XP 32 bit Memory
in [Customize Windows]
|
Prev: Copying the configuration from ne PC or user to another
Next: can't stretch the picture on my display properties
From: Ken Blake, MVP on 5 Dec 2009 11:42 On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 13:49:31 -0200, Victor Haberkorn wrote: > On 2009-11-17 07:54:18 -0200, John Callaway <jcalla(a)erols.com> said: > > > How much memory can XP 32 bit OS handle? I want to have Dell build a > > dual boot Laptop with both Windows 7 OS & XP 32 bit OS on it. I would > > like to have 8 Gig of ram if it XP 32 will handle it. > > > > JPC > > 32 bits' OS only suport 3,25 Gig. Sorry, that's not correct. The number is variable. Here's the way it works: All 32-bit client versions of Windows (not just Vista/XP/7) have a 4GB address space (64-bit versions can use much more). That's the theoretical upper limit beyond which you can not go. But you can't use the entire 4GB of address space. Even though you have a 4GB address space, you can only use *around* 3.1GB of RAM. That's because some of that space is used by hardware and is not available to the operating system and applications. The amount you can use varies, depending on what hardware you have installed, but can range from as little as 2GB to as much as 3.5GB. It's usually around 3.1GB. Note that the hardware is using the address *space*, not the actual RAM itself. If you have a greater amount of RAM, the rest of the RAM goes unused because there is no address space to map it to. > More than that you have to install a 64 bits. -- Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003 Please Reply to the Newsgroup
From: J. P. Gilliver (John) on 6 Dec 2009 06:31 In message <883lh59rsnph5s2g2l2lsrbuua3jbui583(a)4ax.com>, "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake(a)this.is.an.invalid.domain> writes: [] >All 32-bit client versions of Windows (not just Vista/XP/7) have a 4GB >address space (64-bit versions can use much more). That's the >theoretical upper limit beyond which you can not go. > >But you can't use the entire 4GB of address space. Even though you >have a 4GB address space, you can only use *around* 3.1GB of RAM. >That's because some of that space is used by hardware and is not >available to the operating system and applications. The amount you can >use varies, depending on what hardware you have installed, but can >range from as little as 2GB to as much as 3.5GB. It's usually around >3.1GB. > >Note that the hardware is using the address *space*, not the actual >RAM itself. If you have a greater amount of RAM, the rest of the RAM >goes unused because there is no address space to map it to. [] Since the hardware presumably doesn't need much, presumably the RAM _beyond_ the hardware address _could_ be used, if someone were to write a suitable "memory manager" (as used to be done in the early days of DOS to get round the "640k" limit (and even a little around 1M, IIRR). Unless the hardware uses incomplete address decoding, that is. If such a manager were to be written, of course, only software that knew about it could use it (like DOS software that either knew about being "loaded high" or didn't), so there probably would be insufficient usefulness for it to be worth anybody's while, since software houses would be unlikely to cater for it. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar(a)T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf ** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously outdated thoughts on PCs. ** Odds are, the phrase "It's none of my business" will be followed by "but".
From: John John - MVP on 7 Dec 2009 07:34 J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: > In message <883lh59rsnph5s2g2l2lsrbuua3jbui583(a)4ax.com>, "Ken Blake, > MVP" <kblake(a)this.is.an.invalid.domain> writes: > [] >> All 32-bit client versions of Windows (not just Vista/XP/7) have a 4GB >> address space (64-bit versions can use much more). That's the >> theoretical upper limit beyond which you can not go. >> >> But you can't use the entire 4GB of address space. Even though you >> have a 4GB address space, you can only use *around* 3.1GB of RAM. >> That's because some of that space is used by hardware and is not >> available to the operating system and applications. The amount you can >> use varies, depending on what hardware you have installed, but can >> range from as little as 2GB to as much as 3.5GB. It's usually around >> 3.1GB. >> >> Note that the hardware is using the address *space*, not the actual >> RAM itself. If you have a greater amount of RAM, the rest of the RAM >> goes unused because there is no address space to map it to. > [] > Since the hardware presumably doesn't need much, presumably the RAM > _beyond_ the hardware address _could_ be used, if someone were to write > a suitable "memory manager" (as used to be done in the early days of DOS > to get round the "640k" limit (and even a little around 1M, IIRR). > Unless the hardware uses incomplete address decoding, that is. > > If such a manager were to be written, of course, only software that knew > about it could use it (like DOS software that either knew about being > "loaded high" or didn't), so there probably would be insufficient > usefulness for it to be worth anybody's while, since software houses > would be unlikely to cater for it. That won't happen on NT operating systems, the kernel will simply not allow it. John
From: John Callaway on 6 Dec 2009 09:42 On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 08:34:33 -0400, John John - MVP <audetweld(a)nbnot.nb.ca> wrote: >J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: >> In message <883lh59rsnph5s2g2l2lsrbuua3jbui583(a)4ax.com>, "Ken Blake, >> MVP" <kblake(a)this.is.an.invalid.domain> writes: >> [] >>> All 32-bit client versions of Windows (not just Vista/XP/7) have a 4GB >>> address space (64-bit versions can use much more). That's the >>> theoretical upper limit beyond which you can not go. >>> >>> But you can't use the entire 4GB of address space. Even though you >>> have a 4GB address space, you can only use *around* 3.1GB of RAM. >>> That's because some of that space is used by hardware and is not >>> available to the operating system and applications. The amount you can >>> use varies, depending on what hardware you have installed, but can >>> range from as little as 2GB to as much as 3.5GB. It's usually around >>> 3.1GB. >>> >>> Note that the hardware is using the address *space*, not the actual >>> RAM itself. If you have a greater amount of RAM, the rest of the RAM >>> goes unused because there is no address space to map it to. >> [] >> Since the hardware presumably doesn't need much, presumably the RAM >> _beyond_ the hardware address _could_ be used, if someone were to write >> a suitable "memory manager" (as used to be done in the early days of DOS >> to get round the "640k" limit (and even a little around 1M, IIRR). >> Unless the hardware uses incomplete address decoding, that is. >> >> If such a manager were to be written, of course, only software that knew >> about it could use it (like DOS software that either knew about being >> "loaded high" or didn't), so there probably would be insufficient >> usefulness for it to be worth anybody's while, since software houses >> would be unlikely to cater for it. > >That won't happen on NT operating systems, the kernel will simply not >allow it. > >John Ken Blake, I do appreciate all the info on this matter. I recently purchased a Dell laptop with W7 OS. I could not install some older programs on it, so I tried to install XP 32 bit OS on a partition that I resized with W7. The CD/DVD drive would not fully load the install disc. I returned the computer. I have since done some research and found out that if I have XP 32 Bit OS on the computer and then load W 7 on it, it seems to go better. So I intend to buy another Dell with W 7 OS, then resize the partition, making room for XP 32 bit OS on the other partition. I will then Ghost the W 7 partition using Norton. I will then load XP 32 bit OS over the W 7 OS providing the CD/DVD will read the XP install disc. Then Ghost the W 7 OS on the other partition. I have downloaded EasyBC boot loader utility to have the option to dual boot to which OS I want on boot up. Ken, am I on the right track? John P. Callaway
From: Ken Blake, MVP on 6 Dec 2009 10:26
On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 09:42:58 -0500, John Callaway <jcalla(a)erols.com> wrote: > Ken Blake, > I do appreciate all the info on this matter. I recently > purchased a Dell laptop with W7 OS. I could not install some older > programs on it, so I tried to install XP 32 bit OS on a partition > that I resized with W7. The CD/DVD drive would not fully load the > install disc. I returned the computer. I have since done some research > and found out that if I have XP 32 Bit OS on the computer and then > load W 7 on it, it seems to go better. So I intend to buy another Dell > with W 7 OS, then resize the partition, making room for XP 32 bit OS > on the other partition. I will then Ghost the W 7 partition using > Norton. I will then load XP 32 bit OS over the W 7 OS providing the > CD/DVD will read the XP install disc. Then Ghost the W 7 OS on the > other partition. I have downloaded EasyBC boot loader utility to have > the option to dual boot to which OS I want on boot up. > Ken, am I on the right track? Sorry, although I'd like to help if I could, I've never had any interest in dual-booting and know next to nothing about it. Perhaps someone else here can answer your question. -- Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003 Please Reply to the Newsgroup |