Why does 2+2=3GB?

[taltamir]

its more reasonable that both cases are completely obsolete. 64bit has been around for years and is here to stay. If you MUST use a 32bit os, disable PAE for stability. That extra 700MB of ram are not worth it to MS and driver makers to sweat over when there are so many relevant issues to fix in vista.

 

[Nothinman]

its more reasonable that both cases are completely obsolete. 64bit has been around for years and is here to stay. If you MUST use a 32bit os, disable PAE for stability. That extra 700MB of ram are not worth it to MS and driver makers to sweat over when there are so many relevant issues to fix in vista.

The problem is that it's not 700M for everyone, there was a case recently on this forum where 2G was lost because the person's BIOS remaps memory in 1G chunks.

I'm a big proponent of moving to 64-bit systems, but PAE doesn't add instability and should be able to be used when necessary. Hell I've got a 32-bit Win2K3 server at work with 8G of memory that runs just fine. The fact that MS gimped their client OS' PAE support and the drivers for their platform have problems with it are just two kicks in the balls from MS and the driver writers.

 

[taltamir]

you are mincing words. Ok, PAE doesn't add instability. Drivers add instability when used with PAE... same difference. Those drivers would not BSOD if you don't use PAE. So you don't use it, or upgrade to a modern OS. not like there is all that much 32bit software that really needs more then 3gb of ram (the biggest ram eaters are mostly restricted to software that 64bit. That is why they used to say "macs are better for graphics".)

MS doesn't write drivers, hardware manufacturer's do. so stop with the conspiracy theories and creative blame game that fuels it.