Vista and upgrades in RAM I've upgraded to 6gb please help ?

I've upgraded to 6 gb of ram from an original of 3gb. Regardless if Vista
(32) bit will display this on the OS properties page or not does this improve
my systems performance ? Is my system using this additional RAM or is it just
idle ?

I did that systems check for optimal performance and the score was 5.0. No I
am not computer savy that I'm sure that is obvious. Is there a fix to work
around where the OS will display the actual memory available ?

Sorry if I'm redundant not meaning to be. Please forward a fix and or
replies to Strafingcommando@aol.com if you would thank you ;-) Oh btw I have
no idea how I signed into this Windows Live Care, luck I'd imagine, I've got
enough other mail accounts to drive me crazy, but use the main one for AOL.

Any 32bit version of an OS is limited to 3.2gb of ram because it can not
address any more in the Address Bus.


--
roy69

- Core 2 Quad Q6600
- Abit IP35 Pro
- 4 x 1GB OcUK PC2-6400 C5 800 MHZ Dual Channel
- Leadtek GeForce 8800 GTS 640MB GDDR3
- CiBox TFT 22" Widescreen LCD Panel. 1680 x 1050
- Creative X-Fi 7.1 PCI-E
- Antec 900 Ultimate Gaming Case
- Creative Inspire 7.1 T7900 Speakers
- Corsair HX 620W ATX2.2 Modular SLI Complient PSU

The added memory will do nothing for you. No 32-bit OS can use more than
4gb of memory in any case, Vista or not; so the added memory is not being
used at all.

--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] rgharper@gmail.com
* NEW! Catch my blog ... http://msmvps.com/blogs/rgharper/
* PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
* The Website - http://rgharper.mvps.org/
* HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm


"Rick" <Rick@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D65C5A2E-1219-44CB-B141-292CD91496D3@microsoft.com...
> I've upgraded to 6 gb of ram from an original of 3gb. Regardless if Vista
> (32) bit will display this on the OS properties page or not does this
> improve
> my systems performance ? Is my system using this additional RAM or is it
> just
> idle ?
>
> I did that systems check for optimal performance and the score was 5.0. No
> I
> am not computer savy that I'm sure that is obvious. Is there a fix to work
> around where the OS will display the actual memory available ?
>
> Sorry if I'm redundant not meaning to be. Please forward a fix and or
> replies to Strafingcommando@aol.com if you would thank you ;-) Oh btw I
> have
> no idea how I signed into this Windows Live Care, luck I'd imagine, I've
> got
> enough other mail accounts to drive me crazy, but use the main one for
> AOL.

My Asus P5K SE motherboard can see about 3.5GB of ram (with 4GB installed).

"roy69" <roy69.33ork4@no-mx.forums.net> wrote in message
news:roy69.33ork4@no-mx.forums.net...
>
> Any 32bit version of an OS is limited to 3.2gb of ram because it can not
> address any more in the Address Bus.
>
>
> --
> roy69
>
> - Core 2 Quad Q6600
> - Abit IP35 Pro
> - 4 x 1GB OcUK PC2-6400 C5 800 MHZ Dual Channel
> - Leadtek GeForce 8800 GTS 640MB GDDR3
> - CiBox TFT 22" Widescreen LCD Panel. 1680 x 1050
> - Creative X-Fi 7.1 PCI-E
> - Antec 900 Ultimate Gaming Case
> - Creative Inspire 7.1 T7900 Speakers
> - Corsair HX 620W ATX2.2 Modular SLI Complient PSU

Not correct, roy69.

32bit Windows can see 4GB of ram. It is the BIOS that is reserving memory
for hardware buffering and such. The amount reserved varies according to
the devices involved. The system properties page currently is showing the
remaining amount of memory which is available for user programs. This
varies according to the mobo and devices installed from 2.5 to 3.5.

Vista x86 SP1 changes what is being reported from the user space to the
amount of installed memory and beginning with SP1 you will see 4GB reported
if 4GB is installed. This is only a change is what is reported. It does
not increase the amount of memory available to user programs.

"roy69" <roy69.33ork4@no-mx.forums.net> wrote in message
news:roy69.33ork4@no-mx.forums.net...
>
> Any 32bit version of an OS is limited to 3.2gb of ram because it can not
> address any more in the Address Bus.
>
>
> --
> roy69
>
> - Core 2 Quad Q6600
> - Abit IP35 Pro
> - 4 x 1GB OcUK PC2-6400 C5 800 MHZ Dual Channel
> - Leadtek GeForce 8800 GTS 640MB GDDR3
> - CiBox TFT 22" Widescreen LCD Panel. 1680 x 1050
> - Creative X-Fi 7.1 PCI-E
> - Antec 900 Ultimate Gaming Case
> - Creative Inspire 7.1 T7900 Speakers
> - Corsair HX 620W ATX2.2 Modular SLI Complient PSU

The change in reporting will be in SP1. However, the change will only be in
what is reported. Currently it is the memory available to user programs.
With SP1 it will be the amount of installed ram addressible by Vista x86.
You will probably only see 4GB reported in Vista x86 SP1.

"Rick" <Rick@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D65C5A2E-1219-44CB-B141-292CD91496D3@microsoft.com...
> I've upgraded to 6 gb of ram from an original of 3gb. Regardless if Vista
> (32) bit will display this on the OS properties page or not does this
> improve
> my systems performance ? Is my system using this additional RAM or is it
> just
> idle ?
>
> I did that systems check for optimal performance and the score was 5.0. No
> I
> am not computer savy that I'm sure that is obvious. Is there a fix to work
> around where the OS will display the actual memory available ?
>
> Sorry if I'm redundant not meaning to be. Please forward a fix and or
> replies to Strafingcommando@aol.com if you would thank you ;-) Oh btw I
> have
> no idea how I signed into this Windows Live Care, luck I'd imagine, I've
> got
> enough other mail accounts to drive me crazy, but use the main one for
> AOL.

Colin Barnhorst wrote:
> The change in reporting will be in SP1. However, the change will only
> be in what is reported. Currently it is the memory available to user
> programs. With SP1 it will be the amount of installed ram addressible by
> Vista x86. You will probably only see 4GB reported in Vista x86 SP1.

The whole problem is that the missing ram is *not* addressable by
Windows. Either it is non-addressable in hardware, or the ram has been
remapped above 4G, where 32-bit vista has been programmed not to go up

Richard G. Harper wrote:
> The added memory will do nothing for you. No 32-bit OS can use more
> than 4gb of memory in any case, Vista or not; so the added memory is not
> being used at all.
>
That topic has also been up a couple of times. "No 32-bit OS" is too
much. If the hardware permits it, it can. Just not 32-bit xp and vista,
but others can

XP x86 and Vista x86 certainly can. It is the BIOS that is reserving memory
for memory-mapped IO to devices. You don't see 4GB on the system properties
page because what is being reported there is only the memory available for
user programs. Even that will change with Vista SP1 and then you will see
the 4GB of installed memory reported.

"jorgen" <na@invalid> wrote in message
news:exAtpRpXIHA.5816@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Richard G. Harper wrote:
>> The added memory will do nothing for you. No 32-bit OS can use more than
>> 4gb of memory in any case, Vista or not; so the added memory is not being
>> used at all.
>>
> That topic has also been up a couple of times. "No 32-bit OS" is too much.
> If the hardware permits it, it can. Just not 32-bit xp and vista, but
> others can

Not true. Windows can address it but the BIOS is hiding address ranges set
aside by the BIOS for memory-mapped I/O. Vista SP1 changes the reporting to
show the amount of addressable ram installed (4GB) instead.

"jorgen" <na@invalid> wrote in message
news:uO$ntQpXIHA.5816@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Colin Barnhorst wrote:
>> The change in reporting will be in SP1. However, the change will only be
>> in what is reported. Currently it is the memory available to user
>> programs. With SP1 it will be the amount of installed ram addressible by
>> Vista x86. You will probably only see 4GB reported in Vista x86 SP1.
>
> The whole problem is that the missing ram is *not* addressable by Windows.
> Either it is non-addressable in hardware, or the ram has been remapped
> above 4G, where 32-bit vista has been programmed not to go up

Colin Barnhorst wrote:
> Not true. Windows can address it but the BIOS is hiding address ranges
> set aside by the BIOS for memory-mapped I/O. Vista SP1 changes the
> reporting to show the amount of addressable ram installed (4GB) instead.
>

Yes Windows can address the whole 4GB "address space", but not all the
4GB RAM

Colin Barnhorst wrote:
> XP x86 and Vista x86 certainly can. It is the BIOS that is reserving
> memory for memory-mapped IO to devices. You don't see 4GB on the system
> properties page because what is being reported there is only the memory
> available for user programs. Even that will change with Vista SP1 and
> then you will see the 4GB of installed memory reported.

The talk was about addressing more than 4GB, neither xp nor vista will
do that

Hi Rick,

Unless you are planning on moving to the 64-bit version of Vista, then I'm
afraid you have wasted your money. A 32-bit system cannot access more than
4GB of RAM due to address limitations. Even then, it is actually only able to
access a maximum of around 3.5GB with the rest being mapped out to I/O ports
and other system devices (the actual figure varies according to the hardware
in your machine). The extra RAM will not be used and will be sitting idle.
You would have been better off just upgrading to 4GB as you would not have
been wasting so much space. As far as I am aware, the OS will probably not
report the full amount of RAM until SP1 is installed. On some motherboards,
fully populating all the available RAM slots can actually degrade system
performance. This is because in order to use the extra slots the RAM
frequency is actually backed down from, for example, 200MHz (DDR-400 /
PC3200) rate to 166MHz (DDR-333 / PC 2700) rate. You need to check with your
motherboard manual whether or not this is the case. If it is, then a BIOS
upgrade may fix this issue.
Dwarf

"Rick" wrote:

> I've upgraded to 6 gb of ram from an original of 3gb. Regardless if Vista
> (32) bit will display this on the OS properties page or not does this improve
> my systems performance ? Is my system using this additional RAM or is it just
> idle ?
>
> I did that systems check for optimal performance and the score was 5.0. No I
> am not computer savy that I'm sure that is obvious. Is there a fix to work
> around where the OS will display the actual memory available ?
>
> Sorry if I'm redundant not meaning to be. Please forward a fix and or
> replies to Strafingcommando@aol.com if you would thank you ;-) Oh btw I have
> no idea how I signed into this Windows Live Care, luck I'd imagine, I've got
> enough other mail accounts to drive me crazy, but use the main one for AOL.

Yes it can unless the BIOS is reserving addresses for something else like
device buffering, which on today's mobos is usually the case.

"jorgen" <na@invalid> wrote in message
news:OFm9IipXIHA.3652@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Colin Barnhorst wrote:
>> Not true. Windows can address it but the BIOS is hiding address ranges
>> set aside by the BIOS for memory-mapped I/O. Vista SP1 changes the
>> reporting to show the amount of addressable ram installed (4GB) instead.
>>
>
> Yes Windows can address the whole 4GB "address space", but not all the 4GB
> RAM

Colin Barnhorst wrote:
> Yes it can unless the BIOS is reserving addresses for something else
> like device buffering, which on today's mobos is usually the case.

Yes, but that is not realistic in the real world. All systems will use
up some of the address space for MMIO.