| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 79235 | 2007-05-13 10:56:00 | Windows XP does not recognise 4GB Ram (shows 3.25GB) | george12 (7) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 549522 | 2007-05-13 21:00:00 | I can link you to the original thread if you're really interested. The comment related to why Server 2003 doesn't have the same restriction. MS don't write the drivers for the hardware. | PaulD (232) | ||
| 549523 | 2007-05-13 21:25:00 | I have had high end Dell workstations shipped to me configured using the /3GB and /PAE switches in the boot.ini, you may want to investigate this. |
BIFF (1) | ||
| 549524 | 2007-05-13 23:05:00 | I have had high end Dell workstations shipped to me configured using the /3GB and /PAE switches in the boot.ini, you may want to investigate this. That's the first thing I checked, PAE is enabled already and there's no 3GB switch - but I see more than 3GB anyway. |
george12 (7) | ||
| 549525 | 2007-05-13 23:11:00 | The /3GB switch applies to the division of virtual memory per process between os and application. Only some apps like Photoshop can use this. | PaulD (232) | ||
| 549526 | 2007-05-13 23:26:00 | And under XP almost nothing in the way of applications can or will use that much RAM anyway.Obviously my work application fits under the "almost nothing" banner :) Mike. |
Mike (15) | ||
| 549527 | 2007-05-14 00:07:00 | Obviously my work application fits under the "almost nothing" banner :) Mike. What's your work application? This PC is intended for an architect, and I'm sure plenty of Ram will be used. But I don't see a really good workaround. He is using Windows XP instead of Vista for maximum compatibility with his software (3DS Max etc) and afaik there are some things that don't like Windows XP Pro x64 very much (anyone care to tell me if that's right or not?). I will run it past him though. |
george12 (7) | ||
| 549528 | 2007-05-14 00:27:00 | What's your work application? This PC is intended for an architect, and I'm sure plenty of Ram will be used. I use a GIS application called ArcGIS, and also AutoCAD (so similar area to an architect I imagine). We were looking at Windows 2003 to be able to use more than 3GB (and for added stability), but in the end we're going to stick with XP in the short term for maximum app and driver compatibility. Will look at changing OS and adding RAM at a later stage. Am also getting dual-core Xeon and 2 PCI-Express video cards for 3 screens :D (I couldn't work with less than 3 screens now that I've had 3 for a while. Probably couldn't go to more than 3 though due to RSI issues LOL). Mike. |
Mike (15) | ||
| 549529 | 2008-08-15 04:40:00 | I have this exact issue and it's very frustrating because there is a Microsoft article about it and it's incomplete as to whether or not the OS actually uses the memory when it doesn't see it and the mainboard sees all of it. My mainboard will take up to 8 Gig of memory and I have 4 GB (2 each,2GB strips), all of which is seen by the mainboard and only 3.2 GB of which is seen by the OS (XP Pro service pack 2). The is a MS article that addresses the issue and says XP will use up to 4 GB of RAM but that you have to add a switch in the boot.ini file. www.microsoft.com I have followed the instructions inserting the "/3GB" switch in various places in the appropriate string (there are a couple of others theres already) and even replacing one of those with the new switch but XP still only sees 3.2 Gig. I've run across a couple of other people reporting that the switch didn't help them either, including the person that I got the knowledge base link from. I've also found posts that lead me to believe that the same issue exists in Vista. Some people say that other resources on the mainboard like video and such may use some of that memory and cause the OS to not report it all but I have to wonder if it's not just a bunch of people that don't really know. I do know that in previous OS versions on the WIN 95/98 kernel all of the memory was recognised...or at least on all the computers I had ocasion to be that detailed with. I don't remeber using anywhere near tha much memory on those though, and none of the ones I'm running now with 98 SE have over 1 GB. I suppose it's just the nature of the beast but it would be nice if MS would address this issue fully in the knowlege base and answer questions as to whether or not the unrecognised capacity is being used and why it's not being recognised in the first place. It makes you feel foolish to have bought a motherboard that will accept 8 gig of RAM, to have bought 4 expecting to upgrade more later and then have it not be recognised. I've also read post suggesting that less memory may run faster. |
bill214 (12261) | ||
| 549530 | 2008-08-15 05:03:00 | You need to have Windows XP x64 to recognise more than about 3GB. You must have 32 bit Windows XP - correct??? If the motherboard will support 8GB that does NOT mean you will be able to use all of it - you need a 64 bit OS for your OS to use more than 3GB. |
jwil1 (65) | ||
| 549531 | 2008-08-15 06:07:00 | Did you read this part. www.microsoft.com:80 :) |
Trev (427) | ||
| 1 2 3 | |||||