I am running WinXP Pro SP2 on an Asus A8N-SLI Deluxe motherboard (AMD64).

I've been thinking of upgrading my RAM to 4GB (from 2GB) but I keep hearing
conflicting stories about WinXP's ability (or lack of it) to recognize all
of it when running at 32 bits.

I'd like to get the truth straight from the horse's mouth - if I add 2 more
sticks of ram in there (4GB total), will my system be able to see all 4 GB?

Yes or no?

Let's put this debate to rest once and for all.

Windows XP can see up to 4 gig. However, some of that 4 gig is used
by cards and other things in the system so you get 3.x gig where x is
some number like 2, 3, or 4 depending on what you have in your system.
I would suggest checking the manual for your motherboard as most of
them tell you what to expect. If the manual doesn't say check with
the motherboard manufacturer.

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 20:37:14 -0400, "mjs" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I am running WinXP Pro SP2 on an Asus A8N-SLI Deluxe motherboard (AMD64).
>
>I've been thinking of upgrading my RAM to 4GB (from 2GB) but I keep hearing
>conflicting stories about WinXP's ability (or lack of it) to recognize all
>of it when running at 32 bits.
>
>I'd like to get the truth straight from the horse's mouth - if I add 2 more
>sticks of ram in there (4GB total), will my system be able to see all 4 GB?
>
>Yes or no?
>
>Let's put this debate to rest once and for all.
>

Your system/Windows will not display the amount of ram correctly but it all
there. Just add the /3GB switch to your boot.ini to get the most out of the
4GB of ram. This option effectively gives 1GB for the OS and 3GB for
applications.

See: Memory Support and Windows Operating Systems
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system...AE/PAEmem.mspx

Available switch options for the Windows XP and the Windows Server 2003
Boot.ini files
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/833721

JS


"mjs" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>I am running WinXP Pro SP2 on an Asus A8N-SLI Deluxe motherboard (AMD64).
>
> I've been thinking of upgrading my RAM to 4GB (from 2GB) but I keep
> hearing conflicting stories about WinXP's ability (or lack of it) to
> recognize all of it when running at 32 bits.
>
> I'd like to get the truth straight from the horse's mouth - if I add 2
> more sticks of ram in there (4GB total), will my system be able to see all
> 4 GB?
>
> Yes or no?
>
> Let's put this debate to rest once and for all.
>

mjs wrote:

> I am running WinXP Pro SP2 on an Asus A8N-SLI Deluxe motherboard (AMD64).
>
> I've been thinking of upgrading my RAM to 4GB (from 2GB) but I keep hearing
> conflicting stories about WinXP's ability (or lack of it) to recognize all
> of it when running at 32 bits.
>
> I'd like to get the truth straight from the horse's mouth - if I add 2 more
> sticks of ram in there (4GB total), will my system be able to see all 4 GB?
>
> Yes or no?
>
> Let's put this debate to rest once and for all.

No. What Windows XP 32-bit will see depends on what hardware you have
in the computer, for most computers it ranges anywheres between 2.75 to
3.5GB. Here is the reason why 32-bit XP cannot fully use 4GB of RAM:

[Quote]

The problem that you are seeing is based on an older architecture
design for memory addressing. All the systems architecture up to this
point were based on a maximum of 4GB of total memory. Nobody really
thought, when this standard was designed, that this amount of memory
would actually be in use. The problem that has happened is that you
have PCI devices that require memory address ranges so that they can
properly execute their commands. These address ranges were mapped in
the upper sections of this maximum amount. Since nobody thought you
would be using up to 4GB these address ranges started around the last
500MB of the memory ranges. This range is called the T.O.M. or Top of
Memory range. This is the point in the bios where it places on hold the
amount of memory that is required by the various PCI devices that are
found on the motherboard. Thus when you have PCI cards or AGP cards
installed on your motherboard these devices hold on to memory for their
own use and take away from the maximum amount of memory that is
available for other tasks. This amount of memory can vary from a little
as 200MB all the way to 1GB of memory (or even more in select cases).
It just depends on the PCI devices you have and the amount of PCI
(including AGP) that you have installed all at once.

There is really no way to get around this basic design limitation. The
only way to get around these type of issues is to use certain new
designs that have brand new architectures (i.e 64-bit designs) that
allow memory to be mapped in area's above 4GB. The brand new Intel Xeon
designs and the AMD Opteron designs are built around 64-bit technology.
This is only ½ of the equation that you would need to find success.
You would also need to use an OS that is actually PAE or PAE aware so
that it is able to address memory above the 4GB level. To find out
about PAE you can search Microsofts website for PAE (Physical Address
Extensions) and it will explain this concept and what OS's actually are
capable of providing this benefit. Windows 2000 and Windows 2003 would
fit both of these criteria. Windows XP on the hand would not allow this
type of ability.

Microsoft has addressed this type of issue in the following Microsoft
Article (291988)
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;291988

[end quote]

http://www.tyan.com/archive/support/...emory_faq.html

To be able to use the full 4GB RAM you have to use a 64-bit operating
system or a 32-bit operating system that is PAE aware.

John

"John John" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> No. What Windows XP 32-bit will see depends on what hardware you have in
> the computer, for most computers it ranges anywheres between 2.75 to
> 3.5GB.

So the ideal amount of ram to not have any of it go unused would be 3GB?

The use of the /3GB switch will do nothing to alleviate the problem and
it may cause other severe problems. The switch should only be used for
specific reasons involving certain applications and the op has not
mentioned that he has any applications needing this.

http://blogs.technet.com/askperf/arc...fying-3gb.aspx

John

JS wrote:

> Your system/Windows will not display the amount of ram correctly but it all
> there. Just add the /3GB switch to your boot.ini to get the most out of the
> 4GB of ram. This option effectively gives 1GB for the OS and 3GB for
> applications.
>
> See: Memory Support and Windows Operating Systems
> http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system...AE/PAEmem.mspx
>
> Available switch options for the Windows XP and the Windows Server 2003
> Boot.ini files
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/833721
>
> JS
>
>
> "mjs" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>>I am running WinXP Pro SP2 on an Asus A8N-SLI Deluxe motherboard (AMD64).
>>
>>I've been thinking of upgrading my RAM to 4GB (from 2GB) but I keep
>>hearing conflicting stories about WinXP's ability (or lack of it) to
>>recognize all of it when running at 32 bits.
>>
>>I'd like to get the truth straight from the horse's mouth - if I add 2
>>more sticks of ram in there (4GB total), will my system be able to see all
>>4 GB?
>>
>>Yes or no?
>>
>>Let's put this debate to rest once and for all.
>>
>
>
>

JS wrote:
> Your system/Windows will not display the amount of ram correctly but it all
> there. Just add the /3GB switch to your boot.ini to get the most out of the
> 4GB of ram. This option effectively gives 1GB for the OS and 3GB for
> applications.

That switch only moves the virtual border between user and kernel space.
It won't affect how much physical address space is given to your ram modules

"John John" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> The use of the /3GB switch will do nothing to alleviate the problem and it
> may cause other severe problems. The switch should only be used for
> specific reasons involving certain applications and the op has not
> mentioned that he has any applications needing this.

- Cakewalk Sonar 7 (Digital Audio Workstation)
- Photoshop CS3

These will represent more than 90% of the computer's use.

mjs wrote:

> "John John" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>>No. What Windows XP 32-bit will see depends on what hardware you have in
>>the computer, for most computers it ranges anywheres between 2.75 to
>>3.5GB.
>
>
> So the ideal amount of ram to not have any of it go unused would be 3GB?

That is a rule of thumb figure that is often suggested. But a more
important question is "Why do you need all that RAM?" Are you
experiencing memory problems? What applications are you using that need
more RAM than what you have installed now? For most users 2GB of RAM is
already about 1GB more than they will ever need! Unless your computer
is paging adding more RAM will make little difference in the performance
of the computer, you should use Perfmon to monitor the pagefile usage
then decide if more RAM is needed for your programs and computing habits.

John

This article by MS-MVP Tim Slattery may be of interest:

4 GB RAM in Windows XP
http://members.cox.net/slatteryt/RAM.html

--
HTH,
Curt

Windows Support Center
www.aumha.org
Practically Nerded,...
http://dundats.mvps.org/Index.htm

"mjs" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
|I am running WinXP Pro SP2 on an Asus A8N-SLI Deluxe motherboard (AMD64).
|
| I've been thinking of upgrading my RAM to 4GB (from 2GB) but I keep
hearing
| conflicting stories about WinXP's ability (or lack of it) to recognize all
| of it when running at 32 bits.
|
| I'd like to get the truth straight from the horse's mouth - if I add 2
more
| sticks of ram in there (4GB total), will my system be able to see all 4
GB?
|
| Yes or no?
|
| Let's put this debate to rest once and for all.
|
|