if it shows more since SP1

PhoenixUK · 3 Aug 2008 at 02:53

Well vista 64 is still very tricky with drivers and some stuff, and you cant argue with that.

I've got both vista ultimate and old good xp pro 32 on my systems.

Even tho vista got fixed a lot of stuff recently I still somehow prefer the XP.

Obviously vista didnt impress me with anything, apart from it showing me 4gb instead of 3.5gb memory and supporting DX10 there is nothing special about it.

I guess I'll have to move onto it with my next 12GB DDR3 nehalem system but I guess everything will be just perfect by that time ;-)

.

helmutcheese · 3 Aug 2008 at 02:58

mattbrown91 said:
Windows ME ?

Nope although a Pre Alpha POS released as a new OS it was still Win 9x and could use their drivers.

marc2003 · 3 Aug 2008 at 03:07

PhoenixUK said:
Well vista 64 is still very tricky with drivers and some stuff, and you cant argue with that.

erm yes i can argue with that.

if the hardware you have doesn't have vista64 bit drivers by now (18 months since consumer release) then it's sub standard support you're getting from your hardware vendor.

lokkers · 3 Aug 2008 at 10:39

Phil2112 said:
Just had a look at my systems properties and it says "3.25GB of RAM",even though I have 4GB installed.I'm running windows XP home edtion that I had installed by OC so your right Fire Wizzard.I thought Vista had the problem with reading how much memory you had,,,,,,,shows what I know then!!!!!!!!! lol

Any 32bit OS (XP, Vista, 2000, Ubuntu) can only physically utilise 4GB of ram, less any memory mapped to devices (like your graphics card). It is a limitation of the address range that 32bit can access. If you want to properly utilise 4GB+, you will need a 64bit OS (or use PAE if you're running a server OS, but even that has limitations).

marc2003 said:
erm yes i can argue with that. if the hardware you have doesn't have vista64 bit drivers by now (18 months since consumer release) then it's sub standard support you're getting from your hardware vendor.

Exactly - amazes me how many people say Vista is poor because it doesn't support XYZ printer, or ABC program won't work. It's not like MS snuck Vista out - there were betas for over a year before RTM!

bledd · 3 Aug 2008 at 11:19

lamboman said:
64 bit XP isn't great from what I have heard.

you've heard wrong

a lot of poor advice has been dished out on here recently

superplay · 4 Aug 2008 at 08:32

Banjo said:
Just remember, if you're installing Vista on a system with 4GB of RAM, you need to install and update it with 2GB of RAM installed, then stick the other 2GB in afterwards (assuming you have 2x2GB modules )

Banjo

The 2GB/4GB bug during installation only affects a small number of systems. I have installed Vista 32bit on several systems with 4GB installed and have had no issues :-)

Also the bug is fixed in SP1 so if you install from installation media that has SP1 integrated this is not an issue.

m4cc45 · 4 Aug 2008 at 10:22

I installed X64 with 4GB (2x2GB) with no problems. This was the original version as well (not SP1 integrated).

Never had a problem with it to be honest.

M.