Comment from Alice M Schumm
Time: April 16, 2007, 7:28 pm

But I am only showing 2047 of 4gb… That’s a lot of slippage. I should be seeing at least 2.5…

Any ideas?
Thank you.

Pingback from Vista and 4g of RAM - Fires of Heaven Guild Message Board
Time: May 30, 2007, 2:46 pm

[...] 32bit won’t recognize more than ~3GB of RAM. This should help you: Reader Question: 32-Bit Vista Memory Limits - Windows Vista help __________________ How to beat [...]

Comment from Rick Kop
Time: September 23, 2007, 10:14 pm

I’ve got the same problem, sort of. I’m running Vista ultimate with 4 gigof ram. Ony shows 3

Comment from Rob Delaney
Time: September 28, 2007, 3:06 pm

Right, could someone answer me this:

I’m about to put a new systems together, with Vista Ultimate 32. I’m going to get 4gb ram regardless.

1. Does it make any difference if I get 4 sticks of 1gb, or 2 sticks of 2gb? (ignoring whether all 4 will be recognised or used or not: for the stuff that WILL be recognised, will it make any difference?)

2. From what I understand, the ram that you “lose” is equal to the video card memory, plus some other bits and bobs. Am I right in assuming that you would “lose” that ANYWAY, if you had 2, 3 or 4gb ram? And does the “lost” ram mirroring the memory from the video card, etc, actually help system performance in any way (i don’t know, by caching or something?)

I’m perfectly happy putting a machine together, but the mysteries of memory usage are beyond me.

Comment from Scotteq
Time: October 24, 2007, 12:15 pm

A month late…. But:

The registry in a 32 bit OS can assign addresses to 2^32 (2 to the 32nd power) worth of addresses. This is 4GB. That is all the space the system has to assign locatable addresses to any system (Mobo) memory, devices, video memory, as well as the physical DIMMS you have installed.

When the OS runs out of addresses, that’s it.

The good news is that, unless you’re a gamer or do things like video encoding at home, you’ll not need more than 2GB to run nearly anything that’s on the market today. If you *are* a gamer or Video enthusiast, DDR2 RAM is cheap enough to be worthwhile to buy the 4 Gig worth and live with the 2.5~3.25 usable you’ll achieve with the upgrade.

If you need more, the alternative is to move to a 64 bit OS, who’s registry can address 2^64 (17,179,869,184 gigabytes) worth of space.

Comment from James Habeck
Time: November 3, 2007, 11:05 pm

I can live with 3 g of memory, but if I install more than 2 g on Vista Ultimate 32 bit it won’t boot.

Comment from James Habeck
Time: November 4, 2007, 2:24 pm

After installing Microsoft patch KB 929777 I am now able to install 3 each 1 G sticks using 3 slots and still be able to boot. When I try to install 4/th 1 G stick using the 4/th slot; can’t boot. The 3 G shows up as usable on my Computer properties. Even though I can only use approx. 3.5 G on vista 32 bit, I have purchased 4 one G sticks and would like to fill up my 4 slots. Help

Comment from Chuck Smith
Time: November 12, 2007, 3:15 pm

is it possible that there is gonna be a patch for windows vista and xp to support 4gb physical plus the videocards and stuff because im having the same problem

my specs
2.86 ghz x2 amd 4800+
4gb pc2 6400 ddr2 800
512mb video geforce 7300 gs PCI-E
620 gb harddrive space
10/100/1000 ethernet
Lite-On dvd Dual-layer burner

Comment from D.
Time: November 14, 2007, 10:43 am

I installed 2×2GB sticks on my Pavilion laptop, Bios would only see 3.2GB and Vista would not boot, upgraded Bios and 4GB were visible by Bios, Vista booted but only sees 3GB…

Maybe someone someday will come up with a solution to this…

Comment from Ehlo
Time: November 17, 2007, 11:09 am

Simply there is only one solution, this was said in the original post.

64Bit Windows.

The inability to for the OS to address more than 3GB of ram is a 32bit addressing system limitation. Yes, windows server 2003 enterprise can see up to 16GB of ram with the 3GB switch in the boot.ini, the OS still physically cannot address more than 3GB of ram, there are additional switches to allow for SQL and exchange to address it’s own block of 3GB, a 64bit OS is the only option for addressing more than 3GB and up to i think 64GB (I STAND TO BE CORRECTED).

Unfortunately for us, Vista does not have a BOOT.INI, so we cant even play around with the 3GB switch option.

Just run 64bit, I am, and I am a gamer. The only game that i have a problem running so far is Battlefield 2

Comment from RAM
Time: November 25, 2007, 9:18 pm

Hi,

I am planning to buy a dell latitude notebook with 4GB RAM - Vista ultimate (32bit). In the website dell does not stop me in configuring for 4GB RAM but do you have any idea about the performance of the laptop with above config.? I wonder as some part of the RAM will not be of any use? Plese suggest !!i

Comment from jeffc
Time: December 4, 2007, 4:16 am

RAM,
If you get your Dell with 4G and Vista Ultimate 32bit your laptop will see only about 3.5G MAX (could be less).

In my experience, I’ve always been able to get part of that last 1G of RAM to be in use, but YOU WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO USE ALL OF THE 4G.

This is not a bug, issue, or whatever. MS will not be issuing a patch for this. All 32bit OS can only address 4G of memory space, and part is reserved for BIOS and other hardware.

64bit Vista is a good option if your software will run on it.

Comment from James Habeck
Time: December 4, 2007, 1:56 pm

Dell will be happy to sell you whatever you want, but your system will only be able to utilize about 3G. if you purchase a 32 bit OS.

Comment from Nel
Time: December 13, 2007, 10:31 am

Currenly my laptop is using 3gb of ram and another 3440 mb of readyboost on my vista32 bit and my bios shows that i have 3061.15mb, available physical memory of 1.82gb, total virtual memory of 6.16gb, available virtual memory of 4.96gb and page file space of 3.28gb. I m planning to get another gb and try on my santa rosa before christmas , do u think my system will capture my 4gb? Any idea ?? Thanks

Comment from George
Time: December 19, 2007, 11:16 am

The problem isn’t backwards compatibility, it’s the poor design of Windows. Mac OS X and associated programs run equally well on 32- and 64-bit systems. 32-bit Windows users are all going to have to dump their current operating system, drivers, and programs, and get 64-bit versions in order to go beyond about 3GB. (Or get a Mac?)

Comment from DraX
Time: December 25, 2007, 1:02 am

It’s not so much a windows issue as it is a development platform issue and an issue with the lack of driver support.
Since there is not as robust of driver support (yet) for 64-bit windows, it’s much harder for developers to program equally for 32 and 64 bit.

Eventually, programming for 64 bit will be more or less a requirement, but I doubt we’re likely to see that in full until the next generation (not the current state of the art) of OSs and systems.

Comment from Bruce
Time: December 26, 2007, 7:45 pm

Yeah, the 4gb isnt made accessible by wether its vista or XP, its accessible because of the 64 bit tidbit of the operating system :p

For those who have problems

For the record, I’m using 32 bit XP corporate professional with a 512MB video card and this system is reading 3.5GB of RAM in Windows.. mines working properly I guess

Comment from Rich
Time: December 27, 2007, 4:35 pm

I’m truly shocked at the apparent inability of most people to grasp the problem at hand here. no 32 bit operating system will be able to see more than 4 GB total memory of any sorts. This means if you plug a 640MB video card in, a 32MB sound card, and have assorted ROM and cache on your motherboard equalling about 16 MB, the most of your RAM you’ll be able to see is 4096MB - 640MB - 32 - 16, or, approximately 3408MB. If you’re running SLI 640MB video cards, you’ll be lucky to get 2.7gig of your 4 gigs. SLI 768 cards, you’ll be lucky to see 2.2GB. There is no fix, no magical patch, or ability for any general use 32bit operating system to go beyond this number. OS X may be able to address more RAM, but lets face it; until Apple releases it for use on any hardware set, its practicality in real applications, and business uses will be limited to small groups who have more money to spend on overpriced computers, than on some basic research.

Think of it this way. If you have 1 book of stamps with 20 stamps in it, and 28 envelopes to mail, you will only be able to mail 20 of those envelopes with that book of stamps. No matter what you try to do, you will not be able to mail those other 8 envelopes with that book of stamps. The memory addressing problem works the same way.

Comment from Larry Camp
Time: January 5, 2008, 6:37 pm

Futureshop has just put 2GB laptop RAM on sale for $90. I am currently using an HP Pavillion dv9000, AMD 64×2 1.6Ghz dual processor. I am running Vista Home Premium, 32-bit. The HP BIOS is F.3D. When I bought it, I ugraded from 1GB (512×2) to 2GB (1GBx2). The salesman told me it was exapandable to 4GB, but only when 2GB RAM became available. Before rushing out and buying new RAM, I came across several post sites such as this one. I have 2 questions:

1) Although my 32-bit system will never recognize the full 4GB of RAM, I will still need to put in 4GB in order to get the maximum amount, which could range anywhere from 2.5 - 3.5 GB. Obviously, it will not show 3.5GB if I only have 3GB installed? Correct? Curiously, my HP “system” screen show 2GB as a maximum, but I have heard that the latest updates allow for 4GB, even though the system reporting software may not ever show 4GB. It will show up in the BIOS, however.

2) With 2 slots, would I lose efficiency if I only expand 1 slot to 2GB, leaving the other at 1GB? Or, do I have to expand equally for maximum efficiency?

Comment from Larry Camp
Time: January 5, 2008, 6:46 pm

Follow up: My need to upgrade my RAM comes from my system performance info, which shows that, with only IE operating, I have 1982MB of Physical Memory, with 1424MB Cached and only 50MB Free. Although there is only one “task” listed, there are about 80 “processes” being used. Other than increasing the RAM as suggested in my previous post, is there anything else I can do to free up some RAM???

Comment from HAROLD
Time: January 23, 2008, 6:45 pm

I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH MY COMPUTER SHOWING 3GB. with vista o/s. its showing 3046MB

Comment from dude
Time: January 24, 2008, 1:10 am

enable PAE mode and you will see all of your memory. this has been in place since early XP SP1 32 bit

Comment from kjm
Time: February 5, 2008, 8:02 pm

If you boost the virtual memory size, will the remaining memory that was not able to be used, be useable, therefor making most of the memory functionable?

Comment from NasaX
Time: February 8, 2008, 11:05 am

ok i understendthet if you got 4g of ram you will get lowere for some stuped tings like address space .
But how can the DRV explayn thet wen we got 2 g ofram the PC is not saving ram for address space ???
I mean in the end the DRVs are laing or wat ?

And olso i stil dont see how can the windwos see more ram memory then the BIOS in the end the BIOS is the one thet starts all hardware and checs all !!!!!!!!!

Comment from Rich
Time: February 12, 2008, 11:53 pm

oh my god why can so many of you not grasp such a simple concept??? Let’s try again!

A 32bit system is CAPABLE of using a maximum of 2^32 (two to the power of 32) bytes of memory = 4294967296 bytes = 4GB. This 4 GB limit includes ALL the memory installed ANYWHERE in your box (including therefore any memory on “additional” components such as graphics cards). Therefore if you have a 512MB graphics card installed, your computer can utilise this and a further 3.5GB of memory (that 4GB - 512MB = 3.5GB). Other components also have memory which adds up WHICH IS WHY, although the computer will support 4GB of memory, by the time it has allocated all the memory of the installed components, it usually has a capacity of between 2.5GB and 3.5GB remaining which it uses to recognise system memory (the 4GB or however much you have installed into your motherboard in the form of DIMMs).

I grant there are briefer ways to describe that but most of you seem unable to understand it when you are told in brief. Either that or you have just been too lazy to read the article and other comments above!

For your info, I am running Vista x64 with 4GB of system memory but due to compatible issues I am changing to Vista x86 and am fully prepared to accept that I may not get full use of the memory I have installed.

Microsofts guideline maximum memory limit for ANY 32bit operating system is 3GB. Anyone too lazy or stupid to upgrade memory without checking compatibility deserves what they get - would you buy an external device that requires firewire if you neither knew what firewire was nor knew if you had it?! Do your homework because computers are not rocket science, all the info is readily available for those that are prepared to look and aren’t reliant on being spoon fed (eg lazy!).

Comment from mike
Time: February 13, 2008, 6:35 pm

I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH MY COMPUTER SHOWING 3GB. with vista o/s. its showing 3046MB
3072mb=3gig, your fine

ollow up: My need to upgrade my RAM comes from my system performance info, which shows that, with only IE operating, I have 1982MB of Physical Memory, with 1424MB Cached and only 50MB Free. Although there is only one “task” listed, there are about 80 “processes” being used. Other than increasing the RAM as suggested in my previous post, is there anything else I can do to free up some RAM???

shut down some of the processes, theres a list online somewhere that describes which are need and which are not.

ok i understendthet if you got 4g of ram you will get lowere for some stuped tings like address space .
But how can the DRV explayn thet wen we got 2 g ofram the PC is not saving ram for address space ???
I mean in the end the DRVs are laing or wat ?

And olso i stil dont see how can the windwos see more ram memory then the BIOS in the end the BIOS is the one thet starts all hardware and checs all !!!!!!!!!
bios will read the full ram, 32-bit os does not know what do past a certain amount of ram.

Comment from Armand Banana
Time: February 14, 2008, 7:33 pm

Arg. Simply trying to “grasp” the concept that A-hole salesmen at Best Buy and HP and SONY and DELL always happily sell you more than you need. The website could simply bring up a red flag and warn you the fourth gig doesn’t function on a 32-bit OS. Selling some horny gamer a 2GB SLI system with 4GB of fast RAM and a 32-bit OS basically amounts to lying, cheating, and stealing (I am not that horny gamer, btw).

Comment from Bob
Time: March 7, 2008, 12:17 am

Actually, if you have a system with 4 slots, capable of running in dual-channel mode, filling all four slots with 1GB modules, even though the machine may not recognize more than 3GB, should be faster than just installing 3 x 1GB sticks.

Dual-channel mode is a BIOS function. If you only have 3 slots filled, the RAM will not run in dual-channel mode, and will probably be slower, even though the effective memory amount for Windows is the same.

Comment from Mike
Time: March 9, 2008, 3:37 pm

What is so hard to understand about memory addressing? A 32-bit computer system can’t address that much memory. People need to start trying to understand the technology they are using. If you want the 4th GB of memory upgrade to a 64-bit version of the OS. Then again, you then have the misery of many vendors not providing 64-bit Vista drivers.

Comment from Morai
Time: March 17, 2008, 9:45 am

To Rich,

Many thanks a lot for your comment. It helped me a lot to understand the underlaying problem of memory limitation for 32bit OS.

Comment from Malik Dotiwala
Time: March 20, 2008, 11:23 am

To Rich,

Thanks for the information; It really helped me a lot also

Comment from Bill
Time: March 22, 2008, 6:57 am

Despite the Windows address space limitations, would it still make sense to use 4GB Ram on Windows XP Pro if one plans to create a Ram Disk? Can such a “vrtual” drive somehow take advantage of the “missing” space invisible to the operating system itself?

Comment from Kenny
Time: March 22, 2008, 7:30 pm

If u have a 32 bit Vista system now can u upgrade that to a 64 bit vista system?

Comment from Jester
Time: March 25, 2008, 3:25 am

No Bill,

no matter how you fry it, the extra memory is simply not accessible, nor addressable.

besides, I have yet to see any reason to use a software RAM drive.

Comment from Mike S
Time: March 27, 2008, 1:19 am

It must not be “Minus The Video Card Ram” as I have a 768MB Video Adapter and I show 3581MB (3.5GB) of RAM in Vista. I think the proper formula has to do with Shared RAM allocation for Video, not the Video adapter’s RAM.

If this is true, which I believe it is, the Question the would be “How do I de-allocate the shared Video RAM?” Which would be good as my Video RAM is DDR3 and my System RAM is DDR2 and at a slow clock speed.

You know anything to speed up the bench mark scores and truly take advantage of the video card I purchased.

Comment from Kid_puma
Time: April 1, 2008, 9:45 pm

Can anyone confirm that the 64-Bit OS/Vista will run 4GB +

Comment from Kijak
Time: April 3, 2008, 1:30 pm

Yes, I run Vista 64, with 6 Gig of ram and all of it is reported

Comment from XTREME
Time: April 6, 2008, 12:08 am

ok, so i in total just finished my system which includes the following: 700w ocz psu, q6700, 4x 1gb of PC2 8500, 64gb samsung solid state hard drive with 32bit vista home prem, creative xfi-fatlity sound card with 64mb ram, 9800gx2 all is on a 780i sli and in an antec 900, after instal of os every driver to date 04/05/07 or today is installed for video card sound card and mother board and with this corsair ram i ordered i did a mem test( memtest86) no errors all is good first load after all drivers are installed bios picks up 4gb ram but when vista loads up i dxdiag only sees 2.302 gbs or 2302mb of ram is this right or is my board bad?

Comment from XTREME
Time: April 6, 2008, 12:10 am

oh and bios was flashed to p04 which is latest atm

Comment from Bruce_W
Time: April 18, 2008, 7:53 pm

The google link to you says Vista can use up to 128 Gb RAM, but all your answers about maximum RAM talk about 4 Gig RAM? Is this because mother boards only support 4 Gig now?

Comment from BP
Time: April 22, 2008, 2:21 pm

Yes, I understand 64bit can see more ram then 32bit; but does it have the same memory space issue where part of the RAM reserved for BIOS and other hardware?

For example, if I have 6Gig recognized in Vista64 and a 512MB video card, will the OS be able to use all 6Gig, or is it more like 5.3-something after it’s done addressing BIOS and other hardware just like the examples here with the 32 bit OS?

Comment from Xander
Time: April 23, 2008, 6:31 pm

Not usually unless you push up to it’s addressable memory limit which no consumer pc will come close to, the reason why is that a 32 bit os is like a 1 litre bottle of water try to pour and imagine main memory is vodka and the sum total of other card’s etc such as graphics card is coke, now the other stuff/card’s always gets poured in the bottle first, so after that then then the system ram get’s poured in… alas with 4gb of system ram it’s like an entire litre being poured into the 1 liter glass, which is already partially full so all extra beyond 1 litre spills on the floor and is wasted, from a practical stand point theres no good reason.

HOWEVER microsoft & nvidia(cant tell you on ati yet) like’s the idea of adding extra system ram to graphics ram irregardless of the problems doing so it can cause(such as issues with the gddr and your ram running at different rates and so on check the nvidia forums and you’ll find a massive issue suffered by many 8x series users) and they don’t give you option to disable it, if you use an an nvida 8800 gtx for instance i have have (two of em infact) on main pc (also runs vista 64 bit) it can claim 1.5Gb’s of space, with one card or 3GB with two… it does appear to claim the extra space from swap or only when in use, but ideally short of a way to turn off graphics memory sharing, your best off when running beasty graphics card’s on a 64 bit machine to bugger the 4 gig and go for the 8,

The problem with most 8 nowday’s is simply it’s mostly only available at slower speed’s however 8GB of DDR2 and 667mhz (pretty much the defacto standard of 2GB stick’s(4×2GB) is still practically fast, and with so much of it, you can use hugeo graphics card’s and still have enough ram to turn off swap without ill effects if you want to entirely which will speed your system up, and vastly reduce all that hissing grinding you’ll hear your hard drive making when doing to allot of multi-tasking or making major use of your pc not to mention speed it up.

Bear in mind with 4GB ram and 2x 768mb(each) graphics card’s vista automatically created 8GB of swap (though obviously it’s unlikely to get near to using it all) So even hogging 1.5Gig’s of system ram for extra graphic’s 6.5 gig’s remaining will be plenty enough for almost all folk’s and eliminating swap has advantages all on its own.

Many modern higher end motherboards support 8 Gb’s of ram nowday’s Bruce and as only folks running 64 bit os’s which are still a minority can support it’s rarely discussed, however with the small exception of a couple of games which use unsupported by vista driver’s such as security proggies like that with spellforce etc, you’ll find pretty much all games certainly all the worthwile ones work nowday’s sometimes patching is in issue (for instance C&C 3 run fine but if you try to patch it with the official patch it won’t run citing incompatible os, but if you unzip the patch file yourself and manually patch it the patch also work’s fine, it’s stupid really as theres no reason atall to prevent 64 bit from using the file, so even the few issues that do pop up can be solved with a little ingenuity personally for hardcore gamer’s i wholeheartedly recommend it and go for 8gigs it’s usually cheap and well worth it.

Comment from Xander
Time: April 23, 2008, 6:32 pm

btw just incase i didnt make it clear in last post the 64 bit os can see all 4 gig’s when running it it just uses some of it anyway with a 8800 gtx at least

Comment from tim
Time: April 30, 2008, 5:26 pm

I have an Asus A8N-E with 4GB installed running Vista x86. My problem is that I’m only showing 2GB of Total Physical Memory and 1.3GB Available. Boot-up and BIOS show 4GB. My graphics card is 512MB, therefore shouldn’t I be showing at least 3GB Total Physical?

Comment from billy bob
Time: May 3, 2008, 4:40 pm

WINDOWS sucks, can you beleive we are still dependent on BS like this???? Why dont we all buy a MAC and run boot camp with XP, so the rest of this VISTA ***BS*** can go away! BOO BILL GATES AND WINDOZE!

Comment from other
Time: May 7, 2008, 7:49 am

Actually billy bob, MAC fails.
and even linux has this problem.

It is to do with MEMORY ADDRESSING and 32BIT OPERATING SYSTEMS, not the Operating System itself.

Comment from Dr_X
Time: June 19, 2008, 7:29 am

Thank you Other, Billy Bob…. Linux sucks and so does Mac’s one big button mouse….

If you dont like it…. DONT USE IT!

Comment from DJ
Time: July 7, 2008, 2:47 pm

im running the 32-bit OS with a 64 X2 Dule Core CPU and 4gig of DDR2 667Mhz Ram the hole 4gig is showing BUT i have this 15 minute boot up WTF some one muct have found a fix by now

Comment from Micah
Time: July 17, 2008, 11:48 pm

I have two desktop systems… Both 32bit… One runs Debian with the “bigmem” kernel. The other runs the server kernel with bigmem support. Its a 32bit OS… It sees all 8GB.. and I can address it.

VMWare ESX Server runs on a modified 32bit redhat kernel (they added vmfs support). I have ESX servers with 32GIGS of memory. All 32gigs accounted for.. all 32bit addressable…

Can you argue this?

Comment from rasmasyean
Time: July 18, 2008, 5:26 pm

“Hey, on the upside, the 750MB of RAM you’re missing really wouldn’t have made that much difference anyway.”

This is wrong. The guru is thinking with “XP mentality”. Vista has SuperFetch which can use the extra RAM as HD Cache.

Comment from Fab
Time: August 17, 2008, 9:23 pm

“Not usually unless you push up to it’s addressable memory limit which no consumer pc will come close to, the reason why is that a 32 bit os is like a 1 litre bottle of water try to pour and imagine main memory is vodka and the sum total of other card’s etc such as graphics card is coke, now the other stuff/card’s always gets poured in the bottle first, so after that then then the system ram get’s poured in… alas with 4gb of system ram it’s like an entire litre being poured into the 1 liter glass, which is already partially full so all extra beyond 1 litre spills on the floor and is wasted, from a practical stand point theres no good reason.”

Yes very good way of putting it, Xander! The only solution then is to get a larger bottle, right? Well then, going 64 bit would basically equate to a larger bottle. But, I’m sure none of here can justify the pricing on a 64 bit version of whichever Vista we want to use. If you already have a 32 bit OS installed, or it came with your system then just stick with it until your needs grow out beyond what it can offer. If you’re a system builder and haven’t dropped the cash yet (and don’t mind paying more for it) go ahead and grab that x64 Vista.

(I’m dreaming of a free upgrade from Vista Home Premium 32 to x64…maybe that’s asking too much)

Comment from rasmasyean
Time: August 22, 2008, 3:04 pm

If this is any indication that 64-bit is the wave of the future and 32-bit will be “obsolete”…

“There appears to be a shift taking place in the PC industry: the move from 32-bit to 64-bit PCs.
We’ve been tracking the change by looking at the percentage of 64-bit PCs connecting to Windows Update, and have seen a dramatic increase in recent months. The installed base of 64-bit Windows Vista PCs, as a percentage of all Windows Vista systems, has more than tripled in the U.S. in the last three months, while worldwide adoption has more than doubled during the same period. Another view shows that 20% of new Windows Vista PCs in the U.S. connecting to Windows Update in June were 64-bit PCs, up from just 3% in March. Put more simply, usage of 64-bit Windows Vista is growing much more rapidly than 32-bit. Based on current trends, this growth will accelerate as the retail channel shifts to supplying a rapidly increasing assortment of 64-bit desktops and laptops.”
-google “windows-vista-64-bit-today”

Comment from rasmasyean
Time: August 22, 2008, 3:08 pm

@ Fab
The consumer WILL hit the upper limit.
Google “SuperFetch increases the performance of Microsoft Windows Vista. You should know how it does it.”

High RAM will be especially helpful for those people who like to leave all their windows open and use Vista’s “S3 sleep mode” (2 watts) so they can resume where they left off almost immediately after they turn their computers on. Your apps are pre-opened where you left them and your RAM cache is loaded too, just as if you just walked away and came back.