XP RAM limit

[shadowbreaker513]

I'm ordering some new computer parts tonight, and considering the cheap price of ram, I've though of going ahead and getting 4 gigs. However, I don't have Vista, and I don't plan to given how absolutely terrible it is atm for gaming. I think I remember hearing somewhere that XP maxes out handling 3.4 gigs of RAM or thereabouts. If this is the case, then I think I would most likely wait until hopefully one day Vista gets ironed out enough to be usable to go for 4 gigs and just stick with ordering 2 gigs for now. And for those wondering, if I had a 4 gig RAM capacity, I would probably be using it all. I'm a RAM goldfish, the amount I use grows to fill the amount I can.

[juppy]

Yeah, I think XP's limit is like 3.5 Gig. The 2 Gigs you mentioned getting will likely run everything you need sufficiently though. Granted, the more ram the better, but most people aren't running over 2 Gigs right now anyway.

[TwoRails]

Not to burst the bubble, but Vista and XP are both 32 bit and have the same memory limitations. If you want to use 4 GB or more, you'll need a 64 bit OS. You can actually run slower with 4GB due to the overhead involved. Depending on the setup, you may only "see" 3.2, but some see a little more.

[NightOwl]

Originally Posted by TwoRails Not to burst the bubble, but Vista and XP are both 32 bit and have the same memory limitations. If you want to use 4 GB or more, you'll need a 64 bit OS. You can actually run slower with 4GB due to the overhead involved. Depending on the setup, you may only "see" 3.2, but some see a little more.

I'm not sure I agree with any of the answers in this thread. In fact, I completely don't. I've seen this question plenty of times on other fourms and my research leads me to believe 4 GB is the maximum for 32-bit OS. People get easily confused by the fact Windows shows 3.5 GB in the system properties and start jumping to conclusions without proper research. You will notice that all the source of information below are provided directly from Microsoft. You can argue that they don't know anything about Windows, but I think their engineers know a few things about memory address space.

The maximum amount of memory that can be supported on Windows XP Professional and Windows Server 2003 is also 4 GB. However, Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition supports 32 GB of physical RAM and Windows Server 2003, Datacenter Edition supports 64 GB of physical RAM using the PAE feature.

Source of information



Source of information

Processes and Address Spaces All processes (e.g. application executables) running under 32 bit Windows gets virtual memory addresses (a Virtual Address Space) going from 0 to 4,294,967,295 (2*32-1 = 4 GB), no matter how much RAM is actually installed on the computer. In the default Windows OS configuration, 2 GB of this virtual address space are designated for each process’ private use and the other 2 GB are shared between all processes and the operating system. Normally, applications (e.g. Notepad, Word, Excel, Acrobat Reader) use only a small fraction of the 2GB of private address space. The operating system only assigns RAM page frames to virtual memory pages that are in use. Physical Address Extension (PAE) is the feature of the Intel 32 bit architecture that expands the physical memory (RAM) address to 36 bits (see KB articles 268363 and 261988). PAE does not change the size of the virtual address space, which remains at 4 GB, just the amount of actual RAM that can be addressed by the processor. The translation between the 32 bit virtual memory address used by the code running in a process and the 36 bit RAM address is handled automatically and transparently by the computer hardware according to translation tables maintained by the operating system. Any virtual memory page (32 bit address) can be associated with any physical RAM page (36 bit address). Here's a list of how much RAM the various Windows versions and editions support (as of Nov 2004): Windows NT 4.0: 4 GB Windows 2000 Professional: 4 GB Windows 2000 Standard Server: 4 GB Windows 2000 Advanced Server: 8GB Windows 2000 Datacenter Server: 32GB Windows XP Professional: 4 GB

Source of information

[TwoRails]

What part are you not agreeing with?? "Seeing" and "using" are two different things. For example, in you last link, it supports that a process can not use more than 2 GB:

1. 2 GB of shared virtual address space for the system 2. 2 GB of private virtual address space per process

[NightOwl]

Originally Posted by TwoRails What part are you not agreeing with?? "Seeing" and "using" are two different things. For example, in you last link, it supports that a process can not use more than 2 GB: 1. 2 GB of shared virtual address space for the system 2. 2 GB of private virtual address space per process

Complete load of manure. Hey if you're going to quote me, or the article I listed, then have the maturity & decency to it right. Your wording is completely off and I never said those words nor does the article above support your claim.

WinXP (32-bit) can address & use upto 4 GB RAM - that includes both system RAM and virtual memory. Check out the article at the links I posted. Read it carefully and understand what it's saying before you attempt to debate your position. I will not argue with a simpleton.

[TwoRails]

Originally Posted by NightOwl Complete load of manure. Hey if you're going to quote me...

I didn't quote you, I quoted your link.

Originally Posted by NightOwl ... Your wording is completely off ...

Ah... it was your article I quoted...

[TwoRails]

shadowbreaker513, you are correct that Windows will Not report the 4 full gigs of RAM. It's common knowledge and is even in a lot of motherboard manuals. I guess it's time to clean up my mountain of links as I didn't find my MS link, but here is a link to HP that recognized this fact:

http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/g...reg_R1002_USEN

It states:

... However, maximum memory is limited to approximately 3 GB in Windows XP (32-bit Editions). This limitation is present on all 32-bit PCs and 32-bit operating systems and is not limited to HP and Compaq systems.

Yes... you can install 4GB but it'll be a waste as Windows may "see" it but it doesn't "use" it.

HTH

TR

[Panama Red]

Originally Posted by NightOwl Complete load of manure. Hey if you're going to quote me, or the article I listed, then have the maturity & decency to it right. Your wording is completely off and I never said those words nor does the article above support your claim. WinXP (32-bit) can address & use upto 4 GB RAM - that includes both system RAM and virtual memory. Check out the article at the links I posted. Read it carefully and understand what it's saying before you attempt to debate your position. I will not argue with a simpleton.

NiteOwl, might be time for you to review our Forum Rules. Disagreements here are fine but we don't allow flaming of members for any reason. Keep it civil and non-personal.

-------------moderator----------------

[glc]

Windows will report anywhere from 2.75 to 3.25 gigs, this is due to hardware addressing requirements.

That said, here is my recommendation - due to the dirt cheap pricing, buy the 4gb now and install 2gb. Put the other pair away until you upgrade to a 64 bit OS then install it.

[aggieliberal]

Originally Posted by glc Windows will report anywhere from 2.75 to 3.25 gigs, this is due to hardware addressing requirements. That said, here is my recommendation - due to the dirt cheap pricing, buy the 4gb now and install 2gb. Put the other pair away until you upgrade to a 64 bit OS then install it.

Would Windows recognize a 3rd stick? I was thinking about doing what you said here (buying the 2 sticks now) but if Windows recognizes it, is it helpful to run on 3 gigs of RAM?

[whubbard]

just a suggestion...you could go to 64-bit. It's really worth it.

Well you could put all the sticks in...and see if its faster/slower. it really depends on the system.

[Cricket]

Originally Posted by aggieliberal if Windows recognizes it, is it helpful to run on 3 gigs of RAM?

Depends on what you're doing with the computer. If you're doing memory intensive work with the computer and it's going to the swap file a lot then adding more RAM is highly recommended. But if your computer isn't going to the swap file much then adding more RAM won't really do much...it'll just sit there unused.

Cricket

[glc]

Adding a 3rd stick in a computer that supports dual channel ram will revert it to single channel. This will result in a performance hit - balance that out with the benefits of going from 2gb to 3gb, I think I'd stick with 2gb in dual channel.