Windows Vista: How much RAM?
How much RAM?
by GeorgeRR - 8/22/08 9:40 AMI'm running Vista home premium on a &^%(+*^$%# Gateway 5438.
I have 4 1GB memory sticks installed. system properties shows 3318mb of ram. Does the system commandeer the balance of the ram or is there a problem elsewhere. I am tired of trying to work with GW tech support. All I get from them is more problems.
Thanks
George
Actually very well discussed and documented.
by R. Proffitt
- 8/22/08 10:17 AM
In reply to: How much RAM? by GeorgeRR
And there is NO issue here to resolve. Only that no one seems to be able to craft one sentence to tell owners that discover this why it is so.
Read a few from http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=VISTA+4GB+RAM&btnG=Google+Search
Please don't take this wrong. It's just a new area that no one seems to want to educate new owners.
Bob
Well, I'll be damned!
by GeorgeRR - 8/22/08 11:21 AM In reply to: Actually very well discussed and documented. by R. Proffitt
Thnx a lot Bob, I'd be much less irritated and calmer had I been aware of this before Gateway told me to wipe my hard drive and re-install the system. I'm at present running w/o sp1. from what I read sp1 will show the '4gb' of ram, no more problem. I should have came here in the first place, but I thought it was a warranty issue.
Thanks again
George
Thank you.
by R. Proffitt - 8/22/08 12:58 PM
In reply to: Well, I'll be damned! by GeorgeRR
I'm never sure how to present an answer to this one. But you did well to look over a few links to find out more on your own. It is a shame they put you through the wringer of an OS install.
Best of continued good luck!
sp1
by Grungysquash - 8/22/08 7:34 PM In reply to: Well, I'll be damned! by GeorgeRRJust in case you aren't aware even though SP1 will report the full amount of ram in the system does not mean this is available for use. Your computer can only use 3.2gig of ram when using a 32 bit system, even if using a 64 bit OS depending on the chipset your hardware may still limit you to 3.2gig.
How much RAM
by GeorgeRR - 8/22/08 9:24 PM In reply to: sp1 by GrungysquashYep, I'm aware of that NOW. The half assed tech support at gateway could have told me that and that would have answered one of my problems.
They are coming awfully close to being scammers. I own 4 gateway computers,2 pc's and 2 laptop's. 5 if I count the Emachine. I will never spend another cent with that company. Thanks for the reply tho.
On to another problem; I probably should post this in another thread, but I've got this one open. Since I'm in the process of setting up this box again I'm getting a lot of system program crashes. Like windows explorer or "superfetch" and others as well as my browser "Firefox". Any one have a clue as to the remedy for this situation hopefully before I get all the 'stuff' back up? The OS seems ok. Vista SP1 altho I had a heck of a time getting it to install, it finally made it.
Thanks for any clues
George
Another MS "Gotch ya"
by JDS48 - 8/22/08 11:31 PM In reply to: How much RAM? by GeorgeRRRegarding the 3.2 GB of the 4 installed for a 32 bit version of the OS. Yes 3.2 is all you will see, but please note: MS knows about this for other versions of MS OS's. They have provided memory drivers that get around this situation. Case in point: I recently had a similar problem with an MS 2003 Server OS. Once all the latest drivers and patches were applied all 4 GB of ram showed up and it is a 32 bit version of the OS!
I know this does not help your situation but I'm sure MS knows about this problem.
Some of that missing .8 GBs of drive is in use
by Dango517 - 8/23/08 2:04 AM In reply to: Another MS "Gotch ya" by JDS48but not showing up when you install 4GB of RAM. The problem is not as it appears some hidden files are running there. Sorry I haven't ran into information that says what they are but I'll guess and say the MBR and some virtual memory functions. The amount of actual unused space is still unclear.
This thread untracked
Not so
by Jimmy Greystone - 8/23/08 9:14 AM In reply to: Some of that missing .8 GBs of drive is in use by Dango517Not so... The reason has to do with 32-bit memory addressing, not some mysterious shadow files being loaded into memory. A 32-bit processor can only address 4GB of memory, then you simply run out of bits. Of course a few bits are reserved for system functions, so you wind up with an effective memory cap of around 3-3.5GB give or take a little.
There is NO conspiracy here. Microsoft did not artificially limit Windows to 4GB, and it's not because of some hidden shadow files. It's a limitation of the amount of space afforded by 32-bit addressing, plain and simple, and it applies equally to every 32-bit OS out there, not just Windows.
So please, stop with the conspiracy theories and other misinformation. This isn't Microsoft's fault, nor is it anyone else's. A 32-bit number is only so big, that is the problem. Not some conspiracy about hidden files that no one knows much about. Do a little research into the x86 instruction set, and you'll find all the details you need to understand this.
Theory versus practice
by 3rdalbum - 8/23/08 11:48 PM In reply to: Not so by Jimmy GreystoneIn theory, a 32-bit operating system cannot address more than 4 gigabytes of RAM, with some of the last gigabyte "memory mapped" to whatever hardware devices you have in your computer. In order for your computer to access the 512 megabytes of memory on your graphics card, it needs to assign the card some memory addresses from your main system RAM.
Perfectly normal. In theory.
In practice, there is a wonderful feature called PAE - Physical Addressing Extension. With PAE, a 32-bit processor and operating system can address up to 64 gigabytes of RAM, provided that the processor and OS are PAE-compatible.
Microsoft knows about PAE. They know so much about it, that PAE is available on some of their server OSes. But they don't make it available on XP and Vista because on Windows the hardware drivers need to support it, otherwise your computer doesn't start up.
Viscious circle time: Because desktop Windows doesn't support PAE, the hardware manufacturers don't make their drivers PAE compatible. Because the drivers aren't PAE compatible, Microsoft doesn't implement PAE into desktop Windows.
Linux supports PAE no problems. Most drivers on Linux are open-source, and when you compile and install them, they link against your kernel. If your kernel has PAE, so do your drivers. It's that simple.*
* Nvidia and most ATI drivers on Linux are closed-source, just like in the Windows world - they come precompiled. So they don't link against your kernel and they don't support PAE.
And do all retail PCs have PAE.
by R. Proffitt - 8/24/08 6:27 AM
In reply to: Theory versus practice by 3rdalbum
Sorry no.
Like Bob said
by Jimmy Greystone - 8/24/08 9:40 AM In reply to: Theory versus practice by 3rdalbumLike Bob said, Microsoft cannot count on this being in every system that someone may try and run Vista on.
Take a look around and see how much confusion the dual release of a 32 and 64-bit OS seems to be causing. Now imagine how much confusion there would be if they sold a 32-bit OS with PAE and one without PAE. So, this time there's two 32-bit operating systems, only one can only address 4GB of RAM, the other can address 64GB. Of course to know which one to buy, you have to run a CPU identification program on your system and look at lots of scary details about your processor. It may seem simple to most of us here, to just run something like cpu-z, and check to see if PAE is in the list of supported features. However, the breed of super idiots Microsoft has created with all this user friendly garbage, will have their eyes glass over the second you start saying anything that sounds remotely technical.
Then you have to deal with the inevitable support calls that will come in from the cowboy idiots who just go out and pick up the first copy of Windows they see on the store shelf, get it home, and find out it's the wrong one for their system. It's completely their fault for not doing some basic research, and paying attention to what it was they were buying, but they'll still call into support lines wanting to yell at someone.
Personally, I wish Microsoft would decide to just go completely 64-bit with Windows 7. Just rip the damn band-aid off, and tell the people with systems that are 4-5 years old at that point that they will need to buy a new system if they want to run the new OS. Just end all of this 32/64-bit confusion once and for all.
Also, I'm not so sure about ATI's binary drivers for Linux -- though most people probably just use the Xorg ATI driver which is pretty good for everything but gaming -- but nVidia's binary drivers have a kernel module that does link against the kernel. At least the last time I used Linux they did. You have to download the driver and compile/install it yourself, but the raw kernel interface does link against the kernel. And since AMD took over ATI, they've been doing a great job of releasing documentation needed to improve the open source ATI drivers. It will probably take a little time to digest all the information and then put it to use, but it will happen eventually.
Why is MS taking heat for this PC design.
by R. Proffitt - 8/23/08 7:09 AM
In reply to: Another MS "Gotch ya" by JDS48
Microsoft didn't design the Intel PC. Al Gore did?
Sorry but to really go over this is a very long discussion. This is why I suggest some googles and more.
Bob
That's not true...
by John.Wilkinson - 8/23/08 8:11 AM
In reply to: Another MS "Gotch ya" by JDS48
1.) The issue is characteristic of the 32-bit architecture, not any Microsoft OS. Microsoft is not to blame here.
2.) The actual amount available for general use typically ranges from 3.2GB to 3.8GB, depending on your exact hardware configuration.
3.) There is no memory driver or patch to fix this issue. Microsoft (among others) have decided to start reporting what's installed instead of what's available for general use to avoid confusing the user, which is the case with Windows XP SP3 and Vista SP1, but it doesn't change what's actually available for general use.
John
Is it a 32-bit or 64-bit Vista?
by GENE8 - 8/23/08 11:13 AM In reply to: How much RAM? by GeorgeRRYou might be using the 32-bit version of Vista. That's why your computer is not counting all the RAM you have.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
