HP Probook 6440b missing 1.2gb memory

hi all, finally received my probook today.

the excitement didnt last long when i found out that the available memory is 'merely' 2.6gb out of 3.86gb total physical memory.

i dont know where the 1.2gb is being used. im hoping the tech gurus here can enlighten me...

windows 7 home 64bit
i5-520
ati mobility 4550 512mb
4gb ddr3 1333mhz
bios date 1/27/2010

more info from resource monitor:
hardware reserved: 139mb
in use: 1451mb (???? why this big..)
modified: 44mb
standby: 978mb
free: 1484mb


one more thing: i can not find memory remap in bios...

thanks in advance

 

One less thing: You're not going to find anything remotely useful in the BIOS, except perhaps the ability to set the clock (heck i'm surprised even that is available).

But i do not understand your question. Where exactly do you see the memory missing? If you're just asking about why Windows uses 1.4GB RAM at idle, do a clean install and it'll drop down to under 1GB. On the other hand i thought the RAM usage debate was over. I won't explain it all over again, but i cringe when i install XP on a 2GB RAM computer and it uses 300MB RAM with 800MB of swapfile...

Check task manager and tell me what it says under the Performance column, at Physical Memory.

 

yes that's actually what i was asking: why windows uses that much memory at idle.

i will check the physical memory when i get back home later today.

 

I'll give you a simple answer - don't worry about it. You have to understand than when memory is "free" it doesn't do anything. You paid for 4GB, why use only 1GB? If you want that memory to truly not go to waste, always make sure that you don't keep running software that you do not need. That doesn't mean uninstalling them, it simply means preventing them from auto starting at boot up, and closing them when you are done using them.

Okay, long version:
In the past, memory was very expensive. A complex system such as Windows took up too much memory to fit in the computers of that time, so they devised an ingenious system known as virtual memory, which used the hard drive instead of RAM. From Windows 95 up, up to 4GB of virtual memory were supported, and programs could, in theory, use up to 2GB of memory space even though the computer only had 32MB really. That worked fine and didn't hinder anyone since hard drives were not that much slower than memory of that time, so the programs were written with those resources in mind and they ran fine.

Unfortunately this carried on to the next and following versions, up to Windows XP. Windows still used virtual memory whenever possible, even when there was TONS of free RAM. Now, this posed a problem, because while RAM is more than 100 times faster today as opposed to the Win95 days, mechanical hard drive technology hasn't evolved much. Programs on the other hand are now written with RAM in mind, and you can see the effect clearly in XP - run a HDD-intensive program and everything slows down to a crawl, not only programs that you try to start afterwards (that load from the HDD), but even running software that you have not accessed in a while. You can have over 1GB of memory free and the system will still run like crap.

In Vista and Windows 7 the memory is being used more efficiently and more of the system core is loaded in memory. Additionally, a mechanism called Superfetch fills the rest of your RAM with components of programs that you use most frequently, thus speeding up their launch and operation. And this is why the "Free" memory indicator usually sits under 100MB. There is no need to worry about that as the cache dynamically changes size as per application memory requests.

For example right now i have only my browser and torrent client along with several folders, a calculator and a command prompt open, weighing in at exactly 1GB of used RAM. But the "Free" memory quantity is just 26MB. Yet the "Available" memory is reported as 1040MB. Now if i launch the game i played yesterday it will load quickly even though it uses more than 300MB RAM, because it currently resides in the cache. If i load that video editor i haven't used in a month it'll load slower, but Windows tracks this change and puts it in the cache discarding the next oldest program, so if i use it tomorrow again it'll load in a blink. XP does not do that. It had something like this called Prefetch, but its main weakness was that programs were cached on the hard drive, so it made little difference, apart from the cases where the hard drive was severely fragmented (when things slow down anyway).

This caching in RAM is what Linux has been doing for years and i don't recall people complaining about Linux memory usage too often.

 

thanks for the long explanation.
i follow the logic of using free ram to store programs so that they will load faster.

what im curios about is whether this cache memory has the lowest priority? i would like to run ubuntu in virtualbox. so would the cached ram be released by windows if i assigned, say, 2gb to my ubuntu guest?

 

Of course it has the lowest priority, otherwise things wouldn't work properly. This is the very reason why, right after you install Windows 7 and finish the initial driver and basic software setup (as you usually do that the first day when you install Windows), the HDD suddenly starts churning when the computer has been left idle for a few minutes. It is creating the cache and sending it to free RAM.

And actually virtual machines don't really like being sent to the pagefile so they usually complain if they are (or simply crash sometimes). In that aspect you can be 100% sure your virtual Ubuntu will be kept in RAM.

If for any reason you don't like it you can disable Superfetch in services.msc and keep your free RAM actually free sitting there doing nothing... But i don't think you'll like it that much. Use the computer for a week or two, turn Superfetch off, then use it for another week or two. You'll notice the difference by yourself.

 

thanks for the help mate..

 

so this is what i read from the resource monitor

available: 2704mb
cached: 805mb
total: 3957mb
installed: 4096

so from here it seems that the available + cached memory add up to around 3.5gb which means windows is using around 400mb at idle.

also there is a bar graphic that shows the allocated memory for different parts:
hardware reserved: 139mb
in use: 1224mb
modified: 19mb
standby: 512mb
free: 2130mb

so what do "in-use" and "standy" refer to?

 

I think in use refers to memory used by the system kernel. Standby memory, well i dunno and i don't care either. You should ask Microsoft.

Anyway if the system is running fine there's no need to worry about these things. A few years ago i asked someone why he had 100 or so icons in his system tray. His reply was, "i got 4GB RAM, do you think i care about those programs?" And he was right.

 

How do you like the 6440b? There's not a drop of review out there, and seeing as you have one, could you perhaps give us first impressions/quick review on it? I'm mainly interested in the construction (ie, metal lid like ht elitebooks?) and screen quality.

 

im actually disappointed in the build quality. i am expecting much more for a $1400 notebook. my 3-year old thinkpad z61t blows it away in terms of build quality.

the most noticeable 'flaw' is the lid which seems to have a hollow space between the outer shell and the screen. it also looks like plastic, not metal. it flexes a lot when i press it in the middle and bends when i apply pressure on the sides.

the dvd bay is pathetic. plastic quality is really cheap. it looks like the same plastic used to make toys for 3-year olds.

palm rest is good. it is sturdy without any sign of flex on the palm rest.

i like the screen (1600x1200).

i think im going to call HP on monday to arrange for RMA.

 

Thanks for taking the time to write this, though it is a shame the build quality is subpar (seems like this is the way of most manufacturers). I think I'll probably aim for an Elitebook, hopefully it'll be of higher quality.

 

not a problem. it is a shame indeed. i really want to like it. but i think i will go for thinkpad T410.

 

It IS plastic. And yes they don't close like they should, happens on pretty much every machine after some time though. Except IBMs, but IBMs are fugly. But the "tankpads" do get the job done.

 

well im not planning to enroll my notebook into a notebook pageant contest...
i guess im really spoiled by the tankpads

 

There is one review, in Polish:
http://www.notebookcheck.pl/Recenzja-HP-ProBook-6440b.25525.0.html

By using google translate I managed to understand that, according to this review, 6440b has the following pros:

+ Rigid body
+ Sturdy hinges
+ Low temperature
+ Matt HD+ screen
+ Matt finish
+ Easy access to the cabinet
+ CPU performance

and the following cons:

- Noise
- Poor DVD reader
- No HDMI
- Battery performance under load

It seems to me like a decent low-priced business notebook. I wish only that the noise was better, but it seems that this is a problem plaguing all probooks.

 

Well they're called "pro" for a reason. They're made to run stable not quietly. As for the DVD drive, i find that i don't use it that much anymore. I used to be a really heavy optical media user, but nowadays high-speed internet and those large flash drives have mostly replaced the need for discs. I still use them for backup, but not much else.