4gb RAM and Vista

So...i got my Lenovo T61p...it rocks.
I have 2gb of RAM with Vista Business 32-Bit.
I want to upgrade to 4gb, but I know it won't work effectively with a 32-Bit Vista. What should I do? Will SP1 support it?

Thanks.

 

i heard that SP1 WILL add the ability for all 4GB to be seen and im guessing used.

 

i actually googled this cuz I couldnt believe it and NO SP1 will not let you see 4GB

EDIT: however according to one source your programs will see all 4GB of your RAM depending on the BIOS or something. I dont think that means you can still use all the 4GB though

 

i was told that it would.
maybe different update?

 

32bit Vista will never be able to use all 4GB of RAM, period. It is an inherent limitation to a 32bit system, and SP1 will not change this.

What SP1 will change is how Vista reports the RAM. In SP1, Vista will report how much RAM is installed, but that does not mean it can use all of it.

 

okay thanx

 

i was told that the update will allow all 4GB to be seen and up to 3.7GB to be used is that true? do you have proof?

 

read all the articles regarding 32bit and 4GB. basically you will be able to use whatever is left after you subtract video card size, BIOS size and other stuff which means usually between 2.75 and 3.25/3.5GB

 

Whoever told you that is only repeating rumors started by people who do not understand how any of this actually works. The problem with computers is that they are quite complex, and, like in many other aspects of life, people make things up to explain things they don't fully understand, then unfortunately they repeat them.

I don't want to get into a whole explanation of how and why a 32bit system will NEVER be able to use all 4GB of RAM, but you can do a google search and take a look at wikipedia for a lot of information about it.

The max that 32bit Vista will use is 3.2GB, and that limit is put in place by Microsoft, and it will NOT change. In the past they have tried to make a workaround for this (PAE), but that caused a lot of system instability, so in Vista they got rid of it and implemented the only real and true fix, a 64bit version of the OS.

Bottom line is if you have 4GB of RAM, you should use 64bit Vista.

 

That was the way it worked in XP, but in Vista it is locked to 3.2GB because the dynamic calculation to figure out the free space was error-prone.

 

okay thank you, will go for vista 64bit

 

A word of warning about Vista64. you will only be able to use signed drivers unless you press F8 before vista loads and choose to run with unsigned drivers everytime you startup. This means no RMClock or NHC

 

that is some fuked up **** from microsoft :X

 

what does that mean signed drivers?

so what version you would surggest, note that im getting 4GB ram with my laptop and i will be using it for gaming and college work

 

Signed drivers are digitally signed by a company like Verisign. The reality is that if your notebook manufacturer supports 64bit, then all of the drivers will be signed. You will have to check for support for other devices you use, like printers or PDAs, but many/most of them will work just fine. The only issue I had was with my Palm pilot, but I can workaround that using the network or bluetooth.

The reality is that most drivers will work, and really the only things that won't were already mentioned, NHC and RMclock. I don't know of any other tools that don't work because of this.

 

so it should be good even for gaming okay, ill go for that (64bit version)

 

btw The reason a 32 bit operating system can only address 4gb of ram is because:

If you have 32 bits in base 2(as opposed to something like base 10)
You can count as high as 2^32 address locations for the computer to work with.

That equals 4gb.
So a 32bit computer can roughly count to 4billions and thats it.

Thats why a 32 bit operating system can only physically address 4gb of memory.

If you want to physically address more memory you need a 64 bit system, with a 64 bit o.s.
This can theoretically address 2^64 which is an astronomical number.
Just so u can think how big it is, double 4gb 32 times.

Can 32 bit systems do more??? maybe possibly, if you do some "juggling" but physically no.

Theres always some tricks that can be performed, for example maybe you can have an address that simply is an address to a set of addresses so u have a tree like structure or index. But that really complicates things and slows em down.

So what you would have is your 4gb of physical memory acting as an index to more memory. Thats probably the only possibly way around the "issue".

 

If you want to use 4GB of RAM get x64. That's the bottom end. Also, in Windows x86 there is another limitation: 2GB of RAM allocated per application.

 

To use 4Gb you need an x64 OS.
Still its use is limited. You might be better of sticking to 32 bit for now unless you really need the extra RAM.

 

Where the heck do you get the limited use? It can be used by anyone, 90% of the people with new stuff will use it without problems

 

The person was talking about windows 32 not being able to use all the ram. Of course you can install it and not have any issues.

I normally tell everyone to only go up to 2 gb. Although newegg had 2 gb of ram (same kind I had before) for $27. I purchased that and stuck in my xp machine.... that extra ram smoothed everything out. But I'm also run virtual pc, outlook 07, etc all day.

Personally, if you have the cash, why not. Better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it. Although, for most, going to 4 gb will be a waste on a 32 bit machine. Worked for me though.

 

He was suggesting something else.

 

i would just get 3GB but the laptop im getting automatically comes with 4GB and i would have to buy a 1GB RAM and sell one of the 2GB rams, seems to much hassle so ill just stick with what i got and use the OS that will use as much as possible aka 64bit

 

Well you can still use 32-bit Vista with 4GB's installed, it just won't display the 4GB but 3GB.

 

Well you can use the /3GB switch, but that doesn't matter because 32 bit architecture only support up to 4 GB....

 

Which can only be used up to 3.2 usually.

 

see i want to use as much as possible of the 4GB so im going for 64bit

 

Nope, it's not possible. Simple as that. All SP1 is going to do is change what number Vista displays. Instead of showing the amount of usable RAM you have, it now shows the amount of RAM you have installed.

That is all.

If you want to know the reason why it's not possible to use all 4GB, search this forum a bit. There are plenty of threads on the subject.

 

whats the point of that? being able to see and but not use it is pointless.
oh well gonna get Vista 64bit

 

There are workarounds for this problem. I'm using RMClock at the moment with Vista 64bit...

 

You'll have to ask Microsoft, but I assume it's to avoid confusion. (ie. I bet they get a lot of people asking them "Why does Vista say I only have 3.2GB RAM? I know I installed 4GB!)

Of course no one can easily tell how much memory is *available* to Windows, so as long as Vista reports 4GB installed, few people will be aware that 800MB is actually not being used.

Ignorance is bliss, you know. If people don't know about the issue, they won't complain.

 

Exactly. That's what Microsoft may want to do...

 

The requirement to press F8 and make a selection every time you boot the system is unacceptable as a solution.

 

The /3GB will change the way the addresses are allocated inside of Windows, and reserve only 1GB for kernel space (including video card, etc.) addresses, and 3GB for applications. This can make many applications unstable as well as possibly make the OS unstable.

Do what now? I have a 32bit Xeon workstation sitting at home running with 5GB of RAM, and it can use every bit of it. It runs Linux since PAE doesn't work right under any version of Windows, but don't say that a 32bit system will NEVER use 4+GB of RAM (PAE, or Physical Address Extension, is a 48bit addressing enhancement on many 32bit CPU's, but there aren't many chipsets that support it, it slightly degrades performance but increases available memory and requires applications to be compiled to be aware of the extended address space). However, typically you will need a Santa Rosa or later chipset and a 64bit CPU and operating system to actually take advantage of 4GB or more RAM, though. And in that case, 32bit applications will be limited to 4GB of RAM, period, end of story. So a T61p like the OP has no chance whatsoever of running 4GB of RAM, no matter what OS they're running. (highlighted since it's the only really on-topic part of this post)

I think he was talking about the use of a 64bit system is slightly more limited than a 32bit one. With Vista x64, it keeps you from running unsigned drivers (who needs independent or custom hardware, anyway?), as well as having a smaller array of drivers available, and has even worse backwards compatibility with older applications as compared to 32bit Vista.

QFT

 

Hey, I have hardware bought from God knows when and manufactured in a time when I was in kindergarten and still have x64 drivers. I don't buy my stuff from OEMs.
If you think about it well, besides the stuff made in the medieval times x64 can handle almost every 32 bit software.
Microsoft made something terrible with showing people how much RAM they really have. This way almost everyone will think that they don't need x64 for 4GB of RAM and that x86 can really handle it.

 

If they don't actually know that, then they aren't in a position to actually need 4GB of RAM Really, this is just to shut up people who won't ever use all 4GB anyway but spent a lot to have it installed and are now confused and whining. If you really needed 4GB, you'd already know about the issue, and by the time a mainstream user ACTUALLY needs 4GB (1GB is enough for most people, even under Vista), most systems should be 64bit and it just won't matter any more.

And regardless of your individual anecdotal experiences, Vista and Vista 64 have much lower compatibility with hardware than XP. I have a nice flatbed scanner that doesn't even work under XP that will never work in Vista, a number of people with Soundblaster hardware got bitten by Vista not supporting their cards, TONS of printers don't work under Vista any more, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Also, many people LIKE their programs that were made in "medieval times". Old games, custom programmed applications, whatever, it's still important for some people to be able to run those things. When that's broken, that means that the OS is useless, because the primary purpose of an operating system is to enable you to run other programs, no matter what Microsoft marketing may try to tell you.

 

No, it really isn't. A minimal install of Vista with 1GB of RAM is slow as hell. Adding that little extra up to 2GB makes a huge performance improvement. 2GB really is the minimum for satisfactory performance.

 

I hate HP for not releasing Vista drivers. I have a printer that can do duplex, but can't under Vista. Still, I find HP as the one to blame.
I used to have 1GB of RAM and Vista and it worked very well, until the computer just died.

 

According to this, the T61p indeed has Santa Rosa, so it will support 64bit just fine. I'm not sure what else you could be referring to there.

As you have stated, PAE is a 48bit extension, and it is a hack. Linus himself has said that it should never have been created ("The only real major failure of the x86 is the PAE crud. Let's hope we'll get to forget it, the same way the DOS people eventually forgot about their memory extenders."), and can cause all sorts of problems. This is why no version of Windows fully supports it, and also why a quick search for "linux pae" turns up quite a few problems and warnings about running it. The fact the you have a SERVER platform running it only proves the point, because only SERVER hardware had the hardware needed for PAE because people running big databases needed it. (Yes, Xeon is a server, even if you call it a "workstation")

Also, since the title of this thread is "4gb RAM and Vista", let's not turn it into a Linux lovefest about how great Linux is because it supports a terrible 32bit hack that Windows (the king of unstable and buggy) abandoned because it was too unstable and buggy.

 

I believe he was referring to the T60/P. The T61s don't have the problem, nor any other laptop with a P965M chipset.

 

Orev,
i've never seen anyone ask for people to rep them, or give them points in their signature

lol, men

 

I'm just reminding people to use it for everyone. The icon is non-obvious so I figured I'd point it out

 

There is another way to use it without Pressing F8 and without any system Hacks or so, using one little tool, the Windows scripting Host and Task Scheduling. If someone here really wants to know how, I can write a little tutorial...

 

First, Linus is hardly an all-knowing oracle, and his opinions don't necessarily reflect reality, common sense or even sanity.
Second, of course PAE is a hack, but it's still a necessary one (or was necessary at the time, anyway)
But it gets the job done for people who *need* more than 4GB RAM, and for whom 64-bit isn't an option. Of course those people aren't exactly common (most either don't need that much RAM, or simply switch to 64-bit instead), but for some, PAE is necessary. (But still pretty irrelevant to everyone in this thread apart from Pita )

If you can verify that it still works, sure. (From what I'd heard, some Vista update broke the workarounds for this issue)

 

Please do.