Total memory in XP pro sp3

Bob I wrote:

Sorry, it's not artificial, its the 32 bit addressing. You have to
implement addressing extensions if you want a 32 bit system to address
more than 4 GB of memory addresses.

"addressing extensions" (PAE) is just another way of refer to memory
addresses in a 32bit OS. XP has always supported PAE - it just ignores
anything above 4G, hence it is an artificial limitation.

Prior to SP2, address space above 4G was also supported - until you had
4GB usable RAM.

want to see the entire conversation, not just this thread? click on the
link below
http://groups.google.com/group/micro...286a59e5978977
want to see the entire conversation, not just this thread? click on the
link above



granjan wrote:
My friend wants to install an additional 2 GB of memory in her Dell
XPS 600 which has 2 GB already installed. The manual for her
computer says it only supports 2 GB for Windows XP SP3 with 32 bit
system. My Dell Dimension 8400 manual says it supports 4 GB memory
for Windows XP MCE SP3 with 32 bit. Why do they support different
amounts of memory?

smlunatick wrote:
Windows XP Home is limited to 2 GB of RAM (Microsoft's decision.)

Windows XP Professional is supposed to be limited to 4GB of RAM

Windows MCE is a "tweaked" verison of Windows XP Pro for enhanced
video playing and TV. Since it is based on XP Pro, it gets the XP
Pro limit.

However, all these different RAM sizes are "moot" since these are
based on 32 bit processor coding and at most your will get 3.25 to
3.5 GB of RAM. This is the extreme limit because of most 32 bit
processors are limited to this.

(Only the limited Windows XP Pro 64bit can start to use the 4GB of
RAM. However, support / drivers are very limited.)

dennis wrote:
It is wrong to blame the CPU. 4GB is an artificial limitation in XP.

Shenan Stanley wrote:
Some suggested reading:

for dennis:
http://www.geoffchappell.com/viewer....nse/memory.htm

for smlunatick:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...78(VS.85).aspx

general:
http://blogs.technet.com/markrussino...1/3092070.aspx
http://www.ofzenandcomputing.com/zanswers/1079

Enjoy.

dennis wrote:
Yes, I have seen that one before. Why?

Why what?

Why did I actually give people references instead of making a comment and
dashing off?
Why did I seemingly direct one link towards you that seemingly backed up
what you said?
Why did I do the opposite for smlunatick, showing them the error in their
2GB XP Home comment?

Why not? Better to have the information out there than not - and better to
actually share it instead of just indirectly reference it without any
further comment - IMO. ;-)

--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

want to see the entire conversation, not just this thread? click on the
link below
http://groups.google.com/group/micro...286a59e5978977
want to see the entire conversation, not just this thread? click on the
link above



granjan wrote:
My friend wants to install an additional 2 GB of memory in her Dell
XPS 600 which has 2 GB already installed. The manual for her
computer says it only supports 2 GB for Windows XP SP3 with 32 bit
system. My Dell Dimension 8400 manual says it supports 4 GB memory
for Windows XP MCE SP3 with 32 bit. Why do they support different
amounts of memory?

smlunatick wrote:
Windows XP Home is limited to 2 GB of RAM (Microsoft's decision.)

Windows XP Professional is supposed to be limited to 4GB of RAM

Windows MCE is a "tweaked" verison of Windows XP Pro for enhanced
video playing and TV. Since it is based on XP Pro, it gets the XP
Pro limit.

However, all these different RAM sizes are "moot" since these are
based on 32 bit processor coding and at most your will get 3.25 to
3.5 GB of RAM. This is the extreme limit because of most 32 bit
processors are limited to this.

(Only the limited Windows XP Pro 64bit can start to use the 4GB of
RAM. However, support / drivers are very limited.)

dennis wrote:
It is wrong to blame the CPU. 4GB is an artificial limitation in XP.

Shenan Stanley wrote:
Some suggested reading:

for dennis:
http://www.geoffchappell.com/viewer....nse/memory.htm

for smlunatick:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...78(VS.85).aspx

general:
http://blogs.technet.com/markrussino...1/3092070.aspx
http://www.ofzenandcomputing.com/zanswers/1079

Enjoy.

dennis wrote:
Yes, I have seen that one before. Why?

Why what?

Why did I actually give people references instead of making a comment and
dashing off?
Why did I seemingly direct one link towards you that seemingly backed up
what you said?
Why did I do the opposite for smlunatick, showing them the error in their
2GB XP Home comment?

Why not? Better to have the information out there than not - and better to
actually share it instead of just indirectly reference it without any
further comment - IMO. ;-)

--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

dennis wrote:

smlunatick wrote:

This is the extreme limit because of most 32 bit
processors are limited to this.


It is wrong to blame the CPU. 4GB is an artificial limitation in XP.

Sorry, it's not artificial, its the 32 bit addressing. You have to
implement addressing extensions if you want a 32 bit system to address
more than 4 GB of memory addresses.

dennis wrote:

smlunatick wrote:

This is the extreme limit because of most 32 bit
processors are limited to this.


It is wrong to blame the CPU. 4GB is an artificial limitation in XP.

Sorry, it's not artificial, its the 32 bit addressing. You have to
implement addressing extensions if you want a 32 bit system to address
more than 4 GB of memory addresses.