Vista 32bit SP1 can see all 4GB of RAM?!

firas

firas

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
2,458
Windows Vista Service Pack 1 Build.6001.18000 32-bit

726330783.png


can this be true?
 
If this is true I will love MS forever.. Saves me a weekend of installing 64 bit on my Gateway FX laptop.
 
Yes it's true, but I don't think it can use all 4GB (apparently impossible). I just want my SP1 damnit...32-bit ftw!
 
Sure as long as the motherboard supports memory remapping. Plus SP1, I believe changed the way the ram is shown. It shows the actual total. Though it may still be limited by the motherboard. You'll probably get max of 2GB for apps and 2GB for the OS.
 
It's just a placebo, pulling the wool over the eyes of consumers so that OEMs can sell machines with Vista 32 preloaded and "4 gigs of RAM" which of course is misleading since they won't really be using all 4 gigs in the way that they might expect. This is stated quite clearly in MS'es release notes for SP1.

Not trying to rain on anyone's parade, just don't want you to get excited over nothing. Then again, I'm not sure why anyone would want to use 32-bit Vista anyway. Everything certified for 32 has to be so for 64 as well, and if you don't have a 64-bit capable CPU, you probably don't have any business running Vista anyway.
 
Indeed, they just changed the System Properties so that it will tell you the amount of physical RAM you have rather than the RAM that Vista can actually use, so people stop complaining that they've lost some of their RAM.

There is no way that 32-bit Windows, or indeed any 32-bit OS at all, will ever use a full 4GB of RAM (excepting PAE), it's just mathematically impossible when you only have 32-bit memory addresses.
 
how can we make sure that it’s using it or not? Just give me the tool name and I’ll let the guy who posted the pic do the test (can Everest tell?)
 
Microsoft, Notable Changes in Windows Vista SP1:
With SP1, Windows Vista will report the amount of system memory installed rather than report the amount of system memory available to the OS. Therefore 32-bit systems equipped with 4GB of RAM will report all 4GB in many places throughout the OS, such as the System Control Panel. However, this behavior is dependent on having a compatible BIOS, so not all users may notice this change.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if the Performance tab of Task Manager will show the correct total in the Phyiscal Memory section. I can guarantee that they've not found a way to do the impossible and map over 4GB of memory using addresses that can only address 4GB of memory though; that would require clown car addressing.
 
They can easily do the impossible if they want to. Someone already said it. And most people are already running in pae mode on their xp and vista machines. But as said so many times, Microsoft won't allow windows to go over of various reasons
 
PAE is not just some nice little way to map 4GB of RAM with 32-bit addressing - it's more like making the physical memory system 36-bit while still only giving applications a 32-bit virtual address space. This means that you require drivers that understand PAE, and applications are still limited to a 4GB virtual address space unless they're PAE aware. It's really more of a half-way house between 32- and 64-bits, and the ability to use the extra space is disabled on non-server versions of Windows since XP SP2 because then you'd get driver compatibility issues. It's more sensible to just move to a 64-bit OS than to use a hybrid 36-/32-bit OS with poor driver support.
 
Drivers just need to behave properly, and not thinking anything beyond 4GB is impossible, then they will work. You can benifit from pae if you're running multiple memory hungry programs
 
With PAE the space taken under 4GB is *still* taken. It doesn't magically make the space free up. On say, a 16GB RAM system with PAE, it still has only about 15.8GB available. That 3.x-4GB reserved space is still reserved. PAE just lets the OS step around and use the stuff above it.

PAE has no use on a straight 4GB system.
 
That is why most modern computers have memory remapping. If they didn't, not even 64-bit systems would be able to use all 4 GB
 
firas said:
how can we make sure that it’s using it or not? Just give me the tool name and I’ll let the guy who posted the pic do the test (can Everest tell?)
Click to expand...

From the same Window that is in the pic (system properties) go to the Help menu and click About. It will show you the available system memory. No, it is not using all 4 GB. They just did this so people wouldn't buy 4 GB of RAM and complain there is only 3.25.
 
firas said:
Windows Vista Service Pack 1 Build.6001.18000 32-bit

726330783.png


can this be true?
Click to expand...

No, its just showing whats installed in the system, not what it can actually use. They changed this because of people complaining that all their installed memory wasn't showing up.
 
Yeah, Microsoft decided that one class action suit isn't enough... On a system that shares system RAM with the onboard graphics it also shows the total amount of RAM installed, not the amount it can use. This is really stupid. Instead of showing consumers why 64 bit software should be demanded, Microsoft decided to give them a seditive... The hardware companies should be ashamed...

I just noticed the title. Yeah, Vista SP1 can see all 4GB... but it still can only use about 3.2...
 
Those are pretty broad statements there...

I tried to go x64 but kept hitting brick walls. A big one for me was VPN software, which I must run.

Sabrewulf165 said:
Not trying to rain on anyone's parade, just don't want you to get excited over nothing. Then again, I'm not sure why anyone would want to use 32-bit Vista anyway. Everything certified for 32 has to be so for 64 as well, and if you don't have a 64-bit capable CPU, you probably don't have any business running Vista anyway.
Click to expand...
 
Sabrewulf165 said:
Everything certified for 32 has to be so for 64 as well, and if you don't have a 64-bit capable CPU, you probably don't have any business running Vista anyway.
Click to expand...

Nope, Easy Media Creator 10 is certified for 32 bit, not 64. Some parts of it will not run on 64 bit. Intel desktop Utilities does not come in a 64 bit version. There are more, but it goes too far off topic.

Back to the original topic: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Vista-SP1-Won-039-t-Resolve-the-4-GB-RAM-Limitation-of-32-bit-Windows-Vista-75309.shtml
 
ambientZ said:
No, its just showing whats installed in the system, not what it can actually use. They changed this because of people complaining that all their installed memory wasn't showing up.
Click to expand...
Now people will complain that their systems are showing more memory than they can use, or fall under the assumption that because it shows, it's being used. It never ends. :(
 
xxEIEIOxx said:
Nope, Easy Media Creator 10 is certified for 32 bit, not 64. Some parts of it will not run on 64 bit. Intel desktop Utilities does not come in a 64 bit version. There are more, but it goes too far off topic.

Back to the original topic: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Vista-SP1-Won-039-t-Resolve-the-4-GB-RAM-Limitation-of-32-bit-Windows-Vista-75309.shtml
Click to expand...

And this is relevant to the gist of my original assertion how? That first app sounds like something nobody on this forum would be caught dead using, and the Intel Desktop Utilities, last time I checked, only work on Intel-branded boards anyway, which is another thing few on this board would probably buy into.

Also, if you're so worried about de-railing the thread, why address my tangent anyway?

I stand by what I said.
 
DeaconFrost said:
Now people will complain that their systems are showing more memory than they can use, or fall under the assumption that because it shows, it's being used. It never ends. :(
Click to expand...

Most people will probably just assume that they can access it all, and never notice that they can't.
 
Sabrewulf165 said:
And this is relevant to the gist of my original assertion how? That first app sounds like something nobody on this forum would be caught dead using, and the Intel Desktop Utilities, last time I checked, only work on Intel-branded boards anyway, which is another thing few on this board would probably buy into.

Also, if you're so worried about de-railing the thread, why address my tangent anyway?

I stand by what I said.
Click to expand...

I agree with your original assertion, and my post was not meant as an attack of your opinion. There are valid reasons why some of us are running 32 bit, I was pointing out a couple. Though I actually don't run those programs, I have tested them an know they fail on 64 bit, as do many others. I look forward to 64 bit being the standard, but some things are not ready yet. SP1 will show 4GB of RAM and still use 3.25, but for me I didn't notice a real performance difference between 3.25 on 32 bit and 4GB on 64 bit. Compatibility issues cause some of us to go back to 32 bit. As far as the original question, if you can't tell if SP1 enables that extra few hundred megs of RAM, does it really matter, beyond the "I'm not getting what I paid for" frame of mind? I'm sure it will to some, not trying to argue with anyone. Post your insights if you have them. We are all here to share knowledge.
 
xxEIEIOxx said:
I agree with your original assertion, and my post was not meant as an attack of your opinion. There are valid reasons why some of us are running 32 bit, I was pointing out a couple. Though I actually don't run those programs, I have tested them an know they fail on 64 bit, as do many others. I look forward to 64 bit being the standard, but some things are not ready yet. SP1 will show 4GB of RAM and still use 3.25, but for me I didn't notice a real performance difference between 3.25 on 32 bit and 4GB on 64 bit. Compatibility issues cause some of us to go back to 32 bit. As far as the original question, if you can't tell if SP1 enables that extra few hundred megs of RAM, does it really matter, beyond the "I'm not getting what I paid for" frame of mind? I'm sure it will to some, not trying to argue with anyone. Post your insights if you have them. We are all here to share knowledge.
Click to expand...

Sorry, after you hang out on this board for a while, you get used to having to defend your position :p

I'd agree there are reasons for staying on 32 bit, just as there are reasons (for some people) for moving to 64 bit. 64-bit is the inevitable future, though, so it just burns me when I see MS doing stuff like this so that OEMs can continue selling 32-bit machines for as long as possible rather than forcing them to start using and supporting 64-bit Vista, which is the more robust and secure of the two Vista branches.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top