Why do I only have 3gb ram and not 4gb?

There are no errors David. The application was on my desktop, but it was lost among all the other links I had. When I put it on My Vista machine, it opened automatically, so I though it hadn’t installed on XP, but it had. It certainly gives a lot of information. Thanks for the link.
What a difference in the amount of Video RAM on a 6 year old machine compared to the Vista machine I got last year… I only had 64 MB of video RAM on the old one with 1 GB of memory.
One question?
Since a 64 bit machine could use more RAM, would I see a lot of difference between a 32 bit machine and a 64 bit? If so what kinds of applications would be affected the most?

RoRo

@roro

I set up a Folder C:\Download to download and test applications that I think are interesting and remove the downloaded file after install or if it is a standalone I leave it there.

Storing things on the Desktop makes for an awful messy Desktop.

64 bit processors are faster but not much software is written yet to support 64 bit processors effectively.

YoKenny,
Can applications that run on 32 bit Vista, run on 64 bit Vista; although, not any better than they run on 32 bit, if they haven’t been written for 64? I hope that is too confusing a sentence.
If they can, it would make sense to get a 64 bit machine and wait for updates on software.
I know what you mean about a cluttered desktop. I try to compact mine into folders, but it still seems to increase tenfold.

RoRo

32 bit applications can run on 64 bit Vista.

Applications are either 32 bit or 64 bit so 32 bit apps will run on both systems but 64 bit applications will not run on 32 bit systems.

I don’t have enough money to purchase a 64 bit system to try the performance improvement.

I do not keep Folders on my Desktop only icons for applications that I install and even then some icons I remove as some applications I use very infrequently and access them through Start All Programs menu.

I do have a Folder icon for C:\Download on the Desktop though.

Thanks for the information. I am not ready to spend for a 64 bit system either, but I have a friend who is in the market for a new laptop and was asking about getting a 64 bit OS. Now I can tell her definitely yes.
I definitely should put a download folder on my desktop, and I think I will move my folders to a folder on the C drive. Those are both good suggestions.
Thanks again.

RoRo

You would see a lot of difference and not all of it good. One of the biggest issues is hardware drivers as many manufacturers are loath to make 64bit drivers for old hardware so little things like printer drivers, etc. may not be available for your printer, etc.

Some programs won’t work at all older ones which would run under compatibility mode on your existing OS, but 32bit programs generally will still work, but won’t benefit from the 64bit enhancements.

The problem is that you generally won’t find out things like this until you have your 64bit OS.

Getting a new laptop with a 64bit OS would seem a reasonable way to go as drivers shouldn’t be much of an issue, except for external hardware. If I were in the market for a new laptop I would be waiting for the release of win7 as to me it doesn’t make sense to get one now with Vista. I know you can at some point in time get a free upgrade to win7 having bought Vista so close to the release of win7.

However, for me upgrades no matter what is said are at best a compromise and if I had the option I would prefer a clean install, so getting it on a new system is probably the best way to go.

I do not know if “loath” is the right word but from history right down to Win95 hardware drivers have been an issue and Win98SE attempted to relieve this and even WinME was better that I really liked.

Its evolution not revolution.
I look forward to Windows 7 in October.

It is I believe very close to the mark (Unwilling or reluctant; disinclined:) and was shorter than “tight as a ducks back passage” when money is concerned creating 64bit drivers for old hardware.

So why is it that A lot of people have trouble running 32bit programs on 64bit OS =o?

It is impossible to say (other than what has already been said) as we don’t know what those 32bit applications were.

There are 32bit applications that don’t even work on 32bit OS versions of XP and Vista or they have to be run in compatibility mode as they are old applications. So god knows how they might fare on a 64bit OS.

Bollocks. You’ll only have problems with really ancient stuff that was designed with early 32bit in mind or even 16bit (mostly games).
But other than that i have yet to find “stuff” that “many users” have problems with. Because i’m on 64bit for the second yer and i never had any problems.

Back to RAM. I saw this website(http://www.mydigitallife.info/2008/06/04/differences-and-advantages-between-32-bit-x86-vs-64-bit-x64-windows-vista/) comparing 32 and 64 bit and they said " All 32-bit versions of Windows Vista can access up to 4 GB of RAM."
Is this true only of Vista systems?
RoRo

No, for all 32bits systems (XP, etc.).

Then why do some 32 bit systems says they can only use 3 GB RAM?

RoRo

I wouldn’t even worry about this, if you have 4GB of RAM the 32 bit OS will use as much as it can handle.

Here is an extract from an article in the Windows Secrets newsletter by Scott Dunn who is vastly more experienced than I in this matter.

Here's the full story behind how much RAM a given system can handle.

First, there’s hardware. Each system has a fundamental physical limit on the amount of memory it can accommodate. Most PCs and laptops sold today have a 32-bit internal architecture.

That means that the computer can generate distinct, internal memory addresses that start at zero and go up to a binary number (ones and zeros) that’s 32 digits long. Mathematically, that’s 2 to the 32nd power — or about 4.2 billion memory addresses to play with. This translates to about 4GB.

The 32-bit limit is fundamental and real: a 32-bit PC cannot generate an internal 33-bit address, so once all 4.2 billion addresses are in use, you’re done. About 4GB is all you get for RAM in a 32-bit PC, period.

Why “about” 4GB? Why isn’t it an exact number? That’s because the PC uses its total memory space not just for RAM but also for such housekeeping chores as remembering your hardware and maintaining internal scratchpads and “stacks.”

Any memory addresses remaining unused after the housekeeping requirements are met will be available for use as general-purpose memory. This represents the amount of RAM you can actually use.

It’s not unusual for a PC to need almost a full gigabyte of addresses for internal use, so putting 4GB of RAM into a standard 32-bit system usually nets around 3.2GB of usable RAM. The rest of the 4GB of RAM is there, but the system has no way of accessing the memory because your PC has run out of internal addresses.

There’s a further complication: many current systems — especially laptops — don’t even try to allow the absolute theoretical maximum RAM due to such design considerations as cost, heat, power consumption, and size.

That’s the hardware side of things, but standard 32-bit software also shares the same mathematical ceiling that 32-bit hardware has and is likewise limited to recognizing no more than 4GB of address space.

That’s all the RAM that standard 32-bit XP or Vista (or 32-bit Linux or Macs, for that matter) will ever “see” on standard 32-bit hardware. No matter how you slice it, 2 to the 32nd equals 4GB. That’s all there is.

Note that some server-oriented 32-bit systems can use “address extensions” to perform a sleight-of-hand that tricks the operating system into thinking it’s working within the normal 4GB address space when the system is actually tap-dancing madly behind the scenes to allow access to somewhat more.

Scott Dunn covered some of these techniques in his excellent column in the Dec. 18, 2008, newsletter titled “Access more memory, even on a 32-bit system.” But even though the techniques Scott describes let you partially sidestep current memory constraints, they don’t change the fundamental 4GB cap for 32-bit architectures.

The real answer for more memory space is to move to 64-bit hardware and software. The mathematical ceiling for 64-bit hardware is an astonishing 16EB (exabytes) of memory space — 16 quintillion bytes. That’s a whopping 16 million terabytes, or 16 billion gigabytes. That ought to accommodate your MP3 collection.

could still be a UAC issue. Some programs just don’t run fine at all if you installed them with UAC on. Granting them admin privilege afterward doesn’t help. You must install them with UAC off (probably because they don’t support virtualization). You can always turn UAC back on once the install’s done. That’s what I had to do for a couple (few) of programs.

any 32 bit version of Windows will be able to detect up to 4GB of RAM, but won’t be able to use more than 3. As to “many people complaining about 32 bit software issues on 64 bit OS”, that’s bs :wink:

Thank you Logos and DavidR.
So, if I had only 3 GB of RAM, my computer would run the same, because although it can access 4 GB, it can only use 3 GB. Tt is interesting that they will sell 4 GB without telling you this at Dell. If I am using shared RAM for Video does that decrease the 3 GB usable for the rest of the system, or will that be taken for the 4 GB that I have accessible?

if the video memory is shared, that will of course decrease the 3GB usable limit (on board video memory, ie RAM that physically belongs to your video card, is fully usable on top of that, whatever OS you run, 32 or 64 bit).

Thanks Logos,
I now understand better the availability and uses of RAM. This forum is such a great place to learn.

RoRo