4GB RAM + 32bit XP..?

A

Afterburntdw

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 26, 2004
Messages
171
Hello.

I have the Asus P5W DH Deluxe and 4GB of Corsair XMS pc2-6400. I'm currently running 32bit XP. I thought there was a way to enable the OS to see 4GB of RAM...PAE perhaps? If I use the memory re-map feature, the board will see all 4GB, but XP still only sees 3GB. If I turn the remap off, the board sees about 3.2GB and XP sees 3.12GB. Is there any way that XP can actually use 4GB of RAM or am I going to have to wait for Vista 64 bit?
 
no, u need a 64bit OS, winxp 32bits can only allocate 4GB of system memory that is RAM and Vid RAM
 
PAE is an esoteric switch designed for limited 32-bit server environments. Many (including myself) recommend against using it on the desktop, as it known to be buggy and very temperamental with 3rd party drivers and software.

If you're looking to use all 4 gigabytes of your RAM, I strongly suggest migrating to 64-bit windows.

Mark.
 
As others have mentioned, migrating to a 64bit OS is going to be the best way to utilize all 4GB of ram. Additionally, PAE will slow down the system and is therefore not advisable.

At most you will get around 3.5GB of ram for use after device IO Memory Mapping has been done. Depending on the configuration of your hardware you may even get substantially less memory than that. On my dual Opteron machine I only got 2.5GB of ram out of 5GB to use. (The 5th GB of ram wasn't even detected of course.)
 
Agreed with everyone about 3.25Gb / needing a 64bit OS. I don't say XP x64 specifically b/c I will never install this OS on another PC.... Ever. I'm running it at work right now and its ok, but its never going to be great.

Ubuntu here I come!

Oh, and its not an issue of allocating, its that 32bit and address more then 3 and change. Just to nitpick :)
 
Thanks for the feedback. I had thought it probably wasn't going to work, but I had to give it a shot!

In the 64 bit side of things, is anyone here running Vista 64 bit? What do you think?
 
Afterburntdw said:
Thanks for the feedback. I had thought it probably wasn't going to work, but I had to give it a shot!

In the 64 bit side of things, is anyone here running Vista 64 bit? What do you think?
Click to expand...

I am. It's ok. The OS has been a little more stable than Vista x86 for me. Though I have had more problems with some games running. Specifically the Battlefield games don't seem to like it. They run but they'll crash if I use some mods and the performance isn't as good. STALKER works better with it and UT 2004 is the same as ever.
 
Afterburntdw said:
Hello.

I have the Asus P5W DH Deluxe and 4GB of Corsair XMS pc2-6400. I'm currently running 32bit XP. I thought there was a way to enable the OS to see 4GB of RAM...PAE perhaps? If I use the memory re-map feature, the board will see all 4GB, but XP still only sees 3GB. If I turn the remap off, the board sees about 3.2GB and XP sees 3.12GB. Is there any way that XP can actually use 4GB of RAM or am I going to have to wait for Vista 64 bit?
Click to expand...


dude vista does the same thing. i built a quadcore 6600 for some guy with 4gb of corsair and it only detected 3.48gb weird but its an operating system issue
 
killingfield1975 said:
dude vista does the same thing. i built a quadcore 6600 for some guy with 4gb of corsair and it only detected 3.48gb weird but its an operating system issue
Click to expand...

Vista 32-bit will do the same thing, but Vista-64 bit (along with XP-64 bit) will display and use all 4 gigs of RAM. It's not an XP/Vista thing but a 32-bit/64-bit thing.

To the op: I use both XP-64 (at work) and Vista 64 (at home) and I actually find Vista 64 to be a superior OS, providing a generally great user experience. XP-64 has always been an odd duck, as it's really Windows 2003 with XP makeup. Furthermore, XP-64 came out well after XP-32 and has never gained much support in terms of driver & app compatibility. It's also has a relatively weak userbase.

Sure, somethings don't work quite well yet with Vista 64, as it is Vista... However, one can only expect everything to be ironed out in time, and over the last several months there have been significant improvements to driver performance and stability as well app compatibility. I say give it a shot... You'll probably like it more than you'd expect.

Mark.
 
I will do that...I had already bought Vista Home Premium, but I didn't get around to ordering the 64 bit version until last week. I will check it out when it arrives.

That's sad about the BF games....All I play any more is 2142 :)
 
Afterburntdw said:
I will do that...I had already bought Vista Home Premium, but I didn't get around to ordering the 64 bit version until last week. I will check it out when it arrives.

That's sad about the BF games....All I play any more is 2142 :)
Click to expand...

Well if it makes you feel better, 2142 works better than the other BF games do in Vista 64.
 
maverick786us said:
Vista is power hungry. Even 64-Bit VISTA not full mainstream 64 bit PC operating system
Click to expand...

What? :rolleyes:

If by that you mean it isn't yet, then I'd agree. Trust me it will be. I'd like sales figures but I'd suspect that it sells at least as well as 32bit Vista if not better.
 
Yes - I'd like some clarification as well. Are you referring to the acceptance by 32 vs 64 bit market share or are you saying there is something not fully 64-bit compliant with Vista 64?
 
Vista 64 is fully 64-bit complient. This is nothing to worry about there.

As for marketshare, Vista 64 currently doesn't have quite the marketshare of Vista 32, and Vista in general is still trailing behind XP by quite a bit. However, that does not mean that Vista 64 isn't a mainstream OS. Unlike XP-64, Vista 64 is a first tier player, and I personal have not run into an instance where something supported Vista-32 but not Vista-64 (although I'm sure a small number of instances exist.) Vista-64 is definitely ready for prime time use IMHO, and as more people upgrade to newer computers with four or more Gigs of RAM, you'll see Vista-64's userbase grow quite a bit.

Mark.
 
Very cool. Have you had a chance to compare the 32 & 64 bit versions of Vista? Just curious if there are any real changes to each version....Of course, I guess the 32 bit version would be at a disadvantage assuming you had 4GB of RAM in the machine.
 
I've been using both versions of Vista since their beta 1 days. From a features and interface standpoint, both are identical, and anyone would be very hard pressed to tell the two apart. (Note that I believe Vista 64 supports some additional minor, esoteric security features that can be enabled if you want. Unfortunately I can't remember any particulars at the moment, but none would be of much use on a home PC.)

Under the hood, many have found Vista 64 to be smoother and more stable than the 32-bit version. Part of this may be due to the benefits of a 64-bit subsystem, or partly due to a more mature codebase which doesn't need to support older, more troublesome hardware. Part of this is also likely due to the fact that 64-bit Windows requires signed drivers for all hardware (don't worry, this isn't a problem with mainstream PC hardware components...)

Aside from the signed drivers requirement mentioned above, which Vista-32 does not share, there is one other thing Vista-32 can get away with that 64-bit can't--running 16 bit applications. This isn't a straight forward issue for most people, as 16-bit apps are long gone from mainstream daily use (and old 16-bit games can easily be run in a 32-bit emulator like DOS Box.) However, one or two 3rd party installation programs contain 16-bit code for some stupid reason. Therefore, if you want to install a regular 32bit program that uses this type of installer, you can't. I personally haven't run into this issue, and I know of no current games where this is a problem, but you might want to search Google for a list of programs with this issue and see if you will be effected. If so, there may very well be a patch for the installer, or an enterprising user / hacker may have found a work around, such as a manual install.

Good luck,

Mark.
 
Awesome! It makes me actually excited to try using Vista 64. One question though - Why does it create two separate Windows folders? Is one used for compatibility reasons?
 
On a clean install it should only create one Windows folder. There will be two Program Files folders, one for 32-bit code "\Program Files (x86)" and one for 64-bit code "\Program Files"

Mark.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top