Windows 7 64-bit RAM usage

[Bob Costello]

Upgraded to Windows7 64 bit from Vista 32 bit. Added RAM to 5GB (reason
I upgraded to 64 bit was to get around the 3GB 32 bit limitation.) Now
system shows 5GB but only 3.3GB available for use. Task manager shows
5.12GB installed, 3.326GB available or cached and 1.794GB "hardware
reserved"(?). Is this 1.794 not available for software? If not, how to
make it available for software?

I really wanted the performance improvement of 64 bit and increased RAM.
How do I get Windows7 64 bit to utilize the full 5 GB?

System is HP running 64 capable 2.13 hz dual core Intel.

[R. C. White]

Hi, Bob.

Are you SURE you are running Win7 x64? It's quite possible to install
32-bit Windows on 64-bit hardware. In fact, many 64-bit computers have
32-bit Windows pre-installed.

On the System Properties page, right in the middle, it should say:
System type: 64-bit Operating System

The symptoms you describe are just what I would expect from 32-bit Windows
on 64-bit hardware.

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX

Microsoft Windows MVP
Windows Live Mail 2009 (14.0.8089.0726) in Win7 Ultimate x64


"Bob Costello" > wrote in message
...
> Upgraded to Windows7 64 bit from Vista 32 bit. Added RAM to 5GB (reason I
> upgraded to 64 bit was to get around the 3GB 32 bit limitation.) Now
> system shows 5GB but only 3.3GB available for use. Task manager shows
> 5.12GB installed, 3.326GB available or cached and 1.794GB "hardware
> reserved"(?). Is this 1.794 not available for software? If not, how to
> make it available for software?
>
> I really wanted the performance improvement of 64 bit and increased RAM.
> How do I get Windows7 64 bit to utilize the full 5 GB?
>
> System is HP running 64 capable 2.13 hz dual core Intel.

[Ken Blake]

On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 15:49:05 -0500, Bob Costello >
wrote:

> Upgraded to Windows7 64 bit from Vista 32 bit. Added RAM to 5GB (reason
> I upgraded to 64 bit was to get around the 3GB 32 bit limitation.) Now
> system shows 5GB but only 3.3GB available for use. Task manager shows
> 5.12GB installed, 3.326GB available or cached and 1.794GB "hardware
> reserved"(?). Is this 1.794 not available for software? If not, how to
> make it available for software?
>
> I really wanted the performance improvement of 64 bit and increased RAM.
> How do I get Windows7 64 bit to utilize the full 5 GB?
>
> System is HP running 64 capable 2.13 hz dual core Intel.


Read RC White's answer. Like him, I suspect that you are running
32-bit Windows 7.

Moreover, bear the following in mind:

1. 64-bit Windows will provide a performance benefit *if* you are
running 64-bit applications, and do next to nothing for you if you are
not. Since there are very few 64-bit applications yet, it will do very
little for performance.

2. Increased RAM will provide a performance benefit *if* you are
running applications that make use of that much RAM.

3. I'm running 64-bit Windows7 Ultimate with 6GB of RAM here. At the
moment, I am using just under half the RAM (2942MB, and that's the
typical amount I use).

I'm in favor of running 64-bit Windows, since it gets you prepared for
the future. But don't expect a performance improvement from it now.


--
Ken Blake
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

[Andy[_12_]]

I see "Installed memory (RAM): 4Gb (3.84Gb usable)" on my new 64-bit Win7-
64bit 'puter.

If that means anything.

I didn't know it was Win7 or 64-bit until I took it home. I was sold on the
white key caps. Vaio laptop, with tax, $720.

I have jumped through a few hoops ever since. Need to brush up on file
permissions, etc., etc.

Best,

Andy

[R. C. White]

Hi, Andy.

Did you read my Reply to Bob Costello, the OP in this thread?

Another way to check if you have 64-bit Windows installed is to look in
Windows Explorer. You should see a folder named "C:\Program Files", of
course. Do you see ANOTHER folder named "C:\Program Files (x86)"?

If you DO have the folder with "(x86)" in the name, then Windows x64 is
running. If that second folder does not exist, then you are running 32-bit
Windows - EVEN IF you have 64-bit hardware.

If you need an explanation of this, please post back.

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX

Microsoft Windows MVP
Windows Live Mail 2009 (14.0.8089.0726) in Win7 Ultimate x64

"Andy" > wrote in message ...
> I see "Installed memory (RAM): 4Gb (3.84Gb usable)" on my new 64-bit Win7-
> 64bit 'puter.
>
> If that means anything.
>
> I didn't know it was Win7 or 64-bit until I took it home. I was sold on
> the
> white key caps. Vaio laptop, with tax, $720.
>
> I have jumped through a few hoops ever since. Need to brush up on file
> permissions, etc., etc.
>
> Best,
>
> Andy

[Andy[_12_]]

"R. C. White" > wrote in
ecom:

> Hi, Andy.
>
> Did you read my Reply to Bob Costello, the OP in this thread?
>
> Another way to check if you have 64-bit Windows installed is to look
> in Windows Explorer. You should see a folder named "C:\Program
> Files", of course. Do you see ANOTHER folder named "C:\Program Files
> (x86)"?
>
> If you DO have the folder with "(x86)" in the name, then Windows x64
> is running. If that second folder does not exist, then you are
> running 32-bit Windows - EVEN IF you have 64-bit hardware.
>
> If you need an explanation of this, please post back.
>
> RC


RC,

I'm well aware of 64-bits.

Best,

Andy

[Bob Costello]

Bob Costello wrote:
> Upgraded to Windows7 64 bit from Vista 32 bit. Added RAM to 5GB (reason
> I upgraded to 64 bit was to get around the 3GB 32 bit limitation.) Now
> system shows 5GB but only 3.3GB available for use. Task manager shows
> 5.12GB installed, 3.326GB available or cached and 1.794GB "hardware
> reserved"(?). Is this 1.794 not available for software? If not, how to
> make it available for software?
>
> I really wanted the performance improvement of 64 bit and increased RAM.
> How do I get Windows7 64 bit to utilize the full 5 GB?
>
> System is HP running 64 capable 2.13 hz dual core Intel.

I am definitely running 64 bits. Did a clean install and it shows it is
running 64 bits. Board is ASUS Tek Leonite 5.00 and the bios is Phoenix
Tech LTD 5.09. The computer is an HP Media Center with 2.13 GHz Intel
Core 2 HP-Pavilion RT680AA-ABA m7747c.

Sounds like it is a BIOS limitation. I see no option in Bios to change
anything related to this.

[Andy[_12_]]

Sam > wrote in news:evshf5hsbuhkveolnp7bbh8j2fci2sq1an@
4ax.com:

> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:34:00 -0500, Bob Costello >
> wrote:
>
>>I am definitely running 64 bits. Did a clean install and it shows it
is
>>running 64 bits. Board is ASUS Tek Leonite 5.00 and the bios is
Phoenix
>>Tech LTD 5.09. The computer is an HP Media Center with 2.13 GHz Intel
>>Core 2 HP-Pavilion RT680AA-ABA m7747c.
>>
>>Sounds like it is a BIOS limitation. I see no option in Bios to change
>>anything related to this.
>
> What exactly in your system makes you think that you're running a 64bit
> operating system? If you look at "System" window in your control panel,
> what exactly does the "System Type" say? If it doesn't say "64-bit
> Operating System" then you're not running 64 bit, no matter what
> hardware you have. To get 64 bit, you have to install Win7 with a disk
> that says 64-bit on it. The fact that your memory says "only 3.3GB
> available for use" sounds very much like what a 32-bit system would do.
>
> Sam


http://i37.tinypic.com/2ykhoww.jpg

Andy

[Dabbler[_2_]]

"Ken Blake" > wrote:
>
> 1. 64-bit Windows will provide a performance benefit *if* you are
> running 64-bit applications, and do next to nothing for you if you are
> not. Since there are very few 64-bit applications yet, it will do very
> little for performance.

I had the impression that with a 64-bit OS you can't even run 32-bit
apps. From what you are implying here, I was mistaken. In other words, I
may not have to wait till all my must-have apps are available in 64-bit
versions till moving to a 64-bit Win7 on my HP notebook that runs the
AMD Turion 64 X2 dual core CPU. I could do it now and able to run (most
of?) my 32-bit apps, too. Am I getting it right?



>
> 2. Increased RAM will provide a performance benefit *if* you are
> running applications that make use of that much RAM.
>
> 3. I'm running 64-bit Windows7 Ultimate with 6GB of RAM here. At the
> moment, I am using just under half the RAM (2942MB, and that's the
> typical amount I use).
>
> I'm in favor of running 64-bit Windows, since it gets you prepared for
> the future. But don't expect a performance improvement from it now.
>
>
> --
> Ken Blake
> Please Reply to the Newsgroup

[Andy[_12_]]

"Dabbler" > wrote in :

> "Ken Blake" > wrote:
>>
>> 1. 64-bit Windows will provide a performance benefit *if* you are
>> running 64-bit applications, and do next to nothing for you if you are
>> not. Since there are very few 64-bit applications yet, it will do very
>> little for performance.
>
> I had the impression that with a 64-bit OS you can't even run 32-bit
> apps. From what you are implying here, I was mistaken. In other words,
I
> may not have to wait till all my must-have apps are available in 64-bit
> versions till moving to a 64-bit Win7 on my HP notebook that runs the
> AMD Turion 64 X2 dual core CPU. I could do it now and able to run (most
> of?) my 32-bit apps, too. Am I getting it right?
>
>
>
>>
>> 2. Increased RAM will provide a performance benefit *if* you are
>> running applications that make use of that much RAM.
>>
>> 3. I'm running 64-bit Windows7 Ultimate with 6GB of RAM here. At the
>> moment, I am using just under half the RAM (2942MB, and that's the
>> typical amount I use).
>>
>> I'm in favor of running 64-bit Windows, since it gets you prepared for
>> the future. But don't expect a performance improvement from it now.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ken Blake
>> Please Reply to the Newsgroup


My 64-bit Intel 'puter and the Win 64-bit OS are way faster, evidenced by
the two blue screens I've gotten in the midst of personalization. :(((

It wrote the dump (which I forwarded on) in maybe 10 seconds, compared to
minutes on WinXPpro.

Andy

[Ken Blake, MVP]

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:03:49 -0800, "Dabbler" >
wrote:

> "Ken Blake" > wrote:
> >
> > 1. 64-bit Windows will provide a performance benefit *if* you are
> > running 64-bit applications, and do next to nothing for you if you are
> > not. Since there are very few 64-bit applications yet, it will do very
> > little for performance.
>
> I had the impression that with a 64-bit OS you can't even run 32-bit
> apps. From what you are implying here, I was mistaken.


Yes, you are mistaken. I run 64-bit Windows 7 here, and just about
*all* my application are the old 32-bit ones.

You can run 32-bit applications under a 64-bit operating system, but
you can *not* run 64-bit applications under a 32-bit operating system.


> In other words, I
> may not have to wait till all my must-have apps are available in 64-bit
> versions till moving to a 64-bit Win7 on my HP notebook that runs the
> AMD Turion 64 X2 dual core CPU.


Right.


> I could do it now and able to run (most
> of?) my 32-bit apps, too. Am I getting it right?


*Exactly* right. "Most of" may even be an overstatement. You can
probably run them all. In general, the only ones you are likely not to
be able to run are a few utilities.




> > 2. Increased RAM will provide a performance benefit *if* you are
> > running applications that make use of that much RAM.
> >
> > 3. I'm running 64-bit Windows7 Ultimate with 6GB of RAM here. At the
> > moment, I am using just under half the RAM (2942MB, and that's the
> > typical amount I use).
> >
> > I'm in favor of running 64-bit Windows, since it gets you prepared for
> > the future. But don't expect a performance improvement from it now.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Ken Blake
> > Please Reply to the Newsgroup

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

[Dabbler[_2_]]

"Ken Blake, MVP" > wrote:
> Yes, you are mistaken. I run 64-bit Windows 7 here, and just about
> *all* my application are the old 32-bit ones.
>
> You can run 32-bit applications under a 64-bit operating system, but
> you can *not* run 64-bit applications under a 32-bit operating system.

Hm, that's interesting. I used to be involved with Unix application
programming and when we moved to a 64-bit OS there, several of our old
apps did not work, mainly because integer variables were the size of a
computer word, 32 bits, and when the apps called system routines there
was a problem; the new system routines expected 64-bit integers. After
rebuilding the apps in the new system, the problem usually disappeared.

Be that as it may, I'm glad I stumbled on your post in time before
deciding which Win7 I should go with. I'm buying a new HD for my laptop
that I will use with a clean install. That way I can still have my Vista
setup, just in case. ;-)