I installed 4 GB of RAM, XP PRo shows 2 GB (Physical addr. ext)

Happy Hopping

Happy Hopping

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 1, 2004
Messages
7,837
I have a HP XW9300, I installed 4 GB of RAM, 2 x 1 pair (ea. module is 1 GB)

The processor is a AMD Opetron 2.4GHZ

The BIOS sees the 4 GB

But when I click System Info, it shows 2 GB of RAM w/ physical address extension, how do I make windows see my 4 GB?
 
You are running a 32 bit OS incapable of running 4 GB without using something similar to PAE mode. You have to run a 64 bit OS to see that much RAM.
 
Why do people insist on using an 8 year old (32bit) OS, and they want to run 2GB+ of memory is BEYOND my comprehension.

Get Vista 64 bit, and get over it already!
 
Im on Vista, 32bit version. If I look in system I see 4GB of ram. But when I boot on XP i only see 3GB.
 
32bit OS's can only use a MAX of 4GB ram between ALL devices - meaning your RAM, your vid card, any other cards you may have installed. So if you're running a 32bit OS with a vid card that has 768mb of ram, you'll see a MAXIMUM (usually less) of 3.2GB in windows. Its rare to see more than 2 or 2.5 in XP because it uses the 2-4GB address space for other devices. If you want more than 2GB of ram, install a 64bit OS.
 
you need a 64bit os to use 4gb of ram yes your 32bit vista does see 4gb but it wont be able to properly use it all my advice find a 64 bit version of your os and use your key since vista 32bit keys work on 64bit and vice versa
 
S203 said:
Im on Vista, 32bit version. If I look in system I see 4GB of ram. But when I boot on XP i only see 3GB.
Click to expand...

Vista 32bit will now report 4GB of RAM if that much RAM is installed. But you will only be able to use 3GB of RAM, just like XP. Vista only reports 4GB of RAM since thousands of complainers, idiots IMO, whined about Vista not seeing 4GB of RAM, not understanding the whole 32bit and 64bit deal.
 
It's not always as easy as just using a 64bit OS. Some chipsets actually have a limitation that won't let you use the full 4GB even in a 64bit environment. Intel 945GC comes to mind. Something to do with having to support legacy 32bit only processors?
 
n00zler said:
32bit OS's can only use a MAX of 4GB ram between ALL devices - meaning your RAM, your vid card, any other cards you may have installed. So if you're running a 32bit OS with a vid card that has 768mb of ram, you'll see a MAXIMUM (usually less) of 3.2GB in windows. Its rare to see more than 2 or 2.5 in XP because it uses the 2-4GB address space for other devices. If you want more than 2GB of ram, install a 64bit OS.
Click to expand...

I'm aware win xp pro (32 bit) can only see 4 GB of RAM, whereas Vista can see 16 GB of RAM. Now, the only other device that contains a reasonable amt. of RAM is my video card, which is only 512 MB of RAM. So I thought XP PRo would still report a total of 4 GB, but uses 3.5 GB of RAM

I have no other devices in my computer, unless you care about those little 32 KB cache in a hard drive.

In short, I am still missing 1.5 GB of RAM, which should have been reported by XP Pro
 
I've seen some cases where not having the memory remapping feature in the BIOS enabled will reduce the amount of visible RAM. Check your BIOS to see if it's disabled, and if it is, enable it.
 
OP it still seems like you do not understand 32bit vs 64bit.

Just go ahead and get 64bit OS and all your problems will be solve.
 
DTN107 said:
OP it still seems like you do not understand 32bit vs 64bit.

Just go ahead and get 64bit OS and all your problems will be solve.
Click to expand...

Would you people stop telling him to change his OS? The OP is looking for a way to fix his problem, not for stuff he can buy to get around it. Either post something constructive or don't bother posting at all.
 
Regardless what you end up doing for a "fix" you can't get around the hard and fast limit built in to 32bit OS's. You'll never get full use of your 4GB of ram with it. You MAY get windows to recognize up to 3gb of it, but getting access to all of it is a different matter. I tried for a long time to get access to all my ram on 32bit XP and Vista, but was never able to. The only thing you really have left to try is memory remapping to get it to recognize more than the 2GB its doing now. If that doesn't work, but I'm not sure there's anything to do besides an upgrade to your OS.
 
JRS said:
Good point Zero.

I think early on (pre SP2), XP had issues with anything past 2gig and there was a manual fix, the "/3gb" to boot.ini.

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/PAEmem.mspx

Happy - if you are not running either SP2 or SP3, then consider installing SP3.
Click to expand...

I have been running SP2 for a long time. Unless you think sP3 will make a difference. Of course, I can try that /3gb option, but it shouldn't make a difference, I'll check my BIOS but I don't think HP Bios has that option.
 
The /3gb fix is in the boot.ini file, not the bios. XP SP2 fixes that problem, so I would be surprised if SP3 would do anything for you.

Something I didn't think of before - one of my clients has an older Dell laptop, probably at least 3 years old now. Last fall he replaced his ram to go from 2gb to 4gb (no OS change, stayed with 32 bit) and expected he would get ~3gb of usable - he didn't, it still showed 2gb. He called Dell and found out that the particular bios on his laptop would limit it to 2gb and they did not have a bios update. So in his case, even going to a 64bit OS he'd still be limited by the bios to 2gb.

Check with HP on your bios - maybe you need a bios update? It feels like a reach, but can't think of anything else. For what its worth, I've got very good responses from HP on email requests for info on machines no longer under warranty.
 
Zero82z said:
Would you people stop telling him to change his OS? The OP is looking for a way to fix his problem,
Click to expand...
64bit OS is the only solution. The other solutions listed do not work. The posters who have stated this, insistently, are probably doing so to the best interests of the OP. when I upgraded to 4GB, I searched, and searched, exhaustively, for a solution. Didn't find one. The people who have posted this solution are likely trying to save the OP from wasting time, searching the same search, only to arrive at the same result.

Zero82z said:
not for stuff he can buy to get around it. Either post something constructive or don't bother posting at all.
Click to expand...

That post was constructive. Much more so than posts with non-working solutions.

/PAE doesn't do it. /PAE on a server OS would work, but the /PAE in XP/Vista doesn't work that way. It is only used for enabling NX/xD functionality. /PAE has nothing to do with how much memory can be addressed by a desktop version of windows.

The /3GB switch also does not work. That switch has nothing to do with how much memory the OS can use, but rather it changes how it uses it. Instead of allowing 2GB for userspace and 2GB for kernel space, that switch allocates 3GB to userspace, and 1GB to kernel space, but it does nothing for the way in which the hardware addresses the memory.

Depending on how the hardware is equipped, a 32 bit OS will use anywhere from 3.25GB to 2GB. My machine is using 3.25 of my 4GB.

If there is a working solution, alternative to running a 64bit OS, which DOES WORK, please, please post it. Just please stop regurgitation the same broken solutions of /PAE, or /3GB, unless you can actually make that solution work.
 
Actually, I discover something. Some1 told me that I installed 4 x 1 GB on the MB, the memory has to be installed in pairs.

Thus, the 1st pair is 2 GB and XP PRo sees it

the 2nd pair is also 2 GB but because there is other memory in the computer, such as 512MB of Video RAM, XP Pro can't see it the entire 2 GB. And he said XP Pro can either see it or none at all.

Meaning that if the 2nd pair is 2 x 512 MB, = 1 GB, then in total, I only have 3.5 GB, and XP Pro should see the 2nd pair.

but as of now, I have 4.5 GB, thus, XP Pro can't see the 2nd pair.

Can any1 confirm or debunk the above?
 
It doesn't work like that. XP doesn't see/not see the memory in "whole stick" increments.
For example, on my pc, I have a 256MB video card, and 4GB (4x1GB). 32 bit XP sees 3.25GB of it.
 
Xaero_toast said:
It doesn't work like that. XP doesn't see/not see the memory in "whole stick" increments.
For example, on my pc, I have a 256MB video card, and 4GB (4x1GB). 32 bit XP sees 3.25GB of it.
Click to expand...

that's strange. Before I install 4 GB, I have 1 GB and a 512 MB video Card, and all I see what I go to System is 1 GB

Anyhow, I went to the BIOS, and I see the following:

By default, ALL of the following are ENABLE

ECC Support
Memory Scrubbing
Memory Remapping
PCI SERR# Generation
ACPI Bus Segmentation
 
I fixed it. It's the memory remapping. It should be Disable. I am glad I called kingston, after all, they made money from me on these 4 GB. They said memory remapping is only for 64 bit OS. Once I disable it, I'm now seeing 3.25GB. Since my video card is 512MB, that no. is about right, I don't know where the remaining 0.25GB went. I have 4 Hard drive, I don't see the cache of 4 HD adds up to 256 MB, but it's possible. So I'm happy
 
I have a question regarding the whole 'cannot address more than 2 gigs of ram' issue.

*IF* you can get XP32 to recognize 2.5, 3, 3.25 or any quantity of ram over the 2gb mark, what is the maximum that it can actually use as per the physical limitations?

How is the ram actually seen and used by the machine when the addressing limit is in place? Does it use say 1.5 gigs of one stick, lock off the rest, and use 1.5 gigs of the other stick? Or does it use the maximum quantity on the first stick, and the remaining quantity of address space on the other stick(s)? In the case of the latter, will this effect performance? (Or stability?)

Ive not yet built my new C2D or C2Q system, but ive been looking at deals on ram and wondering to myself: Should i get the 2x1 for 10-20 bucks, or the 2x2 for 20-30 bucks. That is after rebates of course. Someone brought up a valid point recently, why pay 60 bucks for 2 gigs of ram when you could pay 60 bucks for 4 gigs of ram if said rebates were to fail. Not that ive ever had one fail, but i havnt done one in 3-4 years now, and heard about a lot of 'broke rebate companies lately'
 
Happy Hopping said:
Since my video card is 512MB, that no. is about right, I don't know where the remaining 0.25GB went.
Click to expand...

32 bit XP is not limited to 4GB of RAM (system memory+video memory, in the context you implied in your previous post), but it is limited to 4GB address space. Some of that address space is used for things such as memory mapped I/O. The .75GB you have missing isn't a matter of .5GB went to the video card, and .25GB went to some other device. It's a matter of .75GB worth of address space went to various system devices. I have a 256MB video card, and my system also shows 3.25GB available memory if I boot into 32bit XP.
 
Ratha said:
I have a question regarding the whole 'cannot address more than 2 gigs of ram' issue.

*IF* you can get XP32 to recognize 2.5, 3, 3.25 or any quantity of ram over the 2gb mark, what is the maximum that it can actually use as per the physical limitations?

How is the ram actually seen and used by the machine when the addressing limit is in place? Does it use say 1.5 gigs of one stick, lock off the rest, and use 1.5 gigs of the other stick? Or does it use the maximum quantity on the first stick, and the remaining quantity of address space on the other stick(s)? In the case of the latter, will this effect performance? (Or stability?)
Click to expand...
Read: http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1035670
Ratha said:
Ive not yet built my new C2D or C2Q system, but ive been looking at deals on ram and wondering to myself: Should i get the 2x1 for 10-20 bucks, or the 2x2 for 20-30 bucks. That is after rebates of course. Someone brought up a valid point recently, why pay 60 bucks for 2 gigs of ram when you could pay 60 bucks for 4 gigs of ram if said rebates were to fail. Not that ive ever had one fail, but i havnt done one in 3-4 years now, and heard about a lot of 'broke rebate companies lately'
Click to expand...
Get 4GB. Eventually you'll probably transition to a 64-bit OS, and 3.25GB of RAM is still better than 2GB in any case.
 
Ratha said:
*IF* you can get XP32 to recognize 2.5, 3, 3.25 or any quantity of ram over the 2gb mark, what is the maximum that it can actually use as per the physical limitations?
Click to expand...

Good question! Sorry, I don't have the answer. Why else would I think it's such a good question?

Ratha said:
How is the ram actually seen and used by the machine when the addressing limit is in place? Does it use say 1.5 gigs of one stick, lock off the rest, and use 1.5 gigs of the other stick? Or does it use the maximum quantity on the first stick, and the remaining quantity of address space on the other stick(s)? In the case of the latter, will this effect performance? (Or stability?)
Click to expand...

I would think the two sticks would be interleaved together, such that each 4kb memory page is written 2kb each across both memory channels, almost like a raid0 hard drive set. Otherwise, there would be no theoretical benefit to having a dual channel system

Ratha said:
Ive not yet built my new C2D or C2Q system, but ive been looking at deals on ram and wondering to myself: Should i get the 2x1 for 10-20 bucks, or the 2x2 for 20-30 bucks.
Click to expand...

First, I'd look hard at i7 before deciding on C2(D,Q) for a new system. An i7 system should be more easily upgradeable in the future, where a C2(D,Q) system is cheaper, and can be filled to the gills with cheap DDR2.

If you decide C2(D,Q), I'd go with 2x2GB. If you're not in a hurry to build, checking hotdeals forum daily for about 2 weeks will surely yield a posting or two where you can get a 2x2 kit for $30-ish. I currently have a 2x2GB OCZ 1066 set in the mail, for $36 after rebates, live cashback, and paypal debit cashback. Besides, when you compare the best 2x1 deal, and the best 2x2 deal, since there's usually a rebate involved, the upfront costs are usually close to the same.
 
Happy Hopping said:
I fixed it. It's the memory remapping. It should be Disable. I am glad I called kingston, after all, they made money from me on these 4 GB. They said memory remapping is only for 64 bit OS. Once I disable it, I'm now seeing 3.25GB. Since my video card is 512MB, that no. is about right, I don't know where the remaining 0.25GB went. I have 4 Hard drive, I don't see the cache of 4 HD adds up to 256 MB, but it's possible. So I'm happy
Click to expand...
Your motherboard, cpu, pci-e etc. all count towards the limit. They all use their own memory.

Go to your device manager and click on View -> Resources by type, then expane memory. It list everything using ram, which all that counts against the 4GB.
 
Xaero_toast said:
32 bit XP is not limited to 4GB of RAM (system memory+video memory, in the context you implied in your previous post), but it is limited to 4GB address space. Some of that address space is used for things such as memory mapped I/O. .
Click to expand...

so there is a small difference depends on that day, and what resource are allocated in Hexa decimal. Best case is, I probably get 4.25 GB or 4.5GB.
 
Motley said:
Why do people insist on using an 8 year old (32bit) OS, and they want to run 2GB+ of memory is BEYOND my comprehension.

Get Vista 64 bit, and get over it already!
Click to expand...

Because some people prefer the stability of XP over the instability of Vista. Windows 7 will hopefully alleviate problems soon and I'll make the jump. 32-bit OS benefits from 4GB (uses no more than 4GB total, though) so 2GB (according to your argument) makes a big difference.
 
PC_User said:
Because some people prefer the stability of XP over the instability of Vista.
Click to expand...
Well, that's a pretty silly comment. I think it's fine that people like to stick with XP, but saying that Vista is unstable is quite simply wrong. I've switched over to Vista on all of my machines, and it's been significantly more stable and trouble-free than XP has ever been for me.
 
Zero82z said:
Well, that's a pretty silly comment. I think it's fine that people like to stick with XP, but saying that Vista is unstable is quite simply wrong. I've switched over to Vista on all of my machines, and it's been significantly more stable and trouble-free than XP has ever been for me.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong - Vista is a nice operating system and has its advantages. But there have been too many past issues (many of which are still unresolved) which still hold some users back. I think that this past instability of Vista and the many headaches that it offers can best be illustrated by Microsoft's quick movement to Windows 7.
 
PC_User said:
But there have been too many past issues (many of which are still unresolved) which still hold some users back.
Click to expand...
Such as?
PC_User said:
I think that this past instability of Vista and the many headaches that it offers can best be illustrated by Microsoft's quick movement to Windows 7.
Click to expand...
No. Microsoft's quick movement to Windows 7 is due to the negative public opinion of Vista. Under the hood, Windows 7 is just about identical to Vista. It runs a little faster and has a fancy new GUI, but it's still essentially the same OS. The very fact that so many Vista bashers are gushing over Windows 7 proves that their anti-Vista claims are for the most part untrue.
 
Vista is just as stable as XP. At this point, most of Vista's initial issues have been fixed. It's fast and reliable and future proofed. Most people still play down vista because of it's initial launch issues. Most people just can't let those thoughts go. It's a quality product. Not that XP isn't quality but if you have a 64bit cpu and 3+ gb of ram, there is no reason not to use a 64bit os and don't bring up XP64 because it's barely supported and is a joke.
 
It's incredible that people are still bashing Vista after 4 years now, and say that's the reason they are still using a "10 year old operating system with XP"

Wow!

They want to use all this new technology, but use ancient operating systems, and wonder why they "can't see all my memory?"
 
Motley said:
It's incredible that people are still bashing Vista after 4 years now, and say that's the reason they are still using a "10 year old operating system with XP"

Wow!

They want to use all this new technology, but use ancient operating systems, and wonder why they "can't see all my memory?"
Click to expand...

I thought XP was released in 2001...
 
Motley said:
It's incredible that people are still bashing Vista after 4 years now, and say that's the reason they are still using a "10 year old operating system with XP"

Wow!

They want to use all this new technology, but use ancient operating systems, and wonder why they "can't see all my memory?"
Click to expand...

and it's pretty incredible that in some cases, Vista still deserves to be bashed.

i bought a brand-spanking-new laptop about 6 months ago with Vista pre-installed on it. it's no high-end gaming system or anything (Acer Aspire 5315), but a decent enough system (hardware-wise) for just web surfing, emailing, and watching movies on.

the very first thing i did, before even connecting it to the internet, was uninstall all the usual pre-installed BS that so many manufacturers like to put on the computer to slow it down. then i ran windows update to get everything up-to-date.

anytime i'd try to watch divx/xvid/asf/mov movies on it, all the players i used to try to watch them (WMP, MPC, Quicktime, VLC) would freeze once every 10 - 30 seconds for anywhere from 5 - 10 seconds at a time. i made sure i had all the latest codecs, video drivers, chipset drivers, etc., but nothing fixed the problem. i even reloaded the system using the recovery image from the "hidden" partition that the factory put the backup image on, and re-did everything again....still had the problem.

so i wiped it and put XP Pro on it.....been running without a hiccup ever since.

so just because a concept is "beyond your comprehension" (as you stated in your first post here) that doesn't mean there is no legitimate reason for it, and you only serve to make an ass of yourself when you act so "elitist", like you've been doing on this thread.

granted, the OP could have probably explained in his first post that he already knew he was not going to be able to see the entire 4GB of memory, and that he was just looking to be able to detect/use more than the 2GB that it was seeing, but that's no reason for someone to act like a childish jerk towards him.
 
Bigbacon said:
don't bring up XP64 because it's barely supported and is a joke.
Click to expand...
Where's the punchline? I'm just started using XP64 a few weeks ago, and the only problems I've run into is no drivers for my 5 year old printer or my 9 year old scanner. Those are unfortunate, but forgiveable deficiencies.
I've just recently gone to 4gb, and decided to try out XP64. I've got a week or so left until I have to activate, at which point I'll be ditching it (just borrowed a copy to test it out during the preactivation period), because I can't see buying a copy of XP this late in the product cycle. I was preparing to go to Vista 64, which I have tested in a similar fashion to XP64, and thought to be ok. However, Windows 7 being this close, and basically the same as Vista, It seems wise to hold out for it. If you're going to buy the same thing, it may as well be in the newer named product which will be supported for a longer period of time.
 
Ratha said:
I have a question regarding the whole 'cannot address more than 2 gigs of ram' issue.

*IF* you can get XP32 to recognize 2.5, 3, 3.25 or any quantity of ram over the 2gb mark, what is the maximum that it can actually use as per the physical limitations?
Click to expand...

It's my understanding that the biggest limitation of a 32bit OS is that any one program can only get 2GB of RAM. The rest of the 4GB goes to hardware and background programs, which certainly makes your machine smoother if you have the extra RAM. I think this is relevant to your question. BTW the /3GB switch is supposed to allow any one program to get 3GB of RAM addressed to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top