• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

WinXP: Have 4gigs ram. WinXP says I have 3gigs?

JEDI

JEDI

Lifer
WinXP SP3

i had 2gigs ram. added 2 more 1gig modules.

bios says i have 4 gigs.

why does WinXP say i'm using 3gigs?

edit:
1) System properties says "Physical address exyension."
good/bad?

2) also, if i replace a 1gig chip to 512megs, will winXP read 3.5gigs? (3 1gig and a 512meg chips)
 
Last edited:
32 bit (x86) windows will only support 3.0-3.2 GB of RAM. You need to move on to a x64 platform to take advantage of the added RAM.
 
The short answer is that XP can use a total of 4GB of memory address space. The bad news is that some of that space must be used for the ram that comes with your GPU. Considering that the maximum amount of memory any one program can use in XP is 2GB. The only exception to this is if you use the 3GB switch, and even then the program has to be written to ignore the 2GB limitation also. With 3GB ram your fine unless you start juggling a handful of very memory intensive programs, which is doubtful under normal circumstances. I wouldn't worry about it. If memory is really an issue there are answers to that with newer tech.
 
I noticed that it's not just Windows XP which has this problem but the 32Bit version of Windows 7 which I didn't expect to see 🙁
 
Windows XP only recognizes a max of 3.25 gigs and I believe even that requires Service Pack 3.
This is an old and very well-known issue and will never be fixed because Microsoft wants you to buy Vista or Win7.

Am surprised on a tech forum this seems like news to some people. Its one of the main compliments people had when moving up to a new OS.
 
pcgeek11 said:
All Windows 32 bit versions, maximum memory is 4GB minus the address space needed for hardware.
Click to expand...

Fixed ;^)

Ubuntu32 10.04

Sqomz.png
 
nemesismk2 said:
I noticed that it's not just Windows XP which has this problem but the 32Bit version of Windows 7 which I didn't expect to see 🙁
Click to expand...

Yep, MS added that artificial limitation to all of their 32-bit client OSes. But Windows Server and pretty much every other 32-bit OS can use >4G of physical memory.
 
It's hardly a conspiracy though. While it is true that certain 32-bit windows releases are capable of using more than 4GB, there are still additional hardware requirements in those instances. Not every processor is capable and those capabilities were meant to assist in large scale networking situations, not everyday PC users.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa366778(v=vs.85).aspx

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa366796(v=vs.85).aspx

Also, "PAE does not change the amount of virtual address space available to a process. Each process running in 32-bit Windows is still limited to a 4 GB virtual address space."

Anyways, it's all moot. 64-bit computing is finally mainstream and there really isn't a valid argument for avoiding it unless you have specific software and hardware requirements which make the transition impossible for the present. Notice I'm specifically avoiding the financial component, as it only affects individual purchases and has no relavance in regards to actual technical capabilities.

Ironically enough, I have had more success running 32-bit XP software running under W7-64 than I did under XP SP3.
 
Anteaus said:
It's hardly a conspiracy though. While it is true that certain 32-bit windows releases are capable of using more than 4GB, there are still additional hardware requirements in those instances. Not every processor is capable and those capabilities were meant to assist in large scale networking situations, not everyday PC users.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa366778(v=vs.85).aspx

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa366796(v=vs.85).aspx

Also, "PAE does not change the amount of virtual address space available to a process. Each process running in 32-bit Windows is still limited to a 4 GB virtual address space."

Anyways, it's all moot. 64-bit computing is finally mainstream and there really isn't a valid argument for avoiding it unless you have specific software and hardware requirements which make the transition impossible for the present. Notice I'm specifically avoiding the financial component, as it only affects individual purchases and has no relavance in regards to actual technical capabilities.

Ironically enough, I have had more success running 32-bit XP software running under W7-64 than I did under XP SP3.
Click to expand...

PAE has been available in every CPU I've seen in the past 10 years, probably longer and there's no real reason to limit people's abilities to use their own hardware like MS is doing here. Despite the original reasons for the design of PAE, most people have >4G of memory now so it is most certainly useful to everyday PC users.

No, PAE doesn't affect the virtual address space of an individual process. However you still have access to all of the physical memory as a whole so without it you would get excessive paging and slowdown at the ~3G mark but with it you would be able to run multiple ~2G using processes without any issues. Claiming that it wouldn't be beneficial to "normal" PC users is just disingenuous.

Obviously it's a much better idea to use a 64-bit OS, but when that's not possible you have no recourse but to consider your extra memory lost or use any other OS other than Windows.
 
Good point. In real world terms I doubt anything would have been much different had PAE been more widespread, considering that once 4GB+ computing because mainstream MS was already rolling out 64-bit windows, but this is one of those bits of conjecture with no real evidence. Anyone could argue that we would have seen higher capacity chips much earlier if MS would have opened the upper limit (artificially or not) but we'll never know.
 
nerp said:
Any reason you can't use 64 bit?
Click to expand...

When I installed Windows 7 I saw some benchmarks which showed that 64 bit killed performance for some games. That was when Windows 7 first came out and since then i have installed Windows 7 with 64 bit.
 
JEDI said:
WinXP SP3

i had 2gigs ram. added 2 more 1gig modules.

bios says i have 4 gigs.

why does WinXP say i'm using 3gigs?

edit:
1) System properties says "Physical address exyension."
good/bad?

2) also, if i replace a 1gig chip to 512megs, will winXP read 3.5gigs? (3 1gig and a 512meg chips)
Click to expand...

Module, not "chip." That grates my nerves like fingernails on a chalkboard.
 
Unless you are doing extensive video work or something, XP is very hard pressed to even get any performance boost over 2 gigs.
 
Also check BIOS, Some features turned on will use memory space, Turn off unused hardware (IE Onboard gfx even if your not using it).
Also check some other advanced setting as some are used to set memory limitations like MS did with XP.

I have also seen some hidden or not expressed in documentation like on one of my MB, The Memory Hole setting was used in this fashion and only by coincidence I turned it off and found it allowed higher memory access.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top