Help RAM limits for Windowsxp Professional version

I think it is SP3 but not sure. Computer is a friend's who I was
helping. He purchased 2 GB of additional RAM memory raising his total
RAM from 1 GB to 3 GB. However when I open the system icon it says
there is only 2.93 GB. Since the RAM installed is 4 PC cards (two 1
GB and two 500 MB) I do not think it could be a bad PC card. Have read
the recent posting relative to using over 4 GB on a Windowsxp system
but this is only 3 GB. Also just read about the PAE switch but never
heard of one and it says activated by default anyway. Any ideas why I
an not seeing 3 GB?

email response not expected but to respond remove .uk at end
TIA
Hank

"Hank" wrote in message
...
I think it is SP3 but not sure. Computer is a friend's who I was
helping. He purchased 2 GB of additional RAM memory raising his total
RAM from 1 GB to 3 GB. However when I open the system icon it says
there is only 2.93 GB. Since the RAM installed is 4 PC cards (two 1
GB and two 500 MB) I do not think it could be a bad PC card. Have read
the recent posting relative to using over 4 GB on a Windowsxp system
but this is only 3 GB. Also just read about the PAE switch but never
heard of one and it says activated by default anyway. Any ideas why I
an not seeing 3 GB?

email response not expected but to respond remove .uk at end
TIA
Hank

You're seeing nearly 3 gig, so all of it is working, but part of the memory
is being used by some other hardware.

Embedded video cards do this, and the memory that they take will not be
reported by Windows.

HTH
-pk

On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 22:50:20 -0400, "Patrick Keenan"
wrote:

"Hank" wrote in message
.. .
I think it is SP3 but not sure. Computer is a friend's who I was
helping. He purchased 2 GB of additional RAM memory raising his total
RAM from 1 GB to 3 GB. However when I open the system icon it says
there is only 2.93 GB. Since the RAM installed is 4 PC cards (two 1
GB and two 500 MB) I do not think it could be a bad PC card. Have read
the recent posting relative to using over 4 GB on a Windowsxp system
but this is only 3 GB. Also just read about the PAE switch but never
heard of one and it says activated by default anyway. Any ideas why I
an not seeing 3 GB?

email response not expected but to respond remove .uk at end
TIA
Hank

You're seeing nearly 3 gig, so all of it is working, but part of the memory
is being used by some other hardware.

Embedded video cards do this, and the memory that they take will not be
reported by Windows.

HTH
-pk


email response not expected but to respond remove .uk at end
TIA
Hank

"Hank" wrote in message
...
I think it is SP3 but not sure. Computer is a friend's who I was
helping. He purchased 2 GB of additional RAM memory raising his total
RAM from 1 GB to 3 GB. However when I open the system icon it says
there is only 2.93 GB. Since the RAM installed is 4 PC cards (two 1
GB and two 500 MB) I do not think it could be a bad PC card. Have read
the recent posting relative to using over 4 GB on a Windowsxp system
but this is only 3 GB. Also just read about the PAE switch but never
heard of one and it says activated by default anyway. Any ideas why I
an not seeing 3 GB?

email response not expected but to respond remove .uk at end
TIA
Hank

Hi
Windows XP deducts the shared video ram from the reported total
eg: with 512mb ram, 64 shared video ram:
512-64=448
So 448mb will be reported

chas2209

well, the difference seems to be a
mere .07 gb - I wouldn't worry about
it.

however, depending on the bios, you
may be better off with identical ram chips.

so instead of mixing the sizes like you
have now; you may see better performance
by simply having only the two 1 gig chips.

sometimes if the cpu really gets busy
and the demand is high, the computer can
stall because of the different sizes of rams
that are installed.

so unless the computer is for an analyst or
graphics designer or computer gamer,

it is unlikely you will ever need
more than 2 gigs of ram especially
in winxp.

therefore, my suggestion is to pull out
the 512 meg chips and only keep the
2- 1 gig chips installed.


--
db·´¯`·...¸)))º
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces
- @Hotmail.com

"share the nirvana mann" - dbZen

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



"Hank" wrote in message
...
I think it is SP3 but not sure. Computer is a friend's who I was
helping. He purchased 2 GB of additional RAM memory raising his total
RAM from 1 GB to 3 GB. However when I open the system icon it says
there is only 2.93 GB. Since the RAM installed is 4 PC cards (two 1
GB and two 500 MB) I do not think it could be a bad PC card. Have read
the recent posting relative to using over 4 GB on a Windowsxp system
but this is only 3 GB. Also just read about the PAE switch but never
heard of one and it says activated by default anyway. Any ideas why I
an not seeing 3 GB?

email response not expected but to respond remove .uk at end
TIA
Hank

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 12:10:34 -0500, "db"
wrote:

however, depending on the bios, you
may be better off with identical ram chips.

so instead of mixing the sizes like you
have now; you may see better performance
by simply having only the two 1 gig chips.

sometimes if the cpu really gets busy
and the demand is high, the computer can
stall because of the different sizes of rams
that are installed.

so unless the computer is for an analyst or
graphics designer or computer gamer,

it is unlikely you will ever need
more than 2 gigs of ram especially
in winxp.

therefore, my suggestion is to pull out
the 512 meg chips and only keep the
2- 1 gig chips installed.


Have the 1 GB chips in the first two memory positions. I assume
Windows uses the memory in the first positions first so it is unlikely
(as you say) to need the last two positions. i.e. no penalty to leave
them in.

email response not expected but to respond remove .uk at end
TIA
Hank

"db" wrote in message

well, the difference seems to be a
mere .07 gb - I wouldn't worry about
it.

however, depending on the bios, you
may be better off with identical ram chips.

Identical chips are always best; for sure. But it's not really a
requirement.


so instead of mixing the sizes like you
have now; you may see better performance
by simply having only the two 1 gig chips.

sometimes if the cpu really gets busy
and the demand is high, the computer can
stall because of the different sizes of rams
that are installed.

I think I dispute that. By what possible mechanism could a computer
"stall" because two different size RAM sticks are used? One stick or 4,
every but of RAM is but an address, the location of the address being
irrelevant. RAM has gotten fast, but not so fast that copper lengths or
address locations could ever bother it. It's just an address and nothign
close to any kind of linear search or anything to find a RAM address;
they're always ready to go.

The only problem with different chips would be speed capability and
mismatched specs. If two chips have different speeds, ALL will run at
the slower speed. And obviously you can't mix ECC and non-ECC, 2V and
3V, etc. etc. etc.. As long as the speeds match and they have the same
architecture, I always reuse memory sticks. This particular machine has
a 1 Gig and 2 512's. Yes, only 3 chips; it's legal on this machine. My
laptop has a 1 Gig and one 512; they have to be in pairs in that one.
Neither machine has ever had a problem in the now 6 years of growing
teeth they've had.

How would I create a "stall" if it can happen? I'd like to check it
out, because I've been wrong before, but ... I think I'm right. I do
everything from surfing to video editing and rendering, pretty RAM, pf
and disk intensive apps, and have never had a stall even with a one hour
video.


so unless the computer is for an analyst or
graphics designer or computer gamer,

it is unlikely you will ever need
more than 2 gigs of ram especially
in winxp.

Yes, 2 Gig seems to be the sweet spot with 3 Gig the max and reaching
for the point of diminishing returns. 4 Gig is pretty much useless
unless you're stuck with having to pair same size RAM. After 3 Gig
there is nothing to be gained that could ever be noticeable and little
to no advantage Iv'e ever heard of because so little of it is used.

therefore, my suggestion is to pull out
the 512 meg chips and only keep the
2- 1 gig chips installed.

I'd love to hear back whether it made any noticeable difference of any
kind. It just about couldn't, really.
Two 1 Gigs and two 512's makes 3 Gig, the best situation you could
ever want, really.

OTOH RAM is still cheap, so if it DID make a difference, it's at least
not a big deal to swap it out for another 1 Gig. But then it depends,
as you intimated in the beginning, what the machine is being asked to
do. It's entirely possible that nothing but the first bank or RAM would
get used unless there are some pretty intensive apps running. Well,
excuse me; more than a Gig would get used but not funcitonally. Windows
still attempts to use all RAM possible. That seems to be around a Gig
in my machine, excluding the times the pagefile get used, which is never
used unless I'm doing some serious video work.

I'd appreciate any enlightenment on the subject.

Twayne`





~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



"Hank" wrote in message
...
I think it is SP3 but not sure. Computer is a friend's who I was
helping. He purchased 2 GB of additional RAM memory raising his total
RAM from 1 GB to 3 GB. However when I open the system icon it says
there is only 2.93 GB. Since the RAM installed is 4 PC cards (two 1
GB and two 500 MB) I do not think it could be a bad PC card. Have
read the recent posting relative to using over 4 GB on a Windowsxp
system but this is only 3 GB. Also just read about the PAE switch
but never heard of one and it says activated by default anyway. Any
ideas why I an not seeing 3 GB?

email response not expected but to respond remove .uk at end
TIA
Hank

I used a corporate machine, that had varying
sizes of ram.

when crunching large, I mean really large spreadsheets
with complex formulas and links to other large
spreadsheets, the machine would crash.

until people really test out the issues I mention,
it is not fair for anyone to simply dispute what they
have never seen or experienced.

so I stand by my previous posting.

if possible, always try to have identicle ram
installed on a machine.


--
db·´¯`·...¸)))º
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces
- @Hotmail.com

"share the nirvana mann" - dbZen

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



"Twayne" wrote in message
...
"db" wrote in message

well, the difference seems to be a
mere .07 gb - I wouldn't worry about
it.

however, depending on the bios, you
may be better off with identical ram chips.

Identical chips are always best; for sure. But it's not really a
requirement.


so instead of mixing the sizes like you
have now; you may see better performance
by simply having only the two 1 gig chips.

sometimes if the cpu really gets busy
and the demand is high, the computer can
stall because of the different sizes of rams
that are installed.

I think I dispute that. By what possible mechanism could a computer
"stall" because two different size RAM sticks are used? One stick or 4,
every but of RAM is but an address, the location of the address being
irrelevant. RAM has gotten fast, but not so fast that copper lengths or
address locations could ever bother it. It's just an address and nothign
close to any kind of linear search or anything to find a RAM address;
they're always ready to go.

The only problem with different chips would be speed capability and
mismatched specs. If two chips have different speeds, ALL will run at the
slower speed. And obviously you can't mix ECC and non-ECC, 2V and 3V,
etc. etc. etc.. As long as the speeds match and they have the same
architecture, I always reuse memory sticks. This particular machine has a
1 Gig and 2 512's. Yes, only 3 chips; it's legal on this machine. My
laptop has a 1 Gig and one 512; they have to be in pairs in that one.
Neither machine has ever had a problem in the now 6 years of growing
teeth they've had.

How would I create a "stall" if it can happen? I'd like to check it
out, because I've been wrong before, but ... I think I'm right. I do
everything from surfing to video editing and rendering, pretty RAM, pf and
disk intensive apps, and have never had a stall even with a one hour
video.


so unless the computer is for an analyst or
graphics designer or computer gamer,

it is unlikely you will ever need
more than 2 gigs of ram especially
in winxp.

Yes, 2 Gig seems to be the sweet spot with 3 Gig the max and reaching for
the point of diminishing returns. 4 Gig is pretty much useless unless
you're stuck with having to pair same size RAM. After 3 Gig there is
nothing to be gained that could ever be noticeable and little to no
advantage Iv'e ever heard of because so little of it is used.

therefore, my suggestion is to pull out
the 512 meg chips and only keep the
2- 1 gig chips installed.

I'd love to hear back whether it made any noticeable difference of any
kind. It just about couldn't, really.
Two 1 Gigs and two 512's makes 3 Gig, the best situation you could ever
want, really.

OTOH RAM is still cheap, so if it DID make a difference, it's at least not
a big deal to swap it out for another 1 Gig. But then it depends, as you
intimated in the beginning, what the machine is being asked to do. It's
entirely possible that nothing but the first bank or RAM would get used
unless there are some pretty intensive apps running. Well, excuse me;
more than a Gig would get used but not funcitonally. Windows still
attempts to use all RAM possible. That seems to be around a Gig in my
machine, excluding the times the pagefile get used, which is never used
unless I'm doing some serious video work.

I'd appreciate any enlightenment on the subject.

Twayne`





~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



"Hank" wrote in message
...
I think it is SP3 but not sure. Computer is a friend's who I was
helping. He purchased 2 GB of additional RAM memory raising his total
RAM from 1 GB to 3 GB. However when I open the system icon it says
there is only 2.93 GB. Since the RAM installed is 4 PC cards (two 1
GB and two 500 MB) I do not think it could be a bad PC card. Have
read the recent posting relative to using over 4 GB on a Windowsxp
system but this is only 3 GB. Also just read about the PAE switch
but never heard of one and it says activated by default anyway. Any
ideas why I an not seeing 3 GB?

email response not expected but to respond remove .uk at end
TIA
Hank

"db" wrote in message

I used a corporate machine, that had varying
sizes of ram.

when crunching large, I mean really large spreadsheets
with complex formulas and links to other large
spreadsheets, the machine would crash.

So, uhhh, what? That says little to absolutely nothing relevent to the
subject at hand. Machines crash for a gazillion or so reasons.


until people really test out the issues I mention,
it is not fair for anyone to simply dispute what they
have never seen or experienced.

You're making assumptions that "people" haven't experience what you
have. I have. I've also specifically monitored and gathered a
substantial amount of various data from the exercises.
It's "fair" to dispute most anything when one feels their background
and experience indicate something other than the original statement. If
you think disagreeing with you is "unfair", you might need a little
tougher skin than you have right now. Many of these things are
subjective and there will be a "ymmv" aspect to them.


so I stand by my previous posting.

Go ahead; that's certainly your right. And I stand behind mine. But
it's really irrelevent at this point. If you want to go off-group and
discuss it in a reasonable fashion, just ask. Most people with open
minds are going to accommodate you, myself included.

Sorry you took offense; I don't believe I said anything that was
seriously negative about you specifically and simply stated what I knew
to be the case.

Twayne`