4GB ram on Win7 - 32bit

Hi everyone,

I've just installed 4GB into my SZ650N running Win7 - 32bit. However, both in bios and in system panel, it says I have 4GB installed but only 3GB usable.

Now I'm running on stamina mode. I presume it has something to do with the onboard video card which is taking this 1GB, am I right?

Is there any way to change this shared amount?

Thanks in advance!

update: I've also tried on speed mode, but nothing changed. Maybe I need to update the chipset driver?

 

There is no way to fix it unless you install 64bit. Cause 32bit correctly recognises 4gb but actual amount usable is somthing circa 3gb. The shared video memory is already included in that 3gb.

Only 64bit windows is capable to fully use 4gb ram and more.

hope this helps

 

It's a basic issue with 32-bit Operating System having 4GB of RAM installed, due to what they call 32-bit virtual address space limitation. Here's a good article on why it's the way it is:

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000811.html

If you want to utilise every byte of your RAM of 4GB or greater, use 64-bit Windows.

 

I've read somewhere that Win7 could handle 4GB of ram, but it's actually just like vista in this sense. that's unfortunate.

thanks guys!

 

It's tricky when you have exactly 4GB.

In a 32 bit os you can only use 3 and a bit GB

In a 64 bit os you can use all 4GB, BUT a 64 bit OS will use more memory just to function (compared to 32bit) so you don't get the gain in RAM you expect.

Most people say if you've got 4 always use a 64 bit OS. Certainly if you've got more than 4 there is no doubt, you're better with 64. When you have exactly 4GB it's not quite as clear.

I've used both 32 and 64 on my Z11 and there is very little difference between the available ram. I have settled with 64 as the driver support for 64 is a little better for the Z (from Sony).

On the other hand, I've got a media centre PC with 4GB. I only get 3.3 in Win 7 32 bit, BUT the shared graphics card can utilise the a part of the .7 that windows 7 can't see. I've therefore stayed with 32 on that machine.

Honestly, if you have exactly 4GB I don't think it really makes any real difference which versions you use, all else being equal.

 

It's even worse than that. For Microsoft 32-bit operating systems, not only are the mapped hardware addresses subtracted from the top of the 4 GB address space, which usually leaves a little over 3 GB depending on your hardware, but no process can use more than 2 GB of RAM (due to a stupid Microsoft design choice -- needless to say, this isn't an issue in Linux or MacOS). This hurts apps that potentially can take advantage of more, like several Adobe apps.

To get around the 4 GB barrier, you can run Windows in what's known as PAE mode, by adding /PAE to the startup line (or, for vista, specified in the bootmanager). That activates block switching, allowing you to break the 4 GB barrier However, that slows down the OS quite a bit. So it's only recommended if you must run a 32-bit OS and have more than 4 GB RAM. Like a file server where caching disk is important, but running programs isn't.

To get around the max-2GB-per-process limit, switch to a better designed OS.

 

PAE does not break the 4GB barrier. MS specifically disabled that functionality in consumer operating systems because of driver instabilities.

 

aacury: Your Windows 7 has a program called readyboost. I have an aftermarket version on my XP and it works great. In addition to using a flash drive or sd card for additional ram like the readyboost. I am able to use the remainder of the 4gig my system has installed also. eboostr.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-vista/features/readyboost.aspx

http://www.eboostr.com/

 

Very few, if any, desktop programs will even come close to using 2gigs of memory, much less 2 gigs per process.





With 3 or 4 gigs of memory, I recommend using whichever (32 or 64 bit) is best supported. Unless you have a specific reason, in which case, you would know you need it.

 

Contrary to popular belief, ReadyBoost has nothing to do with increasing the memory. It mirrors parts of the paging file on fast-access solid state storage (USB, SD, MS), which benefits all systems, but those with little memory far more, simply because systems with little memory are going to swap to the paging file(s) a lot more.

 

True, but those few programs (like Photoshop and Lightroom) make a big splash, and are probably high up on the list of reasons why people migrate to 64-bit or MacOS.

 

Eboostr which I use on my computer is able to use the remainder of the 4 gig that was installed at purchase and do some of what readyboost does with usb or memory cards. It speeds startup and shutdown up and my computer is quieter and not as hot. Readyboost on windows 7 allows the use of a very large amount of extra ram. I consider this a reasonable improvement.

 

It clearly is a debatable matter. sigma957 pointed out a good reflection in the sense whether it is really worth to change to a 64-bit version when we have exactly 4GB of RAM.

Now, I know this depends on hardware configurations, but I wonder if there's any way I could slightly increase the usable memory. Windows shows 2.99GB when it's on stamina mode and 3.00GB when it's on speed mode (10MB more, wow!). Any ideas?

 

That 10MB is just some error tolerance. Just like how my Laptop is sometimes 2.66GHz, other times it is 2.67GHz (10 Mhz inrease!). Since 32-bit OS is really limited to 4.096 GB of virtual address space, each device/component in your laptop takes address space, so the more devices you have, the more it will eat up your address space. So if say the total address space of all your components is some 500MB, then your 4000 MB of RAM is subtracted by 500MB becomes 3500MB. So, your option is to have less devices, but then again, most of your devices are integrated to the laptop.

Do you run some memory intensive programs or just want the most of your RAM?

 

bottom line, you should have installed 64-bit

and whoever keeps hawking MacOS... you're in the wrong forum.

 

I use Matlab which demands a lot of RAM. I'm going to try the 32-bit version for a while and then I'll change to the 64-bit version.

The problem will be to get everything working properly...again!

 

No, it doesn't. Not a byte more. You have completely misunderstood what ReadyBoost is -- it's a faster backing store for the paging file, which speeds up reading from swap. This benefits systems with little memory the most, but does not increase the available RAM in any way, shape or form.

 

People don't migrate to Mac OS X to use 64 bit photoshop because there is no 64 bit photoshop for Mac (yet).

 

Okay, just for kicks I loaded up Photoshop CS4 onto my desktop (which has 8gigs of ram).


Photoshop CS4 64bit just being open = 60-61megs of ram
3 PSd files (475megs total, these are big!) = 642megs of ram

You need about 1.6 gigs of pictures to hit the 2gig mark. Keep in mind, Photoshop has a limit of 190-200 files open at one time. That means you need 200 files, of 8megs or more to even hit the 2gig barrier.

Most people, do not edit more than say 15-30 pictures at a time.
Even at 30 pictures, you still need 50megs each to hit 2gigs. I don't know too many who can handle that many layers, or use that large of a picture.


Granted Photoshop doesn't remove a picture from memory when the picture is closed (though you can flush the memory), also edits do add up. So over a period of hours, yes, you MIGHT break the 2gig barrier, IF you are professional who spends all day editing photographs all day. Keep in mind though that Professionals have been using 32bit Photoshop for years, and haven't had a huge problem with it.



Bottom line, unless you have something telling you you need 64bit, you don't.
Very few people or programs do. Especially since 64bit is not that common yet.

 

Do you have anything to backup these claims?

Other than marketing, because most ram "boosters" have been sued several times over and Readyboost does not do what you are claiming.

 

just one question that occurred to me: is it normal that the bios indicates only 3GB although windows correctly shows 4GB installed?

edit: well, I've seen that there's an update for my model concerning the bios:

"This utility updates the BIOS to version R0122S5 to resolve an issue where the system displays an inaccurate value for amount of memory installed."

So, just to be sure: it recognizes but it doesn't show the correct amount?

 

BIOS is probably indicating what is available to the OS. The OS is reporting what is physically installed (MS did this at OEM request to reduce the number of people demanding to know why they're notebooks did not ship with 4GB RAM).

By the way, you cannot access more than ~3.5GB of RAM on a 32bit Windows system. Period. MS disabled the functionality of PAE that allowed for 4GB+ access to solve driver stability issues on all consumer operating systems starting with XP SP2.

reb1 - I'm sorry, but you need to do a lot of fact checking before posting on these forums. First, you claim that a Firefox add-on 'reads the signal' better to increase download and internet speeds. There are add-ons that do speed up FF, but they do not increase raw network throughput. Now I read about this program that lets you use more than 3.5GB of RAM on a 32bit Windows install, which would require the use of PAE RAM addressing which I guarantee your system does not have so long as you have XP, Vista, or W7 installed. I hate to call you out on this, but it is the second time tonight that I have seen you post information that is clearly wrong. I understand you want to help on the forums - and I am glad that you do - but you also have a bit to learn (as do we all).

 

This isn't telling the whole story however. I'm fully utilizing 4GB of RAM in one of my notebooks that is still running XP 32-bit.

Windows will manage your RAM up to (whatever the artificial limit is on your product tier). The unmanaged memory can still be accessed directly by it's address.

In my case Windows manages about ~3GB. I have the unmanaged RAM (~1GB) set up as a RAM drive which I use as a temporary scratch disk. It's great for Photoshop, video editing, or any other program that has high disk I/O; even everyday applications like your browser or archiving program (7-Zip ftw) would benefit from using it as a temporary data store. As long as your motherboard supports it you can add even more RAM allowing you to install applications or even games (which are persisted to disk at shutdown).

Even on a 64-bit OS I'd still use a RAM disk for the applications that insist on using the primary disk as a scratch disk.

Just an alternative solution. If you let Windows manage it you abide by it's rules. The hardware is there and functional. Why not use what you've paid for?

 

So iisdev, what did you do to be able to utilize the 4 gigs under a 32-bit OS? Did it affect anyhow the stability of your system?

 

Greg Ross: Downthemall an add on to motzilla increases download speeds. I really do not care about what else it may or may not do. Eboostr uses the rest of the ram that the windows 32 does not up to 4gig and up to 4gig on up to 4 total sd or other flash memory such as usb drives. As to weather it is just paging or ram I really do not care. It allows better performance of processor intensive applications. Pages load faster applications run better and my computer stays cooler.
As to your reply to what I said these applications do, I did not say or imply that.
Nobody can learn more or get any facts straight with somebody who is easily offended. So lets not call me out. If you are really concerned about someone getting the wrong idea than somebody should research these applications and do a write up on them in both there words and layman terms.

 

Sorry, I should have mentioned that in my post. I'm using RamDisk Plus. It's not free - that's the only negative thing I can think of about it.

No stability problems to speak of; it works as advertised. If Windows was using the same memory addresses I'd be concerned but it's not.

Here are some benchmarks. It's actually very, very fast.

 

Basically RAMDisk will make that 1GB of RAM to function like a Hard Disk and you will still only have 3GB of RAM to use for system memory.

 

Yes, but the point is that I'm actually using all of it under a 32-bit non-server OS. If I had 8GB of RAM in that notebook I'd still have 3GB for the system but I'd have 5GB available to a single (or multiple) RAM disks.

I don't use any applications that require enormous amounts of system RAM to function. I do use programs that thrash the hard drive when they need to temporarily cache data. I can mitigate that decrease in performance by telling those programs to use the RAM disk instead of their default scratch disk locations. If I had that 8GB RAM upgrade I could even replace Window's paging file with the RAM disk. In that case Window's 'virtual' memory is actually the real deal. Just think about that for a second.

If your problem is speed then this *might* be a viable solution. It really depends on what applications you're using.

 

OP states that he uses Matlab that demands alot of RAM, so turning the unmanagable 1GB of RAM space into super fast HDD isn't going to help him. Although he can use that virtual HDD for something else.

 

Indeed, it's only Matlab that is really demanding in my case.

Actually, I'm trying to gather up some courage to install Win 7 64-bit and also Matlab 64-bit. The only thing that disturbs me is the extensive labor to get all drivers to work properly.