4gb in vista, anyone besides me?

antok86 said:
running 4gb since vista 64 came out..but windows is showing 3582mb. how can i get it to show 4gb. im not using onboard video. thanks
Click to expand...

You need to enable the 'memory remapping' feature in your bios.
This feature will move the memory mapped I/O beyond the 32-bit limit, and therefore beyond the 4 gb boundary.

Enabling this feature means that some 32-bit OSes don't work at all, and XP 32-bit only sees about 2 gb. Something to consider when you are dualbooting 32-bit and 64-bit OSes.
 
Scali2 said:
You need to enable the 'memory remapping' feature in your bios.
This feature will move the memory mapped I/O beyond the 32-bit limit, and therefore beyond the 4 gb boundary.

Enabling this feature means that some 32-bit OSes don't work at all, and XP 32-bit only sees about 2 gb. Something to consider when you are dualbooting 32-bit and 64-bit OSes.
Click to expand...
i dual boot xp and vista64 when i boot into xp(32bit) it sees 3gb which i believe is the max XP can see.
 
it's cause some chipsets don't like 4 sticks of "double sided" memory.

for example, my motherboard Asus P5LD2 uses the 945 intel chipset, it only seems 3GB out of my 4GB. in BIOS and windows vista 64
 
antok86 said:
i dual boot xp and vista64 when i boot into xp(32bit) it sees 3gb which i believe is the max XP can see.
Click to expand...

The point is that you don't see the full physical 4 gb in Vista x64 right?
In which case, you haven't enabled memory remapping, so your memory mapped I/O devices, such as your videocard (and all the memory on it, which has nothing to do with shared memory by the way... even though the memory is actually on the videocard, it still needs to be addressed by the CPU, so it needs to have some address space) are eating away the last part of the 4 gb (4 gb being the maximum amount of memory addressable in 32-bit... There simply aren't enough unique addresses available to address all your memory AND your hardware).
By using the remapping option in your bios, the hardware is mapped to the 64-bit range, far beyond the 4 gb limit, and you won't see this problem again until you are reaching the limits of the 64-bit range, which is technically impossible with the memory sticks, motherboards and chipsets currently available. Just like 4 gb has been nothing more than a theoretical limit until recently.
But you can't have your cake and eat it too: in 32-bit OSes you will lose even more memory when remapping is enabled, or even worse, some OSes don't run at all.

I think that most others here are talking about other stuff that has nothing to do with your issue (eg the hotfix for Vista regarding videocards, that's a patch for the DirectX 9 emulation layer, and has nothing to do with the actual amount of physical memory that Windows sees... or problems with certain DIMMs not being detected properly by certain motherboards).
3.5 gb is the 'suspicious' number that indicates the maximum on most 32-bit PCs, because you lose about 500 mb to your memory-mapped I/O devices. So I'm positive that this is your problem.
Apple users have it the other way around... Memory remapping in 64-bit is on by default, and when they install a 32-bit Windows through Bootcamp, they only see 2 gb.
 
4Gb in my 64bit Ultimate, OS will quickly hit ~2Gb with only 1-2 things running, leaving my more than plenty for apps/games. Not having to unload OS files to play a game gives responsive alt tabbing and overal it's just quicker and more responsive. RAM is dirt cheap at the moment so it's worth picking up whatever you need to hit 4gb
 
Scali2 said:
The point is that you don't see the full physical 4 gb in Vista x64 right?
In which case, you haven't enabled memory remapping, so your memory mapped I/O devices, such as your videocard (and all the memory on it, which has nothing to do with shared memory by the way... even though the memory is actually on the videocard, it still needs to be addressed by the CPU, so it needs to have some address space) are eating away the last part of the 4 gb (4 gb being the maximum amount of memory addressable in 32-bit... There simply aren't enough unique addresses available to address all your memory AND your hardware).
By using the remapping option in your bios, the hardware is mapped to the 64-bit range, far beyond the 4 gb limit, and you won't see this problem again until you are reaching the limits of the 64-bit range, which is technically impossible with the memory sticks, motherboards and chipsets currently available. Just like 4 gb has been nothing more than a theoretical limit until recently.
But you can't have your cake and eat it too: in 32-bit OSes you will lose even more memory when remapping is enabled, or even worse, some OSes don't run at all.

I think that most others here are talking about other stuff that has nothing to do with your issue (eg the hotfix for Vista regarding videocards, that's a patch for the DirectX 9 emulation layer, and has nothing to do with the actual amount of physical memory that Windows sees... or problems with certain DIMMs not being detected properly by certain motherboards).
3.5 gb is the 'suspicious' number that indicates the maximum on most 32-bit PCs, because you lose about 500 mb to your memory-mapped I/O devices. So I'm positive that this is your problem.
Apple users have it the other way around... Memory remapping in 64-bit is on by default, and when they install a 32-bit Windows through Bootcamp, they only see 2 gb.
Click to expand...

is there another name this remapping goes by i dont see the option in my bios. thanks
 
I just ordered some 2x2gb DDR 1000 G.Skill from newegg, after seeing my usage under Vista 64 Ultimate.

A little more than I need for OC but the headroom is good plus they should be 4-4-4-12 at DDR800.
 
Right. I was always under the impression the hardware either supports an amount of memory or it doesn't. You should be seeing all 4 GB of memory if your board supports it, and you are running an x64 OS. If not, I still stand by my original suggestion of contacting the board maker and asking what's going on.
 
GIGANTOID said:
I just ordered some 2x2gb DDR 1000 G.Skill from newegg, after seeing my usage under Vista 64 Ultimate.

A little more than I need for OC but the headroom is good plus they should be 4-4-4-12 at DDR800.
Click to expand...



shit I got lucky, my basic Kingston stuff is only DDR667, and its running DDR800 4-4-4-12 1t :) with 2v.

I think it actually running 390Mhz (or 780Mhz) stupid AM2 dividers...
 
I(illa Bee said:
its not a BIOS option, its a OS job
Click to expand...
according to the previous poster its in bios
Scali2 said:
The point is that you don't see the full physical 4 gb in Vista x64 right?
In which case, you haven't enabled memory remapping, so your memory mapped I/O devices, such as your videocard (and all the memory on it, which has nothing to do with shared memory by the way... even though the memory is actually on the videocard, it still needs to be addressed by the CPU, so it needs to have some address space) are eating away the last part of the 4 gb (4 gb being the maximum amount of memory addressable in 32-bit... There simply aren't enough unique addresses available to address all your memory AND your hardware).
By using the remapping option in your bios, the hardware is mapped to the 64-bit range, far beyond the 4 gb limit, and you won't see this problem again until you are reaching the limits of the 64-bit range, which is technically impossible with the memory sticks, motherboards and chipsets currently available. Just like 4 gb has been nothing more than a theoretical limit until recently.
But you can't have your cake and eat it too: in 32-bit OSes you will lose even more memory when remapping is enabled, or even worse, some OSes don't run at all.

I think that most others here are talking about other stuff that has nothing to do with your issue (eg the hotfix for Vista regarding videocards, that's a patch for the DirectX 9 emulation layer, and has nothing to do with the actual amount of physical memory that Windows sees... or problems with certain DIMMs not being detected properly by certain motherboards).
3.5 gb is the 'suspicious' number that indicates the maximum on most 32-bit PCs, because you lose about 500 mb to your memory-mapped I/O devices. So I'm positive that this is your problem.
Apple users have it the other way around... Memory remapping in 64-bit is on by default, and when they install a 32-bit Windows through Bootcamp, they only see 2 gb.
Click to expand...
 
I'm not going to say firmly I don't agree or believe it. I'd like to see more info on it however, because I don't ever recall seeing an option in any BIOS to do something like that. I've run several computers in the past couple of years with 4 GB of memory, and have never changed BIOS settings to enable it.
 
I(illa Bee said:
its not a BIOS option, its a OS job
Click to expand...

No, it IS a BIOS option.
But it could be that not all boards support it. Which would be rather silly, but I have seen silly things on motherboards before.
I don't know any other names, although I'm sure they'll exist.
On my Asus P5B Deluxe, it's called Memory Remapping, that is all I know.
 
DeaconFrost said:
I'm not going to say firmly I don't agree or believe it. I'd like to see more info on it however, because I don't ever recall seeing an option in any BIOS to do something like that. I've run several computers in the past couple of years with 4 GB of memory, and have never changed BIOS settings to enable it.
Click to expand...

Is this enough to convince you?
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605/en-us

The BIOS must support the memory remapping feature. The memory remapping feature allows for the segment of system memory that was previously overwritten by the Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI) configuration space to be remapped above the 4 GB address line. This feature must be enabled in the BIOS configuration utility on the computer. View your computer product documentation for instructions that explain how to enable this feature. Many consumer-oriented computers may not support the memory remapping feature. No standard terminology is used in documentation or in BIOS configuration utilities for this feature. Therefore, you may have to read the descriptions of the various BIOS configuration settings that are available to determine whether any of the settings enable the memory remapping feature.
Click to expand...

Unless your machines have all had the memory remapping feature enabled by default, I'd say it's highly unlikely that you actually USED all of the 4 gb you installed. As this article says, the maximum Vista can use without remapping is about 3.12 GB. For XP it's slightly higher, around 3.5 GB (I'm sure there's a related KB article for XP or Server 2003). It's just how the 32-bit x86 platform works.
 
Scali2 said:
Is this enough to convince you?
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605/en-us
Click to expand...
If I'm reading that correctly, it seems that only the 945, 925, and 915 Intel chipsets would be subjected to this, and any Via chipsets that may exist for newer processors. For people running Vista, I'd think the vast majority of them would be above this line, especially in store bought or OEM PCs. I'd call that a rare situation, especially for the readers of this type of message board. Think about the types of people who would be running 4 GB of memory and/or Vista x64.
 
DeaconFrost said:
If I'm reading that correctly, it seems that only the 945, 925, and 915 Intel chipsets would be subjected to this, and any Via chipsets that may exist for newer processors.
Click to expand...

You're not reading it correctly. Besides, you're ignoring the fact that my P5B Deluxe (965 chipset) is affected, as I've already stated.

The chipset must support at least 8 GB of address space. Chipsets that have this capability include the following:
Click to expand...

The key here is the 8 GB of address space. In other words, that is one bit more than 32-bit, which gives you 4 GB of address space (actually 2^32 bytes... 8 GB is 2^33, so 4 GB * 2, one extra bit). So you simply need at least one step up from 32-bit address space in order to have enough address space to relocate the memory mapped I/O beyond the 4 GB border, which should make perfect sense.
Microsoft then proceeds to list a few popular Intel chipsets that have this capability, and mentions that all AMD processors with onboard memory controller also apply. Ofcourse any newer chipsets generally also have 8 GB or more addressing space.

The chipsets you mention simply don't have more than 4 GB of addressing space, so it is impossible to use the full physical 4 GB of memory, ever. That's not an issue, that's a limitation. The KB article speaks of working around the issue when your system is actually capable of addressing more than 4 GB, but you still don't see all your memory. In which case, you have to enable memory remapping in the BIOS, as the article says. Obviously there's nothing to enable with chipsets that simply don't have enough address space to remap anything.
But even when you do have enough physical addressing space, you still actually need to enable the remapping, as the article says, in case you don't actually see the full 4 GB in a 64-bit OS, as some people in this thread have mentioned.

For people running Vista, I'd think the vast majority of them would be above this line, especially in store bought or OEM PCs. I'd call that a rare situation, especially for the readers of this type of message board. Think about the types of people who would be running 4 GB of memory and/or Vista x64.
Click to expand...

Not rare at all. Most motherboards are still configured to not remap memory by default, because most people still run 32-bit OSes on them, and the remapping has compatibility issues with 32-bit OSes.

In short, I think you completely misunderstand the issue here. It applies to ALL 64-bit systems that are capable of handling 4 GB of memory or more, because it is simply a result of the 32-bit compatibility with x86. As I say, Macs have the remapping enabled by default, because Apple isn't plagued by any kind of x86 legacy. PCs don't have that luxury. Most people still run 32-bit OSes on their PCs, even though they're capable of 64-bit, and even though more and more people actually have 4 GB or more these days... which means they are now throwing hundreds of MBs away, which is the issue we're discussing here.
 
Since nothing I say could ever possibly be correct, do me a favor. I'm using a board that's based on the very same chipset as you. I never had to configure any options to see my full 4 GB. I built the system using 2 GB of memory, and ran Vista x86. Then, when I bought my second 2 GB kit, I simply wiped the drive and loaded Vista x64. I made no tweaks to the BIOS, no memory settings, etc, and it worked fine. You try and find me an article that states it's enabled by default on my board, and I'm going through the PDF manual right now to see if it's even an option.

EDIT: It isn't even an option in the BIOS of my DS3. I'm rebooting now on my work PC, which is using an Intel D965WH, and I'll be checking that out. That's only ever had x86 OSes and 3 GB of memory.

EDIT2: I checked the Intel board I mentioned above, and just for laughs, an older D865PERL board, and neither one of them have the options in the BIOS. Bawsed on what you told me above, my DS3 should have this option, because the board does support 8 GB of memory space....but the option isn't there. That again leads me to sa this is not as widespread of a problem as you want us to believe...even if we chalk it up to saying most boards have this feature enabled by default, with no way to disable it.
 
I've been running 4 gigs ever since 2x1 hit $150. I'd probably buy 4 more if my board had more DIMMs :(

Also, if it helps the above debate at all - on my P5B Deluxe, memory remapping is DISABLED by default in the BIOS, and at this setting, XP32 sees ~3.0GB of RAM (just under, I think it's about 2.88 or something odd), I forget what Vista sees, but it's less than 4. With memory remapping ENABLED, XP32 sees only 2.0 GB exactly, while XP64 and Vista64 see all 4.
 
Just added an extra 2Gb of Corsair 6400 and it's running very nicely :). No changes to BIOS or any other settings to see the full 4Gb incidentally.
 
DeaconFrost said:
Since nothing I say could ever possibly be correct, do me a favor. I'm using a board that's based on the very same chipset as you. I never had to configure any options to see my full 4 GB. I built the system using 2 GB of memory, and ran Vista x86. Then, when I bought my second 2 GB kit, I simply wiped the drive and loaded Vista x64. I made no tweaks to the BIOS, no memory settings, etc, and it worked fine. You try and find me an article that states it's enabled by default on my board, and I'm going through the PDF manual right now to see if it's even an option.
Click to expand...

It is a simple fact of the x86 architecture that you cannot use the full 4 GB by default (you can use each address only once, you have 2^32 addresses, and you need to address your hardware aswell as your memory... Hence some physical memory ends up being hidden by memory-mapped hardware, as explained earlier by me, and also in the MS article)
It is also a fact that most x64 systems are booted into a 16/32-bit compatible mode by default (Apple being an exception, giving problems when booting a 32-bit OS and only seeing 2 gb). You cannot deny this. There are too many sources that explain this particular, including Microsoft itself.

So there are really only two possibilities:
1) You are wrong, and don't actually see the full 4 GB in Windows.
2) You are right, so your board somehow is switched to the proper mode automatically, so the problem is hidden from you. The problem however still exists, and your memory is still being remapped by the BIOS. There is no other way to be able to see the full 4 GB while still having memory mapped hardware.

But ironically enough when I looked up the Gigabyte GA-965P-DS3, I saw this:
http://www.giga-byte.nl/Products/Mo...board&ProductID=2455&ProductName=GA-965P-DS3P
* Due to standard PC architecture, a certain amount of memory is reserved for system usage and therefore the actual memory size is less than the stated amount.
Click to expand...

So the manufacturer even says some memory will be hidden. Which means the most likely option is 1), you are wrong. Gigabyte probably points out this limitation because the remapping option is missing on that board.
By the way, my board also has 3 GB. Without remapping I see 3007 MB, in other words 2.93 GB. With remapping I see the full 3072 MB, or 3 GB.
 
I(illa Bee said:
Has anyone running vista upgraded to 4gb of RAM? (even on a 32bit OS)

I did, and It dose seem to help. the original reason I did was because when running Vista, with music, Lightroom, and PS CS2 my box would use in the range of 1.9gb


Just wondering if the trend is moving to 4gb yet?
Click to expand...

If you run Vista it will use all your ram even if your running apps wouldn't need it. So most likely you bought ram for nothing.
 
Scali2 said:
It is a simple fact of the x86 architecture that you cannot use the full 4 GB by default (you can use each address only once, you have 2^32 addresses, and you need to address your hardware aswell as your memory... Hence some physical memory ends up being hidden by memory-mapped hardware, as explained earlier by me, and also in the MS article)
Click to expand...
No one has ever doubted that or disagreed with that, so I'm not sure why you need to trumpet this point out. As for the choices, I can tell you my system is reporting the full 4 GB of memory, just like an overhwhelming number of people posting in this thread. Whatever "tricks" may be going on behind the scenes, I, as everyone else, is trying to say that Windows is reporting the full 4 GB. It may be very possible that this setting is enabled by default on my DS3, assuming all of your info is correct. That being said, what my point was, this "setting" must be very commonly enabled on most new boards, because of the sheer number of people reporting the full 4 GB of memory.
 
DeaconFrost said:
No one has ever doubted that or disagreed with that, so I'm not sure why you need to trumpet this point out. As for the choices, I can tell you my system is reporting the full 4 GB of memory, just like an overhwhelming number of people posting in this thread. Whatever "tricks" may be going on behind the scenes, I, as everyone else, is trying to say that Windows is reporting the full 4 GB. It may be very possible that this setting is enabled by default on my DS3, assuming all of your info is correct. That being said, what my point was, this "setting" must be very commonly enabled on most new boards, because of the sheer number of people reporting the full 4 GB of memory.
Click to expand...

Well, the thing is, what you are claiming goes against three things:
1) What Gigabyte says
2) What Microsoft says
3) Common sense

So you see it's impossible to take your word for it, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary.
 
Now I think I see the misunderstanding, and perhaps it was in the wording I'm using. Every single MB of memory isn't ever full available to the system because of the architecture. No one was trying to make that claim, but perhaps I can see where my comments were possibly suggesting that. The point I was trying to make is, in this thread, a user was complaining that their Vista x64 system was only reporting 3.5GB of memory, and that seems quite low. If it was due to having a 512 MB video card, or two 256 MB cards in SLI, then why wouldn't everyone's system with 4 GB show quite a bit less?

The computer I'm using right now has 3 GB of memory installed. Most utilities, such as CPU-z report the full 3072 MB. However, in the system properties, it shows 2.98 GB, with the words, Physical Address Extension printed below it. Obviously, some of that RAM is reserved, and unavailable to the apps, etc. I'm still saying, going way back, that 3.5 GB is very low for a system running Vista x64.
 
DeaconFrost said:
Now I think I see the misunderstanding, and perhaps it was in the wording I'm using.
Click to expand...

I'm quite sure we were discussing the memory that *Windows* reports, not some kind of tools that simply check out the SPD info for your DIMMs and add that up.
I responded to this:
"running 4gb since vista 64 came out..but windows is showing 3582mb. how can i get it to show 4gb. im not using onboard video."
See? *Windows*, not CPU-Z or some other tools... Tools are useless if you don't know how to use them.

DeaconFrost said:
Every single MB of memory isn't ever full available to the system because of the architecture.
Click to expand...

Actually, it is... or at least, when you have a chipset capable of 8 GB or more, like the 965, and you are using 4 GB, then yes you can see EVERY single MB of memory, if you use the memory remapping feature. That's what the Microsoft article says, and that's what would make *Windows* report that it actually SEES and USES 4 GB of memory, because your videomemory and other hardware are mapped in the region between 4 GB and 8 GB.
Now your motherboard isn't capable of this, so you will never be able to see the full 4 GB, there will always be a 'memory hole' where your hardware is mapped (just like in 16 bit mode there was a 'memory hole' between 640 KB and 1 MB).

DeaconFrost said:
If it was due to having a 512 MB video card, or two 256 MB cards in SLI, then why wouldn't everyone's system with 4 GB show quite a bit less?
Click to expand...

They do, unless they have the memory remapping feature enabled!
You're just looking at the wrong numbers.

DeaconFrost said:
However, in the system properties, it shows 2.98 GB
Click to expand...

Exactly, so *Windows* doesn't see the full 3 GB, some of it is taken by your hardware.
Now if you had memory remapping enabled, you wouldn't have this problem.
CPU-Z doesn't measure the actual memory that the OS can use, it simply checks how many DIMMs you have, what size they are, and adds it all up. Obviously it will always see all memory in your PC, whether you can use it or not. In fact, I have a laptop here with 2x512 MB DIMMs installed. CPU-Z reports 1 GB of memory, but because of a limited chipset, I can only use 512 MB of it.

DeaconFrost said:
I'm still saying, going way back, that 3.5 GB is very low for a system running Vista x64.
Click to expand...

No, it's perfectly normal. In fact, it's actually quite good. Microsoft itself quotes about 3.2 GB.
Point is, you *can* see the full 4 GB when you run a 64-bit OS (and a board/BIOS that supports it obviously). That's one of the reasons why you should go 64-bit!
Don't you remember that we never had memory 'missing' in 32-bit either, until we broke the 2 GB barrier? 64-bit is the same way, except the barrier is way beyond 2 GB, or even 4 GB. In 64-bit we'll be able to see and use our full amount of physical memory for years to come.
 
So, based on what you are saying, if my DS3 has this feature enabled, despite the fact I have a 256 MB card, Windows should SEE roughly all of my 4 GB of memory? If so, we could boil this entire debate down to the fact the DS3 Rev 1.0 has this memory remapping built-in.
Scali2 said:
So you see it's impossible to take your word for it, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary.
Click to expand...
Just remember in the future, that rude and inciteful comments don't lend credibility to an argument either. There's been too much of that going around, where people feel the best way to defend a point is by flinging insults and put downs.
 
Scali2,
I'm curious, what determines the memory address of mapped i/o? Is this typically done by a device driver? Also where do the addresses exist after remapping; the very end of 64 bit addressable space?
 
DeaconFrost said:
So, based on what you are saying, if my DS3 has this feature enabled, despite the fact I have a 256 MB card, Windows should SEE roughly all of my 4 GB of memory?
Click to expand...

Not roughly, it should see EXACTLY all your 4096 MB. And we're talking *Windows*, not any other tools. What does Windows say when you look at the properties of My Computer? That's the amount of physical memory available to your OS, nothing more, nothing less.

DeaconFrost said:
If so, we could boil this entire debate down to the fact the DS3 Rev 1.0 has this memory remapping built-in.
Click to expand...

No, because I was only being theoretical about some kind of automatic memory remapping detection. As far as I know there exists no such thing, and I wouldn't know of any other way than to have a custom boot manager to handle this, before loading Windows. The BIOS can't handle it, because it won't know whether you start a 32-bit or 64-bit OS until after the BIOS has already POSTed.
So I simply will not accept that your DS3 sees your full 4 GB because of some magic undocumented feature. Especially when even Gigabyte itself warns about 'missing' physical memory. The facts all point in the direction that your board is simply not capable of remapping the memory, and therefore not capable of addressing 4 GB of physical memory.

DeaconFrost said:
Just remember in the future, that rude and inciteful comments don't lend credibility to an argument either. There's been too much of that going around, where people feel the best way to defend a point is by flinging insults and put downs.
Click to expand...

Oh yea, let's get into a moral discussion instead. You want my opinion?
This is a *tech* forum. Technology is about facts. Nothing more, nothing less. If you don't have the facts, don't argue, especially not like you know better than the ones that actually DO have the facts, and even present them to you. That's how I feel about it.
The right thing to do for you is swallow your pride and admit you were wrong. Not to argue about this kind of nonsense because you 'lost' the argument. This is considered to be an ad hominem fallacy, and all fallacies are considered rude in technical discussions.
 
While we're on the subject of specific boards, I'll be installing an EVGA 650i Ultra, hopefully this weekend, in place of my DS3. I see nothing about a memory-remapping feature in the BIOS, so what are your thoughts on what Vista x64 will show as my available memory?
 
jimmyb said:
Scali2,
I'm curious, what determines the memory address of mapped i/o? Is this typically done by a device driver? Also where do the addresses exist after remapping; the very end of 64 bit addressable space?
Click to expand...

It depends on the type of device.
PCI (and PCI-e) describes a way to communicate between the BIOS on the hardware, and the BIOS for the motherboard, so that they can negotiate memory mappings.
This is necessary for devices that are required to work from bootup, like eg a videocard, USB, harddisk controllers, network cards etc.
Some devices can be left in an 'unconfigured' state at bootup, and be configured by an OS driver.
The OS is able to read out the PCI configuration and in some cases modify it.

The remapping is done at the end of the chipset limits, which is 8 GB with most current chipsets. Now if you would put in 8 GB in a 965 board, it probably won't matter. The hole is still there. The gain is mainly for the range of 3-7 GB configurations.
 
Scali2 said:
Not to argue about this kind of nonsense because you 'lost' the argument. This is considered to be an ad hominem fallacy, and all fallacies are considered rude in technical discussions.
Click to expand...
Now I get a lecture in fallacies. Heeding your own advice, this is a tech forum, so leave the lectures out of it, and stick to facts. Don't go hypoctrical on me now.
 
I(illa Bee said:
Has anyone running vista upgraded to 4gb of RAM? (even on a 32bit OS)

I did, and It dose seem to help. the original reason I did was because when running Vista, with music, Lightroom, and PS CS2 my box would use in the range of 1.9gb


Just wondering if the trend is moving to 4gb yet?
Click to expand...

i use 4gb too!
 
Scali2 said:
Actually these *are* facts.
Click to expand...
Well, if winning is really that important to you, than be my guest...congratulations. It's a shame I don't have my clipart for arguing on the internet with me. Anyhoo, we'll see how things go with my new board, because it's my first foray into the Nvidia chipset arena. I'd be curious to see, with all these people using 4 GB of memory, what their reported amounts are in Windows.
 
DeaconFrost said:
Well, if winning is really that important to you, than be my guest...congratulations.
Click to expand...

A victory of knowledge over misinformation is always important. If you think it's retarded to try and help people by pointing them to the proper sources of information on various issues because you 'lost' an 'argument', you have a severe ego-problem.
 
DeaconFrost said:
Well, if winning is really that important to you, than be my guest...congratulations. It's a shame I don't have my clipart for arguing on the internet with me. Anyhoo, we'll see how things go with my new board, because it's my first foray into the Nvidia chipset arena. I'd be curious to see, with all these people using 4 GB of memory, what their reported amounts are in Windows.
Click to expand...

4GbVista.jpg


As I said, no BIOS or memory tweaks, just slapped in extra 2Gb and there we go.
 
I'll have to do a screenie when I get home as well, but I am pretty sure mine reads the same as yours.

EDIT: Here's mine:
sysprop.jpg
 
I just popped my other 2 sticks in about 2 hours ago. Shows as 3326MB in properties.

Vista HP 32bit
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top