4GB and 32bit

Okay, for long as I remmeber, people kept telling me that 4 gb's of ram will NOT show up on an operating system.

But, couple of days ago, a friend told me that you could utilize all 4gb's using a 32 bit OS after doing some BIOS edit.

Is this true? and if so, is there a tutoral on how to do this?

thanks.

 

I don't think so, it's a limit with being a 32-bit OS, not with a BIOS issue. Trying such a hack could potentially render your computer worthless and you can't even get the possible end result.

 

It is possible to address all 4GB of RAM in a 32 bit OS (google it) but it requires a lot of effort with little to no performance increase due to the hacking that causes increased latency and whatnot. If you really want to use the 4GB properly you're best bet is to use a 64bit OS.

PS. Some say that even though the OS can't see the top ~.75GB it apparently is still being used by the system underneath. I can't confirm or deny this though.

 

No, not true, it's a limitation of 32bit.

 

Just did a bit of searching. You are right about the 2^32 part but using PAE (see http://chris.pirillo.com/2007/08/30/32-bit-windows-and-4gb-of-ram/ for more details) I guess you're able to trick the OS into being able to use more than 2GB per application, as I said though, the extra time required negates the benefits.

EDIT: Better site for explanation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension

 

Yes! Normally 3.2~3.5 will be seen by the 32-bit o/s. The remainder WILL get utilized by hardware, namely the video card. So 4GB IS STILL WORTHWHILE for a 32-bit system. 64-bit however will allow you to go beyond 4GB (if the laptop supports it in the first place) and take advantage of other performance benefits of a 64-bit processor.

All of this and more can be discovered by using your friend 'google' and the forums contained herein.

 

Alright, but is there any disadvantages in using a 64bit OS over a 32bit OS.

@Signal2Noise,
I read "herein" as.."Heroin".
nice.

 

Programs have to be rewritten to be compatible with 64-bit OSes, so older programs may not function. Same goes for drivers.

 

Getting specific drivers for a 64-bit system can be a pain or non-existant depending on hardware.

Some games and applications *may* run slower or sketchy on a 64-bit o/s.

 

The BIOS will see all 4gb but Vista 32bit can only utilize approx 3GB

PAE barely works for anyone, if it even does. SP1 makes it show 4gb on your system info but the truth is it can still only utilize 3gb*

Botton line is :
The ONLY way you will utilize all 4gb or more is through a 64bit OS

 

Can't quite remember but most if not all 64-bit OSes now include an emulator(?) so that you can run 32 bit programs. Plus it's usually not too hard to find a x64 version of the program. Drivers can be a pain but it depends on whether you have mainstream or homemade hardware. Just search around for your hardware and pretty quick you should be able to tell whether you could go 64 bit.

 

Well, I'm getting a dell laptop, so I'm guessing most of the drivers should have 64bit Drivers for it?
Hopefully...

 

The driver issue is not nearly the problem that it was about a year ago. It's becoming less and less of an issue as time goes on. That is why I have decided that I am going with 64-bit when I get my laptop.

 

Check out dell's website, you should be able to find drivers for the laptop you want. If not, just look for each individual piece of hardware that the laptop's made of and google for it to see if you can find drivers.

 

Im checking out Dell's driver page.
https://support.dell.com/support/do...D=INS_PNT_PM_1420&os=WLH&osl=en&catid=&impid=

I see nothing regarding to Vista 64bit /=

 

what parts were all in the 1420 you wanted? We can do a quick search for them.

 

Those are my specs

 

graphics should be good -> laptopvideo2go.com
network/modem, dvd drive, audio, wireless, BT -> MS should detect and install, otherwise please post brand if you can
web cam and tv tuner i'm not sure about, MS could detect those, but again, if you can get the manufacturer that'd help

EDIT: possible web cam driver http://www.notebookera.com/notebook...or-Windows-Vista-32-bit-64-bit-XP_76341.shtml

EDIT2: check this site for more drivers, http://www.driverorg.com/Sound/download106-1.html

 

Wow, there is so much bad information and repeating of rumors in this thread I think my head is going to explode.

You friend is full of it. This doesn't even make sense, and comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of how computers work. I understand that people don't start out knowing all of this stuff, so I hope he is at least open to questioning things like this, and will accept that he is incorrect and learns from it. There are tons of people online who repeat ridiculous things, and most of them hang out in "tweaker" forums. Part of the skill of using the Net correctly is learning to spot them.

PAE does not exist in Vista. It did in XP and previously, but it was ONLY for very specific server applications. The problem with PAE is that drivers must be written specifically to work with it, and only server hardware gets this level of attention. Trying to run PAE on a desktop system will most likely result in crashing all the time.

But, since it's not in Vista, don't worry about it.

The upper address space is utilized by the system, but any RAM that is in that address space IS NOT USED. It cannot be used. It's not being used "behind the scenes" by video cards or anything else. It's sitting there completely idle.

The 32-bit problem comes from this: There are TWO DISTINCT things that people think about when talking about memory wrt 32-bit: 1) the physical RAM installed in the machine, and 2) the "Address Space" that the system can use.

All "talking" to the devices is done through "memory mapped I/O", where the CPU reads/writes to a specific spot in the address space. Sometimes that address contains RAM, other times it contains devices. The CPU does not know, all it knows is that "I have to put some data in this location in the address space". Once the data is there, it gets moved to the correct device.

All of the other devices get priority over the RAM, so if there's both RAM and a device at the same address location, the device wins.

Absolutely not. Please stop telling people this and correct other who you see spreading this incorrect information. Every 64-bit OS out there supports 32-bit applications (through the use of 32-bit libraries), so almost ALL applications will work without ANY modification. The exceptions are things that integrate directly with things like Explorer, and drivers.

The biggest problem is that in 64-bit Vista, support for very old 16-bit applications has been dropped, and unfortunately some installers are still 16-bit. The program itself would work just fine, but since you can't get it installed, you're out of luck.

 

I did not know that, but still knowing that it *can* possibly be done was what I was saying. But as I said earlier, it's just easier to go true x64.

Stop making me think of my Introduction to Computing Systems course! Aside from that you're again 100%.

3/3 Stop being so right, you make the rest of us look bad.

 

I'll have to agree with Orev here. So much misinformation my head is in serious danger of exploding...

Wrong.
The video card does not, can not use the remaining memory. No application can, because it can't be addressed by the CPU.

The address space is used, yes, but that's nothing to do with the physical memory. In fact, this is the reason why not all 4GB RAM are available in the first place.

A 32-bit system has a 4GB address space. That is, it can assign unique addresses to 4 billion bytes.

Whether or not there is enough RAM to make all these addresses valid is irrelevant. If you have 1GB RAM, you still have a 4GB address space.

Now, to talk to your hardware (such as the GPU) some of these addresses are "redirected", so when the CPU writes to that address, the value does not end up in RAM, but in a register on the GPU.
Which leaves somewhat less than 4 billion addresses for accessing memory. And so, somewhat less than 4GB of memory can be used.
The bit of RAM that can't be addressed will stay 100% unused, at all times. There is no way for the CPU to access it.

Wrong.
Existing programs work fine with a 64-bit OS. And no, they are not emulated, they do not require an emulator, and they do not run slower.
Drivers have to be rewritten.

Sure it doesn't exist in Vista?
That sounds odd to me.

In any case, it's not just drivers that have to be rewritten, applications have to be rewritten to make use of PAE as well. Which means you'll gain nothing from enabling it (even if it is supported by your OS)

 

Why 32-bit is not (2**32)-1 in Microsoft's interpretation of algebra

 

Hmmm...then there's obviously a lot of erroneous information floating around on the interweb. +1 to you an Orev for setting us straight.

 

Main thing here is the difference between possible and practical.

Is it possible? Yes, under Win2K, XP, Vista, and Linux.
Is it practical? No, not for most basic desktop users.

The one area IMO that would benefit most from exploiting the large address possibilities would be hypermemory and turbocache since they are such a compartmentalised application, however I haven't heard of either company doing anything to exploit this potential, and as mentioned it is very restricted to server-centric applications at this time. Biggest problem is stability for a normal windows environment with alot more variables to account for and not more basic I/O situations.

BTW, check out M$' own data on the subject, and you'll note that PAE is supported in Vista (link2);
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366796(VS.85).aspx

Good to go to the source, but also remember that because it's possible, it doesn't mean it'll make any practical difference.

However if building a new rig on what is a 64bit aware platform, it just makes sense to buy 4GB versus 3GB for when you do make the move to 64bit. Of course you could always buy that 1GB module and replace it in a year or so and have that 1GB sitting around doing nothing.

With the cost of memory (if you buy it yourself, not from DELL), it really just makes sense to get 4GB, even if you'll only be able to use 3.0-3.5.

 

As has already been said, this has nothing to do with Microsoft. It's just the way a PC (or any modern computer) works.
A 32-bit computer can not address 2^32 bytes of memory.
A 64-bit computer can not address 2^64 bytes of memory (but that's not going to be a problem within the next 100 years, if ever)

The only thing you can blame Microsoft for is which number they choose to show to the user. With SP1, Vista will show that you have 4GB RAM, without it, it'll show 3.5'ish. But the behavior is unchanged, in both cases it'll only be able to use 3.5 GB (ish)

Yes, there is...

 

I realize it is mostly a hardware issue, yet still, MVS/370 could address 24 bits, MVS/XA 31 bits, and z/OS 64 bits ...

 

I never claimed otherwise.
And a 32-bit PC CPU can address exactly 32 bits.

It just can't address 2^32 bytes of memory. (At least, not in the real world)
Because it uses some addresses for memory-mapped I/O. Which leaves a bit less than 2^32 addresses for memory.

Nothing to do with Microsoft, everything to do with, well, the fact that memory-mapping is just the most sane way to communicate with hardware that anyone has been able to come up with so far.

 

And remember........

some newer motherboards support more than 4GB memory(basically for desktops), but you still have to use a 64bit OS to utilize it. My dell xps destop runs sweet w/ 8GB......

sorry if I have confused some of you, lol

 

I used to code some channel programs in the day

 

Honestly, very few people, if anyone, will ever gain any performance benefit from 3.2GB of Memory to 4GBs of memory.

The people who will are people who work on huge photoshop files (Like friggin wall size pictures, not your dinky movie posters) or people who friggin run databases on their laptop. I have met neither that runs this crap on a laptop.

For the record, I have 4 GB of RAM on my laptop. I run a bunch of VMs to test different pieces of software at work.

 

i have an xps m1730 with 2gb ram, and i was thinking i should upgrade to 4 gb ram, but if i do would i notice any difference, like when running heavy 3d programs like oblivion? i have the 32 bit vista

 

You'd notice a difference, Anders. However, you'd only really gain the benefit of 1 GB, as the 4th GB of memory addresses is reserved for a bunch of mapped memory hardware like GFX memory etc.

 

oh, thanks! ill do that then = )

 

Windows vista sp1 can recognize full 4 GB of RAM

 

It will display 4GB of RAM but will still only use 3.2~3.6GB. It's MS's way of putting a bandaid on the 3GB issue so people stop complaining about not seeing all their memory.

 

You forgot people who use 3D software like Maya, 3DSMax and Rhino etc. as well as people editing & encoding video; and some of us use laptops as our second or home rigs.

 

Exactly! It will RECOGNIZE all your ram it just can UTILIZE it all
Unless of course you get a nice x64 bit Vista or XP OS

 

You mean "can't"..

 

does it cost money to upgrader to sp1 if i already got vista home premium?

 

Nope its 100% free

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsvista/bb738089.aspx

 

thanks a lot after my virus scan ill get it

 

Sooooo, if I install XP on my DV9700T, and upgrade the RAM to 4GB, XP will recognize it?

 

No. XP is a 32-bit OS, and can only use up to 3.2-3.5GB of RAM.

 

Just to note, XP Pro has a 64-bit version and there was another 64-bit version of XP but now the latter is discontinued.