Adding RAM after Install

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

Here is an odd situation that could be a real problem for people in the future.
My system has 1 Gig of RAM and I was able to install Vista with the full
Aero interface. I played around with it and then decided to reinstall it.
At the same time one of my memory modules went bad. While I was waiting to
get it replaced I reinstalled Vista on the same system with just 512 Megs of
RAM. The install went fine, but of course it did not use the Aero display
becuase of the limited RAM.

The problem came when the replacement RAM arrived and I installed it. I had
assumed that now that the system was capable of displaying the Aero interface
I would be able to switch to it, but it doesn't appear that you can do that.
When I go to the display configuration, Aero is not a choice, only Vista
basic. I wiped that install and reinstalled with the full 1 Gig of RAM and
Aero was fully available.

So, it looks like people who start with 512 RAM and decide to upgrade might
be in for a nasty surprise.
 
It may be nothing, but after you installed the additional RAM, did you re-do
the Windows Experience thing?
 
Hello,

Interesting observation. I would call this a bug :)

In any case, re-running the Performance Test from Control Panel -> System
and Maintenance -> Check your System Performance Rating (under System) ->
"Refresh my rating now" probably would have given you glass back without
having to reinstall.

- JB
 
I think you will find that you need to refresh your performance rating.
I recently upgraded my graphics card to take advantage of the funky new
interface and had to do this before Aero would work. Control Panel,
System and Maintenance,Performance Rating and Tools then click "Refresh
my rating now".

Chris
 
I guess I spoke too soon. Reading all your replies I decided to test it
again. I removed half the RAM and reinstalled with just 512. Everything was
fine, no Aero.
Then I put the other 512 in, and as soon as I booted and went to Visual
Appearance, Aero was a choice. I selected it an Aero became active. I did
not need to refresh the Performance Rating. I really don't think Aero was a
choice last time, but I might have been wrong. Sorry for the alarm.
 
I knew I wasn't dreaming that I didn't have the Aero option. I retested this
and this does indead seem to be a problem:

When I tested this after reading your replies, I reinstalled with 512 and
then just put in the new RAM and Aero was an option in the Visual Appearance
dropdown box.

Today I retested by installing with 512 and then installing all updates
including the Intel driver update for my on-board video. Before installing
the driver update the Performance Advisor didn't list anything next to
Graphics and gave the system a 1. After the update it listed the correct
video driver and gave the system a 2.
Then I installed the other 512 RAM. When I go to change the Visual
Appearance Aero is NOT an option. If I rerun the Performance Advisor it
stays at a 2 and Aero is not available. When I do a fresh install with 1 Gig
RAM, the system gets a 3.

So there now seems to be no way to get the system to make Aero available. I
don't know if this is a problem with the Intel driver or Vista itself, but
some people may indeed be in for a nasty surprise.
 
Maybe, Maybe not.

I'll project that Vista Home Basic probably won't have Aero Glass as a
feature, and those systems that are built to the minimum (yes, I just said
"el cheapo") requirements will come with that loaded as the O/S. If you are
going to move up the ladder in Vista levels, I'm sure the requirements for
each version, as well as the requirements for Aero Glass will be specified
when Vista becomes an actually product a year from now. But that is a year
from now, or whenever Vista becomes a retail product.

This test Beta is the Ultimate version, top-of-the-line model. You should
not expect a minimum requirement-meeting computer to run all the features
any more that you should expect your household electricity requirements to
be met by a car battery.
 
You should not expect a minimum requirement-meeting computer to run all the
features
Click to expand...

I'm not. My system is a Pentium D, 1 Gig RAM and Intel 950 on board video.
It runs Vista Beta 2 with Aero just fine when installed when the full 1 Gig
of RAM available at install time. I never expected to have Aero available
with only 512, but I did expect it to be available when the extra RAM was
added later.

Since MS has talked of allowing some type of "online" update, I can easily
imagine a situation where a user would buy a "value" machine with lesser
hardware and Vista Basic (no Aero), and they could later upgrade the hardware
and the OS. I think they would legitimately expect to have Aero available
then since their system now meets the Aero requirements.

I believe I have run into a situation where that would not be possible and
the user would have to reinstall to make Aero available. If that is going to
be the case people should be aware of that before they buy a "value" machine
and know that their upgrade options are limited.

Then again, this may all be an Intel video driver issue which can easily be
resolved with an updated driver. I can't tell for sure where the real
problem is coming from. Someone with a different video card/driver would
need to test the same situation.
 
Sorry if I sounded like I was writing about you, personally; I meant "you"
as in people in general.

I agree 100% that there will be many thousands of users who purchase a $299
eMachines or Dell and when they scrape a little money together will want to
upgrade their O/S. It will be a nightmare of epic proportion and MSFT will
be the undeserving (in this situation) goat of their own doing. I hope the
geniuses in Redmond have come up with a plan.

My understanding of the "on-the-fly" upgrade is that all the versions are on
the same DVD so all you need to do is purchase a new product key, insert the
disc and upgrade. Maybe the upgrade part of the disc will do a quick
hardware compatibility scan before it launches or something. Who knows? If
only they could somehow build in a user compatibility scan...

So yeah, I agree with your statement that there will be many people "in for
a nasty surprise," but it will be because of their own lack of
understanding, and not malice on the part of the computer builder or MSFT.
That's why I said "Maybe, maybe not."
 
This is characteristic of XP Home also. XP Pro can see two processors but
Home only one. (By processor, I mean the chip in its socket, not the cores.
Home can use a single multi-core processor fine.)
 
Back
Top