xp dowsn't recognize ddr3

G

G.hOst666

n00b
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
36
Ok so I just built a new gaming computer and after installing windows xp, it appears as if it only recognizes 2 of my 6 gigs of ddr3 memory
cpuz however sees the full 6 gigs
what is wrong here guys?
 
xp32 wont show over ~3gb depending on what address space your devices take. for 6gb you need a 64bit os. Id suggest vista64.

You can download a 64bit linux live-cd to check that there isnt a hardware fault for free though.
 
also my other problem is that I have a 1080p tv right
and when i connect my comp to it and set the resolution to 1920x1080 i can't see my full screen
why do you think that is?
 
This is a common scaling issue. It can usually be corrected by the video card drivers or by setting the input on the TV to computer instead of TV (at least on the Pioneers).

edit: let me clarify that a little. On some TV's you can tailor the HDMI input for several different things. On my TV, for all of the HDMI inputs, you can set them to normal (TV), computer (which eliminates the overscan you're seeing) and a couple of others.

If you're using nVidia drivers, play around with the flat panel scaling settings. You should be able to fix it there.
 
ya thanx a lot eh
i kinda fixed it
i scaled down the resolution to about 1870x1066
or something like that
and now i can see the full screen
 
We'll I don't know if that qualifies as sorta fixed but see if your monitor will let you change the input mode. On my TV it's called "just scan" but I wouldn't know about yours. You're probably on 16:9 or stretch.
 
ya but kay what's the difference between a 32bit os and a 64bit one?
i know that a 64 takes more advantage of the hardware resources
but i'v eheard that software isn't quite compatible with it
 
G.hOst666 said:
ya but kay what's the difference between a 32bit os and a 64bit one?
i know that a 64 takes more advantage of the hardware resources
but i'v eheard that software isn't quite compatible with it
Click to expand...

The main difference, is that a 64bit OS can use more than 4gb of Ram. As for compatibility, Vista 64 is rock-solid stable in my book, you do have to use certified/signed drivers but that's a good thing to me.
 
G.hOst666 said:
wait so xp 32 doesn't use all that 6 gigs of ram even if they are there?
Click to expand...


Exactly. It couldn't even if it wanted to. It's a limitation of addressing that (lack of) extra space. It's a (similar) reason why 16-bit OS's went out of style.

At most you'll see a 32-bit OS use 3.8 GB. Even if it says 4 GB, it'll use no more than 3.8, but usually 3.6 or even less.
 
#13 there are different reasons as to why Microsoft has blocked access to anything above 4GB, but it IS an artificial limitation.
 
There must be. If you check the link above your post...

32-bit Windows Server 2003, datacenter: 128 GB
 
pallesen said:
There must be. If you check the link above your post...

32-bit Windows Server 2003, datacenter: 128 GB
Click to expand...

from the link

Limits greater than 4 GB for 32-bit Windows assume that PAE is enabled.
Click to expand...

You can run PAE in XP 32bit if you desired, but goodluck getting shit to run properly. Which is why it the ability to run with more then 4GB was removed in SP2. While the system is technically running in PAE, to help driver stability, XP will only allow 4GB of RAM to be addressed.
 
Of course it assumes PAE. The point of my post was this statement:
It couldn't even if it wanted to.
Click to expand...
And yes, faulty drivers is one reason to stay below 4GB, hence the artificial limitation in some OSes. Another point: you cannot use the 2^32 formula (just because the OS is 32-bit) to explain why it cannot go above 4GB.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top