Why does 4GB RAM only show as 3GB?

[Qu0ll]

I know that when using 32-bit Vista you can't expect to see all 4GB of
installed RAM but I was under the impression that you should see between 3.1
and 3.5GB. My new Dell Precision laptop has 4GB RAM but only shows exactly
3GB. The BIOS reports 4GB.

Is this unusual or indicative of a problem?

--
And loving it,

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

 

[Alias]

I know that when using 32-bit Vista you can't expect to see all 4GB of
installed RAM but I was under the impression that you should see between
3.1 and 3.5GB. My new Dell Precision laptop has 4GB RAM but only shows
exactly 3GB. The BIOS reports 4GB.

Is this unusual or indicative of a problem?

When you install SP1, you will see 4GB.

Alias

 

[Qu0ll]

It's normal. Different MBs support different amounts. Some see as much
as 3.5 GB, some as little as 3GB, like yours. If the laptop supports 64
bit and you need more than 3 GB, you need to install 64 bit Vista.

What about Alias's comment that it would see 4GB under SP1? Is that
correct?

--
And loving it,

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

 

[John Barnes]

It depends on what is installed on the computer. Video cards with larger
amounts of memory will have smaller shown memory. After SP1 you should see
all of it even though nothing has changed.

 

[Steve Thackery]

What about Alias's comment that it would see 4GB under SP1? Is that

correct?

Yes. It's a change Microsoft made, presumably due to so many customers
thinking there was a problem. It *reports* 4G, but of course nothing has
changed under the hood - it still uses a little over 3G.

SteveT

 

[Qu0ll]

It depends on what is installed on the computer. Video cards with larger
amounts of memory will have smaller shown memory. After SP1 you should
see all of it even though nothing has changed.

The video card has 512MB of memory so perhaps that is a factor then. Nice
to know though that all 4GB RAM will be accessible under SP1. Thanks for
the confirmation.

--
And loving it,

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

 

[Qu0ll]

Yes. It's a change Microsoft made, presumably due to so many customers
thinking there was a problem. It *reports* 4G, but of course nothing has
changed under the hood - it still uses a little over 3G.

Ah, well ignore my comment in the other post then about it all being
"accessible".

--
And loving it,

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

 

[Tom Lake]

The video card has 512MB of memory so perhaps that is a factor then. Nice to know
though that all 4GB RAM will be accessible under SP1. Thanks for the confirmation.

No, it WON'T be accessible. It will be reported in the System Properties as 4 GB
but it still won't be used by the OS.

Tom Lake

 

[Qu0ll]

No, it WON'T be accessible. It will be reported in the System Properties
as 4 GB
but it still won't be used by the OS.

Yes, hence my other post.

Actually, I notice that my Server 2003 machine is 32-bit with 4GB and seems
to see and use all 4GB. So it's not just a 32-bit thing - it must be
related to the nature of the OS itself. Most of the explanations I've seen
for the low reporting are based on the "it's a 32-bit OS" argument.

--
And loving it,

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

 

[Tim Slattery]

The video card has 512MB of memory so perhaps that is a factor then.

It's a BIG factor. See http://members.cox.net/slatteryt/RAM.html

Nice to know though that all 4GB RAM will be accessible under SP1.

No! SP1 will tell you that there's 4GB installed, but it won't use any
more of it than pre-SP1 systems did. The change is cosmetic only.

 

[ray]

I know that when using 32-bit Vista you can't expect to see all 4GB of
installed RAM but I was under the impression that you should see between
3.1 and 3.5GB. My new Dell Precision laptop has 4GB RAM but only shows
exactly 3GB. The BIOS reports 4GB.

Is this unusual or indicative of a problem?

Asked and answered several times per week. Suggest you peruse the group.

 

[Bill Yanaire]

Asked and answered several times per week. Suggest you peruse the group.

I'm surprised you didn't give the OP your Ubuntu talk. What's wrong? You
finally figured out that Ubuntu is a Pile of Junk?

 

[Alias]

I'm surprised you didn't give the OP your Ubuntu talk. What's wrong? You
finally figured out that Ubuntu is a Pile of Junk?

How come you didn't provide your expert opinion on the OP's problem
instead of bringing up Ubuntu?

Alias

 

[ray]

I'm surprised you didn't give the OP your Ubuntu talk. What's wrong?
You finally figured out that Ubuntu is a Pile of Junk?

Nothing wrong. Why would I give a 'Ubuntu talk' if he didn't ask about
Ubuntu? I still use primarily Ubuntu, Gentoo, Elive and Debian - because
they work.

 

[Frank]

How come you didn't provide your expert opinion on the OP's problem
instead of bringing up Ubuntu?

Alias

Why is a lying linux loser like you in this ng, huh?
Frank

 

[Tim Slattery]

Actually, I notice that my Server 2003 machine is 32-bit with 4GB and seems
to see and use all 4GB. So it's not just a 32-bit thing - it must be
related to the nature of the OS itself. Most of the explanations I've seen
for the low reporting are based on the "it's a 32-bit OS" argument.

Hmm...I wonder. This page
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsserver/bb404900.aspx says
Server 2003 32 bit supports 4GB, and that claim is made for 32-bit XP
and Vista systems also. This one
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsserver/bb429524.aspx says
that 32-bit Server 2003 R2 Enterprise Edition supports up to 64GB,
which
means it would have to support PAE.

I don't know a lot about the server systems, but I suspect that if
you're not running the R2 Enterprise edition, it may be showing 4GB
but it's not using it anymore than Vista - with or without SP1 -
does.

And you're right that it's a 32-bit hardware thing. A 32-bit address
space translates to 4GB. That has to be used to access BIOS, Video
RAM and a few other things. What's left over after those needs are
satisfied is used for system RAM.

 

[Martin Burke]

Nothing wrong. Why would I give a 'Ubuntu talk' if he didn't ask about
Ubuntu? I still use primarily Ubuntu, Gentoo, Elive and Debian - because
they work.

Ubuntu is getting better by the time 8.10 is out (few weeks) it should all
be fine, they even have a utility to run/install it on a Doze box with out
installing it !! All you have to do is click an icon on your xp/vista
desktop and Ubuntu is there.

The only thing wrong with Vista is its not compatable with older hardware,
annoying when you have to keep answering YES just to install / run
software. Very slow on anything with less than 4gig and only just about
works on 4gig, the "kernel" is based on 2003 so in theory should be stable,
its just the code on top thats flaky and makes it such a poor advert for
M$.

 

[Frank]

ray wrote:




Ubuntu is getting better by the time 8.10 is out (few weeks) it should all
be fine, they even have a utility to run/install it on a Doze box with out
installing it !! All you have to do is click an icon on your xp/vista
desktop and Ubuntu is there.

The only thing wrong with Vista is its not compatable with older hardware,
annoying when you have to keep answering YES just to install / run
software. Very slow on anything with less than 4gig and only just about
works on 4gig, the "kernel" is based on 2003 so in theory should be stable,
its just the code on top thats flaky and makes it such a poor advert for
M$.

Got any more mis-information about Vista you lying linux troll!
Frank

 

[ray]

Ubuntu is getting better by the time 8.10 is out (few weeks) it should
all be fine, they even have a utility to run/install it on a Doze box
with out installing it !! All you have to do is click an icon on your
xp/vista desktop and Ubuntu is there.

The only thing wrong with Vista is its not compatable with older
hardware, annoying when you have to keep answering YES just to install /
run software. Very slow on anything with less than 4gig and only just
about works on 4gig, the "kernel" is based on 2003 so in theory should
be stable, its just the code on top thats flaky and makes it such a poor
advert for M$.

Yes - Just received notice last week that a nearby hospital is 'upgrading'
to vista. So they will be donating ten slightly used xp machines to the
local library where I volunteer. Among other things, we have four old
compaq 800mhz P3 machines (running Ubuntu) which will be replaced - and
set up with Ubuntu. They are a portion of our eleven public access
internet computers.

 

[ray]

Geez, ANOTHER version of Ubuntu? The upgrade treadmill continues!

Yes. They release one every six months - Linux is evolving. However, there
is not need to upgrade that often if you don't want to. 6.06 was a LTS
(Long Term Support) edition, and 8.04 (not 8.10 as referenced above) will
be also. Note also, that LTS on the server edition continues for a few
more years.

It installs on TV sets? That's the only "doze box" I have, since I
usually fall asleep while watching it.

I manage, usually, to stay awake until Letterman's second commercial break!

So you can install it without installing it? Um, OK.

You can install it on your MS installation, without having to install it
to disk in it's own partition. Of course, there is also the Live CD which
permits running it without install.

It's not? Wow, you better tell that to my 4 year old ThinkPad T41
laptop and my 10 year old HP LaserJet 4 printer!

Evidently our local hospital thinks it doesn't. They plan to donate ten xp
machines to the local library as they 'upgrade' to vista.

No it's not. Do you install software everyday?

Fairly frequently, actually.

No it's not. I have it on a 2 GB P4 machine and it flies, plus the
above T41 laptop with 1 GB RAM. Runs fine.

Hmmmmm. And Gentoo runs quite nicely on my 1ghz VIA mini-itx. Actually,
Ubuntu is not doing too bad on the 800mhz P3's at the library, either.