SP1 shows 4GB RAM

Did anyone notice that when you have SP1 (finally) installed, and you have
4GBytes of RAM, Vista will actually report 4GB in the Wecome Centre (Computer
Details) of Control panel?

Frank
Wed May 07 19:26:59 PDT 2008

"Electron" <Electron@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:192CCBCD-452B-4AE4-B9AB-9154257169A5@microsoft.com...
> Did anyone notice that when you have SP1 (finally) installed, and you
> have
> 4GBytes of RAM, Vista will actually report 4GB in the Wecome Centre
> (Computer
> Details) of Control panel?

Yes, but you don't really have any more available.

--
Frank Saunders, MS-MVP OE/WM
Reply in Newsgroup, not by email.

Electron
Wed May 07 19:35:01 PDT 2008

I was afraid of that, but then we are talking about 32-bit Vista, (which I
forgot to mention in my first post).

"Frank Saunders, MS-MVP OE/WM" wrote:

> "Electron" <Electron@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:192CCBCD-452B-4AE4-B9AB-9154257169A5@microsoft.com...
> > Did anyone notice that when you have SP1 (finally) installed, and you
> > have
> > 4GBytes of RAM, Vista will actually report 4GB in the Wecome Centre
> > (Computer
> > Details) of Control panel?
>
> Yes, but you don't really have any more available.
>
> --
> Frank Saunders, MS-MVP OE/WM
> Reply in Newsgroup, not by email.
>
>
>
>

Richard
Wed May 07 22:09:35 PDT 2008

You did not magically obtain another 3/4 gig of RAM. It just shows you 4 gig
now - to match the amount in the RAM sticks. You still have a max of about
3.2 gig to use. M/S is just trying to make you happy!

Did they succeed?



"Electron" <Electron@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:192CCBCD-452B-4AE4-B9AB-9154257169A5@microsoft.com...
> Did anyone notice that when you have SP1 (finally) installed, and you
> have
> 4GBytes of RAM, Vista will actually report 4GB in the Wecome Centre
> (Computer
> Details) of Control panel?

Electron
Thu May 08 01:38:00 PDT 2008



"Richard Urban" wrote:

> You did not magically obtain another 3/4 gig of RAM. It just shows you 4 gig
> now - to match the amount in the RAM sticks. You still have a max of about
> 3.2 gig to use. M/S is just trying to make you happy!
>
> Did they succeed?
>
> Yes, just for a short while, until someone came along and spoilt my day! But I had a suspicion anyway it was too good to be true, having read technical reasons elsewhere about the limitations of 32-bit.
>
> "Electron" <Electron@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:192CCBCD-452B-4AE4-B9AB-9154257169A5@microsoft.com...
> > Did anyone notice that when you have SP1 (finally) installed, and you
> > have
> > 4GBytes of RAM, Vista will actually report 4GB in the Wecome Centre
> > (Computer
> > Details) of Control panel?
>
>

Chris
Thu May 08 03:13:27 PDT 2008

On Wed, 7 May 2008 19:08:00 -0700, Electron wrote:

> Did anyone notice that when you have SP1 (finally) installed, and
> you have 4GBytes of RAM, Vista will actually report 4GB in the
> Wecome Centre (Computer Details) of Control panel?

Dear, oh dear!

--
Chris Game

"Common sense is that layer of prejudices which we acquire before
we are sixteen." -- Albert Einstein

Donald
Thu May 08 03:54:43 PDT 2008

On Thu, 8 May 2008 11:13:26 +0100, Chris Game <chrisgame@example.net>
wrote:

>On Wed, 7 May 2008 19:08:00 -0700, Electron wrote:
>
>> Did anyone notice that when you have SP1 (finally) installed, and
>> you have 4GBytes of RAM, Vista will actually report 4GB in the
>> Wecome Centre (Computer Details) of Control panel?
>
>Dear, oh dear!

Please remember that Windows reports memory TWO ways:
1) It reports the amount of physical ram which is installed by getting
it from the BIOS. This is how it is reported in the Welcome Center.

2) It also reports the amount of that physical ram which is AVAILABLE
to Windows for user programs and data. This is the total installed
RAM minus the OS overhead for Video and other OS uses, such as
BIOS-shadowing. Usually, this works out to around 3.4GB of memory
available to the user if he has 4GB of physical RAM installed. Windows
reports RAM this way in Task Manager and the output of "winver".


Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the correct thread and article.
================================================

Colon
Thu May 08 07:49:12 PDT 2008

"Electron" <Electron@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:192CCBCD-452B-4AE4-B9AB-9154257169A5@microsoft.com...
> Did anyone notice that when you have SP1 (finally) installed, and you
> have
> 4GBytes of RAM, Vista will actually report 4GB in the Wecome Centre
> (Computer
> Details) of Control panel?


Mine went from showing 3.25 to 18GB.
I have 4GB installed.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDem

Donald
Thu May 08 13:21:28 PDT 2008

On Thu, 8 May 2008 10:49:12 -0400, "Colon Terminus"
<colon_terminus@hotmail.com> wrote:

>"Electron" <Electron@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>news:192CCBCD-452B-4AE4-B9AB-9154257169A5@microsoft.com...
>> Did anyone notice that when you have SP1 (finally) installed, and you
>> have
>> 4GBytes of RAM, Vista will actually report 4GB in the Wecome Centre
>> (Computer
>> Details) of Control panel?
>
>
>Mine went from showing 3.25 to 18GB.
>I have 4GB installed.

Wow!!! Will miracles never cease!!!

You must remember that sometimes, Vista shows ALL Memory -- both
physical as well as Virtual (i.e., "your paging file[s]".)

It is possible that this is what you are seeing, but I kind of doubt
it, since Virtual memory seldom goes higher than twice the amount of
physical memory available to Windows for user files and data, when you
allow Windows to manage virtual memory.

Are you managing Virtual memory yourself, or allowing Windows to
manage it?

If you are, I would stop doing it, since 18GB of virtual memory (the
majority of it being your paging files) is WAY too much, and will
cause LONG pauses as it is rewritten on the HD. This may be observed
if you have long periods of time when the Disk is thrashing a great
deal, and you lose access to the Desktop for a few-to-many seconds. Or
this may be caused by the Vista Indexing Service each time the Index
is updated.

Or it may be caused by Vista Prefetch functions or by updating Flash
memory. You will usually notice this each time you start up.


Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the correct thread and article.
================================================

Ken
Thu May 08 18:15:48 PDT 2008

On Wed, 7 May 2008 19:08:00 -0700, Electron
<Electron@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

> Did anyone notice that when you have SP1 (finally) installed, and you have
> 4GBytes of RAM, Vista will actually report 4GB in the Wecome Centre (Computer
> Details) of Control panel?


Yes. Although Microsoft did it in response to those who complained
about the way it was reported before, I think what they did was a bad
mistake. Yes, it now reports the full 4GB, but the amount that's
usable hasn't changed at all--it's still around 3.1GB, depending on
what hardware you have installed.

The result is that the report is now completely inaccurate.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Liam
Fri May 09 02:14:15 PDT 2008


"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:g1972412jav715cdd9i9qq9440eb65i04m@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 7 May 2008 19:08:00 -0700, Electron
> <Electron@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>> Did anyone notice that when you have SP1 (finally) installed, and you
>> have
>> 4GBytes of RAM, Vista will actually report 4GB in the Wecome Centre
>> (Computer
>> Details) of Control panel?
>
>
> Yes. Although Microsoft did it in response to those who complained
> about the way it was reported before, I think what they did was a bad
> mistake. Yes, it now reports the full 4GB, but the amount that's
> usable hasn't changed at all--it's still around 3.1GB, depending on
> what hardware you have installed.
>
> The result is that the report is now completely inaccurate.
>
> --
> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
> Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Back in the early 80s, someone discovered a way to use 128k of RAM on an
8-bit Z80 processor by switching between two banks of memory. Perhaps
sometime, a modern PC with 32 bit Vista will become that advanced, and
actually use the full 4gb (or more)

Colon
Fri May 09 08:39:39 PDT 2008

"Donald L McDaniel" <orthocross@invalid.invalid.com> wrote in message
news:77n624dfdqbcdt8o13dh6fmvukvqhjiqd9@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 8 May 2008 10:49:12 -0400, "Colon Terminus"
> <colon_terminus@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>"Electron" <Electron@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>news:192CCBCD-452B-4AE4-B9AB-9154257169A5@microsoft.com...
>>> Did anyone notice that when you have SP1 (finally) installed, and you
>>> have
>>> 4GBytes of RAM, Vista will actually report 4GB in the Wecome Centre
>>> (Computer
>>> Details) of Control panel?
>>
>>
>>Mine went from showing 3.25 to 18GB.
>>I have 4GB installed.
>
> Wow!!! Will miracles never cease!!!
>
> You must remember that sometimes, Vista shows ALL Memory -- both
> physical as well as Virtual (i.e., "your paging file[s]".)
>
> It is possible that this is what you are seeing, but I kind of doubt
> it, since Virtual memory seldom goes higher than twice the amount of
> physical memory available to Windows for user files and data, when you
> allow Windows to manage virtual memory.
>
> Are you managing Virtual memory yourself, or allowing Windows to
> manage it?
>
> If you are, I would stop doing it, since 18GB of virtual memory (the
> majority of it being your paging files) is WAY too much, and will
> cause LONG pauses as it is rewritten on the HD. This may be observed
> if you have long periods of time when the Disk is thrashing a great
> deal, and you lose access to the Desktop for a few-to-many seconds. Or
> this may be caused by the Vista Indexing Service each time the Index
> is updated.
>
> Or it may be caused by Vista Prefetch functions or by updating Flash
> memory. You will usually notice this each time you start up.
>
>
> Donald L McDaniel
> Please reply to the correct thread and article.
> ================================================



Nah, I let Vista manage everything.
Clean install with all updates and SP1.

Task manager shows Physical Memory at 3325 MB total.
Page file shows 2036 / 6879M

System runs just fine with very few problems (deleting lottsa files from a
USB stick takes FOREVER!).
Heavy DX10 games run fluidly.
I'm quite satisfied.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Donald
Fri May 09 12:18:44 PDT 2008

On Fri, 9 May 2008 10:14:15 +0100, "Liam Roche" <noemail@ntlworld.com>
wrote:

>
>"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
>news:g1972412jav715cdd9i9qq9440eb65i04m@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 7 May 2008 19:08:00 -0700, Electron
>> <Electron@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Did anyone notice that when you have SP1 (finally) installed, and you
>>> have
>>> 4GBytes of RAM, Vista will actually report 4GB in the Wecome Centre
>>> (Computer
>>> Details) of Control panel?
>>
>>
>> Yes. Although Microsoft did it in response to those who complained
>> about the way it was reported before, I think what they did was a bad
>> mistake. Yes, it now reports the full 4GB, but the amount that's
>> usable hasn't changed at all--it's still around 3.1GB, depending on
>> what hardware you have installed.
>>
>> The result is that the report is now completely inaccurate.
>>
>> --
>> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
>> Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Well, maybe Microsoft and its supporters need to start EDUCATING users
about the difference between the amount of installed physical memory,
and the amount actually available to Windows for the user.

Maybe Windows should also report exactly where the "missing" User's
memory is going, before it is reported to us via Task Manager.

>
>Back in the early 80s, someone discovered a way to use 128k of RAM on an
>8-bit Z80 processor by switching between two banks of memory. Perhaps
>sometime, a modern PC with 32 bit Vista will become that advanced, and
>actually use the full 4gb (or more)

Actually, that "missing" memory is not really "missing", since the OS
uses it for various fuctions, such as shared VRAM and other Vista
overhead functions, like shadowing the BIOS and various other
[internal] caching functions, etc.

So really, we are getting full (mostly) use of our installed RAM.

By the way, my shop-built machine shows about 3.4 GB available to
Windows for user programs and data.

Also, I really feel that many users do not know the difference between
PHYSICAL memory and VIRTUAL memory. Users should know the difference
by now. Apparently, we are NOT doing a good-enough job of informing
the users about the difference. Or they simply don't want to know the
difference. Most folks I speak with don't know the difference, or
don't seem to care about the difference.

Adding memory up to 4GB for a 32-bit copy of Vista is an EXCELLENT
idea. It speeds the machine up, and does leave extra memory for the
User.

One or two GB of memory is inadequate for Vista (or any other OS), in
my opinion. Even three GB is inadequate. 4GB seems to be a
"sweet-spot" for 32-bit machines and OS's. And it is even "sweeter"
if the memory is matched Dual-Channel memory.

Before I increased memory to 4GB Dual-Channel, Windows (and the BIOS)
reported memory speed as 333MHz. After I installed a full 4GB in
matched sticks, both the BIOS and Windows began reporting Memory Speed
at TWICE that rate (667MHz).

I can almost feel the pain of using my Dell Inspiron 1525 laptop with
less than 4GB matched Dual-Channel Memory. It would be EXTREMELY slow
at 333MHz. As it is, it is fairly slow even with 4GB Dual-Channel
Memory.

Proper education is what will help more than giving in to the demands
of uneducated users.


Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the correct thread and article.
================================================