Max RAM XP can handle...?
I have googled this but come up with so many different answers....
What is the maximum amount of RAM windows XP can handle?
I have a computer I'm upgrading, I have 4 sticks of 1GB, giving total of 4GB of RAM
In windows it shows up as 3GB??
This computer has some VERY demanding 3-D Modeling software to run.... is it going to use the 4GB?
Is this just windows just showing it as 3 but actually it uses 4????
I'm confused....
Windows XP / 1.1MB Orange BB: E6600 Core 2 Duo Gigabyte GA 965P-DS3P EVGA 8800GTS Superclocked WD 250GB SATA2/300 2GB Corsair TwinX 6400 DDR2 Corsair HX 520 PSU 17in LG Flatron SONY DVD RW DRU-800A Akasa Zen case SB Audigy
ok im not one of the experts but i know that if you dont have a graphics card it uses some RAM to make a kinda fake one and if you have some real killer software that your using constantly i dont see why it wont share the RAM, merely my answer probobaly not accurate but its the best i got
max 32bit windows can take is 4gb ram - that includes all your other ram (e.g. GPU, etc)....
therefore, you can only see 3gb of rams...effectively 1gb is used by xp or higher memory applications
if you want to go over 4gb ram, you need 64bit OS
Have a quick search on here, this comes up almost every day
You owe it to yourself to click here really.Originally Posted by Blitzen
This question really does come up at least once every day, but given the confusing nature of the subject, that is understandable.
Most versions of XP are 32 bit. This means that your operating system can only 'see' 2^32 addresses. Hence the most a 32 bit operating system can address is 4Gb.
However, your operating system needs to be able to talk to more than just the warehouse (ram), it has to also be able to talk with the main office, accounts, human resources, customer management, etc (ie, your graphics card, the hard drive, the sound card, USB ports, etc). As all these are essential for the computer to operate, it gives these other devices addresses first, with the ram only then getting what remains.
poindextermatic, what you are seeing is perfectly normal, but still irritating. Unfortunately what windows is reporting is all that it can use.
This means that, after your motherboard has been given addresses to use, you are left with normally only around 3.2Gb of addresses to give the ram. Even though the warehouse space is still all there, the system doesn't know how to find those parts without an address, meaning that they are effectively wasted.
yeah, from reading all the other posts it seems that 3.5gb is the max you may ever see, there should be a sticky on questions like this.Have a quick search on here, this comes up almost every day
The problem is, in my experience people never actually read the "FAQs - read this before posting threads"
But it might be an idea anyway to come up with a definitive and well-written answer to such things, then question threads like this can be answered with a link
The other problem, IMO, is ppl don't read the first post before posting themselves.... I said I've already searched for the answersThe problem is, in my experience people never actually read the "FAQs - read this before posting threads"
But it might be an idea anyway to come up with a definitive and well-written answer to such things, then question threads like this can be answered with a linkI just wanted a definte answer to the question...
So basically, yes you can have your four GB of RAM, but Microsoft won't let you eat it all?
Yes?
Windows XP / 1.1MB Orange BB: E6600 Core 2 Duo Gigabyte GA 965P-DS3P EVGA 8800GTS Superclocked WD 250GB SATA2/300 2GB Corsair TwinX 6400 DDR2 Corsair HX 520 PSU 17in LG Flatron SONY DVD RW DRU-800A Akasa Zen case SB Audigy
fixedThe other problem, IMO, is ppl don't read the first post before posting themselves.... I said I've already searched for the answers
So basically, yes you can have your four GB of RAM, but peripheral devices won't let you eat it all?
Yes?
Moogle's fix is right
You will get the same result if you were using Linux or Mac OS X, they all need to do the same thing
It is possible to do other magics to allow the operating system to do a clever work-around to get access, but this often can break various programs and device drivers, so it is generally discouraged.
Has anyone actually tried using the /PAE switch recently, using new hardware? I'm tempted to make a new thread to investigate this, as it would be interesting to see if the driver and performance issues are getting resolved and resulting in the practical use of /PAE.
Last edited by Rosaline; 29-09-2007 at 12:57 PM.
only applies to 32 bit os's thats why vista ( for windows users ) or x64 is the way to go.
...unless certain programs you wish to run don't work under the 64bit versions of windows due to poorly written DRM ¬.¬
Depending on your components, the size of addressable memory can vary on a 32 bit operating system, for instance my XP shows 2.75gb while my Vista x64 shows 4093mb. I'm sure a quick google or forum search would reveal hundreds of topics easily answering your question.
I read it, and I said to search on here, and you will find the answers. Look for posts by Agent, he summed it up wellThe other problem, IMO, is ppl don't read the first post before posting themselves.... I said I've already searched for the answers
So basically, yes you can have your four GB of RAM, but Microsoft won't let you eat it all?
Yes?
You owe it to yourself to click here really.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote