Avast WEBforum
Other => General Topics => Topic started by: Husk on July 18, 2009, 12:48:40 PM
-
The laptop had 2gb RAM, But 2gb was installed for free after purchase.
I got a sidebar Gadget saying details about computer and stuff. But It says 3.0gb Ram Total?
-
32 bit windows will only show 3GB of memory - to take full advantage of the memory you would need to be running 64 bit. I found this which explains it better than I can
This is not a defective product, nor a problem with Microsoft, nor a problem with the BIOS/Chipset. Take a few minutes and learn how a computer works.
The designation "32 Bit" means that is how many bits flow through the system at one time (this is oversimplified, but gets the point across). Because of this, there is a limitation on how much can be processed at once by the computer. Basically, the computer runs out of numbers that it can use (2 to the power of 32 = 4294967296). Once you get past this number the computer can't do anything with it(unless it runs 2 cycles of the processor to do waht could normally be done in one cycle at a "smaller number", basically cutting your CPU performance in half). This is by design, since back when 32 bit operating systems became the norm, most people had 2-16 MB of ram (thats right, megabytes). Now to ensure compatibility with the older programs that we all use and love, Microsoft has kept the 32 bit operating systems going.
However, Microsoft has solved all of these problems by creating different 64 bit versions of Windows, which in turn, use 64 bit processors and related hardware. But because our old software and hardware tend to have problems in the 64 Bit environment, most people (including myself) have stuck to the 32 bit. Whoever sold you the extra ram, and didnt notify you that it was not possible for your system to use it without a major slowdown, is the one you should be blaming.
-
It's a system limitation.
Maybe the tweak of http://www.thewindowsclub.com/ultimate-windows-tweaker-v2-a-tweak-ui-for-windows-7-vista#more-1957
help you.
-
I always thought 32bit could have 4gb max but oh well =P
That Program didnt help tech, thanks anyway. It caused loadup to be really slow, added all my shortcut arrows back and didn't say more ram was available. its back to normal though
-
What also has to be remembered is that your Video RAM would also be included in the overall total for Memory.
-
Just a question DavidR. How do I find out how much video RAM I have. I also have 4 GB Shared Dual Channel DDR2 at 667MHz of RAM on my 32 bit Dell Vista machine.
RoRo
-
@Tech
I tried your Ultimate Windows Tweaker on my Windows 7 system and I can't set any tweak in System Performance as I do not have permission to set those tweaks ???
I reported the problem:
http://forum.thewindowsclub.com/windows-7-management-support/28319-enable-4gb-ram-support-problem.html
-
Isn't it an UAC problem?
-
Just a question DavidR. How do I find out how much video RAM I have. I also have 4 GB Shared Dual Channel DDR2 at 667MHz of RAM on my 32 bit Dell Vista machine.
RoRo
It should be a part of your system spec from when they sold you the system, it would tell you what video graphics card you have how much RAM it has (or if the motherboard has an integrated video chip, in which case it shares system RAM).
There are tools that make it easy to see what is on your system, one that I use is very useful as it has a great deal of different functions that it can monitor and display, SIW - System Information for Windows - http://www.gtopala.com/ (http://www.gtopala.com/).
-
If you have Nvidia or ATI then this program is for you.
GPU-Z - http://www.techpowerup.com/gpuz/
-
Yes but it only does the one task where the System Information for Windows it the Swiss Arny Knife of information tools ;D
-
Isn't it an UAC problem?
I don't think so.
It is a registry item permission problem.
I tried to navigate to the item in the registry using regedit.exe Run as administrator and take ownership and grant Full access but I was denied permission.
-
Isn't it an UAC problem?
I don't think so.
It is a registry item permission problem.
I tried to navigate to the item in the registry using regedit.exe Run as administrator and take ownership and grant Full access but I was denied permission.
So, it's not Windows 7 compatible, maybe.
-
Yes but it only does the one task where the System Information for Windows it the Swiss Arny Knife of information tools ;D
Yeah i like SIW too. But GPU-Z rocks ! 2 features i love ... First one is you have a small button for making a screenshot of the program window, looks like this:
(http://www.shrani.si/f/1j/Vc/2uikR78C/1.png)
The second one is that it allows you to save your card's bios which is probably useless for the rest of you but for me it's a nice function as NiBiTor can't access the bios of my card on 64 bit windows. ;D
-
I use it too (latest version is 0.3.4), but for a non-specialist that really only wants to find how much RAM their graphics card/chip uses (in this case) is perhaps too much information and the SIW is a good all round tool and saves your average user having multiple tools.
-
I use it too (latest version is 0.3.4), but for a non-specialist that really only wants to find how much RAM their graphics card/chip uses (in this case) is perhaps too much information and the SIW is a good all round tool and saves your average user having multiple tools.
Yeah i need to update hehe ;D
Still it doesn't hurt to link to the program does it ? ;)
I guess one could use the dxdiag way or look in the control panel or use system information aswell if he really just wants to find that out, those are even simpler and faster methods ...
-
Nothing in the System Information (of XP) that gives graphics RAM info, so I and others can't use that.
Thanks, I had forgotten about the DirectX Diagnostics on my new system I have never used it as I'm not a gamer and never really needed to check and DX settings.
-
Ahh ok, I forgot about that Video Memory takes it. ;) I got 1gb Thanks Guys
-
I finally got SIW to work on my Vista machine, but it wouldn't show on XP. I have 448 shared Video memory of a 4 GB memory total. Does that mean, I can only use 3500 of it because I have a 32 bit machine? Also it says Data width 64 bits on memory slot 1 and 2. What does that mean ? I have a 32 bit machine. I have noticed that the new laptops being sold have 64 bits. Is that significantly faster? I know they will take more RAM (up to 8 GB).
RoRo
-
When it talks of shared memory it normally means that you have an on-board graphics chip and it shares the RAM on your system, in this case it takes 448MB of your 4GB.
Well I'm using XP Pro and obviously SIW works on my system, so I don't know why not on yours, what errors are displayed ?
-
There are no errors David. The application was on my desktop, but it was lost among all the other links I had. When I put it on My Vista machine, it opened automatically, so I though it hadn't installed on XP, but it had. It certainly gives a lot of information. Thanks for the link.
What a difference in the amount of Video RAM on a 6 year old machine compared to the Vista machine I got last year.. I only had 64 MB of video RAM on the old one with 1 GB of memory.
One question?
Since a 64 bit machine could use more RAM, would I see a lot of difference between a 32 bit machine and a 64 bit? If so what kinds of applications would be affected the most?
RoRo
-
@roro
I set up a Folder C:\Download to download and test applications that I think are interesting and remove the downloaded file after install or if it is a standalone I leave it there.
Storing things on the Desktop makes for an awful messy Desktop.
64 bit processors are faster but not much software is written yet to support 64 bit processors effectively.
-
YoKenny,
Can applications that run on 32 bit Vista, run on 64 bit Vista; although, not any better than they run on 32 bit, if they haven't been written for 64? I hope that is too confusing a sentence.
If they can, it would make sense to get a 64 bit machine and wait for updates on software.
I know what you mean about a cluttered desktop. I try to compact mine into folders, but it still seems to increase tenfold.
RoRo
-
32 bit applications can run on 64 bit Vista.
Applications are either 32 bit or 64 bit so 32 bit apps will run on both systems but 64 bit applications will not run on 32 bit systems.
I don't have enough money to purchase a 64 bit system to try the performance improvement.
I do not keep Folders on my Desktop only icons for applications that I install and even then some icons I remove as some applications I use very infrequently and access them through Start All Programs menu.
I do have a Folder icon for C:\Download on the Desktop though.
-
Thanks for the information. I am not ready to spend for a 64 bit system either, but I have a friend who is in the market for a new laptop and was asking about getting a 64 bit OS. Now I can tell her definitely yes.
I definitely should put a download folder on my desktop, and I think I will move my folders to a folder on the C drive. Those are both good suggestions.
Thanks again.
RoRo
-
<snip>
One question?
Since a 64 bit machine could use more RAM, would I see a lot of difference between a 32 bit machine and a 64 bit? If so what kinds of applications would be affected the most?
RoRo
You would see a lot of difference and not all of it good. One of the biggest issues is hardware drivers as many manufacturers are loath to make 64bit drivers for old hardware so little things like printer drivers, etc. may not be available for your printer, etc.
Some programs won't work at all older ones which would run under compatibility mode on your existing OS, but 32bit programs generally will still work, but won't benefit from the 64bit enhancements.
The problem is that you generally won't find out things like this until you have your 64bit OS.
Getting a new laptop with a 64bit OS would seem a reasonable way to go as drivers shouldn't be much of an issue, except for external hardware. If I were in the market for a new laptop I would be waiting for the release of win7 as to me it doesn't make sense to get one now with Vista. I know you can at some point in time get a free upgrade to win7 having bought Vista so close to the release of win7.
However, for me upgrades no matter what is said are at best a compromise and if I had the option I would prefer a clean install, so getting it on a new system is probably the best way to go.
-
You would see a lot of difference and not all of it good. One of the biggest issues is hardware drivers as many manufacturers are loath to make 64bit drivers for old hardware so little things like printer drivers, etc. may not be available for your printer, etc.
Some programs won't work at all older ones which would run under compatibility mode on your existing OS, but 32bit programs generally will still work, but won't benefit from the 64bit enhancements.
The problem is that you generally won't find out things like this until you have your 64bit OS.
Getting a new laptop with a 64bit OS would seem a reasonable way to go as drivers shouldn't be much of an issue, except for external hardware. If I were in the market for a new laptop I would be waiting for the release of win7 as to me it doesn't make sense to get one now with Vista. I know you can at some point in time get a free upgrade to win7 having bought Vista so close to the release of win7.
However, for me upgrades no matter what is said are at best a compromise and if I had the option I would prefer a clean install, so getting it on a new system is probably the best way to go.
I do not know if "loath" is the right word but from history right down to Win95 hardware drivers have been an issue and Win98SE attempted to relieve this and even WinME was better that I really liked.
Its evolution not revolution.
I look forward to Windows 7 in October.
-
It is I believe very close to the mark (Unwilling or reluctant; disinclined:) and was shorter than "tight as a ducks back passage" when money is concerned creating 64bit drivers for old hardware.
-
So why is it that A lot of people have trouble running 32bit programs on 64bit OS =o?
-
It is impossible to say (other than what has already been said) as we don't know what those 32bit applications were.
There are 32bit applications that don't even work on 32bit OS versions of XP and Vista or they have to be run in compatibility mode as they are old applications. So god knows how they might fare on a 64bit OS.
-
So why is it that A lot of people have trouble running 32bit programs on 64bit OS =o?
Bollocks. You'll only have problems with really ancient stuff that was designed with early 32bit in mind or even 16bit (mostly games).
But other than that i have yet to find "stuff" that "many users" have problems with. Because i'm on 64bit for the second yer and i never had any problems.
-
Back to RAM. I saw this website(http://www.mydigitallife.info/2008/06/04/differences-and-advantages-between-32-bit-x86-vs-64-bit-x64-windows-vista/) comparing 32 and 64 bit and they said " All 32-bit versions of Windows Vista can access up to 4 GB of RAM."
Is this true only of Vista systems?
RoRo
-
Back to RAM. I saw this website(http://www.mydigitallife.info/2008/06/04/differences-and-advantages-between-32-bit-x86-vs-64-bit-x64-windows-vista/) comparing 32 and 64 bit and they said " All 32-bit versions of Windows Vista can access up to 4 GB of RAM."
Is this true only of Vista systems?
No, for all 32bits systems (XP, etc.).
-
Then why do some 32 bit systems says they can only use 3 GB RAM?
RoRo
-
I wouldn't even worry about this, if you have 4GB of RAM the 32 bit OS will use as much as it can handle.
Here is an extract from an article in the Windows Secrets newsletter by Scott Dunn who is vastly more experienced than I in this matter.
Here's the full story behind how much RAM a given system can handle.
First, there's hardware. Each system has a fundamental physical limit on the amount of memory it can accommodate. Most PCs and laptops sold today have a 32-bit internal architecture.
That means that the computer can generate distinct, internal memory addresses that start at zero and go up to a binary number (ones and zeros) that's 32 digits long. Mathematically, that's 2 to the 32nd power — or about 4.2 billion memory addresses to play with. This translates to about 4GB.
The 32-bit limit is fundamental and real: a 32-bit PC cannot generate an internal 33-bit address, so once all 4.2 billion addresses are in use, you're done. About 4GB is all you get for RAM in a 32-bit PC, period.
Why "about" 4GB? Why isn't it an exact number? That's because the PC uses its total memory space not just for RAM but also for such housekeeping chores as remembering your hardware and maintaining internal scratchpads and "stacks."
Any memory addresses remaining unused after the housekeeping requirements are met will be available for use as general-purpose memory. This represents the amount of RAM you can actually use.
It's not unusual for a PC to need almost a full gigabyte of addresses for internal use, so putting 4GB of RAM into a standard 32-bit system usually nets around 3.2GB of usable RAM. The rest of the 4GB of RAM is there, but the system has no way of accessing the memory because your PC has run out of internal addresses.
There's a further complication: many current systems — especially laptops — don't even try to allow the absolute theoretical maximum RAM due to such design considerations as cost, heat, power consumption, and size.
<snip>
That's the hardware side of things, but standard 32-bit software also shares the same mathematical ceiling that 32-bit hardware has and is likewise limited to recognizing no more than 4GB of address space.
That's all the RAM that standard 32-bit XP or Vista (or 32-bit Linux or Macs, for that matter) will ever "see" on standard 32-bit hardware. No matter how you slice it, 2 to the 32nd equals 4GB. That's all there is.
Note that some server-oriented 32-bit systems can use "address extensions" to perform a sleight-of-hand that tricks the operating system into thinking it's working within the normal 4GB address space when the system is actually tap-dancing madly behind the scenes to allow access to somewhat more.
Scott Dunn covered some of these techniques in his excellent column in the Dec. 18, 2008, newsletter titled "Access more memory, even on a 32-bit system." But even though the techniques Scott describes let you partially sidestep current memory constraints, they don't change the fundamental 4GB cap for 32-bit architectures.
The real answer for more memory space is to move to 64-bit hardware and software. The mathematical ceiling for 64-bit hardware is an astonishing 16EB (exabytes) of memory space — 16 quintillion bytes. That's a whopping 16 million terabytes, or 16 billion gigabytes. That ought to accommodate your MP3 collection.
-
Isn't it an UAC problem?
I don't think so.
It is a registry item permission problem.
I tried to navigate to the item in the registry using regedit.exe Run as administrator and take ownership and grant Full access but I was denied permission.
could still be a UAC issue. Some programs just don't run fine at all if you installed them with UAC on. Granting them admin privilege afterward doesn't help. You must install them with UAC off (probably because they don't support virtualization). You can always turn UAC back on once the install's done. That's what I had to do for a couple (few) of programs.
-
Back to RAM. I saw this website(http://www.mydigitallife.info/2008/06/04/differences-and-advantages-between-32-bit-x86-vs-64-bit-x64-windows-vista/) comparing 32 and 64 bit and they said " All 32-bit versions of Windows Vista can access up to 4 GB of RAM."
Is this true only of Vista systems?
RoRo
any 32 bit version of Windows will be able to detect up to 4GB of RAM, but won't be able to use more than 3. As to "many people complaining about 32 bit software issues on 64 bit OS", that's bs ;)
-
Thank you Logos and DavidR.
So, if I had only 3 GB of RAM, my computer would run the same, because although it can access 4 GB, it can only use 3 GB. Tt is interesting that they will sell 4 GB without telling you this at Dell. If I am using shared RAM for Video does that decrease the 3 GB usable for the rest of the system, or will that be taken for the 4 GB that I have accessible?
-
if the video memory is shared, that will of course decrease the 3GB usable limit (on board video memory, ie RAM that physically belongs to your video card, is fully usable on top of that, whatever OS you run, 32 or 64 bit).
-
Thanks Logos,
I now understand better the availability and uses of RAM. This forum is such a great place to learn.
RoRo
-
Thank you Logos and DavidR.
So, if I had only 3 GB of RAM, my computer would run the same, because although it can access 4 GB, it can only use 3 GB. Tt is interesting that they will sell 4 GB without telling you this at Dell. If I am using shared RAM for Video does that decrease the 3 GB usable for the rest of the system, or will that be taken for the 4 GB that I have accessible?
Technically no (outside of the video shared memory requirement), because of what was said an element of that RAM is used by the OS for its housekeeping which further reduces the RAM available to programs.
Why "about" 4GB? Why isn't it an exact number? That's because the PC uses its total memory space not just for RAM but also for such housekeeping chores as remembering your hardware and maintaining internal scratchpads and "stacks."
Any memory addresses remaining unused after the housekeeping requirements are met will be available for use as general-purpose memory. This represents the amount of RAM you can actually use.
It's not unusual for a PC to need almost a full gigabyte of addresses for internal use, so putting 4GB of RAM into a standard 32-bit system usually nets around 3.2GB of usable RAM. The rest of the 4GB of RAM is there, but the system has no way of accessing the memory because your PC has run out of internal addresses.
So starting with 4GB rather than starting with 3GB would leave you more after the housekeeping and shared video requirements are taken into account.