Seems to be a bug or a chipset thing if it's different on different systems, 
all with 4G of ram.
Either way there's no reason to not use a 64 bit os in 2010.

On Sat, May 01, 2010 at 10:43:14AM -0700, maccrawj wrote:
> Sorry, your point/counterpoint is? Think I'm missing something here.
> 
> 
> On 5/1/2010 7:28 AM, Bryan Seitz wrote:
> > Well no, I've seen systems with 4G of memory show:
> >
> > 2.5G
> > 2.8G
> > 3.5G
> >
> > with /PAE
> >
> > :)
> >
> > On Sat, May 01, 2010 at 12:30:54AM -0700, maccrawj wrote:
> >> Not a bug, that's the Microsoft artificial memory map limit on 32bit OS to
> >> (ostensibly) prevent driver issues caused by brain dead drivers writing to 
> >> 64bit
> >> addresses as if they were 32bit which is also why x64 is so draconian 
> >> about signed
> >> drivers! In other words despite PAE MS prevents working outside 32bit/4GB 
> >> memory
> >> space on32bit OS. This was the subject of much discussion a few months ago 
> >> here and
> >> someone posted a link to the conspiracy guy who "outed" M$' secret agenda, 
> >> LOL.
> >>
> >> Now assuming x64 hardware, switch to a x64 OS (caveat "The BIOS must 
> >> support the
> >> memory remapping feature") to get 4GB+ addressable w/ device memory mapped 
> >> above that.
> >>
> >> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605
> >>
> >> On 4/30/2010 3:35 PM, Bryan Seitz wrote:
> >>> Yeah I've seen that bug too, even with /PAE etc still doesn't fix it.
> >>> You should upgrade to Win7-64 :)
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 06:32:30PM -0400, Jason Carson wrote:
> >>>> I have 6 GB of RAM and a GeForce 295 with 1.7 GB of memory but am running
> >>>> WinXP 32 bit and my system only shows that I have 2.49 GB of RAM.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Well, it does sort of sound like that.  I have Win 7 ultimate with 6GB
> >>>>> RAM.
> >>>>> When I right-click on My Computer and select properties, it says I have
> >>>>> 6.0GB.  On my work machine (4GB RAM) with XP and 2 graphic cards, it 
> >>>>> says
> >>>>> I
> >>>>> have about 2.89GB RAM.
> >>>>>
> >

-- 
             
Bryan G. Seitz

Reply via email to