PC hardware question!

DiscoZombieDiscoZombie Join Date: 2003-08-05 Member: 18951Members
edited January 2009 in Off-Topic
<div class="IPBDescription">how much memory does I has?</div>so I just bought this:

<a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820145184&Tpk=N82E16820145184" target="_blank">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16820145184</a>

to replace my:

<a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820145015" target="_blank">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16820145015</a>

Now I popped open my pc, and low and behold, I realized I could fit 4 of these little sticks in there. So I remove my 2x1gb sticks from the yellow slots, pop the 2x2gb sticks in the yellow slots, and put the 2x1gb sticks in the black slots. I boot up and right click on my computer / properties (winxp) and it says I have 2.93 gigs of rammage. I am displeased, as I really have 6 gigs of rammage.

I look up my mobo's manual ( <a href="http://dlsvr02.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/socket775/P5B/e2620_p5b.pdf" target="_blank">http://dlsvr02.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/socket...B/e2620_p5b.pdf</a> ) and it doesn't shed too much light for me on which sticks should go where, so I power down and put the 2x2gb in the DIMM_A1 and DIMM_A2 slots (channel A) and the 2x1gb sticks in the channel B slots. I power on again - same thing, 2.93 gigs of RAM.

so like, do I need to do something for the machine to realize I have 6 gigs in there? the manual says the mobo supports up to 8 gigs... do all 4 sticks need to be identical, and mix-n'-matching like this is verboten? it would be nice if it at least recognized the 4 gigs I just purchased, if not the 2 bonus gigs I was replacing...

edit: reading the mobo manual more closely, it has gems like this:

-If you install four 1GB memory modules, the system may detect less than 3 GB of total memory because of address space allocation for other critical functions. This limitation applies to Windows XP 32-bit version operating system since it does not support PAE (Physical Address Extension) mode.

-If you install Windows XP 32-bit version operating system, we recommend that you install less than 3GB of total memory.

...so, is it Windows XP's fault and not mine? can the OS really not support more than 3gb of RAM? or is it the OS conflicting with my mobo? Interestingly, when I look at my system properties, it says Physical Address Extension right under where it tells me I only have 2.93 GB of RAM... was support for PAE (whatever that means) patched into XP after this manual was printed? if so, why is my RAM still limited? I will have to research PAE now...

the moral of the story is that I hate computers because they are difficult.

edit2: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension#Windows" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Addr...tension#Windows</a>

Wikipedia tells me that I may be out of luck? win XP 32 really does have a hard cap of 4 gigs of RAM? I wish at least my 4 gigs would show up... I guess I may have to get my hands on Vista 64 or something -_- a switch I've been dreading forever...
Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome

Comments

  • RobRob Unknown Enemy Join Date: 2002-01-24 Member: 25Members, NS1 Playtester
    I'm not entirely sure how this new fangled 240 pin DDR ram works, but in the old days, the RAM you put in had to be identical and usually by twos. To get a gig, you needed to 512 sticks. The reason was that the memory was addressed across both sticks, if you just put in one 1gb stick, you'd be missing half your address spaces.

    A semi-educated guess would be that, yes, the sticks you put in need to be at least the same size, and preferably the same brand and series. Kinda like batteries I suppose.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • KungFuDiscoMonkeyKungFuDiscoMonkey Creator of ns_altair 日本福岡県 Join Date: 2003-03-15 Member: 14555Members, NS1 Playtester, Reinforced - Onos
    That is correct. The short version is that Windows (regular 32 bit Windows) can not use more than about 3 gb of ram. You would need a 64bit version of Windows which generally means you will need to use Vista to take advantage of the extra memory. I think Vista actually ships in 32 bit and 64 bit versions as well but I *think* that is refering more to the CPU in this case, not memory addressing. You will want to double check to make certain.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • DiscoZombieDiscoZombie Join Date: 2003-08-05 Member: 18951Members
    <!--quoteo(post=1697304:date=Jan 7 2009, 07:19 PM:name=KungFuDiscoMonkey)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(KungFuDiscoMonkey @ Jan 7 2009, 07:19 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1697304"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That is correct. The short version is that Windows (regular 32 bit Windows) can not use more than about 3 gb of ram. You would need a 64bit version of Windows which generally means you will need to use Vista to take advantage of the extra memory. I think Vista actually ships in 32 bit and 64 bit versions as well but I *think* that is refering more to the CPU in this case, not memory addressing. You will want to double check to make certain.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    alas - thanks for the info :> according to the wiki I linked earlier, it looks like Vista 32 has the same limitations... c'est la vie!
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • lolfighterlolfighter Snark, Dire Join Date: 2003-04-20 Member: 15693Members
    My info pane actually says "Physical Address Extension" after the amount of RAM I have, and I'm running 32-bit XP as well. However, it's still only using 3.25 of the 4Gb RAM I have.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • KungFuDiscoMonkeyKungFuDiscoMonkey Creator of ns_altair 日本福岡県 Join Date: 2003-03-15 Member: 14555Members, NS1 Playtester, Reinforced - Onos
    Part of the reason it doesn't even show the full 4 gb is that there are more things addressed in that space than just your ram. Your video memory is one such thing that is also addressed in that space.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • ScytheScythe Join Date: 2002-01-25 Member: 46NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation, Reinforced - Silver
    I'm running winxp 64b with no major complaints. With all new hardware I had no problems finding drivers for anything.

    --Scythe--
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • RobRob Unknown Enemy Join Date: 2002-01-24 Member: 25Members, NS1 Playtester
    I suppose that's one of the biggest tragedies of the last few years. 64bit hardware architectures are capable of addressing an ungodly amount of memory (18,446,744,073,709,551,616 bytes...), but it's not exactly useful unless the operating system can address that, too. And 64bit architectures have been around a lot longer than a viable 64 OS has been.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • SkulkBaitSkulkBait Join Date: 2003-02-11 Member: 13423Members
    edited January 2009
    <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->My info pane actually says "Physical Address Extension" after the amount of RAM I have, and I'm running 32-bit XP as well. However, it's still only using 3.25 of the 4Gb RAM I have.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    XP 32bit uses PAE in order to make use of NX or XD features* on processors, but still limits the address space to 4GB for driver computability reasons.

    * - They allow pages of memory to be marked as "no-execute" to prevent buffer overflow exploits from running code in memory where there shouldn't be any code.

    PS: I run Vista 64-bit at work (because I have 8GB of ram and I use it), it is not horrible. Its not great either, its awfully bloated even when you turn off all of the "We wanna look like the Mac!" crap. My biggest complaint is that my favorite sandbox software won't work on it (according to the developer, MS won't allow access to the necessary parts of the kernel, even with a signed driver).
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
Sign In or Register to comment.