32 bit OS, 4 GB limit? - Ubuntu

This is a discussion on 32 bit OS, 4 GB limit? - Ubuntu ; Is that correct that the sum total of all virtual memory allocations on a 32 bit OS cannot exceed 4 GB? For example, if I have 4 GB of RAM, can I run 20 programs that take 500 MB each? ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 50

Thread: 32 bit OS, 4 GB limit?

  1. 32 bit OS, 4 GB limit?

    Is that correct that the sum total of all virtual memory allocations
    on a 32 bit OS cannot exceed 4 GB?

    For example, if I have 4 GB of RAM, can I run 20 programs that take 500
    MB each? (with most memory swapped out, and big swap file, of course).

    Also, is it true that 32 bit install cannot use more than 4 GB of
    physical RAM?

    Dave

  2. Re: 32 bit OS, 4 GB limit?

    On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 07:44:31 -0500, curiousdave wrote:

    > Is that correct that the sum total of all virtual memory allocations on
    > a 32 bit OS cannot exceed 4 GB?
    >
    > For example, if I have 4 GB of RAM, can I run 20 programs that take 500
    > MB each? (with most memory swapped out, and big swap file, of course).
    >
    > Also, is it true that 32 bit install cannot use more than 4 GB of
    > physical RAM?


    The sum of your Swap Memory + Physical Memory can exceed 32-bit on a 32-
    bit system. So you can have a total > 4 gigs available if you include
    swap memory.

    However, yes the addressable region in 32-bit is limited to 4 gigs.

    2^32 = 4gb, no matter which way you slice it and dice it.

    This however does not mean that if you put 4 gigs of physical memory into
    your system that you have 4 gigs of physical memory available.

    For one, starting at the top end of the memory region, some memory is
    reserved for your hardware. Your video memory would like a share of this
    4 gig address space for example. Then your DMA for the hard drive
    controllers, etc. It all adds up.

    Any addressable space used up by the hardware *cannot* be used for
    anything else. Memory in that region is completely lost.

    So on my system, even though I have 4 gigs in it, on a 32-bit system I
    can only effectively use 3.2 gigs of it as the remaining 800 megs are not
    addressable for physical memory.

    Then the OS Kernel would like some memory as well for it's needs. There
    also is a separation between kernel memory space and user memory space.

    I know under windows this line is drawn at 2 gigs. The lower 2 gigs are
    available for applications, everything above that is OS / Hardware. I
    don't know off the top of my head where Linux draws that line. However,
    wherever the kernel / user memory line is draw, that is the max amount of
    memory any application can ever use regardless of how much memory is in
    your system.

    --
    Stephan
    1986 Pontiac Fiero GT
    1992 Suzuki Kan-o-tuna ('till I can get my R1)

    君の事思い出す日なんてないのは
    君の事忘れたときがないから

  3. Re: 32 bit OS, 4 GB limit?

    curiousdave@AOL.com wrote:
    > Is that correct that the sum total of all virtual memory allocations
    > on a 32 bit OS cannot exceed 4 GB?


    If I understand you, then it is not true. I know my motherboard has slots
    enough for 16 GBytes of RAM and it accepts two Hyperthreaded Intel Xeon
    32-bitprocessors. The chipset is the Intel E7501 that permits accessing up
    to 64 GBytes. Now no one process can access more than 4 GBytes of RAM
    (except the kernel that has control of the memory mapping registers). But
    the whole machine (with a suitable motherboard) can access 64 GBytes RAM.

    With my machine, the user processes consume about a Gigabyte of ram, output
    buffers can get up to about 1 GByte, and the input cache is typically of the
    order of 6 GBytes.
    >
    > For example, if I have 4 GB of RAM, can I run 20 programs that take 500
    > MB each? (with most memory swapped out, and big swap file, of course).


    Sure. If you do not care about performance, you are limited mainly by the
    amount of swap space on your hard drives. In your example, you could run 20
    programs that took 2 GBytes each. If the processes were actually doing
    something, you might get thrashing of the disks, however.
    >
    > Also, is it true that 32 bit install cannot use more than 4 GB of
    > physical RAM?


    No.
    >
    > Dave



    --
    .~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
    /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
    /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
    ^^-^^ 09:40:01 up 15 days, 19:00, 4 users, load average: 4.16, 4.08, 4.01

  4. Re: 32 bit OS, 4 GB limit?

    On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 07:44:31 -0500, curiousdave wrote:

    > Is that correct that the sum total of all virtual memory allocations on
    > a 32 bit OS cannot exceed 4 GB?
    >
    > For example, if I have 4 GB of RAM, can I run 20 programs that take 500
    > MB each? (with most memory swapped out, and big swap file, of course).
    >
    > Also, is it true that 32 bit install cannot use more than 4 GB of
    > physical RAM?
    >
    > Dave


    To elaborate briefly on Jean-David's reply, as I understand it, - certain
    32 bit motherboards have a four line address extension - allowing
    addressing of 64gb. A Linux large memory kernel understands how to deal
    with that so it can access all 64gb, though the limitation of 4gb per
    process still stands.

  5. Re: 32 bit OS, 4 GB limit?

    On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 07:44:31 -0500, curiousdave wrote:

    > Is that correct that the sum total of all virtual memory allocations on
    > a 32 bit OS cannot exceed 4 GB?
    >
    > For example, if I have 4 GB of RAM, can I run 20 programs that take 500
    > MB each? (with most memory swapped out, and big swap file, of course).
    >
    > Also, is it true that 32 bit install cannot use more than 4 GB of
    > physical RAM?
    >
    > Dave


    To elaborate briefly on Jean-David's reply, as I understand it, - certain
    32 bit motherboards have a four line address extension - allowing
    addressing of 64gb. A Linux large memory kernel understands how to deal
    with that so it can access all 64gb, though the limitation of 4gb per
    process still stands.

  6. Re: 32 bit OS, 4 GB limit?

    Stephan Rose wrote:
    > On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 07:44:31 -0500, curiousdave wrote:
    >
    >> Is that correct that the sum total of all virtual memory allocations on
    >> a 32 bit OS cannot exceed 4 GB?
    >>
    >> For example, if I have 4 GB of RAM, can I run 20 programs that take 500
    >> MB each? (with most memory swapped out, and big swap file, of course).
    >>
    >> Also, is it true that 32 bit install cannot use more than 4 GB of
    >> physical RAM?

    >
    > The sum of your Swap Memory + Physical Memory can exceed 32-bit on a 32-
    > bit system. So you can have a total > 4 gigs available if you include
    > swap memory.
    >
    > However, yes the addressable region in 32-bit is limited to 4 gigs.
    >
    > 2^32 = 4gb, no matter which way you slice it and dice it.
    >
    > This however does not mean that if you put 4 gigs of physical memory into
    > your system that you have 4 gigs of physical memory available.
    >
    > For one, starting at the top end of the memory region, some memory is
    > reserved for your hardware. Your video memory would like a share of this
    > 4 gig address space for example. Then your DMA for the hard drive
    > controllers, etc. It all adds up.
    >
    > Any addressable space used up by the hardware *cannot* be used for
    > anything else. Memory in that region is completely lost.
    >
    > So on my system, even though I have 4 gigs in it, on a 32-bit system I
    > can only effectively use 3.2 gigs of it as the remaining 800 megs are not
    > addressable for physical memory.
    >
    > Then the OS Kernel would like some memory as well for it's needs. There
    > also is a separation between kernel memory space and user memory space.
    >
    > I know under windows this line is drawn at 2 gigs. The lower 2 gigs are
    > available for applications, everything above that is OS / Hardware. I
    > don't know off the top of my head where Linux draws that line. However,
    > wherever the kernel / user memory line is draw, that is the max amount of
    > memory any application can ever use regardless of how much memory is in
    > your system.
    >

    Install the PAE kernel and it should all be available.

  7. Re: 32 bit OS, 4 GB limit?

    curiousdave@AOL.com wrote:
    > Is that correct that the sum total of all virtual memory allocations
    > on a 32 bit OS cannot exceed 4 GB?
    >
    > For example, if I have 4 GB of RAM, can I run 20 programs that take 500
    > MB each? (with most memory swapped out, and big swap file, of course).
    >
    > Also, is it true that 32 bit install cannot use more than 4 GB of
    > physical RAM?
    >
    > Dave


    Others have answered regarding the physical memory. I'll
    add something about swap space.

    I don't know the Linux algorithms for managing swap space
    however, in principle, there is no reason it should be
    limited to 4 GB.

    Back in the earliest days of computing with virtual memory,
    I believe that some OS's backed one bit of physical memory
    address space with one bit of swap space. But I think we're
    probably decades past that kind of swap management.

    Our hard drives are addressable in the terabyte range and
    beyond. The memory manager in the kernel can associate
    any part of the area reserved for swap with any process.
    So if there are 10 processes, each of which uses 1 GB of
    virtual memory, it can give each process it's own 1 GB
    region in the swap space.

    In practice, I believe the kernel is much more efficient
    than that, intermixing data from different processes in
    units that don't require contiguous space in swap for each
    process's data.

    Alan

  8. Re: 32 bit OS, 4 GB limit?

    In article ,
    Stephan Rose wrote:
    > On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 07:44:31 -0500, curiousdave wrote:
    >
    > > Is that correct that the sum total of all virtual memory allocations on
    > > a 32 bit OS cannot exceed 4 GB?
    > >
    > > For example, if I have 4 GB of RAM, can I run 20 programs that take 500
    > > MB each? (with most memory swapped out, and big swap file, of course).
    > >
    > > Also, is it true that 32 bit install cannot use more than 4 GB of
    > > physical RAM?

    >
    > The sum of your Swap Memory + Physical Memory can exceed 32-bit on a 32-
    > bit system. So you can have a total > 4 gigs available if you include
    > swap memory.
    >
    > However, yes the addressable region in 32-bit is limited to 4 gigs.
    >
    > 2^32 = 4gb, no matter which way you slice it and dice it.
    >
    > This however does not mean that if you put 4 gigs of physical memory into
    > your system that you have 4 gigs of physical memory available.
    >
    > For one, starting at the top end of the memory region, some memory is
    > reserved for your hardware. Your video memory would like a share of this
    > 4 gig address space for example.


    Only if you have a video card that steals system RAM, instead of
    providing its own. Those are usually slower.

    --
    I firmly believed we should not march into Baghdad ...To occupy Iraq
    would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world
    against us and make ... a latter-day Arab hero assigning young soldiers
    to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator[.] -- GHWB

  9. Re: 32 bit OS, 4 GB limit?

    On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 12:15:59 -0400, Alan Meyer wrote:

    > curiousdave@AOL.com wrote:
    >> Is that correct that the sum total of all virtual memory allocations on
    >> a 32 bit OS cannot exceed 4 GB?
    >>
    >> For example, if I have 4 GB of RAM, can I run 20 programs that take 500
    >> MB each? (with most memory swapped out, and big swap file, of course).
    >>
    >> Also, is it true that 32 bit install cannot use more than 4 GB of
    >> physical RAM?
    >>
    >> Dave

    >
    > Others have answered regarding the physical memory. I'll add something
    > about swap space.
    >
    > I don't know the Linux algorithms for managing swap space however, in
    > principle, there is no reason it should be limited to 4 GB.
    >
    > Back in the earliest days of computing with virtual memory, I believe
    > that some OS's backed one bit of physical memory address space with one
    > bit of swap space. But I think we're probably decades past that kind of
    > swap management.
    >
    > Our hard drives are addressable in the terabyte range and beyond. The
    > memory manager in the kernel can associate any part of the area reserved
    > for swap with any process. So if there are 10 processes, each of which
    > uses 1 GB of virtual memory, it can give each process it's own 1 GB
    > region in the swap space.
    >
    > In practice, I believe the kernel is much more efficient than that,
    > intermixing data from different processes in units that don't require
    > contiguous space in swap for each process's data.
    >
    > Alan


    These days swap space should be considered a safety valve, it's not
    something that you want used. As soon as processes start to move to the
    swap space the system performance goes to hell. If you actually try and
    use something that has been swapped out you'll have to wait forever for it
    to be swapped back in again. If you are using swap space at all then you
    should buy more RAM.

  10. Re: 32 bit OS, 4 GB limit?

    ray wrote:
    > On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 07:44:31 -0500, curiousdave wrote:
    >
    >> Is that correct that the sum total of all virtual memory allocations on
    >> a 32 bit OS cannot exceed 4 GB?
    >>
    >> For example, if I have 4 GB of RAM, can I run 20 programs that take 500
    >> MB each? (with most memory swapped out, and big swap file, of course).
    >>
    >> Also, is it true that 32 bit install cannot use more than 4 GB of
    >> physical RAM?
    >>
    >> Dave

    >
    > To elaborate briefly on Jean-David's reply, as I understand it, - certain
    > 32 bit motherboards have a four line address extension - allowing
    > addressing of 64gb. A Linux large memory kernel understands how to deal
    > with that so it can access all 64gb, though the limitation of 4gb per
    > process still stands.


    ...and you don't even WANT to know how we ended up with 386KB of ROM
    connected to an 8 bit 6809...and I think 16K or RAM., Lord that was a
    nightmare.

  11. Re: 32 bit OS, 4 GB limit?

    General Schvantzkopf wrote:
    > On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 12:15:59 -0400, Alan Meyer wrote:
    >
    >> curiousdave@AOL.com wrote:
    >>> Is that correct that the sum total of all virtual memory allocations on
    >>> a 32 bit OS cannot exceed 4 GB?
    >>>
    >>> For example, if I have 4 GB of RAM, can I run 20 programs that take 500
    >>> MB each? (with most memory swapped out, and big swap file, of course).
    >>>
    >>> Also, is it true that 32 bit install cannot use more than 4 GB of
    >>> physical RAM?
    >>>
    >>> Dave

    >> Others have answered regarding the physical memory. I'll add something
    >> about swap space.
    >>
    >> I don't know the Linux algorithms for managing swap space however, in
    >> principle, there is no reason it should be limited to 4 GB.
    >>
    >> Back in the earliest days of computing with virtual memory, I believe
    >> that some OS's backed one bit of physical memory address space with one
    >> bit of swap space. But I think we're probably decades past that kind of
    >> swap management.
    >>
    >> Our hard drives are addressable in the terabyte range and beyond. The
    >> memory manager in the kernel can associate any part of the area reserved
    >> for swap with any process. So if there are 10 processes, each of which
    >> uses 1 GB of virtual memory, it can give each process it's own 1 GB
    >> region in the swap space.
    >>
    >> In practice, I believe the kernel is much more efficient than that,
    >> intermixing data from different processes in units that don't require
    >> contiguous space in swap for each process's data.
    >>
    >> Alan

    >
    > These days swap space should be considered a safety valve, it's not
    > something that you want used. As soon as processes start to move to the
    > swap space the system performance goes to hell. If you actually try and
    > use something that has been swapped out you'll have to wait forever for it
    > to be swapped back in again. If you are using swap space at all then you
    > should buy more RAM.


    I don't think that is true at all. Lots of times dormant
    processes..maybe stuff that is iconised on your desktop - is swapped out.

    It's when the active process stars swapping that you are in deep doghsit.

  12. Re: 32 bit OS, 4 GB limit?

    So , the bottom line is, I can have a 32 bit install using 8 GB of
    RAM, and it would actually let processes use all that memory, as long
    as they stay below, say, 2 GB of memory per process?

    i

  13. Re: 32 bit OS, 4 GB limit?

    On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 17:40:05 -0500, Ignoramus16038 wrote:

    > So , the bottom line is, I can have a 32 bit install using 8 GB of RAM,
    > and it would actually let processes use all that memory, as long as they
    > stay below, say, 2 GB of memory per process?
    >
    > i


    Yes as long has you've installed a PAE kernel you can use all 8G however
    if you have 8G of RAM you really should be using a 64 bit version of
    Linux. 64Bit Linux is generally a little faster than 32Bit Linux, it
    eliminates the per process memory limit and it will run 32 bit
    applications as well as 64bit applications.

  14. Re: 32 bit OS, 4 GB limit?

    The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    >

    .... snip ...
    >
    > I don't think that is true at all. Lots of times dormant
    > processes..maybe stuff that is iconised on your desktop - is
    > swapped out.
    >
    > It's when the active process stars swapping that you are in
    > deep doghsit.


    Not necessarily. Thirty years ago I built a Pascal system (never
    marketed) for embedded and general use. It rigidly adhered to the
    Pascal standard. One aspect of it was that it could run on an
    interpreter under CP/M (as opposed to actual hard code). The
    interpreter could handle multiple processes, and could function
    (and exchange) down to a single process segment in core. I checked
    it by running the compiler under it and arranging for the space to
    be so limited. It did get slow, though. However, it all worked.

    It turned out that, as a general rule, you could assign enough
    memory to hold about 1/3 of the actual code, after subtracting the
    initialization code, and get quite reasonable performance.

    BTW, the interpreted system was at least as fast as all other
    available (at the time) Pascal systems, whether interpreted or real
    code (except for Turbo, which didn't meet standards). It's prime
    purpose was embedded medical systems.

    --
    [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
    [page]:
    Try the download section.


  15. Re: 32 bit OS, 4 GB limit?

    On 2008-07-11, Hactar wrote:
    >
    > Only if you have a video card that steals system RAM, instead of
    > providing its own. Those are usually slower.
    >


    Slower, sure. But perfectly fine for most users. Those of us that
    don't play 3D video games on our PC's don't have much need for a 256M
    Video card with a cpu that runs hotter than the surface of the sun...
    ;-) And they are cheaper, too!


    --
    Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
    joe at hits - buffalo dot com
    "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
    time..." - Danny, American History X

  16. Re: 32 bit OS, 4 GB limit?

    On 2008-07-11, General Schvantzkopf wrote:
    >
    > These days swap space should be considered a safety valve, it's not
    > something that you want used. As soon as processes start to move to the
    > swap space the system performance goes to hell. If you actually try and
    > use something that has been swapped out you'll have to wait forever for it
    > to be swapped back in again. If you are using swap space at all then you
    > should buy more RAM.


    In general, I'd agree, though I do find that every few weeks, my swap
    takes a minor blip. 16M or so in use. I have 3 GB of RAM, and it
    never gets filled, so I just run minor maintenance by turning swap off
    and on to clear it.

    Not that it impacts performance in any way, of course, but it doesn't
    look as nice on the htop display... ;-)


    --
    Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
    joe at hits - buffalo dot com
    "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
    time..." - Danny, American History X

  17. Re: 32 bit OS, 4 GB limit?

    On 2008-07-11, General Schvantzkopf wrote:
    > On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 17:40:05 -0500, Ignoramus16038 wrote:
    >
    >> So , the bottom line is, I can have a 32 bit install using 8 GB of RAM,
    >> and it would actually let processes use all that memory, as long as they
    >> stay below, say, 2 GB of memory per process?
    >>
    >> i

    >
    > Yes as long has you've installed a PAE kernel you can use all 8G however
    > if you have 8G of RAM you really should be using a 64 bit version of
    > Linux. 64Bit Linux is generally a little faster than 32Bit Linux, it
    > eliminates the per process memory limit and it will run 32 bit
    > applications as well as 64bit applications.


    Kinda... ;-)

    I'd say it depends on your usage/need of the computer. I have
    switched back to running 32 bit on my desktop, as the 64 bit
    workarounds for java and flash are not up to par, imo. For any of my
    workhorse machines, though, including the servers, the 64 bit kernel
    is automatic.

    --
    Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
    joe at hits - buffalo dot com
    "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
    time..." - Danny, American History X

  18. Re: 32 bit OS, 4 GB limit?

    Ignoramus16038 wrote:
    > So , the bottom line is, I can have a 32 bit install using 8 GB of
    > RAM, and it would actually let processes use all that memory, as long
    > as they stay below, say, 2 GB of memory per process?
    >

    Actually, as long as they stay below 3 GB or 3.5+ GB per process, depending
    on how the kernel was compiled.

    --
    .~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
    /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
    /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
    ^^-^^ 21:10:01 up 16 days, 6:30, 4 users, load average: 4.17, 4.18, 3.87

  19. Re: 32 bit OS, 4 GB limit?

    On 2008-07-11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    > General Schvantzkopf wrote:
    >> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 12:15:59 -0400, Alan Meyer wrote:
    >>
    >>> curiousdave@AOL.com wrote:
    >>>> ...

    >>
    >> These days swap space should be considered a safety valve, it's not
    >> something that you want used. As soon as processes start to move to the
    >> swap space the system performance goes to hell. If you actually try and
    >> use something that has been swapped out you'll have to wait forever for it
    >> to be swapped back in again. If you are using swap space at all then you
    >> should buy more RAM.

    >
    > I don't think that is true at all. Lots of times dormant
    > processes..maybe stuff that is iconised on your desktop - is swapped out.
    >
    > It's when the active process stars swapping that you are in deep doghsit.


    When active processes get swapped in and out over and over because there
    is not enough physical memory for all of them - you feel like you're
    waiting for a snail to run a 1-mile race. It's called thrashing:

    http://www.google.com/search?q=defin...ient=firefox-a

    (Ignore the 1st 2 entires.)

    --


  20. Re: 32 bit OS, 4 GB limit?

    In comp.os.linux.misc Hactar wrote:
    | In article ,
    | Stephan Rose wrote:
    |> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 07:44:31 -0500, curiousdave wrote:
    |>
    |> > Is that correct that the sum total of all virtual memory allocations on
    |> > a 32 bit OS cannot exceed 4 GB?
    |> >
    |> > For example, if I have 4 GB of RAM, can I run 20 programs that take 500
    |> > MB each? (with most memory swapped out, and big swap file, of course).
    |> >
    |> > Also, is it true that 32 bit install cannot use more than 4 GB of
    |> > physical RAM?
    |>
    |> The sum of your Swap Memory + Physical Memory can exceed 32-bit on a 32-
    |> bit system. So you can have a total > 4 gigs available if you include
    |> swap memory.
    |>
    |> However, yes the addressable region in 32-bit is limited to 4 gigs.
    |>
    |> 2^32 = 4gb, no matter which way you slice it and dice it.
    |>
    |> This however does not mean that if you put 4 gigs of physical memory into
    |> your system that you have 4 gigs of physical memory available.
    |>
    |> For one, starting at the top end of the memory region, some memory is
    |> reserved for your hardware. Your video memory would like a share of this
    |> 4 gig address space for example.
    |
    | Only if you have a video card that steals system RAM, instead of
    | providing its own. Those are usually slower.

    It doesn't need to steal actual RAM. It merely needs to steal physical address
    space.

    Although the CPU might be operating with 32-bit pointers, PCs these days have
    more than 32-bit address lines. Machines can be had with 64GB of RAM, so this
    means at least 36 bits of address.

    The video RAM address space might well be mapped in the lower 4GB address space
    but even this isn't ultimately necessary. A CPU in 64-bit mode can address it
    all directly easily. A CPU in 32-bit mode can still fire up at least 36 bits
    of addressing through the virtual memory translation.

    When the page size is 4096 bytes, the lower 12 bits of a 32-bit address do not
    participate in the mapping of virtual to real address. So only 20 bits are
    used to select a real page. By mapping those 20 bits into 24 bits, we add 4
    more bits to the addressing. This does not expand the ability of a virtual
    address space to go beyond 4GB. But it does allow those 4GB to be located
    anywhere within a 64GB real address space.

    Virtual address spaces are still limited to 4GB. And the kernel itself has
    to access its own memory in a more complex way since anything can be located
    anywhere in those up to 64GB.

    As long as the 36 address bits go all the way to the video card itself, then
    it can be mapped anywhere in the 64GB of real address space. And if you are
    limited to only 32 bits to the video card (e.g. PCI) then you can still have
    the video card using its own RAM somewhere in the lower 4GB.

    My 8GB machine has an older video card plugged in right now. The video card
    is mapped ino the lower 4GB. The displaced RAM got mapped just above the 8GB
    point. So I didn't even lose any RAM because of this (though I apparently
    would if I put 64GB of RAM in it).

    --
    |WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
    | by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
    | Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
    | Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast