Re: WS 2008 32-bit MAX Usable RAM?
Hello David,
PAE support in server. Which allows for more addressing space.
This allows you to see the 4 gig of physical RAM in server depending on the
hardware(plus depending on the drivers) which may or may not support
relocation.
The client is limited to 4 gig of address space.
Thanks,
Darrell Gorter[MSFT]
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights
--------------------
| >From: "David F" <abcde@gmail.com>
| >References: <35A32889-479F-4484-9DD1-55A6F115D72E@microsoft.com>
<LL-dnXi17bEM91fVnZ2dnUVZ_uKdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<egPO2nNFJHA.1272@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>
<B6AF0BF2-4D49-45A0-830E-9E69C9443F5F@microsoft.com>
| >In-Reply-To: <B6AF0BF2-4D49-45A0-830E-9E69C9443F5F@microsoft.com>
| >Subject: Re: WS 2008 32-bit MAX Usable RAM?
| >Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 17:23:29 +0300
| >Lines: 64
| >Message-ID: <644C19D8-18A1-48D0-A760-393254721980@microsoft.com>
| >MIME-Version: 1.0
| >Content-Type: text/plain;
| > format=flowed;
| > charset="utf-8";
| > reply-type=original
| >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
| >X-Priority: 3
| >X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
| >X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6001.18000
| >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6001.18049
| >X-MS-CommunityGroup-PostID: {644C19D8-18A1-48D0-A760-393254721980}
| >X-MS-CommunityGroup-ThreadID: 35A32889-479F-4484-9DD1-55A6F115D72E
| >X-MS-CommunityGroup-ParentID: B6AF0BF2-4D49-45A0-830E-9E69C9443F5F
| >Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windows.server.general
| >Path: TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl
| >Xref: TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl
microsoft.public.windows.server.general:44701
| >NNTP-Posting-Host: TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl 127.0.0.1
| >X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.windows.server.general
| >
| >Thank you, Masterplan, but I'm asking about WS 2008 and the KB 929605
only
| >applies to Vista. Could someone please answer why I'm seeing 3.93 GB in
| >msinfo32.exe with WS 2008 when people using Vista only see about 3 or
3.5 GB
| >when using msinfo32.exe? TIA
| >
| >
| >
| >"Masterplan" <winmasterplan@gmail.com.> wrote in message
| >news:B6AF0BF2-4D49-45A0-830E-9E69C9443F5F@microsoft.com...
| >> Hi again,
| >>
| >> This is the explanation:
| >>
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605
| >>
| >> --
| >> Have a nice day!
| >>
| >>
http://winmasterplan.blogspot.com
| >>
| >>
| >> "David F" wrote:
| >>
| >>> Actually, when I've asked people that Run Vista 32-bit to run
| >>> msinfo32.exe
| >>> they say it only shows either 3GB or 3.5 GB as opposed to mine
showing
| >>> 3.93
| >>> GB which my WS 2008 32-bit shows.
| >>> Could someone really run the msinfo32.exe under Vista and explain
this to
| >>> me
| >>> why msinfo32.exe shows different values for Vista and WS 2008 32-bit
| >>> versions? Perhaps an "MVP" expert could comment on this? It is
possible
| >>> that WS2008 was fixed up to have more RAM available? TIA
| >>>
| >>>
| >>> "Frankster" <frank@SPAM2TRASH.com> wrote in message
| >>> news:LL-dnXi17bEM91fVnZ2dnUVZ_uKdnZ2d@giganews.com...
| >>> >
| >>> > "David F" <abcde@gmail.com> wrote in message
| >>> > news:35A32889-479F-4484-9DD1-55A6F115D72E@microsoft.com...
| >>> >>I am currently running WS 2008 32-bit on my laptop as a workstation
| >>> >>(I'm
| >>> >>using PerformancePoint Server 2007 whiich only works on a MS Server
OS)
| >>> >>and when I use msinfo32.exe it says there is 3.93 GB Total Physical
| >>> >>Memory
| >>> >>(as opposed to 4 GB Installed Physical Memory). So this means that
| >>> >>almost
| >>> >>all 4 GB of RAM is available to WS 2008 32-bit. Is that correct?
| >>> >>
| >>> >> That compares with 3 to 3.5 GB that is available to MS Vista
| >>> >> installations. Correct? TIA
| >>> >
| >>> > Not correct. The 32-bit limit of 3GB for direct memory access still
| >>> > applies. After SP 1 for Vista, and WS2008 I presume, the POST
| >>> > bootup/BIOS
| >>> > was read to allow a "DISPLAY" of the total amount of memory
installed.
| >>> > But
| >>> > this was just a cosmetic change to appease those who didn't
understand
| >>> > why
| >>> > it was only showing 3GB when they had 4 installed.
| >>> >
| >>> > -Frank
| >>>
| >>>
| >
| >
Happened once before too