If I am not mistaken the video ram is not calculated as part of the system
ram. As for memory on the a video card I would suggest 512MB. Based on
things I have seen hinted at by Adobe people the next version of Photoshop
is going to make very good use of GPU and memory.

Robert Barnett wrote:
> If I am not mistaken the video ram is not calculated as part of the
> system ram. As for memory on the a video card I would suggest 512MB.
> Based on things I have seen hinted at by Adobe people the next version
> of Photoshop is going to make very good use of GPU and memory.

I was told a 32 bit operating system like Windows XP only has 4GB of
memory address space.

On the new XP system, I installed 4GB of dual layer ram and a video card
with 256 MB of ram. Under System Properties, it recognizes 3.25GB of ram.

I have not had a chance to play with PS on the new XP system since I had
some problems with the original motherboard.

--
JD..

Interesting as on my XP and my Vista system both with 4GB of Ram and two ATI
Radeon 1650 Pro cards each with 512MB Windows reports only the system memory
and not the video ram. I know some laptop computers use system memory for
video memory but I have never seen a desktop system do this. How do you know
that .25GB is the video ram and just part of the 4GB?


"JD" <JD@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:88idnfUXxs5UsSrVnZ2dnUVZ_rrinZ2d@posted.grand ecom...
> Robert Barnett wrote:
>> If I am not mistaken the video ram is not calculated as part of the
>> system ram. As for memory on the a video card I would suggest 512MB.
>> Based on things I have seen hinted at by Adobe people the next version of
>> Photoshop is going to make very good use of GPU and memory.
>
> I was told a 32 bit operating system like Windows XP only has 4GB of
> memory address space.
>
> On the new XP system, I installed 4GB of dual layer ram and a video card
> with 256 MB of ram. Under System Properties, it recognizes 3.25GB of ram.
>
> I have not had a chance to play with PS on the new XP system since I had
> some problems with the original motherboard.
>
> --
> JD..

What does your system say? Control Panel, System, General tab. Computer.

Robert Barnett wrote:
> Interesting as on my XP and my Vista system both with 4GB of Ram and two
> ATI Radeon 1650 Pro cards each with 512MB Windows reports only the
> system memory and not the video ram. I know some laptop computers use
> system memory for video memory but I have never seen a desktop system do
> this. How do you know that .25GB is the video ram and just part of the 4GB?
>
>
> "JD" <JD@example.invalid> wrote in message
> news:88idnfUXxs5UsSrVnZ2dnUVZ_rrinZ2d@posted.grand ecom...
>> Robert Barnett wrote:
>>> If I am not mistaken the video ram is not calculated as part of the
>>> system ram. As for memory on the a video card I would suggest 512MB.
>>> Based on things I have seen hinted at by Adobe people the next
>>> version of Photoshop is going to make very good use of GPU and memory.
>>
>> I was told a 32 bit operating system like Windows XP only has 4GB of
>> memory address space.
>>
>> On the new XP system, I installed 4GB of dual layer ram and a video
>> card with 256 MB of ram. Under System Properties, it recognizes 3.25GB
>> of ram.
>>
>> I have not had a chance to play with PS on the new XP system since I
>> had some problems with the original motherboard.
>>
>> --
>> JD..
>

--
JD..

3GB. I have 4 installed not counting the 1GB of video ram on the two video
cards.

Robert


"JD" <JD@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:vvadnfA8J-O2nyXVnZ2dnUVZ_gOdnZ2d@posted.grandecom...
> What does your system say? Control Panel, System, General tab. Computer.
>
> Robert Barnett wrote:
>> Interesting as on my XP and my Vista system both with 4GB of Ram and two
>> ATI Radeon 1650 Pro cards each with 512MB Windows reports only the system
>> memory and not the video ram. I know some laptop computers use system
>> memory for video memory but I have never seen a desktop system do this.
>> How do you know that .25GB is the video ram and just part of the 4GB?
>>
>>
>> "JD" <JD@example.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:88idnfUXxs5UsSrVnZ2dnUVZ_rrinZ2d@posted.grand ecom...
>>> Robert Barnett wrote:
>>>> If I am not mistaken the video ram is not calculated as part of the
>>>> system ram. As for memory on the a video card I would suggest 512MB.
>>>> Based on things I have seen hinted at by Adobe people the next version
>>>> of Photoshop is going to make very good use of GPU and memory.
>>>
>>> I was told a 32 bit operating system like Windows XP only has 4GB of
>>> memory address space.
>>>
>>> On the new XP system, I installed 4GB of dual layer ram and a video card
>>> with 256 MB of ram. Under System Properties, it recognizes 3.25GB of
>>> ram.
>>>
>>> I have not had a chance to play with PS on the new XP system since I had
>>> some problems with the original motherboard.
>>>
>>> --
>>> JD..
>>
>
> --
> JD..

So you may have 4GB installed, but XP is not able to address 1GB because
of your Video card and other components, etc on your computer. I'm not
making this up.

http://members.cox.net/slatteryt/RAM.html

Current operating systems, such as Microsoft® Windows® XP, can only use
a maximum of 4 GB of address space; however, the amount of memory
available to the operating system is less than 4 GB. Certain components
within the computer require address space in the 4-GB range. Any address
space reserved for these components cannot be used by computer memory.

Robert Barnett wrote:
> 3GB. I have 4 installed not counting the 1GB of video ram on the two
> video cards.
>
> Robert
>
>
> "JD" <JD@example.invalid> wrote in message
> news:vvadnfA8J-O2nyXVnZ2dnUVZ_gOdnZ2d@posted.grandecom...
>> What does your system say? Control Panel, System, General tab. Computer.
>>
>> Robert Barnett wrote:
>>> Interesting as on my XP and my Vista system both with 4GB of Ram and
>>> two ATI Radeon 1650 Pro cards each with 512MB Windows reports only
>>> the system memory and not the video ram. I know some laptop computers
>>> use system memory for video memory but I have never seen a desktop
>>> system do this. How do you know that .25GB is the video ram and just
>>> part of the 4GB?
>>>
>>>
>>> "JD" <JD@example.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:88idnfUXxs5UsSrVnZ2dnUVZ_rrinZ2d@posted.grand ecom...
>>>> Robert Barnett wrote:
>>>>> If I am not mistaken the video ram is not calculated as part of the
>>>>> system ram. As for memory on the a video card I would suggest
>>>>> 512MB. Based on things I have seen hinted at by Adobe people the
>>>>> next version of Photoshop is going to make very good use of GPU and
>>>>> memory.
>>>>
>>>> I was told a 32 bit operating system like Windows XP only has 4GB of
>>>> memory address space.
>>>>
>>>> On the new XP system, I installed 4GB of dual layer ram and a video
>>>> card with 256 MB of ram. Under System Properties, it recognizes
>>>> 3.25GB of ram.
>>>>
>>>> I have not had a chance to play with PS on the new XP system since I
>>>> had some problems with the original motherboard.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> JD..
>>>
>>
>> --
>> JD..
>

--
JD..

I think your wrong. No place from anyone from Microsoft have I ever heard
them say that video card memory was included in the OS max. Video card
memory is not directly accessed by Windows. It is accessed through the video
card's GPU and is used for video purposes. The limit on system memory is 2GB
per application and 2GB for Windows. If Windows was indeed accessing 3GB of
the 4 I have and the 1GB of video memory I have it would be reporting 4GB of
RAM and not 3. I have never seen anything that indicates Windows counts or
can use video memory as system memory.

The web site you provided is not as far as I am concerned a reliable source.
Point me to some a page on Microsoft's site that says this. Until then I
don't believe it. There have been many many discussions of ram usage on the
Adobe user forums and not once was it said that your video card memory is
used for system memory or counted as system memory. Video card memory is for
video card usage.

Robert

I think this has gone on long enough. You're right and the MS MVP that
wrote the article is wrong.

Robert Barnett wrote:
> I think your wrong. No place from anyone from Microsoft have I ever
> heard them say that video card memory was included in the OS max. Video
> card memory is not directly accessed by Windows. It is accessed through
> the video card's GPU and is used for video purposes. The limit on system
> memory is 2GB per application and 2GB for Windows. If Windows was indeed
> accessing 3GB of the 4 I have and the 1GB of video memory I have it
> would be reporting 4GB of RAM and not 3. I have never seen anything that
> indicates Windows counts or can use video memory as system memory.
>
> The web site you provided is not as far as I am concerned a reliable
> source. Point me to some a page on Microsoft's site that says this.
> Until then I don't believe it. There have been many many discussions of
> ram usage on the Adobe user forums and not once was it said that your
> video card memory is used for system memory or counted as system memory.
> Video card memory is for video card usage.
>
> Robert

--
JD..

On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 12:06:00 -0500, JD wrote:

> So you may have 4GB installed, but XP is not able to address 1GB because
> of your Video card and other components, etc on your computer. I'm not
> making this up.
....
Well, I'll be darned if you're not right. Learned something new.

Thanks, JD.
--
Mike Russell - http://www.curvemeister.com

Mike Russell wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 12:06:00 -0500, JD wrote:
>
>> So you may have 4GB installed, but XP is not able to address 1GB because
>> of your Video card and other components, etc on your computer. I'm not
>> making this up.
> ...
> Well, I'll be darned if you're not right. Learned something new.
>
> Thanks, JD.

Robert seems to think that I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure it is correct
since my XP has 4GB installed but only shows 3.25.

So, you're welcome even if I'm wrong.

--
JD..

On Aug 29, 12:06 pm, JD <J...@example.invalid> wrote:

> http://members.cox.net/slatteryt/RAM.html
>


I am not sure this is correct. At least in the days of x86
architecture the Intel did not use memory mapped io. In other words,
they used a separate assembly language command to write to a memory
device. In other other words, separate pins.

ronviers@gmail.com wrote:
> On Aug 29, 12:06 pm, JD <J...@example.invalid> wrote:
>
>> http://members.cox.net/slatteryt/RAM.html
>>
>
>
> I am not sure this is correct. At least in the days of x86
> architecture the Intel did not use memory mapped io. In other words,
> they used a separate assembly language command to write to a memory
> device. In other other words, separate pins.

All I know is what I've produced in this thread. I can tell you that I
have 4GB of memory installed on my XP machine and that I have a 256MB
video card installed in my machine and the motherboard sees all four of
the 1GB memory sticks and the video card but when I open Control Panel
and double click on the System icon, under System Properties, the
General tab, my XP only sees 3.25GB of RAM.

While I was tech supporting some other problem, I did pull out one
memory stick (1GB) and then Windows saw 3GB of RAM. I checked because I
was curious.

I'm certainly no memory expert and I'm not trying to challenge anybody.
It's really pretty moot to me now since I've built the computer and it
works and CS3 works and it's faster than it was on my old XP machine
with 2GB of RAM and a single core processor.

--
JD..

I doubt you'll believe this page either but I'm trying to :

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605

For example, if you have a video card that has 256 MB of onboard memory,
that memory must be mapped within the first 4 GB of address space. If 4
GB of system memory is already installed, part of that address space
must be reserved by the graphics memory mapping. Graphics memory mapping
overwrites a part of the system memory. These conditions reduce the
total amount of system memory that is available to the operating system.

Robert Barnett wrote:
> I think your wrong. No place from anyone from Microsoft have I ever
> heard them say that video card memory was included in the OS max. Video
> card memory is not directly accessed by Windows. It is accessed through
> the video card's GPU and is used for video purposes. The limit on system
> memory is 2GB per application and 2GB for Windows. If Windows was indeed
> accessing 3GB of the 4 I have and the 1GB of video memory I have it
> would be reporting 4GB of RAM and not 3. I have never seen anything that
> indicates Windows counts or can use video memory as system memory.
>
> The web site you provided is not as far as I am concerned a reliable
> source. Point me to some a page on Microsoft's site that says this.
> Until then I don't believe it. There have been many many discussions of
> ram usage on the Adobe user forums and not once was it said that your
> video card memory is used for system memory or counted as system memory.
> Video card memory is for video card usage.
>
> Robert

--
JD..

ronviers@gmail.com wrote:
> On Aug 29, 12:06 pm, JD <J...@example.invalid> wrote:
>
>> http://members.cox.net/slatteryt/RAM.html
>>
>
>
> I am not sure this is correct. At least in the days of x86
> architecture the Intel did not use memory mapped io. In other words,
> they used a separate assembly language command to write to a memory
> device. In other other words, separate pins.


http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605

For example, if you have a video card that has 256 MB of onboard memory,
that memory must be mapped within the first 4 GB of address space. If 4
GB of system memory is already installed, part of that address space
must be reserved by the graphics memory mapping. Graphics memory mapping
overwrites a part of the system memory. These conditions reduce the
total amount of system memory that is available to the operating system.


--
JD..

On Sep 7, 7:22 am, JD <J...@example.invalid> wrote:
> ronvi...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Aug 29, 12:06 pm, JD <J...@example.invalid> wrote:

> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605

> --
> JD..

That certainly does appear to be a legit source, and they do
explicitly say that Intel uses memory mapped io. That must have come
about with the introduction of the PCI protocol. Considering that my
original position was founded on programming the PDP/11 and
interfacing the Heathkit et-3400a it's no surprise that I could be a
little out of touch Thanks for pursuing the issue.