Windows Vista Business not recognizing 4 GB of memory

http://www.vistaclues.com/reader-question-32-bit-vista-memory-limits/

no it is not, because it is not an on board VGA.

Video memory is still up there as is other stuff, you're not likely to get more than about 3 gigs addressable with 32-bit OS.   I'm using Vista x64, sees all 8 gigs in this machine but a 32-bit OS needs to map some other things below the 4 gig mark so won't see a full 4 gigs RAM.

Another explanation of why you can't use your 4 Gb of memory.

http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=130000

By default most applications can use a maximum of only 2 Gb of memory.  Some can use 3 Gb by altering a boot file and if the application concerned has been compiled to use 3 Gb.

However if you are having poor performance then check for viruses and malware.  Check what applications are opening at start time.  You may be able to disable some of them that are hogging memory and CPU cycles.  Clean out all temporary files (CCleaner is good for that).  Defrag your hard disk.

According to your system configuration it seems that you are using a 32bit version of Windows Vista.
32bit versions will not allow you to use more than between 3GB and 3.5GB or memory depending on the system. This is why you are only seen 3GB..... If you want to see more you will need to upgrade your system to a 64bit version of Windows Vista..

Hope this helps.

Getting 32-bit Windows to recognize anything beyond 2GB of installed RAM is a seemingly futile effort. Even if your hardware supports the possibility, the software may hold you back - and performance gains are questionable:

The reduction in available system memory depends on the devices that are installed in the computer. However, to avoid potential driver compatibility issues, the 32-bit versions of Windows Vista limit the total available memory to 3.12 GB. If a computer has many installed devices, the available memory may be reduced to 3 GB or less. However, the maximum memory available in 32-bit versions of Windows Vista is typically 3.12 GB.

So, people use a PAE switch to get past the imposed 2GB barrier. Heres a description of the 4 GB RAM Tuning feature and the Physical Address Extension switch:

When the /3GB switch is used with Windows XP Professional, with Windows Server 2003, Datacenter Edition, with Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition
, the /3GB switch works identically across versions. This functionality lets device-driver developers test their drivers in this configuration without having to install one of the Windows Server 2003 products just listed. The user-mode memory space is now limited to 3 GB.

Sounds good, right? Not so fast:

The /3GB switch can cause some applications to have problems that are related to address dependencies or to a reduction in kernel space.

Bottom line: if you have 4GB of RAM in your system (or more), and you want to take full advantage of it, start using a 64-bit OS.

my vista laptop says it has 4 gb in system and I am using vista home premium which is 32bit right is that down to my samsung laptops motherboard

You need 64 bit Vista.... Period..

Ian does Vista say that's the memory or does the BIOS?

"... However, to avoid potential driver compatibility issues, the 32-bit versions of Windows Vista limit the total available memory to 3.12 GB ..."  ==>  NO !!

"... my vista laptop says it has 4 gb in system and I am using vista home premium which is 32bit ..."  ==>  Yes, that's very likely (read the following note) ... but it is still not USING 4GB.

Lots of misinformation above !!

A 32-bit OS has a 4GB address space -- i.e. it can assign 2^32 (4GB) addresses.   There are several system-level functions that must be assigned addresss BEFORE any addresses can be assigned to the physical memory in the machine.   There is no "limit" (3.12GB, 3.5GB, etc.) to how much can be assigned to memory -- it's simply whatever's available after the mandatory addresses are assigned.   These include PCI addressing, BIOS shadowing, video aperture, video addressing, etc. On most modern systems this will leave between 3 and 3.5GB available for assignment to the physical RAM ... but I've seen as low as 2.2GB and as high as 3.65GB.

Note that this was such a common complaint that Microsoft altered the REPORTING of memory with SP1 of Vista ... but that modification only works with certain chipsets.   On systems with 4GB installed and one of the supported chipsets, Vista SP1 (or later) will REPORT 4GB of RAM on the properties page (if 4GB is installed).   It is still, however, only USING the memory that can actually be assigned addresses.    IanTh ==>  Unless you're using Vista x64, this is why you're seeing 4GB reported.   You can see the "real" memory by going to Device Manager and selecting View - Resources by Type and then expanding Memory  . See where the PCI Bus addressing starts ... then convert that Hex address to decimal and divide by (1024^3) ==> the result is how many GB you're actually using.   This is the number that would be reported if you weren't using SP1 (or SP2).

Occasionally you'll see a suggestion to just buy 3GB to avoid "wasting" the unused memory (i.e. a 2GB module and a 1GB module).   DON'T do that.   Almost all modern systems support dual channel memory access, which doubles the transfer bandwidth to your memory subsystem.   Although this can work in a degraded mode with 2GB/1GB pairing, it will work in the optimum mode if you have a pair of matched modules (e.g. 2 x 2GB).   So even though you won't "see" all of the memory, you'll have the best memory performance (and "see" as much as your system can use) with a pair of 2GB modules installed.

Finally, the 2GB per process limit (which, as noted, can be alterned with the /3GB switch) has NOTHING to do with this.   That limit is the virtual address space limit for each running process.   This is actually independent of how much RAM is installed -- a process can have a 2GB virtual space even if there's less than 2GB installed -- it will just result in a lot of paging activity.

Bottom Line:  Your system is working just fine with the installed pair of 2GB modules.   If you're having performance issues, it's not due to the memory ==>  What performance issues are you having?   There may be other "tweaks" you can do to improve specific applications.

hmm my pci starts at 000A000 which is decimal 655360
divide 655360/1073741824 (1024^3= 0.000610351562

how does refer to how many gb's my laptop has

There are a few lower addresses assigned -- typically the control addresses -- in the A0000 and C0000 ranges (these occupy a relatively small amount of the address space).

You'll then see a lot of "System board" or "Motherboard resources" address ranges (these are the physical RAM addresses).     And finally you'll see another "PCI bus" address at a higher address ... with no more "System board" ranges after it.    THAT is the key address that tells you how much memory the system is actually using.    Post a screenshot of the memory allocations shown in Device Manager and I'll detail what you have.

i believe you are wrong. none of the operating system (32 bit), can fully utilize the 4 GB. showing off  4GB in my computer properties will not make the operating system to fully utilize it.

it jst understand that there s 4 Gb, but out of the 4 GB, depending of the peripherals u have, these will be splitted across peripherals. maximum free ram operating system can utilize become nearly 3.2 or 3.12

The best explanation of this I have yet found is here http://blogs.msdn.com/hiltonl/archive/2007/04/13/the-3gb-not-4gb-ram-problem.aspx; with this article http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605/en-us  as a supplement.

This explanation makes it pretty clear that even if Windows 32-bit doesn't report the memory, it is getting used by some part of the hardware.

If you had less memory, less would be reported since the hardware still requires that reserved memory space.

Note that PCI-E maps video memory into the 4G addressable space and thus leaves less system memory available for applications. So a 768m graphics card reduces the memory space "seen" by the OS as available to applications in terms of both physical memory and process address space.

Still, any physical RAM above 2G means standard 32-bit processes stand a chance of fitting entirely into RAM together with the OS which would mean zero page faults to virtual memory pages on the hard disk. That is certainly good for performance so it is worth the effort to try to stick to the mobo/chipset combos that support addressing 4G of RAM.

Finally, notice the potential for PAE and DEP errors. This helps to explain some of the DEP errors the community sees from time to time.

I dont get it guys!!! Really....,

absi81 was only asking why he can only see 3070MB of memory and we gave him the answer.

If he goes to the My Computer- Properties Tab he will see it reported as 4GB. If he goes into the TaskManager-Performance Tab he will se a different total (3070MB).

We have explained to him why it is reporting 3070MB and suggested he upgrade to a 64bit version if he wants to be able to take advantage of the rest of the memory.

He has been told why Microsoft made the change in service pack1 and nithinmohantk provided the link direct from Microsoft (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605/en-us).
I think garycase's knowledge of memory addresses used and how to configure them is impresive and very useful in some specialized scenario, but, in general, they are reserved for a reason and in this case it goes well beyond the scope of the question.

Just a thought so we can close this back and forth of who is right or who is wrong. We could write a book on all the possible things that can be done to use, address, configure bypass, etc....It would be a never ending story...The question has been made and answered. In any case we could give him some advice on how to cleanup the startup (which things need to be running and which don't), what services can really be disabled and other tips to improve the performance of his pc which seem to really be the problem...no pun intended.

"... If he goes to the My Computer- Properties Tab he will see it reported as 4GB. "  ==>  Not necessarily.    It depends on two things:  (a)  SP1 (or SP2) has to be installed; and (b) the chipset has to support this interface.    On 5 systems I have with 4GB of memory, 3 report 4GB, the other 2 report the actual amount utilized (3.5GB and 3.35GB).    

Your comment "... 32bit versions will not allow you to use more than between 3GB and 3.5GB or memory depending on the system ..." is WRONG.    There's no "limit" -- the actual amount depends on the rest of the system's configuration (i.e. how many addresses are needed for the mandatory addresses that must be assigned before physical RAM can be assigned.    It's true that this number is often between 3 and 3.5GB ==> but it's not that the OS "... will not allow ..." the use of more ... it's simply that in those cases that's all that's available for assignment of physical RAM.

The comment above that "... If you had less memory, less would be reported since the hardware still requires that reserved memory space ..." is WRONG.      The reserved elements that are assigned are NOT using any memory -- they are simply using ADDRESSES.    A 32-bit address space has 4GB of addresses -- after the system addressing is completed, all remaining addresses can be assigned to physical RAM.      If the actual amount of physical RAM is less than the addresses available for assignment, then all of the RAM will be used;   if there's more physical RAM than available addresses, then you'll just see the amount that can be assigned addresses.      So, for example, if there are 2.8GB of available addresses, then if you install 2GB of memory, you'll "see" 2GB.    If you install 3GB, you'll see 2.8GB.    If you install 4GB, you'll see 2.8GB.      Note that in the latter two cases, if you're running Vista SP1 and have a supported chipset, the Properties page will show 3GB or 4GB ... even though it's not all available for use.

"... However, to avoid potential driver compatibility issues, the 32-bit versions of Windows Vista limit the total available memory to 3.12 GB ..."  
==>  YES !!

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605

Read down and you will find:

>>>>>>>
The reduction in available system memory depends on the devices that are installed in the computer. However, to avoid potential driver compatibility issues, the 32-bit versions of Windows Vista limit the total available memory to 3.12 GB. See the "More information" section for information about potential driver compatibility issues.

If a computer has many installed devices, the available memory may be reduced to 3 GB or less. However, the maximum memory available in 32-bit versions of Windows Vista is typically 3.12 GB.
<<<<<<<<
.

I know what it says ... but it's wrong.     This was clearly written by a tech writer and not proofed.    It's a clear carry-over from the EXAMPLE earlier in that article that notes "... For example, the System Information dialog box may report 3,120 megabytes (MB) of system memory on a computer that has 4 GB of memory installed (4,096 MB)."

Note also that the same writer -- after saying there's a 3.12GB "limit" -- then says "...  the maximum memory available in 32-bit versions of Windows Vista is typically 3.12 GB".

The simple fact is there is NOT a hard limit ==> the system will assign addresses to as much memory as it can.   This is typically between 3.2 and 3.5GB on most systems with 4GB installed;  but will be lower on systems with memory cards with large amounts of memory and/or multiple memory cards (I've seen it as low as 2.2GB).

... I have 5 systems with 4GB of RAM ==> and ALL of them show more than 3.12GB of memory available under 32-bit Vista ... as much as 3.5GB (on 2 of them).

No.
>>> after saying there's a 3.12GB "limit" -- then says "...  the maximum memory available in 32-bit versions of Windows Vista is typically 3.12 GB". <<<
->> typically 3.12 GB ->> as opposed to LESS.

""the available memory may be reduced to 3 GB or less. However, the maximum memory available in 32-bit versions of Windows Vista is typically 3.12 GB.""

Which is why they consider setting the hard limit at 3.12 GB acceptable.

@garycase:: Whatz the point in Arguing here.

He just asked some doubt and we give him best possible solutions(knowledge), more enough to understand the things.

@BitsBytesandMore  has already notified us to stop this discussion. why are we moving far from the topic.
we provided him enough information. So why don't we packup the things from here and move on to another thread.

No argument -- just noting the facts.   I explained why absi81 only "sees" 3070GB of his installed RAM, and other than that have simply corrected the misinformation.

Statements like "... Getting 32-bit Windows to recognize anything beyond 2GB of installed RAM is a seemingly futile effort ..." are simply WRONG.   As is the comment r.e. a 3.12GB "limit" which is NOT correct, as I noted above.    By the way, PCBonez correctly attributed that quote, but you did not.    When you copy & paste a substantial amount of text directly from a source, EE's policy (to avoid plagarism) is to provide attribution to the source.

... but attributed or not, that information is WRONG, as I noted before.   There is NOT a 3.12GB limit.     As an old mathematician, I'm reminded that proving theorems can be difficult, but proving that they are NOT true is simple -- it only takes one example.    As I noted before, I have 5 systems with 4GB installed ... and they ALL disprove any "3.12GB limit".    Here's the properties page and performance tab from one of them (which show well above 3.12GB of RAM):

If you read the whole article you still haven't proved a thing.

Since Vista Service Pack 1 (SP1) they changed how the user interface (the screens you are showing) reports memory and it no longer indicates the effects of the hard 3.12 GB limit that is in fact in place.

You are trying to look at the Vista screen and read it like it was XP.
Since Vista SP1, XP and Vista no longer give you the same information in those screens.

.

Vista SP1 changed the reporting for systems that have chipset support, but as I noted earlier, ONLY on the Properties tab.     The system I posted the results for above does NOT have that support, so it reports exactly what it did pre-SP1.     I have other systems that show "4GB" on the Properties screen (this is the only change in reporting with SP1 -- it does not alter the actual stats shown on the performance tab).      The Task Manager Performance tab and System Information show the actual memory being used, whereas the Properties tab (with SP1 and a supported chipset -- as I noted much earlier) will show the actual installed memory (e.g. 4GB).     Note that the Task Manager display is in MB, so you need to divide it by 1024 to get the GB => i.e. the 3581 shown in the Properties tab above is (3581/1024) = 3.50GB (as shown on the Properties tab AND in System Information ... which I didn't post).

Just for grins, here's the Properties page and Performance tab for another system -- this one with chipset support for the SP1 reporting mechanism.    Note:   This is the LOWEST amount of useable memory on any of my systems ... and as you can see, it's still well above 3.12GB :-)    [3313/1024 = 3.24GB ... which is what the System Information utility reports; and what would have been on the Properties tab pre-SP1]

What do YOUR systems with 4GB and Vista SP1 report??

Yes,
That's exactly what the article MICROSOFT published that YOU say is wrong says it will show.
.

I didn't say it was wrong about displaying 4GB ... in fact I very clearly noted that in my first post ["... Microsoft altered the REPORTING of memory with SP1 of Vista ... but that modification only works with certain chipsets. On systems with 4GB installed and one of the supported chipsets, Vista SP1 (or later) will REPORT 4GB of RAM on the properties page ..."]

-- I said it was wrong that there's a 3.12GB "limit". Since the two systems I posted the details for above are using 3.50GB and 3.24GB respectively, I'd say it's fairly obvious there's no "3.12GB limit" :-)

... just for grins, (as I asked above), what do YOUR systems with 4GB and Vista SP1 report??

ID:24783507 Author:garycase Date:07/06/09 01:57

>> I know what it says ... but it's wrong.     This was clearly written by a tech writer and not proofed.  <<

~~~

I don't NEED a Vista system to see the flaws in your arguments.

I don't own a Vista system because I won't put that JUNK on one of my own PC's.
I do however support and build Vista systems for other people.
.

"... flaws in your arguments ..."  ==>  No argument, just facts.     How do you find 3.5GB and 3.24GB of available memory consistent with a "3.12GB limit" ???     I did a PhD in math, but I suppose I may have missed the part where that relationship could exist :-)

Just for grins, here's the DXDIAG report on the same system (the one with 3.5GB of memory) ... just to be consistent with the report noted by absi81 (it is, of course, identical with the Performance tab I posted above ... but since you seem skeptical ...) ...

In my humble opinion, the article posted by nithinmohantk (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605/en-us) answers the customers' question in a simple and understandable way.

I have no doubt that garycase is extremely knowledgable on the memory subject (and you have proven it over and over) . Gary....what you are arguing is "OUR" bad semantics. Our lack of properly wording the advice. We are all saying the same thing to absi81: Don't worry about it....it's normal. We have misspoken with words that say "you can't" or "this is the limit" or who knows what else.....we all know that some things have been corrected in SP1. We all know it depends on the chipset (it's right there in the Microsoft article) the amount of L2 cache, etc....

Come on guys.....let's just drop it and move on.....the customer got his question answered. I will work more on my semantics and wording.....what we really should be doing is advising him how to improve his performance with what he has.....

Why "if" SP1?
The asker's posted system information clearly shows SP1 which is what that article pertains to.

You 'proof' as to why that article is wrong clearly shows SP2.
ID:24787291  Author:garycase  Date:07/06/09 10:21 AM

~~~

Regardless fo how it's displayed:
[quote from asker] ""The OS is only seeing 3GB (actually 3070MB)""
.... is very normal for a 32-bit Vista install with 4Gb of physical RAM.

.

<Sigh>  Nothing changed with SP2 with regard to memory use or reporting -- that's just what the system happens to currently have.    I'm not going to revert to SP1 just to show you that :-)
[Since you don't have any Vista systems, I can understand why you don't know that]

By the way, r.e. absi81's comment "...  only seeing 3GB (actually 3070MB) ..."  ==> 3070MB IS 3GB  [3070/1024 = 3.0GB]

absi81 ==>  I agree this discussion has diverted too much.    But there MAY be yet-another reason why your system is limiting the memory at exactly the 3GB point.     What is the exact model # of your laptop?     [Note that the original Satellite A100 only supported 2GB -- see page 1-4 here:  http://support.toshiba.ca/support/download/files_downloads/psaa9c/Satellite%20A100%20english%20manual.pdf ]       Subsequent versions DO support 4GB, and it's clear you have one of these.    But there are a few chipsets that have settings that have to be altered to support more than 3GB of RAM ... and since that's exactly what you're "seeing", this MAY be an issue here (I can't tell from Toshiba's site which chipsets they used for the various models).      Download the free CPU-Z [http://www.cpuid.com/download/cpuz/cpuz_151_setup.exe ], run it, and post what it shows on the Mainboard and Memory tabs  (screenshots would be best).

Now were talking ....now it's time for me to sit back and learn from Gary....

It's limited to 3 GB because -> as it says in the MS article:
""the available memory may be reduced to 3 GB or less. ""
Why had already been explained.
It's to support the hardware which is a way of saying it's memory reserved for IC chips, many of which are integrated into the main chipset.
-
YES, you may be able to recover a small amount of memory by turning off IC chips [or chipset functions] you don't need in the BIOS.

[shaking finger] Don't argue with me when I'm agreeing with you gary!

.

Geeze my mailbox is full from this one...

I believe the original question was "getting my current computer to see and work with 4GB of Ram"

Bottom line... No there is no way.  

The T2400 processor does not support EMT64

http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SL8VQ

The only way to get any machine to see more than 3.5GB of ram is to have an EMT64 processor and an x64 OS  

blohrer speaks truth.

Agreed....we missed that one!!

The comment  "... If a computer has many installed devices, the available memory may be reduced to 3 GB or less ..."  has NOTHING to do with chipset restrictions that limit memory to 3GB.    

Some nVidia chipsets have this issue;  some BIOS settings allow setting a "memory hole";  etc.   But these constraints are different than the simple need to assign addresses to system-level functions that the Microsoft comment (and my earlier note) refer to ==> if a system has enough devices/resources that the assigned addresses drop the memory below 3GB (or even below 2GB ... which is possible, although the lowest I've personally seen is 2.2GB) then it doesn't matter what the chipset restrictions are ... you can't get more memory than there are addresses available.     The detailed memory allocation shown on the View - Resources by Type - Memory tab in Device Manager would also be useful in isolating this.   [absi81 ==> If you also posted that it would be helpful]

Nothing else to comment on here util absi81 posts the details shown by CPU-Z.    The Mainboard tab will show the chipset details and BIOS version;   the Memory tab will show how much memory the chipset is enumerating.

bangs head

To reiterate... from the MS article that BitsBytesandmore posted...

"For Windows Vista to use all 4 GB of memory on a computer that has 4 GB of memory installed, the computer must meet the following requirements"

BULLET POINT 2 -----The CPU must support the x64 instruction set. The AMD64 CPU and the Intel EM64T CPU support this instruction set.

The T2400 processor that is in this laptop does not.  

As the one with the damaged noggin' pointed out already.

As to what the asker asked... ->> Bottom line. ->> No there is no way.

.

I wouldn't say we missed it -- it simply wasn't relevant to the "... not recognizing 4 GB of memory..." question, and the author never suggested anything to imply he wanted to upgrade.    It's always a good idea to check for EMT64 support before suggesting a 64-bit OS :-)     ... but apparently those that suggested it (BitsBytesandMore,  nithinmohantk, and blohrer) forgot to do so ... fortunately blohrer came back and corrected his earlier suggestion.

<Sigh>  Just as a nit ... it doesn't apply to this question or this system (since clearly there's no interest in moving to a server OS) ... but it is NOT true that "... The only way to get any machine to see more than 3.5GB of ram is to have an EMT64 processor and an x64 OS."     The 32-bit Enterprise and Datacenter editions of both Server 2003 and 2008 easily do so with PAE extensions (as does Advanced Server 2000).

The page I think you got that from was last updated in 2006.
PAE is supported in 32-bit Vista under certain conditions but it's more likely to cause problems than fix anything.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605

Weither Vista supports PAE or not, all 32-bit versions of windows client operating systems, with or without the PAE, or 3gb switches, will only support 4gb of physical memory. This includes address space for the BIOS, video card, hard drive cache, cpu caches, anything with addressable memory. So for example, you have 4GB of ram, a video card with 512MB, a hard drive cache of 16mb, you'll wind up with 3568MB of usable system RAM. The only way to ultilize more memory is to upgrade a 64-bit client os. Weither the system involved supports a 64-bit os, is a separate issue.

Vista x32 does not allow access to more than 4GB under any conditions.     I didn't intend to imply that -- I was simply noting that there ARE 32-bit OS's that can do so.   [I thought the caveat that "... it doesn't apply to this question or this system ..." made it pretty clear that it didn't apply.]

certainly, thats what physical address extention was invented for. however, this should've been PAQ'd.

>caveat< "This doesn't apply to this question." -> I can therefore talk about anything now.
You can enable PAE in 32-bit Vista. Google it.
.
>caveat< "This doesn't apply to this question." -> I can therefore talk about anything now.
Well, I was out to the lake and .... ... ...

Man ya all scared off the guy that asked the question, he hasnt been back since Saturday...

The Horse is dead

please stop it guyz. my mail box if full.

you gouz have good points i appreciate that. gary have phd in mathematics i appreciate that.

but you guyz have to stop this discussion here.  simply beating around the bush.

thanks for the discussion.and good knowledge.

c ya

"... You can enable PAE in 32-bit Vista. Google it. " ==> Of course you can.    But you don't need to -- it's enabled by default on Vista.    (More correctly DEP is enabled by default, and that automatically enables PAE)      But Vista x32 still won't address more than 4GB.

Note that there IS a patch to Vista that modifies this -- and lets it actually use PAE to address more than 4GB.     I've seen a Vista x32 system that reported and used 8GB.     But that's not an authorized patch, so I don't recommend it ... and won't provide any links to it.   ... but you might be interested in the following properties screen (note the area that's been highlighted with a red border):

Gary Gary Gary..

It's just a Hack. any one can change that 8189MB to 32768MB in paint or some other editors. and manipulate everything and can say.. hey my 32 bit OS supports 32GB, does that make sense?

since in the picture the CPU is, INTEL XEON, im not sure whether it can handle or not. but how about motherboard. how it's going to manage the addressing with 32 bit .

You points are absolutely pointless and so many of us, told you to stop this once and for all. dont bump thread like this, you are not proving anything.

Having a PHD in mathematics and saying WORLD is flat, we can't accept that.  You are having PHd in mathematics only, not in COMPUTER science.

Because World is FLAT or not, it will be done by a Geological people or EARTH SCIENCE people. not by mathematicians. mathematicians can't predict things.

I do respect you because you have a great knowledge and you helped a lot among us, with your wast knowledge.

So be gentle and stop the thing here. more over im getting irritated by so many mails coming to my mailbox.

so please please as a gentle  and leave the thing. i dont wanted to be harsh like this. im sorry if i hurt any1's feelings.

so leave it.. help others. they need you..

Sorry for bumping again.. Everything explained here.. Just for Knowledge only.

http://laptopvideo2go.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t17165.html

The kernel code modification that Properties page came from is indeed a hack;  the picture is not.   The hack enables the same memory management code that's used in Server 2008 (which has the same foundation code as Vista).     As I noted before, it violates Microsoft's license for Vista, so I will not post any links or further details.

Xeon's run desktop OS's just fine -- a lot of folks (myself included) prefer to run server motherboards so we can use buffered RAM (which is far superior to unbuffered modules when you want to install a lot of memory -- but that's a different topic).     You're right -- I don't have a PhD in Computer Science ... just a Masters (from Johns Hopkins with a 4.0 average FWIW).    (I also have a degree in Physics)

This thread has clearly devolved long past the original question.    I initially simply tried to clear up some misinformation =>   but that just resulted in even more misinformation  ...  and has clearly sidetracked more than it should have.

Unsubscribing :-)

One more guys thing before we drop it.....who gets the points? I would vote for a division between blohrer, nithinmohantk and garycase ( who allowed us all to learn a little lot more about memory)...no pun intended.

I say we just delete it and donate the points to a point pool reserved for non-profit charity organizations.
-

amen to that... this thread is a dirty one LOL

No need to deleting. becoz there is lots of information around it.

might be helpful to some one. that's all i will say..

Points should be allocated for this thread.  The information is there.

Count me out of any points division.  I'll leave it for a mod to work out who should get what.

3) Accept one or more Expert posts as the answer

ni i wont it as comments didn't answer my questions.

Your processor does not support EMT64

It will not see all 4GB of RAM

Read  nithinmohantk post pointing to the article from Microsoft ....http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605/en-us

And my post with the link to the details of your processor, and that it does not support EMT64

http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SL8VQ

"... comments didn't answer my questions ..."  ==>  ??!!  I think the discussion went well beyond your question, but clearly made it quite clear why you can't see the full 4GB ... and indeed can't do anything about it.

As for points distribution,  I'd suggest distributing them as noted in this post:  http://www.experts-exchange.com/OS/Microsoft_Operating_Systems/Windows/Windows_Vista/Q_24543736.html#24794203

if author(@absi81) is not satified with the answer, whatz the point in keeping this unnecessarily..

<FONT id=linkPlaceHolder>Delete/no refund</FONT>

Wow all that work and all it took was to requote his original question...

And I think I said exactly that at response ID:24789418

Blohrer ...... I totally agree with you....actually...YOU were the one that put the end to the comments with your post: ...."....The T2400 processor does not support EMT64...." I agreed with you then
ID: 24794203 and agree with you now: the points should have been distribuited between you, garycase and nithinmohantk. I have no problem if the moderator makes a correction....just for the record.

BitsBytesandMore -- I was by no means picking on you.. I just think that absi81 didnt get the "push this button and your problem is solved" answer so he picked the last thing posted...

Thanks man. I appreciate the reply..... I think the Moderator picked and assigned at the end. absi81 would have never admited he got the answer...

No problem!!!  On to the next Problem!!!

No issues. i welcome his decision.. BitsBytesandMore..

great to be with you guyz