Vista - RAM Issue

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.

windows 32 bit can only access about 3.5 meg of memory if you want to run
more
you need the 64 bit OS.

"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.

2^32 is 4294967296 which is 4096MB and each memory location is a single byte.
Considering my WinXP box has 4GB of ram and works fine, also supports this.
There is a similar post to mine a few down where someone tried putting 4GB in
and it crashed.

"BigJim" wrote:

> windows 32 bit can only access about 3.5 meg of memory if you want to run
> more
> you need the 64 bit OS.
>
> "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.
>
>
>

If your system is crashing when you install the extra RAM you must look at
the manual for your M/B to determine what the RAM specifics are. All 1 gig
sticks RAM are not the same. Some are single sided. Some are double sided.
There are timing frequencies. The list goes on.

--


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.

In my original post, I made it clear that the BIOS properly recognised the
memory. All 4 SIMS are 667MHz and both memory channels have matched SIMS. The
conditions can't be any more ideal.

The mother board supports 800/667 etc with up to 8GB addressed at 64-bits. I
also stated that i'm using 3 SIMS for now. The original pair and a single sim
in the second memory channel making it 3GB. I've tested both SIMS and they're
fine.

The obvious question is, why is there a discrepency between the BIOS and
Windows in terms of the amount of memory that is installed in the machine?
BIOS reporting 4072 and Windows reporting 3582 with all four SIMS and both
reporting 3000 with 3 SIMS.

Having been a developer on every version of Windows since Windows for
Workgroups 3.11, i'm more inclined to believe it's a teething problem.

"Richard Urban" wrote:

> If your system is crashing when you install the extra RAM you must look at
> the manual for your M/B to determine what the RAM specifics are. All 1 gig
> sticks RAM are not the same. Some are single sided. Some are double sided.
> There are timing frequencies. The list goes on.
>
> --
>
>
> 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.
>
>

The fact that the bios recognizes the RAM means nothing to Windows. Vista
works the RAM much more intensely than any previous version of Windows ever
did. If you don't have "precisely" ***matched*** RAM - you may well have
problems.

I previously had 2-500 meg sticks of matched RAM. I wanted to move to 2 gig
of RAM. I purchased 2 NEW 1 gig sticks of RAM (at the same time to be
certain they even came from the same date/batch/lot). I could have just
purchased a single 1 gig stick and I would have had 2 gig. The RAM would NOT
have been matched - even though it was all identified in the bios.

--


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:AB2FB012-2807-46C5-B9B3-5D61141976D0@microsoft.com...
> In my original post, I made it clear that the BIOS properly recognised the
> memory. All 4 SIMS are 667MHz and both memory channels have matched SIMS.
> The
> conditions can't be any more ideal.
>
> The mother board supports 800/667 etc with up to 8GB addressed at 64-bits.
> I
> also stated that i'm using 3 SIMS for now. The original pair and a single
> sim
> in the second memory channel making it 3GB. I've tested both SIMS and
> they're
> fine.
>
> The obvious question is, why is there a discrepency between the BIOS and
> Windows in terms of the amount of memory that is installed in the machine?
> BIOS reporting 4072 and Windows reporting 3582 with all four SIMS and both
> reporting 3000 with 3 SIMS.
>
> Having been a developer on every version of Windows since Windows for
> Workgroups 3.11, i'm more inclined to believe it's a teething problem.
>
> "Richard Urban" wrote:
>
>> If your system is crashing when you install the extra RAM you must look
>> at
>> the manual for your M/B to determine what the RAM specifics are. All 1
>> gig
>> sticks RAM are not the same. Some are single sided. Some are double
>> sided.
>> There are timing frequencies. The list goes on.
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> 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,

I'm not sure you're really listening to the previous responders. I'll spell
it out...

32-bit Vista can only address 4G of memory addresses in total.
Memory-mapped I/O must sit inside this 4G address range, Depending on what
you've got by way of hardware, the top half to three quarters of a Gig in
the 4G address range is used by the memory-mapped I/O. The video card is
the biggest user of memory-mapped I/O.

So, even though you have 4G of RAM, the top 0.5 to 0.75 Gig is disabled
because it occupies the same address range as the video card, et al.

There are two ways to get round this:

1/ Install Vista 64 bit. This can address much more than 4G, so the I/O is
moved out of the way of the physical RAM.

2/ Some BIOSs support remapping, which requires a 64-bit processor (which
I'm sure yours will be). I don't know for sure whether it moves the I/O up
above 4G, or some of the physical memory, but basically it allows Vista to
see all 4G of physical memory AND the memory-mapped I/O. Only some
motherboards/BIOSs support this - mine doesn't.

Steve

Workload isn't the issue. Especially when the addresses of the 2nd two gigs
is far out of the range of startup memory requirements. The OS uses the BIOS
to determine the amount of ram, PCI devices and drives etc. Considering that
it hasn't had a problem with any other hardware devices, it seems to be a
very specific issue. Especially since the methodology of addressing memory is
static for any OS running on the machine. Fetching and setting is managed by
the mother board.

Hardware performance failure due to stress is generally a result of
overclocking heat or external heat and in both cases, I take carefull
measures to ensure I don't overclock or expose the chassis to heat. Under
these conditions, RAM only fails if it is physically damaged and a read
instruction occurs in an area that a DDR transistor circuit has failed.

Rather than pinning the blame on something in particular, I'd be more
interested to find out the discrepency in total memory installed. Allthough I
use .Net framework and Server 2003 religiously, i'm poking MS in the belly on
this one. Handballing it off to the mother board or precisely matched SIMS
isn't a reasonable conclusion.

"Richard Urban" wrote:

> The fact that the bios recognizes the RAM means nothing to Windows. Vista
> works the RAM much more intensely than any previous version of Windows ever
> did. If you don't have "precisely" ***matched*** RAM - you may well have
> problems.
>
> I previously had 2-500 meg sticks of matched RAM. I wanted to move to 2 gig
> of RAM. I purchased 2 NEW 1 gig sticks of RAM (at the same time to be
> certain they even came from the same date/batch/lot). I could have just
> purchased a single 1 gig stick and I would have had 2 gig. The RAM would NOT
> have been matched - even though it was all identified in the bios.
>
> --
>
>
> 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:AB2FB012-2807-46C5-B9B3-5D61141976D0@microsoft.com...
> > In my original post, I made it clear that the BIOS properly recognised the
> > memory. All 4 SIMS are 667MHz and both memory channels have matched SIMS.
> > The
> > conditions can't be any more ideal.
> >
> > The mother board supports 800/667 etc with up to 8GB addressed at 64-bits.
> > I
> > also stated that i'm using 3 SIMS for now. The original pair and a single
> > sim
> > in the second memory channel making it 3GB. I've tested both SIMS and
> > they're
> > fine.
> >
> > The obvious question is, why is there a discrepency between the BIOS and
> > Windows in terms of the amount of memory that is installed in the machine?
> > BIOS reporting 4072 and Windows reporting 3582 with all four SIMS and both
> > reporting 3000 with 3 SIMS.
> >
> > Having been a developer on every version of Windows since Windows for
> > Workgroups 3.11, i'm more inclined to believe it's a teething problem.
> >
> > "Richard Urban" wrote:
> >
> >> If your system is crashing when you install the extra RAM you must look
> >> at
> >> the manual for your M/B to determine what the RAM specifics are. All 1
> >> gig
> >> sticks RAM are not the same. Some are single sided. Some are double
> >> sided.
> >> There are timing frequencies. The list goes on.
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >>
>
>

Steve,

If you've done a bit of assembly programming or even C programming, all
memory addresses used for programs are 100% RAM. Hardware interfaces are done
through hardware interrupts or CPU registers and stack pointers. They can
share the same address from time to time but the CPU can differentiate
between RAM, I/O, stack and ALU defined by a previous instruction loaded into
the CPU. The full 32-bit address is loaded into a register when addressing
memory. There is no debate about that. 32 bits can address 4096MB of RAM.

You are correct in the concept of the video card requiring static memory
mapping. This is why the first 16MB of RAM is reserved for the OS. Other
reserved memory addresses like 0x00 are used for NULL pointer references.
Regardless of how much memory the OS needs reserved for operation, 4GB of RAM
are still addressable. The fact still remains that my 32-bit XP box has 4GB
of memory registered with the OS and working fine. Even though Vista
implements Pre-Fetching, this is still just reserved RAM to improve the
performance of reguarly used applications.

In terms of video card memory, i've been programming 3D video card
interfaces since the Voodoo 2 came out using the Glide API. I've also used
OpenGL and Direct3D. All texture and pipeline memory is addressed through the
hardware interrupt. Serialised data is sent to the video card and it manages
memory from there. Not the OS. Textures are serialised to the video card and
memory is allocated for the mip-map/bump-map at the video card end of
computations.

Having studied 4 years of Digital Systems as part of my engineering degree,
it might appear that i'm not really listening to what other posters have to
say. It's more a situation that the replies didn't take all the simple facts
stated.

Andrew

Andrew McNab wrote:
> Steve,
>
> If you've done a bit of assembly programming or even C programming, all
> memory addresses used for programs are 100% RAM.

Not true. You don't address RAM, you address the CPU's memory space. And
in PC architecture, not all addresses in this memory space points to RAM