RAM, RAM, Wherefore art thou?

[Pain_Man]

(!)FIRST: This is not as long as it looks. There are two big graphic files, so pls read!(!)

 

As you can see, there are 4GB reported by SysInfo. With 2.39 available. Which means, of course, that 1.61GB are in play. The machine is a Gateway FX530G, Core Duo 2 2.67GHz, 4GB RAM, ATI 1950XTX Crossfire enabled 1GB VRAM, etc, etc.

 

I checked the physical seating of the modules--fine. All the apps, even the one's failing to show the full 4GB, do display all four DIMMs as 1GB/667MHz.) The BIOS shows it. System Information correctly identifies the total amount of physical RAM. So why aren't the other programs?!

 

 

Why is System Properties showing this?

 

 

It's nice that I've gained an extra 100MHz, but where's the 1.01GB of RAM that SysInfo shows?

 

Other programs also show 2.99GB (or 3068, 3069 or 3072MB depending upon the app). What gives?

 

And, apparently, given how many applications I can run with ease, the RAMs obviously functioning correctly (I can burn CDs/DVDs, or scan them, while writing emails, while having both web browser's launched, using Babylon to look up words or translate foreign ones, etc).

 

So I'm going to call Gateway again (the last guy I got didn't sound like he could tell you how to set the jumpers or a burner, let alone anything complicated). But I'd really like "a little help from my friends/I get ---- with a little, ooops, off topic. My feeling--granted, probably not worth much given my admittedly limited knowledge (compared to so many of our little group) is that nothing is really wrong. But I don't know that for sure.

 

What I do know is that Everest, System Properties, RAMSaverPro, Codestuff Starter, TUT, TuneUp 2006 and other progs fail to show 4GB.

 

--Maybe some of these apps aren't programmed to recornize this much ram?

 

--What if it's just some API (right term?) glitch between the apps and the OS core (kernel?).

 

I don't know. But I really want that memory I paid so much for (they're are about $200 ea retail, tho' I'm sure I got a discount because I bought them from a manufacturer) to show up!

 

So, any thoughts at all?

[Movie Junkie]

I remember reading that XP has a problem with more that 2 GB of RAM is installed. I have 2 GB so I can't verify it to be true.

[Pain_Man]

@MJ

 

Hadn't heard that. Thanks.

 

 

Has anyone else this? Or by some chance, have a MSFT KB article on it???!

 

I remember reading that XP has a problem with more that 2 GB of RAM is installed. I have 2 GB so I can't verify it to be true.

[random]

Yes that is true.

 

XP has a hard time seeing ram over a gig.

[dontasciime]

xp is fine with memory over 1 gig adn 2 gig and should be ok with 3 gig, however you will only ever see upto 3+ gig if you install 4 gig, Vista does not or rather is no supposed to have this limitation nor the 64 bit version of XP

 

 

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/community...win/pw0801.mspx (this says 4 gig limit) xp sets aside certain amounts to the pci bus system etc.

 

 

 

 

64 bit xp http://support.microsoft.com/kb/283247/

Edited December 12, 2006 by dontasciime

[blikkies]

Im using 4gig ram on XP x64 and it has no problem seeing all the Ram. Altho it will show as 3 point something or other gig, cant remember the exact value. Will check when I get home tonight. It will never show the full 4Gig on any system.

[Movie Junkie]

@MJ

 

Hadn't heard that. Thanks.

 

 

Has anyone else this? Or by some chance, have a MSFT KB article on it???!

 

I remember reading that XP has a problem with more that 2 GB of RAM is installed. I have 2 GB so I can't verify it to be true.

You're welcome. I'm glad I could help.

[Pain_Man]

Thanks blikkies.

 

I'm confused; maybe I'm reading it wrong, but your post seems to contradicting itself.

 

Im using 4gig ram on XP x64 and it has no problem seeing all the Ram. It will never show the full 4Gig on any system.

 

Not trying to bust your cojones here, but which is it? Does XP 64 show the 4GBs or not?

 

My processor can run XP 64 (but I see no reason to spend the extra cash on it considering how few 64bit apps there are and the fact that all device drivers have to be 64bit (according to Microsoft's website). So I don't see the need to make that jump at present.

 

Actually, I do have a question about this, but that's for another thread.

 

Im using 4gig ram on XP x64 and it has no problem seeing all the Ram. Altho it will show as 3 point something or other gig, cant remember the exact value. Will check when I get home tonight. It will never show the full 4Gig on any system.

[Pain_Man]

Thanks, random.

 

On my P4HT Vaio, it saw 1.5GB with no problem.

 

And, in fact, since the System Info applet does see the 4GB (as can be seen above). It's other applications, including System Properties that don't see the entire 4GBs.

 

I'm getting the full benefit of the 4GB so I guess I shouldn't bitch too hard about this.

 

I can do more with this machine and do if faster than any other computer I've ever had. As I right this I'm running a scan on a DVD, with Everest open, Thunderbird open, the UPS software running, and a shitload of background tasks. And it's still smoking.

 

God I LOVE this computer!!!

 

But it is Windows, so it ain't gonna be perfect. There's always gonna be weird ass glitches. That's true of the Mac too (tho' to a lesser extent). And probably of every OS.

 

Yes that is true.

 

XP has a hard time seeing ram over a gig.

d

[Pain_Man]

Bien sur.

 

@MJ

 

Hadn't heard that. Thanks.

 

 

Has anyone else this? Or by some chance, have a MSFT KB article on it???!

 

I remember reading that XP has a problem with more that 2 GB of RAM is installed. I have 2 GB so I can't verify it to be true.

You're welcome. I'm glad I could help.

[blikkies]

Thanks blikkies.

 

I'm confused; maybe I'm reading it wrong, but your post seems to contradicting itself.

 

Im using 4gig ram on XP x64 and it has no problem seeing all the Ram. It will never show the full 4Gig on any system.

 

Not trying to bust your cojones here, but which is it? Does XP 64 show the 4GBs or not?

 

My processor can run XP 64 (but I see no reason to spend the extra cash on it considering how few 64bit apps there are and the fact that all device drivers have to be 64bit (according to Microsoft's website). So I don't see the need to make that jump at present.

 

Actually, I do have a question about this, but that's for another thread.

 

Im using 4gig ram on XP x64 and it has no problem seeing all the Ram. Altho it will show as 3 point something or other gig, cant remember the exact value. Will check when I get home tonight. It will never show the full 4Gig on any system.

 

 

Sorry got home too late the check the values. Will check tonight. Im not to clued up on the technicalities but my understanding is that some of the ram is reserved for system space so while you may physically have 4gig ony 3.xxx will be shown as available.

 

On your x64 comment, you are right drivers can be a bit of a pain when you trying to attach certain hardware. but generally most of the standard stuff is catered for with windows generic drivers. I luv x64, its very stable and has the added advantage of patchgard for kernel protection which 32bit XP does not have. I would rather wait for vista if you want to concider upgrading to 64bit windows.

[blikkies]

Hi Scot

 

Checked and it reads 3.37g ram. I do recall reading in one of those PC mags that the system info will not reflect the actual physical ram. Not sure why this is technically the case

[Pain_Man]

Thanks, amigo.

 

Just Microsoft again!

 

Someone--I forget who--sent me an article on 64-bit Windows.

 

I ran across this line 32-bit DLL can't address memory space above 2GB.

 

Which I find rather curious. If this is true, then why isn't the limit for 32-bit XP 2GB instead of 4GB? I realizing I'm probably revealing my (severe) lack of programming knowledge here. But it seems a little odd.

 

However, could it not explain why some of these apps are having trouble reading all 4GBs while still being able to "see" the DIMMs?

 

Document also says that 64-bit Windows can address 16GB of RAM. I don't have that much money! But I realize that this is for very memory intensive progs like the various flavors of CAD (Auto, Archi-, etc). And other "professional" applications like digital video processing.

 

Article: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/community...win/pw0801.mspx

 

Hi Scot

 

Checked and it reads 3.37g ram. I do recall reading in one of those PC mags that the system info will not reflect the actual physical ram. Not sure why this is technically the case

Edited December 13, 2006 by Pain_Man

[dbminter]

Yeah, I just put in 2 GB and supplemented that with 512 MB of my old RAM to bring it up to 2.5 GB, and Windows sees it fine. I've not checked beyond that yet, but, the speed difference in running things is already visible.

 

 

Also, did you see my e-mail on 4 GB? I discovered this in my system's notes file about 4 GB of RAM:

 

 

Note: Your computer supports a maximum of 4 GB of physical memory using four 1-GB DIMMs. Current operating systems such as Microsoft? Windows? XP support a 4 GB 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 is not available for general operating system use. The operating system will reflect these reservations in the total displayed in various system utilities.

 

 

So, that one statement about reserved PCI bus memory is probably the culprit. Remember my past e-mail on the subject when I said if this was the days of DOS, I'd have blamed it on a chunk of memory physically reserved for video cards. Or was it monochrome? Anyway, that's what I'd lay it down to. Some reserved chunk of memory for a hardware interface. Probably to make sure nothing else tries to use any space there if it's free. Thus, keeping the reserved chunk of contiguous memory free, making it faster to access. And, whatever this is may require as fast as possible to avoid fatal slow down and buffer overflow, like we're used to seeing in the old days of CD and DVD burning.

[dbminter]

Thanks blikkies.

 

I'm confused; maybe I'm reading it wrong, but your post seems to contradicting itself.

 

Im using 4gig ram on XP x64 and it has no problem seeing all the Ram. It will never show the full 4Gig on any system.

 

Not trying to bust your cojones here, but which is it? Does XP 64 show the 4GBs or not?

 

 

Probably, he just typoed and forgot an "other" in there. Should have read: It will never show the full 4Gig on any OTHER system. Or rather, to be fully clear: It will never show the full 4Gig on any other version of Windows.

[blikkies]

I would also adjust the virtual memory, should typically be approx 1.5x the physical memory

[polopony]

Hi Scot

 

Checked and it reads 3.37g ram. I do recall reading in one of those PC mags that the system info will not reflect the actual physical ram. Not sure why this is technically the case

 

it may well be for the same reason that blank discs are reported as 4.7 gigs when we all know they are 4.38 Gigs or so They didn't do the conversion of Bytes to Gigs and for marketing purposes saying 4 gigs sounds better

[dbminter]

Hmmm, if that was the total listed RAM, i.e. the value that appears in the About thing tab when you right click on My Computer, i.e. where you find the System Restore, Hardware, etc. tabs, then, the use of gibibytes versus gigabytes wouldn't be the case here. If that's a remaining RAM value, i.e. from a MEM result, then, it's because of the results of whatever hardware has seized a chunk of system memory for its own use.

[dbminter]

About adjusting the virtual memory.

 

 

What was, supposedly, the amount of RAM you can have where they say you can turn off virtual memory, for the most part? Or make a really small file. I forget, but, there's a supposed listed amount of RAM where if you have you, you can effectively disable virtual memory. Because, if you have 4 GB, who wants to create a 6 GB swapfile if they can avoid it. For instance, back when I had just the 1 GB, my VM file was 3 GB.