A question about a RAM upgrade

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by news.alltel.net, Jan 7, 2009.

  1. I recently doubled the RAM on my Vista-32 system. It had 2gb and I installed
    an extra 2gb, (two 1gb DDR2 modules). When I boot my computer and look in
    system information it tells me I have 4.0 physical memory but 3.0 available.
    At first I thought it was because Vista was using 1GB but then I look at
    performance tab in task manager and it tells me I have 3068 total physical
    memory. Does this sound like one of my ram modules is bad? Another reason I
    ask this is because my ram speed before the upgrade in my bios was 800mhz
    and now the bios says it's 667mhz even though on both boxes it says 800mhz.

    Chuck
     
    news.alltel.net, Jan 7, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. news.alltel.net

    doS Guest

    uh no 32 vista bit only reports 3 gb

    "news.alltel.net" <> wrote in message
    news:52d8$49652a12$471cc550$...
    >I recently doubled the RAM on my Vista-32 system. It had 2gb and I
    >installed an extra 2gb, (two 1gb DDR2 modules). When I boot my computer and
    >look in system information it tells me I have 4.0 physical memory but 3.0
    >available. At first I thought it was because Vista was using 1GB but then I
    >look at performance tab in task manager and it tells me I have 3068 total
    >physical memory. Does this sound like one of my ram modules is bad? Another
    >reason I ask this is because my ram speed before the upgrade in my bios was
    >800mhz and now the bios says it's 667mhz even though on both boxes it says
    >800mhz.
    >
    > Chuck
     
    doS, Jan 7, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. news.alltel.net <> wrote in message
    news:52d8$49652a12$471cc550$:

    > I recently doubled the RAM on my Vista-32 system. It had 2gb and I
    > installed an extra 2gb, (two 1gb DDR2 modules). When I boot my
    > computer and look in system information it tells me I have 4.0
    > physical memory but 3.0 available. At first I thought it was because
    > Vista was using 1GB but then I look at performance tab in task
    > manager and it tells me I have 3068 total physical memory. Does this
    > sound like one of my ram modules is bad? Another reason I ask this is
    > because my ram speed before the upgrade in my bios was 800mhz and now
    > the bios says it's 667mhz even though on both boxes it says 800mhz.
    > Chuck


    True or false, you chose.

    memtest

    2x800 < 4x667
     
    1-4-Diethyl-1-4-4-1-2-Pentamethylbenzyl-Ethanimido, Jan 7, 2009
    #3
  4. news.alltel.net

    Buffalo Guest

    news.alltel.net wrote:
    > I recently doubled the RAM on my Vista-32 system. It had 2gb and I
    > installed an extra 2gb, (two 1gb DDR2 modules). When I boot my
    > computer and look in system information it tells me I have 4.0
    > physical memory but 3.0 available. At first I thought it was because
    > Vista was using 1GB but then I look at performance tab in task
    > manager and it tells me I have 3068 total physical memory. Does this
    > sound like one of my ram modules is bad? Another reason I ask this is
    > because my ram speed before the upgrade in my bios was 800mhz and now
    > the bios says it's 667mhz even though on both boxes it says 800mhz.
    >
    > Chuck

    As far as the 667Mhz down from 800, perhaps you can adjust it in the BIOS.
    Otherwise the new ram is probably actually slower, regardless of what it
    says on the packaging. The computer will run the ram at the speed of the
    slowest ram.
    You could, however, remove the old stick and just use the new stick and see
    if it still stays at 667Mhz.
    As the other poster says, 32bit will only recognize 3GB of ram and I believe
    that is true, but I am not positive.
     
    Buffalo, Jan 7, 2009
    #4
  5. news.alltel.net

    chuckcar Guest

    "news.alltel.net" <> wrote in
    news:52d8$49652a12$471cc550$:

    > I recently doubled the RAM on my Vista-32 system. It had 2gb and I
    > installed an extra 2gb, (two 1gb DDR2 modules). When I boot my computer
    > and look in system information it tells me I have 4.0 physical memory
    > but 3.0 available. At first I thought it was because Vista was using 1GB
    > but then I look at performance tab in task manager and it tells me I
    > have 3068 total physical memory. Does this sound like one of my ram
    > modules is bad? Another reason I ask this is because my ram speed before
    > the upgrade in my bios was 800mhz and now the bios says it's 667mhz even
    > though on both boxes it says 800mhz.
    >

    1024x3=3072 1 megabyte does *not* equal 1,000,000 bytes.

    1GB=1024MB=1024x1024KB=1024x1024x1024B

    So that leaves 4 megabytes unaccounted for.

    --
    (setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
     
    chuckcar, Jan 8, 2009
    #5
  6. news.alltel.net

    Evan Platt Guest

    On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 00:27:33 +0000 (UTC), chuckcar <>
    wrote:

    >So that leaves 4 megabytes unaccounted for.


    You idiot.
    --
    To reply via e-mail, remove The Obvious from my e-mail address.
     
    Evan Platt, Jan 8, 2009
    #6
  7. PeeCee wrote:

    .....
    >

    http://news.softpedia.com/news/32-bit-Windows-Vista-vs-64-bit-Windows-Vista-64312.shtml
    > "Windows XP originally supported a full 4 GB of RAM. You would be limited
    > to 3.1-3.5 GB without PAE, but if you enabled PAE on a 4 GB system with
    > proper chipset and motherboard support, you would have access to the full
    > 4 GB. As more people began to take advantage of this feature using
    > commodity (read: cheapest product with the features I want) hardware,
    > Microsoft noticed a new source of crashes and blue screens. These were
    > traced to drivers failing to correctly handle 64-bit physical addresses. A
    > decision was made to improve system stability at a cost of possibly
    > wasting memory. XP SP2 introduced a change such that only the bottom 32
    > bits of physical memory will ever be used, even if that means some memory
    > will not be used. (This is also the case with 32-bit editions of Vista.)
    > While this is annoying to those who want that little bit of extra oomph,
    > and while I would have liked a way to re-enable the memory "at my own
    > risk", this is probably the right decision for 99.9% of the general
    > population of Windows users,"
    >

    Uhm. Thanks. Now, this (PAE) appears to run flawlessly on linux, no crashes.
    With all the usual "drivers" to run a desktop machine.
     
    wisdomkiller & pain, Jan 8, 2009
    #7
  8. news.alltel.net

    PeeCee Guest

    "chuckcar" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns9B8CC50F71FB4chucknilcar@127.0.0.1...
    > "news.alltel.net" <> wrote in
    > news:52d8$49652a12$471cc550$:
    >
    >> I recently doubled the RAM on my Vista-32 system. It had 2gb and I
    >> installed an extra 2gb, (two 1gb DDR2 modules). When I boot my computer
    >> and look in system information it tells me I have 4.0 physical memory
    >> but 3.0 available. At first I thought it was because Vista was using 1GB
    >> but then I look at performance tab in task manager and it tells me I
    >> have 3068 total physical memory. Does this sound like one of my ram
    >> modules is bad? Another reason I ask this is because my ram speed before
    >> the upgrade in my bios was 800mhz and now the bios says it's 667mhz even
    >> though on both boxes it says 800mhz.
    >>

    > 1024x3=3072 1 megabyte does *not* equal 1,000,000 bytes.
    >
    > 1GB=1024MB=1024x1024KB=1024x1024x1024B
    >
    > So that leaves 4 megabytes unaccounted for.
    >
    > --
    > (setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )




    Sigh

    From the Wikipedia discussing hard drive size.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_disk_drive

    Most operating-system tools report capacity using the same abbreviations but
    actually use binary prefixes. For instance, the prefix mega-, which normally
    means 106 (1,000,000), in the context of data storage can mean 220
    (1,048,576), which is nearly 5% more. Similar usage has been applied to
    prefixes of greater magnitude. This results in a discrepancy between the
    disk manufacturer's stated capacity and the apparent capacity of the drive
    when examined through most operating-system tools. The difference becomes
    even more noticeable for a gigabyte (7%), and again for a terabyte (9%). For
    a petabyte there is a 11% difference between the SI (10005) and binary
    (10245) definitions. For example, Microsoft Windows reports disk capacity
    both in decimal-based units to 12 or more significant digits and with
    binary-based units to three significant digits. Thus a disk specified by a
    disk manufacturer as a 30 GB disk might have its capacity reported by
    Windows 2000 both as "30,065,098,568 bytes" and "28.0 GB". The disk
    manufacturer used the SI definition of "giga", 109 to arrive at 30 GB;
    however, because Microsoft Windows, Mac OS and some Linux distributions use
    "gigabyte" for 1,073,741,824 bytes (230 bytes), the operating system reports
    capacity of the disk drive as (only) 28.0 GB.
     
    PeeCee, Jan 9, 2009
    #8
  9. news.alltel.net

    Rick Guest

    "PeeCee" <> wrote in message news:gk6r3m$mvn$...
    > "chuckcar" <> wrote in message
    > news:Xns9B8CC50F71FB4chucknilcar@127.0.0.1...
    >> "news.alltel.net" <> wrote in
    >> news:52d8$49652a12$471cc550$:
    >>
    >>> I recently doubled the RAM on my Vista-32 system. It had 2gb and I
    >>> installed an extra 2gb, (two 1gb DDR2 modules). When I boot my computer
    >>> and look in system information it tells me I have 4.0 physical memory
    >>> but 3.0 available. At first I thought it was because Vista was using 1GB
    >>> but then I look at performance tab in task manager and it tells me I
    >>> have 3068 total physical memory. Does this sound like one of my ram
    >>> modules is bad? Another reason I ask this is because my ram speed before
    >>> the upgrade in my bios was 800mhz and now the bios says it's 667mhz even
    >>> though on both boxes it says 800mhz.
    >>>

    >> 1024x3=3072 1 megabyte does *not* equal 1,000,000 bytes.
    >>
    >> 1GB=1024MB=1024x1024KB=1024x1024x1024B
    >>
    >> So that leaves 4 megabytes unaccounted for.
    >>
    >> --
    >> (setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )

    >
    >
    >
    > Sigh
    >
    > From the Wikipedia discussing hard drive size.
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_disk_drive
    >


    Sigh

    But the OP was asking about memory size not *disk* size you half-witted dolt!
     
    Rick, Jan 9, 2009
    #9
  10. news.alltel.net

    Peeassha Guest

    "chuckcar" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns9B8CC50F71FB4chucknilcar@127.0.0.1...
    > "news.alltel.net" <> wrote in
    > news:52d8$49652a12$471cc550$:
    >
    >> I recently doubled the RAM on my Vista-32 system. It had 2gb and I
    >> installed an extra 2gb, (two 1gb DDR2 modules). When I boot my computer
    >> and look in system information it tells me I have 4.0 physical memory
    >> but 3.0 available. At first I thought it was because Vista was using 1GB
    >> but then I look at performance tab in task manager and it tells me I
    >> have 3068 total physical memory. Does this sound like one of my ram
    >> modules is bad? Another reason I ask this is because my ram speed before
    >> the upgrade in my bios was 800mhz and now the bios says it's 667mhz even
    >> though on both boxes it says 800mhz.
    >>

    > 1024x3=3072 1 megabyte does *not* equal 1,000,000 bytes.
    >
    > 1GB=1024MB=1024x1024KB=1024x1024x1024B
    >
    > So that leaves 4 megabytes unaccounted for.
    >
    > --
    > (setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )



    I think that 4 megabytes of ram is the stick of ram you're using in your
    computer.
     
    Peeassha, Jan 9, 2009
    #10
  11. news.alltel.net

    chuckcar Guest

    "PeeCee" <> wrote in
    news:gk6r3m$mvn$:

    > "chuckcar" <> wrote in message
    > news:Xns9B8CC50F71FB4chucknilcar@127.0.0.1...
    >> "news.alltel.net" <> wrote in
    >> news:52d8$49652a12$471cc550$:
    >>
    >>> I recently doubled the RAM on my Vista-32 system. It had 2gb and I
    >>> installed an extra 2gb, (two 1gb DDR2 modules). When I boot my
    >>> computer and look in system information it tells me I have 4.0
    >>> physical memory but 3.0 available. At first I thought it was because
    >>> Vista was using 1GB but then I look at performance tab in task manager
    >>> and it tells me I have 3068 total physical memory. Does this sound
    >>> like one of my ram modules is bad? Another reason I ask this is
    >>> because my ram speed before the upgrade in my bios was 800mhz and now
    >>> the bios says it's 667mhz even though on both boxes it says 800mhz.
    >>>

    >> 1024x3=3072 1 megabyte does *not* equal 1,000,000 bytes.
    >>
    >> 1GB=1024MB=1024x1024KB=1024x1024x1024B
    >>
    >> So that leaves 4 megabytes unaccounted for.
    >>
    >> --
    >> (setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )

    >
    >
    >
    > Sigh
    >
    > From the Wikipedia discussing hard drive size.
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_disk_drive


    So what? the OP was talking about is free RAM.

    --
    (setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
     
    chuckcar, Jan 9, 2009
    #11
  12. news.alltel.net

    The hook Guest

    chuckcar <> wrote in message
    news:Xns9B8E952BFFD9Bchucknilcar@127.0.0.1:

    > "PeeCee" <> wrote in
    > news:gk6r3m$mvn$:
    >
    >> "chuckcar" <> wrote in message
    >> news:Xns9B8CC50F71FB4chucknilcar@127.0.0.1...
    >>> "news.alltel.net" <> wrote in
    >>> news:52d8$49652a12$471cc550$:
    >>>
    >>>> I recently doubled the RAM on my Vista-32 system. It had 2gb and I
    >>>> installed an extra 2gb, (two 1gb DDR2 modules). When I boot my
    >>>> computer and look in system information it tells me I have 4.0
    >>>> physical memory but 3.0 available. At first I thought it was
    >>>> because Vista was using 1GB but then I look at performance tab in
    >>>> task manager and it tells me I have 3068 total physical memory.
    >>>> Does this sound like one of my ram modules is bad? Another reason
    >>>> I ask this is because my ram speed before the upgrade in my bios
    >>>> was 800mhz and now the bios says it's 667mhz even though on both
    >>>> boxes it says 800mhz.
    >>>>
    >>> 1024x3=3072 1 megabyte does *not* equal 1,000,000 bytes.
    >>>
    >>> 1GB=1024MB=1024x1024KB=1024x1024x1024B
    >>>
    >>> So that leaves 4 megabytes unaccounted for.
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> (setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Sigh
    >>
    >> From the Wikipedia discussing hard drive size.
    >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_disk_drive

    >
    > So what? the OP was talking about is free RAM.


    hook:
    As in 'free beer' you mean?

    --
    hook
     
    The hook, Jan 9, 2009
    #12
  13. news.alltel.net

    Evan Platt Guest

    On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 23:25:19 +0000 (UTC), chuckcar <>
    wrote:

    >So what? the OP was talking about is free RAM.


    I think the point is you're a idiot.
    --
    To reply via e-mail, remove The Obvious from my e-mail address.
     
    Evan Platt, Jan 9, 2009
    #13
  14. news.alltel.net

    chuckcar Guest

    "The hook" <> wrote in
    news::

    > chuckcar <> wrote in message
    > news:Xns9B8E952BFFD9Bchucknilcar@127.0.0.1:
    >
    >> "PeeCee" <> wrote in
    >> news:gk6r3m$mvn$:
    >>
    >>> "chuckcar" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:Xns9B8CC50F71FB4chucknilcar@127.0.0.1...
    >>>> "news.alltel.net" <> wrote in
    >>>> news:52d8$49652a12$471cc550$:
    >>>>
    >>>>> I recently doubled the RAM on my Vista-32 system. It had 2gb and I
    >>>>> installed an extra 2gb, (two 1gb DDR2 modules). When I boot my
    >>>>> computer and look in system information it tells me I have 4.0
    >>>>> physical memory but 3.0 available. At first I thought it was
    >>>>> because Vista was using 1GB but then I look at performance tab in
    >>>>> task manager and it tells me I have 3068 total physical memory.
    >>>>> Does this sound like one of my ram modules is bad? Another reason
    >>>>> I ask this is because my ram speed before the upgrade in my bios
    >>>>> was 800mhz and now the bios says it's 667mhz even though on both
    >>>>> boxes it says 800mhz.
    >>>>>
    >>>> 1024x3=3072 1 megabyte does *not* equal 1,000,000 bytes.
    >>>>
    >>>> 1GB=1024MB=1024x1024KB=1024x1024x1024B
    >>>>
    >>>> So that leaves 4 megabytes unaccounted for.
    >>>>
    >>>> --
    >>>> (setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Sigh
    >>>
    >>> From the Wikipedia discussing hard drive size.
    >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_disk_drive

    >>
    >> So what? the OP was talking about is free RAM.

    >
    > hook:
    > As in 'free beer' you mean?
    >

    No. This is something much less needed and far less rare.

    --
    (setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
     
    chuckcar, Jan 10, 2009
    #14
    1. Advertising

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

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Daz

    Mixing SDR Ram with DDR Ram?

    Daz, Sep 14, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    811
    Ralph Wade Phillips
    Sep 14, 2003
  2. Morph
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    621
    Morph
    Oct 9, 2004
  3. joaquino

    a question about ram upgrade (crucial)

    joaquino, Feb 26, 2004, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    382
    joaquino
    Feb 26, 2004
  4. Allan Birnbaum Ditlevsen

    NEW RAM V OLD RAM

    Allan Birnbaum Ditlevsen, May 29, 2004, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    633
    Stuart
    Jun 7, 2004
  5. JohnO

    RAM Upgrade Question

    JohnO, Mar 2, 2009, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    376
Loading...

Share This Page