Xp only showing 2.75 GB of ram for 4GB

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
> Although what you say is true, my message quoted above was in response
> to someone who is seeing only 2.75GB of the 4GB he installed. I am not
> aware of any motherboards or memory chips that have the very odd limit
> of 2.75GB.

My thinking was that something might be using 1.25Gb out of 4Gb, but it
was more likely that it is hardware limiting access to 3Gb, and
something (video card?) using the other 0.25Gb.

--
Steve Swift
http://www.swiftys.org.uk/swifty.html
http://www.ringers.org.uk

Swifty wrote:

> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>
>> Although what you say is true, my message quoted above was in response
>> to someone who is seeing only 2.75GB of the 4GB he installed. I am not
>> aware of any motherboards or memory chips that have the very odd limit
>> of 2.75GB.
>
>
> My thinking was that something might be using 1.25Gb out of 4Gb, but it
> was more likely that it is hardware limiting access to 3Gb, and
> something (video card?) using the other 0.25Gb.

On a dual Xeon board? Highly unlikely, I wouldn't be surprised if the
board can handle 8GB of RAM.

John

I believe that all dual processor boards are 64 bit hardware which would be
able to use all the memory with a 64 bit operating system. The limiting
factor is as specified well above that the 32bit OS can only address 4 gb
and the hardware address spaces need part of that space. The OP mentioned he
has two dual display video cards so that will take a large chunk if address
space.

"John John (MVP)" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
news:%23VOW%23k8WJHA.5364@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Swifty wrote:
>
>> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>>
>>> Although what you say is true, my message quoted above was in response
>>> to someone who is seeing only 2.75GB of the 4GB he installed. I am not
>>> aware of any motherboards or memory chips that have the very odd limit
>>> of 2.75GB.
>>
>>
>> My thinking was that something might be using 1.25Gb out of 4Gb, but it
>> was more likely that it is hardware limiting access to 3Gb, and something
>> (video card?) using the other 0.25Gb.
>
> On a dual Xeon board? Highly unlikely, I wouldn't be surprised if the
> board can handle 8GB of RAM.
>
> John
>

Not all dual core processors support 64 bit software. Most, but certainly
not all.
--
Cari (MS-MVP) Printing & Imaging
www.coribright.com/windows

"Woody" <TheDuck@pond.net> wrote in message
news:NCT7l.9732$W06.6175@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com...
>I believe that all dual processor boards are 64 bit hardware which would be
>able to use all the memory with a 64 bit operating system. The limiting
>factor is as specified well above that the 32bit OS can only address 4 gb
>and the hardware address spaces need part of that space. The OP mentioned
>he has two dual display video cards so that will take a large chunk if
>address space.
>
> "John John (MVP)" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
> news:%23VOW%23k8WJHA.5364@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> Swifty wrote:
>>
>>> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>>>
>>>> Although what you say is true, my message quoted above was in response
>>>> to someone who is seeing only 2.75GB of the 4GB he installed. I am not
>>>> aware of any motherboards or memory chips that have the very odd limit
>>>> of 2.75GB.
>>>
>>>
>>> My thinking was that something might be using 1.25Gb out of 4Gb, but it
>>> was more likely that it is hardware limiting access to 3Gb, and
>>> something (video card?) using the other 0.25Gb.
>>
>> On a dual Xeon board? Highly unlikely, I wouldn't be surprised if the
>> board can handle 8GB of RAM.
>>
>> John
>>
>
>

Woody wrote:
> I believe that all dual processor boards are 64 bit hardware which would be
> able to use all the memory with a 64 bit operating system. The limiting
> factor is as specified well above that the 32bit OS can only address 4 gb
> and the hardware address spaces need part of that space. The OP mentioned he
> has two dual display video cards so that will take a large chunk if address
> space.
>
> "John John (MVP)" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
> news:%23VOW%23k8WJHA.5364@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> Swifty wrote:
>>
>>> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>>>
>>>> Although what you say is true, my message quoted above was in response
>>>> to someone who is seeing only 2.75GB of the 4GB he installed. I am not
>>>> aware of any motherboards or memory chips that have the very odd limit
>>>> of 2.75GB.
>>>
>>> My thinking was that something might be using 1.25Gb out of 4Gb, but it
>>> was more likely that it is hardware limiting access to 3Gb, and something
>>> (video card?) using the other 0.25Gb.
>> On a dual Xeon board? Highly unlikely, I wouldn't be surprised if the
>> board can handle 8GB of RAM.
>>
>> John
>>
>
>

If you are using the 64-bit version of Windows XP then you should not
have a problem unless you have bad memory or a bad mother board. I
suspect that you are using the 32-bit version of Windows XP which will
act like you are describing as it can not see the entire 4GB of memory.
I have the same problem, but I am not willing to buy a new Operating
System just yet.

Z.K.