Vista 32 bitand memory restrictions

I have read several technical articles which note that the 32-bit edition of
Windows Vista -- as opposed to the 64-bit edition --
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).

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!

"husky86" <> wrote in message
news:CEE1FA9D-6339-4413-8F5B-...
>I have read several technical articles which note that the 32-bit edition
>of
> Windows Vista -- as opposed to the 64-bit edition --
> 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).
>
> 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!

Vista 32-bit can only use 4 GB of RAM. Any more will go unused.

In addition, some memory space is taken up by hardware, so that you'll have
less than 4 GB available for use by you and programs. For instance, only
3.24 GB of my 4 GB is available for use.

--
Frank Saunders, MS-MVP OE/WM
Do not send mail.

In addition to what Frank said, the program you are running must be large
address aware to take advantage of more than 2 GB in 32-bit Windows.
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx

"husky86" <> wrote in message
news:CEE1FA9D-6339-4413-8F5B-...
>I have read several technical articles which note that the 32-bit edition
>of
> Windows Vista -- as opposed to the 64-bit edition --
> 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).
>
> 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!

On Sat, 8 Sep 2007 02:22:01 -0700, husky86
<> wrote:

> I have read several technical articles which note that the 32-bit edition of
> Windows Vista -- as opposed to the 64-bit edition --
> 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.


Answered in another newsgroup. Please do not send the same message
separately to more than one newsgroup (called multiposting). Doing so
just fragments the thread, so someone who answers in one newsgroup
doesn't get to see answers from others in another newsgroup. And for
those who read all the newsgroups the message is multiposted to, they
see the message multiple times instead of once (they would see it only
once if you correctly crossposted instead). This wastes everyone's
time, and gets you poorer help than you should get.

If you must send the same message to more than one newsgroup, please
do so by crossposting (but only to a *few* related newsgroups).

Please see "What is the accepted way to share a message across
multiple newsgroups?" at http://smjg.port5.com/faqs/usenet/xpost.html

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

I have one quick follow-up question:

Why is it that Microsoft and/or third-party software manufacturers seems so
far behind the curve as it relates to finally adopting 64-bit technology?
Why is it taking so long for such adoption and by extension for the use of
RAM beyond 4 GB?

Thanks!

Probably because 99% of applications have absolutely no need for memory
beyond 1-2 GB. It is really a niche requirement. Video processing, servers
and CAD are 3 that come to mind. Microsoft has had 64-bit PC and Server
operating systems for over 2 years with few takers.

"husky86" <> wrote in message
news:E135F947-218A-4F49-B53C-...
>I have one quick follow-up question:
>
> Why is it that Microsoft and/or third-party software manufacturers seems
> so
> far behind the curve as it relates to finally adopting 64-bit technology?
> Why is it taking so long for such adoption and by extension for the use of
> RAM beyond 4 GB?
>
> Thanks!

John,

Thanks very much for responding.

I suppose what I don't understand about this situation is that yes, there
are very few individual applications which will be able to take advantage of
the extended memory, but what if you are desirous to run multiple and major
applications at the same time? Wouldn't this necessitate at least 4 GB of
RAM, if not more?

Example: what if I'm running Windows Vista Ultimate (which is a memory hog,
if I'm not mistaken), NaturallySpeaking voice-recognition software (also a
memory hog -- I'm presently using it to dictate this response), Internet
explorer in the background, Microsoft Word and Outlook for my office
applications, and at the same time processing a large number of digital
photos in Photoshop CS3 (I'm a part-time wedding photographer)? And what if
I wanted all of these individual applications to be able to run smoothly and
as powerfully as possible all at the same time?

Isn't this pushing the 4 GB barrier?

I keep hearing about individual applications not needing anything more than
4 GB of RAM; but what about running multiple applications -- powerful and
memory hogging applications -- at the same time? Which people do every day?
It's the whole reason multitasking was created as a part of the operating
system a long time ago, of course.

Any thoughts from anyone along these lines would be most appreciated!

Maybe, but very few users would have. I personally have Mail, WML, Money, 8
IE (4 IE32 4 IE64) with a total of near 40 total tabs (5 Java enabled), WMP
on Ultimate64 open for most of the day, others opened and closed
occasionally and only show some 60-70 % usage of my 2 gig of memory.

"husky86" <> wrote in message
news:2A2FF351-BFFD-49BD-89DE-...
> John,
>
> Thanks very much for responding.
>
> I suppose what I don't understand about this situation is that yes, there
> are very few individual applications which will be able to take advantage
> of
> the extended memory, but what if you are desirous to run multiple and
> major
> applications at the same time? Wouldn't this necessitate at least 4 GB of
> RAM, if not more?
>
> Example: what if I'm running Windows Vista Ultimate (which is a memory
> hog,
> if I'm not mistaken), NaturallySpeaking voice-recognition software (also a
> memory hog -- I'm presently using it to dictate this response), Internet
> explorer in the background, Microsoft Word and Outlook for my office
> applications, and at the same time processing a large number of digital
> photos in Photoshop CS3 (I'm a part-time wedding photographer)? And what
> if
> I wanted all of these individual applications to be able to run smoothly
> and
> as powerfully as possible all at the same time?
>
> Isn't this pushing the 4 GB barrier?
>
> I keep hearing about individual applications not needing anything more
> than
> 4 GB of RAM; but what about running multiple applications -- powerful and
> memory hogging applications -- at the same time? Which people do every
> day?
> It's the whole reason multitasking was created as a part of the operating
> system a long time ago, of course.
>
> Any thoughts from anyone along these lines would be most appreciated!

On Sun, 9 Sep 2007 00:06:01 -0700, husky86
<> wrote:

> I have one quick follow-up question:
>
> Why is it that Microsoft and/or third-party software manufacturers seems so
> far behind the curve as it relates to finally adopting 64-bit technology?



Questions like that gets opinions, not answers. Here's my opinion:

My view is that whenever such new technology comes along, the major
obstacle to its acceptance and use is that it requires a combination
of hardware and software to make it work, and the hardware and
software are provided by different companies. Neither the hardware
companies nor the software ones want to make too much of an investment
in it until they are sure that the other side is in place. So each
side tends to stall, waiting for the other.

Now that the hardware is generally available, I think we can expect to
see the software rapidly become available over the next year or two.


> Why is it taking so long for such adoption and by extension for the use of
> RAM beyond 4 GB?


My view here is that that's not the issue at all. Hardly anybody needs
more than 4GB of RAM, or even that much. The point of running 64-bit
applications with a 64-bit operating system is that everything will be
accessed in 64-bit chunks rather than 32-bit ones, and that means a
performance improvement. Support for more than 4GB of RAM is a side
issue, at least for the present. There will eventually come a time
when that support for larger amounts of memory becomes significant,
but for the great majority of us, that time hasn't arrived yet.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup