Problems with memory

Ok, got a question! I just built my rig, I installed XP Pro (32-bit) and OS recognized 2.7 gigs of my memory. Just finished installing Vista Ultimate (32-bit) and it still only recognizes 2.8 gigs. Should I pop Vista 64 on there to recognize all 4 gigs, or is it more trouble than its worth?

EVGA 132-YW-E179-A1 LGA 775 NVIDIA nForce 790i SLI ATX Intel Motherboard
BFG Tech BFGEGTX2801024OC2E GeForce GTX 280 1GB 512-bit GDDR3 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready SLI Supported Video Card
PC Power & Cooling S75CF 750W EPS12V SLI NVIDIA SLI Certified (Dual 8800 GTX and below) CrossFire Ready 80 PLUS Certified Active PFC Power Supply
Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200 2.33GHz LGA 775 95W Quad-Core
mushkin 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) Dual Channel Kit
Western Digital Caviar Black WD6401AALS 640GB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s (X2 Raid 0)
LG Black Blu-ray/HD DVD-ROM & 16X DVD±R DVD Burner SATA Model
ATOP AT-RAPTOR-WB Black SGCC steel ATX Mid Tower Computer Case

You've got 1GB worth of VRAM on your video card....so that would account for some of the missing memory that a 32bit OS is reading.

Your computer's 32bit OS only recognizing about 3GB of your installed RAM is because of your 1GB of VRAM from your video card. Your computer is working as it is supposed to be working.

If you have more then a total of 4GB memory with RAM & VRAM, you're 32bit OS won't make use of all 4GB installed. You need a 64bit OS to do that.

It probably has to do with your video cards. A 32-bit OS generally can only address 4gb of total memory, RAM and VRAM included. So if you have 1gb of video memory, then your machine will only recognize 3gb of regular memory, even if you have 4 installed. Why yours only sees 2.8 I have no idea. But that's the general idea behind 32-bit OSes and memory.theragu40

[QUOTE="theragu40"]It probably has to do with your video cards. A 32-bit OS generally can only address 4gb of total memory, RAM and VRAM included. So if you have 1gb of video memory, then your machine will only recognize 3gb of regular memory, even if you have 4 installed. Why yours only sees 2.8 I have no idea. But that's the general idea behind 32-bit OSes and memory.hercule5

It has nothing to do with the motherboard, and everything to do with 64 vs 32 bit and the GPU memory.

You need to understand what you read. Yes, I am aware of the 32bit limitations. I was referring to the comment about video cards. Your video card is insignificant when your system displays how much physical ram is installed.

My comment was about how much of the 4GB is shown to exist in a 32bit environment.

You need to understand what you read. Yes, I am aware of the 32bit limitations. I was referring to the comment about video cards. Your video card is insignificant when your system displays how much physical ram is installed.

My comment was about how much of the 4GB is shown to exist in a 32bit environment.

hercule5

I hate to break it to you, but it is the video memory, that it why people with different size video memory will see different amounts of their 4GB.

You need to understand what you read. Yes, I am aware of the 32bit limitations. I was referring to the comment about video cards. Your video card is insignificant when your system displays how much physical ram is installed.

My comment was about how much of the 4GB is shown to exist in a 32bit environment.

hercule5

Sorry but you're wrong. Maximum addressable memory = 2 to the power of 32 = 4294967296 = 4GB. The available memory address are not only taken up by the system memory, but also devices like GPU's share the available memory addresses.

Microsoft Website explanantion

Microsoft Windows XP Professional, designed as a 32-bit OS, supports an address range of up to 4 GB for virtual memory addresses and up to 4 GB for physical memory addresses. Because the physical memory addresses are sub-divided to manage both the computer's PCI memory address range (also known as MMIO) and RAM, the amount of available RAM is always less than 4 GB.

The PCI memory addresses starting down from 4 GB are used for things like the BIOS, IO cards, networking, PCI hubs, bus bridges, PCI-Express, and video/graphics cards. The BIOS takes up about 512 KB starting from the very top address. Then each of the other items mentioned are allocated address ranges below the BIOS range. The largest block of addresses is allocated for today's high performance graphics cards which need addresses for at least the amount of memory on the graphics card. The net result is that a high performance x86-based computer may allocate 512 MB to more than 1 GB for the PCI memory address range before any RAM (physical user memory) addresses are allocated.

RAM starts from address 0. The BIOS allocates RAM from 0 up to the bottom of the PCI memory addresses mentioned above, typically limiting available RAM to between 3 GB and 3.4 GB.

;) OWNED

Another person that doesn't understand.

I AM REFERRING TO THE AMOUNT OF MEMORY THAT SHOWS IN SYSTEM PROPERTIES!

It doesn't change depending on whatever video card you have installed. I could swap out my 9600GT that has 512MB and put in any that has 1GB and the amount of memory that shows in my ssytem properties will still be 4GB on my Vista 64.

How hard is that to understand? Oh, and you owned nothing.

It doesn't change depending on whatever video card you have installed. I could swap out my 9600GT that has 512MB and put in any that has 1GB and the amount of memory that shows in my ssytem properties will still be 4GB on my Vista 64.

hercule5

Of course it will show 4GB on your vista 64. It's 64 Bit.

Another person that doesn't understand.

I AM REFERRING TO THE AMOUNT OF MEMORY THAT SHOWS IN SYSTEM PROPERTIES!

It doesn't change depending on whatever video card you have installed. I could swap out my 9600GT that has 512MB and put in any that has 1GB and the amount of memory that shows in my ssytem properties will still be 4GB on my Vista 64.

How hard is that to understand? Oh, and you owned nothing.

hercule5

I have XP 32-bit installed with 4GB of RAM. I am using a 512MB video card, my system properties show, like 3.2 GB of RAM.

Please do some research and understand what you are talking about before giving the wrong information, and making it worse by arguing with people who actually know what they are talking about. So yes, I think you were owned :shock: ;) :P

Another person that doesn't understand.

I AM REFERRING TO THE AMOUNT OF MEMORY THAT SHOWS IN SYSTEM PROPERTIES!

It doesn't change depending on whatever video card you have installed. I could swap out my 9600GT that has 512MB and put in any that has 1GB and the amount of memory that shows in my ssytem properties will still be 4GB on my Vista 64.

How hard is that to understand? Oh, and you owned nothing.

hercule5

You understand that you have vista 64 bit?

The video cards does add to the total amouth of memory it will see... It's not the motherbaord at all.

You lot are slow, really slow. Of course it shows I have 4GB, my point is that it doesnt change with whatever video card I have installed. Just as when I was running 32bit XP, my ram showed up as 3.25GB - that wouldn't change depending on the video card either. It DID change however, with the first motherboard I ran with exact same parts on this motherboard (video card...). Although I can't remember what that number was, it certainly wasn't 3.25GB. I know it wasn't the same because a cousin had the same motherboard I am using now, and his showed 3.25 at the time, while mine was lower.

Try READING the OPs first post in this thread. He tried XP 32bit first, his RAM showed 2.7GB. With 32bit Vista, 2.8GB. His video card has 1GB. With all of your stupid theories, his amount of system memory should show like 3.8GB in 32bit vista. Remember, that my video card only has half the memory his does, so at the very least, it would be higher than 3.25GB. Since it DOESN'T, one must conclude that the video card is irrelevent in this matter. You people don't pay attention at all.

opamando, you own nothing. If all you can do is provide links, yet not understand a word you read, then go away. Bebi, no, the video card does not add to the amount of memory shown in your SYSTEM PROPERTIES. The only time that amount will be different from the amount of physical ram installed is when you are using the onboard video, which obviously takes away from the total physical ram displayed.

Again, you people need to READ. I am referring to what displays in SYSTEM PROPERTIES. Nothing more, nothing less.

LOL, man you need to really understand what you are talking about before you open your mouth.

Yes the GPU memory is directly linked to how much system RAM can and will be shown. Let me try and make this simple. 32 bit OS's(most) have a total of 4GB of memory address space. That is first populated with video RAM or anything else BEFORE the system RAM. One of my buds had a 7950GX2 with 1GB of VRAM and he only saw 2.75GB of his 4GB in systems properties.

LOL, Bebi never said that the video RAM adds to the amount shown in the sys prop. he is talking about it add to the 4GB adress limit before the system RAM. But if you knew what you were talking about you would know that the VRAM is SUBTRACTED from the total amount of memory that can be addressed in a 32-bit OS.

From Bebi: "The video cards does add to the total amouth of memory it will see..."

As for you, how do you explain how an MSI motherboard I had showed me with something around 3.15GB ram, while an ECS shows me with 3.25GB in XP? And if I took this video card out, and put in some cheap PCI card with 256MB, then XP would show me with about 3.5GB then?

By the way, my other systems: XP 32bit, with a 256MB 6800 nvidia card displays 1GB RAM in system properties, which is the total physical RAM in there. My other machine with 32bit Vista, also with a 6800 nvidia card with 256MB shows 2GB of RAM, which also happens to be what I have installed in it. Does this phenomena you describe only occur when you have 4GB installed?

So let me get this straight, you do not know what you are talking about but you are going to argue just based on what you observed, but obviously did not understand?

"The PCI memory addresses starting down from 4 GB are used for things like the BIOS, IO cards, networking, PCI hubs, bus bridges, PCI-Express, and video/graphics cards. The BIOS takes up about 512 KB starting from the very top address. Then each of the other items mentioned are allocated address ranges below the BIOS range. The largest block of addresses is allocated for today’s high performance graphics cards which need addresses for at least the amount of memory on the graphics card. The net result is that a high performance x86-based computer may allocate 512 MB to more than 1 GB for the PCI memory address range before any RAM (physical user memory) addresses are allocated." that is from here.

So if you are willing to read that and try and understand you will see that EVERYTHING including the video card(which is the biggest part) is taken into account before the system memory. I am not trying to be mean, but people acting like they know everything, when they don't aggravates me quite a bit.

This will be my last post to you on this, I did not try to offend you, at least not at first, but if you are not willing to listen to reason, I will leave you to go on and think you are correct.

*EDIT* I love how your post show that Video card memory IS factored into it, after this entire thread you were saying it was ONLY the motherboard, LOL, oh well, thanks for the laughs.

*another edit*

Duh, yes it only occurs with 4GB, remember me calling it a 4GB address limit with 32-bit OS's. Of course 2GB and 1GB will be seen fine. Like if you install 8GBs in 32-bit you will still only see 3.25-3.75 or something around there depending on what you have.

By the way, my other systems: XP 32bit, with a 256MB 6800 nvidia card displays 1GB RAM in system properties, which is the total physical RAM in there. My other machine with 32bit Vista, also with a 6800 nvidia card with 256MB shows 2GB of RAM, which also happens to be what I have installed in it. Does this phenomena you describe only occur when you have 4GB installed?

I factor in my video card to show you that it does not affect how much is shown. Based on what you have shown, memory would still be taken away for whatever video you have, no matter how much ram you have installed. The information you provided only explains why only 3-3.4GB is shown when you have 4GB installed. If 512 MB to more than 1 GB is allocated for the PCI memory address range before any RAM addresses are allocated, it should be reflected even if it's less than 4GB.

Look, I understand that a computer may allocate 512 MB to more than 1 GB for the PCI memory address range before any RAM addresses are allocated, but I don't believe it affects how much is shown to exist.

You lot are slow, really slow. Of course it shows I have 4GB, my point is that it doesnt change with whatever video card I have installed. Just as when I was running 32bit XP, my ram showed up as 3.25GB - that wouldn't change depending on the video card either. It DID change however, with the first motherboard I ran with exact same parts on this motherboard (video card...). Although I can't remember what that number was, it certainly wasn't 3.25GB. I know it wasn't the same because a cousin had the same motherboard I am using now, and his showed 3.25 at the time, while mine was lower.

Try READING the OPs first post in this thread. He tried XP 32bit first, his RAM showed 2.7GB. With 32bit Vista, 2.8GB. His video card has 1GB. With all of your stupid theories, his amount of system memory should show like 3.8GB in 32bit vista. Remember, that my video card only has half the memory his does, so at the very least, it would be higher than 3.25GB. Since it DOESN'T, one must conclude that the video card is irrelevent in this matter. You people don't pay attention at all.

opamando, you own nothing. If all you can do is provide links, yet not understand a word you read, then go away. Bebi, no, the video card does not add to the amount of memory shown in your SYSTEM PROPERTIES. The only time that amount will be different from the amount of physical ram installed is when you are using the onboard video, which obviously takes away from the total physical ram displayed.

Again, you people need to READ. I am referring to what displays in SYSTEM PROPERTIES. Nothing more, nothing less.

hercule5

He said it almost the same reading!!! 2.7Gb is a big difference then 2.8Gb...

By the way, my other systems: XP 32bit, with a 256MB 6800 nvidia card displays 1GB RAM in system properties, which is the total physical RAM in there. My other machine with 32bit Vista, also with a 6800 nvidia card with 256MB shows 2GB of RAM, which also happens to be what I have installed in it. Does this phenomena you describe only occur when you have 4GB installed?

I factor in my video card to show you that it does not affect how much is shown. But you still can't explain why these above systems show the same amount of ram as is installed, despite what you claim.

Look, I understand that a computer may allocate 512 MB to more than 1 GB for the PCI memory address range before any RAM addresses are allocated, but I don't believe it affects how much is shown to exist.

hercule5

do you know why 32bit OS is limited to 4Gb in the first place???

32bit OS' can only address up to 4GB, I know. I am arguing based on experience simply because experience is key. I've known plenty of people with more certifications than I, but couldn't apply any of what they knew to real world applications. Experience isn't weak. It shows that what you read and what you witness can be quite different. I am also reasoning. You even said "The video cards does add to the total amouth of memory it will see..." which is even contradicting what 'everyone' is saying. So, who are you to lecture me?

And by the way, I wasn't denying what opamano was saying about memory allocation, simply that I don't believe it affects what is shown in system properties. That's where the whole thing about motherboards came in.

32bit OS' can only address up to 4GB, I know. I am arguing based on experience simply because experience is key. I've known plenty of people with more certifications than I, but couldn't apply any of what they knew to real world applications. Experience isn't weak. It shows that what you read and what you witness can be quite different. I am also reasoning. You even said "The video cards does add to the total amouth of memory it will see..." which is even contradicting what 'everyone' is saying. So, who are you to lecture me?hercule5

Well, what I mean by that... it will limit to how much ram you're OS will be able to use. My mistake on that. I had my fair share of experience, and I can conclude that it's true. I once had 32Bit OS and 4Gb ram with a 8800GTX. I could see about 3Gb. After I added another 8800GTX I was down to 2.5Gb.

But again, do you know why 32Bit OS is limited to 4Gb or memory...?Cause once you know why, it's only logical.

Look, I'm no programmer, nor do I ever wish to be. I learn what I want and need to. I know how to code HTML because I had to build a website. I know how to build a computer because I wanted to upgrade myself. I know how to troubleshoot and fix software issues because I didn't have the money to take it anywhere plus I wanted to do it myself. Why is it limited to 4GB? I honestly couldn't give you a clear answer on that. Do I really care? no. All that matters to me is that thats the way it is. I have to argue with some retarded Indian guy at work because he thinks he's qualified with computer science degrees. How many times has he been right? Never. I had to tell an IT guy that he put his processor back in wrong since he bent all the pins trying to put it in with the heatsink still on, and the lever still down.

How many people need to know why 32bit is limited to 4GB? You simply tell whoever asks and they accept it. No need to argue why it is, that isn't even the point of this discussion.

Look, I'm no programmer, nor do I ever wish to be. I learn what I want and need to. I know how to code HTML because I had to build a website. I know how to build a computer because I wanted to upgrade myself. I know how to troubleshoot and fix software issues because I didn't have the money to take it anywhere plus I wanted to do it myself. Why is it limited to 4GB? I honestly couldn't give you a clear answer on that. Do I really care? no. All that matters to me is that thats the way it is. I have to argue with some retarded Indian guy at work because he thinks he's qualified with computer science degrees. How many times has he been right? Never. I had to tell an IT guy that he put his processor back in wrong since he bent all the pins trying to put it in with the heatsink still on, and the lever still down.

How many people need to know why 32bit is limited to 4GB? You simply tell whoever asks and they accept it. No need to argue why it is, that isn't even the point of this discussion.

hercule5

Probleme is... why would you're experience worth more then mine and others? Again you're refering to past experience that are irrelevant.

Here is why it's limited to 4Gb of physical memorie, again if you would of read the link you would of know why already.

What is a 32bit OS, do you know what it mean? Take out your calculator and do 2^32 = 4 294 967 296...which is 4Gb.

To me, my experience would be worth more to me, just as yours would be worth more to you. The past experiences are to show you what drives me. What drives me to doubt people. I didn't mean for it to be relevent, not meant to debate. As for the math, I saw that already. I thought you were looking for a explanation in words. I once argued with some guy on another forum about a problem someone was having that I gave a working solution to. This guy sounded rather knowledgeable, more so that me. Despite the fact that he claimed the solution I gave should have done nothing, he couldn't explain to me why it worked. - again, past, but just to show you it's worth arguing a point if you know what works.hercule5

This time it's fact that are agaisn't you... you can't debate facts.This is a mathematical probleme, not anything else.

The reason why you're experience and my experience are irrelevant, is because there is no proof to show that.

I wasn't debating the fact that memory is indeed allocated the the video card. I was debating whether or not it would affect what shows in system properties. Who gave facts on that?hercule5

If you have any facts or evidence, please provide them... if not, you're not helping the TC.

He see's 2.8Gb because of his 1Gb Video card and other memorie cache in the system. Unless you can prove that this is a motherboad issue, you're saying nothing.

More than what you're saying. If I can give examples based on experience, it's better than possibly misinterpreting what is fact, or saying "The video cards does add to the total amouth of memory it will see..." hercule5

I already corrected my statement... why are you using that again? Must be because you cannot provide facts or evidence.

I wasn't debating the fact that memory is indeed allocated the the video card. I was debating whether or not it would affect what shows in system properties. Who gave facts on that?hercule5

Here's the deal, memory is not allocated to the video card, so forget that. Your OS does not apply, but XP and Vista 32-bit, have a maximum memory address space of 4GB. This will be populated by everything except system RAM first. That is why 2Gb, 1GB and usually 3GB will show just fine, but 4GB will not.

I am talking about system properties too. Like I said before, I have 32-bit XP. I have 4GB of RAM installed. Yet in system properties it only shows like 3.2GB, do you need me to take a screenshot for you to believe this? It would say 3.2GB no matter if I had 4GB installed of 12GB installed. Now if I had 1GB it would show 1GB, if I had 2GB, it would show 2GB, if I had 3GB, it would show, that's right, 3GB. Are you starting to understand the 4GB address limit now?

And no offense, but I did give facts(not only the links, but my experiences) you did not. If you would have gone and read from my links you might understand a little better. This is a place for people to help each other, but when someone comes in giving inaccurate information, and instead of saying "I think" or "I believe" or "In my experience" they say that they know this for a fact and everybody else is wrong, that causes problems. You came off like a jerk, and belittled quite a few people in this post, I am sorry if I did the same, but it was not my intention.

If you still do not understand let us know, there are a lot of people here who could probably explain this a lot better than I could.

I understand better now what you were saying, but I fail to see how memory is allocated to devices and subtracted from total system memory but only with >4GB installed. I would imagine it to apply no matter how much memory is installed. Not that I disagree with the facts, but I would imagine you can follow my logic there. I wasn't giving inaccurate information. When the system memory differs with 2 different motherboards, you come to a conclusion, and that is a fact, based on experience. hercule5

And If my experience said with 2 different motherboard I had the exact same reading?

I understand better now what you were saying, but I fail to see how memory is allocated to devices and subtracted from total system memory but only with >4GB installed. I would imagine it to apply no matter how much memory is installed. Not that I disagree with the facts, but I would imagine you can follow my logic there. I wasn't giving inaccurate information. When the system memory differs with 2 different motherboards, you come to a conclusion, and that is a fact, based on experience. hercule5

But I can guarantee you, that if you have 2 identical or different motherboard, and one has a 256MB GPU and the other has a 512MB GPU, the one with the 512 will see less of the 4GB, than the one with 256.

Your experiences are not wrong, just incomplete. If you would have read those links you would have read how the mobos do affect, but the differences will be quite minor from one board to the next. While the GPU will depends on the different sizes of VRAM.

The inaccurate information you were giving was that GPU has nothing to do with it, and that our explanations had nothing to do with it. I understand it is sorta confusing. That is why the web is full of people asking where is the rest of their 4GB of RAM.

[QUOTE="hercule5"]I understand better now what you were saying, but I fail to see how memory is allocated to devices and subtracted from total system memory but only with >4GB installed. I would imagine it to apply no matter how much memory is installed. Not that I disagree with the facts, but I would imagine you can follow my logic there. I wasn't giving inaccurate information. When the system memory differs with 2 different motherboards, you come to a conclusion, and that is a fact, based on experience. opamando

But I can guarantee you, that if you have 2 identical or different motherboard, and one has a 256MB GPU and the other has a 512MB GPU, the one with the 512 will see less of the 4GB, than the one with 256.

Your experiences are not wrong, just incomplete. If you would have read those links you would have read how the mobos do affect, but the differences will be quite minor from one board to the next. While the GPU will depends on the different sizes of VRAM.

The inaccurate information you were giving was that GPU has nothing to do with it, and that our explanations had nothing to do with it. I understand it is sorta confusing. That is why the web is full of people asking where is the rest of their 4GB of RAM.

I've read the Os Vista 32bit with SP1 can see 4Gb... but, I cannort confirme that. But of cours, can't use all of the 4Gb.

So is it just my whole hardware configuration the reason why it clocks some rigs at 2.8 gigs and some at 3.5 or 4 gigs?elchiconuevo

It's likely the motherboard and how it handles the components you have in your computer.

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000811.html

My computer displays 3584MB . I'm using a 512MB card which would be a simply 4096-512=3584 but other motherboards can give signicantly less than that even with the same 512MB card. Depends on the chipset and what it can do. We should get 64bit OS.

[QUOTE="opamando"]

[QUOTE="hercule5"]I understand better now what you were saying, but I fail to see how memory is allocated to devices and subtracted from total system memory but only with >4GB installed. I would imagine it to apply no matter how much memory is installed. Not that I disagree with the facts, but I would imagine you can follow my logic there. I wasn't giving inaccurate information. When the system memory differs with 2 different motherboards, you come to a conclusion, and that is a fact, based on experience. Bebi_vegeta

OK, I am not saying that with different mobos it will always be the same. But there is a chance if you have 2 different mobos, both with 4GB of RAM , they will see the same amount of RAM in a 32-bit OS.

But I can guarantee you, that if you have 2 identical or different motherboard, and one has a 256MB GPU and the other has a 512MB GPU, the one with the 512 will see less of the 4GB, than the one with 256.

Your experiences are not wrong, just incomplete. If you would have read those links you would have read how the mobos do affect, but the differences will be quite minor from one board to the next. While the GPU will depends on the different sizes of VRAM.

The inaccurate information you were giving was that GPU has nothing to do with it, and that our explanations had nothing to do with it. I understand it is sorta confusing. That is why the web is full of people asking where is the rest of their 4GB of RAM.

I've read the Os Vista 32bit with SP1 can see 4Gb... but, I cannort confirme that. But of cours, can't use all of the 4Gb.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/946003

"After you install Windows Vista Service Pack 1 (SP1), the memory (RAM) value reported by Windows Vista may increase if the following conditions are true:

* The system BIOS has reserved physical memory for graphics or for other peripherals.

* Your computer has more than 3 GB of system memory installed.

This change occurs because Windows Vista with SP1 reports how much physical memory installed on your computer. All versions of Windows NT-based operating systems before Windows Vista Service SP1 report how much memory available to the operating system. This change in Windows Vista SP1 is a reporting change only."

I believe this proves my point.

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="opamando"]

OK, I am not saying that with different mobos it will always be the same. But there is a chance if you have 2 different mobos, both with 4GB of RAM , they will see the same amount of RAM in a 32-bit OS.

But I can guarantee you, that if you have 2 identical or different motherboard, and one has a 256MB GPU and the other has a 512MB GPU, the one with the 512 will see less of the 4GB, than the one with 256.

Your experiences are not wrong, just incomplete. If you would have read those links you would have read how the mobos do affect, but the differences will be quite minor from one board to the next. While the GPU will depends on the different sizes of VRAM.

The inaccurate information you were giving was that GPU has nothing to do with it, and that our explanations had nothing to do with it. I understand it is sorta confusing. That is why the web is full of people asking where is the rest of their 4GB of RAM.

hercule5

I've read the Os Vista 32bit with SP1 can see 4Gb... but, I cannort confirme that. But of cours, can't use all of the 4Gb.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/946003

"After you install Windows Vista Service Pack 1 (SP1), the memory (RAM) value reported by Windows Vista may increase if the following conditions are true:

* The system BIOS has reserved physical memory for graphics or for other peripherals.

* Your computer has more than 3 GB of system memory installed.

This change occurs because Windows Vista with SP1 reports how much physical memory installed on your computer. All versions of Windows NT-based operating systems before Windows Vista Service SP1 report how much memory available to the operating system. This change in Windows Vista SP1 is a reporting change only."

I believe this proves my point.

The only probleme is, this is for vista sp1 only. And it only shows the ram installed, not how much it can use. In other words, it proves our point... and prove that you were wrong... since you were talking about motherboard affecting how much ram it sees.

Bebi, you need to stop now, you are really getting annoying. It's a 32bit OS, it states it shows how much physical ram is installed, which has been my point, not yours. Your point has been that the video card affects how much is shown to exist. My point about different motherboards was that the amount might differ from board to board.hercule5

How i'm I geting annoying... aren't we debating here? If you don't like it, nobody is forcing you to reply or even comeback to this thread.

Like said by Microsoft, which you found... prove our point.

Let me put back the stament from Microsoft...

- * The system BIOS has reservedphysical memory for graphics or for other peripherals.

- * Your computer has more than 3 GB of system memory installed.

- This change occurs because Windows Vista with SP1 reports how much physical memory installed on your computer. All versions of Windows NT-based operating systems before Windows Vista Service SP1 report how much memory available to the operating system.

So again, how does this prove your point? This is what we tried to explain to you, but still, you're denying.

read my edit. "After you install Windows Vista Service Pack 1 (SP1), the memory (RAM) value reported by Windows Vista may increase if the following conditions are true: * The system BIOS has reserved physical memory for graphics or for other peripherals. * Your computer has more than 3 GB of system memory installed. This change occurs because Windows Vista with SP1 reports how much physical memory installed on your computer.hercule5

Do you even read what it says?

It's clearly stating that only Vista SP1 for the 32bit OS will show that you have 4Gb installed but will not using all of it depending on the memory of graphic card and other components.

Other 32bit OS will only show what can be used.

It's really clear as water... do you understand now?

I read the whole page and understand what it all means. While you went on saying how the video card affects blah blah blah, my point has been how much ram shows up in system properties. Never have I disputed how much is used for jack, only how much is shown to exist.

Try going back and reading my other posts instead of making me retype everything I have already said.