Why is Vista limited to 3gb?

When using 32 bit Windows Vista, there is, I believe, a limit of 3 point something-or-other Gb of memory that Vista can use.

Is this because, techncally it’s impossible, or Windows developers didn’t have enough foresight, or some other reason?

I know my computer needs more memory from time to time when I am multitasking. I would have thought that memory manufacturers and retailers aren’t too happy at having their potential revenue stream stifled.

Is this a problem exclusively on the Windows platform or are Macs affected by it too?

(Inspired by this thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=481978)

According to Mac Pro - Apple ,“you can install up to 32GB of 800MHz ECC fully buffered DIMM memory”.

It’s not Vista so much as the bits of the OS architecture (I’d assume specifically the memory addressing would be the issue here). XP has this problem as well, and anything 32-bit (x86*) is limited to roughly 3.5 (I think) GB.

You can actually upgrade the capacity to around 8GB by upgrading to an 64-bit (x64) version, they have them in XP and I’m using Vista Ultimate x64, I’m not certain about all OS’s, but I’d be shocked if Linux didn’t have some 64-bit kernels.

That’s the rough “solution” to the RAM problem, but I’m not qualified (as of now) to go into technical details of exactly WHY it’s limited that way, I’ll leave that to Sage Rat and the other various Techno-Gods around here.

*Bonus question that’s been bugging me for when the OP is dealt with. Why is 32-bit referred to as x86? Is it due to the fact that early machines with it had “86” on the end of the model numbers or some odd technical issue I’m not aware of where “86” is relevant?

32 bit operating systems of any type are can directly address 2^32 bytes (4,294,967,296 or 4 GiB). Some of this is used up by video card memory, PCI bus, and other things, leaving you with the 3.something GiB that Windows can see. There are hacks like PAE (physical address extension) to allow a 32 bit OS to use more than 4 GiB, but they have limitations.

The real solution if you are running short of memory would be to upgrade to a 64 bit version of Vista. I am using Vista Ultimate 64 bit with 8 GiB of RAM, and it works better than the 32 bit verison, which I previously used on machine with less RAM. The 64 bit version of Vista Basic supports 8 GiB; Home Premium supports 16 GiB; and the other versions support 128 GiB.

Its a problem with the hardware. 32 bits cant address more than slightly over 4GB.

“Very often, when referring to the word size of a modern computer, one is also describing the size of address space on that computer. For instance, a computer said to be “32-bit” also usually allows 32-bit memory addresses; a byte-addressable 32-bit computer can address 232 = 4,294,967,296 bytes of memory, or 4 gibibytes (GiB). This seems logical and useful, as it allows one address to be efficiently stored in one word.”

I should’ve said 8GB or more, depending on circumstances, sorry.

I understand that I can get round my memory problems by using the 64-bit version of Vista, but I thought I read that some programs either aren’t available or won’t work in the 64-bit version. If they are available, would that mean I would have to pay again to upgrade? I use a lot of shareware/freeware programs, and I suspect that they may be a problem.

The simplest answer is that the Windows developers didn’t have enough foresight.
The longer answer would note that no one expected the Intel 386 and direct desendants of Win95 and NT4 to still be viable products by the time that 4 whole GB of RAM was useful to PC users.

As a result, the entire universe of software and hardware for 32-bit MS Windows has lots of hardware and software elements that will take serious work in order to play nicely in an environment that can use more than 4 GB.

There are several different issues here, so hopefully it doesn’t get too confusing. I’m not 100% sure about what Vista does (I work more with Macs, but the concepts are all the same), but it’s a common problem shared between operating systems and the hardware. I’ve just gotten my coffee, so hopefully I don’t screw up my explanation too much.

There are some limitations of how much RAM the hardware can support - this is usually the motherboard chipset. For example, my last laptop had a hardware limitation of only 3GB. I could physically put more RAM in there, but it would only see 3GB. Additionally, if you’re using virtual memory (i.e. swap space on disk) it’s possible to use more memory than you physically have. For example, if you only 1GB of RAM, you can use another 1GB of space on your hard disk, giving you a virtual space of 2GB. You still can’t go beyond what your OS actually supports, though.

Furthermore, the 32-bit issue is a major consideration. Typically, you are limited to no more than 3GB of RAM per-process. The basic reason is that 32-bit refers to how long a memory address can be. 2[sup]32[/sup]=4GB. The OS reserves some of that space for itself. Depending on the configuration, it’s typically either 1GB or 2GB, depending on how Windows is configured This leaves an application with the remaining space - either 2 or 3 GB.

This is the key difference between 64-bit and 32-bit operating systems (and programs). When you double the length of your memory addresses, you don’t just double the amount of space you can address - it increases exponentially, meaning 2[sup]64[/sup] (17.2 Billion GB). Now, in reality, on modern CPUs, they don’t actually support 64-bit addresses - the AMD64 chips only support 2[sup]48[/sup] addresses. This is still vastly more than the memory in any system today, so it doesn’t really pose a problem. You can still run into some problems on 64-bit systems, though, which in some cases are worse than 32-bit: since in theory your operating system can give you about as much space as you ask for, you can end up overtaxing your available RAM. Suppose you have 8GB of real RAM, and another 8GB of swap space, for a total of 16GB. If you actually try to use all 16GB, you will end up with major problems as data gets swapped back and forth between RAM and disk (known as trashing). On a 32-bit system, you would simply be prevented from getting into this kind of trouble, as there are hard limits to what you can ask for.

In most cases, individual processes don’t really need more than 2GB, especially for things like word processors, web browsers, etc. The types of programs that really need this additional space would be video editing software, medical imaging and various scientific computing software, some high-end games with lots of graphics, etc.

It’s not lack of foresight, it is a limitationof 32-bit addressing. 2[sup]32[/sup] = 4G, there’s no way round that. All 32-bit operating systems face the same issue.

I believe I first used 64-bit linux around 1996 on a Digital Alpha (Redhat 4.0)

Just to expand a bit, Windows XP defaults to 2GB for the OS, but you can set a flag in (IIRC) boot.ini to lower that to as low as 1 GB, leaving 3GB for processes. VISTA may have a different default. I have an Intel compiler that can compile a code to use over 2GB for a single process, although there’s still a 2GB limit for a single array.

64 bit Vista runs 32 bit apps just fine. There’s a 32 bit emulation layer just like there was a 16 bit emulation layer for 16 bit apps when 32 bit processors started coming in. Remember WOW? Vista has WOW64. It seems to be working better this time, partially because some of the 64 bit chips have 32 bit emulation modes that can be taken advantage of, so the OS doesn’t have to do it.

Yes, this will be a problem. Unless you absolutely must have 4+GB, I wouldn’t recommend 64-bit for a daily use machine.

Some software will work, but a lot of software needs to be rewritten to function in a 64-bit OS. If you are trying to select based on software availability, 64-bit Vista would be better than 64-bit XP.

I’m trying to reconcile yabob

and fluiddruid’s

views.

Clarification would be welcome.

It’s actually the other term that’s the odd one. ‘x64’ is a shortening of x86-64, meaning an extension of the x86 instruction set for 64-bit processors. It’s also called AMD64 (by AMD, who developed it).

As for the x86, it refers to the processor’s instruction set - it’s what the bits of machine code mean to the processor. The name goes back to the chips based on Intel’s 8086 and successors. The IBM PC used the 80286, and it (and successors) became the dominant standard.

When companies started making chips to compete with Intel, they had to use the same basic instruction set. This came to be called ‘x86’ over time, even after Intel abandoned that part numbering scheme.

I am currently running 64 bit Vista with several 32 bit apps as a daily use machine. 32 bit apps in my task manager right now include:

firefox
javaw
atomic clock synch
smart synch pro
speedfan
powerchute (APC UPS monitor program)
netbeans IDE
google updater

The fact that I’m NOT using 64 bit java universally is annoying. This is because I’m running some apps that use Access as a back end, and there’s no 64 bit ODBC driver for Access that I know of. Yeah, I know, move them to a non-toy DB. Not high traffic applications, and I don’t feel like it.

Addendum - I should say I know of no FREE 64 bit Access ODBC driver.

Most apps run just fine. Device drivers and software that works with hardware (like some copy protection schemes) won’t work unless you get replacement drivers.

For example the versions of the Starforce copy protection system have been upgraded and others haven’t. This includes the versions that protect the games I own. :frowning:

32 bit apps will not take advantage of a 64 bit platform unless they are recompiled into 64 bit form - the maximum they can see is 4 GB at one time PAE is a workaround but you’re still limited to 4GB at a time. Fortunately, in a 64 bit system, with sufficient RAM, you can have multiple 32 bit apps running each using 4 GB without paging.

A series of articles at AppleInsider describe the rise of 64-bit consumer OSes:

Road to Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard: 64-Bits
Road to Mac OS X Snow Leopard: 64-bits, Santa Rosa, and more
Road to Snow Leopard: twice the RAM, half the price, 64-bits
Road to Mac OS X Snow Leopard: the future of 64-bit apps

If you strain out the Mac triumphalism, it’s a very interesting read.