Despite my machine having maximum of 4 gig memory slots, have I wasted my money?

I have just bought 2 gig memory to add to my Vista Premium (32 bit) machine
which already has 2 gig = 4 gig total

Just read an article which states:

Any 32-bit version of Vista editions has approximately 3.3 GBs Maximum
addressable memory

Despite my machine having maximum of 4 gig memory slots, have I wasted my
money?

"JethroUK©" <> wrote in message
news:%...
>I have just bought 2 gig memory to add to my Vista Premium (32 bit) machine
>which already has 2 gig = 4 gig total
>
> Just read an article which states:
>
> Any 32-bit version of Vista editions has approximately 3.3 GBs Maximum
> addressable memory
>
> Despite my machine having maximum of 4 gig memory slots, have I wasted my
> money?
>
>
>
>
>
>


Not really.. you get the benefit of RAM over 3gb, and the slight speed
advantage of having paired memory modules..


--
Mike Hall - MVP
How to construct a good post..
http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm
How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..
http://support.microsoft.com/default...help&style=toc
Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx

"JethroUK©" <> wrote in message
news:%...

>I have just bought 2 gig memory to add to my Vista Premium (32 bit) machine
>which already has 2 gig = 4 gig total
>
> Just read an article which states:
>
> Any 32-bit version of Vista editions has approximately 3.3 GBs Maximum
> addressable memory
>
> Despite my machine having maximum of 4 gig memory slots, have I wasted my
> money?



Maybe, maybe not. It depends. Look at the following three points:

1. How much RAM you can make effective use of depends on what apps you run.
2GB may have been enough for you, or having more may give you a performance
improvement. The answer is different for different people.

2. All 32-bit client versions of Windows (not just Vista/XP) have a 4GB
address space. That's the theoretical upper limit beyond which you can not
go.

But you can't use the entire 4GB of address space. Even though you have a
4GB address space, you can only use *around* 3.1GB of RAM. That's because
some of that space is used by hardware and is not available to the operating
system and applications. The amount you can use varies, depending on what
hardware you have installed, but can range from as little as 2GB to as much
as 3.5GB. It's usually around 3.1GB.

Note that the hardware is using the address *space*, not the actual RAM
itself. The rest of the RAM goes unused because there is no address space to
map it to.

3. In all probability you now have more usable RAM than you had before, even
though the usable amount is less than 4GB. So that new larger amount *may*
improve your performance.

"Ken Blake" <> wrote in message
news:#...


>
> 3. In all probability you now have more usable RAM than you had before,
> even though the usable amount is less than 4GB. So that new larger amount
> *may* improve your performance.
>
>

Well my "Windows Experience Index" has leapt from 4.2 to a staggering......



....4.2 ( - that's almost confirmed it was a 'total' waste of money and if
there is no noticeable improvement (reason i bought it) I'll sell it on

"JethroUK©" <> wrote in message
news:%...
>
>
> "Ken Blake" <> wrote in message
> news:#...
>
>
>>
>> 3. In all probability you now have more usable RAM than you had before,
>> even though the usable amount is less than 4GB. So that new larger amount
>> *may* improve your performance.
>>
>>
>
> Well my "Windows Experience Index" has leapt from 4.2 to a
> staggering......
>
>
>
> ...4.2 ( - that's almost confirmed it was a 'total' waste of money and
> if there is no noticeable improvement (reason i bought it) I'll sell it on


It confirms nothing.. some of your stuff will benefit from the extra memory
and some may not..


--
Mike Hall - MVP
How to construct a good post..
http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm
How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..
http://support.microsoft.com/default...help&style=toc
Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx

JethroUK© <> wrote:

>Well my "Windows Experience Index" has leapt from 4.2 to a staggering......
>
>
>
>...4.2 ( - that's almost confirmed it was a 'total' waste of money and if
>there is no noticeable improvement (reason i bought it) I'll sell it on

Pay no attention to that benchmark. More memory is ALWAYS good if
your system can see/use it.

>> 3. In all probability you now have more usable RAM than you had before,
>> even though the usable amount is less than 4GB. So that new larger amount
>> *may* improve your performance.

>Well my "Windows Experience Index" has leapt from 4.2 to a staggering......

>...4.2 ( - that's almost confirmed it was a 'total' waste of money and if
>there is no noticeable improvement (reason i bought it) I'll sell it on

That 4.2 represents your lowest score of the tests. Your memory score
certainly changed. Mine certainly did when I installed 4GB. It also
increased the amount of shared video RAM.

I have a car with mud tires. This limits the speed (rating) of my car to 100
m.p.h. because the car is unstable above that. If I put in a bigger engine
or a higher ratio rear end, my mud tires still limit my speed rating to 100.

--
Please use the Communities guidelines when posting.
http://www.microsoft.com/wn3/locales...help_en-us.htm
Use the "Ratings" feature. It helps the new users.
Mark L. Ferguson MS-MVP
https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Mark.Ferguson

"JethroUK©" <> wrote in message
news:#...
>
>
> "Ken Blake" <> wrote in message
> news:#...
>
>
>>
>> 3. In all probability you now have more usable RAM than you had before,
>> even though the usable amount is less than 4GB. So that new larger amount
>> *may* improve your performance.
>>
>>
>
> Well my "Windows Experience Index" has leapt from 4.2 to a
> staggering......
>
>
>
> ...4.2 ( - that's almost confirmed it was a 'total' waste of money and
> if there is no noticeable improvement (reason i bought it) I'll sell it on

"Mark L. Ferguson" <> wrote in
message news:F4345DF5-F558-42C4-BD17-...
> I have a car with mud tires. This limits the speed (rating) of my car to
> 100 m.p.h. because the car is unstable above that. If I put in a bigger
> engine or a higher ratio rear end, my mud tires still limit my speed
> rating to 100.
>

So, you wasted your money buying a bigger engine - and i wasted my money on
extra memory

Thanks for the excellent analogy which answered my question & confirmed my
suspicions