Newly installed SDRAM is only partially showing up.
in [Help and Support]
|
From: Damon on 19 Feb 2010 15:49 Hi, I just added two 1-GB sticks of SDRAM into my Dell computer to bring 2.5 GB up to 4 GB, but it's only showing up under System as 3.25. Which is interesting. My tower has four RAM slots. When I bought the computer it had four 256 MB sticks, two of which I replaced with two 1 GB sticks a while back (2.5) and today I replaced the remaining two 256 MB sticks with two 1 GB sticks to bring it up to 4 GB. When I turned my computer back on, I was notified that my computer's memory had changed, giving me the choice to continue or enter setup. I chose "continue". Everything seems to be running smoothly but it only shows up as 3.25 GB in System. Is this because I accidentally skipped setup when prompted? Did I perhaps install wrong? I am aware that RAM but be installed in a certain way and as far as I can tell I made no mistakes. 3.25 is a strange number. Any advice? My specs: Dell Dimension E510, Pentium 4 3.0 ghz, Windows XP Professional, and I bought the new RAM off of the Dell website as per my system specs, don't know the precise name. Any help would be appreciated.
From: Buffalo on 19 Feb 2010 16:18 Damon wrote: > Hi, > > Sorry if this isn't precisely Windows related, > > I just added two 1-GB sticks of SDRAM into my Dell computer to bring > it up to 4 GB, but it's only showing up under System as 3.25. Which > is interesting. > > My tower has four RAM slots. When I bought the computer it had four > 256 MB sticks (1 GB), two of which I replaced with two 1 GB sticks a > while back (2.5) and today I replaced the remaining two 256 MB sticks > with two 1 GB sticks to bring it up to 4 GB. > > When I turned my computer back on, I was notified that my computer's > memory had changed, giving me the choice to continue or run setup. I > chose to continue. > > I am aware that RAM has to be installed in a certain order and as far > as I know I did so, but 3.25 is a strange number. My specs are: Dell > Dimension E510, Pentium 4 3.0 ghz, Windows XP Pro. I bought the RAM > off of the Dell website. > > Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks! > > D That is because WinXP 32 bit cannot recognize more ram than that. Nothing wrong with your ram or your setup, it is just a operating system limit. If you go to a 64bit system, then more ram can be used. Buffalo
From: Jose on 19 Feb 2010 16:26 On Feb 19, 3:53 pm, Damon <Da...(a)discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Sorry if this isn't precisely Windows related, > > I just added two 1-GB sticks of SDRAM into my Dell computer to bring it up > to 4 GB, but it's only showing up under System as 3.25. Which is interesting. > > My tower has four RAM slots. When I bought the computer it had four 256 MB > sticks (1 GB), two of which I replaced with two 1 GB sticks a while back > (2.5) and today I replaced the remaining two 256 MB sticks with two 1 GB > sticks to bring it up to 4 GB. > > When I turned my computer back on, I was notified that my computer's memory > had changed, giving me the choice to continue or run setup. I chose to > continue. > > I am aware that RAM has to be installed in a certain order and as far as I > know I did so, but 3.25 is a strange number. My specs are: Dell Dimension > E510, Pentium 4 3.0 ghz, Windows XP Pro. I bought the RAM off of the Dell > website. > > Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks! > > D Here is one reasonable explanation of what sounds like normal behavior (a popular question though): http://blogs.msdn.com/hiltonl/archive/2007/04/13/the-3gb-not-4gb-ram-problem.aspx Some Google searches will find many others.
From: John John - MVP on 19 Feb 2010 16:49 Damon wrote: > Hi, > > I just added two 1-GB sticks of SDRAM into my Dell computer to bring 2.5 GB > up to 4 GB, but it's only showing up under System as 3.25. Which is > interesting. > > My tower has four RAM slots. When I bought the computer it had four 256 MB > sticks, two of which I replaced with two 1 GB sticks a while back (2.5) and > today I replaced the remaining two 256 MB sticks with two 1 GB sticks to > bring it up to 4 GB. > > When I turned my computer back on, I was notified that my computer's memory > had changed, giving me the choice to continue or enter setup. I chose > "continue". > > Everything seems to be running smoothly but it only shows up as 3.25 GB in > System. Is this because I accidentally skipped setup when prompted? Did I > perhaps install wrong? I am aware that RAM but be installed in a certain way > and as far as I can tell I made no mistakes. 3.25 is a strange number. This is an Address Space problem common to all 32-bit Windows client operating systems, what Windows XP 32-bit will see depends on what hardware you have in the computer, for most computers it ranges anywheres between 2.75 to 3.5GB. Here is the reason why 32-bit XP cannot fully use 4GB of RAM: [Quote] The problem that you are seeing is based on an older architecture design for memory addressing. All the systems architecture up to this point were based on a maximum of 4GB of total memory. Nobody really thought, when this standard was designed, that this amount of memory would actually be in use. The problem that has happened is that you have PCI devices that require memory address ranges so that they can properly execute their commands. These address ranges were mapped in the upper sections of this maximum amount. Since nobody thought you would be using up to 4GB these address ranges started around the last 500MB of the memory ranges. This range is called the T.O.M. or Top of Memory range. This is the point in the bios where it places on hold the amount of memory that is required by the various PCI devices that are found on the motherboard. Thus when you have PCI cards or AGP cards installed on your motherboard these devices hold on to memory for their own use and take away from the maximum amount of memory that is available for other tasks. This amount of memory can vary from a little as 200MB all the way to 1GB of memory (or even more in select cases). It just depends on the PCI devices you have and the amount of PCI (including AGP) that you have installed all at once. There is really no way to get around this basic design limitation. The only way to get around these type of issues is to use certain new designs that have brand new architectures (i.e 64-bit designs) that allow memory to be mapped in area's above 4GB. The brand new Intel Xeon designs and the AMD Opteron designs are built around 64-bit technology. This is only ý of the equation that you would need to find success. You would also need to use an OS that is actually PAE or PAE aware so that it is able to address memory above the 4GB level. To find out about PAE you can search Microsofts website for PAE (Physical Address Extensions) and it will explain this concept and what OS's actually are capable of providing this benefit. Windows 2000 and Windows 2003 would fit both of these criteria. Windows XP on the hand would not allow this type of ability. Microsoft has addressed this type of issue in the following Microsoft Article (291988) http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;291988 [end quote] http://www.tyan.com/archive/support/html/memory_faq.html To be able to use the full 4GB RAM you have to use a 64-bit operating system or a 32-bit operating system that is fully PAE aware. John
From: Buffalo on 19 Feb 2010 21:14 John John - MVP wrote: > Damon wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I just added two 1-GB sticks of SDRAM into my Dell computer to bring >> 2.5 GB up to 4 GB, but it's only showing up under System as 3.25. >> Which is interesting. >> >> My tower has four RAM slots. When I bought the computer it had four >> 256 MB sticks, two of which I replaced with two 1 GB sticks a while >> back (2.5) and today I replaced the remaining two 256 MB sticks with >> two 1 GB sticks to bring it up to 4 GB. >> >> When I turned my computer back on, I was notified that my computer's >> memory had changed, giving me the choice to continue or enter setup. >> I chose "continue". >> >> Everything seems to be running smoothly but it only shows up as 3.25 >> GB in System. Is this because I accidentally skipped setup when >> prompted? Did I perhaps install wrong? I am aware that RAM but be >> installed in a certain way and as far as I can tell I made no >> mistakes. 3.25 is a strange number. > > > This is an Address Space problem common to all 32-bit Windows client > operating systems, what Windows XP 32-bit will see depends on what > hardware you have in the computer, for most computers it ranges > anywheres between 2.75 to 3.5GB. Here is the reason why 32-bit XP > cannot fully use 4GB of RAM: > > [Quote] > > The problem that you are seeing is based on an older architecture > design for memory addressing. All the systems architecture up to this > point were based on a maximum of 4GB of total memory. Nobody really > thought, when this standard was designed, that this amount of memory > would actually be in use. The problem that has happened is that you > have PCI devices that require memory address ranges so that they can > properly execute their commands. These address ranges were mapped in > the upper sections of this maximum amount. Since nobody thought you > would be using up to 4GB these address ranges started around the last > 500MB of the memory ranges. This range is called the T.O.M. or Top of > Memory range. This is the point in the bios where it places on hold > the amount of memory that is required by the various PCI devices that > are found on the motherboard. Thus when you have PCI cards or AGP > cards installed on your motherboard these devices hold on to memory > for their own use and take away from the maximum amount of memory > that is available for other tasks. This amount of memory can vary > from a little as 200MB all the way to 1GB of memory (or even more in > select cases). It just depends on the PCI devices you have and the > amount of PCI (including AGP) that you have installed all at once. > > There is really no way to get around this basic design limitation. > The only way to get around these type of issues is to use certain new > designs that have brand new architectures (i.e 64-bit designs) that > allow memory to be mapped in area's above 4GB. The brand new Intel > Xeon designs and the AMD Opteron designs are built around 64-bit > technology. This is only � of the equation that you would need to > find success. > You would also need to use an OS that is actually PAE or PAE aware so > that it is able to address memory above the 4GB level. To find out > about PAE you can search Microsofts website for PAE (Physical Address > Extensions) and it will explain this concept and what OS's actually > are capable of providing this benefit. Windows 2000 and Windows 2003 > would fit both of these criteria. Windows XP on the hand would not > allow this type of ability. > > Microsoft has addressed this type of issue in the following Microsoft > Article (291988) > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;291988 > > [end quote] > > http://www.tyan.com/archive/support/html/memory_faq.html > > To be able to use the full 4GB RAM you have to use a 64-bit operating > system or a 32-bit operating system that is fully PAE aware. > > John Thanks for the great explanation. Buffalo
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 Prev: Search Companion missing file Next: Newly installed SDRAM is only partially showing up. |