XP Pro only seeing 2gb of my 4gb ram?

[Guest]

I"m having a weird little problem with this current config.


AMD X2 5200+
ECS KN3 SLI2 nvidia590sli mobo
4gb (2x2gb dual channel kits) OCZ Platinum Rev.2 (ddr2 800)
xp pro.. sp2

Trying different combos I've found out following:

In XP pro(32bit) 2G of my ram is gone. Bios sees it, 3D Mark,Sandra, and
cpuz see it as installed properly, but Windows sees it as 2G.

Now it gets funky... I remove one stick of ram, leaving it to 3G,
single-channel mode (dual channel got disabled)... Windows now sees ~2.75G of
ram,

I'd be very happy to have even 3.6G of that 4G total

so the question becomes....

is there a way to make windows recognise/use the ram with all 4 sticks
installed.. or should i just stick with 3 sticks for more recognised ram
until i can upgrade to 64bit?

 

[Shenan Stanley]

I"m having a weird little problem with this current config.

AMD X2 5200+
ECS KN3 SLI2 nvidia590sli mobo
4gb (2x2gb dual channel kits) OCZ Platinum Rev.2 (ddr2 800)
xp pro.. sp2

Trying different combos I've found out following:

In XP pro(32bit) 2G of my ram is gone. Bios sees it, 3D
Mark,Sandra, and cpuz see it as installed properly, but Windows
sees it as 2G.

Now it gets funky... I remove one stick of ram, leaving it to 3G,
single-channel mode (dual channel got disabled)... Windows now sees
~2.75G of ram,

I'd be very happy to have even 3.6G of that 4G total

so the question becomes....

is there a way to make windows recognise/use the ram with all 4
sticks installed.. or should i just stick with 3 sticks for more
recognised ram until i can upgrade to 64bit?

Use these instructions to add the /3GB to your Windows XP boot.ini file:
http://searchwincomputing.techtarget.com/tip/0,289483,sid68_gci1108831,00.html

Some advice on the /3GB switch in the BOOT.INI:
It will not *make* Windows XP show you that you have 4GB of physical
memory - in fact - Windows XP 32-bit will *never* show you that you have 4GB
of memory. It could even degrade performance of Windows XP itself -
although, not usually as the 1GB is more than enough for the OS and its
needs. It just forces the OS to allocate 3GB to the programs and only 1GB
to the system.

 

[Guest]

i've tried the /3gb switch before.. it does nothing for the problem, windows
still only shows 2g(with 4installed) or 2.75g(with 3 installed) the /3gb
switch is just for virtual memory

Pae mode is enabled on this system by default(64bit cpu) but that shouldent
be causing the problem(should it)

teh problem is that the system shows 2g of ram when 4 are installed.. and
shows 2.75g of ram when 3 are installed.. why doesnt the system show more
memory with 4g installed?

 

[Terry R.]

On 7/6/2007 6:42 PM On a whim, cephia pounded out on the keyboard

i've tried the /3gb switch before.. it does nothing for the problem, windows
still only shows 2g(with 4installed) or 2.75g(with 3 installed) the /3gb
switch is just for virtual memory

Pae mode is enabled on this system by default(64bit cpu) but that shouldent
be causing the problem(should it)

teh problem is that the system shows 2g of ram when 4 are installed.. and
shows 2.75g of ram when 3 are installed.. why doesnt the system show more
memory with 4g installed?

Hi cephia,

Did you open Task Manager, Performance tab, and see what the physical
memory states there?

As Shenan stated, XP 32 bit will never show you that you have 4 gig.
But it still should be used. I would test it using 3 gig and 4 gig and
if no benefit is seen, take one back.

--
Terry R.

***Reply Note***
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

 

[Guest]

task manager shows 2g, system info shows 4g installed with 2g available..

if i remove a stick for 3G.. task manager shows 2.75g, system info shows 3g,
2.75 available.

 

[Shenan Stanley]

task manager shows 2g, system info shows 4g installed with 2g
available..

if i remove a stick for 3G.. task manager shows 2.75g, system info
shows 3g,
2.75 available.

Virtual Memory is a chunk of your hard disk drive space that is used for
paging operations or temporary 'fake' memory. It's performance is no better
than the performance of the hard disk drive - which is MUCH slower than your
actual memory. Virtual memory/Page File is NOT a substitute for actual RAM.

Not exactly the same as Virtual Address Space...

http://winhlp.com/WxMoreThan2GB.htm

The limitation of 4GB in Windows XP (non-64 bit) has more to do with the
ability of a 32 bit systems ability to access that much RAM than anything
else. It has been pointed out to you that you need to edit your BOOT.INI
and add the /3GB switch in order to give more to the applications and less
to the operating system (in laymans terms.)

With that /3GB switch - perhaps your applications *will* utilize 2+GB of RAM
- but it will likely only pull that much in *when it needs it* - and not
just reserve
it for itself. At least - that would make more sense.

You are better off adding the /3GB switch in BOOT.INI and trying it out and
seeing if that makes any noticable performance difference in apps than
continuing to worry over this much more.

Your other option - make sure your applications will run in Windows
XP x64, make sure all your hardware has drivers from Windows XP x64 (and any
other software you plan on using with it works in x64 as well) and install
Windows XP x64. Then you could have 8GB+ of memory if you want and it will
be better managed.

Some advice on the /3GB switch in the BOOT.INI:
It will not *make* Windows XP show you that you have 4GB of physical
memory - in fact - Windows XP 32-bit will *never* show you that you have 4GB
of memory. It could even degrade performance of Windows XP itself -
although, not usually as the 1GB is more than enough for the OS and its
needs. It just forces the OS to allocate 3GB to the programs and only 1GB
to the system.

 

[Guest]

just ran with the /3gb switch again.. and the system locked up after about
10mins

why is it that when i have 4g installed, and everything reports 4g.. windows
only sees/uses 2g of it(just like when i have 2g installed) but if i have 3g
installed, windows sees and uses all of it(well.. 2.75g, but thats
effectivaly all of it with how things get addressed)?

 

[Guest]

heres some sandra memory logs

the first is with 31g sticks installed, the second with 4.... no other
system changes took place
(booting with /3gb /userva=2800 in both situations)

SiSoftware Sandra

System Memory Summary
Total Physical Memory : 2.7GB
Free Physical Memory : 2.4GB, 86%
Maximum Page File : 6.6GB
Free Page File : 6.3GB, 95%
Page File : C:\pagefile.sys 4095 4095
PSE36 - 36-bit Page Size Extension : Yes
Maximum System Pages : 798720

Kernel Statistics
Total Processes : 41
Total Threads : 474
Total Open Handles : 8257

Kernel Memory Information
Total Memory : 63MB
Paged Memory : 37MB
Non-Paged Memory : 25MB

Page Commit Charge Statistics
Total Committed : 92636
Peak Commits : 103734
Maximum Commits : 1738957

Extended Memory Information
Allocated Memory Load : 13%
==============================================
SiSoftware Sandra

System Memory Summary
Total Physical Memory : 2GB
Free Physical Memory : 1.6GB, 82%
Maximum Page File : 5.9GB
Free Page File : 5.6GB, 94%
Page File : C:\pagefile.sys 4095 4095
PSE36 - 36-bit Page Size Extension : Yes
Maximum System Pages : 798720

Kernel Statistics
Total Processes : 40
Total Threads : 512
Total Open Handles : 8284

Kernel Memory Information
Total Memory : 61MB
Paged Memory : 36MB
Non-Paged Memory : 25MB

Page Commit Charge Statistics
Total Committed : 88067
Peak Commits : 105262
Maximum Commits : 1549837

Extended Memory Information
Allocated Memory Load : 18%


so again.. why does the system see more physical memory with 3g installed
than with 4g installed?
why does the system report the exact same way with 2g installed and with 4g
installed?

 

[Shenan Stanley]

heres some sandra memory logs

the first is with 31g sticks installed, the second with 4.... no
other system changes took place
(booting with /3gb /userva=2800 in both situations)

SiSoftware Sandra

System Memory Summary
Total Physical Memory : 2.7GB
Free Physical Memory : 2.4GB, 86%
Maximum Page File : 6.6GB
Free Page File : 6.3GB, 95%
Page File : C:\pagefile.sys 4095 4095
PSE36 - 36-bit Page Size Extension : Yes
Maximum System Pages : 798720

Kernel Statistics
Total Processes : 41
Total Threads : 474
Total Open Handles : 8257

Kernel Memory Information
Total Memory : 63MB
Paged Memory : 37MB
Non-Paged Memory : 25MB

Page Commit Charge Statistics
Total Committed : 92636
Peak Commits : 103734
Maximum Commits : 1738957

Extended Memory Information
Allocated Memory Load : 13%
==============================================
SiSoftware Sandra

System Memory Summary
Total Physical Memory : 2GB
Free Physical Memory : 1.6GB, 82%
Maximum Page File : 5.9GB
Free Page File : 5.6GB, 94%
Page File : C:\pagefile.sys 4095 4095
PSE36 - 36-bit Page Size Extension : Yes
Maximum System Pages : 798720

Kernel Statistics
Total Processes : 40
Total Threads : 512
Total Open Handles : 8284

Kernel Memory Information
Total Memory : 61MB
Paged Memory : 36MB
Non-Paged Memory : 25MB

Page Commit Charge Statistics
Total Committed : 88067
Peak Commits : 105262
Maximum Commits : 1549837

Extended Memory Information
Allocated Memory Load : 18%


so again.. why does the system see more physical memory with 3g
installed than with 4g installed?
why does the system report the exact same way with 2g installed and
with 4g installed?

Bad design.
32-bit addressing.
Hardware issues.

If you want to be more likely able to utilize the memory you paid for - go
with a 64-bit operating system.

What are you needing 4GB of memory for again?

 

[John John]

heres some sandra memory logs

the first is with 31g sticks installed, the second with 4.... no other
system changes took place
(booting with /3gb /userva=2800 in both situations)

SiSoftware Sandra

System Memory Summary
Total Physical Memory : 2.7GB
Free Physical Memory : 2.4GB, 86%
Maximum Page File : 6.6GB
Free Page File : 6.3GB, 95%
Page File : C:\pagefile.sys 4095 4095
PSE36 - 36-bit Page Size Extension : Yes
Maximum System Pages : 798720

Kernel Statistics
Total Processes : 41
Total Threads : 474
Total Open Handles : 8257

Kernel Memory Information
Total Memory : 63MB
Paged Memory : 37MB
Non-Paged Memory : 25MB

Page Commit Charge Statistics
Total Committed : 92636
Peak Commits : 103734
Maximum Commits : 1738957

Extended Memory Information
Allocated Memory Load : 13%
==============================================
SiSoftware Sandra

System Memory Summary
Total Physical Memory : 2GB
Free Physical Memory : 1.6GB, 82%
Maximum Page File : 5.9GB
Free Page File : 5.6GB, 94%
Page File : C:\pagefile.sys 4095 4095
PSE36 - 36-bit Page Size Extension : Yes
Maximum System Pages : 798720

Kernel Statistics
Total Processes : 40
Total Threads : 512
Total Open Handles : 8284

Kernel Memory Information
Total Memory : 61MB
Paged Memory : 36MB
Non-Paged Memory : 25MB

Page Commit Charge Statistics
Total Committed : 88067
Peak Commits : 105262
Maximum Commits : 1549837

Extended Memory Information
Allocated Memory Load : 18%


so again.. why does the system see more physical memory with 3g installed
than with 4g installed?
why does the system report the exact same way with 2g installed and with 4g
installed?

Did you consider the possibility that one of the memory sticks might be
defective?

John

 

[Guest]

Yes.. i ran multiplel memtestx86 on all the sticks, both indivitually paired
in 2g, and in 4g configurations.. they all passed without a hitch.

the weird part of it is that the system sees 2.75 out of a possible 3g

but knocks itself back down to 2g out of 4

 

[Phil Latio]

Hi cephia

Did you ever get an answer to your query?
I ask because I have increased my RAM from 1GB to 3GB (specs below) in
order to dive inand get to know all about VirtualPC 2007.
I have 2 x 512MB and 2 x 1GB memory configuration. My BIOS sees the
memory configuration correctly, memtest confirms the sticks are
working correctly, yet;

Task Manager > Performance tab, reports Physical memory being 2GB.
System Properties reports '2GB - Physical Address Extension'

I have modified the Boot.INI and added the /3GB switch, I've upgraded
the mobo BIOS to it's most recent version (a process that had me on
the seat of my pants, holding my breath for 5 minutes!!)

My machine spec is as follows;

Motherboard - ASRock 939S56-M
Processor - AMD Athlon 64 x2 4200+
O/S - Win XP Pro SP2 (patched as at last 'MS patch tuesday')
Memory is: Pair 512MB DDR3200 sticks and pair 1GB DDR3200 sticks
(total memory 3GB)
1 x Maxtor 80GB SATA drive (contains OS)
1 x Maxtor 250GB SATA drive (3 partitions - 6GB swap/pageing file,
15GB Applications partition, 220GB Data partition)
Graphics card - NVIDIA GeForce 6200 TurboCache Video card - this takes
256MB of RAM

As I'm doing some extensive Googling of this issue, what I'm finding
hard to stomach is that despite having 3GB I don't know if the OS is
aware of the 3GB - it seems not, judging by the Task Manager
Performance tab and System Properties. I'm also curious as to how the
numerous people, who've queried why 4GB is never seen as the full 4GB,
still get their systems to report 3.6GB for example. Ii understand why
4GB is never reported, but am at a loss to undertand why 3GB is not
reported!

As I mentioned earlier, I purposely increased the RAM in order to
dabble with virtualisation - to that end I would appreciate any
pointers as to how I can get the 3GB to be recognised.

Thanks in advance.

Phil

 

[Guest]

no answer as of yet Phil, and you hit the nail on the head with how weird
this is.. every post i've found online shows people having 3.x+ of their 4g
registering..but now your problem puts a slightly new twist on it.

is your ram running in dual channel mode?

perhaps it is something with how windows reacts with over 2g of dual channel
ram?

I have 1 last thing to try before i install my vista 64 ultimate, and that
is a bios update(my bios is currently 1 version out of date) and switching
from useing JDmicron raid drivers over to a Nvidia raid setup.

i know past verisons of jdmicron drivers have occasonally caused some weird
problems with windows, but i'm just really out of patience trying to figure
this out

the only thing that makes sense to me now is that it has to do with Dual
Channel ram..(I put 2 of my sticks into my brothers comp, but his system
didnt run dual channel with 4 sticks in it.. his copy of xppro recognised
3.45g of the 4 then installed.. i really need to head overthere with all 4 of
my sticks and see if i can replicate the problem on his comp too)

bah.. well.. i'm done rambling fornow

you could try ofsetting your 1g sticks and 512meg sticks so they dont run in
dual channel (match channels with a 1g +512) and see if you have any luck
that way

good luck Phil

 

[Phil Latio]

Ah, that's a good point about the dual channel mode - I'll give that a
go and see what happens.

I've just re-read my posting of last night and see I omitted the part
explaining why I updated my BIOS.

Part of my Googling had returned some suggestions as to enabling the
'memory hole' feature in the BIOS - apparently this feature had given
others the result they wanted.
I'd observed there wasn't such a feature in my existing BIOS settings,
so updated it to the latest version only to find the feature doesn't
appear to be there in the new BIOS version (or if it is, I haven't
found it!).
I understand from one posting somewhere, a guy had a similar issue
(same motherboard as mine) and ASRock Technical Support had provided a
'custom' BIOS, after emailing them the issue. I may eventually go that
route and make enquiries.
One thing for sure though - I know a lot more about hardware now than
I did a few days ago. I recollect a phrase I once heard - along the
lines of "If you truly want to know how something works, try fixing
it".

Anyhow - thanks for the pointers/suggestions. I hope to get my full
quota of 3GB, otherwise my virtual machines will just have to have
what's available (and now I've just discovered VPC 2007 hasn't got USB
support which is another opportunity to tax the mind...hey-ho, I just
love all this technology!)

;-)

Thanks

Phil

 

[Phil Latio]

Well, I thought it may be of benefit to post back what I've done and
the outcome...

I followed cephia's suggestion and mixed the memory modules so they
weren't using the Dual Channel mode.
Guess what, System Properties and Task Manager (Performance) both
indicated 2.25GB of RAM - wahoo I've gained an extra quarter of a
Gig!!

But get this...

When I mix the modules in the following configurations here's the
results:

512mb 1Gb 512mb 1Gb ===> Task Manager(Performance) reports 2GB
1Gb 512mb 512mb 1Gb ===> Task Manager(Performance) reports 2.25GB

This just gets weirder and weirder.

Anyhow, I don't whether to be happy I've gained the quarter Gig and
just accept it or be a little less annoyed that I;m not able to see
the full 3Gb I'd expected.

Thanks for the pointers cephia.

Cheers

Phil

 

[Guest]

well.. that certinly seems odd... the first configuration may be dual channel
on some mobos tho(those that alternate slots, so that 1,3.. and 2,4 run dual
channel togeather)

the extra quarter gig is neat also, with 3g installed in my system(depending
on how i'm currently shuffling bios settings) i see between 2.5 and 2.75g

i know that .25g of it is reserved for video(with my video cards(atleast if
the addressing issues come into play with under 4g while being over 2g)) and
i can see how the settings i've been shuffling around can alter the rest..but
i still cant understand why, if i run all 4g.. the system only utilizes 2g of
it..... it recognises 4g available, but refuses to address anything above
that 2g barrier

 

[Guest]

What I don't understand is... why is everyone concerned with WHY more ram is
needed. The FACT is, more is needed.

Windows allows for 8 extended displays. I have 4 / 24" wide. I do
charting, these are Java based. Do you realize what memory 8 Java charts
consume in addition to other applications running. More viewing space allows
for more multiple applications.

I don't know why Windows would allow 8 extened but minimize memory.

I agree with all of those who need more and have tried all the fixes of
which NONE WORK. I have been told by MS, that when SP3 comes out, MS
corrects this problem as they are aware it is a problem.

I/we would appreciate a fix if anyone can help.