Vista 64 bit not using 4gb

People should stop reference that codinghorror article. It is so full of false statements. For example, It begins with:

"Only 3,454 megabytes. Dude, where's my 4 gigabytes of RAM?

The screenshot itself provides a fairly obvious hint why this is happening: 32-bit Operating System. In any 32-bit operating system, the virtual address space is limited, by definition, to the size of a 32-bit value:"

The virtual address space has nothing to do with this.
 
You're misquoting the article. In the next lines he explains that 32-bit address space has a limit of 4 GB. So obviously he's not trying to say that the 32-bit virtual address space is the reason for only 3454 MB showing up. Yet this is what your post is implying.

Also for an article that is full of false statements, naming only one example is not a very convincing argument. Instead it leaves the bitter taste of someone making a big deal out of nothing.

Back on topic, even if not every single line in his article might be 100% accurate, it contains many links to reputable sources and direct quotes (also some links in the comments section), so it's still a very good overview on what's happening here. Considering what most people on this forum know about this issue (zero), it's incredibly valuable information, I'd say.
 
I am not misquoting it. He specifically says: "the virtual address space is limited". Dealing with the addressing of ram belongs to the physical address space.

Then he goes on: "Addressing more than 4 GB of memory is possible in a 32-bit operating system, but it takes nasty hardware hacks like 36-bit PAE extensions in the CPU, together with nasty software hacks like the AWE API."

PAE is not a nasty hack. Only people that misunderstands how it works, says that. AWE is not PAE.

He talks about 64bit: "2^64 = 18,446,744,073,709,551,616". Again, he doesn't differentiate between virtual and physical address space. Backed by his statement: "The user-mode virtual address space in 64-bit Windows is a mere 8 terabytes."
 
pallesen said:
I am not misquoting it. He specifically says: "the virtual address space is limited". Dealing with the addressing of ram belongs to the physical address space.
Click to expand...

Yes, but he's not making that point at that moment. He's explaining that a single process can use no more than 2 or 3 GB virtual memory in a 32-bit Windows environment at that point, regardless of physical memory.
I see nothing wrong there?

pallesen said:
PAE is not a nasty hack. Only people that misunderstands how it works, says that. AWE is not PAE.
Click to expand...

A 'hack' is a subjective thing. You're trying to argue that his opinion is wrong and yours is right? That's doomed from the start. In his frame of reference it's a hack, in yours it might not be. And you'd both be right, it's all subjective. You're just wrong in thinking you somehow have to force your opinion on others.
The whole "Only people that misunderstands how it works, says that" is pretty sad aswell. Sweeping statements like those are excellent ways to kill any kind of mature discussion.
AWE is not PAE, but he doesn't claim they are. So again, implying things that aren't there.

pallesen said:
He talks about 64bit: "2^64 = 18,446,744,073,709,551,616". Again, he doesn't differentiate between virtual and physical address space.
Click to expand...

And why exactly should he be doing that at that point?
Does 2^64 have different values for virtual and physical address spaces? I didn't think so.

pallesen said:
Backed by his statement: "The user-mode virtual address space in 64-bit Windows is a mere 8 terabytes."
Click to expand...

Well yes, apparently linking back to the 2-3 GB limit that we have in 32-bit mode.
What's wrong with that?

I get the distinct impression that you're trying to make a big deal out of nothing. You're implying things that aren't there, throwing subjective and sweeping statements around like absolute truths...
Almost as if you have some kind of hidden agenda.
Here's a tip: don't let emotions get the better of you in a technical discussion. Try to keep it rational, and ofcourse respectful.
 
He tries to explain where the missing RAM goes. And then he talks only about virtual address space. That is as wrong as it gets.

And yes, there is a difference on how much address space you have on the virtual and physical side.
 
pallesen said:
He tries to explain where the missing RAM goes. And then he talks only about virtual address space. That is as wrong as it gets.
Click to expand...

No, you refuse to interpret the article the way it was meant. The article does a lot more than just explaining where the missing RAM goes. You're just trying to pick every line that doesn't directly relate to the title. The author has the freedom to go a bit outside of the limited scope in the title, and give some background info and cover some other things that are closely (or even loosely) related.
In fact, often the title of the article doesn't even directly relate to the content at all, but is more of a teaser, an eye-catcher. The title of an article is not meant to be a summary of the article, or even a limiting factor on the scope.

He doesn't get directly into the issue of the missing memory until the line:
"But back to our mystery. Where, exactly, did the other 642 megabytes of my memory go?"
Which clearly indicates his awareness of having side-tracked up to there.

He later 'side-tracks' again, by covering 64-bit. Since he wasn't using a 64-bit OS in the first place, this could in no possible way relate to his missing memory, right?

pallesen said:
And yes, there is a difference on how much address space you have on the virtual and physical side.
Click to expand...

Yes, and that's covered in the article. But that's not what I asked.
I asked: "Does 2^64 have different values for virtual and physical address spaces?"
 
You have already been tainted by the article. I'm not trying to pick anything. The author doesn't understand the subject very well. Let us leave it with that.
 
pallesen said:
You have already been tainted by the article.
Click to expand...

What's that supposed to mean?

pallesen said:
I'm not trying to pick anything. The author doesn't understand the subject very well. Let us leave it with that.
Click to expand...

Well I had already stated that I agreed that "not every single line in his article might be 100% accurate".
But I do want to point out that you are viewing your interpretation of the text as the only possible interpretation, which is wrong. Text isn't an absolute medium. Language isn't absolute. Communcation between people isn't absolute.
I'm just trying to open your eyes to this. I can't escape the feeling that you have a very narrow view on things, and act hostile towards anything that doesn't fit within your view.
 
MetsFan978 said:
You should be able to use all 4gb. I have an EVGA 680i,Vista x64 and 4gb of RAM and my total physical memory is at 4093mb in the task manager and 4.00gb in the System Information. My video cards have a total of 1.5gb of RAM, so if there was any issue mapping the memory I won't see anywhere near 4gb of available RAM in Windows.

Only thing I can think of is your BIOS version. I think starting at version P30 they changed the way hardware resources get set up. If I use anything newer than P29 Windows won't use my sound card saying there isn't enough free resources. I never checked if the amount of available system RAM changed though. Have you tried using either the P28 or the P29 BIOS? You did say this install has used all 4gb in the past.
Click to expand...

Ive got version p32. but the last time i had updated my bios before that was in the summer of last year, so i dont know if its a problem.
 
found an old drive and threw vista on it. lets see if its really sp1
Screenshot3-1.jpg
 
Clone that good install to the main hard drive with Ghost, Acronis, etc.
 
i dont really want to have to install windows. thats a last resort for me, but if it must be done im going to wait until i get my file server up so i can back up my data
 
You don't have to reinstall again though. Just keep using it off the spare drive. When you get your file server, backup the data, and clone the spare drive over to the main. Is the spare drive so slow or small that the system is unuseable?
 
no but i cant game or anything unless i use both for a while (unplugged the old drive to not screw up the boot sequence) and its only 40 gigs. i dont own any cloning software either
 
Not GParted, partimage. GParted is more adding/removing partitions. Partimage will backup/restore partitions to/from file.

Well obviously based on this and the linux screenshot you posted earlier it IS a windows problem. Wow I have never seen this before. It might be worth searching/posting on Vista help forums, since you know it's not a hardware issue.
 
yesterday said:
Not GParted, partimage. GParted is more adding/removing partitions. Partimage will backup/restore partitions to/from file.
Click to expand...

:confused:

GParted works PERFECTLY as a cloning suite. As a matter of fact, it's the only thing that saved me when I had to cross clone 2 drives to each other at the same time without compromising the data.
 
btw i ran the critical windows updates last night and its still fine. going to see if and when it breaks
 
One question I had: Does this remapping of memory that apparently has to happen (to preserve the traditional range of RAM for MMIO) mean that 32-bit apps run in a 64-bit OS can't access any of the remaped (above 4G boundary) memory?

I sure hope not.
 
LordBiff said:
One question I had: Does this remapping of memory that apparently has to happen (to preserve the traditional range of RAM for MMIO) mean that 32-bit apps run in a 64-bit OS can't access any of the remaped (above 4G boundary) memory?

I sure hope not.
Click to expand...

No. The 64-bit OS can map any memory you want into the address space of a 32-bit application.
The only limit that remains is that the process space has a maximum of 3 GB in 32-bit Windows applications. But this is per application, so multiple applications each using 3 GB is not a problem. They will all get their own 3 GB of memory mapped into their process space.
 
srbarcena said:
Im not new to computers but this one has me stumped. Im using vista 64 but it seems its only able to use roughly 2.5 gigs of my ram. bios will see 4 gigs and so will the windows system properties. the onyl thing ive done is disable my page file, would that be why?
Im posting a screen of the resource monitor and system properties so you can see what i mean
screenshot1.jpg


edit: edited the product id out
Click to expand...

Sorry for going off-topic here, but where did you get that wallpaper?
 
ajm786 said:
:confused:

GParted works PERFECTLY as a cloning suite. As a matter of fact, it's the only thing that saved me when I had to cross clone 2 drives to each other at the same time without compromising the data.
Click to expand...

However I do not think it backs up the MBR. At least it didn't when I tried (ages ago)
 
ok so i updated fully. i let windows install all the drivers it wanted too incl display. all my ram is still being seen in task manager. im clueless
 
Not trying to go off topic but, does anyone experience any problems like this installing a new copy of Vista using a P5Q Pro board+4gigs memory?
 
So i just got my 9600 on friday. installed saturday at 9 am then drooled all day. crysis is amazing at 1440x900 at high with 2xaa. but see no im getting running out of memory lag :[. having a friend look at my system monday. i might just do a reinstall just in case the old catalyst drivers dont play well.
 
so i got it to work. just had to reset msconfig back to defaults. i hadnt changed anything but, meh its windows.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top