not telling the 3GB vs 4GB limitation

hm... i just got a Dell with 4GB of memory, and just found that it is
known that only about 3.1 to 3.5GB can be used...

(after upgrading to Vista SP1, it reports 4GB but only 3.3GB can be
used as reported in Task Manager)

So I went to Dell's website to configure a new computer and saw no
warning or no "Help me Choose"...

Wouldn't it be better if Dell could have told us, coz the money ($50
per GB) can be spent else where, such as

1. getting 800MHz 3GB rather than 667MHz 4GB....
2. getting a more powerful video card
3. getting a hard drive with higher RPM for the primary drive (for
swap file).

actually, even if I had known only 3.3GB can be used, I still would
have paid that extra $50. Just that if I had known, then there is at
least a choice I can make, or know I am making that choice.

"liketofindoutwhy" <> wrote in message
news:3e8c5985-e83c-4832-be4a-...
> hm... i just got a Dell with 4GB of memory, and just found that it is
> known that only about 3.1 to 3.5GB can be used...
>
> (after upgrading to Vista SP1, it reports 4GB but only 3.3GB can be
> used as reported in Task Manager)

3 is all you can use with 32 bit OS


>
> So I went to Dell's website to configure a new computer and saw no
> warning or no "Help me Choose"...
>
> Wouldn't it be better if Dell could have told us, coz the money ($50
> per GB) can be spent else where, such as
>
> 1. getting 800MHz 3GB rather than 667MHz 4GB....
> 2. getting a more powerful video card
> 3. getting a hard drive with higher RPM for the primary drive (for
> swap file).
>
> actually, even if I had known only 3.3GB can be used, I still would
> have paid that extra $50. Just that if I had known, then there is at
> least a choice I can make, or know I am making that choice.
>
>
>

"Little Billy" <> wrote

> "liketofindoutwhy" <> wrote
>> hm... i just got a Dell with 4GB of memory, and just found that it is
>> known that only about 3.1 to 3.5GB can be used...
>>
>> (after upgrading to Vista SP1, it reports 4GB but only 3.3GB can be
>> used as reported in Task Manager)
>
> 3 is all you can use with 32 bit OS

Not true.

--
Rock [MS-MVP]

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 17:50:04 -0700 (PDT), liketofindoutwhy
<> wrote:

>hm... i just got a Dell with 4GB of memory, and just found that it is
>known that only about 3.1 to 3.5GB can be used...
>
>(after upgrading to Vista SP1, it reports 4GB but only 3.3GB can be
>used as reported in Task Manager)
>
>So I went to Dell's website to configure a new computer and saw no
>warning or no "Help me Choose"...
>
>Wouldn't it be better if Dell could have told us, coz the money ($50
>per GB) can be spent else where, such as
>
>1. getting 800MHz 3GB rather than 667MHz 4GB....
>2. getting a more powerful video card
>3. getting a hard drive with higher RPM for the primary drive (for
>swap file).
>
>actually, even if I had known only 3.3GB can be used, I still would
>have paid that extra $50. Just that if I had known, then there is at
>least a choice I can make, or know I am making that choice.
>
>

It's called "profit" but I agree with you. FWIW, should you switch to
64bit Windows it will read the full 4 gb ram.

i've had the same problem on my optiplexes.
also on an xps 720, also an optiplex 755 running xp64.
it has to do with the chipset and the video card installed, etc.
a little disappointing.

i heard that some people got a credit back from dell when complaining to
them about it.
since i'm using XP, i'm not using anywhere near even 3 gb so it's not
critical.


liketofindoutwhy wrote:
> hm... i just got a Dell with 4GB of memory, and just found that it is
> known that only about 3.1 to 3.5GB can be used...
>
> (after upgrading to Vista SP1, it reports 4GB but only 3.3GB can be
> used as reported in Task Manager)
>
> So I went to Dell's website to configure a new computer and saw no
> warning or no "Help me Choose"...
>
> Wouldn't it be better if Dell could have told us, coz the money ($50
> per GB) can be spent else where, such as
>
> 1. getting 800MHz 3GB rather than 667MHz 4GB....
> 2. getting a more powerful video card
> 3. getting a hard drive with higher RPM for the primary drive (for
> swap file).
>
> actually, even if I had known only 3.3GB can be used, I still would
> have paid that extra $50. Just that if I had known, then there is at
> least a choice I can make, or know I am making that choice.
>
>
>

On Apr 13, 6:23 pm, RnR <rnrte...@gmail.com> wrote:

> It's called "profit" but I agree with you. FWIW, should you switch to
> 64bit Windows it will read the full 4 gb ram.

Will 64-bit Windows have any compatibility issue with 32-bit apps?
That will mean more money for MS... haha. Thanks for your hint.

On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 01:00:47 GMT, "Little Billy" <> wrote:

>
>"liketofindoutwhy" <> wrote in message
>news:3e8c5985-e83c-4832-be4a-...
>> hm... i just got a Dell with 4GB of memory, and just found that it is
>> known that only about 3.1 to 3.5GB can be used...
>>
>> (after upgrading to Vista SP1, it reports 4GB but only 3.3GB can be
>> used as reported in Task Manager)
>
>3 is all you can use with 32 bit OS
>
>
>

Actually I think it's more like 3.5 (gross) but some is kept for
overhead so it becomes more like 3.3 (net) or so. I'm pretty sure
it's greater than 3 but not by much so I doubt it's worth arguing
about <g>.

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 18:26:19 -0700 (PDT), liketofindoutwhy
<> wrote:

>On Apr 13, 6:23 pm, RnR <rnrte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It's called "profit" but I agree with you. FWIW, should you switch to
>> 64bit Windows it will read the full 4 gb ram.
>
>Will 64-bit Windows have any compatibility issue with 32-bit apps?
>That will mean more money for MS... haha. Thanks for your hint.

I have no experience with 64bit but from what I read, it's the drivers
that are different. I have seen a lot of software with 2 versions,
one written for 32bit and the other for 64bit. I am not 100% sure but
there may be some software that will run on both but this needs to be
checked out from other sources.

"liketofindoutwhy" <> wrote in message
news:ae1bb5f6-2341-4333-8aae-...
> On Apr 13, 6:23 pm, RnR <rnrte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It's called "profit" but I agree with you. FWIW, should you switch to
>> 64bit Windows it will read the full 4 gb ram.
>
> Will 64-bit Windows have any compatibility issue with 32-bit apps?
> That will mean more money for MS... haha. Thanks for your hint.

Existing 32 bit apps run fine on Vista 64. I have not found anything that
does not work.

Drivers are another issue. However, if there are signed 32 bit Vista
drivers for your hardware then there should be 64 bit drivers also.
Everything I have has a 64 bit driver, including old HP printers.

"Jay B" <> wrote in message
news:4802b21d$0$25044$...
> i've had the same problem on my optiplexes.
> also on an xps 720, also an optiplex 755 running xp64.
> it has to do with the chipset and the video card installed, etc.
> a little disappointing.
>
> i heard that some people got a credit back from dell when complaining to
> them about it.
> since i'm using XP, i'm not using anywhere near even 3 gb so it's not
> critical.
>
>
> liketofindoutwhy wrote:
>> hm... i just got a Dell with 4GB of memory, and just found that it is
>> known that only about 3.1 to 3.5GB can be used...
>>
>> (after upgrading to Vista SP1, it reports 4GB but only 3.3GB can be
>> used as reported in Task Manager)
>>
>> So I went to Dell's website to configure a new computer and saw no
>> warning or no "Help me Choose"...
>>
>> Wouldn't it be better if Dell could have told us, coz the money ($50
>> per GB) can be spent else where, such as
>>
>> 1. getting 800MHz 3GB rather than 667MHz 4GB....

Yes. Or a faster processor.



>> 2. getting a more powerful video card
>> 3. getting a hard drive with higher RPM for the primary drive (for
>> swap file).

Yes, that would have been better. Besides there's no point in getting more
than 2G. So why are manufacturers selling 4G when then know they're selling
a 32 bit Vista with the machine? Many people don't know computers and think
they'll be getting a faster machine. And btw, that additional 2G RAM can be
expensive on a laptop. On a Sony laptop it may be $300 more, I just looked.
Even on sale it's $150 while upgrade to 3G is free.

>>
>> actually, even if I had known only 3.3GB can be used, I still would
>> have paid that extra $50. Just that if I had known, then there is at
>> least a choice I can make, or know I am making that choice.
>>
>>