Installed 8GB, only shows 3.2GB!!!?

Yep you need a 64bit OS. Forget XP versus Vista like a lot of people will tell you. They BOTH come in 32bit AND 64bit form. So XP-64 will see all 8 gig whereas Vista 32bit will still see the 3.xgig.

There is nothing wrong with XP-64 (I have it on a second PC) but I wouldn't bother with it now. Either buy Vista 64 or try your luck with windows 7 beta 64bit.
 
kylew said:
XP just needs to be left to die in my opinion, and even more so for XP64 bit. They're so old and stale now, people need to get with the times! :p
Click to expand...

Even more for XP64? Why its Windows 2003 server edition, very stable, very fast OS. Driver issues? Perhaps for a few odd random bits of low cost hardware, but the only driver I couldnt find was for my Sony mobile phone. Drivers for printer/scanner/monitor/gpu/chipset/tomtom/g15 keyboard all no problems at all.

That said Windows 7 is shaping up fairly nicely, and in many cases outperforms XP, but its still slower at copying files.
 
Corasik said:
Even more for XP64? Why its Windows 2003 server edition, very stable, very fast OS. Driver issues? Perhaps for a few odd random bits of low cost hardware, but the only driver I couldnt find was for my Sony mobile phone. Drivers for printer/scanner/monitor/gpu/chipset/tomtom/g15 keyboard all no problems at all.

That said Windows 7 is shaping up fairly nicely, and in many cases outperforms XP, but its still slower at copying files.
Click to expand...

XP64 because it was pretty bad when it came out and was pretty much a rush job making server 2003 in to a consumer OS.

I don't get why people complain about slow transfer rates in Vista and 7 though, I've never gotten it my self.

Only the other day I was getting in excess of 100MB/s sustained transfer between computers across a gigabit network. :p

Transfers between hard drives is always fast for me, and even faster for spanned disks.
 
Im dual booting XP64, and Windows 7, and XP64's disk to disk copying is still faster than windows 7, both when copying many small files, or a handfull of large ones. Network performance isnt an issue that I noticed a big difference between them though.

Dont get me wrong, Im getting quite used to "7" being my daily desktop, and its pretty stable, considering it probably still has a ton of debugging code in it. But XP64 was never "bad", its just the XP gui bolted on to 2003 server, and it wasnt really intended as a consumer OS, its a workstation OS.. But it works pretty well as an entusiasts OS.

I skipped vista entirely, but I suspect I will get 7 :)
 
So I take it everyone has pretty much told our friend to use either XP 64, Vista x64 or Win 7 X64...bless our friend tho for the effort...I mean you get 8GB and XP 32 doesnt even utilise the full capacity.

Talking of 8GB my next set of Corsair XMS2 2x2GB should be arriving today. Going to add to the same 4GB set up in my gaming machin :D say what you want, but I know I can afford the extra 4GB and I am using Vista x64 :D lol...
 
CK61938 said:
So I take it everyone has pretty much told our friend to use either XP 64, Vista x64 or Win 7 X64...bless our friend tho for the effort...I mean you get 8GB and XP 32 doesnt even utilise the full capacity.

Talking of 8GB my next set of Corsair XMS2 2x2GB should be arriving today. Going to add to the same 4GB set up in my gaming machin :D say what you want, but I know I can afford the extra 4GB and I am using Vista x64 :D lol...
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with 8GB at all, I've got 8GB and will be going 12GB when I get an i7 set up :D.
 
reflux said:
You need 64-bit XP or Vista to see more than 4GB.......

Jeez, by now I thought everyone on the internet knew that.
Click to expand...


I have the same problem, i'm running windows 7 beta 64bit with 6GB corsair ram, but it only shows 4GB.

When i run cpuz it shows the full 6GB :confused:
 
bigG said:
I have the same problem, i'm running windows 7 beta 64bit with 6GB corsair ram, but it only shows 4GB.

When i run cpuz it shows the full 6GB :confused:
Click to expand...

you sure you're running the 64-bit version?

if you are, make sure that you've got the memory remap option enabled in your bios, if it has one.

Also, what does the memory section on the performance tab in task manager say?
 
silversurfer said:
4gb is the maximum before deducting allocation for video card memory and other sub systems.

I dont know how its done in 64 bit but I guess they start from 64gb or whatever to allocate and work their way down so you never notice
Click to expand...

in current "64-bit" OSes, the maxium allocatable memory is 262,144GB because they use a 48-bit memory register :)

this is because the CPU's only have 48-bit registers because they're cheaper to make, and the CPU manufacturers know that no-one's going to be using even 48-bit's worth of ram, let alone anywhere near the 17.2 Billion Gigabytes afforded by a true 64-bit register :D
 
Aod said:
you sure you're running the 64-bit version?

if you are, make sure that you've got the memory remap option enabled in your bios, if it has one.

Also, what does the memory section on the performance tab in task manager say?
Click to expand...

It says its 64bit, I took a look in the Bios, that says i only have 4GB, not sure where the remap option is? Also on the AI Tweaker section of my Bios it will let me adjust the Voltage etc of 3 dimms, thats my 3x 2GB sticks of ram. Well confused

could it simply be because windows 7 is still in a test phase?
 
Last edited:
Destroyer said:
FAIL

Xp is a 32 bit OS so it will only detect that much RAM. You should have Vista if your going to bother upgrading to 8GB.
Click to expand...

this response is stupid, and wrong


32bit supports up to 3.5gb
64bit supports up to 128gb

that's the bottom line, whether it's XP 32/64 or Vista 32/64*



*Vista Home Basic x64 supports up to 8gb
Vista Home Premium x64 supports up to 16gb
 
Aod said:
in current "64-bit" OSes, the maxium allocatable memory is 262,144GB because they use a 48-bit memory register :)

this is because the CPU's only have 48-bit registers because they're cheaper to make, and the CPU manufacturers know that no-one's going to be using even 48-bit's worth of ram, let alone anywhere near the 17.2 Billion Gigabytes afforded by a true 64-bit register :D
Click to expand...

Not the end of the story, current CPU's are limited to 262,144GB of virtual ram, but the amount of physical ram is lower, Early Pentium D's and Xeons only had 36bits of phyically addressable memory, so a 64GB limit, In the XeonDP, and Core 2 Processors (and Core based Xeons) that was increased to 40bits, (1TB accessable ram). Not sure about AMD64, but I believe it can access 48bit addresses in physical ram as well as virtual. In reality no "standard" motherboard even supports enough memory slots to reach the Pentium D's 64GB limit, let alone Core2's 1TB limit. Im sure someone here knows if the AMD64 implmentation is 40bit physical or 48bit physical.

The way the 48bit addressing was implemented, allows future expansion to full 64bits without any software issues, so its not a stumbling block like the old 8086 / Dos 640k barrier.

The only area this affects is maximum addressable memory, calculations are still made using all 64bits when needed.

As Bledd said, various versions of windows Vista 64bit, have different memory limits.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom