Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Windows Vista says 3gb RAM but I have 4gb

iSamurai

iSamurai

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Nov 9, 2007
1,024
6
ɹǝpun uʍop 'ǝuɐqsı&#
I've just installed vista on my macbook, which has 4gb of ram, and OS X also says 4gb. But windows is saying 3038mb in system properties. I've also installed all the drivers, but I haven't activated windows.

I've heard that vista starter edition can only use up to 3gb but I've installed ultimate edition :p
 
iSamurai said:
I've just installed vista on my macbook, which has 4gb of ram, and OS X also says 4gb. But windows is saying 3038mb in system properties. I've also installed all the drivers, but I haven't activated windows.

I've heard that vista starter edition can only use up to 3gb but I've installed ultimate edition :p
Click to expand...
You need a 64bit OS to recognize all 4GB of RAM... Since bootcamp does not support 64bit windows, you must use 32bit which is why you only see 3GB. Nothing you can do about it, just use it as it is.
 
In a system with 4GB, 32-bit Windows operating systems set aside 1-2GB for the system and 1-2GB for the applications. So in general, you see 3GB available for applications.

Intel's architecture also "shadows" some system BIOS and other code into memory. The most I have ever seen in a 32-bit install of WinXP or Vista is 3.5GB free.
 
nikhsub1 said:
Yes it should be as this is NOT a hardware limitation but a SOFTWARE limitation. This is provided you have the Santa Rosa Chipset. Why on earth you would want or need 64bit vista to run virtually is beyond me.
Click to expand...


Well, because I have both versions of Vista (32-bit & 64-bit) available to install at no cost to me, because I will need to continue to run Windows on my 4GB Macbook (which will be my first Mac - it's still on order, supposedly to be shipped this week - previously I've only used PCs), because I don't have a copy of XP SP2 to install on the Macbook so the version of Windows I'll need to install is Vista, and because as long as I'm going to have 4GB in my Macbook, I might as well have Vista (which as we all know is highly memory intensive) be able to access all of it... So, if the 64-bit version using Parallels is the only way to do it, why not...?

r-gordon-7
 
r-gordon-7 said:
Well, because I have both versions of Vista (32-bit & 64-bit) available to install at no cost to me, because I will need to continue to run Windows on my 4GB Macbook (which will be my first Mac - it's still on order, supposedly to be shipped this week - previously I've only used PCs), because I don't have a copy of XP SP2 to install on the Macbook so the version of Windows I'll need to install is Vista, and because as long as I'm going to have 4GB in my Macbook, I might as well have Vista (which as we all know is highly memory intensive) be able to access all of it...

r-gordon-7
Click to expand...
Umm, OK but Vista being highly 'memory intensive' is a misconception. I have 4GB of ram in my MBP and my PC (in sig). I run 64 bit vista on my desktop and with only firefox open taskmanager says I have like 2MB (not GB) of free memory. OH NOES! Heh, Vista actually manages memory much better than XP did, it CACHES as much memory as it can for rapid program deployment (part of superfetch). If memory is needed elsewhere Vista will immediately free up cached memory to use elsewhere. So, your misconception is that it is memory hungry, reality is it makes much better use of whatever amount of RAM you have. With that said, XP runs FAR BETTER than vista virtually, been there done that.
 
nikhsub1 said:
Yes it should be as this is NOT a hardware limitation but a SOFTWARE limitation. This is provided you have the Santa Rosa Chipset. Why on earth you would want or need 64bit vista to run virtually is beyond me.
Click to expand...

True, but it doesn't exist in 64 bit windows.

I've just remembered that you can also get around this by editing a registry key, maybe try the steps here, but they are for XP. There is probably a better solution buried in this Arstechnica thread, I remember reading about it, so its probably before my last post (or shortly after) which is on page 4.
 
Eraserhead said:
True, but it doesn't exist in 64 bit windows.

I've just remembered that you can also get around this by editing a registry key, maybe try the steps here, but they are for XP. There is probably a better solution buried in this Arstechnica thread, I remember reading about it, so its probably before my last post (or shortly after) which is on page 4.
Click to expand...
There is no way around the limit in 32 bit Vista unfortunately... I don't think XP either... switch PAE on does not work.
 
nikhsub1 said:
If memory is needed elsewhere Vista will immediately free up cached memory to use elsewhere. So, your misconception is that it is memory hungry, reality is it makes much better use of whatever amount of RAM you have. With that said, XP runs FAR BETTER than vista virtually, been there done that.
Click to expand...

that is true, however it increases power consumption and memory usage and therefore increases heat, heat is the #1 killer of electronic components, and the MBA being so thin, it probably wont take well to heat (lack of heatsinks).

i dont actaully recommend running vista on an MBA
 
pr5owner said:
that is true, however it increases power consumption and memory usage and therefore increases heat, heat is the #1 killer of electronic components, and the MBA being so thin, it probably wont take well to heat (lack of heatsinks).

i dont actaully recommend running vista on an MBA
Click to expand...
I bet Apple is glad you are not on their marketing team.
 
The voltage you put across the memory affects heat and power consumption more than actual use

And yes, x64 Vista on the PC w/ 4gigs runs just smooth and memory has never been an issue
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back