Vista - RAM Issue

It comes down to the original statement "I had 2GB of RAM. I put in another
2GB of RAM and now Vista crashes". At the end of the day, I didn't develop
Windows Vista so my ignorance lies there.

"Richard Urban" wrote:

> You seem to know a lot about computers, address space etc.
>
> Why are you even asking this question? You "know" the answer. You have
> almost stated as much.
>
> --
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Richard Urban
> Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
> (For email, remove the obvious from my address)
>
>
>
> "Andrew McNab" <AndrewMcNab@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:C28EC6C8-EAE6-4087-8C8D-F8354E669D18@microsoft.com...
> > I've been running Vista Ultimate on 2GB of RAM fine but decided to upgrade
> > to
> > 4GB because the prefetch cache got up to 1.4GB. My BIOS reports 4075MB of
> > installed and useable RAM. Supports up to 8GB.
> >
> > Windows Vista only reports 3528MB RAM and results in a Blue Screen crash
> > when logging in or shortly afterwards. I tested the 2 new SIMS by
> > themselves
> > and tried combinations of the original 2 SIMS and either of the 2 new SIMS
> > to
> > make 3GB. Windows reports 3GB of RAM and runs fine.
> >
> > I was wondering if there was an issue with a certain amount of memory the
> > OS
> > can work with at this point. I'm running Vista Ultimate with the latest OS
> > updates.
>
>

Andrew,

Vista has a procedure for recording error events, including crashes. Take a
look at the report and note information about what is causing the crashes:
Start > Maintenance > Problem Reports and Solutions. Peruse the report and
focus on any suggested steps to take for resolving the problem.
--
freddy


"Andrew McNab" wrote:

> It comes down to the original statement "I had 2GB of RAM. I put in another
> 2GB of RAM and now Vista crashes". At the end of the day, I didn't develop
> Windows Vista so my ignorance lies there.
>
> "Richard Urban" wrote:
>
> > You seem to know a lot about computers, address space etc.
> >
> > Why are you even asking this question? You "know" the answer. You have
> > almost stated as much.
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Richard Urban
> > Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
> > (For email, remove the obvious from my address)
> >
> >
> >
> > "Andrew McNab" <AndrewMcNab@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:C28EC6C8-EAE6-4087-8C8D-F8354E669D18@microsoft.com...
> > > I've been running Vista Ultimate on 2GB of RAM fine but decided to upgrade
> > > to
> > > 4GB because the prefetch cache got up to 1.4GB. My BIOS reports 4075MB of
> > > installed and useable RAM. Supports up to 8GB.
> > >
> > > Windows Vista only reports 3528MB RAM and results in a Blue Screen crash
> > > when logging in or shortly afterwards. I tested the 2 new SIMS by
> > > themselves
> > > and tried combinations of the original 2 SIMS and either of the 2 new SIMS
> > > to
> > > make 3GB. Windows reports 3GB of RAM and runs fine.
> > >
> > > I was wondering if there was an issue with a certain amount of memory the
> > > OS
> > > can work with at this point. I'm running Vista Ultimate with the latest OS
> > > updates.
> >
> >

> Thankyou very much for this article. Although it explains the discrepency
> I
> have, it doesn't solve the OS crashes.

Ah hah! We've told you several times exactly the same story about why Vista
can't use all 4G as addressable program memory, but you don't believe us and
argue interminably. But now you've read it on the MS KB and are happy to
accept it.

How about saying "Yes, guys, you were right and I was wrong to disagree with
you"?

As for the crashes, that was one of two questions in your original post.
Most of us responded to your question about where the missing RAM had gone.

When someone declares themselves to be an "expert" and so clearly signals
that they cannot be taught anything new about their topic - as you have done
about memory and I/O architecture - it usually means the person doesn't
understand the subject half so well as they think.

Steve

Steve Thackery wrote:
> When someone declares themselves to be an "expert" and so clearly
> signals that they cannot be taught anything new about their topic -
> as you have done about memory and I/O architecture - it usually means
> the person doesn't understand the subject half so well as they think.
>
Andew obviously knows a lot more than most people, you'd think he'd have
been capable of searching the MS KB for himself and that it would have been
his first port of call.

It's the first thing I do before I ask a question.

--

Regards
Nick