XP is not reading all of my RAM

[Shypht]

I had Windows Vista 64-bit OS and it was the worst operating system I have
ever encountered. I switched back to my own Windows XP Home and all the
issues I had with my games and recording software were gone but.... Now out
of the 7 gig of RAM that I have Windows XP is only recognizing 3.5 GIG and
will not go any higher then that for some unknown reason. The RAM is reading
in CMOS so I know it is working. My question is does XP only say there is 3.5
but is still using the 7 gig, or is it not using the other 3.5 gig and is
there a fix for this? Has anyone else encountered this problem? It reads
everything else just fine...it just isn't saying I have 7 gig anymore.
Suggestions anyone?

 

[John John - MVP]

The only "fix" for this is to use a 64-bit operating system, none of the
32-bit Windows workstation clients will be able to use anymore than the
3.5GB that you are now able to use.

John

 

[Mike Hall - MVP]

I had Windows Vista 64-bit OS and it was the worst operating system I have
ever encountered. I switched back to my own Windows XP Home and all the
issues I had with my games and recording software were gone but.... Now
out
of the 7 gig of RAM that I have Windows XP is only recognizing 3.5 GIG and
will not go any higher then that for some unknown reason. The RAM is
reading
in CMOS so I know it is working. My question is does XP only say there is
3.5
but is still using the 7 gig, or is it not using the other 3.5 gig and is
there a fix for this? Has anyone else encountered this problem? It reads
everything else just fine...it just isn't saying I have 7 gig anymore.
Suggestions anyone?

64bit operating systems can see and use 4gb or more if installed..

32bit operating systems are limited to 4gb total. As the resources that are
the mainboard constitute a portion of the total, your system will use 4gb
less whatever the mainboard is. In many cases, 3.25gb is as good as it
gets..

Re your Vista 64 problems, unless the software authors make available Vista
specific versions as they did for XP, it is unfair to blame the OS..

 

[JS]

In round numbers XP can only address 4GB.
Your video card has XXXMB of ram on the card so
that limits XP to 4GB minus the cards XXXMB of memory.

In addition other hardware also takes away additional amounts of memory
(usually a small when compared to the video card)
and the remaining memory (address space) is available for
Windows XP and your applications.

So that 4th GB of ram you installed or will install goes unused.

A link to the white paper titled "Gaming Performance Analysis" by Corsair
Memory Inc. provides a good clear explanation of how a video card effects
the amount of available memory in your PC.
See: http://www.corsair.com/_appnotes/AN804_Gaming_Performance_Analysis.pdf

Intel Chipset 4 GB System Memory Support
http://www.dcomputer.com/ProInfo/support/support/mainboard/4GB_Rev1/4GB_Rev1.pdf

Vista Users with SP1 now report how much physical memory installed on your
computer:
See: Windows Vista SP1 includes reporting of Installed System Memory (RAM):
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/946003

RAM, Virtual Memory, Pagefile and all that stuff:
Basic information about the Virtual Memory implementation
in 32 bit versions of Windows 2000, XP,

 

[Shenan Stanley]

I had Windows Vista 64-bit OS and it was the worst operating system
I have ever encountered. I switched back to my own Windows XP Home
and all the issues I had with my games and recording software were
gone but.... Now out of the 7 gig of RAM that I have Windows XP is
only recognizing 3.5 GIG and will not go any higher then that for
some unknown reason. The RAM is reading in CMOS so I know it is
working. My question is does XP only say there is 3.5 but is still
using the 7 gig, or is it not using the other 3.5 gig and is there
a fix for this? Has anyone else encountered this problem? It reads
everything else just fine...it just isn't saying I have 7 gig
anymore. Suggestions anyone?

Go back to a 64-bit Windows OS. Vista 64-bit works pretty well for me.

32-bit Windows XP/Vista cannot use over 4GB (and usually won't even get past
3.5GB visible) of RAM.

Now is a great time to point you to one of the easiest ways to find
information on problems you may be having and solutions others have found:

Search using Google!
http://www.google.com/
(How-to: http://www.google.com/intl/en/help/basics.html )

 

[dennis]

it is unfair to blame the OS..

So he should blame the driver developers like Microsoft do?

 

[John John - MVP]

So he should blame the driver developers like Microsoft do?

It's the nature of all 32-bit operating systems, they can only count to
4,294,967,296 and the hardware addresses have to be inside these
intergers. The only way around it for 32-bit operating systems is to
use the PAE kludge. 32-bit Linux or Mac are no different.

John

 

[SC Tom]

So he should blame the driver developers like Microsoft do?

No, he should check the software before purchasing to insure that it is 64
bit compatible. What's somewhat unfair is you taking a part of the text out
of context.

 

[SC Tom]

In round numbers XP can only address 4GB.
Your video card has XXXMB of ram on the card so
that limits XP to 4GB minus the cards XXXMB of memory.

In addition other hardware also takes away additional amounts of memory
(usually a small when compared to the video card)
and the remaining memory (address space) is available for
Windows XP and your applications.

So that 4th GB of ram you installed or will install goes unused.

A link to the white paper titled "Gaming Performance Analysis" by Corsair
Memory Inc. provides a good clear explanation of how a video card effects
the amount of available memory in your PC.
See:
http://www.corsair.com/_appnotes/AN804_Gaming_Performance_Analysis.pdf

Good article! So much for spending the extra money for a high-RAM video card
to go with my 4GB system RAM. :-(

SC Tom

 

[JS]

Well if your hardware can run 64Bit Vista or
Windows 7 then if you can get the Video card
at a good price, go for it. Then later upgrade
to 64Bit OS and maybe even up the Ram to 6GB.

 

[SC Tom]

No, I'm doing ok with what I have. I was just thinking that if I had bought
the 1GB video card I was looking at a while back, then I could have just
gone with 3GB system RAM. Or would that not be right either? Or would I be
better off RAM-wise going with a 128MB card and 4GB system RAM? Or is there
a even a way to balance it so XP 32 would actually "see" the whole 4GB?

I'll just stick with my 512MB card and 4GB RAM that I already have.

SC Tom

 

[JS]

It will never see/utilize the whole 4GB for applications.

If there is a balance it would depend on what you use
your system for. For example:
Office apps = Almost any decent video card (64 to 128MB)
Photo editing = Good video card (128 to 256MB)
Video = Mid range performance card (256 to 512MB)
Gaming = High end card (Fast video processor, 512 to 1GB)
Extreme Gaming = Dual video cards (1, 2 or 4GB)

The above is just a ballpark reference and not an absolute.
Gaming systems also use Intel processors that are either
overclocked or Extreme processors that are not clock locked,
have the fastest drives usually in a RAID configuration and memory
designed for running above the standard FSB speed.

 

[dennis]

It's the nature of all 32-bit operating systems, they can only count to
4,294,967,296 and the hardware addresses have to be inside these
intergers. The only way around it for 32-bit operating systems is to
use the PAE kludge. 32-bit Linux or Mac are no different.

PAE is my point. By nature, both xp and vista runs in this mode by
default, but the extra addressing bits are left untouched. Microsoft
blames the driver developers for this.

 

[Mike Hall - MVP]

So he should blame the driver developers like Microsoft do?

If a software author produces a program or driver which includes a software
identifier in its code which prevents installation in anything but what is
in the code, just what is Microsoft supposed to do about it?

Software authors do this to force the user into buying new stuff. Not all
software authors do it, which is why some software runs perfectly well while
other stuff is rejected..

Third party software is NOT the responsibility of Microsoft.. So how can you
blame them?

 

[dennis]

If a software author produces a program or driver which includes a
software identifier in its code which prevents installation in anything
but what is in the code, just what is Microsoft supposed to do about it?

Software authors do this to force the user into buying new stuff. Not
all software authors do it, which is why some software runs perfectly
well while other stuff is rejected..

Third party software is NOT the responsibility of Microsoft.. So how can
you blame them?

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/888137

"To reduce driver compatibility issues..."

"the kernel memory manager ignores any physical address that is more
than 4 GB."

Hence, Microsoft is pointing at bad-designed drivers to the reason as to
why nothing above 4G is used.

 

[Mike Hall - MVP]

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/888137

"To reduce driver compatibility issues..."

"the kernel memory manager ignores any physical address that is more than
4 GB."

Hence, Microsoft is pointing at bad-designed drivers to the reason as to
why nothing above 4G is used.

What has this to do with games and recording software incompatibilities with
Vista 64?

 

[dennis]

What has this to do with games and recording software incompatibilities
with Vista 64?

Is the title not "XP is not reading all of my RAM" ?

 

[Mike Hall - MVP]

Is the title not "XP is not reading all of my RAM" ?

yes, but there were two issues covered in the original post..

 

[Patrick Keenan]

I had Windows Vista 64-bit OS and it was the worst operating system I have
ever encountered. I switched back to my own Windows XP Home and all the
issues I had with my games and recording software were gone but.... Now
out
of the 7 gig of RAM that I have Windows XP is only recognizing 3.5 GIG and
will not go any higher then that for some unknown reason.

The reason is anything *but* unknown.

No 32-bit OS can access more than about 3.5 gig of RAM - this applies to
Windows, Mac OS and Linux.

The RAM is reading
in CMOS so I know it is working. My question is does XP only say there is
3.5
but is still using the 7 gig, or is it not using the other 3.5 gig and is
there a fix for this? Has anyone else encountered this problem? It reads
everything else just fine...it just isn't saying I have 7 gig anymore.
Suggestions anyone?

If you want to use all 7 gig, you have to use a 64-bit OS.

HTH
-pk

 

[Patrick Keenan]

I had Windows Vista 64-bit OS and it was the worst operating system I have
ever encountered. I switched back to my own Windows XP Home and all the
issues I had with my games and recording software were gone but.... Now
out
of the 7 gig of RAM that I have Windows XP is only recognizing 3.5 GIG and
will not go any higher then that for some unknown reason. The RAM is
reading
in CMOS so I know it is working. My question is does XP only say there is
3.5
but is still using the 7 gig, or is it not using the other 3.5 gig and is
there a fix for this? Has anyone else encountered this problem? It reads
everything else just fine...it just isn't saying I have 7 gig anymore.
Suggestions anyone?

Incidentally, the responsibility for the issues you have with the 64-bit XP
and your chosen apps lies with you and the vendors of those apps.

It's actually kind of surprising to see which apps are not supported and
will not run properly or at all on the 64-bit versions.

ProTools, for example, top-end audio multitrack recording software, isn't
supported on any 64-bit OS.

It's up to you to choose an OS that matches the needs of your applications.
OS's should be chosen this way - you use an OS to commit work with
applications you need to run, that suit your needs; don't choose an OS first
and then see what's available.

HTH
-pk