Solved can I utilize all memory?

[pawz7]

we have a new 64bit tower PC which came with 8GB memory, but we had to install a 32bit version of Windows Seven. Does that limit the amount of memory available to beneath the 4GB ceiling please?

 

[fireberd]

Yes. A 32 bit OS can only address slightly less than 4GB.

 

[unrealRage]

Yes,memory is limited to 4 GBytes only unless you use physical address extension.
There are some ways to break this barrier (with PAE) though but I wouldn't suggest it.

 

[pawz7]

so, to be clear, we need to put a 64bit OS on there to access all the available memory.. yes?

Oh, I see from unreal's post that yes, this is so. Thanks guys (sigh)

 

[HAVOC]

Yes.

 

[unrealRage]

so, to be clear, we need to put a 64bit OS on there to access all the available memory.. yes?

No.You can use PAE for 32 bit system.
But I would suggest you to install 64 bit system.

 

[pawz7]

don't want to go down the PAE road - from what I have read in the past it is not recommended and could lead to instability. We will probably go fo a 64 bit OS, as you say, eventually. He isn't a gamer or power user, so it isn't urgent, and being an i5, the new box is still much more responsive than his previous 32bit machine. Ho hum, thanks for the help folks.

 

[LMiller7]

In any computer system there are to limitations on how much RAM it can access:
1. How much RAM the hardware can provide to the OS.
2. How much RAM the OS can access.
The usable limit is whichever one is smaller. Neither the OS nor the hardware can override the limitations of the other.

The use of PAE will not allow a 32 bit client version of Windows to access more than 4 GB RAM. In reality it is somewhat less than that. Doing so would require the use of a modified kernel which would be a violation of Microsoft's EULA and I will not discuss it. PAE permits a 32 bit CPU to access more than 4 GB RAM but that does you no good unless the OS is an active participant in this. 32 bit client versions of Windows by design will ignore all memory above 4GB and the use of PAE doesn't change that. Using PAE will allow some devices such as a RAM disk to access RAM above 4 GB but applications cannot.

 

[Layback Bear]

For years people have been playing with PAE and all it's done is cause problems.
Use the proper installation of Windows 7/64 will let Windows 7 and your programs use the Ram you have installed up to it's limits and your hardware limits.

The following table specifies the limits on physical memory for Windows 7.
Version Limit on X86 Limit on X64. The top numbers are max. for a 32 bit and the bottom numbers are max. for a 64 bit Windows 7.


Windows 7 Ultimate
4 GB
192 GB


Windows 7 Enterprise
4 GB
192 GB

Windows 7 Professional
4 GB
192 GB

Windows 7 Home Premium
4 GB
16 GB

Windows 7 Home Basic
4 GB
8 GB

Windows 7 Starter
2 GB
N/A

 

[Alejandro85]

The use of PAE will not allow a 32 bit client version of Windows to access more than 4 GB RAM. In reality it is somewhat less than that. Doing so would require the use of a modified kernel which would be a violation of Microsoft's EULA and I will not discuss it. PAE permits a 32 bit CPU to access more than 4 GB RAM but that does you no good unless the OS is an active participant in this. 32 bit client versions of Windows by design will ignore all memory above 4GB and the use of PAE doesn't change that. Using PAE will allow some devices such as a RAM disk to access RAM above 4 GB but applications cannot.

That's not correct, entirely. PAE was created specifically to allow 32 bits OSs to use more than 4 GB of RAM (up to 64GB). It's true that usage of PAE requires a modified kernel, but ALL versions of Windows conveniently include such kernel (it's the file NTKRNLPA.EXE, opposed to the normal kernel NTOSKRNL.EXE both found in system32). The only thing that requires patching is the bootloader that chooses between these two kernels (and that's what may come with a license problem). Once that's done, everything can use the full memory installed on the system.

But in itself, 32 bits Windows is fully capable of using up to 64 GB of memory but MS ridiculosly limits such ability to server editions (look at the memory capabilities of Windows 2008).
For a more detailed reference on the topic, look here:
Licensed Memory in 32-Bit Windows Vista

Now, back to the central topic, while it's possible to make Windows x86 recognise and use the full memory, I would opt to go for a x64 version. That's because the 64 bits version includes support for some extra security features (DEP and driver signing enforcement for example) and allow for 64 bits native processes, which can have somewhat improved performance for some programs, among other things.

 

[pawz7]

we got a paging error on the new machine two days ago - himself was quite upset to see a blue screen on his new computer. This has decided us to get the 64bit OS. I assumed it could be to do with the memory issue.

 

[AddRAM]

Why did a PC with 8 GB of memory not come with 64 bit ?

Or did you build the PC ?

 

[pawz7]

we built the system, and had already bought a Win 7 disk for the older 32 bit computer, so put that onto the 64bit without thinking about the difference.

 

[pawz7]

I say 'built' but it is hardly that these days - no fiddling with jumpers or worrying about 'chip creep' like it used to be, just fix it all together, press the button and da-da!¬

 

[wasnotwas]

Don't give the game away dude - I like all that 'wow ain't you clever, I wish I could build computers' . . .

 

[AddRAM]

Do you have the 64 bit install dvd ?

 

[pawz7]

Don't give the game away dude - I like all that 'wow ain't you clever, I wish I could build computers' . . .

oh, sorry wasnotwas. Truth be known though, there is nuttin much clever about 'building' computers today - the cleverness comes in understanding what is going on under the hood and knowing how to fix it when things go wrong - which is where forums like this come into the spotlight. I have 'fixed' many computers for other folk in the last 20 years, and in Win 95 days it was a nightmare - no one to ask, no web to get guidance from,just esoteric blue screens which gave no clear indication as to where the problem might lie. Since XP and the creation of good quality forums like this,the mysteries have been solved much sooner and with less grey hairs. The buffs on here are the clever folk, and hats off to them.

 

[pawz7]

Do you have the 64 bit install dvd ?

it came this morning.. now we have to go through the entire clean install process and put-everything-back-where-it-was-before scenario again.... oh joy..

 

[wasnotwas]

I have 'fixed' many computers for other folk in the last 20 years, and in Win 95 days it was a nightmare - no one to ask, no web to get guidance from,just esoteric blue screens which gave no clear indication as to where the problem might lie.

If you want to re-live the good old days of Win 95 - 16MB RAM, DOS, fdisk, format C: etc, can I suggest VMware. I have the full set from Windows for Workgroups 3.11 to present day in VM. Here's my spec for VM W95 -



free VMware Player here

 

[pawz7]

ahh, dear old fdisk... interesting adventure wasnot, but.. no, I will reminisce on the good bits in my idle moments, and try to forget the day I just had a blinking cursor and no clue as to what next to do - THAT was how I got into the fixing business - I could not reinstall Win 95 on a Friday - no ATAPI drivers found for the CD drive - and had to have a load of docs ready on someone's desk by Monday, did not know what DOS commands to put in to see the drive.. I got rescued by a sympathetic young man on the end of a phone (he detected the panic in my voice I think, and it was his magazine's help-line that told me to uninstall Win 95 in first place because of some issue that came on their cover disk), and even though that turned out OK, I vowed never again to be in that position, but to become the master of this smug little beige box. HA! not sure I achieved that, but I muddled through, and it got easier over time..