Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
System memory limit - SystemInfo.jpg (0/1)
16 views
Skip to first unread message
Rusty
Mar 4, 2013, 9:05:07 AM3/4/13
to
I've got a 64 bit Widows 7 machine that I've installed 32gb memory
cards on. All alike. When I check the System information it shows
that only 16gb is usable. Anyone know why or how to correct this?
cards on. All alike. When I check the System information it shows
that only 16gb is usable. Anyone know why or how to correct this?
Rich.
Mar 4, 2013, 10:57:23 AM3/4/13
to
"Rusty" <ru...@alwaysathome.net> wrote in message
news:4r99j896atu3megu9...@4ax.com...
> I've got a 64 bit Widows 7 machine that I've installed 32gb memory
> cards on. All alike. When I check the System information it shows
> that only 16gb is usable. Anyone know why or how to correct this?
What is the model number of the Asrock motherboard?
> cards on. All alike. When I check the System information it shows
> that only 16gb is usable. Anyone know why or how to correct this?
What is the manufacturer and part number of the memory modules you
installed?
VanguardLH
Mar 4, 2013, 11:34:06 PM3/4/13
to
Rusty wrote:
> I've got a 64 bit Widows 7 machine ...
Obviously that does NOT identify the make and model of *hardware*
(motherboard) on which you are using that operating system.
> ... that I've installed 32gb memory cards on. All alike. When I
that the *hardware* will support?
> I've got a 64 bit Widows 7 machine ...
Obviously that does NOT identify the make and model of *hardware*
(motherboard) on which you are using that operating system.
> ... that I've installed 32gb memory cards on. All alike. When I
> check the System information it shows that only 16gb is usable.
> Anyone know why or how to correct this?
What does the manual for the motherboard state as the maximum memory
> Anyone know why or how to correct this?
that the *hardware* will support?
Charlie Russel-MVP
Mar 6, 2013, 12:03:45 PM3/6/13
to
And what edition of Windows, please. Windows 7 Home Premium is limited to 16
GB. It takes Professional, Enterprise or Ultimate to get a limit of 192 GB.
See: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa366778 for
the limits for various versions of Windows.
--
Charlie.
http://blogs.msmvps.com/russel
GB. It takes Professional, Enterprise or Ultimate to get a limit of 192 GB.
See: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa366778 for
the limits for various versions of Windows.
--
Charlie.
http://blogs.msmvps.com/russel
miso
Mar 9, 2013, 12:10:38 AM3/9/13
to
On 3/6/2013 9:03 AM, Charlie Russel-MVP wrote:
> And what edition of Windows, please. Windows 7 Home Premium is limited
> to 16 GB. It takes Professional, Enterprise or Ultimate to get a limit
> of 192 GB.
>
> See: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa366778
> for the limits for various versions of Windows.
>
This fragmentation by MS has always pissed me off. As I stated many
> And what edition of Windows, please. Windows 7 Home Premium is limited
> to 16 GB. It takes Professional, Enterprise or Ultimate to get a limit
> of 192 GB.
>
> See: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa366778
> for the limits for various versions of Windows.
>
times, Apple doesn't pull that crap, and of course linux doesn't have
such limits. [And it hurts to praise Apple!]
That said, I always suggest people buy win7pro. The mark up over home
isn't that much. The only thing it lacks is native support for NFS,
another annoying MS "feature". My recollection is the home edition lacks
some of the emulation modes. You really shouldn't have to be reading a
feature table to buy the OS.
I noticed the win8 fragmentation is reduced a bit.
Charlie Russel-MVP
Mar 11, 2013, 2:07:50 PM3/11/13
to
They've certainly reduced the number of editions overall. But most people
simply take what comes with their PC, which in the Win7 time frame was
almost always "Home Premium". Thus the 16 GB limitation. And the cost to
upgrade to Pro was more than most ever mother to do. (Seriously, how many
people actually NEED or can even USE >16 GB of RAM right now, unless they
are doing essentially server workloads such as virtualization.)
--
Charlie.
http://blogs.msmvps.com/russel
"miso" <mi...@sushi.com> wrote in message
news:kheg96$vpj$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
simply take what comes with their PC, which in the Win7 time frame was
almost always "Home Premium". Thus the 16 GB limitation. And the cost to
upgrade to Pro was more than most ever mother to do. (Seriously, how many
people actually NEED or can even USE >16 GB of RAM right now, unless they
are doing essentially server workloads such as virtualization.)
--
Charlie.
http://blogs.msmvps.com/russel
"miso" <mi...@sushi.com> wrote in message
news:kheg96$vpj$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
miso
Mar 13, 2013, 5:51:39 PM3/13/13
to
On 3/11/2013 11:07 AM, Charlie Russel-MVP wrote:
> They've certainly reduced the number of editions overall. But most
> people simply take what comes with their PC, which in the Win7 time
> frame was almost always "Home Premium". Thus the 16 GB limitation. And
> the cost to upgrade to Pro was more than most ever mother to do.
> (Seriously, how many people actually NEED or can even USE >16 GB of RAM
> right now, unless they are doing essentially server workloads such as
> virtualization.)
>
Photo editors can use all the RAM you give them. [Well more or less.]
> They've certainly reduced the number of editions overall. But most
> people simply take what comes with their PC, which in the Win7 time
> frame was almost always "Home Premium". Thus the 16 GB limitation. And
> the cost to upgrade to Pro was more than most ever mother to do.
> (Seriously, how many people actually NEED or can even USE >16 GB of RAM
> right now, unless they are doing essentially server workloads such as
> virtualization.)
>
They store the edits in RAM and your undo command is related to how much
RAM you give them. Imagej (a java based image processor) also is a bit
piggish.
I don't know if video editing eats up ram the same way.
But seriously, why bother putting the RAM limit there at all. Is it to
encourage more users to run linux. In fact, MS has CPU limits. If the
CPUs are physically different, you need "pro" to run two.
I build my own systems, so I wasn't thinking about what OS is supplied.
But for notebooks, I make sure to get the pro version.
I could gripe about the cost of windows for home builder versus OEMs.
The cost of windows for home built Atom systems is ridiculous. That is,
it is a big chunk of the system. Unfortunately, what I needed to run did
not work in wine. For large desktop computers, the extra cost the home
builder pays over OEM is tolerable, though still a rip. Apple on the
other hand keeps the price of the OS low, but makes you buy it often
rather than supply service packs.
All that said, win 7 pro is great. I'm not upgrading to 8, which looks
annoying. I'd have to buy all the hacks to make it classic.
John Turco
Mar 13, 2013, 9:13:44 PM3/13/13
to
On 3/11/2013 1:07 PM, Charlie Russel-MVP wrote:
> They've certainly reduced the number of editions overall. But most
> people simply take what comes with their PC, which in the Win7 time
> frame was almost always "Home Premium". Thus the 16 GB limitation. And
> the cost to upgrade to Pro was more than most ever mother to do.
> (Seriously, how many people actually NEED or can even USE >16 GB of RAM
> right now, unless they are doing essentially server workloads such as
> virtualization.)
Hmmm..."most ever mother to do"...now, >that's< a funny typo!
> They've certainly reduced the number of editions overall. But most
> people simply take what comes with their PC, which in the Win7 time
> frame was almost always "Home Premium". Thus the 16 GB limitation. And
> the cost to upgrade to Pro was more than most ever mother to do.
> (Seriously, how many people actually NEED or can even USE >16 GB of RAM
> right now, unless they are doing essentially server workloads such as
> virtualization.)
John
0 new messages