![]() |
|
Welcome to Vista Banter. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have access to ask questions and reply to others posts, upload your own photos and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact support. |
|
|||||||
| Performance and Maintainance of Windows Vista A forum for performance and maintenance tasks in Windows Vista. (microsoft.public.windows.vista.performance_maintainance) |
|
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
Oh man...I just did the same upgrade but with 4 x 1GB. Caveat Emptor: get
1 for the price of 2! Really, though: thanks for this very useful information. I knew 4GB was the max on 32 bit, but did not know about Vista's limitations... Ready for an easy question? I've got a system with an Intel Pentium 4 3.0 Ghz processor...um...would it run Vista64? (running and hiding now) Thanks again "Scrivener" wrote in message ... Hi, Ken: I've enjoyed reading your posts. I have a laptop with three gigs of SDRAM housed in two slots: Slot 1, 2 gigs; Slot 2, 1 gig. I've ordered a two-gig strip to put in the Slot 2, which now has the 1gig installed. If I'm understanding you correctly, you're indicating that it won't "help" the system and applications much beyond my 3 gigs? If that's the case, I wasted my money purchasing the 2 gig for the second slot? (Live & Learn) If so, no big deal, except it proves once again my ignorance on the subject, and that I should have done more research. As an aside, when I check this machine's performance - I'm running Vista Ultimate - it shows approximately 1.1 gig used, 1.9 gig not used. I was hoping to make that 2.1 unused. Thanks, again, for any thoughts on this. Ernie "Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message ... On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 10:56:01 -0800, ICQM Houston wrote: vista 32-bit can only recognize 3 GB even if you installed higher than 3 BG RAM size total. No, that's not exactly correct. All 32-bit versions of Windows (not just XP) have a 4GB address space. That's the theoretical upper limit beyond which you can not go. You can't use the entire 4GB of address space. Even though you have a 4GB address space, you can only use *around* 3.1GB of RAM. That's because some of that space is used by hardware and not available to the operating system and applications. The amount you can use varies, depending on what hardware you have installed, but is usually around 3.1GB. Note that the hardware is using the address *space*, not the actual RAM itself. The rest of the RAM goes unused because there is no address space to map it too. vista 64-bit can have it all sizes of RAM - And that's not even close to correct. The amount varies with the version of 64-bit Vista. It's 8GB with Home Basic, 16GB in Home Premium, and 128GB in the other versions. i had so far tested 8GB on a desktop workstation tunning vista 64 and no problem "Ian D" wrote: "tony2tones" wrote in message ... I've upgraded my ram from 2GB to 4GB...the bios reports 4096 but Vista reports 2048...the exact same value before the upgrade. I'm aware of why Vista doesn't report all of the add'l memory but in my case I see no change at all...does any one have any ideas? Thanks! -- tony2tones Make sure the memory remap or similar feature is not enabled in your BIOS. This is for use with 64 bit OSs only, and the results with a 32 bit OS are unpredictable. Showning only 2 GB of 4 GB installed was the result I got with WinXP when the remap was enabled for 64 bit Vista. -- Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience Please Reply to the Newsgroup |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|