Installed 8GB only 3.08 shows in Vista system PO

I installed 8GB of memory and Vista only shows 3.08GB in the system print
out. And the system acts like it only has 2GB. My system boot program shows
that it sees all 8GB and there is no indication there is a problem with any
of it. The motherboard will support even larger modules. Right now I have
four modules of 2GB each. What am I doing wrong?
--
Yours in Success
Mo

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/en-us


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

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

"Mo Youngs" <> wrote in message news:200BA861-ACF1-4883-9584-...
I installed 8GB of memory and Vista only shows 3.08GB in the system print
out. And the system acts like it only has 2GB. My system boot program shows
that it sees all 8GB and there is no indication there is a problem with any
of it. The motherboard will support even larger modules. Right now I have
four modules of 2GB each. What am I doing wrong?
--
Yours in Success
Mo

If you have 32bit Vista you wasted your money.

Mark

"Mo Youngs" <> wrote in message
news:200BA861-ACF1-4883-9584-...
>I installed 8GB of memory and Vista only shows 3.08GB in the system print
> out. And the system acts like it only has 2GB. My system boot program
> shows
> that it sees all 8GB and there is no indication there is a problem with
> any
> of it. The motherboard will support even larger modules. Right now I have
> four modules of 2GB each. What am I doing wrong?
> --
> Yours in Success
> Mo

Do you have a 64-bit version of Windows installed? If so, then you won't see
any more than 4 GB because that's the most you can get out of 32-bits of
data. You have to have a 64-bit OS to have more (that goes for other
non-Windows OSes as well). The system also won't report a full 4 GB because
the first thing it does is shave off the memory used by your peripherals and
other devices. Your graphics card, sound card, and other devices need to use
some of that system memory and they grab the first bit so seeing less than 4
GB on a 32-bit Windows is normal.

Hope this helps,
Mark Fitzpatrick
Microsoft MVP - Expression

"Mo Youngs" <> wrote in message
news:200BA861-ACF1-4883-9584-...
> I installed 8GB of memory and Vista only shows 3.08GB in the system print
> out. And the system acts like it only has 2GB. My system boot program
> shows
> that it sees all 8GB and there is no indication there is a problem with
> any
> of it. The motherboard will support even larger modules. Right now I have
> four modules of 2GB each. What am I doing wrong?
> --
> Yours in Success
> Mo

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 16:01:03 -0700, Mo Youngs
<> wrote:

> I installed 8GB of memory and Vista only shows 3.08GB in the system print
> out. And the system acts like it only has 2GB. My system boot program shows
> that it sees all 8GB and there is no indication there is a problem with any
> of it. The motherboard will support even larger modules. Right now I have
> four modules of 2GB each. What am I doing wrong?


I assume that yours is a 32-version of Vista, not 64-bit. About 3.1GB
is all you can expect to get.

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 not
available to the operating system and applications. The amount you can
use varies, depending on what hardware you have installed, but is
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.

So, sorry to tell you that you wasted your money buying 8GB.

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

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 18:27:04 -0500, Mark Fitzpatrick wrote:

> Do you have a 64-bit version of Windows installed? If so, then you won't
> see any more than 4 GB because that's the most you can get out of
> 32-bits of data. You have to have a 64-bit OS to have more (that goes
> for other non-Windows OSes as well). The system also won't report a full
> 4 GB because the first thing it does is shave off the memory used by
> your peripherals and other devices. Your graphics card, sound card, and
> other devices need to use some of that system memory and they grab the
> first bit so seeing less than 4 GB on a 32-bit Windows is normal.

Not quite correct. 32 bit versions of Linux can use up to 64gb RAM. I'm
informed that some of the 32 bit MS server versions can, as well.


>
> Hope this helps,
> Mark Fitzpatrick
> Microsoft MVP - Expression
>
> "Mo Youngs" <> wrote in message
> news:200BA861-ACF1-4883-9584-...
>> I installed 8GB of memory and Vista only shows 3.08GB in the system
>> print out. And the system acts like it only has 2GB. My system boot
>> program shows
>> that it sees all 8GB and there is no indication there is a problem with
>> any
>> of it. The motherboard will support even larger modules. Right now I
>> have four modules of 2GB each. What am I doing wrong? --
>> Yours in Success
>> Mo

"ray" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 18:27:04 -0500, Mark Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
>> Do you have a 64-bit version of Windows installed? If so, then you won't
>> see any more than 4 GB because that's the most you can get out of
>> 32-bits of data. You have to have a 64-bit OS to have more (that goes
>> for other non-Windows OSes as well). The system also won't report a full
>> 4 GB because the first thing it does is shave off the memory used by
>> your peripherals and other devices. Your graphics card, sound card, and
>> other devices need to use some of that system memory and they grab the
>> first bit so seeing less than 4 GB on a 32-bit Windows is normal.
>
> Not quite correct. 32 bit versions of Linux can use up to 64gb RAM. I'm
> informed that some of the 32 bit MS server versions can, as well.
>
>
Linux Is A Piece Of Crap And Nobody In Their Right Mind Needs To Use Linux
On The Desktop. Just FYI. If You Are A Retard (Like Alias And Ray) Then
You Can Use Linux Because You Can't Do Anything Else With Your Computer
Anyway. Just FYI

ray wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 18:27:04 -0500, Mark Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
>
>>Do you have a 64-bit version of Windows installed? If so, then you won't
>>see any more than 4 GB because that's the most you can get out of
>>32-bits of data. You have to have a 64-bit OS to have more (that goes
>>for other non-Windows OSes as well). The system also won't report a full
>>4 GB because the first thing it does is shave off the memory used by
>>your peripherals and other devices. Your graphics card, sound card, and
>>other devices need to use some of that system memory and they grab the
>>first bit so seeing less than 4 GB on a 32-bit Windows is normal.
>
>
> Not quite correct. 32 bit versions of Linux can use up to 64gb RAM.
For what? Surfing the web? Spell checking? Writing letters to aunt millie?
Frank

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 19:04:54 -0700, Frank <> wrote:

>> Not quite correct. 32 bit versions of Linux can use up to 64gb RAM.
>For what? Surfing the web? Spell checking? Writing letters to aunt millie?
>Frank

Running Windows in VM. ;>)

JD

John wrote:

> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 19:04:54 -0700, Frank <> wrote:
>
>
>>>Not quite correct. 32 bit versions of Linux can use up to 64gb RAM.
>>
>>For what? Surfing the web? Spell checking? Writing letters to aunt millie?
>>Frank
>
>
> Running Windows in VM. ;>)
>
> JD

Oh, you mean pretending huh? :-)
Frank