I installed 2 more 1 gig sticks of RAM on a Vista system that was reporting 2048 for the first 2 1 gig sticks.
Now Vita shows 3582 MB of RAM. Why does it not report the full 4096 MB?

Thanks,
Rick Hanson

Thanks Greg. I've got a 64-bit processor but only 32-bit vista. What problems can enableing PAE cause?
Rick


"greg486" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> Rick,
>
> If you are running 32-bit Vista, it will only show 3582MB. If you have
> a 64-bit processor you can enable the rest though, through PAE(Physical
> Address Extenstion) on 32-bit, it isn't as efficient and can cause
> problems. So if you would like to make full use of your 4GB, you will
> have to migrate to the 64-bit version of Vista. Otherwise if you are
> running 64-bit and its showing that, there might be a limitation on the
> motherboard, or one of the sticks of RAM isn't reading correctly. Hope
> this explains a little, anyone else feel free to elaborate!
>
> This also may help explain:
>
> 'The system memory that is reported in the System Information dialog
> box in Windows Vista is less than you expect if 4 GB of RAM is
> installed' (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605)
>
> greg486
>
>
> --
> greg486

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 16:55:31 -0500, Rick wrote:

> I installed 2 more 1 gig sticks of RAM on a Vista system that was reporting 2048 for the first 2 1 gig sticks.
> Now Vita shows 3582 MB of RAM. Why does it not report the full 4096 MB?
>
> Thanks,
> Rick Hanson

If you spend five minutes browsing through this group you will find that
question answered several times.

On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 16:55:31 -0500, "Rick"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I installed 2 more 1 gig sticks of RAM on a Vista system that was reporting 2048 for the first 2 1 gig sticks.
> Now Vita shows 3582 MB of RAM. Why does it not report the full 4096 MB?


All 32-bit versions of Windows (XP as well as Vista), even though they
have a 4GB address space, can only use *around* 3.1GB of RAM. That's
because some of that space is used by hardware and not available to
the operating system and applications. The amount you can use varies,
depending on what hardware you have installed, but is usually around
3.1GB.

Your 3582MB is about the maximum you see, and is better than most
people with 4GB get.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

"Rick" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I installed 2 more 1 gig sticks of RAM on a Vista system that was reporting 2048 for the first 2 1 gig sticks.
>Now Vita shows 3582 MB of RAM. Why does it not report the full 4096 MB?
>

The total memory address space of a 32 bit x86 design processor is
limited to 4 gb. Out of this total space has to be allocated for the
computer's ROM memory and for the video card memory.

Your result is an appropriate one for such a computer, with one
possible memory allocation being 2 mb for ROM, 512 mb for video, and
3582 for RAM, totalling 4096.

Hope this explains the situation.

Good luck

Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP (1997 - 2008)
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"Anyone who thinks that they are too small to make a difference
has never been in bed with a mosquito."

"Rick" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I installed 2 more 1 gig sticks of RAM on a Vista system that was reporting 2048 for the first 2 1 gig sticks.
>Now Vita shows 3582 MB of RAM. Why does it not report the full 4096 MB?

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

--
Tim Slattery
MS MVP(Shell/User)
(E-Mail Removed)
http://members.cox.net/slatteryt

Thankyou everyone for your input.
Rick Hanson


"Tim Slattery" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Rick" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>I installed 2 more 1 gig sticks of RAM on a Vista system that was reporting 2048 for the first 2 1 gig
>>sticks.
>>Now Vita shows 3582 MB of RAM. Why does it not report the full 4096 MB?
>
> http://members.cox.net/slatteryt/RAM.html
>
> --
> Tim Slattery
> MS MVP(Shell/User)
> (E-Mail Removed)
> http://members.cox.net/slatteryt

Ron Martell wrote:
> "Rick" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> I installed 2 more 1 gig sticks of RAM on a Vista system that was reporting 2048 for the first 2 1 gig sticks.
>> Now Vita shows 3582 MB of RAM. Why does it not report the full 4096 MB?
>>
>
> The total memory address space of a 32 bit x86 design processor is
> limited to 4 gb. Out of this total space has to be allocated for the
> computer's ROM memory and for the video card memory.
>
> Your result is an appropriate one for such a computer, with one
> possible memory allocation being 2 mb for ROM, 512 mb for video, and
> 3582 for RAM, totalling 4096.
>
> Hope this explains the situation.

Why does a 1 GB machine with a 512MB video card still report 1GB RAM and
not 512MB?

Travis Crow wrote:
> Ron Martell wrote:
>> "Rick" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> I installed 2 more 1 gig sticks of RAM on a Vista system that was
>>> reporting 2048 for the first 2 1 gig sticks. Now Vita shows 3582 MB
>>> of RAM. Why does it not report the full 4096 MB?
>>>
>>
>> The total memory address space of a 32 bit x86 design processor is
>> limited to 4 gb. Out of this total space has to be allocated for the
>> computer's ROM memory and for the video card memory.
>>
>> Your result is an appropriate one for such a computer, with one
>> possible memory allocation being 2 mb for ROM, 512 mb for video, and
>> 3582 for RAM, totalling 4096.
>>
>> Hope this explains the situation.
>
> Why does a 1 GB machine with a 512MB video card still report 1GB RAM and
> not 512MB?

Figured it out just after hitting send, because it's still inside the
4GB address space D'OH!

Travis Crow wrote:
> Travis Crow wrote:
>> Ron Martell wrote:
>>> "Rick" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I installed 2 more 1 gig sticks of RAM on a Vista system that was
>>>> reporting 2048 for the first 2 1 gig sticks. Now Vita shows 3582 MB
>>>> of RAM. Why does it not report the full 4096 MB?
>>>>
>>>
>>> The total memory address space of a 32 bit x86 design processor is
>>> limited to 4 gb. Out of this total space has to be allocated for the
>>> computer's ROM memory and for the video card memory.
>>>
>>> Your result is an appropriate one for such a computer, with one
>>> possible memory allocation being 2 mb for ROM, 512 mb for video, and
>>> 3582 for RAM, totalling 4096.
>>>
>>> Hope this explains the situation.
>>
>> Why does a 1 GB machine with a 512MB video card still report 1GB RAM
>> and not 512MB?
>
> Figured it out just after hitting send, because it's still inside the
> 4GB address space D'OH!

No you didn't