regarding RAM for 32 bit Operating Systems

[BlackFusion]

The 32-bit editions of Windows Vista are limited to 4GB not because of any physical or technical constraint on 32-bit operating systems. The 32-bit editions of Windows Vista all contain code for using physical memory above 4GB. Microsoft just doesn’t license you to use that code. Meaning that you can infact, use more than 4GB of RAM on a 32 bit OS.
The 4GB limit is retrieved from the registry by calling a function named ZwQueryLicenseValue. I'm wondering why Microsoft has decided to put a 4GB restriction on 32 bit processors?

 

[zigzag3143]

32 bit limit

The 32-bit editions of Windows Vista are limited to 4GB not because of any physical or technical constraint on 32-bit operating systems. The 32-bit editions of Windows Vista all contain code for using physical memory above 4GB. Microsoft just doesn’t license you to use that code. Meaning that you can infact, use more than 4GB of RAM on a 32 bit OS.
The 4GB limit is retrieved from the registry by calling a function named ZwQueryLicenseValue. I'm wondering why Microsoft has decided to put a 4GB restriction on 32 bit processors?

Hi and welcome to SF. I think you might like to investigate this further. Failing that why dont you take a prtscreen of the value and upload it so we can all see it. I just did a search thru my win 7 registry and its not there. just google the 32 bit ram limit and i think you will find a different answer

Again welcome to SF

Ken

 

[Dark Nova Gamer]

The main reason 32-bit was limited to no more then 4gb RAM was due to the fact that if the 32-bit OS attempted to use more it would in almost every case become unstable and crash.

 

[BlackFusion]

If you remove the check for the licensed memory limit then a restriction to 4GB is demonstrably not enforced by other means. Yet I must admit that I have not found where Microsoft says directly that 32-bit Windows Vista is limited to 4GB only by licensing. The supposed License Agreement doesn’t even mention the word memory. What is going on?

 

[Dark Nova Gamer]

The 32-bit editions of Windows Vista are limited to 4GB not because of any physical or technical constraint on 32-bit operating systems. The 32-bit editions of Windows Vista all contain code for using physical memory above 4GB. Microsoft just doesn’t license you to use that code. Meaning that you can infact, use more than 4GB of RAM on a 32 bit OS.
The 4GB limit is retrieved from the registry by calling a function named ZwQueryLicenseValue. I'm wondering why Microsoft has decided to put a 4GB restriction on 32 bit processors?

So you are saying in this post that MS prevents you to use more RAM in 32-bit Windows correct?

 

[zigzag3143]

If you remove the check for the licensed memory limit then a restriction to 4GB is demonstrably not enforced by other means. Yet I must admit that I have not found where Microsoft says directly that 32-bit Windows Vista is limited to 4GB only by licensing. The supposed License Agreement doesn’t even mention the word memory. What is going on?

I assume you are not talking abt windows server editions with their memory management system just plain vanilla client side windows. Right?

Ken

 

[BlackFusion]

So you are saying in this post that MS prevents you to use more RAM in 32-bit Windows correct?

Yes that is what I am trying to explain. A surprising number of people who claim some sort of attention as expert commentators would have you believe that using more than 4GB is mathematically impossible for any 32-bit operating system because 2 to the power of 32 is 4G. If nothing else, they don’t know enough history: 2 to the 16 is only 64K and yet the wealth of Microsoft is founded on a 16-bit operating system that from its very first version was designed to use 640KB of RAM plus other memory in a physical address space of 1MB. It's not that the 32 bit cannot handle more than 4 GB of RAM, nor is it unstable. The extra RAM (beyond 4 GB) is, quit simply, ignored. Vista will pick up that you have 8 GB of RAM for instance but it will not be used whatsoever, and yes I have tested this on Vista Ultimate in safe mode. But my question remains unanswered. Why is Microsoft limiting us to 4 GB with the 32 bit OS? Could this be some sort of marketing scheme? I don't think so but I would very much like a response.

 

[Dark Nova Gamer]

Yes that is what I am trying to explain. A surprising number of people who claim some sort of attention as expert commentators would have you believe that using more than 4GB is mathematically impossible for any 32-bit operating system because 2 to the power of 32 is 4G. If nothing else, they don’t know enough history: 2 to the 16 is only 64K and yet the wealth of Microsoft is founded on a 16-bit operating system that from its very first version was designed to use 640KB of RAM plus other memory in a physical address space of 1MB. It's not that the 32 bit cannot handle more than 4 GB of RAM, nor is it unstable. The extra RAM (beyond 4 GB) is, quit simply, ignored. Vista will pick up that you have 8 GB of RAM for instance but it will not be used whatsoever, and yes I have tested this on Vista Ultimate in safe mode. But my question remains unanswered. Why is Microsoft limiting us to 4 GB with the 32 bit OS? Could this be some sort of marketing scheme? I don't think so but I would very much like a response.

So that would mean every x86 distro of Linux is limiting us as well then right? Seeing as both Windows and Linux x86 have a 4gb limit.

 

[BlackFusion]

The means for a 32-bit operating system to use physical addresses above 4GB was built into Intel’s 32-bit processors well over a decade ago and has been supported by Microsoft since Windows 2000. If you haven’t heard of it, or haven’t thought that it applies to Windows Vista, then one reason may be that Microsoft advertises it only as a feature of the server editions such as Windows 2000 Server and Windows Server 2003, and only then for the more expensive levels with names like Enterprise and Datacenter. However, even Windows 2000 Professional can be configured, without contrivance, to access memory above 4GB by using Physical Address Extension (PAE). This is old technology. It’s also widely and deeply misunderstood technology, arguably more than any other in the history of personal computing.

 

[BlackFusion]

The total amount of memory allowed is taken solely from the license value Kernel-WindowsMaxMemAllowedx86, as read through the undocumented function ZwQueryLicenseValue. The data for this value is a number of MB, so that 0x1000, which is installed for all 32-bit editions of Windows Vista, means 4GB.

 

[BlackFusion]

32-bit Linux kernels are designed to access only 1GB of RAM by default. you can add a new kernel to take full advantage of your unused RAM.

 

[Dark Nova Gamer]

32-bit Linux kernels are designed to access only 1GB of RAM by default

Um..? Ubuntu 9.04 (x86) uses 3ish of my 4GB. So I have no clue what you are talking about with that one.

 

[BlackFusion]

To check whether your kernel is configured to use all your RAM, use this command
free -m
even if your "3-ish" GB of RAM are being used, you could have 8 GB installed and simply add a new kernel to use all of the unused RAM on a 32 bit linux distro

 

[Dark Nova Gamer]

To check whether your kernel is configured to use all your RAM, use this command
free -m

I wont be on Linux until tomorrow, which will be 64-bit.

But my point is, you say MS is only allowing 32-bit to use 4GB for their reasons, but in reality its every 32-bit OS that is forced to be within those limits.

I think you are losing this argument.

 

[BlackFusion]

even if your "3-ish" GB of RAM are being used, you could have 8 GB installed and simply add a new kernel to use all of the unused RAM on a 32 bit linux distro.

I am not losing, you simply don't understand. Linux kernels are configured to use a set amount of RAM. You can easil unlock the extra by adding a new kernel. What I am TRYING to explain is that MS is fully denying you to unlock the extra RAM in 32 bit Operating systems. my question which has still not been answered, is WHY?

 

[Dark Nova Gamer]

even if your "3-ish" GB of RAM are being used, you could have 8 GB installed and simply add a new kernel to use all of the unused RAM on a 32 bit linux distro.

I am not losing, you simply don't understand. Linux kernels are configured to use a set amount of RAM. You can easil unlock the extra by adding a new kernel. What I am TRYING to explain is that MS is fully denying you to unlock the extra RAM in 32 bit Operating systems. my question which has still not been answered, is WHY?

"Assuming" you are correct with this, why does it matter? 64-bit and 32-bit have little, if no price difference.

 

[BlackFusion]

it matters because Microsoft is obviously keeping something from us. Why did they decide to put a 4 GB limit on a 32-bit Os? Why not let both 32 and 64 bit have an unlimited number of RAM. Why is it so vital to keep 32 bit at a limit if it can in fact handle the extra RAM? if 32 bit was designed to handle more than 4 then why isn't it being used?

 

[Dark Nova Gamer]

it matters because Microsoft is obviously keeping something from us. Why did they decide to put a 4 GB limit on a 32-bit Os? Why not let both 32 and 64 bit have an unlimited number of RAM. Why is it so vital to keep 32 bit at a limit if it can in fact handle the extra RAM? if 32 bit was designed to handle more than 4 then why isn't it being used?

If it was MS holding out on us then Linux wouldn't have put a 4gb limit on it either. Yes I know you said you can replace the kernel and you can use unlimited but if it was ment to be done it would have been done before its released not for the user to do.

I have read several articles in the past about RAM and 32-bit, 2 out of 3 of those articles were regarding how unstable Windows became when using more then 4GB RAM in 32-bit Windows (this was back when Vista just came out).

Microsoft isn't holding out on us or anything, I don't see why you think they are.

 

[BlackFusion]

As I've said. These people claiming to be experts go around telling everyone that windows becomes "unstable" when more than 4 Gigs are addressed. This is in fact, bull****.Windows does not become unstable because it contains code that enables vista to use 4 gigs of RAM. 32 bit vista was programmed to handle more than 4 it's just blocked. My question again, is why? Why block something if it's there and ready to use?

 

[Dark Nova Gamer]

What proof do you offer though?

Those pictures in the beginning of the thread do not really look legit.

^^
My opinion