URGENT - 4GB of RAM not recognized in Win XP Pro

[Guest]

I am seeing a lot of conflicting posts about this subject on this forum --
and I would like a definitive answer from MS Tech Support. This should not be
a matter of opinion, but a simple fact: Does Win XP Pro (SP2) recognize a
full 4 GB of RAM or not? If it does, what needs to be done to make a system
recognize it?

After installing 2 banks of 2GB each (4 GB total) Windows XP Pro SP 2 is
reporting the following in the System Properties General tab in Control Panel:

Computer:
Intel(R)
Pentium(R) D CPU 3.20 GHz
3.20 GHz, 3.25 GB of RAM
Physical Address Extension

There is no boot.ini file anywhere on this system.

I need a straight answer here: Is there any way this OS will support 4 GB of
RAM. If not, I need to exchange two of the 1GB DIMMs for 512 GB DIMMs. And I
need to do it within 30 days.

64-bit Windows is not an option, since most of the software I am using on
this system does not yet support 64 bit Windows and none of the hardware has
64 bit drivers yet.

 

[John Jay Smith]

I have heard people say in here that it is actually using it all... there is
no need to worry, keep the ram.

 

[Mike Hall - MS MVP Windows Shell/User]

Allegro

XP reports the amount with which it can directly work, given your computers
makeup.. the rest is used by the system to augment generally.. you would be
a fool to switch to less just because you can't see it..

 

[Sharon F]

I am seeing a lot of conflicting posts about this subject on this forum --
and I would like a definitive answer from MS Tech Support. This should not be
a matter of opinion, but a simple fact: Does Win XP Pro (SP2) recognize a
full 4 GB of RAM or not? If it does, what needs to be done to make a system
recognize it?

After installing 2 banks of 2GB each (4 GB total) Windows XP Pro SP 2 is
reporting the following in the System Properties General tab in Control Panel:

Computer:
Intel(R)
Pentium(R) D CPU 3.20 GHz
3.20 GHz, 3.25 GB of RAM
Physical Address Extension

There is no boot.ini file anywhere on this system.

I need a straight answer here: Is there any way this OS will support 4 GB of
RAM. If not, I need to exchange two of the 1GB DIMMs for 512 GB DIMMs. And I
need to do it within 30 days.

64-bit Windows is not an option, since most of the software I am using on
this system does not yet support 64 bit Windows and none of the hardware has
64 bit drivers yet.

If you are running Windows XP, you have a boot.ini file. In most cases it
is in the root of the C: drive. Must set Folder Options> View to show
hidden files and folders *and* to not hide system files. Alternatively, the
contents of this file can be viewed using System Properties> Advanced>
Startup and Recovery> Settings. In the "System Startup" area, click the
Edit button to view the contents of the current boot.ini file.

An article on the subject of 4GB of RAM and XP that includes some links to
further reading on the topic:
"The amount of RAM reported by the System Properties dialog box and the
System Information tool is less than you expect after you install Windows
XP Service Pack 2"
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/888137/en-us

 

[Guest]

I got the following message (below) from Crucial (the maker of my RAM). As
previously stated, there is no boot.ini file anywhere on my system (that
includes when I display hidden files and directories). I tried adding the
/PAE switch via this method:

"If you are running Windows XP, you have a boot.ini file. In most cases it
is in the root of the C: drive. Must set Folder Options> View to show
hidden files and folders *and* to not hide system files. Alternatively, the
contents of this file can be viewed using System Properties> Advanced>
Startup and Recovery> Settings. In the "System Startup" area, click the
Edit button to view the contents of the current boot.ini file."

And it saved the change when I rebooted -- however, I am still showing only
3.25 GB of physical RAM and MSInfo is showing only slightly more than 2 GB
available to applications.

From Crucial:

"1) On the desktop, right-click on My Computer icon. If My Computer is not
on the desktop, click the Start button, and then right-click My Computer.
2) Scroll down and click Properties.
3) In the System Properties window, click the Advanced tab.
4) Toward the bottom of the Advanced window, look for the Startup and
Recovery section.
5) Click the Settings button.
6) The Startup and Recovery window opens to the System Startup section.
7) Click the Edit button to open the Boot.Ini file in Notepad.
8) Place the cursor after /fastdetect, and then press the spacebar.
9) Type /PAE. (PAE is short for Physical Address Extension.) The Boot.ini
file should resemble this:
[boot loader]
timeout=30
default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS
[operating systems]
multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS="Microsoft Windows XP
Professional" /fastdetect /PAE
10) In the File menu, click Save.
11) Exit Notepad, Start Up and Recovery and System Properties.
12) Restart your machine. WindowsXP should now recognize 4GB of memory."

 

[Guest]

I spent the better part of the day on the phone with Crucial and MPC. MPC
swears that these machines will make 4 GB accessible under Windows XP SP2.
They say they have tested them and they market them as having this
capability. But they can't tell me how its done.

Crucial has reversed itself and is now saying that there is no way to make
Windows recognize more than 3.25 GB.

If anybody knows how this is done, I need to know how.

 

[Kerry Brown]

Do you want to see in the System Properties that Windows sees 4 GB of ram or
do you just want Windows to use the 4 GB? If the first then it won't happen
until you upgrade to 64 bit Windows, if the second then it is already
working. The first is a cosmetic issue because some of the 4 GB address
space is used by the system for addressing the PCI bus, ROMs, etc. The 4 GB
of ram is a pool that programs can draw from is my understanding. Normally
each program is allocated up to 2 GB which can be actual ram or paged
memory. The more actual ram you have the less paged memory will be used. If
I'm way off base hopefully someone will correct me.

 

[Guest]

This is not what I was told by Crucial tech support. I was told that since
Windows is using the addresses (not RAM, addresses) above 3.25 GB the .75GB
of RAM that requires those addresses is NOT being used. Quite a different
thing.

Your USB bus won't run faster, IO won't happen quicker, your mouse won't be
more precise. It seems there is no benefit whatsoever to the user in having
the extra RAM. For all practical purposes, it's as good as not being there.
If this is true, then companies, such as Crucial and MPC, that are marking
machines saying that there will be 4 GB accessible (meaning you can use all 4
GB) are plainly misleading consumers.

My machine came with 256MB. I added 2GB more at the time of purchase. That
gave me 2.25 GB. It cost me over $250 to get 1 GB more to use for my
applications (2 DIMMs, 1GB each). Now I am exchanging that for 2 DIMMs of
512MB each (as Crucial recommended). That means it will cost me $130 for
..75GB (because I have 4 slots and the 256MB that shipped with the system will
be unused.

In addition to spending a whole day trying to sort this out, it's going to
waste more of my time sending back the RAM and installing the replacement,
and push back a couple of projects.

It is inexcusible for MS and the other companies involved to state that Win
XP can run a maximum of 4 GB. The upper limit is plainly 3.25 GB. If the RAM
above that is taken for something that the user can't control or reassign,
then it is not accessible and it should be disclosed at the time of purchase
so that time and money is not wasted. And people wonder why companies get
sued and force the government to regulate them. The amount of time, money and
engery that they cost consumers must be staggering.

 

[John Jay Smith]

I have not heard a good explanation yet about this issue,
even the MVPs are totally illiterate on this subject.

 

[Brett I. Holcomb]

From my Tyan motherboard manual:

"The AMD-760 MPX requires a portion of memory to be reserved for PCI
devices. Allocation for these devices is dependent on the number of PCI
devices installed, and option ROM for each device. Common configurations
will see 3.5GB to 3.8GB of available meomory." There are also some MS KB
articles as well as discussion elsewhere - as has been pointed out: the
memory is used by the hardware.

My feeling is that if a person feels he wants lots of memory and has the
money he should install it and not worry about the little that's lost.
It's not the fault of MS.

 

[Guest]

The strategy seems to be to say "Yes, you can have full access to 4 GB"
before you buy the product and "Well, not exactly ..." after you've got it
and find that this simply isn't the case. Bait and switch. Pure and simple.
The problem is, that it's unlawful. For a company that just got through one
of the largest settlements for unfair marketing practices in US history,
you'd expect them to be a little less arrogant. That kind of attitude toward
their customers is what got them in trouble in the first place. I'm not
saying MS should be forced to change Windows. But it should be truthful about
its capabilites -- and it should not be certifying companies that
misrepresent its capabilities or allow them to distribute OEM versions if
they can't get their facts straight.

One MS rep has a put up a lot of posts that seem to be very condecending and
disrespectful of MS customers who simply want what they were promised. I've
read a lot of post asking him to simply say where the RAM is being used if it
is not accessible to the end user. If they can't show that it's being used,
or that there is any measurable performance difference, then you might as
well issue licenses to sell "invisible" RAM. Many years ago there was a
software company that made a product that was supposed to increase your RAM.
(I think it was called RAM doubler.) They were very vague about what it does
and couldn't come up with much to prove that it actually did anything at all.
They're not around any more. Am I mistaken, or weren't they run out of
business for making statements very much like what MS, chip makers and OEMs
have been saying about this issue?

Maybe it's time to start picking up the phones and calling the Attorneys
General again. Here in NY, the class action settlement has not been given
final approval. If I were the judge in that case, this is just the kind of
thing I would want to hear.

 

[John Jay Smith]

I would suggest to keep the ram, so that machine will have as much as it can
perhaps at a later date you may change the os, we dont know what vista
will do with ram yet (at least I dont know )

 

[Guest]

Sorry, but that quote sounds like a lot of nonsense to me. How the PCI bus
manage before you put the extra RAM in? Adding RAM isn't going to increase
the bus speed, is it?

The explanation I got was that the RAM over 3.25 GB wants the addresses that
your periferals are using. If the pci bus takes an address range, then that
range is not available (ie. unusable for RAM). The pci bus is not using the
RAM over 3.25 GB, it's taking its address range and leaving you without a way
to use it. At least, this appears to be what Micron (ie. Crucial) is saying.

As for paying for RAM that I can't use -- I'll stop worrying about it when
someone else starts footing the bill. Maybe some of the other posters here
have "extra" money. I don't. Every dime I don't spend on RAM that can't be
accessed can be put to good use somewhere else.

 

[Brett I. Holcomb]

Go argue with Tyan then. I assume they know what they are doing and since
that explanation fits every other article or discusson that I've seen I'll
believe them. This is not unique to XP - this same discussion came up on
the Win 2003 Server group.

 

[Leythos]

The strategy seems to be to say "Yes, you can have full access to 4 GB"
before you buy the product and "Well, not exactly ..." after you've got it
and find that this simply isn't the case. Bait and switch. Pure and simple.

Except that you can "Address" the full 4GB of RAM. It's not the fault of
MS that the board vendors have put the components inside the 4GB memory
area.

 

[Cap 'n' Crunch]

depends if your motherboard supports it, some MB's only support 2GB ram,
which is plenty for most people, 3.25 or 4 GB is somewhat overkill. same
goes for graphics cards with SLI or crossfire, I have seen very little
difference between cards using 128, 256, 512MB and now 2x512MB. 128MB plays
online FPS games just as well as 256MB or 512MB and even 2x512MB in
SLI/Crossfire mode. I even remember my original onboard graphic handling
most games quite well..LMAO! alot of the hype about more is faster or better
is just to get us apart from our $$$. if you have the money by all means
knock yourself out.

you what they say.... the bigger they are, the harder they crash.

 

[Guest]

I think some people are still missing the point here. This isn't about a Tyan
motherboard or an AMD processor. This is about an ClientPro 375, with an
intel motherboard and a dual core pentium processor -- which MPC marketed,
and continues to insist, can address a full 4GB of RAM. The company which
made the RAM (Crucial) and MPC are subsidiaries (or spin offs) of the same
company (Micron) and until yesterday was saying the same thing. (As of now
their tech support department is saying my machine can't address more than
3.25 GB and their sales department, promotional materials, and web site
configurator are all saying yes it can.)

The issue here is, if Microsoft knows that all systems cannot support 4GB,
it should not be claiming that they can. Some sort of disclaimer ("your
actual milage may varry") is required by law. Similarly, the companies that
make the hardware (and who, according to MPC, tested and confirmed that my
machine could address the full 4GB) can be required to substantiate their
claims, amend their statements if they cannot prove them to be true and
compensate the public (in addition to any fines imposed by the government).

A cursory look at all the posts in this forum and others show that a great
many people have wasted a considerable amount of time and money as a result
of statements from all three companies that were known (or should have been
known) to be false. The public has a right to correct information about the
capabilites of a product before and at the time of purchase. Whether you like
it or not, whether you mind it or not, that is the law and it seems clear at
this point that MS, Crucial and MPC are violating it (as are, undoubtedly,
many others.) The fact that some of their customers don't care or don't mind
throwing money away does not alter that fact and does nothing to remedy the
matter for those that do. Repeated posts which, in effect, say that it isn't
the case with your particular hardware, or that you don't mind being ripped
off, are irreleveant and do not contribute anything useful to this discussion.

 

[Mike Hall - MS MVP Windows Shell/User]

Allegro

How the motherboard manufacturers set their hardware to use RAM has nothing
whatsoever to do with Microsoft.. XP can address 4gb, but motherboard design
configuration will not allow XP to see or use all of it, choosing instead to
bolster the hardware with a varying portion depending upon make..

Motherboard hardware has always used a proportion of RAM, the most obvious
these days being integrated video.. the fact that it is not obvious with an
amount of RAM installed that XP can report accurately does not take away
from the fact that this is what is happening..

If you have overspent on resources for your computer, and do not feel that
you are getting your money's worth, then trade down quietly.. in the
meantime, those who do have 4gb will continue to reap the benefits even
though the benefits may not show up on screen..

 

[John Jay Smith]

proof?

Allegro

How the motherboard manufacturers set their hardware to use RAM has
nothing whatsoever to do with Microsoft.. XP can address 4gb, but
motherboard design configuration will not allow XP to see or use all of
it, choosing instead to bolster the hardware with a varying portion
depending upon make..

Motherboard hardware has always used a proportion of RAM, the most obvious
these days being integrated video.. the fact that it is not obvious with
an amount of RAM installed that XP can report accurately does not take
away from the fact that this is what is happening..

If you have overspent on resources for your computer, and do not feel that
you are getting your money's worth, then trade down quietly.. in the
meantime, those who do have 4gb will continue to reap the benefits even
though the benefits may not show up on screen..

 

[Leythos]

This is about an ClientPro 375, with an
intel motherboard and a dual core pentium processor -- which MPC marketed,
and continues to insist, can address a full 4GB of RAM.

And you've show that the board can "Address 4GB of RAM". What you've
also shown is that the board does not make a usable 4GB of RAM available
to you, but if you post the exact wording from the boards specs, you
will find that they didn't lie.

Oh, and MS didn't claim that ANY systems support 4GB of RAM, just that
Windows does.