w00t - Vista SP1 (x86) now sees full 4GB RAM
- Thread starter VinDSL
- Start date
Dadofamunky
Platinum Member
- Jan 4, 2005
- 2,184
- 0
- 0
As I understand the 32-bit OS, that doesn't mean all the 4 GB is addressable by the system. A chunk is consumed by other system resources, including the video card and PCI slots. This is just a cosmetic fix.
This is just Microsoft reporting the total memory installed in the system vs. the usable memory. You cannot use the extra memory any more than you could before.
If you have 4 GB installed, why shouldn't the OS say you have 4 GB installed?
This is the cause of much angst - and one of the biggest 'pissers' with Vista RTM, IMHO!
If the OS wants to report 4 GB installed and 3454 MB addressable, or whatever, that's cool~
Let's face it - 4 GB is the *new* sweet spot with Vista - and combined with SP1, it's a deadly combination!
Why not allow Vista to report the facts? That's ALL MS is doing...
This is the cause of much angst - and one of the biggest 'pissers' with Vista RTM, IMHO!
If the OS wants to report 4 GB installed and 3454 MB addressable, or whatever, that's cool~
Let's face it - 4 GB is the *new* sweet spot with Vista - and combined with SP1, it's a deadly combination!
Why not allow Vista to report the facts? That's ALL MS is doing...
I dunno - I've got 4gb of RAM, and I guess I don't see the point of inflating the number. My BIOS can report the big numbers, if I want to feel good about myself. Otherwise, I'd prefer Vista tell me what it can _use_.
Bwahahaha!
I'm still waiting for the obligatory, "3 GB is better than 4 GB on Vista," post...
Corky-G, you've come the closest!
Man, how do ppl get so screwed up?
Because that's a per-process limit. And it's also not true - setting the /3GB flag will allow a program to exceed that limit (to 3GB).
n7
Elite Member
- Jan 4, 2004
- 21,281
- 4
- 81
This is not good. Not good at all.
I wouldn't be surprised to see OEMs start loading their systems with 4 GB with x86 when SP1 arrives (they've been doing 3 GB due to the RAM limitations), since the consumers won't know any better.
I don't understand why you're all excited.
Absolutely nothing has changed, except a number that's now very misleading to 99% of people out there, who will now swear they run 4 GB just fine on x86, not realizing they're basically getting screwed over.
Ignorance is truely bliss i guess, but i do not like this move at all.
I wouldn't be surprised to see OEMs start loading their systems with 4 GB with x86 when SP1 arrives (they've been doing 3 GB due to the RAM limitations), since the consumers won't know any better.
I don't understand why you're all excited.
Absolutely nothing has changed, except a number that's now very misleading to 99% of people out there, who will now swear they run 4 GB just fine on x86, not realizing they're basically getting screwed over.
Ignorance is truely bliss i guess, but i do not like this move at all.
Speak for yourself!
Vista SP1 is reporting memory correctly now!
Let's take a look at TASK MANAGER
And here's SYSTEM INFORMATION
How is this NOT good - not good at all?!?!?
Throckmorton
Lifer
- Aug 23, 2007
- 16,829
- 3
- 0
Originally posted by: VinDSL
Speak for yourself!
Vista SP1 is reporting memory correctly now!
Let's take a look at TASK MANAGER
And here's SYSTEM INFORMATION
How is this NOT good - not good at all?!?!?
Why do you care how it reports your memory?
Originally posted by: VinDSL
Back on you...
Why do you care, why I care how it reports my memory?
I think what they're saying is that it may report 4gb, but the OS still is only able to use 3.5gb.
In other words its not truly using 4gb.
erikistired
Diamond Member
- Sep 27, 2000
- 9,739
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: VinDSL
Speak for yourself!
Vista SP1 is reporting memory correctly now!
Let's take a look at TASK MANAGER
And here's SYSTEM INFORMATION
How is this NOT good - not good at all?!?!?
wow, still spreading misinformation, just in a new section now. and why is this in the notebook section anyway?
Probably not in Vista. Maybe in Windows 7 you might be able to use more than 3.5GB in a 32bit system, but that would require Windows 7 to be 32/64bit, a hybrid OS of sorts. OS X (definitely, no idea about linux) allows you to use more than 4GB of RAM on a 32bit OS, but it is built completely differently from Windows.
The "whole 4 gigs" DOES get used - dittos for Linux and all other 32-bit OSs...
Where do you think they put the PCI devices - in ether?
RAM starts with the bottom memory address space and goes up - PCI devices start at top and go down.
Where they meet depends on the CPU, BIOS, PCI & chipset specs, not just the OS...
EDIT
Maybe this will help (from the Toshiba lappy support site).
Let's test your reading comprehension skills...
If you have 4 GB installed, the OS should say you have 4 GB installed - and Vista SP1 does this now. That's all I'm saying...
who the fuck care anyway 3.5gb or 4gb it dont make a goddamn difference... i think the bottom line to this thread is "can i put 8gb of ram in vista32 now with sp1?"
You could always put it in if the motherboard supported it. Now Vista will tell you have 8gb, something a normal BIOS memory count would do anyways.
Why is VinDSL so excited about this announcment?
The 4gb of Ram he bought is actually reported now! Although it's not being fully utilized by his operating system, but who cares... he can right click my computer and show all his cool friends he has 4gb. Even though the operating system isn't addressing all of that memory.
exactly my point... i think i will get 8gb ram though, i want to be as happy as vindsl is with his system.. or should i say TWICE as happy!
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter