Vista Memory Discrepancy

[RRTest]

POST and CMOS show that I have 4GB of RAM yet system info in Vista
(Ultimate) shows only 2.75GB.
What gives???
I am running a 8800GTX video card with 768M of RAM and a Intel Core 2 Duo
E6600 Conroe 2.4GHz processor.
Any help would be appreciated.

 

[Qu0ll]

POST and CMOS show that I have 4GB of RAM yet system info in Vista
(Ultimate) shows only 2.75GB.
What gives???
I am running a 8800GTX video card with 768M of RAM and a Intel Core 2 Duo
E6600 Conroe 2.4GHz processor.
Any help would be appreciated.

This question is asked a lot. I take it you have 32-bit Vista? If so,
2.75MB is normal due to an inherent fault in the OS design. I have 64-bit
Vista and it sees all 4GB nicely.

--
And loving it,

-Q
______________________________________________
(e-mail address removed)
(Replace the "SixFour" with numbers to email)

 

[Justin]

http://www.vistaclues.com/reader-question-maximum-memory-in-32-bit-windows-vista/

 

[Richard Urban]

Unless "you" have allocated RAM to be used as video RAM in your bios, there
is nothing you can do.

It is the way 32 bit hardware and software (the operating system) use the
RAM. Some M/B's and chipsets allocate more than others to be used
specifically for the system. This RAM, though used by the system, is not
available for use by installed programs.

People who use 4 gig of RAM with 32 bit Windows typically see approximately
2.8 gig to about 3.5 gig available for programs. This includes the system
information type programs that show you installed RAM.


--


Regards,

Richard Urban MVP
Microsoft Windows Shell/User

 

[Rick Rogers]

It's not a fault, it's a limitation of 32-bit addressing.

For RRTest: There is a limit of 4GB of addresses in 32-bit processing. Some
of these addresses are reserved by the system to address the hardware. The
remainder (2.75GB in your case) are available for memory addresses. This
limitation is much higher in x64, so that is why all the memory is seen
there.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP

Windows help - www.rickrogers.org

 

[Qu0ll]

It's not a fault, it's a limitation of 32-bit addressing.

It is a fault. For the OS to report that there is only 2.75GB of RAM
installed is only going to lead to the confusion that abounds with this
issue. The OS may only be able to use a portion of the actual 4GB but it
should indicate that 4GB is physically installed.

--
And loving it,

-Q
______________________________________________
(e-mail address removed)
(Replace the "SixFour" with numbers to email)

 

[DevilsPGD]

In message <[email protected]> "Qu0ll"

It is a fault. For the OS to report that there is only 2.75GB of RAM
installed is only going to lead to the confusion that abounds with this
issue. The OS may only be able to use a portion of the actual 4GB but it
should indicate that 4GB is physically installed.

That would be even more misleading to indicate an amount of RAM is
available when it is not.

This is a *hardware* limitation, not a software issue.

 

[Justin]

That would be even more misleading to indicate an amount of RAM is
available when it is not.

This is a *hardware* limitation, not a software issue.

He said installed, not available. The user should know both.

 

[DevilsPGD]

In message <[email protected]> "Justin"

He said installed, not available. The user should know both.

Perhaps, but the OS cannot reliably determine both. The OS can query
each SIMM/DIMM slot and try to evaluate the size, however, that won't
always be reliable either.

 

[Justin]

Perhaps, but the OS cannot reliably determine both. The OS can query
each SIMM/DIMM slot and try to evaluate the size, however, that won't
always be reliable either.

Then why can BIOS do it? Grab the value from BIOS instead of trying to
figure it out on it's own.

 

[DevilsPGD]

In message <[email protected]> "Justin"

Then why can BIOS do it? Grab the value from BIOS instead of trying to
figure it out on it's own.

Among other things, the BIOS will typically query each stick of RAM
individually. As I previously indicated, this isn't always reliable.

Second, the BIOS can speak to the hardware a lot more directly then an
operating system written to run across varying BIOS types.

Could Windows do it in general case? Probably. Would it be right? Most
of the time. Would it tell users something useful? Not really, since
as you said, the BIOS can already tell, and it would just create more
confusion as Windows would then be telling users one amount of RAM, but
only utilizing part of that RAM.

 

[Justin]

In message <[email protected]> "Justin"


Among other things, the BIOS will typically query each stick of RAM
individually. As I previously indicated, this isn't always reliable.

Having checked installed RAM on just about every machine I've touched, I've
never had BIOS tell me incorrectly and I deal with machines with HIGH
amounts of memory as well as low.

Could Windows do it in general case? Probably. Would it be right? Most
of the time.

What BIOS manufacture would MS not have sought out?

Would it tell users something useful? Not really, since
as you said, the BIOS can already tell, and it would just create more
confusion as Windows would then be telling users one amount of RAM, but
only utilizing part of that RAM.

No, windows would be telling users they have 4GB installed yet it's only
using 2.8GB and they have 720MB free. That would be very helpful to the
user. At least then they wouldn't be boxing up their new machines to return
them because they bought the one with 4GB and not 2.8GB.

Obviously users are confused NOW. When we tell them "they have 4GB
installed yet it's only using 2.8GB and they have 720MB free" they go,
"oooohhhhhhh, that sucks", and go about their business.

 

[DevilsPGD]

In message <[email protected]> "Justin"

Having checked installed RAM on just about every machine I've touched, I've
never had BIOS tell me incorrectly and I deal with machines with HIGH
amounts of memory as well as low.

So because you've never seen it, it never happens?

Free clue: I have personally seen it. I might even still have the
machine kicking around in storage somewhere. It's rare, yes, but it
does occur.

What BIOS manufacture would MS not have sought out?

Potentially, absolutely every BIOS released after the date MS contacted
the various manufacturers.

Obviously users are confused NOW. When we tell them "they have 4GB
installed yet it's only using 2.8GB and they have 720MB free" they go,
"oooohhhhhhh, that sucks", and go about their business.

Sure -- Users already know how much RAM they have installed, their BIOS
tells them. The OS indicates the amount that it can see and access (and
at least on my system, the wording doesn't say "Installed Memory",
simply "Memory", which means that neither result is technically
incorrect)

*shrugs*

It wouldn't hurt if it was correct 100% of the time, but it would create
yet another possible piece of incorrect information in at least some
cases.

 

[Justin]

In message <[email protected]> "Justin"


So because you've never seen it, it never happens?

I didn't say that:

Free clue: I have personally seen it. I might even still have the
machine kicking around in storage somewhere. It's rare, yes, but it
does occur.

Rare being the key term. Thus the whole point it moot.

Potentially, absolutely every BIOS released after the date MS contacted
the various manufacturers.

There are standards. So how many BIOS's do you come across in which windows
can't set the time for?

Sure -- Users already know how much RAM they have installed, their BIOS
tells them.

You assume the average person knows what a BIOS is or how to get into it.
The average mainboard today does not show POST messages.

 

[Qu0ll]

I didn't say that:


Rare being the key term. Thus the whole point it moot.


There are standards. So how many BIOS's do you come across in which
windows can't set the time for?


You assume the average person knows what a BIOS is or how to get into it.
The average mainboard today does not show POST messages.

I have to agree with Justin all the way on this. Windows should declare
that there is 4GB *installed* and also the amount that is available to
programs. After all, a Vista x64 machine with 4GB installed (such as mine)
will show 4GB in Computer->Properties and yet we all know that not all 4GB
is available to programs. By DevilsPGD's reasoning x64 systems would not
show 4GB in Computer->Properties. Therefore, one of the 32-bit or 64-bit
Vista must be wrong.

--
And loving it,

-Q
______________________________________________
(e-mail address removed)
(Replace the "SixFour" with numbers to email)

 

[Justin]

I have to agree with Justin all the way on this. Windows should declare
that there is 4GB *installed* and also the amount that is available to
programs. After all, a Vista x64 machine with 4GB installed (such as
mine) will show 4GB in Computer->Properties and yet we all know that not
all 4GB is available to programs. By DevilsPGD's reasoning x64 systems
would not show 4GB in Computer->Properties. Therefore, one of the 32-bit
or 64-bit Vista must be wrong.

Very good point! A question of consistency.