"Bob I" <bir...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:OitIjofR...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
: Because that is the way the motherboard was designed( the Windows
: >
: >
:
"granjan" <m...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:errRQgfR...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
The warning is repeated on the Crucial web site as well.
http://www.crucial.com/store/listparts.aspx?model=XPS%20600
The limitation seems to be for real. (Max 2GB in WinXP 32 bit.)
http://en.community.dell.com/forums/t/19262700.aspx?c=us&l=en&cs=&s=gen
My guess is, this is related to the BIOS design. There are other
(retail) brands of motherboards, using the Nforce4 SLI Intel chipset,
which don't have that memory limitation. I don't think we can blame
Nvidia for this.
I checked around the Dell forums, and it doesn't look like anyone
has managed to defeat that limitation.
Paul
None of it really matters - if you (or your friend) are not using the memory
you currently have - purchasing more memory will do nothing for you.
First off - Windows XP 32-bit only 'supports' up to 4GB - and it won't even
make all that available to you. You'll end up with between 2.75GB and 3.5GB
available for use.
Second - it is highly unlikely you (or your friend) are even coming close to
using 2GB of memory - much less 4GB. Memory is not going to speed up your
computer if you are not already using the maximum level now. Unless you
edit videos, render 3D graphics or do some heavy calculations - it is
unlikely you even use 1GB.
Anyway - www.crucial.com...
Dell XPS 600
http://www.crucial.com/store/listparts.aspx?model=XPS%20600
8GB maximum - but would need a 64-bit OS to utilize more than 2.75-3.5GB
anyway - which, again - it is unlikely you are even using 1GB.
Dell Dimension 8400 (Media Center Edition)
http://www.crucial.com/store/listparts.aspx?model=Dimension%208400%20MCE%20%28Media%20Center%29
4GB maximum - but would need a 64-bit OS to utilize more than 2.75-3.5GB
anyway - which, again - it is unlikely you are even using 1GB.
You sure on that model number for your friend?
As for your direct question - don't overthink. You said they were different
models - there's your answer.
--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
Windows XP Home is limited to 2 GB of RAM (Microsoft's decision.)
Windows XP Professional is supposed to be limited to 4GB of RAM
Windows MCE is a "tweaked" verison of Windows XP Pro for enhanced
video playing and TV. Since it is based on XP Pro, it gets the XP Pro
limit.
However, all these different RAM sizes are "moot" since these are
based on 32 bit processor coding and at most your will get 3.25 to 3.5
GB of RAM. This is the extreme limit because of most 32 bit
processors are limited to this.
(Only the limited Windows XP Pro 64bit can start to use the 4GB of
RAM. However, support / drivers are very limited.)
"smlunatick" <yve...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:56a6042a-a8c0-4380...@v20g2000vbs.googlegroups.com...
Citation for that 2 GB limit please?
Only Starter Edition has constraints
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778(VS.85).aspx#physical_memory_limits_windows_xp
Windows XP Home is limited to 2 GB of RAM (Microsoft's decision.)
===========
Incorrect. Home is not limited to 2GB.
===========
>Windows XP Home is limited to 2 GB of RAM (Microsoft's decision.)
Says who?
See MS:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778%28VS.85%29.aspx#physical_memory_limits_windows_xp
> This is the extreme limit because of most 32 bit
> processors are limited to this.
It is wrong to blame the CPU. 4GB is an artificial limitation in XP.
granjan wrote:
> My friend wants to install an additional 2 GB of memory in her Dell
> XPS 600 which has 2 GB already installed. The manual for her
> computer says it only supports 2 GB for Windows XP SP3 with 32 bit
> system. My Dell Dimension 8400 manual says it supports 4 GB memory
> for Windows XP MCE SP3 with 32 bit. Why do they support different
> amounts of memory?
smlunatick wrote:
> Windows XP Home is limited to 2 GB of RAM (Microsoft's decision.)
>
> Windows XP Professional is supposed to be limited to 4GB of RAM
>
> Windows MCE is a "tweaked" verison of Windows XP Pro for enhanced
> video playing and TV. Since it is based on XP Pro, it gets the XP
> Pro limit.
>
> However, all these different RAM sizes are "moot" since these are
> based on 32 bit processor coding and at most your will get 3.25 to
> 3.5 GB of RAM. This is the extreme limit because of most 32 bit
> processors are limited to this.
>
> (Only the limited Windows XP Pro 64bit can start to use the 4GB of
> RAM. However, support / drivers are very limited.)
dennis wrote:
> It is wrong to blame the CPU. 4GB is an artificial limitation in XP.
Some suggested reading:
for dennis:
http://www.geoffchappell.com/viewer.htm?doc=notes/windows/license/memory.htm
for smlunatick:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778(VS.85).aspx
general:
http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/archive/2008/07/21/3092070.aspx
http://www.ofzenandcomputing.com/zanswers/1079
Enjoy.
> Some suggested reading:
>
> for dennis:
> http://www.geoffchappell.com/viewer.htm?doc=notes/windows/license/memory.htm
Yes, I have seen that one before. Why?
Shenan Stanley wrote:
> Some suggested reading:
>
> for dennis:
> http://www.geoffchappell.com/viewer.htm?doc=notes/windows/license/memory.htm
>
> for smlunatick:
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778(VS.85).aspx
>
> general:
> http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/archive/2008/07/21/3092070.aspx
> http://www.ofzenandcomputing.com/zanswers/1079
>
> Enjoy.
dennis wrote:
> Yes, I have seen that one before. Why?
Why what?
Why did I actually give people references instead of making a comment and
dashing off?
Why did I seemingly direct one link towards you that seemingly backed up
what you said?
Why did I do the opposite for smlunatick, showing them the error in their
2GB XP Home comment?
Why not? Better to have the information out there than not - and better to
actually share it instead of just indirectly reference it without any
further comment - IMO. ;-)
dennis wrote:
Sorry, it's not artificial, its the 32 bit addressing. You have to
implement addressing extensions if you want a 32 bit system to address
more than 4 GB of memory addresses.
> Sorry, it's not artificial, its the 32 bit addressing. You have to
> implement addressing extensions if you want a 32 bit system to address
> more than 4 GB of memory addresses.
"addressing extensions" (PAE) is just another way of refer to memory
addresses in a 32bit OS. XP has always supported PAE - it just ignores
anything above 4G, hence it is an artificial limitation.
Prior to SP2, address space above 4G was also supported - until you had
4GB usable RAM.