Guest husky86 Posted September 8, 2007 Posted September 8, 2007 I have read several technical articles which note that the 32-bit editions of Windows XP Pro or Windows Vista -- as opposed to the 64-bit editions -- cannot take advantage of anything more than 4 GB of RAM. Beyond this point it is, essentially, a waste of money to have additional RAM on board. Is this technically true? The reason that I'm asking is because we are presently considering the acquisition of a new desktop computer for our small business. We would certainly like to be able to take advantage of more than 4 GB of RAM with the Vista 64-bit edition. However, one of the key pieces of software that we use is 32-bit only -- Dragon NaturallySpeaking (now owned by Nuance). According to technical specs on the support webpage (of NaturallySpeaking) it simply cannot run on a 64 bit OS. Both my wife and I suffer from repetitive motions stress, i.e. carpal tunnel syndrome and other repetitive motion problems, which makes reliance upon voice-recognition software a must. The next version of NaturallySpeaking is expected to be able to run on the 64-bit edition of Vista. Unfortunately, this upgrade will probably not be available until late 2008. In the meantime, we desperately need to move forward with the acquisition of a new system. Bottom line question: if we ended up ordering 8 GB of RAM, for instance, in use with the 32-bit edition of Windows Vista, is the extra 4 GB of RAM going to go completely unused? Or will the operating system still be able to utilize some of this extra memory? Thanks!
Guest Brian A. Posted September 8, 2007 Posted September 8, 2007 Re: 32-bit editions of Windows XP Pro and Windows Vista "husky86" <husky86@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:4714AA1B-BA70-45AE-987B-97D346D3B41D@microsoft.com... >I have read several technical articles which note that the 32-bit editions of > Windows XP Pro or Windows Vista -- as opposed to the 64-bit editions -- > cannot take advantage of anything more than 4 GB of RAM. Beyond this point > it is, essentially, a waste of money to have additional RAM on board. > > Is this technically true? > > The reason that I'm asking is because we are presently considering the > acquisition of a new desktop computer for our small business. We would > certainly like to be able to take advantage of more than 4 GB of RAM with the > Vista 64-bit edition. However, one of the key pieces of software that we use > is 32-bit only -- Dragon NaturallySpeaking (now owned by Nuance). According > to technical specs on the support webpage (of NaturallySpeaking) it simply > cannot run on a 64 bit OS. > > Both my wife and I suffer from repetitive motions stress, i.e. carpal tunnel > syndrome and other repetitive motion problems, which makes reliance upon > voice-recognition software a must. > > The next version of NaturallySpeaking is expected to be able to run on the > 64-bit edition of Vista. Unfortunately, this upgrade will probably not be > available until late 2008. > > In the meantime, we desperately need to move forward with the acquisition of > a new system. > > Bottom line question: if we ended up ordering 8 GB of RAM, for instance, in > use with the 32-bit edition of Windows Vista, is the extra 4 GB of RAM going > to go completely unused? Or will the operating system still be able to > utilize some of this extra memory? > > Thanks! Memory Limits for Windows Releases http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-gb/library/aa366778.aspx -- Brian A. Sesko { MS MVP_Shell/User } Conflicts start where information lacks. http://basconotw.mvps.org/ Suggested posting do's/don'ts: http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm How to ask a question: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375
Guest Ken Blake, MVP Posted September 8, 2007 Posted September 8, 2007 Re: 32-bit editions of Windows XP Pro and Windows Vista On Sat, 8 Sep 2007 01:54:00 -0700, husky86 <husky86@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: > I have read several technical articles which note that the 32-bit editions of > Windows XP Pro or Windows Vista -- as opposed to the 64-bit editions -- > cannot take advantage of anything more than 4 GB of RAM. Beyond this point > it is, essentially, a waste of money to have additional RAM on board. > > Is this technically true? Yes, but the situation is actually worse than that. All 32-bit versions of Windows (not just XP and Vista) have a 4GB address space. However they can only use *around* 3.1GB of RAM. That's because some of that space is used by hardware and not available to the operating system and applications. The amount you can use varies, depending on what hardware you have installed, but is usually around 3.1GB. But I've seen numbers as high as 3.5GB. > The reason that I'm asking is because we are presently considering the > acquisition of a new desktop computer for our small business. We would > certainly like to be able to take advantage of more than 4 GB of RAM with the > Vista 64-bit edition. Why? Very few Vista users can make effective us of that much RAM. Unless you run particularly memory-hungry applications like video editing or photographic editing of very large images, that 3GB restriction shouldn't impact you in any way. > However, one of the key pieces of software that we use > is 32-bit only -- Dragon NaturallySpeaking (now owned by Nuance). According > to technical specs on the support webpage (of NaturallySpeaking) it simply > cannot run on a 64 bit OS. > > Both my wife and I suffer from repetitive motions stress, i.e. carpal tunnel > syndrome and other repetitive motion problems, which makes reliance upon > voice-recognition software a must. > > The next version of NaturallySpeaking is expected to be able to run on the > 64-bit edition of Vista. Unfortunately, this upgrade will probably not be > available until late 2008. > > In the meantime, we desperately need to move forward with the acquisition of > a new system. > > Bottom line question: if we ended up ordering 8 GB of RAM, for instance, in > use with the 32-bit edition of Windows Vista, is the extra 4 GB of RAM going > to go completely unused? Yes, the extra *5* GB (approximately) will go completely unused. However, once again, it is highly unlikely that you would see any performance difference between 3GB and 8GB, even if all 8GB were usable. Despite what many people mindlessly repeat, more RAM is *not* always better. That's only true up to a point, and that point is below 3GB for almost everyone, even those running Vista. > Or will the operating system still be able to > utilize some of this extra memory? Get a new computer with a 64-bit CPU, and then you have the following two choices: 1. Get your new computer with 32-bit Vista and 3GB of RAM 2. Put Windows XP (if yours is a retail version, not OEM, you can transfer it from your old computer) on your new computer (also with 3GB), and upgrade to more RAM, 64-bit Vista and the new version of Dragon NaturallySpeaking when it comes out. Unless you are one of the rare people who really need more than 3GB, I recommend choice 1. -- Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User Please Reply to the Newsgroup
Recommended Posts