Guest Eric Posted September 6, 2007 Posted September 6, 2007 Excel 2007 is limited to 2 Gigabytes of working set memory for the Excel process under Windows XP. Can I break this limitation by installing more DDR RAM into Motherboard? My computer currently install 2 GB DDR RAM. Does XP have any limitation on the Virtual Memory address space? Thank in advance for any suggestions Eric
Guest Allan Posted September 6, 2007 Posted September 6, 2007 Re: What is the limit on the Virtual Memory address space? "Eric" <Eric@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:A5677FC8-C346-40D1-B478-10ED5981B66D@microsoft.com... > Excel 2007 is limited to 2 Gigabytes of working set memory for the Excel > process under Windows XP. Can I break this limitation by installing more > DDR > RAM into Motherboard? My computer currently install 2 GB DDR RAM. Does XP > have any limitation on the Virtual Memory address space? > Thank in advance for any suggestions > Eric The limitation of the application (in this case, Excel) is fixed. You can install more RAM which may help your overall system performance but cannot overcome the limits imposed by the applications themselves. Two GB is probably the limit for XP applications anyway.
Guest Ken Blake, MVP Posted September 6, 2007 Posted September 6, 2007 Re: What is the limit on the Virtual Memory address space? On Thu, 6 Sep 2007 11:26:40 -0500, "Allan" <mu8ja0i@earthlink.net> wrote: > "Eric" <Eric@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:A5677FC8-C346-40D1-B478-10ED5981B66D@microsoft.com... > > Excel 2007 is limited to 2 Gigabytes of working set memory for the Excel > > process under Windows XP. Can I break this limitation by installing more > > DDR > > RAM into Motherboard? My computer currently install 2 GB DDR RAM. Does XP > > have any limitation on the Virtual Memory address space? > > Thank in advance for any suggestions > > Eric > The limitation of the application (in this case, Excel) is fixed. Yes. > You can > install more RAM which may help your overall system performance Highly unlikely. It's a very rare XP user who can make effective use of that much memory. > but cannot > overcome the limits imposed by the applications themselves. Two GB is > probably the limit for XP applications anyway. -- Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User Please Reply to the Newsgroup
Guest Jim Posted September 6, 2007 Posted September 6, 2007 Re: What is the limit on the Virtual Memory address space? "Eric" <Eric@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:A5677FC8-C346-40D1-B478-10ED5981B66D@microsoft.com... > Excel 2007 is limited to 2 Gigabytes of working set memory for the Excel > process under Windows XP. Can I break this limitation by installing more > DDR > RAM into Motherboard? My computer currently install 2 GB DDR RAM. Does XP > have any limitation on the Virtual Memory address space? > Thank in advance for any suggestions > Eric 2 to the thirty second power is the absolute max. That is close enough to 4GB. However, the normal installation reserves half of the virtual address space for mapping of the operating system. This leaves 2 GB for the user. You can increase the 2 GB to 3 GB with the /3GB switch, but the application must be written to take advantage of this switch. Sorry, the amount of RAM has no effect on virtual address space. More RAM will only reduce paging (which may make quite a difference in processing speed). If your spreadsheet needs more virtual address space than 2 GB, you should be looking at a 64 bit processor. Jim
Guest Tim Slattery Posted September 6, 2007 Posted September 6, 2007 Re: What is the limit on the Virtual Memory address space? "Allan" <mu8ja0i@earthlink.net> wrote: >The limitation of the application (in this case, Excel) is fixed. You can >install more RAM which may help your overall system performance but cannot >overcome the limits imposed by the applications themselves. Two GB is >probably the limit for XP applications anyway. As Jim said, in 32-bit XP, apps are limited to 2GB or 3GB if you use the "/3GB" switch (which starves the OS). In 64-bit XP with 64-bit applications, the limit would be much higher but I don't know exactly where. -- Tim Slattery MS MVP(DTS) Slattery_T@bls.gov http://members.cox.net/slatteryt
Guest marc Posted September 7, 2007 Posted September 7, 2007 Re: What is the limit on the Virtual Memory address space? "Tim Slattery" <Slattery_T@bls.gov> wrote in message news:ibn0e3d0ajucomaj64v574fetmvt5rmtqb@4ax.com... > "Allan" <mu8ja0i@earthlink.net> wrote: > >>The limitation of the application (in this case, Excel) is fixed. You can >>install more RAM which may help your overall system performance but cannot >>overcome the limits imposed by the applications themselves. Two GB is >>probably the limit for XP applications anyway. > > As Jim said, in 32-bit XP, apps are limited to 2GB or 3GB if you use > the "/3GB" switch (which starves the OS). In 64-bit XP with 64-bit > applications, the limit would be much higher but I don't know exactly > where. > > -- > Tim Slattery > MS MVP(DTS) > Slattery_T@bls.gov > http://members.cox.net/slatteryt How does the '/3GB' switch starve the OS? Marc
Guest Tim Slattery Posted September 7, 2007 Posted September 7, 2007 Re: What is the limit on the Virtual Memory address space? "marc" <bogus@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >How does the '/3GB' switch starve the OS? It restricts the OS to 1GB of virtual memory in each address space. I'm sure that if MS thought that the OS could consistently run well in that space they would have made it the default. Since they didn't, I have to assume that 1GB really isn't quite enough for the OS. -- Tim Slattery MS MVP(DTS) Slattery_T@bls.gov http://members.cox.net/slatteryt
Recommended Posts