Author Topic: Vista 32 Breaking the 4Gb Limit (Read 1651 times)

TifaLockhart · « **on:** October 19, 2010, 02:19:10 PM »

As stated in the title, i'm looking for ways for Vista 32 to break the 4Gb ram limit.

I actuall found some information that states its possible but since i dont really understand the process, i cant vouch for its authenticity or whether it is actually safe to do it.

Anyone able to comment on this?

http://www.ocmodshop.com/ocmodshop.aspx?a=989

geoffreak · « **Reply #1 on:** October 19, 2010, 02:34:06 PM »

A 32 bit OS is limited to 4GB of RAM because it isn't capable of using the remaining RAM. Just install a 64 bit OS.

TifaLockhart · « **Reply #2 on:** October 19, 2010, 02:45:05 PM »

Quote from: geoffreak on October 19, 2010, 02:34:06 PM

A 32 bit OS is limited to 4GB of RAM because it isn't capable of using the remaining RAM. Just install a 64 bit OS.

Yes... i get that alot, i'm not asking for alternatives here because its not an option for me, i'm hoping someone might validate the authenticity of the information i've gotten my hands on.
Mainly on the Physical Address Extension(PAE) and whether it actually works.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension

x5ga · « **Reply #3 on:** October 19, 2010, 02:53:25 PM »

Yeah, it works... but I can't say I recommend doing this... The OS will run a bit slower actually, because enabling PAE changes the way it addresses the RAM. The best solution is to use a 64bit OS if you have >=4GB RAM

rostheferret · « **Reply #4 on:** October 19, 2010, 03:38:47 PM »

2^32 = no of bytes supported.
(2^32)/(1024^3) = no of GB supported.

In reality, you won't quite hit the 4gig mark, maybe 3.5gig or so. I can't remember the reason for this, something like base processes requiring a RAM buffer or something. PAE is pretty much used exclusively for servers where few calculations are performed but lots of memory may be accessed simultaneously. Unless you plan on using your PC for anything more than a server, not worth it.

Out of curiosity, why can't you move to a 64-bit OS?

TifaLockhart · « **Reply #5 on:** October 19, 2010, 04:03:01 PM »

Mainly because Vista had afew issues in the past i experienced when upgrading from XP which i'm not really sure i want to relive.

One of which i pointed out in another thread dealing with SP2 upgrades was the issue of custom configurations on Vista due to some major pain in the ass default settings that Vista came with.

One of the many Vista issues i had is this

http://www.vistax64.com/tutorials/70819-windows-explorer-folder-view-settings.html

Other than that there is the UAC which i'm pretty comfortable with turning off now and theres also afew bugs which has been resolved, stuff like the windows live messenger not working well with Vista.
I'm sure microsoft has already fixed most of the minor issues but stuff like folder view settings and other bits and pieces of issues with Vista lead me to being pretty comfortable with staying status quo.

All in all, the main problem i'm having with upgrading to Vista 64 currently is mainly dealing with folder memory settings and having tons of terabytes of files and folders which i definitely do not want a major OS overhaul to mess with.

rostheferret · « **Reply #6 on:** October 19, 2010, 04:25:56 PM »

Then don't upgrade, re-install:

I'm assuming if you have "Terabytes of storage" then you have you multiple HDDs. Install Vista 64-bit onto a different HDD - or better yet, Windows 7, which already has fewer bugs - and if it decides to do more than 5 minutes of re-configuring, then you still have the old 32-bit left there. Tbh, if you wanted to use PAE you'd need to install a Windows Server OS anyway.

Tatsujin · « **Reply #7 on:** October 19, 2010, 11:57:04 PM »

Go Windows 7 64-bit. You'll never go back to the other OSs ... ever....

AceHigh · « **Reply #8 on:** October 19, 2010, 11:59:27 PM »

I have a win7 64 and to be honest I can't understand why people have not gone over to 64 bit OS yet.

Oh, and if you have 64x OS, be sure to take advantage of Large Address Aware (LAA) with the awesome app from this thread:
http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=112556

Note following:

Quote

Applications Known to Benefit from Large Address Aware:

AutoCAD (32-bit versions)
Company of Heroes
Kerkythea 2008 Echo
Galactic Civilizations II
Saboteur, The
SimCity 4 Deluxe
Sims 3, The
Sins of a Solar Empires - Diplomacy
S.T.A.L.K.E.R.
Supreme Commander
Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance

Oh yeah, I am so going to make the biggest battle scenario in Supcom and this time the game will not crash due to lack of memory.

datora · « **Reply #9 on:** October 20, 2010, 12:44:30 AM »

.
Here's the Thing, boss,

If you are still using Vista, and you have a real need to use more than 4 GB of memory, you have entered the modern era of computing technology and require a 64-bit OS.

It might be an unfortunate reality that you don't want to deal with, or perhaps there are technical or financial realities that will delay that migration, but the fundamental logic chart says that this is an inescapable future for you.

I've got a similar problem. I have a couple of wonderful WinXP machines that take care of me beautifully ... up to a point. But, they are not 64-bit hardware compliant, so my needed upgrade path is delayed until I can fix that.

My first reaction upon reading this topic is: Do you REALLY need so much RAM? I can certainly imagine situations where you might, but it is a gawdaweful lot of RAM. Have you really trimmed your system to the point where it really is running out of RAM for legitimate requirements, rather than just a lot of processes running that really don't need to be ..? My system has 1 GB RAM and I rarely use more than ~600 MB; I've seen it run up to 850 MB once or twice ... so I've not spent the $100 to slap another 2 GB in. I simply wouldn't use any of it.

Even 32-bit Win7 is an improvement over Vista that way. I've helped a few friends out getting their Win7 systems running, and they're typically not using much more than 1GB, even though they all have 4GB installed.

Just sayin' ...

Smokeyjr2 · « **Reply #10 on:** October 20, 2010, 03:58:48 AM »

I'd say get Windows 7 64-bit Ultimate edition! plus it doesnt cost a thing!

If you know where to get it.

TifaLockhart · « **Reply #11 on:** October 20, 2010, 11:55:52 AM »

I support authentic software + not getting support from microsoft on software updates is kinda a chore.

I'm investigating into either partitioning my current HDD or installing a new HDD for a new OS, one for managing my files while the other for running my progams and games.

Tatsujin · « **Reply #12 on:** October 20, 2010, 05:32:14 PM »

Quote from: Smokeyjr2 on October 20, 2010, 03:58:48 AM

I'd say get Windows 7 64-bit Ultimate edition! plus it doesnt cost a thing! If you know where to get it.

Yup. Avoid the uh ... was it 1033 update? It's KBxxxxx1033. I can't remember the rest of it.

tyrionlannister · « **Reply #13 on:** October 20, 2010, 06:20:00 PM »

It's KB971033 and it's under important updates.

Edit:
As has been said before, the OP should check the usage of RAM in Task Manager for example when the most demanding applications are running and determine based on that if more RAM is needed. One possible problem is that since Vista and 7, memory usage does not reflect actual usage, because the OS reserves a certain amount of RAM which it will release when needed, so it might seem that the usage is higher than it actually is.

fohfoh · « **Reply #14 on:** October 21, 2010, 05:38:56 AM »

Why not just live with your 3.25GB or w/e it is and just play with speedboost + a USB thumb drive?

Is 4 GB really necessary in the first place?

As for not jumping over to 64 bit... I had Win 7 64 bit for my laptop... issues with drivers. DISHED OUT (laugh....) cash for Win 7 32 bit. Been using it since with far less driver issues. Yes, I looked for many drivers... found nothing in the 64 bit area.

Smokeyjr2 · « **Reply #15 on:** October 21, 2010, 06:04:51 AM »

Quote from: fohfoh on October 21, 2010, 05:38:56 AM

Is 4 GB really necessary in the first place?

With Vista yes lol

Temuthril · « **Reply #16 on:** October 21, 2010, 06:35:09 AM »

Quote from: TifaLockhart on October 20, 2010, 11:55:52 AM

I support authentic software

No offense but I find comments like these odd on a bittorrent tracker.

Harryy · « **Reply #17 on:** October 21, 2010, 07:04:02 AM »

Quote from: TifaLockhart on October 20, 2010, 11:55:52 AM

I support authentic software

Okay, then buy the newer version of their software and support them.

If you are still in school/Uni, you can easily get a discount that can lower the price a lot.

bloody000 · « **Reply #18 on:** October 21, 2010, 08:04:20 AM »

Quote from: Smokeyjr2 on October 21, 2010, 06:04:51 AM

Quote from: fohfoh on October 21, 2010, 05:38:56 AM
Is 4 GB really necessary in the first place?

With Vista yes lol

Just a moment ago I was sitting on an empty desktop and 7 is eating 1.4GiB of memory. Why does Windows do this? Because it knows I have 8GiB of RAM, it knows it can use more. Vista ran perfectly fine on my old 2 GiB Toshiba A100-VA9. If you want to talk about Ram usage, the Arch installation with Xfce desktop is using less than 350MiB of ram.

x5ga · « **Reply #19 on:** October 21, 2010, 09:21:37 AM »

Windows memory usage is not a good way to benchmark/compare anything. You can find customized windows XP installations (or you can customize them yourself) which use 30MB of RAM when no programs are running, and the entire windows folder takes 200MB of space (yes, 99% fully functional and everything). Vista and 7 keep stuff in memory to speed up application launch (the SuperFetch service). Also the search indexer takes up a bit of space. My windows 7 x64 takes up 1.4GB with WMP11, IE9 (12 tabs), utorrent and about 10 other background tasks out of the 5GB it has at its disposal.