I read somewhere (in a magazine) that there was a way for 32 bit Vista
to use all 4 MB of RAM - but I can't remember where I saw it. Anybody
know?

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news(E-Mail Removed)...
> I read somewhere (in a magazine) that there was a way for 32 bit Vista
> to use all 4 MB of RAM - but I can't remember where I saw it. Anybody
> know?.
..
I know you mean four gigabytes and the short answer is No. If you're using
32 bit Vista some of the address space is taken by hardware so less then
four GB is available to the OS and applications. If you use 64 bit Vista
and have four GB installed then it will be available to the OS and
applications (that's a simplification, but basically the 64 bit OS doesn't
have the 4 GB address space limitation).

.... and the answer was no in the other newsgroup you asked in. It's still
no, by the way. :-)

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news(E-Mail Removed)...
> I read somewhere (in a magazine) that there was a way for 32 bit Vista
> to use all 4 MB of RAM - but I can't remember where I saw it. Anybody
> know?

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news(E-Mail Removed)...
>I read somewhere (in a magazine) that there was a way for 32 bit Vista
> to use all 4 MB of RAM - but I can't remember where I saw it. Anybody
> know?

Vista x86 can address 4GB, but hardware requirements
reduce the address space available to 3.0GB to 3.5GB.

Hi, Richard.

"rmo555" reminds me of the definition of the difference between psychotic
and neurotic:
A psychotic thinks that 2 + 2 + 5.
A neurotic KNOWS that 2 + 2 = 4...and he's mad about it!

It sounds like rmo555 already knows the answer, but is mad about it and is
still looking for someone who will confirm the mistake. :>(

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
(E-Mail Removed)
Microsoft Windows MVP
Windows Live Mail 2009 (14.0.8089.0726) in Win7 Ultimate x64

"Richard G. Harper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:2B5C4485-DC53-4A10-AC2D-(E-Mail Removed)...
> ... and the answer was no in the other newsgroup you asked in. It's still
> no, by the way. :-)
>
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news(E-Mail Removed)...
>> I read somewhere (in a magazine) that there was a way for 32 bit Vista
>> to use all 4 MB of RAM - but I can't remember where I saw it. Anybody
>> know?

Sorry, I forgot to crosspost.


On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 22:04:04 -0400, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>I read somewhere (in a magazine) that there was a way for 32 bit Vista
>to use all 4 MB of RAM - but I can't remember where I saw it. Anybody
>know?

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> I read somewhere (in a magazine) that there was a way for 32 bit Vista
> to use all 4 MB of RAM - but I can't remember where I saw it. Anybody
> know?

There is a way to use RAM above 4 GB but here's the deal. A 32 bit
binary number can only "Count up to" 4 Gigabytes, and when you get there
and add one it rolls back to zero again. This means that if you have
hardware that only has a 32 bit address bus, or Vista 32 that is a 32
bit operating system, you cannot have a memory address that is bigger
than 4 GB.

What you can do is "Page" memory, in other words you can have like a
book of 4GB "Pages" and swap from one to the next. This is called "PAE"
but is not terribly useful for normal use, you would be much better to
use a 64 bit operating system.

So 4GB is like a limit fixed by hardware or the operating system, and
since your hardware needs some permanent memory addresses to work you
lose those addresses from the maximum available. In short you will get
3.2 or 3.3 GB max, although I would still suggest you install 4 GB
rather than 2GB.

If you upgrade from Vista 32 I strongly suggest you go for Windows 7 64
bit or you could run a Linux 64 bit solution. W7 looks pretty good to me
so far and although I have not had that much time to spend with it MS
have taken a step forward.

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 21:03:58 -0500, Charlie Tame <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>> I read somewhere (in a magazine) that there was a way for 32 bit Vista
>> to use all 4 MB of RAM - but I can't remember where I saw it. Anybody
>> know?
>
>There is a way to use RAM above 4 GB but here's the deal. A 32 bit
>binary number can only "Count up to" 4 Gigabytes, and when you get there
> and add one it rolls back to zero again. This means that if you have
>hardware that only has a 32 bit address bus, or Vista 32 that is a 32
>bit operating system, you cannot have a memory address that is bigger
>than 4 GB.
>
>What you can do is "Page" memory, in other words you can have like a
>book of 4GB "Pages" and swap from one to the next. This is called "PAE"
>but is not terribly useful for normal use, you would be much better to
>use a 64 bit operating system.
>
>So 4GB is like a limit fixed by hardware or the operating system, and
>since your hardware needs some permanent memory addresses to work you
>lose those addresses from the maximum available. In short you will get
>3.2 or 3.3 GB max, although I would still suggest you install 4 GB
>rather than 2GB.
>
>If you upgrade from Vista 32 I strongly suggest you go for Windows 7 64
>bit or you could run a Linux 64 bit solution. W7 looks pretty good to me
>so far and although I have not had that much time to spend with it MS
>have taken a step forward.

My concern with 64 bit is driver availability.

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 23:02:54 -0400, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 21:03:58 -0500, Charlie Tame <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:
>
>>(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>>> I read somewhere (in a magazine) that there was a way for 32 bit Vista
>>> to use all 4 MB of RAM - but I can't remember where I saw it. Anybody
>>> know?
>>
>>There is a way to use RAM above 4 GB but here's the deal. A 32 bit
>>binary number can only "Count up to" 4 Gigabytes, and when you get there
>> and add one it rolls back to zero again. This means that if you have
>>hardware that only has a 32 bit address bus, or Vista 32 that is a 32
>>bit operating system, you cannot have a memory address that is bigger
>>than 4 GB.
>>
>>What you can do is "Page" memory, in other words you can have like a
>>book of 4GB "Pages" and swap from one to the next. This is called "PAE"
>>but is not terribly useful for normal use, you would be much better to
>>use a 64 bit operating system.
>>
>>So 4GB is like a limit fixed by hardware or the operating system, and
>>since your hardware needs some permanent memory addresses to work you
>>lose those addresses from the maximum available. In short you will get
>>3.2 or 3.3 GB max, although I would still suggest you install 4 GB
>>rather than 2GB.
>>
>>If you upgrade from Vista 32 I strongly suggest you go for Windows 7 64
>>bit or you could run a Linux 64 bit solution. W7 looks pretty good to me
>>so far and although I have not had that much time to spend with it MS
>>have taken a step forward.
>
>My concern with 64 bit is driver availability.

As more and more people move to the 64 bit os's mroe and more 64 bit
drivers will become available. I have heard, but never personally
tried, that 32 bit drivers will work with a 64 bit os.

No they won't.

"f/fgeorge" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...

> As more and more people move to the 64 bit os's mroe and more 64 bit
> drivers will become available. I have heard, but never personally
> tried, that 32 bit drivers will work with a 64 bit os.