So CAN XP 32 Bit utilize the whole 4GB? Or only 3.5GB?

[itakey]

Can Windows XP Pro 32-Bit utilize a full 4GB in a machine? I tried to load up Windows XP Pro 64-bit but it has proved to be a bit quirky for me so I am considering going back to XP Pro 32-Bit which I know works with all of my hardware (Scanners, Printers, Etc)

I have 4-1GB chips of RAM. Will all 4 show up in Windows XP Pro 32 bit? Or will it be limited to 3.3, or 3.5, or whatever people are buzzing about.

I have decided to NOT upgrade to Vista yet since I already own XP licenses and only have a Vista Home Premium license but I need remote desktop.

So can some people comment on XP 32-Bit and the memory limitation. Will it see the entire 4GB of ram???

 

[dclive]

You'll get anywhere from 3.0 to 3.5GB depending on your hardware and BIOS setup.

What don't you like about 64 bit Windows? You're finding that much doesn't work?

 

[Tarrant64]

I would like to say "Do a search and you'll find the answer to this easily."

But since the search function obviously is broke, I understand. This gets asked at least once a day, and it's been going on for a long time.

Or will it be limited to 3.3, or 3.5, or whatever people are buzzing about.
There's a buzz about this for a reason. It's asked all the time, and the answer is usually, and should be, the same.

 

[stash]

You don't need to use the search function. There's several 32 or 64 bit threads right on the first page of the OS forum.

 

[Nothinman]

You'll get anywhere from 3.0 to 3.5GB depending on your hardware and BIOS setup.

Actually you can get anything from like 3.9G down to virtually nothing, there's nothing magically about the 3-4G range.

So can some people comment on XP 32-Bit and the memory limitation.

We have already, quite a lot actually.

 

[itakey]

I have scrolled and read everyone else's posts as well, but articles around the web also say it can handle a full 4GB so that is why I figured I would ask.

XP Pro 64 Bit seems to have teeny tiny quirks. For instance, when I log in sometimes it would say that the profile could not be accessed, or something like that and would boot as a default fresh user. I could log out, or reboot and it would go away. Then the other day it would not return to my users account at all. So that was the first nuisance.

Second, for some reason when I tried to copy something from a shared drive on another computer it would say the file was not available, or something. If I attempted to copy it over and over, it would eventually copy without a hitch on the 5th or 6th try. I tried disabling all firewalls, anti-viruses, etc and still no luck.

One of my older printers (Favorite one) didn't have drivers for XP 64 bit so I was using some older ones with almost no functionality.

These things seemed to be enough to make me turn back to 32-Bit, at least for a while or until I am ready to go full blown Vista 64-bit.

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: itakey
XP Pro 64 Bit seems to have teeny tiny quirks. For instance, when I log in sometimes it would say that the profile could not be accessed, or something like that and would boot as a default fresh user. I could log out, or reboot and it would go away. Then the other day it would not return to my users account at all. So that was the first nuisance.

Second, for some reason when I tried to copy something from a shared drive on another computer it would say the file was not available, or something. If I attempted to copy it over and over, it would eventually copy without a hitch on the 5th or 6th try. I tried disabling all firewalls, anti-viruses, etc and still no luck.

Sounds like you have file system and/or drive problems.

 

[itakey]

Originally posted by: MrChad
Sounds like you have file system and/or drive problems.

I don't know if I am ready to reload again since I've spent a decent amount of time already doing so.

Do you think my issue is something hardware related? Or within the file system itself?

 

[hennessy1]

I would have to say try a complete format and a fresh install of winxp x64. If that doesnt work then you have narrowed it down to hardware problem. I have never ran into the problem you are describeing and I have had xp x64 up for over a year.

 

[dclive]

If you're getting profile locked errors, download UPHClean from Microsoft, install it, and try it out for a while. Look at the System and Application event logs to see what is happening there. Uninstall all third party filter drivers and file-level utilities. See if you can still repro the issue.

 

[nova2]

"unfortunately only applications that are enabled with "IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE" header can utilize more than 2GB of the space."

however, you can modify the exe to enable this.

you need editbin from microsoft visual studio
editbin /LARGEADDRESSAWARE filename.exe

i saw people doing this and having success with the supreme commander game exe.

you will also need to edit your boot.ini
add this in: /3GB /Userva=2900

 

[dclive]

Originally posted by: nova2
"unfortunately only applications that are enabled with "IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE" header can utilize more than 2GB of the space."

however, you can modify the exe to enable this.

you need editbin from microsoft visual studio
editbin /LARGEADDRESSAWARE filename.exe

i saw people doing this and having success with the supreme commander game exe.

you will also need to edit your boot.ini
add this in: /3GB /Userva=2900

And you can watch and see what else breaks when you do that. There are still drivers out there that make all kinds of assumptions. With Vista (and especially Vista64) that should go away, but still, it's annoying.

 

[tcsenter]

Originally posted by: dclive
And you can watch and see what else breaks when you do that. There are still drivers out there that make all kinds of assumptions. With Vista (and especially Vista64) that should go away, but still, it's annoying.

Not to mention it has absolutely no impact on the amount of physical RAM available to the OS. It only changes the split between kernel and user virtual address space. Virtual memory address space is not physical memory address space.

 

[itakey]

I've decided to stick with Win XP Pro 32-Bit, at least for now. I simply don't have the time to play with the machine any longer. I researched, shopped, put together, overclocked successfully, and then loaded a ton of times. It is stable and happy on 32 bit xp so I will stay with this till Vista is main stream and then upgrade.

Are there any changes you can make in Windows XP Pro to make it utilize the rest of the ram, or is that not possible for the mentioned reasons?

 

[tcsenter]

Originally posted by: itakey
Are there any changes you can make in Windows XP Pro to make it utilize the rest of the ram, or is that not possible for the mentioned reasons?

You could go back to SP1 or RTM, but that wouldn't be wise. You could also minimize hardware; disable audio, LAN, storage controllers that aren't needed, change to a graphics card with a lot less RAM (e.g. 128MB > 16MB), use a plain old PCI graphics card instead of PCI Express or AGP, et. al.

Those things potentially could free up to an additional 512MB, depending on the hardware.

 

[dclive]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: itakey
Are there any changes you can make in Windows XP Pro to make it utilize the rest of the ram, or is that not possible for the mentioned reasons?

You could go back to SP1 or RTM, but that wouldn't be wise. You could also minimize hardware; disable audio, LAN, storage controllers that aren't needed, change to a graphics card with a lot less RAM (e.g. 128MB > 16MB), use a plain old PCI graphics card instead of PCI Express or AGP, et. al.

Those things potentially could free up to an additional 512MB, depending on the hardware.

I don't see how going to RTM or SP1 will fix anything. The same limitations are there too.

OP: In other words, you're stuck with it - that's how 32 bit OSs work. It's not a big deal until you need over 3.2G or so, and given that applications themselves cannot typically use over 2GB, and your OS would use the remainder, it just isn't a problem for most people.

I see more bellyaching in here on this issue, and for most people, it's not a significant concern.

 

[itakey]

It's all good cruising at 3.25GB, or 3.5GB. I'll take advantage when I upgrade to Vista I guess.

For now, the machine is rock solid on XP Pro 32-Bit.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: itakey
I have scrolled and read everyone else's posts as well, but articles around the web also say it can handle a full 4GB so that is why I figured I would ask.

XP Pro 64 Bit seems to have teeny tiny quirks. For instance, when I log in sometimes it would say that the profile could not be accessed, or something like that and would boot as a default fresh user. I could log out, or reboot and it would go away. Then the other day it would not return to my users account at all. So that was the first nuisance.

Second, for some reason when I tried to copy something from a shared drive on another computer it would say the file was not available, or something. If I attempted to copy it over and over, it would eventually copy without a hitch on the 5th or 6th try. I tried disabling all firewalls, anti-viruses, etc and still no luck.

One of my older printers (Favorite one) didn't have drivers for XP 64 bit so I was using some older ones with almost no functionality.

These things seemed to be enough to make me turn back to 32-Bit, at least for a while or until I am ready to go full blown Vista 64-bit.

Both 32 bit XP and Vista also count shared resources on the motherboard towards your 4 Gigs. For example, your graphics card memory is subtracted from the 4 Gigs. There is a registry hack that will allow Vista to display all 4 Gigs, but I do not recommend going that route.

 

[dclive]

Originally posted by: soonerproud
There is a registry hack that will allow Vista to display all 4 Gigs, but I do not recommend going that route.

Please post the URL to the Microsoft KB describing this.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: dclive

Originally posted by: soonerproud
There is a registry hack that will allow Vista to display all 4 Gigs, but I do not recommend going that route.

Please post the URL to the Microsoft KB describing this.

I was wrong on one thing. It is a command line function, not a registry edit to enable 32 bit Vista to use more than 4 gigs.

A 32-bit operating system can address memory that is relocated above the 4 GB boundary if the following conditions are true:? The computer is in Physical Address Extension (PAE) mode.
? The computer has 4 GB of RAM.
In this case, the operating system correctly reports how much memory is installed.

Additionally, some x64-based operating systems can address up to 2 terabytes (TB) of RAM. For more information, visit the following Microsoft Web page:
http://technet.microsoft.com/e...wsserver/bb294403.aspx (http://technet.microsoft.com/e...sserver/bb294403.aspx)
To enable PAE mode, you have to add PAE to the boot entry in the BCD file. Open an elevated command prompt. Type BCDEDIT /SET PAE ForceEnable.

KB929580

 

[Nothinman]

Both 32 bit XP and Vista also count shared resources on the motherboard towards your 4 Gigs.

Windows has nothing to do with that, the hardware decides how many addresses it needs and the OS simply takes the memory map and uses it.

I was wrong on one thing. It is a command line function, not a registry edit to enable 32 bit Vista to use more than 4 gigs.

Enabling PAE won't change anything, 32-bit Windows is artificially limited to physical memory addresses <4G.

 

[dclive]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

I was wrong on one thing. It is a command line function, not a registry edit to enable 32 bit Vista to use more than 4 gigs.

Enabling PAE won't change anything, 32-bit Windows is artificially limited to physical memory addresses <4G.

Not quite true. Use PAE, slap it in 36-bit memory addressing mode, run one of a tiny number of apps that can take advantage of it (SQL Server and Oracle Server come to mind...there are a few more) and you can use over 4GB. Check out the maximum memory capability of (32 bit) Windows Advanced Server 2003.

It doesn't work like he's describing, though. The holes are still there in the under-4GB memory map, and regular applications don't get a benefit from this. It's a bad idea for anyone unless they're running one of the few apps that take advantage of this....on a server.

 

[Nothinman]

Not quite true. Use PAE, slap it in 36-bit memory addressing mode, run one of a tiny number of apps that can take advantage of it (SQL Server and Oracle Server come to mind...there are a few more) and you can use over 4GB. Check out the maximum memory capability of (32 bit) Windows Advanced Server 2003.

Because that's Advanced server. Only Advanced and Enterprise server can address >4G of memory with PAE.

 

[pallejr]

I also believe that runnings multiple heavy applications will benefit from pae, they don't need to be coded differently. Only if a single app needs to address more than 2/3 GB must it be coded differently

 

[dclive]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Not quite true. Use PAE, slap it in 36-bit memory addressing mode, run one of a tiny number of apps that can take advantage of it (SQL Server and Oracle Server come to mind...there are a few more) and you can use over 4GB. Check out the maximum memory capability of (32 bit) Windows Advanced Server 2003.

Because that's Advanced server. Only Advanced and Enterprise server can address >4G of memory with PAE.

Agreed. But a comment was made that Win32 could not address over 4G. In certain circumstances (PAE, ServerOS, etc.) that's not correct.