Windows XP forum: reinstalled winXP does not recognize correct memmory

I have a 32 bit window xp pro. I upgraded the original 4GB years ago to 8 GB ( 4x2GB ) and was shown in MY Computer also and worked well.It supported it. Last week I had to reinstall the windows from the restore CD and the upgrade memory does not show up in My Computer only in BIOS. I wonder if that is okay? The computer still workes with the 8GB?
How I check that? The Task manager sais 3405908 Physical memory total.

It did nothing more than show it. It's just a band aid that does not allow the OS to use any more than the 3.24GB you see now.

Only those that need that bandaid should seek it out. I never install it because my advice is to only use drivers and patches that actually help your system.
Bob

Hi zzsuzsa

I just want to clarify XPs memory usage, you said:

8GB Memory installed in my desktop but My Computer/Property shows only 3.25 GB. Bios shows 8GB (4 GB was previously upgraded and worked fine before the Windows reinstall.


Well, the 32bit version of XP (SP3) can only see and use under 4GB, in fact my desktop, which I assembled, has 4GB of ram memory but XP can only see 3.37GB.

However, if you want to use more than 4GB of memory you will have to upgrade to a 64bit O/S but, as far as I understand it, 64bit XP is no longer made or supported by MS and, by the way, would not provide any benefit to your normal 32bit applications.

Finally, although your hardware can see you 8GB of ram, no 32bit O/S can see or use more than 4GB unless there is some sort of software utility that can fool the O/S into believing that it has two separate sets of 4GB of memory.

UK Bob

Actually, it is entirely possible for a 32-bit OS to use more than 4GB of RAM. Linux does it, and has been doing it for years, same with Mac OS X until one or two versions ago when it went 64-bit only.

The trick is to use a function that has been in almost every CPU since the Pentium 4 days called Physical Address Extension (PAE). This provides 48-bit memory addressing, so think that is around 2TB, but someone may well correct my math.

Microsoft chose not to use this, rather deciding to go a more pure route and herding everyone towards 64-bit operating systems. Given the confusion people have with the current 32-bit vs 64-bit issue, it was probably for the best, as trying to figure out if this or that CPU supports PAE would be significantly harder. Linux tends to cater to a much more technically competent crowd, so they can get away with it, and Apple has a closed vertical system where they control pretty much every aspect of the hardware and software, so they too can more readily get away with it.

I believe that you are correct re Linux as to physical memory but few but very serious users are likely to do that. Those who use Enterprise would be more likely to go that route, perhaps for industrial use, etc.I have heard of that being done, mainlly in Europe.

I am not a computer genius just a user. What I don't understand how my 32 bit Windows XP Pro (Dell XPS 5 Gen computer) recognized it before and doesn't recognize it now when I reinstalled the Windows. Originally I had 4 512 Ram in it which I upgraded as Dell recommended two of them for 2 2GB. Than I got the Photoshop CS5 and needed more Ram to work with large photo files and I installed 2 more 2GB. I had total 8GB showing 7.? something GB as Total memory and on the MyComputer also.
I saw the improvement right away in the file handling. I never worked with 64 bit only 32.
When I reinstalled the windows I did not touch anything else in the computer. Strange...I used always IE 8 or Goggle Chrome.
I was wondering maybe the hardware yellow mark is connected somehow to this. I might be wrong as I said I am not a computer gig.

Thanks for your replies. If you have some more ideas I would like to hear it.

Zsuzsa

Hi Jimmy G (& pgc3)

I do believe what you say about Linux using 8GB of Ram by utilising PAE, that really is not that different from the old DOS days when there were a couple of utilities, LIM & Extended memory, that allowed certain applications, such as Word Perfect V5.1, Lotus 123 V2.x, etc., to use more than the 640K of memory available at the time.

So, what I am saying is that there should be no difference today, i.e. a utility should be available that allows more than the currently fixed 4GB limit to be utilised.

Hi Zsuzsa

If what you said is true, and I have no doubt that it is, then this utility that allowed your XP Pro to see more than 4GB must have been written by Dell for their PCs. And I am also guessing that the yellow mark that you see in Device Manager is probably that special utility that got overwritten or damaged when you re-installed Win XP Pro.

Therefore, I think the best option is for you contact Dell and see if they can either send you that utility or direct you to where on their site it is so that you can download and re-install it.
Finally, my PC can hold 16GB of ram and if my motherboard maker had a utility that could enable my Win XP Pro (SP3) to see and use that much ram I would definitely get/purchase it.


UK Bob

It's called a HyperVisor and other names which allows you to tap all that RAM and get more instances of the OS and apps going.

And nothing will fix the 2.0GB per app limit since most apps are compiled ... 32 bit. Why is this only 2.0 and not 4.0GB? We only need to look at the signed 32 bit number to see why.

You seem to be pretty new to this old OS. That is, all this and more has been discussed and all I can think if is you need that BAND AID patch where it reports but does not use the RAM.

That BAND AID was needed because consumers were flooding the support lines asking why the machines were not reporting all the RAM. So the BAND AID was put out there.

Since I know how it works, I didn't need the BAND AID.
Bob

Well Bob

Your post has proved to be unhelpful and off topic, Zsuzsa wants to know why her re-installed WinXP Pro can no longer see all her PCs ram when the original installation could.

So you are virtually calling her a liar, because what she is saying could not possibly be true, and everybody else are idiots for trying to help her.

Bob, if everybody else is wrong and you are right then why not just say so, rather than taking a long sarcastic route.

UK Bob

I brought up a solution and noted an issue with 32 bit apps (that 2.0GB app limit.)

How could that be taken as calling anyone a liar is quite a stretch.

If you feel you have a better solution then please supply that.

Let's leave it at that?
Bob

Thanks every one for the input on this subject! I contacted Dell yesterday, they went into my computer and find nothing wrong. They said the same thing that Windows XP 32 bit will support only 4 GB. The question mark in Hardware doesn't connected to the RAM missing.
I will leave it at that. The computer is working fast since I didn't install many of the programs I had in previously.
Again thanks everyone you all were very helpful!

Zsuzsa