HP Pavillion a6300f Tower with . . .

Vista Home Premium SP1

Pentium Dual Core 2.0gHz

400gByte Hard drive

3Gig RAM

Question:
According to the store I bought it from, I have a 32bit version of
Vista which will read up to 3.5gibabytes of RAM if I install two 2Gig
sticks. In order to read all 4Gig(or 3.9), they told me I'd have to
install a 64bit version of Vista.

Is this information correct?

The machine is more than fast enough for my needs now, even with
chubby Norton AV 2007 running in the background, etc, but should I
throw in a second 2Gig stick just to get the few extra horsepower from
the 0.4Gig it would read?

-ChrisCoaster

Please the following:

The Vista RAM puzzle: Is 2GB enough?
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=282

The system memory that is reported in the System Information dialog
box in Windows Vista is less than you expect if 4 GB of RAM is installed
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows Desktop Experience -
Windows Vista Enthusiast

---------------------------------------------------------------

"ChrisCoaster" wrote:

Vista Home Premium SP1

Pentium Dual Core 2.0gHz

400gByte Hard drive

3Gig RAM

Question:
According to the store I bought it from, I have a 32bit version of
Vista which will read up to 3.5gibabytes of RAM if I install two 2Gig
sticks. In order to read all 4Gig(or 3.9), they told me I'd have to
install a 64bit version of Vista.

Is this information correct?

The machine is more than fast enough for my needs now, even with
chubby Norton AV 2007 running in the background, etc, but should I
throw in a second 2Gig stick just to get the few extra horsepower from
the 0.4Gig it would read?

-ChrisCoaster

Yes, the information is correct. For 0.4gb of memory I would not bother
with the upgrade. If the system has 3gb in it now, it's not going to run
much better with 4gb instead.

--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User]
* NEW! Catch my blog ... http://msmvps.com/blogs/rgharper/
* PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
* The Website - http://rgharper.mvps.org/


"ChrisCoaster" <> wrote in message
news:e4f755ec-5bfd-479f-abc0-...
> Vista Home Premium SP1
>
> Pentium Dual Core 2.0gHz
>
> 400gByte Hard drive
>
> 3Gig RAM
>
> Question:
> According to the store I bought it from, I have a 32bit version of
> Vista which will read up to 3.5gibabytes of RAM if I install two 2Gig
> sticks. In order to read all 4Gig(or 3.9), they told me I'd have to
> install a 64bit version of Vista.
>
> Is this information correct?
>
> The machine is more than fast enough for my needs now, even with
> chubby Norton AV 2007 running in the background, etc, but should I
> throw in a second 2Gig stick just to get the few extra horsepower from
> the 0.4Gig it would read?
>
> -ChrisCoaster

It depends to some extent as to what applications you are using, but you
will be unlikely to see any performance increase, and certainly no increase
if using Office or any basic type apps.
Generally only video rendering or other types of rendering take advantage of
ram.
You will probably see a better sys response by uninstalling Norton & using
something less of a hog

"ChrisCoaster" <> wrote in message
news:e4f755ec-5bfd-479f-abc0-...
> Vista Home Premium SP1
>
> Pentium Dual Core 2.0gHz
>
> 400gByte Hard drive
>
> 3Gig RAM
>
> Question:
> According to the store I bought it from, I have a 32bit version of
> Vista which will read up to 3.5gibabytes of RAM if I install two 2Gig
> sticks. In order to read all 4Gig(or 3.9), they told me I'd have to
> install a 64bit version of Vista.
>
> Is this information correct?
>
> The machine is more than fast enough for my needs now, even with
> chubby Norton AV 2007 running in the background, etc, but should I
> throw in a second 2Gig stick just to get the few extra horsepower from
> the 0.4Gig it would read?
>
> -ChrisCoaster

On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 14:39:09 -0700 (PDT), ChrisCoaster
<> wrote:


> According to the store I bought it from, I have a 32bit version of
> Vista which will read up to 3.5gibabytes of RAM if I install two 2Gig
> sticks. In order to read all 4Gig(or 3.9), they told me I'd have to
> install a 64bit version of Vista.
>
> Is this information correct?


Approximately.

All 32-bit versions of Windows (not just Vista) 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 too.



> The machine is more than fast enough for my needs now, even with
> chubby Norton AV 2007 running in the background, etc, but should I
> throw in a second 2Gig stick just to get the few extra horsepower from
> the 0.4Gig it would read?


I wouldn't. Do not assume that adding .4GB (or any amount of RAM) will
provide *any* extra horsepower. Despite how often you hear that
more RAM will increase your performance, that's true only up to a
limit, and for most people, 2GB is around that limit.

How much RAM you need for good performance is *not* a
one-size-fits-all situation. You get good performance if the amount of
RAM you have keeps you from using the page file, and that depends on
what apps you run. Most people running Vista with a typical range of
business applications find that around 2GB is fine.


--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

"ChrisCoaster" <> wrote in message
news:e4f755ec-5bfd-479f-abc0-...
> Vista Home Premium SP1
>
> Pentium Dual Core 2.0gHz
>
> 400gByte Hard drive
>
> 3Gig RAM
>
> Question:
> According to the store I bought it from, I have a 32bit version of
> Vista which will read up to 3.5gibabytes of RAM if I install two 2Gig
> sticks. In order to read all 4Gig(or 3.9), they told me I'd have to
> install a 64bit version of Vista.
>
> Is this information correct?
>
> The machine is more than fast enough for my needs now, even with
> chubby Norton AV 2007 running in the background, etc, but should I
> throw in a second 2Gig stick just to get the few extra horsepower from
> the 0.4Gig it would read?
>
> -ChrisCoaster


Consider using a 4GB ReadyBoost certified usb thumb drive instead of adding
ram in your situation. You may or may not get a perceptible increase in
responsiveness but a lot of it depends on how you use your computer. If you
only had 2GB you certainly would see a benefit. Read about how ReadyBoost
works here:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/pro...eadyboost.mspx

I use http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820220251

"ChrisCoaster" <> wrote in message
news:e4f755ec-5bfd-479f-abc0-...
> Vista Home Premium SP1
>
> Pentium Dual Core 2.0gHz
>
> 400gByte Hard drive
>
> 3Gig RAM
>
> Question:
> According to the store I bought it from, I have a 32bit version of
> Vista which will read up to 3.5gibabytes of RAM if I install two 2Gig
> sticks. In order to read all 4Gig(or 3.9), they told me I'd have to
> install a 64bit version of Vista.
>
> Is this information correct?
>
> The machine is more than fast enough for my needs now, even with
> chubby Norton AV 2007 running in the background, etc, but should I
> throw in a second 2Gig stick just to get the few extra horsepower from
> the 0.4Gig it would read?
>
> -ChrisCoaster

Hi, Chris --

Don't uninstall Norton; I'm running it too, and it's not a problem. I have
an HP with 4 GB installed (my Athlon dual core can handle 64 but is only
running at 32 at this time) so I'm not getting much more oomph than you are.
But do use a 4 gig USB thumb drive for ReadyBoost; I do photo editing and
such and it does seem to ease things. I don't know what your Windows
Experience Index is, but mine shows Processor 5.3, Memory 5.9, Desktop
Graphics 3.1, Gaming 3 (I don't do any), and Primary HD 5.6.

I also added a 500 GB Firewire drive for data backup.

Lesley

On Jul 10, 2:32*am, "LesleyO " <lesl...@DELETETHIStelusplanet.net>
wrote:
> "ChrisCoaster" <ckozi...@snet.net> wrote in message
>
> news:e4f755ec-5bfd-479f-abc0-...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Vista Home Premium SP1
>
> > Pentium Dual Core 2.0gHz
>
> > 400gByte Hard drive
>
> > 3Gig RAM
>
> > Question:
> > According to the store I bought it from, I have a 32bit version of
> > Vista which will read up to 3.5gibabytes of RAM if I install two 2Gig
> > sticks. *In order to read all 4Gig(or 3.9), they told me I'd have to
> > install a 64bit version of Vista.
>
> > Is this information correct?
>
> > The machine is more than fast enough for my needs now, even with
> > chubby Norton AV 2007 running in the background, etc, but should I
> > throw in a second 2Gig stick just to get the few extra horsepower from
> > the 0.4Gig it would read?
>
> > -ChrisCoaster
>
> Hi, Chris --
>
> Don't uninstall Norton; I'm running it too, and it's not a problem. I have
> an HP with 4 GB installed (my Athlon dual core can handle 64 but is only
> running at 32 at this time) so I'm not getting much more oomph than you are.
> But do use a 4 gig USB thumb drive for ReadyBoost; I do photo editing and
> such and it does seem to ease things. I don't know what your Windows
> Experience Index is, but mine shows Processor 5.3, Memory 5.9, Desktop
> Graphics 3.1, Gaming 3 (I don't do any), and Primary HD 5.6.
>
> I also added a 500 GB Firewire drive for data backup.
>
> Lesley- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
______________
Lesley: You and I have the SAME Windows Experience BOTTLENECK:
Gaming 3.0!!

My others: Processor > 4.9, Memory > 4.6, Graphics > 3.4, and Hard
Disk > 4.7.

Thanks for all your help here. I fully understand the concepts of
"reported RAM" VS "actual physical RAM". In the same panel showing
Windows experience, the RAM is reported as exactly 3.0.

I've never had a memory related hangup with this machine in the 4
months I've owned it, like I said even Norton 2007 doesn't harm it.
Incidentally the folks at Gateway, whom I called to order initially
before settling on this HP, told me that Norton 2007 "utilized
resources far better thany anything for XP, 98, and used considerably
less RAM".

I'd have to guess they are right, because I haven't noticed too much
strain. Of course, I was the one who increased actual RAM from 2GB to
3 when I purchased the tower. I'm always thinking about the future.

-CC