Vista and RAM

I have a Gateway desktop which came with 2 512mb ram chips. I have disabled
the onboard graphics chip and am using an nvidea based 8600GT card with
256mb on it. I replaced the 512 system ram chips with 2 2gb chips giving
myself a total of 4gb of ram.

However, even though my bios reports the 4gb of memory, Windows Vista only
reports 3.25. I have read someplace that Vista does not report memory
correctly or something to that effect. Can someone please explain?

"Jay A" <> wrote:

> However, even though my bios reports the 4gb of memory, Windows Vista only
> reports 3.25. I have read someplace that Vista does not report memory
> correctly or something to that effect. Can someone please explain?

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605

Charlie42

If you are running a 32 bit version of Windows Vista, you will see
limitations in how much RAM it recognizes which is usually around 3.1 to 3.2
GBs. If you want it all to be recognized, I recommend you move to Windows
Vista x64.
--
Andre
Blog: http://adacosta.spaces.live.com
My Vista Quickstart Guide:
http://adacosta.spaces.live.com/blog...3DB!9709.entry
"Jay A" <> wrote in message
news:VX6lj.2042$pC5.48@trnddc05...
>I have a Gateway desktop which came with 2 512mb ram chips. I have
>disabled the onboard graphics chip and am using an nvidea based 8600GT card
>with 256mb on it. I replaced the 512 system ram chips with 2 2gb chips
>giving myself a total of 4gb of ram.
>
> However, even though my bios reports the 4gb of memory, Windows Vista only
> reports 3.25. I have read someplace that Vista does not report memory
> correctly or something to that effect. Can someone please explain?

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 20:07:17 GMT, "Jay A" <> wrote:


> However, even though my bios reports the 4gb of memory, Windows Vista only
> reports 3.25. I have read someplace that Vista does not report memory
> correctly or something to that effect. Can someone please explain?


No, that's not the reason. Here's my standard message on this subject,
which I've posted in these newsgroups many times:

"All 32-bit versions of Windows (Vista as well as XP), even though
they have a 4GB address space, 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.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

OK, well I guess it's still an advantage over installing just 2gb.

So matter how much ram I install, it will only address up to about 3.2gb?
Even if I replace this with 8gb of ram?

>That's because some of that space is used by hardware and not <
> available to the operating system and applications. <

Well, if some of it is used for hardware, then why is it that with only 1gb
of ram installed, windows reports just about 1gb? Or with 2gb installed, it
reports just about 2gb? This almost seems to imply that if more ram is
installed, Vista will use a greater percentage of it for hardware. Is this
so?

Jay A wrote:
> OK, well I guess it's still an advantage over installing just 2gb.
>
> So matter how much ram I install, it will only address up to about
> 3.2gb? Even if I replace this with 8gb of ram?

Yes. Microsoft has capped how much memory they support in their desktop
editions

"jorgen" <na@invalid> wrote in message
news:...
> Jay A wrote:
>> OK, well I guess it's still an advantage over installing just 2gb.
>>
>> So matter how much ram I install, it will only address up to about 3.2gb?
>> Even if I replace this with 8gb of ram?
>
> Yes. Microsoft has capped how much memory they support in their desktop
> editions


The 4 gig limitation applies *only* to 32 bit Windows versions. The 64 bit
versions of Win XP and Vista will use 4, 8, ...
gig of memory.

PvdG42 wrote:

> The 4 gig limitation applies *only* to 32 bit Windows versions. The 64
> bit versions of Win XP and Vista will use 4, 8, ...
> gig of memory.

Of course. But even some of the 64-bit editions are capped lower than others

I'm OK with the 3.2gb. I just wanted to know if what I was seeing is normal.

I can't see going to 64 bit Vista. Not many applications for one, plus I
can't see having to worry about hardware and drivers and all just to be able
to take advantage of more memory.


"jorgen" <na@invalid> wrote in message
news:%...
> PvdG42 wrote:
>
>> The 4 gig limitation applies *only* to 32 bit Windows versions. The 64
>> bit versions of Win XP and Vista will use 4, 8, ...
>> gig of memory.
>
> Of course. But even some of the 64-bit editions are capped lower than
> others

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 02:30:11 GMT, in
microsoft.public.windows.vista.general "Jay A" <>
wrote:

> OK, well I guess it's still an advantage over installing just 2gb.


Maybe, maybe not.

Despite the number of people who continually repeat "more RAM is
better," that's true only up to a point. And that point depends on
what apps you run. If you have enough RAM so that the page file is
seldom if ever used, more RAM does nothing for you.

For most people running a range of common business applications under
Vista, 2GB is enough to keep them from using the page file, and any
more is wasted. Only those who run particularly
memory-hungry applications (typically photo- or video-editing) need
more.


> So matter how much ram I install, it will only address up to about 3.2gb?
> Even if I replace this with 8gb of ram?


Correct.


> >That's because some of that space is used by hardware and not <
> > available to the operating system and applications. <
>
> Well, if some of it is used for hardware, then why is it that with only 1gb
> of ram installed, windows reports just about 1gb? Or with 2gb installed, it
> reports just about 2gb? This almost seems to imply that if more ram is
> installed, Vista will use a greater percentage of it for hardware. Is this
> so?



No. Reread the following paragraph, which you snipped from your quote:

"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."

Assuming that your hardware needs .8GB of address space and you have
2GB of RAM installed. 2 + .8 totals 3.8GB, and that all fits into the
4GB address space without a problem. But 4GB of RAM + .8GB for the
hardware totals 4.8GB, and that does *not* fit into the 4GB address
space.


--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup