Can Vista use all 4MB of RAM?

[rmo555]

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?

 

[+Bob+]

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?

Dur to other hardware chewing up somewhere between .5 and .8 mb of
memory, Vista only get to use 3.2 to 3.5mb for the OS and programs.
So, it's all being used by your computer, it's just not all available
to the OS.

 

[David H. Lipman]

From: "+Bob+" <[email protected]>


| Dur to other hardware chewing up somewhere between .5 and .8 mb of
| memory, Vista only get to use 3.2 to 3.5mb for the OS and programs.
| So, it's all being used by your computer, it's just not all available
| to the OS.


I think you had better re-examine your answer and your nomenclature.

 

[Sinner]

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?

Windows has been capable of using more than 4MB ram for years.

 

[Peter Foldes]

Explain how you arrive at this

 

[Sinner]

Explain how you arrive at this

Because, your brain is filling in info that isn't there. The message says
"4MB", not the 4GB that you're seeing.

 

[Peter Webb]

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 doubt it. I think the area above 3 Gbyte limit is used for memory mapping
a variety of IO devices, and even if you could force 32 bit Vista to look
above that limit, any enabled RAM would conflict with these addresses.

 

[Peter Foldes]

Out of the vault sinner

Guess you did not understand.

 

[Simon]

I doubt it. I think the area above 3 Gbyte limit is used for memory
mapping a variety of IO devices, and even if you could force 32 bit
Vista to look above that limit, any enabled RAM would conflict with
these addresses.

Your reply is perfectly correct ... for 4Gb, but if you re-read the
message the OP was asking about 4MB not 4Gb

Simon

 

[Rick Rogers]

Hi,

What you're probably thinking of is that once SP1 is installed, Vista will
report seeing all 4GB (not MB) of installed ram in a 32-bit installation.
However, it cannot actually use it under any circumstances. As Peter Webb
has pointed out, the 4GB of address space available in Vista 32-bit is
partially used for hardware, the remaining amount is allocated for
addressing memory.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP

Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
Vote for my shoe: http://rick-mvp.blogspot.com

 

[Tim Slattery]

Windows has been capable of using more than 4MB ram for years.

Only server systems (which use PAE to accomplish this) and 64-bit
systems. 32-bit XP and Vista cannot use a full 4MB. See
http://members.cox.net/slatteryt/RAM.html for a discussion.

 

[Sinner]

Only server systems (which use PAE to accomplish this) and 64-bit
systems. 32-bit XP and Vista cannot use a full 4MB. See
http://members.cox.net/slatteryt/RAM.html for a discussion.

They let you vote? You can't even comprehend what you're reading. The
original post said 4MB (Megabytes) moron, not 4GB (Gigabytes)! And you get
the MVP?

 

[Bill Yanaire]

Out of the vault sinner

Guess you did not understand.

What are you talking about? of course he understood. He answered the question correctly.

 

[Tim Slattery]

Only server systems (which use PAE to accomplish this) and 64-bit
systems. 32-bit XP and Vista cannot use a full 4MB. See
http://members.cox.net/slatteryt/RAM.html for a discussion.

Ugh! I assume OP meant 4GB. I answered on that basis, though I copied
his use of MB instead of GB.

 

[Richard Urban]

Vista can only use 3.2 to 3.5mb for the OS and programs? No wonder people
complain of slow start problems. Barely enough left to run notepad!

Guess I wasted my money buying 4 GIG of RAM!

 

[John]

Windows 3.x can use more than 4MB.

 

[Richard Urban]

My post was facetious!

Everyone is missing the point. The guy said megabytes NOT gigabytes! You
missed it too.

 

[Richard Urban]

Of course he meant 4 gig, but everyone was parroting his 4 megabytes and
running with it.

 

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Richard Urban" <[email protected]>

| Of course he meant 4 gig, but everyone was parroting his 4 megabytes and
| running with it.

Worse was nomenclature in this thread.

4mb <> 4MB
b = bit
B = byte
m = milli
M = mega

 

[David H. Lipman]

From: "whs" <[email protected]>

| David H. Lipman;1123231 Wrote: > From: "Richard Urban"
| <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@xxxxxx> > > | Of course he meant 4 gig, but everyone was
| parroting his 4 megabytes > and > | running with it. > > Worse was nomenclature in
| this thread. > > 4mb <> 4MB > b = bit > B = byte > m = milli > M = mega > > > -- >
| Dave > 'Generic Trojan / Adware Infestation Removal Procedures' >
| (http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html) > Multi-AV - 'Multi-AV Scanning
| Tool - PCtipp.ch - Downloads' > (http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp) You guys
| are too purist - use your imagination. But since the OP seems to have abandoned the
| thread, it may not matter anyhow. -- whs

This is Usenet. We don't use crystal balls or imagination. All we have to go on is the
text of the query.

If someone asks a question they have to be precise and provide proper facts or the query
can be misconstrued and the answer provided may be completely wrong.