Comments on: 4GB Memory Problems

By: attributes infosys

attributes infosys — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 18:37:03 +0000

we have a problem related in vista ….when we installed 4 gb ram with the help of vista….it shows only 3 gb in windows ….but we can see 4 gb in bios….but we cant see in windows this same configuration why it shows like this …becoz i couldnt identyfy this problem properly…..so help me as early as possible. i mentioned below all the details about hard ware which are we used this problem related machine

intel p4 core 2 quad 3ghz with 1333fsb and 12 mb l2 cache
mother board intel orginal dg 33fb with 1333 fsb
graphics card MSI nvidia n9400gt
nvidia geforce 1 gb DDR 2

By: Ismail Jennai

Ismail Jennai — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 23:32:34 +0000

im new to vista, i have vista basic 32-bit. and i have 4 gig of mem but they system only reads 2, do i have to get a diffrent version of vista to get all 4 gig, and is 8 gig possible

By: Ismail Jennai

Ismail Jennai — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 23:32:34 +0000

im new to vista, i have vista basic 32-bit. and i have 4 gig of mem but they system only reads 2, do i have to get a diffrent version of vista to get all 4 gig, and is 8 gig possible

By: jew

jew — Wed, 21 May 2008 03:30:01 +0000

jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews

By: Bill

Bill — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 06:55:46 +0000

Despite the Windows address space limitations, would it still make sense to use 4GB Ram on Windows XP Pro if one plans to create a Ram Disk? Can such a “vrtual” drive somehow take advantage of the “missing” space invisible to the operating system itself?

By: Hans

Hans — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 13:00:15 +0000

OK so XP shows 2GB, the BIOS shows 4GB and Windows 2003 shows 4GB so I know the problem is XP and 2003 Enterprise 32Bit with PAE shows 4GB so why doesn’t the XP /PAE work ???? Same drivers same hardware WFT?

By: tom

tom — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 20:28:36 +0000

if you have vista 64 bit and install the service pack vista sp1 rc v.668 the computer will see 4GB!

By: Merrick

Merrick — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:44:19 +0000

Just a small addition. When Vista starts indexing my hard drive normaly goes a bit mental for about 10 mins after i boot up. Thats with 2GB

System still shows only 37% RAM usage but its doing all this funky stuff.

After i fitted another 2GB (now at 4GB) the system says 3GB actualy memory. The RAM use drops to 27% but the funny thing is theres less than half the normal activeity coming from the hard drive after Vista loads so I’m guessing, and this is pure guess, that what ever process are done as you log into vista, such as indexing, may be handled by the pagefile and as theres this whole 640MB of unaddressed memory sitting there not being uses its using that instead of the PF.

Is that possible? of have my mice jsut stopped making as much noise after I log in?

By: Merrick

Merrick — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:36:39 +0000

I’ve read through the coments and tried to make sence of it in my head but couldnt so heres my current situation and my ramblings :)

I have a 8800GTS 640MB RAM and 4x 1GB chips. So going by the things above vista should show reduced memory, less than 4GB (or by going by Dell even less?? whats that all about).

Vista shows me as having 3326 MB which makes sence to me, 4gb -640MB. However, when i run Cruicals memory checking tool (very handy tool Crucial :) ) it tells me the new chips are only running at half speed, 512 per chip.

Now the BIOS says i have 4GB so I’m gussing Cruisal’s tool cant recognise unused memory?

Someone mentioned that although the memory apears to be missing Vista will actualy use it instead of the pagefile, did i understand that right?

So all in all, it may aprear to be missing but when the hard apps realy kick in (3x EVE Online clients at max settings running at one time for example) it will still help performance?

By: Dauterive

Dauterive — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 22:05:57 +0000

Jub! I can’t agree more with your comments. Frankly the technical stuff above is pointless. It really is that simple, more ram means more performance if needed. Excluding games and video conversion 2gb is fine in xp. Vista needs all the help it can get. How do I know? I run a pc shop and my team builds over 30 custom spec pc’s a week for all sorts of tasks. As for graphics card and page files, if you have 1gb of ram and a 768mb 8800 does vista not boot? I think not.

By: jub

jub — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 01:57:12 +0000

Just been reading up here because ive just tried 4gb of ram in my xp pro 32bit system.It has 2gb normally but i borrowed my brother in laws 2gb of memory which is the same brand to try out before i bought some more.
Multiple apps ran smoother and some intensive games ran without stutter when there usually is stuttering.Quiting to desktop was very quick,instant even and overall things were just smoother.
Ok why not just get 3 gigs? well 4 gigs makes the pc run in dual channel mode which anyone knows is quite a bit faster (on my core 2 duo rig anyway) and the extra 2 gigs of ddr2 is cheap as hell atm ,£43 to be precise.Thats less than i spend on a night out and more than worth the extra performance for me.

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 14:19:53 +0000

I just listened to this after buying a new Dell with 4Gigs of RAM and Vista Business. The system only reports 4. Don’t you think Dell has a responsibility to let you know that the extra RAM is useless instead of implying that it will improve performance on the website when you by it. Here’s what they claim:

You did receive 4G of system memory. Vista reserves 1G of system memory to run it’s own services and to complete the required 512 of video memory it needs to function properly. The 3G you see under system information is what is available for other uses.

Since you received everything ordered and the system is functioning within parameters, a refund will not be an option.

I will be archiving this escalation at this time. However, if you do contact us again with additional information with respect to this issue, we will be more than happy to reopen the case for review. Please let me know if you have any further questions with respect to this issue.

I will be handling this case until we arrive at a solution to the issue. If you would reply to this email without changing the subject line, I will receive it.

By: Dude79

Dude79 — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 23:49:15 +0000

You said dont use more than 2GB. In 32bit.
Is VISTA not faster with more than2GB?
3GB or even 3.50GB is faster than 2GB are you saying Im wrong and your right? Ok Chris are you going to tell HP on the phone not to install more than 2GB?
What about apple with the 3GB upgrade are you saying they are wrong also?
Think about it.
We are in a 32bit 3GB era.

By: Chris Pirillo

Chris Pirillo — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 20:14:30 +0000

I didn’t bomb anythying, Dude79 – you need to understand what you’re doing before you open yourself up to problems: http://chris.pirillo.com/2007/08/30/32-bit-windows-and-4gb-of-ram/

By: Dude79

Dude79 — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 11:05:33 +0000

Well Chris you bombed yourself in one of your uneducated rants about 2GB’s Quote: Chris dont install more then 2GB windows cant use more! Well lets see here my Windows XP 32 bit version. No PAE /3GB tricks it will dispaly and use 3.5GB when 4GB is installed. Lets say I have a current task that is indeed using 1.9GB ok and I need 500MB for windows do the math = 2.4GB. Now do you see how it comes in handy? Thats right Im not hitting the page file. 2GB per application and 1.5GB free for background task windows,antivirus,ect. How can you honestly tell people not to use more then 2GB? Everyone knows windows vista 32bit flys when you have 3 or 4GB installed. HP now sells 3GB 32bit computers and there is a reason for it! How will Chris answer? Thanks.