Why does 4GB RAM only show as 3GB?

Discussion in 'Windows Vista General Discussion' started by Qu0ll, Apr 3, 2008.

  1. Qu0ll

    Qu0ll Guest

    I know that when using 32-bit Vista you can't expect to see all 4GB of
    installed RAM but I was under the impression that you should see between 3.1
    and 3.5GB. My new Dell Precision laptop has 4GB RAM but only shows exactly
    3GB. The BIOS reports 4GB.

    Is this unusual or indicative of a problem?

    --
    And loving it,

    -Q
    _________________________________________________

    (Replace the "SixFour" with numbers to email me)
     
    Qu0ll, Apr 3, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Qu0ll

    Alias Guest

    When you install SP1, you will see 4GB.

    Alias
     
    Alias, Apr 3, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Qu0ll

    Bob Campbell Guest

    It's normal. Different MBs support different amounts. Some see as much
    as 3.5 GB, some as little as 3GB, like yours. If the laptop supports 64
    bit and you need more than 3 GB, you need to install 64 bit Vista.
     
    Bob Campbell, Apr 3, 2008
    #3
  4. Qu0ll

    Qu0ll Guest

    What about Alias's comment that it would see 4GB under SP1? Is that
    correct?

    --
    And loving it,

    -Q
    _________________________________________________

    (Replace the "SixFour" with numbers to email me)
     
    Qu0ll, Apr 3, 2008
    #4
  5. Qu0ll

    John Barnes Guest

    It depends on what is installed on the computer. Video cards with larger
    amounts of memory will have smaller shown memory. After SP1 you should see
    all of it even though nothing has changed.
     
    John Barnes, Apr 3, 2008
    #5
  6. What about Alias's comment that it would see 4GB under SP1? Is that
    Yes. It's a change Microsoft made, presumably due to so many customers
    thinking there was a problem. It *reports* 4G, but of course nothing has
    changed under the hood - it still uses a little over 3G.

    SteveT
     
    Steve Thackery, Apr 3, 2008
    #6
  7. Qu0ll

    Qu0ll Guest

    The video card has 512MB of memory so perhaps that is a factor then. Nice
    to know though that all 4GB RAM will be accessible under SP1. Thanks for
    the confirmation.

    --
    And loving it,

    -Q
    _________________________________________________

    (Replace the "SixFour" with numbers to email me)
     
    Qu0ll, Apr 3, 2008
    #7
  8. Qu0ll

    Qu0ll Guest

    Ah, well ignore my comment in the other post then about it all being
    "accessible".

    --
    And loving it,

    -Q
    _________________________________________________

    (Replace the "SixFour" with numbers to email me)
     
    Qu0ll, Apr 3, 2008
    #8
  9. Qu0ll

    Tom Lake Guest

    No, it WON'T be accessible. It will be reported in the System Properties as 4 GB
    but it still won't be used by the OS.

    Tom Lake
     
    Tom Lake, Apr 3, 2008
    #9
  10. Qu0ll

    Qu0ll Guest

    Yes, hence my other post.

    Actually, I notice that my Server 2003 machine is 32-bit with 4GB and seems
    to see and use all 4GB. So it's not just a 32-bit thing - it must be
    related to the nature of the OS itself. Most of the explanations I've seen
    for the low reporting are based on the "it's a 32-bit OS" argument.

    --
    And loving it,

    -Q
    _________________________________________________

    (Replace the "SixFour" with numbers to email me)
     
    Qu0ll, Apr 3, 2008
    #10
  11. Qu0ll

    Tim Slattery Guest

    It's a BIG factor. See http://members.cox.net/slatteryt/RAM.html
    No! SP1 will tell you that there's 4GB installed, but it won't use any
    more of it than pre-SP1 systems did. The change is cosmetic only.
     
    Tim Slattery, Apr 3, 2008
    #11
  12. Qu0ll

    ray Guest

    Asked and answered several times per week. Suggest you peruse the group.
     
    ray, Apr 3, 2008
    #12
  13. Qu0ll

    Bill Yanaire Guest

    I'm surprised you didn't give the OP your Ubuntu talk. What's wrong? You
    finally figured out that Ubuntu is a Pile of Junk?
     
    Bill Yanaire, Apr 3, 2008
    #13
  14. Qu0ll

    Alias Guest

    How come you didn't provide your expert opinion on the OP's problem
    instead of bringing up Ubuntu?

    Alias
     
    Alias, Apr 3, 2008
    #14
  15. Qu0ll

    ray Guest

    Nothing wrong. Why would I give a 'Ubuntu talk' if he didn't ask about
    Ubuntu? I still use primarily Ubuntu, Gentoo, Elive and Debian - because
    they work.
     
    ray, Apr 3, 2008
    #15
  16. Qu0ll

    Frank Guest

    Why is a lying linux loser like you in this ng, huh?
    Frank
     
    Frank, Apr 3, 2008
    #16
  17. Qu0ll

    Tim Slattery Guest

    Hmm...I wonder. This page
    http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsserver/bb404900.aspx says
    Server 2003 32 bit supports 4GB, and that claim is made for 32-bit XP
    and Vista systems also. This one
    http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsserver/bb429524.aspx says
    that 32-bit Server 2003 R2 Enterprise Edition supports up to 64GB,
    which
    means it would have to support PAE.

    I don't know a lot about the server systems, but I suspect that if
    you're not running the R2 Enterprise edition, it may be showing 4GB
    but it's not using it anymore than Vista - with or without SP1 -
    does.

    And you're right that it's a 32-bit hardware thing. A 32-bit address
    space translates to 4GB. That has to be used to access BIOS, Video
    RAM and a few other things. What's left over after those needs are
    satisfied is used for system RAM.
     
    Tim Slattery, Apr 3, 2008
    #17
  18. Qu0ll

    Bob Campbell Guest

    32 bit Windows Server versions DO support PAE, which gives 36 bits of
    address space, which allows 64 GB of physical RAM. But all other 32 bit
    limitations still apply.

    PAE is a hack whose time has finally passed.
     
    Bob Campbell, Apr 3, 2008
    #18
  19. Qu0ll

    Martin Burke Guest

    Ubuntu is getting better by the time 8.10 is out (few weeks) it should all
    be fine, they even have a utility to run/install it on a Doze box with out
    installing it !! All you have to do is click an icon on your xp/vista
    desktop and Ubuntu is there.

    The only thing wrong with Vista is its not compatable with older hardware,
    annoying when you have to keep answering YES just to install / run
    software. Very slow on anything with less than 4gig and only just about
    works on 4gig, the "kernel" is based on 2003 so in theory should be stable,
    its just the code on top thats flaky and makes it such a poor advert for
    M$.
     
    Martin Burke, Apr 3, 2008
    #19
  20. Qu0ll

    Bob Campbell Guest

    Geez, ANOTHER version of Ubuntu? The upgrade treadmill continues!
    It installs on TV sets? That's the only "doze box" I have, since I usually
    fall asleep while watching it.
    So you can install it without installing it? Um, OK.
    It's not? Wow, you better tell that to my 4 year old ThinkPad T41 laptop
    and my 10 year old HP LaserJet 4 printer!
    No it's not. Do you install software everyday?
    No it's not. I have it on a 2 GB P4 machine and it flies, plus the above
    T41 laptop with 1 GB RAM. Runs fine.
    Congratulations, a whole paragraph of lies and FUD!
     
    Bob Campbell, Apr 3, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.