Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Warhaven · Aug 20, 2007, 01:23 AM

... only to find out that the 8 GB of RAM I bought for it is completely useless under Win XP Pro -- which only uses 3 GB of it. Just wanted to point that out.

Lateralus · Aug 20, 2007, 01:38 AM

You could always run a *nix.

8GBs of RAM + a CLI = True nerd.

seanc · Aug 20, 2007, 02:10 AM

Originally Posted by Warhaven

... only to find out that the 8 GB of RAM I bought for it is completely useless under Win XP Pro -- which only uses 3 GB of it. Just wanted to point that out.

The only reason I have 4GB is because I took advantage of a pricing mistake. My constraint is my motherboard. Says it can support 4GB, shows 4GB in the BIOS, but at POST and everywhere else, shows 3.2GB. Certainly beats the 1GB I was running on though.

BadKosh · Aug 20, 2007, 07:12 AM

PC??? What does it do?

analogika · Aug 20, 2007, 07:15 AM

Originally Posted by BadKosh

PC??? What does it do?

Party hard.

shifuimam · Aug 20, 2007, 08:30 AM

I'm pretty sure the 4GB ceiling is a limit of using a 32-bit operating system. Did you get a 64-bit processor by any chance? If you did, you can try installing a 64-bit Linux distro (or 64-bit XP) and see how that works for you. You can read this article for an in-depth explanation of why there is a 4GB physical memory limit with 32-bit processors, but the bottom line is that any OS (including Vista) is going to stop at 4GB if you're running on a 32-bit processor.

Newegg charges a 15% restocking fee - you might be better off selling off your extra sticks via the MacNN Marketplace or eBay.

Warhaven · Aug 20, 2007, 11:59 AM

Originally Posted by shifuimam

I'm pretty sure the 4GB ceiling is a limit of using a 32-bit operating system. Did you get a 64-bit processor by any chance? If you did, you can try installing a 64-bit Linux distro (or 64-bit XP) and see how that works for you. You can read this article for an in-depth explanation of why there is a 4GB physical memory limit with 32-bit processors, but the bottom line is that any OS (including Vista) is going to stop at 4GB if you're running on a 32-bit processor.

Newegg charges a 15% restocking fee - you might be better off selling off your extra sticks via the MacNN Marketplace or eBay.

Yeah, it is. It's limited to 3 GB, actually, unless you're using an Intel chipset, in which case you can squeeze out the last 1 GB with some special tweaking. I didn't think to check since I've been spoiled by OS X. Didn't even occur to me that I couldn't use more than 3 GB.

Apparently, I need Win XP 64-bit version or Vista. Trying to avoid spending any more money. :-(

shifuimam · Aug 21, 2007, 08:59 AM

Originally Posted by Warhaven

Yeah, it is. It's limited to 3 GB, actually, unless you're using an Intel chipset, in which case you can squeeze out the last 1 GB with some special tweaking. I didn't think to check since I've been spoiled by OS X. Didn't even occur to me that I couldn't use more than 3 GB.

Apparently, I need Win XP 64-bit version or Vista. Trying to avoid spending any more money. :-(

I wouldn't worry about it at this point. If you've got a 64-bit processor in there, dual-boot with Linux (I recommend Ubuntu or Fedora if you're not used to Linux at all) 64-bit in order to take advantage of the extra RAM. In the meantime, run 32-bit XP and use the 3GB RAM, and upgrade when you have some money or able to get 64-bit Windows cheap.

I'm assuming here, that if you say you've been spoiled by OS X, that you were running Tiger on a 64-bit processor? I was thinking that the dual core Intels are all 32-bit at this point, and if it's a hardware limitation (as opposed to an OS limitation), then I'd assume that 32-bit OS X has the same problems that Linux and Windows have with RAM limits.

el chupacabra · Aug 21, 2007, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by Warhaven

Apparently, I need Win XP 64-bit version or Vista. Trying to avoid spending any more money. :-(

You don't want vista, it's about at buggy as win95 and slow as 10.0.0.

constantly falls asleep while doing important processes, start menu often freezes the whole computer requiring reboot, after being on a while right click stops working requiring reboot, takes 5 min to start up and another 3 min to log in, takes 10GB disk space. I could go on and on, but just think... you could have bought a new computer with vista and really be screwed. you'd need 3 gigs just to run the thing.

Its funny MS site says something to the effect of, they have to cripple their great software due to the "inferior" hardware industry's inability to keep up with ms technology.

Kenneth · Aug 21, 2007, 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by el chupacabra

You don't want vista, it's about at buggy as win95 and slow as 10.0.0.

constantly falls asleep while doing important processes, start menu often freezes the whole computer requiring reboot, after being on a while right click stops working requiring reboot, takes 5 min to start up and another 3 min to log in, takes 10GB disk space. I could go on and on, but just think... you could have bought a new computer with vista and really be screwed. you'd need 3 gigs just to run the thing.

Its funny MS site says something to the effect of, they have to cripple their great software due to the "inferior" hardware industry's inability to keep up with ms technology.

Honestly, Vista isn't that bad after these two updates. I pretty much set it as my default OS on my work PC.

MacosNerd · Aug 21, 2007, 11:53 AM

Originally Posted by Kenneth

Honestly, Vista isn't that bad after these two updates. I pretty much set it as my default OS on my work PC.

Well evidently it is bad after all when PCMag rips vista, they're generally in bed together so its a little surprising. pcmag

As for the memory issue, the only option is to go to 64bit but you'll have lots of headaches trying to get signed drivers as vista 64 will not even load unsigned drivers and at this moment there's a dearth of drivers so you'll have some difficulty.