Comments on: 32-Bit Windows and 4GB of RAM

By: Dave

Dave — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 01:14:55 +0000

@Alan L Henderson,

True, Vista sp1 and then sp2 64 bit was a great OS. Let’s not talk about 7. Now it is finally possible to have a great 64 bit OS.

I recently tried “Windows 7 ROG 64 bit multiboot” and it is just amazing.

See here: http://www.newage-os.com/portal.php

By: Dave

Dave — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 01:10:50 +0000

Why would you want to enable 4+GB on a 32 bit OS version?

It just doesn’t make any sense. If you have the hardware capability you should opt for a 64 bit Os version.

By: patrick grey

patrick grey — Sun, 05 Dec 2010 07:08:33 +0000

Am using Windows 7 Ultimate 32-bit patched running 16GB of ram with +4GB patch for games to exceed 2GB limit. All games are compatible on 32-bit and were built on 32-bit what a lame excuse to say go 64-bit.

I can’t believe Chris Pirillo endorsing 64-bit for gaming, what a lame excuse. Just say you don’t know squat about computers and go play with your XBOX.

BTW: People want the patch google this “32 bit ram patch” select the link from unawave.

By: anang

anang — Wed, 06 Oct 2010 00:37:15 +0000

you should consider to migrate to the 64bit version of win 7.i think the 0S guite stable and run almost any 32bit software.
Also there is windows xp mode that is quite helpful

By: nitin pandey

nitin pandey — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 10:54:43 +0000

hey i have a problem in my laptop
mine lenovo laptop has 4 GB ram’
but my system shows only 2.96 GB usable .
am using win 7 ultimate 32 bit.
should i upgrade it to 64 bit?
i have heard many softwares dont run in 64 bit pc

By: Yuhong Bao

Yuhong Bao — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 03:46:08 +0000

“why does the same limit apply to 32-bit Linux?”
It doesn’t, not if you enable HIGHMEM64G in kernel config.

By: Alan L Henderson

Alan L Henderson — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 16:47:33 +0000

I’ve been running 64-bit Vista trouble-free since SP1 – well, no more trouble than Vista 32-bit anyway.

The main problem wasn’t Windows, it was the old story of non-Microsoft programs not keeping up with the technology and hardware manufacturers not writing 64-bit hardware drivers.

I’m suspicious of PAE. If this is a Microsoft imposed limit as alleged by Mr Chappell, why does the same limit apply to 32-bit Linux?

Even if PAE does work, it’s a mission and it would be a lot easier to install the 64-bit OS which Microsoft will supply to licenced Vista users for the delivery fee only.

See here:
http://mywitsend.co.nz/computer-stuff/windows/16

By: popeye67

popeye67 — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 15:44:19 +0000

Vista sp1 shows 4gig but still cant address more than 3 – 3.25gig, plenty of people have tried and all have failed, running windows7 x64 had no problems with it so far, runs x86 and x64 programs.

By: SA

SA — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 17:35:13 +0000

I’ve recently found that PAE in Windows is flawed, in that even with it enabled in either Windows XP or Vista 32-bit, you still hit a 4 GB limit. Personally, I moved to Linux a while back and I’m ever glad that I did. I recently installed Fedora 10 Linux on a brand new Dell system with 4 GB of RAM and it sees all 4 GB right out of the box. And, Linux will see up to 64 GB since it’s not flawed. This adds to the list of reasons why I think Linux has a lot of advantages over Windows….

By: Geoff Chappell

Geoff Chappell — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 01:19:22 +0000

32-bit Windows can use more than 4GB of RAM. It just can’t give more than 2GB (or 3GB, depending on version and configuration) to any one process. This has been true since Windows 2000.

Unfortunately, the client versions such as Windows 2000 Professional, Windows XP and Windows Vista are constrained to 4GB of RAM in total, and nowadays also to a maximum physical address of 4GB. In Vista, these limits are explicitly coded as license values, read from the registry, with protection against being tampered with.

If you don’t believe me, read my article http://www.geoffchappell.com/notes/windows/license/memory.htm for instructions on how to patch the license limits away for testing. (Enabling PAE is not of itself enough.)

If you have programs that each want gigabytes, then you don’t have much choice but to get 64-bit versions of those programs and run them on 64-bit Windows. Otherwise, the only sense in which migration to 64-bit Windows is necessary for using 4GB and more of RAM is that Microsoft has this license limit conveniently placed at a value that many people, in their ignorance, regard as a fundamental barrier for 32-bit operating systems. Whatever the merits of 64-bit Windows, being pushed to it this way has an element of fraud.

By: joey

joey — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 07:56:10 +0000

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/PAEdrv.mspx

use the pae switch and you can use 4GB of ram

By: Glenn

Glenn — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 13:54:35 +0000

Can anyone confirm if Vista SP1 32x display 4GB of RAM now?

By: 3gb ram on 32 bit operating system - Geeks!

3gb ram on 32 bit operating system - Geeks! — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 00:03:46 +0000

[...] Chris has a post on it here [...]

By: Attendees | Gnomedex

Attendees | Gnomedex — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 20:37:09 +0000

[...] 32-Bit Windows and 4GB of RAM August 30, 2007 – 4:00pm Getting 32-bit Windows to recognize anything beyond 2GB of installed RAM is a seemingly futile effort. (…) [...]

By: Coach George

Coach George — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:30:56 +0000

If you are using multiple applications that are memory intensive, will the 32bit OS address the entire 4gig of ram? From what I can find, the limitation is 2gig per process.