Why does 4GB RAM only show as 3GB?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Qu0ll
  • Start date Start date
Q

Qu0ll

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
_________________________________________________
(e-mail address removed)
(Replace the "SixFour" with numbers to email me)
 
Qu0ll said:
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?
Click to expand...

When you install SP1, you will see 4GB.

Alias
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

--
And loving it,

-Q
_________________________________________________
(e-mail address removed)
(Replace the "SixFour" with numbers to email me)
 
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.
 
What about Alias's comment that it would see 4GB under SP1? Is that
correct?
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
Click to expand...

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
_________________________________________________
(e-mail address removed)
(Replace the "SixFour" with numbers to email me)
 
Steve Thackery said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

--
And loving it,

-Q
_________________________________________________
(e-mail address removed)
(Replace the "SixFour" with numbers to email me)
 
Qu0ll said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
_________________________________________________
(e-mail address removed)
(Replace the "SixFour" with numbers to email me)
 
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?
Click to expand...

Asked and answered several times per week. Suggest you peruse the group.
 
ray said:
Asked and answered several times per week. Suggest you peruse the group.
Click to expand...

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 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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

Alias
 
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?
Click to expand...

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

Alias
Click to expand...

Why is a lying linux loser like you in this ng, huh?
Frank
 
Qu0ll said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ray said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 said:
ray wrote:




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$.
Click to expand...
Got any more mis-information about Vista you lying linux troll!
Frank
 
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$.
Click to expand...

Yes - Just received notice last week that a nearby hospital is 'upgrading'
to vista. So they will be donating ten slightly used xp machines to the
local library where I volunteer. Among other things, we have four old
compaq 800mhz P3 machines (running Ubuntu) which will be replaced - and
set up with Ubuntu. They are a portion of our eleven public access
internet computers.
 
Geez, ANOTHER version of Ubuntu? The upgrade treadmill continues!
Click to expand...

Yes. They release one every six months - Linux is evolving. However, there
is not need to upgrade that often if you don't want to. 6.06 was a LTS
(Long Term Support) edition, and 8.04 (not 8.10 as referenced above) will
be also. Note also, that LTS on the server edition continues for a few
more years.

It installs on TV sets? That's the only "doze box" I have, since I
usually fall asleep while watching it.
Click to expand...

I manage, usually, to stay awake until Letterman's second commercial break!
So you can install it without installing it? Um, OK.
Click to expand...

You can install it on your MS installation, without having to install it
to disk in it's own partition. Of course, there is also the Live CD which
permits running it without install.
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!
Click to expand...

Evidently our local hospital thinks it doesn't. They plan to donate ten xp
machines to the local library as they 'upgrade' to vista.
No it's not. Do you install software everyday?
Click to expand...

Fairly frequently, actually.
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.
Click to expand...

Hmmmmm. And Gentoo runs quite nicely on my 1ghz VIA mini-itx. Actually,
Ubuntu is not doing too bad on the 800mhz P3's at the library, either.
 
Back
Top