xp doesn't see my 3gb of ram, hep me

[drugo]

Hi

i use xp sp2 and i have 3Gb installed

well for the bios there are 3Gb installed

on the windows system , there are 3GB of ram

but i run photoshop cs3 and lightzone (not lightroom) and in photoshop ,in the performance i can have only 1703 Mb same for lightzone

is there a cure?

thanks

[Pablo2008jedi]

I'm not sure what you mean, can you provide a screen shot?

[hdood]

2GB (2^31) is the maximum a 32-bit program can use without doings its own memory management. I don't know if there is an option for that in Photoshop.

[Pajter]

Maybe the rest of the RAM is reserved for other things?

[drugo]

Maybe the rest of the RAM is reserved for other things?

no

i have 3gb

but the program see only 2gb

[ilovetech]

hdood's response seems the answer to your problem. also check how much free memory task manager shows, if it is more than 2GB then you need to move to x64 architecture to use whole memory.

[Richard Hammond]

no

i have 3gb

but the program see only 2gb

Doesnt matter, the rest of the ram is probably reserved for other things like Windows.

[drugo]

hdood's response seems the answer to your problem. also check how much free memory task manager shows, if it is more than 2GB then you need to move to x64 architecture to use whole memory.

here a screenshot

[ilovetech]

here a screenshot

since your available memory is more than 2GB, yet photoshop sees less then i believe you will need to move to 64bit architecture as 2GB mem per app is the limit of x86(32bit) architecture.

[neo158]

since your available memory is more than 2GB, yet photoshop sees less then i believe you will need to move to 64bit architecture as 2GB mem per app is the limit of x86(32bit) architecture.

Actually 3.25Gb is the limit of x86 architecture, however, XP has a limit of 2Gb of memory per process.

I would still recommend moving to x64 architecture simply because that is the way computers are headed, not to mention you'll need it if you plan to upgrade to 4Gb or more memory.

Edited November 10, 2009 by neo158

[ilovetech]

Actually 3.25Gb is the limit of x86 architecture, I would still recommend moving to x64 architecture simply because that is the way computers are headed, not to mention you'll need it if you plan to upgrade to 4Gb or more memory.

yes actual limit of 32bit architecture is 2^32=4GB, but the OS sees only upto 3.25GB, but for a single app limit is 2GB (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778%28VS.85%29.aspx).

[hdood]

Actually 3.25Gb is the limit of x86 architecture, I would still recommend moving to x64 architecture simply because that is the way computers are headed, not to mention you'll need it if you plan to upgrade to 4Gb or more memory.

No, it is not. The virtual address spaces on 32-bit Windows are split half and half (2GB/2GB) between the application and the OS. To go beyond 2GB, the application has to manually map pages of memory in and out of the virtual address space, which means implementing your own memory manager. In 64-bit Windows it's 4GB/0GB for 32-bit apps, and 8TB/8TB for 64-bit apps.

Neither of them are "architectural" limits, they are Windows design limits.

[Eric Veteran]

32-bits = 4GB. If you have a 512MB video card, that has to fit in there. The OS can see all 4GB, but there's more than just your RAM that needs to use that address space. :)

hdhood's information about the 2GB partitioning is correct. There is information on how to configure your system to use 4GB tuning and large-address-aware applications here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb...28VS.85%29.aspx

It's not for the faint of heart, though.

[drugo]

yes actual limit of 32bit architecture is 2^32=4GB, but the OS sees only upto 3.25GB, but for a single app limit is 2GB (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778%28VS.85%29.aspx).

thank all of you !

but if i use the swicht /3GB in boot.ini , could have an advantage?

maybe i could dismount 1gb of ram , and keep only 2gb of ram

[hdood]

thank all of you !

but if i use the swicht /3GB in boot.ini , could have an advantage?

You could do that, yes. Assuming Photoshop supports it. The only issue is that it reduces the operating system's part of the address space to just 1GB, which is not that much on modern systems. You can always just try it and see how it goes. Did you look into if Photoshop has any memory mangement settings?

maybe i could dismount 1gb of ram , and keep only 2gb of ram

What would that accomplish other than giving the system 1GB less to work with? It's not like having the extra GB there hurts anything just because PS can't use it (because Adobe is poop).

[drugo]

You could do that, yes. Assuming Photoshop supports it. The only issue is that it reduces the operating system's part of the address space to just 1GB, which is not that much on modern systems. You can always just try it and see how it goes. Did you look into if Photoshop has any memory mangement settings?

thanks

yes photshop can see more then 2gb but it's the only program

What would that accomplish other than giving the system 1GB less to work with? It's not like having the extra GB there hurts anything just because PS can't use it (because Adobe is poop).

because i can't see a benefit ,a gain having 3gb of ram

[hdood]

because i can't see a benefit ,a gain having 3gb of ram

Well, it could be used by another program running at the same time. The point is that it doesn't hurt and does no damage. Removing it won't do anything useful. It won't improve performance or anything.

[ilovetech]

Well, it could be used by another program running at the same time. The point is that it doesn't hurt and does no damage. Removing it won't do anything useful. It won't improve performance or anything.

exactly, it will be useful for OS.

since if you use 3gb virtual address space for app & 1Gb for OS, then with only 2GB physical memory OS will also share it, it will be a net loss for photoshop.

if even /3gb switch doesn't works, you can try photoshop CS4 that does some memory management. best you move to x64.

[notuptome2004]

just upgrade to a 64bit windows Os and well the only one i would try would be windows 7 and well your system rpolly run better anyways with windows 7 on it as well as being on a 64bit Os

[JunkMail]

Yep upgrading is good :)