Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Vista won't boot with 4G RAM

Tags:
  • 4G
  • RAM
  • Windows Vista
Last response: in Windows Vista
Share
May 23, 2007 1:44:59 PM

Just found out Vista both 32-bit and 64-bit do not support 4G RAM. Applying patch KB929777 didn't help. It gave blue screens either booting up or randomly when running. It's hard to believe Microsoft came up with a product with this kind of quality. It's like driving a new car home from dealership but it stop running before arriving home!

More about : vista boot ram

May 23, 2007 1:47:50 PM

were you able to boot up to Bios? Vista does support 4GB of RAM. My brother's PC has 4GB ram on his HP vista premium.

Check if the RAM is defective. Then load the Vista disk to repair boot up files. This problem shouldn't be happening.
m
0
l
May 23, 2007 2:24:40 PM

Sounds like defective RAM. Run memTest.
m
0
l
Related resources
May 29, 2007 5:12:31 PM

I'm running Vista with 4gig of OCZ7200 and have had no problems with it. Are they all the same name manufacturer and the same specs?
m
0
l
May 29, 2007 10:02:23 PM

vista will run with 4 gb of ram
vista will upgrade with 4 gb of ram
Vista will NOT clean install with 4 gb of ram

Remove half the ram install program, install all updates then reinstall the ram.
m
0
l
May 30, 2007 12:04:42 AM

Vista will clean install with 4GB of ram.
m
0
l
June 1, 2007 11:34:46 PM

Hmm, ok hold up guys,
4Gig of memory for 32 bit Vista? Does it actually use the 4gig? or is it one of those stupid things where it really uses 3Gig?

Anyone with an answer to that?
m
0
l
June 1, 2007 11:53:27 PM

I have 4gig RAM, installed Vista Ultimate 64-bit fine. Recognizes all of the RAM and no problems at all.
m
0
l
June 2, 2007 12:46:31 AM

You have the 64bit version of Vista, it should see 4Gig and more.


Alright, lets get that Boot.ini file out again and add that switch to get 3Gig

I found this page, and according to it, Vista 32 is the same as WinXp 32bit, you can have 4gig of memory, add a switch to the boot.ini file and you get 3Gig... :roll: Micro$oft realy knows how to come through, they should have just said NO to the 32 bit version of Vista and put all their eggs into the 64 bit version of Vista.

Now we have 2 versions of the mediocre OS, which promised a lot and can't deliver. I wonder how long it will take to get 64Bit drivers done , it takes a long time to get 32bit Vista drivers out

But i guess it is all about the cash for Microsoft, the sheeples pay crazy fees for a buggy product that performs slower than winXP.

Am I the only person here that read the DX10 marketing BS, and the interviews with developers and how DX10 will herald a new performance era for games?
I really wonder about all of that, maybe it was nothing more than pure marketing BS.
Will games really be 4-6 times more powerful than the DX9 version of the same game?

If 1 year from now a DX10 game does 30 percent better than the DX9 counterpart i will be impressed, because so far, I see nothing to indicate this will be the case.

(Unless they did stupid benchmark tests in the lab that simulate certain calculations and derived the conclusion that in game code will perform the same as in their controlled environment test.)

There is only so much to squeeze out of the drivers for a video card, and unless the programmers that wrote the first Vista graphics drivers were total idiots, i can't see them improving their code by 200 or 300 percent

[oh wait, i know, all DX10 enabled graphics cards will unlock an extra 600MHz of speed, since they will detect that they are running on Windows Vista. :roll: ]
m
0
l
June 3, 2007 8:53:43 PM

hmmmmm, firstly x64 vista does support 4Gb of RAM this sound as though it hardware not Soft, is the correct voltage going to your RAM, as when you have that much RAM, not enough power can casue this stuff to happen
m
0
l
June 4, 2007 4:15:26 PM

You're forgetting something rather important... 4GB of address space is the limit of 32-bit operating systems; not 4GB of RAM. Just because you install 4GB of RAM, doesn't mean you have access to all 4GB. The only way to access 4GB+ of RAM is with a 64-bit operating system. This is NOT a MS problem... this is a problem with 32-bit addressing.

You can sit there and shake your head or roll your eyes, but it won't change the fact. MS isn't out to force everyone to go 64-bit. PAE is a poor substitute for a true 64-bit OS.
m
0
l
June 5, 2007 1:27:22 PM

Quote:
You're forgetting something rather important... 4GB of address space is the limit of 32-bit operating systems; not 4GB of RAM. Just because you install 4GB of RAM, doesn't mean you have access to all 4GB. The only way to access 4GB+ of RAM is with a 64-bit operating system. This is NOT a MS problem... this is a problem with 32-bit addressing.

You can sit there and shake your head or roll your eyes, but it won't change the fact. MS isn't out to force everyone to go 64-bit. PAE is a poor substitute for a true 64-bit OS.


Yes i know that,
but you'd think they would fix this BS with the adding of the flag to at least take advantage of the extra gig so the user can see 3 instead of 2Gig.

Also, i think it is possible to see all 4gigs in a 32 bit system, but probably due to backwards compatibility and or the task to do so is not worth it for them.
m
0
l
June 5, 2007 7:23:12 PM

You can see up to 3.21 Gig in all 32-bit versions of Windows. The only reason for you not being able to access that amount is your choice of motherboards, you just chose poorly. I'm sure you'll do better next time.

The reason that you can only see 3.21 Gig is that the rest is dedicated to (mostly) PCI and other PC mapping requirements that a 32-bit maximum memory space create. You should be blaming Intel and Ibm for parts of that limit. I have several Intel boards that fully show 3.21 gig and my 64-bit systems with 4G all show 4094MB.

Go to the MS KB and just search for memory and 32-bit, there are some good, very comprehensive papers about the reasons you can't have it all. And some also list specific chip-sets that will allow you to take the best advantage of your memory.

--DD
m
0
l
June 9, 2007 12:15:21 PM

Quote:
Quote:

Yes i know that,
but you'd think they would fix this BS with the adding of the flag to at least take advantage of the extra gig so the user can see 3 instead of 2Gig.

Also, i think it is possible to see all 4gigs in a 32 bit system, but probably due to backwards compatibility and or the task to do so is not worth it for them.


No. That is a common mistake. The /3GB switch has nothing to do with the physical RAM installed. /3GB will expand the virtual memory space for those applications that have been compiled to use it.

No switch is needed to use all ~3GB RAM

It's due to the architecture of the PC that not all 4GB RAM can be used in 32-bit mode
m
0
l
!