Installed 4Gb of memory under WinXP, but only 3,406,240 bytes available

[Charles Elliott]

Hello:

I installed 4Gb of memory under WinXP, but Task Manager indicates only
3,406,240 bytes

are available for use. Does anyone know why that is? Is there any way to
get WinXP to use

the full 4GB?


Thanks,

CHE

 

[Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]]

Hello:

I installed 4Gb of memory under WinXP, but Task Manager indicates
only 3,406,240 bytes

are available for use. Does anyone know why that is? Is there any
way to get WinXP to use

the full 4GB?


Thanks,

CHE

This is normal if you aren't using WinXP x64.

 

[Thee Chicago Wolf]

I installed 4Gb of memory under WinXP, but Task Manager indicates only

3,406,240 bytes

are available for use. Does anyone know why that is? Is there any way to
get WinXP to use

the full 4GB?

Nope. That is the limit of a 32-bit operating system. You're lucky to
be seeing 3.4GB. Most see only 3-3.25. The only way to see all 4GB is
to use a 64-bit OS.

- Thee Chicago Wolf

 

[Bob I]

Because there is only 4 gig of address space available in a 32 bit
operating system and you must first use some addresses to communicate
with the other installed hardware. What is left is used to address the
installed memory, 3.4 gig in your case. What you see is normal, and if
you want more of that 4 gig space to address RAM, you would have to give
up other things that make up the computer.

 

[Unknown]

Does task manager really only show 3.4 MEGs?

 

[Charles Elliott]

Yes.

Does task manager really only show 3.4 MEGs?

 

[Bob I]

Only if if you ignore the "(K)" indicating "Kilobytes" in Task Manager,
and the fact that the word "bytes" does not appear anywhere.

 

[John]

Who ate my memory?
http://blogs.msdn.com/dcook/archive/2007/03/25/who-ate-my-memory.aspx

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Hello:

I installed 4Gb of memory under WinXP, but Task Manager indicates only
3,406,240 bytes

are available for use. Does anyone know why that is? Is there any way to
get WinXP to use

the full 4GB?

Answered in another newsgroup. Please do not send the same message
separately to more than one newsgroup (called multiposting). Doing so
just fragments the thread, so someone who answers in one newsgroup
doesn't get to see answers from others in another newsgroup. And for
those who read all the newsgroups the message is multiposted to, they
see the message multiple times instead of once (they would see it only
once if you correctly crossposted instead). This wastes everyone's
time, and gets you poorer help than you should get.

If you must send the same message to more than one newsgroup, please
do so by crossposting (but only to a *few* related newsgroups).

 

[Peter Foldes]

No . That is not the limit of a 32 bit operating system It is specific to XP,Vista and before.And as you said the 64 bit can handle more . The reason I said the latter is on account I have a 32 bit operating system and it has 16gigs of memory and it shows as such. It is the Window 2003 Enterprise 32 bit . It also has the capability to go up to 68gigs.

What you need to say is that Vista 32 bit is only capable of registering 3.2 - 3.5 gigs of memory when there is 4 and plus gigs of memory installed. Not that is the limit of a 32 bit etc etc

 

[Tim Slattery]

Hello:

I installed 4Gb of memory under WinXP, but Task Manager indicates only
3,406,240 bytes are available for use.

http://members.cox.net/slatteryt/RAM.html

 

[Thee Chicago Wolf]

No . That is not the limit of a 32 bit operating system It is specific to XP,Vista and before.And as you said the 64 bit can handle more . The reason I said the latter is on account I have a 32 bit operating system and it has 16gigs of memory and it shows as such. It is the Window 2003 Enterprise 32 bit . It also has the capability to go up to 68gigs.

What you need to say is that Vista 32 bit is only capable of registering 3.2 - 3.5 gigs of memory when there is 4 and plus gigs of memory installed. Not that is the limit of a 32 bit etc etc

What you're referring to is PAE and it's a mapping kludge to
pseudo-recognize more than 4GB RAM. Linux can do this same "trick" so
I do realize there are some exceptions to the rule. This is just a
poor trick to sort-of get around the real-world limit of a 32-bit OS.
Addressing 4GB or more of physical RAM still requires 64-bit, no bones
about it. Tricks or no tricks.

- Thee Chicago Wolf

 

[Peter Foldes]

You were saying and I quote "All 32 bit systems"

Read and see the following on some 32 bit systems what I was telling you or trying to explain. No tricks and no PAE.

Actual fact

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx#physical_memory_limits_windows_server_2003

Also to which you were correctly referring to.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx

 

[John John (MVP)]

Please read the literature that you pointed us to. Thee Chicago Wolf is
right, none of the Windows 32-bit versions can access more than 4GB of
RAM without the use of PAE, and that includes Server Enterprise
versions. The information in the link that you provided say as much:

Physical Memory Limits: Windows Server 2003

The following table specifies the limits on physical memory for Windows
Server 2003. Limits over 4 GB for 32-bit Windows assume that PAE is enabled.

[end quote]

John

 

[Peter Foldes]

John John

Sorry but a difference of opinion on my end anyway. I stick with what I posted

--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

Please read the literature that you pointed us to. Thee Chicago Wolf is
right, none of the Windows 32-bit versions can access more than 4GB of
RAM without the use of PAE, and that includes Server Enterprise
versions. The information in the link that you provided say as much:

Physical Memory Limits: Windows Server 2003

The following table specifies the limits on physical memory for Windows
Server 2003. Limits over 4 GB for 32-bit Windows assume that PAE is enabled.

[end quote]

John

You were saying and I quote "All 32 bit systems"

Read and see the following on some 32 bit systems what I was telling you or trying to explain. No tricks and no PAE.

Actual fact

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx#physical_memory_limits_windows_server_2003

Also to which you were correctly referring to.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx

 

[John John (MVP)]

This is not an issue of debatable differences of opinions! It is simply
a fact that NONE of the Windows 32-bit versions can access more than 4GB
of RAM without the use of PAE! If you want to stick with what you
posted that is fine by me, but it doesn't change the facts that what you
say is incorrect. Read here for more information:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/283037/en-us

John

 

[Peter Foldes]

As is the case here

Note In Windows Server 2003, PAE is automatically enabled only if the server is using hot-add memory devices. In this case, you do not have to use the /PAE switch on a system that is configured to use hot-add memory devices. In all other cases, you must use the /PAE switch in the Boot.ini file to take advantage of memory over 4GB.

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/pnppwr/hotadd/hotaddmem.mspx

 

[dennis]

What you're referring to is PAE and it's a mapping kludge to
pseudo-recognize more than 4GB RAM. Linux can do this same "trick"

The core of PAE is not a mapping kludge. Some people just keep telling
it that.

 

[Bob I]

The core of PAE is not a mapping kludge. Some people just keep telling
it that.

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/pae_os.mspx

 

[dennis]

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/pae_os.mspx

Yes?