Hi, Ken:

I've enjoyed reading your posts. I posted this message to the Thread below,
but wanted to make sure you saw it. So, I copied and pasted it here.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi, Ken:

I have a laptop with three gigs of SDRAM housed in two slots: Slot 1, 2
gigs; Slot 2, 1 gig. I've ordered a two-gig strip to put in the Slot 2,
which now has the 1gig installed. If I'm understanding you correctly,
you're indicating that it won't "help" the system and applications much
beyond my 3 gigs? If that's the case, I wasted my money purchasing the 2
gig for the second slot? (Live & Learn) If so, no big deal, except it
proves once again my ignorance on the subject, and that I should have done
more research.

As an aside, when I check this machine's performance - I'm running Vista
Ultimate - it shows approximately 1.1 gig used, 1.9 gig not used. I was
hoping to make that 2.1 unused.

Thanks, again, for any thoughts on this.

Ernie



"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 10:56:01 -0800, ICQM Houston
wrote:

vista 32-bit can only recognize 3 GB even if you installed higher than 3
BG
RAM size total.


No, that's not exactly correct.

All 32-bit versions of Windows (not just XP) have a 4GB address space.
That's the theoretical upper limit beyond which you can not go.

You can't use the entire 4GB of address space. Even though you have a
4GB address space, you can only use *around* 3.1GB of RAM. That's
because some of that space is used by hardware and not available to
the operating system and applications. The amount you can use varies,
depending on what hardware you have installed, but is usually around
3.1GB.

Note that the hardware is using the address *space*, not the actual
RAM itself. The rest of the RAM goes unused because there is no
address space to map it too.



vista 64-bit can have it all sizes of RAM -


And that's not even close to correct. The amount varies with the
version of 64-bit Vista. It's 8GB with Home Basic, 16GB in Home
Premium, and 128GB in the other versions.


i had so far
tested
8GB on a desktop workstation tunning vista 64 and no problem

"Ian D" wrote:


"tony2tones" wrote in message
...

I've upgraded my ram from 2GB to 4GB...the bios reports 4096 but
Vista
reports 2048...the exact same value before the upgrade. I'm aware of
why Vista doesn't report all of the add'l memory but in my case I see
no
change at all...does any one have any ideas? Thanks!


--
tony2tones

Make sure the memory remap or similar feature is not enabled in
your BIOS. This is for use with 64 bit OSs only, and the results
with a 32 bit OS are unpredictable. Showning only 2 GB of 4 GB
installed was the result I got with WinXP when the remap was
enabled for 64 bit Vista.




--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

"Scrivener" wrote in message
...
Hi, Ken:

I've enjoyed reading your posts.


Thank you. Glad to hear it.

I posted this message to the Thread below, but wanted to make sure you saw
it. So, I copied and pasted it here.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi, Ken:

I have a laptop with three gigs of SDRAM housed in two slots: Slot 1, 2
gigs; Slot 2, 1 gig. I've ordered a two-gig strip to put in the Slot 2,
which now has the 1gig installed. If I'm understanding you correctly,
you're indicating that it won't "help" the system and applications much
beyond my 3 gigs?

Is this 32-bit Vista, not 64-bit?

If so, it won't help at all.

With 64-bit Vista, it *might* help, but only if you run memory-hungry
applications.

If that's the case, I wasted my money purchasing the 2


I'm afraid so.

gig for the second slot? (Live & Learn) If so, no big deal, except it
proves once again my ignorance on the subject, and that I should have done
more research.

As an aside, when I check this machine's performance - I'm running Vista
Ultimate - it shows approximately 1.1 gig used, 1.9 gig not used. I was
hoping to make that 2.1 unused.

Thanks, again, for any thoughts on this.

Ernie



"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 10:56:01 -0800, ICQM Houston
wrote:

vista 32-bit can only recognize 3 GB even if you installed higher than 3
BG
RAM size total.


No, that's not exactly correct.

All 32-bit versions of Windows (not just XP) have a 4GB address space.
That's the theoretical upper limit beyond which you can not go.

You can't use the entire 4GB of address space. Even though you have a
4GB address space, you can only use *around* 3.1GB of RAM. That's
because some of that space is used by hardware and not available to
the operating system and applications. The amount you can use varies,
depending on what hardware you have installed, but is usually around
3.1GB.

Note that the hardware is using the address *space*, not the actual
RAM itself. The rest of the RAM goes unused because there is no
address space to map it too.



vista 64-bit can have it all sizes of RAM -


And that's not even close to correct. The amount varies with the
version of 64-bit Vista. It's 8GB with Home Basic, 16GB in Home
Premium, and 128GB in the other versions.


i had so far
tested
8GB on a desktop workstation tunning vista 64 and no problem

"Ian D" wrote:


"tony2tones" wrote in message
...

I've upgraded my ram from 2GB to 4GB...the bios reports 4096 but
Vista
reports 2048...the exact same value before the upgrade. I'm aware
of
why Vista doesn't report all of the add'l memory but in my case I
see
no
change at all...does any one have any ideas? Thanks!


--
tony2tones

Make sure the memory remap or similar feature is not enabled in
your BIOS. This is for use with 64 bit OSs only, and the results
with a 32 bit OS are unpredictable. Showning only 2 GB of 4 GB
installed was the result I got with WinXP when the remap was
enabled for 64 bit Vista.




--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Hi, Ken:

I received the two-gig. I removed the one gig; replaced it with the two
gig, giving me a total of four; restarted the 32-bit Vista Ultimate; and
Vista's recognizing 3.5 gigs. So, I gained 500 megs of SDRAM. My money
could have been spent more wisely. )

Take care, and will see you in the newsgroups.

Ernie


"Ken Blake" wrote in message
...
"Scrivener" wrote in message
...
Hi, Ken:

I've enjoyed reading your posts.


Thank you. Glad to hear it.

I posted this message to the Thread below, but wanted to make sure you
saw it. So, I copied and pasted it here.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi, Ken:

I have a laptop with three gigs of SDRAM housed in two slots: Slot 1, 2
gigs; Slot 2, 1 gig. I've ordered a two-gig strip to put in the Slot 2,
which now has the 1gig installed. If I'm understanding you correctly,
you're indicating that it won't "help" the system and applications much
beyond my 3 gigs?

Is this 32-bit Vista, not 64-bit?

If so, it won't help at all.

With 64-bit Vista, it *might* help, but only if you run memory-hungry
applications.

If that's the case, I wasted my money purchasing the 2


I'm afraid so.

gig for the second slot? (Live & Learn) If so, no big deal, except it
proves once again my ignorance on the subject, and that I should have
done
more research.

As an aside, when I check this machine's performance - I'm running Vista
Ultimate - it shows approximately 1.1 gig used, 1.9 gig not used. I was
hoping to make that 2.1 unused.

Thanks, again, for any thoughts on this.

Ernie



"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 10:56:01 -0800, ICQM Houston
wrote:

vista 32-bit can only recognize 3 GB even if you installed higher than
3
BG
RAM size total.


No, that's not exactly correct.

All 32-bit versions of Windows (not just XP) have a 4GB address space.
That's the theoretical upper limit beyond which you can not go.

You can't use the entire 4GB of address space. Even though you have a
4GB address space, you can only use *around* 3.1GB of RAM. That's
because some of that space is used by hardware and not available to
the operating system and applications. The amount you can use varies,
depending on what hardware you have installed, but is usually around
3.1GB.

Note that the hardware is using the address *space*, not the actual
RAM itself. The rest of the RAM goes unused because there is no
address space to map it too.



vista 64-bit can have it all sizes of RAM -


And that's not even close to correct. The amount varies with the
version of 64-bit Vista. It's 8GB with Home Basic, 16GB in Home
Premium, and 128GB in the other versions.


i had so far
tested
8GB on a desktop workstation tunning vista 64 and no problem

"Ian D" wrote:


"tony2tones" wrote in message
...

I've upgraded my ram from 2GB to 4GB...the bios reports 4096 but
Vista
reports 2048...the exact same value before the upgrade. I'm aware
of
why Vista doesn't report all of the add'l memory but in my case I
see
no
change at all...does any one have any ideas? Thanks!


--
tony2tones

Make sure the memory remap or similar feature is not enabled in
your BIOS. This is for use with 64 bit OSs only, and the results
with a 32 bit OS are unpredictable. Showning only 2 GB of 4 GB
installed was the result I got with WinXP when the remap was
enabled for 64 bit Vista.




--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

"Scrivener" wrote in message
...
Hi, Ken:

I received the two-gig. I removed the one gig; replaced it with the two
gig, giving me a total of four; restarted the 32-bit Vista Ultimate; and
Vista's recognizing 3.5 gigs. So, I gained 500 megs of SDRAM. My money
could have been spent more wisely. )


3.5GB is more than most people get 32-bit Windows to see out of 4GB. Most
get around 3.1 - 3.2.

So you did better than most. Over and above how much Windows sees, thyough,
is the question of whether your apps can effectiveloy use that much

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Desktop Experience
Please reply to the newsgroup.

Take care, and will see you in the newsgroups.

Ernie


"Ken Blake" wrote in message
...
"Scrivener" wrote in message
...
Hi, Ken:

I've enjoyed reading your posts.


Thank you. Glad to hear it.

I posted this message to the Thread below, but wanted to make sure you
saw it. So, I copied and pasted it here.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi, Ken:

I have a laptop with three gigs of SDRAM housed in two slots: Slot 1, 2
gigs; Slot 2, 1 gig. I've ordered a two-gig strip to put in the Slot 2,
which now has the 1gig installed. If I'm understanding you correctly,
you're indicating that it won't "help" the system and applications much
beyond my 3 gigs?

Is this 32-bit Vista, not 64-bit?

If so, it won't help at all.

With 64-bit Vista, it *might* help, but only if you run memory-hungry
applications.

If that's the case, I wasted my money purchasing the 2


I'm afraid so.

gig for the second slot? (Live & Learn) If so, no big deal, except it
proves once again my ignorance on the subject, and that I should have
done
more research.

As an aside, when I check this machine's performance - I'm running Vista
Ultimate - it shows approximately 1.1 gig used, 1.9 gig not used. I was
hoping to make that 2.1 unused.

Thanks, again, for any thoughts on this.

Ernie



"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 10:56:01 -0800, ICQM Houston
wrote:

vista 32-bit can only recognize 3 GB even if you installed higher than
3
BG
RAM size total.


No, that's not exactly correct.

All 32-bit versions of Windows (not just XP) have a 4GB address space.
That's the theoretical upper limit beyond which you can not go.

You can't use the entire 4GB of address space. Even though you have a
4GB address space, you can only use *around* 3.1GB of RAM. That's
because some of that space is used by hardware and not available to
the operating system and applications. The amount you can use varies,
depending on what hardware you have installed, but is usually around
3.1GB.

Note that the hardware is using the address *space*, not the actual
RAM itself. The rest of the RAM goes unused because there is no
address space to map it too.



vista 64-bit can have it all sizes of RAM -


And that's not even close to correct. The amount varies with the
version of 64-bit Vista. It's 8GB with Home Basic, 16GB in Home
Premium, and 128GB in the other versions.


i had so far
tested
8GB on a desktop workstation tunning vista 64 and no problem

"Ian D" wrote:


"tony2tones" wrote in message
...

I've upgraded my ram from 2GB to 4GB...the bios reports 4096 but
Vista
reports 2048...the exact same value before the upgrade. I'm aware
of
why Vista doesn't report all of the add'l memory but in my case I
see
no
change at all...does any one have any ideas? Thanks!


--
tony2tones

Make sure the memory remap or similar feature is not enabled in
your BIOS. This is for use with 64 bit OSs only, and the results
with a 32 bit OS are unpredictable. Showning only 2 GB of 4 GB
installed was the result I got with WinXP when the remap was
enabled for 64 bit Vista.




--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Is it true that Vista SP1 for 32 bit will allow reporting 4G (if installed) even though 32 bit addressing precludes it's full usage?

Charlie

"Ken Blake" wrote in message ...

"Scrivener" wrote in message
...

Hi, Ken:

I received the two-gig. I removed the one gig; replaced it with the two
gig, giving me a total of four; restarted the 32-bit Vista Ultimate; and
Vista's recognizing 3.5 gigs. So, I gained 500 megs of SDRAM. My money
could have been spent more wisely. )



3.5GB is more than most people get 32-bit Windows to see out of 4GB. Most
get around 3.1 - 3.2.

So you did better than most. Over and above how much Windows sees, thyough,
is the question of whether your apps can effectiveloy use that much

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Desktop Experience
Please reply to the newsgroup.


Take care, and will see you in the newsgroups.

Ernie


"Ken Blake" wrote in message
...

"Scrivener" wrote in message
...
Hi, Ken:

I've enjoyed reading your posts.


Thank you. Glad to hear it.

I posted this message to the Thread below, but wanted to make sure you
saw it. So, I copied and pasted it here.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi, Ken:

I have a laptop with three gigs of SDRAM housed in two slots: Slot 1, 2
gigs; Slot 2, 1 gig. I've ordered a two-gig strip to put in the Slot 2,
which now has the 1gig installed. If I'm understanding you correctly,
you're indicating that it won't "help" the system and applications much
beyond my 3 gigs?

Is this 32-bit Vista, not 64-bit?

If so, it won't help at all.

With 64-bit Vista, it *might* help, but only if you run memory-hungry
applications.

If that's the case, I wasted my money purchasing the 2


I'm afraid so.

gig for the second slot? (Live & Learn) If so, no big deal, except it
proves once again my ignorance on the subject, and that I should have
done
more research.

As an aside, when I check this machine's performance - I'm running Vista
Ultimate - it shows approximately 1.1 gig used, 1.9 gig not used. I was
hoping to make that 2.1 unused.

Thanks, again, for any thoughts on this.

Ernie



"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 10:56:01 -0800, ICQM Houston
wrote:

vista 32-bit can only recognize 3 GB even if you installed higher than
3
BG
RAM size total.


No, that's not exactly correct.

All 32-bit versions of Windows (not just XP) have a 4GB address space.
That's the theoretical upper limit beyond which you can not go.

You can't use the entire 4GB of address space. Even though you have a
4GB address space, you can only use *around* 3.1GB of RAM. That's
because some of that space is used by hardware and not available to
the operating system and applications. The amount you can use varies,
depending on what hardware you have installed, but is usually around
3.1GB.

Note that the hardware is using the address *space*, not the actual
RAM itself. The rest of the RAM goes unused because there is no
address space to map it too.



vista 64-bit can have it all sizes of RAM -


And that's not even close to correct. The amount varies with the
version of 64-bit Vista. It's 8GB with Home Basic, 16GB in Home
Premium, and 128GB in the other versions.


i had so far
tested
8GB on a desktop workstation tunning vista 64 and no problem

"Ian D" wrote:


"tony2tones" wrote in message
...

I've upgraded my ram from 2GB to 4GB...the bios reports 4096 but
Vista
reports 2048...the exact same value before the upgrade. I'm aware
of
why Vista doesn't report all of the add'l memory but in my case I
see
no
change at all...does any one have any ideas? Thanks!


--
tony2tones

Make sure the memory remap or similar feature is not enabled in
your BIOS. This is for use with 64 bit OSs only, and the results
with a 32 bit OS are unpredictable. Showning only 2 GB of 4 GB
installed was the result I got with WinXP when the remap was
enabled for 64 bit Vista.




--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Yes, that's true.

--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User]
* NEW! Catch my blog ... http://msmvps.com/blogs/rgharper/
* PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
* The Website - http://rgharper.mvps.org/


"Charlie" wrote in message
...

Is it true that Vista SP1 for 32 bit will allow reporting 4G (if
installed) even though 32 bit addressing precludes it's full usage?

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 19:48:09 -0600, "Charlie"
wrote:


Is it true that Vista SP1 for 32 bit will allow reporting 4G
(if installed) even though 32 bit addressing precludes it's
full usage?


Unfortunately, yes, it's true. Microsoft obviously thought this was a
good move, but I don't. True, it will get rid of a lot of the "I have
4GB of RAM, but Windows only see 3.1GB--what happened?" questions. But
it gets rid of the questions at the expense of misleading Windows
users.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 19:48:09 -0600, "Charlie"
wrote:


Is it true that Vista SP1 for 32 bit will allow reporting 4G
(if installed) even though 32 bit addressing precludes it's
full usage?


Unfortunately, yes, it's true. Microsoft obviously thought this was a
good move, but I don't. True, it will get rid of a lot of the "I have
4GB of RAM, but Windows only see 3.1GB--what happened?" questions. But
it gets rid of the questions at the expense of misleading Windows
users.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup


It doesn't mislead if one understands the difference between 'support' 4gb
and 'can use' 4gb..

--
Mike Hall - MVP
How to construct a good post..
http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm
How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..
http://support.microsoft.com/default...help&style=toc
Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx

On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 19:27:04 -0500, "Mike Hall - MVP"
wrote:

"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 19:48:09 -0600, "Charlie"
wrote:


Is it true that Vista SP1 for 32 bit will allow reporting 4G
(if installed) even though 32 bit addressing precludes it's
full usage?


Unfortunately, yes, it's true. Microsoft obviously thought this was a
good move, but I don't. True, it will get rid of a lot of the "I have
4GB of RAM, but Windows only see 3.1GB--what happened?" questions. But
it gets rid of the questions at the expense of misleading Windows
users.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup


It doesn't mislead if one understands the difference between 'support' 4gb
and 'can use' 4gb..


My point is that the average person who will read what Windows will
now report will be misled. And most people are "average persons," the
great majority will be misled by this.


--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup