KezNews.com
DownloadsOther NewsForumBlogsWallpapersJokewareSearch

News letter:


Enter Your E-mail:

Vista SP1 Won't Resolve the 4 GB RAM Limitation of 32-bit Windows Vista


section: windows, for your questions: KezNews forum, 4.1.2008

32-bit Windows operating systems, and Windows Vista makes no exception whatsoever to this rule, are limited in terms of the amount of system memory that can be addressed to no more than 4 GB.




But, the fact of the matter is that 32-bit Windows XP or Windows Vista will not use more than 3.2 GB to a maximum of 3.5 GB of RAM, even if the hardware configuration comes with a full 4 GB. This issue does not impact 64-bit Windows operating systems, and with Vista you can go all out when it comes to RAM, as the Ultimate, Business and Enterprise SKUs can support a maximum of 128 GB of physical system memory, while the Home Premium and Home Basic editions will permit the implementation of 16 GB, and respectively 8 GB of RAM.

With Windows Vista SP1, currently planned for the first quarter of 2008, Microsoft will force the operating system to show the full amount of system memory installed, and not only the memory that Vista has available. The Redmond company warned that the change will ultimately depend on the integration with the machine's BIOS and, as such, not all Vista users will experience it. But, it does not mean that Vista SP1 will resolve the 4 GB of RAM limitations of the 32-bit Vista operating system. In this context, if you have a 32-bit copy of Vista, there is no point waiting for SP1 to enjoy up to four GB of RAM, the simplest solution is to go 64-bit.

"Due to an architectural decision made long ago, if you have 4GB of physical RAM installed, Windows is only able to report a portion of the physical 4GB of RAM (ranges from ~2.75GB to 3.5GB depending on the devices installed, motherboard's chipset & BIOS). This behavior is due to 'memory mapped IO reservations'. Those reservations overlay the physical address space and mask out those physical addresses so that they cannot be used for working memory. Significant chunks of address space below 4GB (the highest address accessible via 32-bit) get reserved for use by system hardware: BIOS – including ACPI and legacy video support; PCI bus including bridges etc. PCI Express support will reserve at least 256MB, up to 768MB depending on graphics card installed memory", explained Hilton Locke, Microsoft Software Test Engineer.

source: news.softpedia.com

send email Send link 2 friend  |  Permalink
<< previouse article
Windows Vista More Secure than XP When It Comes to Infected MP3 Players
next article >>
Windows Server 2008 is in Escrow! RTM build planned January 16th

MORE RELATED ARTICLES:
64-bit Vista SP1 Runs Faster than 32-bit Vista SP1 and 32-bit XP SP3! || Minimum System Requirements? Just Feed 8 GB (!) of RAM into Vista SP1 and then Watch it Fly || Download 32-bit and 64-bit Vista SP1 RTM Slipstream ISO Images || 32-bit Vista SP1 = 1GB – 64-bit Vista SP1 = 1.5GB || Microsoft Makes Its Own: 32-bit Windows Vista vs. 64-bit Windows Vista

Comments(16)

Why use 4GB

By xavier on 05.01.2008 - 06:01
why is 4gb needed in the fisrt place ?

Windows Server 2003 32bit Ram

By moosh101 on 05.01.2008 - 06:01
interesting that vista 32bit will not allow more than 4gb ram, yet some versions of windows server 2003 32bit, such as enterprise or data centre editions, support up to 128gb ram.

i appreciate that these are sever os's, but they are older systems than vista, all designed and coded by microsoft, and isn't vista built on the server 2003 kernal? surely microsoft could have easily given vista 32bit the same ram capabilities as its older server 2003 systems. after all, isn't that what advanced technology is all about - providing software technologies capable of supporting new hardware technologies? or is it only a matter of making money and hindering the advancement of computer technology from what it could/should be?

4GB Here

By Dan on 05.01.2008 - 07:01
after installing vista sp1 i noticed it sees the full 4gb ram installed. if it were not for one important device i have that doesn't support 64bit i would be using that instead.

Windows Server 32bit

By icehot on 05.01.2008 - 09:01
windows server still has these limitations, as it's a limitation of addressing 32 bits, plus having to address all other computer resources within that address space. the way it gets round it, is by making use of a certain feature in certain bioses along with a work around in the server os. this work around (i've forgotten the name of it) but it's much like how himem.sys and emm386.exe used to work in the dos days by allowing segmentation of the memory, and hence addressing it twice.

in essence it is like being only able to run programs in the first 640k of ram, but still being able to store data above that by using these "tricks".

4gb limit

By poohead on 05.01.2008 - 10:01
actually the 4gb limit in 32bit os's problem was solved over 3 years ago by microsoft themselves, but because they are ass holes they wont put it onto their home os's
lol

32bits

By sjc1963 on 05.01.2008 - 12:01
32bit oses can only ever address a total of 4gb and that includes all memory besides ram. i.e. video card, etc.

btw, a 64bit processor can address a total of 128tb (terabytes) not gigabytes. thats twice the storage capacity of the human brain.

VISTA 4gb issue

By swandike on 05.01.2008 - 12:01
if vista wont take more than 4gb why use it then?

cause xp wont take it either...just a thought

Wow ASSHATS

By Just.. WOW on 05.01.2008 - 15:01
4gb is a limit of the x86 instruction code to address only a total number of 4gb of memory address space. this has been a problem now since x86 instruction code has been around for decades, this is not a vista problem. and as for the server os's that support above 4gb, that is done by way of pae, and even thought it shows more then 4gb, none of the applications will use above 4gb unless they are specifically written to take advantage of it using pae. so they can't just add it to xp or vista, every application would have to be re-written to make a difference..

educate yourselves before you post ignorant comments.

ahh cool

By icehot on 05.01.2008 - 15:01
re: just.. wow

pae! that was the wording i forgot, nice one thanks :)

memory

By tester on 05.01.2008 - 18:01
the actual real problem is that we cant all switch to 64 bit easily. microsoft has forced us to only install certified drivers on 64 bit. a lot of hardware is not always certified. another money grab from microsoft. we should at least have the option...

vista

By wow experience on 05.01.2008 - 18:01
have a new crack dfor vista sp1?


32bit limit, not Windows limit

By NotSomeoneElse on 05.01.2008 - 21:01
the 4gb addressability issue affects all 32 os's, not just windows. it's further compounded by x86 architecture requiring hardware addresses be mapped within the addressable memory space so the hardware can be talked to (not just the hardware, but any memory on the hardware...e.g. video memory). the reason people commonly put some arbitrary number below 4gb (such as 3.5gb or 3.1gb) is because they don't understand what's happening - that's usually the amount of ram available after video memory (and all other hardware address space) is subtracted - 32bit os's can address all 4gb. there are some tricks to get around the 4gb boundary with 32bit addressing, and windows is already capable of it - but, just like many people thought readyboost was just like adding ram (not even close), this is greatly misunderstood. the address extensions that can be used don't act like there's suddenly the ability to address more ram - it works somewhat like emm386.exe worked in ms-dos - bits of usually inaccessible memory can be addressed and mapped into an addressable page area and written to/read from, then mapped out again - there are, however, quite a few limitations.

the certified drivers issue with vista64 has nothing whatsoever to do with a money grab - you do have at least two options around that issue in x64. i'm not trying to flame you, but instead of complaining, do a little searching - the answers are out there. the certified driver requirement is one of ms' attempts to have some control over the quality of drivers loaded by the os so people will have a more stable os experience and quit whining about how unstable windows is when quite often it's due to crappy hardware, drivers, or other software. the major reason macs are so 'reliable' is due to apple's anal level of control over most things - and even they still crash occasionally, have security holes, etc.

there are ***plenty*** of valid reasons to bitch about ms - but driver signing requirements and the 32bit addressability limit really don't fit into that category, imo.

Re: NotSomeoneElse

By swandike on 06.01.2008 - 01:01
wonder how people type that much lol

Re: tester

By Samic on 06.01.2008 - 05:01
notsomeoneelse is right on and nobody is forcing you to install unsigned driver in x64 version vista. you can always turn off the signed driver requirement. (just search it in google). to be honest, if a hardware vendor didn't bother to get their driver and hardware certified, it's a good sign that they have a crappy support and you shouldn't use their hardware at the very first place.

Another pathetic attempt to bash Vista

By lawl on 07.01.2008 - 00:01
this article is complete bs.

Vista PAE

By Anders on 15.01.2008 - 22:01
vista 32 supports pae on some hardware. google for vista pae or visit:

http://www.thegeeksweek.com/blog/enabling-pae-on-32-bit-windows-vista.html

and

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/pae/pae_os.mspx



No new comments are allowed for this article.

For your questions use our KezNews Forum