Can U use 4GB Of RAM in Windows XP

not true you can set it up to use 4gb, Example, it can use 1gb for windows and 3gb for programs but won't use all 4gb all at once together. It is a server mod. What I'm saying is the memory is designated and not fluid as needed like it is in vista, only the first 3 gb really are in windows xp. You can install 4gb but unmodded xp will only really uses 3gb fluidly and server modded you must designate what it uses over 3gb. You use a method called the 3 MB switch by changing the boot file you allowcate 1 gb to windows and 3 gb to programs. This really doesn't make a difference unless you use your computer as a server.

 

Yes, but you will need the 64 bit version.

 

no you don't the 3mb switch is for xp allowing 4gb of ram to be used.

 

Erm....actually no. You see currently you can only have 2Gb of RAM for the kernel, and 2Gb for Programs right? So with 4Gb of RAM you lose RAM that is reserved for other system memory from the 2Gb that is used for the kernel. Now, with the 3Gb switch all you do is switch it to 3Gb for Programs and 1Gb for the kernel, but you still lose space based on how much other system memory you have.

I think you are thinking about the PAE switch, which moves the reserve space higher up out of the 4Gb address register, but that does have down-sides.

 

ehh...what, its been out for about 2 years already, with a shit load of drivers released in about 3 months after release (about 4-6 months for 64bit drivers), new hotfixes, and even SP1.
There really isn't an "I'll wait a bit more" saying its either you get it or pass.
Vista is pretty much at its peak right now, at least i think so, and it runs fine on my semi mid rig (ie. 2GB of ram, amd 5200 x2).

IMO, all this flaming and ranting has just made Vista look like POS, when in reality it isn't
+1 for trolls, 0 for people that have tried it.

 

I just realized there are alot of people from Texas on these forums

 

Even deleting a bloody shortcut on the desktop takes ages, as if it was running all sorts of idiotic checks in the background. Drives me mad. I got rid of Vista. It's inefficient, cumbersome and frustrating. Only my opinion of course.

XP all the way.

 

vista SP1 file copy is no slower than XPs
and you cant get all 4GB in 32-bit windows vista/xp
only 64-bit will allow fully 4GB to be used or more

 

You can as long as its XP 64 bit. No matter what anyone in here tells you 32 bit XP , vista whatever. CANNOT use 4GB of RAM. It can not and will not, not even with a hack. It is a physical limitation of 32 bit. But, if you need 64 bit xp im sure you can fiund a cheap copy of XP 64 on ebay or something. BUT, if your going 64, it might be better for you to do vista as XP 64 was more of a flop (not very popular). Its hard to find the right drivers for xp64 where vista 64 is more mainstream these days.

 

32bit can only use 3.2gb of ram weather its vista, xp, or 98 lol

 

or 95 or even 3.1

 

arent programs also limited to only using upto 2gb each in 32bit?
another reason to go 64bit . . .

 

see here:
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/PAEmem.mspx

and here:http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080717201730AAhrEGC

 

But Laszlo, you need to understand the ram from your video card is also deducted from that. Thats why everyone always sees 3.2-3.5. If you have 4GB ram in your machine and a video card with 512 mb, then the 512 mb from the card is automatically deducted form that 4GB limit you have. Putting your usable memory to less than 4 GB.

Like me I have 2x2 GB in my machine. I use xp 32 bit and I have a 4850 crossfire setup. That uses 1GB, so when I check the system properties , even with the PAE switch, i only have a recognized 3GB because my video cards use the other 1Gb available.

So in theory yes, 32 bit can use 4 gb ram. But you will only ever be able to use 4gb when there is a pc that has a video card with no ram.

 

i just answer to the thread question which is " Can U use 4GB Of RAM in Windows XP"

my answer is yes u can use is a different problem how much you access from it

 

dark read what I said above bro. I basically explained that already.

 

I bought a Vista laptop. I used Vista and Office 2007 for 6 months and recently downgraded to XP. I'm so glad I did, laptops aren't meant to use Vista.

Vista and Office 2007 are very power-hungry, even for a 17" 3GB Dual Core laptop. Now, my programs load faster, my computer boots up faster. Almost zero browser crashes. So much better for my laptop. I'll admit Vista is something new, and looks nice, but for now I will stay loyal to XP.

My manual says my laptop will support up to 4GB, but if like said previously XP will not recognize all 4GB, then I will just stay with 3.

 

for those who keep saying XP 32B can't see 4GB of ram this is untrue XP see's a MAX of 4GB which include VGA etc so lets say you have a 256MB video card and 4GB of ram installed XP will see 3.75GB of ram so it still "see's" 4GB total of ram just not were you want it.

oh and just FYI XP runs great on 1-2GB anything over that is icing on the cake so don't worry how much it see's and try vista 64b i wont go back to XP now

 

I have 4GB's of RAM and Windows XP only recognises 3.5GB's of the 4GB's...

 

Windows XP 32-Bit will address 4GB of memory and 4GB only, even with the PAE enabled. It is true that with PAE it is possible on 32-bit OSes to address more than 4GB of memory. However, Microsoft has limitted XP 32-bit to 4GB of RAM regardless of if PAE is enabled or not. They did this for driver compatibility. Read Here.

Now, the addressed space includes graphics card memory, and any memory on any devices connected to the system. This usually leaves 3.75GB or less available to address system RAM. If you have 2 HD4870x2's for instance, you will have less than 2GB available.

Now, as for the XP vs. Vista file transfer speeds, use Robocopy if you are going to move large files in Vista and it will help with the slow file copy issues. SP1 definitely helps the situation as Microsoft reworked the file transfer methods with SP1, however it isn't up to XP speeds, and probably never will be. However, it is very livable.

Edit:

Ok, this thread got me kind of interested, so I ran some tests.

System Specs:
Q6600@3.2GHz
eVGA 780i A1
4GB G.Skill PC2-1100 5-5-5-15 @ PC2-800 4-4-4-12
500GB Seagate 7200.10 16MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s Drive
400GB Western Digital RE2 16MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s Drive

I setup a test folder that was 5.39GB(5.40GB on Disk) with 762 Files ranging in size from 2MB up to 933MB in 22 folders. Multiple files types were used: pictures, movies, MP3s, zip/rar, exe, text documents.

I ran 4 tests on each OS:
Same Drive Copy-I copy the folder from one location(Desktop) to another location on the same drive(C:\). This was done on the Seagate drive.
Different Drive Copy-I copy the folder from one location to another location on a different drive. The files were copied from the Seagate drive onto the Western Digital drive.
Delete-I used the Shift+Del command to delete the folder, this directly deletes the files, avoiding the Recycle Bin. This was done on the Seagate Drive.
Robocopy-I used the Robocopy command in a cmd prompt to copy the folder from one location to another location on a different drive. The files were copies from the Seagate drive onto the Westner Digital drive.

I timed each action using a stop watch from the moment I issued the command until the transfer/delete window disappeared.

Results(m:ss format):

Vista Same Drive Copy: 3:50
Vista Different Drive Copy: 1:55
Vista Delete: Virtually Instant(A window doesn't even appear, the folder just instantly disappears)
Vista Robocopy: 2:31

XP Same Drive Copy: 3:52
XP Different Drive Copy: 2:02
XP Delete: Virtually Instant(A window does appear, but disappears in less than a second)
XP Robocopy: 2:22

I was actually surprised by the results. Vista seems to be ever so slightly faster than XP when using explorer to issue commands, but slower with Robocopy. Either way, it seems Robocopy is the slowest method, but actually seems the fastest to me. Maybe this is because of the way the window shows progress, it shows the percentage of each file as it goes through the list of files. XP still seemed faster to me, even with the stop watch telling me otherwise. The only thing I can guess is that the XP transfer window tricks us into believing this. The Vista window is kind of dull and boring to watch, it just gives you the source and destination, and the stupid box animation at the top. The XP window lists each file as it is copied, and gives the nice animation of the file moving from one folder to the next. Because the XP box is a little more entertaining than the Vista transfer window, it tricks us into thinking it is moving faster(time flies when you are having fun type of deal). And Robocopy does the same type of trick, because it lists each file, and counts the percentage of the file that is currently be transferred, it is kind of fun to watch, and probably why it seems to go the quickest, even when it is actually slower.

 

System:
- Asus P5Q Deluxe
- Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550
- Corsair XMS2 DHX Series 4GB (PC2-6400U, CL4-4-4-12, im BIOS jedoch alles auf Standard belassen)

Hi, I'm going to use Windows XP SP3 32BIT. If I can't use the full 4GB it's not important, but system performance und stability is. So my question, will I suffer any stability or performance problems with 4GB installed while using XP 32BIT? Should I leave Memory Remapping on or off for better stability?

Thanks in advance.