PamelaFox
asked on
Why will my pc not recognize 4 gig ram? It only recognizes 2.5 on a Windows XP Pro 32 bit.
I purchased a new Dell Percision T3400 MT QX6850 3.00GHz Intel Core2 Extreme PC. I ordered it with Windows XP Professional 32 bit. I also ordered 4GB 800MHz, DDR2 SDRAM memory, ECC (4 DIMMS).
My problem is that the PC only recognizes 2.5 gig of ram instead of the whole 4 gig. I contacted Dell about this and they suggested I have it upgraded to Windows XP 64 bit. If I do that alot of my software which is for 32 bit will not work. I am currently working on a Dimension 9200 with XP pro and it has 3 gigs ram and recognizes 3 gig. I have an older gateway pc at home that has 3 gig and recognizes 3gig.
Can anyone tell me what the problem is here and how to correct it? Thank you in advance for any advice yyou can give m.
Here is the answer I got from the Dell Representative:
REPLY FROM DELL REP.
I found this on the Microsoft website:
In 32 bit Windows operating systemshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/operating_system , the total addressable
space available is 4GB. If you installed total 4GB memory, the system will detect less than 4GB of total memory because of address space allocation for other critical functions, such as:
- System BIOS (including motherboard, add-on cards, etc..)
- Motherboards resources
- Memory mapped I/O
- Configuration for AGP/PCI-Ex/PCI
- Other memory allocations for PCI devices
Different onboard devices and different add-on cards (devices) will result of different total memory size. e.g. more PCI cards installed will require more memory resources, resulting of less memory free for other uses.
This limitation applies to most chipsets & Windows XPhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP /Vista 32-bit version operating systems.
If you install a Windows operating system, if more than 3GB memory is required for your system, then the below conditions should be met:
1. The memory controller which supports memory swap functionality is used. The latest chipsets like Intel 975X, 955X, Nvidia NF4 SLI Intel Edition, Nvidia NF4 SLI X16, AMD K8 and newer architectures can support the memory swap function.
2. Windows XP Pro X64http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/x86-64 Ed. (64-bit), Windows Vista 64, or other OS which can address more than 4GB memory.
I am pasting below the specs on my new computer.
PWS T3400 525W (32bit)
Intel" Core®2 Extreme QX6850 (3.00GHz/1333MHz/2X4MB L2) 525W, Genuine Windows Vista® Ultimate Downgrade, XP Pro Installed, English
PWS T3400 525W (32bit) Intel" Core®2 Extreme QX6850 (3.00GHz/1333MHz/2X4MB L2) 525W
Operating System: Genuine Windows Vista® Ultimate Downgrade, XP Pro Installed, English
Chassis Configuration and 1394: Mini-Tower Chassis Configuration w/ 1394 Card
Memory: 4GB, 800MHz, DDR2 SDRAM Memory, ECC (4 DIMMS)
Keyboard: Enhanced USB Multimedia, 8 Hot Keys
Graphic Cards: 512MB PCIe x16 nVidia Quadro FX1700, Dual Monitor DVI Capable
Boot Hard Drive: 750GB SATA 3.0Gb/s with NCQ and 16MB DataBurst Cache"
Hard Drive Configuration: C1, All SATA, NO RAID for 1 Hard Drive
Floppy Drive and Media Card Reader Options: 3.5 inch 1.44MB Floppy Drive
Mouse: New Dell USB Optical Mouse with scroll, All Black Design
Modem: Dell Data/Fax PCI Modem
CD-ROM, DVD, and Read-Write Devices: 16XDVD AND 16XDVD+/-RW, w/ Cyberlink PowerDVD" and Roxio Creator"
Sound Card: SoundBlaster X-FI XtremeMusic" (D)w/Dolby#173; Digital 5.1
Speakers: Logitech Z-4 Speaker System
Wireless: Dell 1505 Wireless-N PCIe Card
Resource CD: Resource CD and DVD contains Diagnostics and Driver for Dell Precision Syst
Labels: Windows Vista® Premium
My problem is that the PC only recognizes 2.5 gig of ram instead of the whole 4 gig. I contacted Dell about this and they suggested I have it upgraded to Windows XP 64 bit. If I do that alot of my software which is for 32 bit will not work. I am currently working on a Dimension 9200 with XP pro and it has 3 gigs ram and recognizes 3 gig. I have an older gateway pc at home that has 3 gig and recognizes 3gig.
Can anyone tell me what the problem is here and how to correct it? Thank you in advance for any advice yyou can give m.
Here is the answer I got from the Dell Representative:
REPLY FROM DELL REP.
I found this on the Microsoft website:
In 32 bit Windows operating systemshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/operating_system , the total addressable
space available is 4GB. If you installed total 4GB memory, the system will detect less than 4GB of total memory because of address space allocation for other critical functions, such as:
- System BIOS (including motherboard, add-on cards, etc..)
- Motherboards resources
- Memory mapped I/O
- Configuration for AGP/PCI-Ex/PCI
- Other memory allocations for PCI devices
Different onboard devices and different add-on cards (devices) will result of different total memory size. e.g. more PCI cards installed will require more memory resources, resulting of less memory free for other uses.
This limitation applies to most chipsets & Windows XPhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP /Vista 32-bit version operating systems.
If you install a Windows operating system, if more than 3GB memory is required for your system, then the below conditions should be met:
1. The memory controller which supports memory swap functionality is used. The latest chipsets like Intel 975X, 955X, Nvidia NF4 SLI Intel Edition, Nvidia NF4 SLI X16, AMD K8 and newer architectures can support the memory swap function.
2. Windows XP Pro X64http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/x86-64 Ed. (64-bit), Windows Vista 64, or other OS which can address more than 4GB memory.
I am pasting below the specs on my new computer.
PWS T3400 525W (32bit)
Intel" Core®2 Extreme QX6850 (3.00GHz/1333MHz/2X4MB L2) 525W, Genuine Windows Vista® Ultimate Downgrade, XP Pro Installed, English
PWS T3400 525W (32bit) Intel" Core®2 Extreme QX6850 (3.00GHz/1333MHz/2X4MB L2) 525W
Operating System: Genuine Windows Vista® Ultimate Downgrade, XP Pro Installed, English
Chassis Configuration and 1394: Mini-Tower Chassis Configuration w/ 1394 Card
Memory: 4GB, 800MHz, DDR2 SDRAM Memory, ECC (4 DIMMS)
Keyboard: Enhanced USB Multimedia, 8 Hot Keys
Graphic Cards: 512MB PCIe x16 nVidia Quadro FX1700, Dual Monitor DVI Capable
Boot Hard Drive: 750GB SATA 3.0Gb/s with NCQ and 16MB DataBurst Cache"
Hard Drive Configuration: C1, All SATA, NO RAID for 1 Hard Drive
Floppy Drive and Media Card Reader Options: 3.5 inch 1.44MB Floppy Drive
Mouse: New Dell USB Optical Mouse with scroll, All Black Design
Modem: Dell Data/Fax PCI Modem
CD-ROM, DVD, and Read-Write Devices: 16XDVD AND 16XDVD+/-RW, w/ Cyberlink PowerDVD" and Roxio Creator"
Sound Card: SoundBlaster X-FI XtremeMusic" (D)w/Dolby#173; Digital 5.1
Speakers: Logitech Z-4 Speaker System
Wireless: Dell 1505 Wireless-N PCIe Card
Resource CD: Resource CD and DVD contains Diagnostics and Driver for Dell Precision Syst
Labels: Windows Vista® Premium
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
Create a free account to see this answer
Signing up is free and takes 30 seconds. No credit card required.
jss1199;
I am not quite sure how that article came up with its information, but it mentions 64-bit XP, not vista, also keep in mind the date of the article. Lots has changed in hardware since 2005. All processors are 64-bit with 64-bit chipsets.
Back to the poster;
As to the allocation of RAM, there are like the reasons listed in the article, (though I have never ever seen a pci card take up that much ram, but that is just maybe my experience) is your ram matched pairs? Like do you have dual channel ram? single channel? why bothering with ECC ram on a desktop?
As stated above, check the RAM reported in the bios or POST, another thing could be checking a BartPE/Knoppix boot CD and check the allocation there. You could narrow it down to if even XP is the problem (my bet is it isn't but I have been wrong before).
I am not quite sure how that article came up with its information, but it mentions 64-bit XP, not vista, also keep in mind the date of the article. Lots has changed in hardware since 2005. All processors are 64-bit with 64-bit chipsets.
Back to the poster;
As to the allocation of RAM, there are like the reasons listed in the article, (though I have never ever seen a pci card take up that much ram, but that is just maybe my experience) is your ram matched pairs? Like do you have dual channel ram? single channel? why bothering with ECC ram on a desktop?
As stated above, check the RAM reported in the bios or POST, another thing could be checking a BartPE/Knoppix boot CD and check the allocation there. You could narrow it down to if even XP is the problem (my bet is it isn't but I have been wrong before).
Age old problem, KrazyRhino - XP or Vista. The problem is hardware has advanced (512 MB and 1GB Graphic Cards) but the limitation of 32-bit Operating systems has not changed.
To further educate you both, I'll try to give a short explanation as to why a 32-bit-x86 OS with 4 GByte (or more) won't display thefull amount of system memory within task manager/perfmon.
A 32-bit Windows XP or Vista OS offers an address-space of 2^32 bytes. Inside this address space are not only the addresses of physically available storage cells, but also the I/O addresses of interfaces and hardware-components. Over those I/O addresses the OS communicates with every PCI-, PCIe- or AGP-card, chipset integrated I/O-controllers, and all MotherBoard components. The needed address scopes are reserved by the mainboard-BIOS during the system start phase underneath the highest possible 32-bit address of 0xffffffff.
When only 3 GByte physical memory are installed there aren't any conflicts. But when the RAM is enhanced to 4 GByte or more, the PCI-address-hole covers parts of the system memory, which the OS can't use. The PCI-address-hole will get much bigger the more hardware-components are installed on a system. Graphic cards (GPUs) with lots of local memory do usually allocate the most of the cake here.
To further educate you both, I'll try to give a short explanation as to why a 32-bit-x86 OS with 4 GByte (or more) won't display thefull amount of system memory within task manager/perfmon.
A 32-bit Windows XP or Vista OS offers an address-space of 2^32 bytes. Inside this address space are not only the addresses of physically available storage cells, but also the I/O addresses of interfaces and hardware-components. Over those I/O addresses the OS communicates with every PCI-, PCIe- or AGP-card, chipset integrated I/O-controllers, and all MotherBoard components. The needed address scopes are reserved by the mainboard-BIOS during the system start phase underneath the highest possible 32-bit address of 0xffffffff.
When only 3 GByte physical memory are installed there aren't any conflicts. But when the RAM is enhanced to 4 GByte or more, the PCI-address-hole covers parts of the system memory, which the OS can't use. The PCI-address-hole will get much bigger the more hardware-components are installed on a system. Graphic cards (GPUs) with lots of local memory do usually allocate the most of the cake here.
KrazyRhino - Not sure where your comment regarding Vista came in - poster specifically mentioned XP (see title). And the title of the whitepaper by HP engineers is AM Allocation with Microsoft Windows XP Professional (32 & 64-bit) - so it is not exclusivley about 64-bit. Did you read it?
jss, do you read your own posts?
"So, if your video adapter has 512MB of RAM (like mine does), your maximum memory is going to at most be 3.5GB, because Vista has to use 512MB of that address space to address your video memory. It?ll actually be lower than the 3.5GB because there are other hardware resources that need address space, too. So, it never hurts to fill your computer with 4GB of RAM?you?ll definitely get the max, but you won?t be able to address it all. You probably won?t be able to address much more than 3GB, and you might not be able to address more than 2GB.
The paper also mentions something interesting about 64-bit computers. Basically, depending on the hardware, you might be limited to 4GB of RAM even if you install 64-bit Windows Vista:"
last word in your post... is what?
I never questioned the 4GB limit, i did question the validity of you comparing a paper written about XP to Vista.
As to the allocation of ram in xp 64 (which i use with 4GB of ram allocating ALL of it, not 3.5, not 3, not 2)
But this is detracting from the poster's question.
read my info about checking the RAM for problems before blaming XP.
"So, if your video adapter has 512MB of RAM (like mine does), your maximum memory is going to at most be 3.5GB, because Vista has to use 512MB of that address space to address your video memory. It?ll actually be lower than the 3.5GB because there are other hardware resources that need address space, too. So, it never hurts to fill your computer with 4GB of RAM?you?ll definitely get the max, but you won?t be able to address it all. You probably won?t be able to address much more than 3GB, and you might not be able to address more than 2GB.
The paper also mentions something interesting about 64-bit computers. Basically, depending on the hardware, you might be limited to 4GB of RAM even if you install 64-bit Windows Vista:"
last word in your post... is what?
I never questioned the 4GB limit, i did question the validity of you comparing a paper written about XP to Vista.
As to the allocation of ram in xp 64 (which i use with 4GB of ram allocating ALL of it, not 3.5, not 3, not 2)
But this is detracting from the poster's question.
read my info about checking the RAM for problems before blaming XP.
LOL - Answer a question with a question...
Exactly my point - It is not an XP issue but a 32-bit OS issue - Vista or XP! And not one that anyone can solve as it is by design.
Exactly my point - It is not an XP issue but a 32-bit OS issue - Vista or XP! And not one that anyone can solve as it is by design.
jss, rather than argue with you contridicting your own comments, I suggest focusing on the poster.
4GB of ram reporting as 2.5Gb is bad
So here is the list of troubleshooting steps
(if not dual channel RAM)
Take 1 GB out.. does it display as 3gb?
(if dual channel)
run a copy of Knoppix or BartPe and check the ram listing there. (BartPE is built using a WinXP core so it will have the "same" potential limitations but could give a slightly different result)
If the Knoppix/BartPE report the SAME response as regular XP, you know it is not the OS but the RAM itself.
If removing 1 GB of ram fixes it, then you know it was XP (32-bit) and you should just upgrade to x64 or ditch the extra GB.
One last note to jss, please don't get into a pissing match over your info, I am trying to help the poster and give him unbiased information that is current. I don't need you to argue with me about what YOU did or didn't say. Please just let it go and act like an adult.
4GB of ram reporting as 2.5Gb is bad
So here is the list of troubleshooting steps
(if not dual channel RAM)
Take 1 GB out.. does it display as 3gb?
(if dual channel)
run a copy of Knoppix or BartPe and check the ram listing there. (BartPE is built using a WinXP core so it will have the "same" potential limitations but could give a slightly different result)
If the Knoppix/BartPE report the SAME response as regular XP, you know it is not the OS but the RAM itself.
If removing 1 GB of ram fixes it, then you know it was XP (32-bit) and you should just upgrade to x64 or ditch the extra GB.
One last note to jss, please don't get into a pissing match over your info, I am trying to help the poster and give him unbiased information that is current. I don't need you to argue with me about what YOU did or didn't say. Please just let it go and act like an adult.
ASKER
I did take out 1 stick of ram and it still said 2.5 gig. then I took out a second stick of ram and it read 2.0. This is a new machine. I just got it August 1. Have not installed any programs on it except my antivirus. What is Knoppix or BartPe? where do I get it and how do I use it?
Not trying to get in a 'pissing' match with you Krazy - simply ensure accurate information is presented - agree that poster should check BIOs, as suggested, and you suggestion to rule out memory issue. However, as his post suggest that emoving 1GB did not alert the available memory, it remains to be the standard 32-bit OS issue.
PamelaFox - You can download BartPE from http://www.nu2.nu/pebuilder/ and it includes instructions.
PamelaFox - You can download BartPE from http://www.nu2.nu/pebuilder/ and it includes instructions.
Knoppix is a Linux bootable OS, it is a simple windows-ish look to it that is good for diagnostic testing.
www.knoppix.net/
BartPE = www.nu2.nu/pebuilder/
Bart is sort of a minimal install of XP that is designed to take all the frills out for testing. Being that it is built onto a CD, you can't have viruses on it, so it boots wonderfully.
Being that taking 1 GB out didn't fix it, that is Bad. That means Windows (being that taking 1 stick out gets it below the 3GB limit) isn't the problem and most likely it is the RAM stick being bad.
I suggest still trying knoppix or Bart
Good luck.
www.knoppix.net/
BartPE = www.nu2.nu/pebuilder/
Bart is sort of a minimal install of XP that is designed to take all the frills out for testing. Being that it is built onto a CD, you can't have viruses on it, so it boots wonderfully.
Being that taking 1 GB out didn't fix it, that is Bad. That means Windows (being that taking 1 stick out gets it below the 3GB limit) isn't the problem and most likely it is the RAM stick being bad.
I suggest still trying knoppix or Bart
Good luck.
This is normal for a 32 bit system. People have generally posted correctly, if not perhaps confusingly about why it's so little... I suggest you read over http://blogs.technet.com/m
Now you seem to misunderstand something - you said "they suggested I have it upgraded to Windows XP 64 bit. If I do that alot of my software which is for 32 bit will not work" - this is not true. MOST (but NOT ALL) 32bit software works just fine on a 64 bit version of Windows. Things that do not are either hardware related (including those programs that use drivers, such as some antivirus programs) and programs that have 16bit installers - 16 bit programs won't run at all.
And while anything is possible, I SERIOUSLY doubt you have any hardware issues whatsoever.
Now you seem to misunderstand something - you said "they suggested I have it upgraded to Windows XP 64 bit. If I do that alot of my software which is for 32 bit will not work" - this is not true. MOST (but NOT ALL) 32bit software works just fine on a 64 bit version of Windows. Things that do not are either hardware related (including those programs that use drivers, such as some antivirus programs) and programs that have 16bit installers - 16 bit programs won't run at all.
And while anything is possible, I SERIOUSLY doubt you have any hardware issues whatsoever.
The reason I believe it to be hardware related rather than OS is due to it reporting 2.5, rather than the 3.5 that is expected.
Also when 1 GB was removed (effecting the total below the 3.5gb limit) it STILL showed 2.5, this indicates it is not a 32-bit XP issue.
On the other hand, if the ram was dual channel, and mismatched, that could also show incorrect numbers.
To PAM, can you see all 4GB in the BIOS/POST? Though this doesn't rule out bad ram, it can rule out mismatched dual channels (most of the time).
Also when 1 GB was removed (effecting the total below the 3.5gb limit) it STILL showed 2.5, this indicates it is not a 32-bit XP issue.
On the other hand, if the ram was dual channel, and mismatched, that could also show incorrect numbers.
To PAM, can you see all 4GB in the BIOS/POST? Though this doesn't rule out bad ram, it can rule out mismatched dual channels (most of the time).
Thanks, leew - much better explanation than mine. Point is, the memory displayed by windows may range anywhere from 2-3.75 depending on installed components. I'll refresh my explanation so it is more clear next time - this is a very common question.
Krazy - The limit, I beleive, is 3GB, not 3.5. Removing 1GB of RAM would still put PAM at 3GB or greater.
Krazy - The limit, I beleive, is 3GB, not 3.5. Removing 1GB of RAM would still put PAM at 3GB or greater.
I am more interested in the BIOS/POST or Knoppix display before I make any further comments.
Those diagnostic tools are perfect for a situation such as this.
Those diagnostic tools are perfect for a situation such as this.
ASKER
I must admit im not the sharpest crayon in the box here. I know how to look under my computer properties to see how much ram i have but I don't know where BIOS/POST is. Also since this is a new machine and never used I am a bit put off by installing Knoppix or BartPe because I don't even know how to use them. I am truly sorry to be such a bother.
Read the link I posted - you will find you have no problem - it's just an unfortunate fact of technology. If you had a less powerful graphics card, you would have more RAM. Or you could use a 64 bit operating system.
Knoppix and BartPE aren't installed - they are booted from - Knoppix never installs anything and BartPE only installs a small helper application to help you build the CD.
Knoppix and BartPE aren't installed - they are booted from - Knoppix never installs anything and BartPE only installs a small helper application to help you build the CD.
I believe F2 will access the BIOS on startup for a Dell. You can also watch the screen on startup and you should see the count of memory - if you see a dell logo, press esc
ASKER
Sorry for the late reply on the post but I have been working and this is the first chance I got to check machine bios. Looking at the screen now in bios under System/Memory Info: Installed Memory = 4.0 GB
Memory Speed = 800 Mhz
Memory Channel Mode = Dual Symmetric
Memory Technology = DDR2 SDRAM (ECC)
Under this there is a table box with the categories, Memory Slot, Size, ECC, Rank, Type, Organization
They all list the same 1GB, Yes, 2, Unbuffered, x8. However under the memory slot the order is: DIMM 1, DIMM 3, DIMM 2, DIMM4. Not sure if that makes a difference.
Processor Info
Processor Type = Intel (R) Core (TM)2 Extreme CPU Q6850 @ 3.00GHz
Processor Clock Speed = 3.0 GHz
Processor Bus Speed = 1333 MHz
Processor L2 Cache = 8 MB
Processor L3 Cache = 0 B
Multiple Core capable = yes (Quad)
Hyperthreading capable = no
64-bit technology = Yes (Intel EM64T)
Do you think I have bad ramm? Or is it because my video card is so large? Should I still run the Knoppix or BartPe. And what am I looking for?
Thank you all so much for being so patient with me.
Memory Speed = 800 Mhz
Memory Channel Mode = Dual Symmetric
Memory Technology = DDR2 SDRAM (ECC)
Under this there is a table box with the categories, Memory Slot, Size, ECC, Rank, Type, Organization
They all list the same 1GB, Yes, 2, Unbuffered, x8. However under the memory slot the order is: DIMM 1, DIMM 3, DIMM 2, DIMM4. Not sure if that makes a difference.
Processor Info
Processor Type = Intel (R) Core (TM)2 Extreme CPU Q6850 @ 3.00GHz
Processor Clock Speed = 3.0 GHz
Processor Bus Speed = 1333 MHz
Processor L2 Cache = 8 MB
Processor L3 Cache = 0 B
Multiple Core capable = yes (Quad)
Hyperthreading capable = no
64-bit technology = Yes (Intel EM64T)
Do you think I have bad ramm? Or is it because my video card is so large? Should I still run the Knoppix or BartPe. And what am I looking for?
Thank you all so much for being so patient with me.
From my experience, what you are seeing is completely normal and expected, as I have stated from the beginning. Other experts with experience will state the same as leew has.
You do not have bad RAM, it is simply a limitation of 32 bit operating systems. If you want the large video card and 4+ GB of memory to be addressable, move to 64 bit OS.
Thanks,
jss1199
You do not have bad RAM, it is simply a limitation of 32 bit operating systems. If you want the large video card and 4+ GB of memory to be addressable, move to 64 bit OS.
Thanks,
jss1199
ASKER
Just to let you all know, a Dell repairman came out to my house this morning to diagnose my computer. He found the motherboard was cracked and replaced it. He replaced the ramm as well. After doing all this 2 sticks of the Ramm failed. Dell is overnighting him more ramm and he will return tomorrow to complete the job. Dell said even with the system being a 32 bit it still should show between 3.2 and 3.7 gigs of ramm. The 2.5 is way to low. As soon as the problem is fixed I will log back on and give you the information and award my points. Thank you so much to everyone.
ASKER
Last night I talked to a Level 3 IT person at dell. The repairman told me to talk to a level 3. He remotely hooked into my PC and did some kind of script thing on it to make it see the ram. Nothing changed it is still the same. He said it is because of the large video card and the 32 bit system. He said even though I am not seeing the 1.5 missing ramm, it is still there and is being used by the video card and other things. He said if I had the smaller video card it may display up to 3.5 but if it needed the ramm it would borrow it back and still have the same effect I'm having now. I then talked to customer service because I feel that dell should tell people this fact when they are ordering a PC. I spent $300.00 more for ramm I can't use and $480.00 for a video card I don't need unless I'm doing movies or something like autocad. I told customer service I wanted them to either take the machine back or take out the large video card and put the smaller one in and reimburse me the difference. They said they could not do that because the machine was purchased (closed out) on June 18 so it is over a month old. Now here is the funny part. It was ordered on that date but I didn't actually pick up the PC until August 1. They said I had to take it back to the store I ordered it from. At this point I am totally disgusted with Dell. If I ever do get rid of this lemon I will never purchase from them again and I will advice all my friends to stay clear of those jerks. Thank you all for your help.
ASKER
Thank you for all your help. I just wish I had known more about computers before I ordered this one. I paid $3,500.00 for it and I am totally disappointed. Once again thank you for your help.
PamelaFox,
I'm sorry you had to go through so many cycles with Dell to receive an answer from them - the answer, as I posted, is truley a level 1 support issue and should have been answered by Dell upon first contact with them.
Where did you purchase the Dell computer? As you had an open case with Dell, you can argue (takes a bit of force) the point that it took Dell two weeks to answer you so the decision to return was delayed only by their response time. Also, take notice of the date on your packing slip/invoice - this is the date that matters. You have 30 days to return the purchase from the date indicated on the packing slip/invoice - not from the order date. Knowing Dell, the order placed on June 18 was not filled until a later date...
I'm sorry you had to go through so many cycles with Dell to receive an answer from them - the answer, as I posted, is truley a level 1 support issue and should have been answered by Dell upon first contact with them.
Where did you purchase the Dell computer? As you had an open case with Dell, you can argue (takes a bit of force) the point that it took Dell two weeks to answer you so the decision to return was delayed only by their response time. Also, take notice of the date on your packing slip/invoice - this is the date that matters. You have 30 days to return the purchase from the date indicated on the packing slip/invoice - not from the order date. Knowing Dell, the order placed on June 18 was not filled until a later date...
ASKER
I purchased the computer from Duke computer store. They ordered it on the June 18 but did not receive it until 2 weeks later. They also ordered the additional sound card which took 3 more weeks to arrive so I did not actually purchase the PC until Aug 1. I talked with the Computer store this morning. They are going to contact Dell to see if they will either (1) give me the smaller (256MB PCIe x16 nVidia NVS 290 Dual Monitor DVI Capable card) and take back the (512MB PCIe x16 nVidia Quadro FX1700 Dual Monitor DVI Capable card) and reimburse me $480.00. or (2) return the machine for a complet refund.
I was told by the level 2 tech at dell with the smaller video card I would gain at least 3.2 - 3.7 ram. I hope he wasn't telling a lie. He said the only reason I would need a 512 card would be if I was editing movies or using autocad program. I don't do either. All I use it for is our family photos, which I use photo shop elements to correct older photos and I use it for our music library.
I also talked to our IT person out here and he said Dell is giving me the run around. He said the 512 card uses 512 plus holds an additional 512 of ram like a mirror. He said the tech should have told me to go into the bios and release that mirrow ram and not hold it and the problem would be solved. You ever heard doing this before?
I'm really disappointed because I don't like windows vista and the only reason I purchased the PC now is because they were ending XP. I saved 2 years to purchase this PC. I paid $3,500.00 cash for it so yes I am really disappointed. I am going to call Dell tonight and try to talk to a level 3 tech and see if he knows about the bios tweaking thing.
Do you personally think I just just suck it up and keep the machine? Thank you. Any advice would be appreciated.
I was told by the level 2 tech at dell with the smaller video card I would gain at least 3.2 - 3.7 ram. I hope he wasn't telling a lie. He said the only reason I would need a 512 card would be if I was editing movies or using autocad program. I don't do either. All I use it for is our family photos, which I use photo shop elements to correct older photos and I use it for our music library.
I also talked to our IT person out here and he said Dell is giving me the run around. He said the 512 card uses 512 plus holds an additional 512 of ram like a mirror. He said the tech should have told me to go into the bios and release that mirrow ram and not hold it and the problem would be solved. You ever heard doing this before?
I'm really disappointed because I don't like windows vista and the only reason I purchased the PC now is because they were ending XP. I saved 2 years to purchase this PC. I paid $3,500.00 cash for it so yes I am really disappointed. I am going to call Dell tonight and try to talk to a level 3 tech and see if he knows about the bios tweaking thing.
Do you personally think I just just suck it up and keep the machine? Thank you. Any advice would be appreciated.
If you're not using programs like AutoCAD that require OpenGL support, a Quadro card is severe overkill. A cheaper 8800GT costs a little over $100 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150315 and is more than sufficient for even hard core gamers. I think Dell pushes them because the Precision series are "workstation" models typically used by 3D modelling people.
I have not heard of the concept of RAM used like a mirror with respect to video cards. It is more likely that you can disable various unused ports in the BIOS, which will reduce their footprint in the RAM taken up by hardware.
$3500 for a PC these days is really excessive. You probably could get a $2000 machine custom built that would be at least as fast. I and a number of other experts could configure such a setup easily.
I have not heard of the concept of RAM used like a mirror with respect to video cards. It is more likely that you can disable various unused ports in the BIOS, which will reduce their footprint in the RAM taken up by hardware.
$3500 for a PC these days is really excessive. You probably could get a $2000 machine custom built that would be at least as fast. I and a number of other experts could configure such a setup easily.
ASKER
The IT guy out here said it is called shadowing. Sorry my mistake. I will once again try speaking with Dell IT tonight to see if they know about this. You know Dell really should tell their customers about the Ram/video card problem. I'm sure there are 1000's of people who own dell computers and don't even know this. If I had been told this prior to my purchase I would have opted for the smaller video card. Well live and learn I guess. Once again thank you so much for all your help. I will keep you updated about what if anything is done.
Aha, ROM shadowing is something that is well-known: http://www.pcguide.com/ref
32 bit XP will see a maximum of 3.5 GB (if you have 4GB installed) - 64-bit will see all memory installed and be able to address it. Vista can see up to 8GB with Vista 32 bit.
So, you are starting with 3.5 not 4gb (because of OS limitations) and you now need to subtract Video Cache, DVD cache, etc from main memory - each PCI card you have also eats at least 256MB. Very common to see XP 32 bit systems report only 3GB, 2.75, or 2.5GB