Alias wrote:

> Bill Yanaire wrote:
>
>> "ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message
>> news:65k91uF2fqrb7U5@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>> On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 22:46:41 +1100, Qu0ll wrote:
>>>
>>>> I know that when using 32-bit Vista you can't expect to see all 4GB of
>>>> installed RAM but I was under the impression that you should see
>>>> between
>>>> 3.1 and 3.5GB. My new Dell Precision laptop has 4GB RAM but only shows
>>>> exactly 3GB. The BIOS reports 4GB.
>>>>
>>>> Is this unusual or indicative of a problem?
>>>
>>> Asked and answered several times per week. Suggest you peruse the group.
>>
>>
>> I'm surprised you didn't give the OP your Ubuntu talk. What's wrong?
>> You finally figured out that Ubuntu is a Pile of Junk?
>>
>>
>>
>
> How come you didn't provide your expert opinion on the OP's problem
> instead of bringing up Ubuntu?
>
> Alias

Why is a lying linux loser like you in this ng, huh?
Frank

"Qu0ll" <Qu0llSixFour******.com> wrote:

>Actually, I notice that my Server 2003 machine is 32-bit with 4GB and seems
>to see and use all 4GB. So it's not just a 32-bit thing - it must be
>related to the nature of the OS itself. Most of the explanations I've seen
>for the low reporting are based on the "it's a 32-bit OS" argument.

Hmm...I wonder. This page
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/w.../bb404900.aspx says
Server 2003 32 bit supports 4GB, and that claim is made for 32-bit XP
and Vista systems also. This one
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/w.../bb429524.aspx says
that 32-bit Server 2003 R2 Enterprise Edition supports up to 64GB,
which
means it would have to support PAE.

I don't know a lot about the server systems, but I suspect that if
you're not running the R2 Enterprise edition, it may be showing 4GB
but it's not using it anymore than Vista - with or without SP1 -
does.

And you're right that it's a 32-bit hardware thing. A 32-bit address
space translates to 4GB. That has to be used to access BIOS, Video
RAM and a few other things. What's left over after those needs are
satisfied is used for system RAM.

--
Tim Slattery
MS MVP(Shell/User)
Slattery_T@bls.gov
http://members.cox.net/slatteryt

"Tim Slattery" <Slattery_T@bls.gov> wrote in message
news:1c1av398rk1dsd5er31hc3nv60mnsqajso@4ax.com...
> Hmm...I wonder. This page
> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/w.../bb404900.aspx says
> Server 2003 32 bit supports 4GB, and that claim is made for 32-bit XP
> and Vista systems also. This one
> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/w.../bb429524.aspx says
> that 32-bit Server 2003 R2 Enterprise Edition supports up to 64GB,
> which
> means it would have to support PAE.

32 bit Windows Server versions DO support PAE, which gives 36 bits of
address space, which allows 64 GB of physical RAM. But all other 32 bit
limitations still apply.

PAE is a hack whose time has finally passed.

ray wrote:

> On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 08:05:25 -0700, Bill Yanaire wrote:
>
>> "ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message
>> news:65k91uF2fqrb7U5@mid.individual.net...
>>> On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 22:46:41 +1100, Qu0ll wrote:
>>>
>>>> I know that when using 32-bit Vista you can't expect to see all 4GB of
>>>> installed RAM but I was under the impression that you should see
>>>> between 3.1 and 3.5GB. My new Dell Precision laptop has 4GB RAM but
>>>> only shows exactly 3GB. The BIOS reports 4GB.
>>>>
>>>> Is this unusual or indicative of a problem?
>>>
>>> Asked and answered several times per week. Suggest you peruse the
>>> group.
>>
>> I'm surprised you didn't give the OP your Ubuntu talk. What's wrong?
>> You finally figured out that Ubuntu is a Pile of Junk?
>
> Nothing wrong. Why would I give a 'Ubuntu talk' if he didn't ask about
> Ubuntu? I still use primarily Ubuntu, Gentoo, Elive and Debian - because
> they work.

Ubuntu is getting better by the time 8.10 is out (few weeks) it should all
be fine, they even have a utility to run/install it on a Doze box with out
installing it !! All you have to do is click an icon on your xp/vista
desktop and Ubuntu is there.

The only thing wrong with Vista is its not compatable with older hardware,
annoying when you have to keep answering YES just to install / run
software. Very slow on anything with less than 4gig and only just about
works on 4gig, the "kernel" is based on 2003 so in theory should be stable,
its just the code on top thats flaky and makes it such a poor advert for
M$.


--
Linux - Free not a Virus Spyware or Trojan in sight
Windowz - Expensive buggy viruses spyware trojans & SLOW
Vista OS- Vastly Inferior Sotware Try Another OS

"Martin Burke" <mlburke@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:EX7Jj.2895$3j3.218@newsfet15.ams...

> Ubuntu is getting better by the time 8.10 is out (few weeks)

Geez, ANOTHER version of Ubuntu? The upgrade treadmill continues!

> it should all
> be fine, they even have a utility to run/install it on a Doze box

It installs on TV sets? That's the only "doze box" I have, since I usually
fall asleep while watching it.

> with out
> installing it !! All you have to do is click an icon on your xp/vista
> desktop and Ubuntu is there.

So you can install it without installing it? Um, OK.

> The only thing wrong with Vista is its not compatable with older hardware,

It's not? Wow, you better tell that to my 4 year old ThinkPad T41 laptop
and my 10 year old HP LaserJet 4 printer!

> annoying when you have to keep answering YES just to install / run
> software.

No it's not. Do you install software everyday?

> Very slow on anything with less than 4gig and only just about

No it's not. I have it on a 2 GB P4 machine and it flies, plus the above
T41 laptop with 1 GB RAM. Runs fine.

> works on 4gig, the "kernel" is based on 2003 so in theory should be
> stable,
> its just the code on top thats flaky and makes it such a poor advert for
> M$.

Congratulations, a whole paragraph of lies and FUD!

Martin Burke wrote:

> ray wrote:
>
>
>>On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 08:05:25 -0700, Bill Yanaire wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message
>>>news:65k91uF2fqrb7U5@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 22:46:41 +1100, Qu0ll wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I know that when using 32-bit Vista you can't expect to see all 4GB of
>>>>>installed RAM but I was under the impression that you should see
>>>>>between 3.1 and 3.5GB. My new Dell Precision laptop has 4GB RAM but
>>>>>only shows exactly 3GB. The BIOS reports 4GB.
>>>>>
>>>>>Is this unusual or indicative of a problem?
>>>>
>>>>Asked and answered several times per week. Suggest you peruse the
>>>>group.
>>>
>>>I'm surprised you didn't give the OP your Ubuntu talk. What's wrong?
>>>You finally figured out that Ubuntu is a Pile of Junk?
>>
>>Nothing wrong. Why would I give a 'Ubuntu talk' if he didn't ask about
>>Ubuntu? I still use primarily Ubuntu, Gentoo, Elive and Debian - because
>>they work.
>
>
> Ubuntu is getting better by the time 8.10 is out (few weeks) it should all
> be fine, they even have a utility to run/install it on a Doze box with out
> installing it !! All you have to do is click an icon on your xp/vista
> desktop and Ubuntu is there.
>
> The only thing wrong with Vista is its not compatable with older hardware,
> annoying when you have to keep answering YES just to install / run
> software. Very slow on anything with less than 4gig and only just about
> works on 4gig, the "kernel" is based on 2003 so in theory should be stable,
> its just the code on top thats flaky and makes it such a poor advert for
> M$.
>
>
Got any more mis-information about Vista you lying linux troll!
Frank

On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 17:52:52 +0100, Martin Burke wrote:

> ray wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 08:05:25 -0700, Bill Yanaire wrote:
>>
>>> "ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message
>>> news:65k91uF2fqrb7U5@mid.individual.net...
>>>> On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 22:46:41 +1100, Qu0ll wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I know that when using 32-bit Vista you can't expect to see all 4GB
>>>>> of installed RAM but I was under the impression that you should see
>>>>> between 3.1 and 3.5GB. My new Dell Precision laptop has 4GB RAM but
>>>>> only shows exactly 3GB. The BIOS reports 4GB.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is this unusual or indicative of a problem?
>>>>
>>>> Asked and answered several times per week. Suggest you peruse the
>>>> group.
>>>
>>> I'm surprised you didn't give the OP your Ubuntu talk. What's wrong?
>>> You finally figured out that Ubuntu is a Pile of Junk?
>>
>> Nothing wrong. Why would I give a 'Ubuntu talk' if he didn't ask about
>> Ubuntu? I still use primarily Ubuntu, Gentoo, Elive and Debian -
>> because they work.
>
> Ubuntu is getting better by the time 8.10 is out (few weeks) it should
> all be fine, they even have a utility to run/install it on a Doze box
> with out installing it !! All you have to do is click an icon on your
> xp/vista desktop and Ubuntu is there.
>
> The only thing wrong with Vista is its not compatable with older
> hardware, annoying when you have to keep answering YES just to install /
> run software. Very slow on anything with less than 4gig and only just
> about works on 4gig, the "kernel" is based on 2003 so in theory should
> be stable, its just the code on top thats flaky and makes it such a poor
> advert for M$.

Yes - Just received notice last week that a nearby hospital is 'upgrading'
to vista. So they will be donating ten slightly used xp machines to the
local library where I volunteer. Among other things, we have four old
compaq 800mhz P3 machines (running Ubuntu) which will be replaced - and
set up with Ubuntu. They are a portion of our eleven public access
internet computers.

On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 13:01:08 -0400, Bob Campbell wrote:

> "Martin Burke" <mlburke@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:EX7Jj.2895$3j3.218@newsfet15.ams...
>
>> Ubuntu is getting better by the time 8.10 is out (few weeks)
>
> Geez, ANOTHER version of Ubuntu? The upgrade treadmill continues!

Yes. They release one every six months - Linux is evolving. However, there
is not need to upgrade that often if you don't want to. 6.06 was a LTS
(Long Term Support) edition, and 8.04 (not 8.10 as referenced above) will
be also. Note also, that LTS on the server edition continues for a few
more years.


>
>> it should all
>> be fine, they even have a utility to run/install it on a Doze box
>
> It installs on TV sets? That's the only "doze box" I have, since I
> usually fall asleep while watching it.

I manage, usually, to stay awake until Letterman's second commercial break!

>
>> with out
>> installing it !! All you have to do is click an icon on your xp/vista
>> desktop and Ubuntu is there.
>
> So you can install it without installing it? Um, OK.

You can install it on your MS installation, without having to install it
to disk in it's own partition. Of course, there is also the Live CD which
permits running it without install.

>
>> The only thing wrong with Vista is its not compatable with older
>> hardware,
>
> It's not? Wow, you better tell that to my 4 year old ThinkPad T41
> laptop and my 10 year old HP LaserJet 4 printer!

Evidently our local hospital thinks it doesn't. They plan to donate ten xp
machines to the local library as they 'upgrade' to vista.

>
>> annoying when you have to keep answering YES just to install / run
>> software.
>
> No it's not. Do you install software everyday?

Fairly frequently, actually.

>
>> Very slow on anything with less than 4gig and only just about
>
> No it's not. I have it on a 2 GB P4 machine and it flies, plus the
> above T41 laptop with 1 GB RAM. Runs fine.

Hmmmmm. And Gentoo runs quite nicely on my 1ghz VIA mini-itx. Actually,
Ubuntu is not doing too bad on the 800mhz P3's at the library, either.

>
>> works on 4gig, the "kernel" is based on 2003 so in theory should be
>> stable,
>> its just the code on top thats flaky and makes it such a poor advert
>> for M$.
>
> Congratulations, a whole paragraph of lies and FUD!

Frank wrote:
> Alias wrote:
>
>> Bill Yanaire wrote:
>>
>>> "ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message
>>> news:65k91uF2fqrb7U5@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 22:46:41 +1100, Qu0ll wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I know that when using 32-bit Vista you can't expect to see all 4GB of
>>>>> installed RAM but I was under the impression that you should see
>>>>> between
>>>>> 3.1 and 3.5GB. My new Dell Precision laptop has 4GB RAM but only
>>>>> shows
>>>>> exactly 3GB. The BIOS reports 4GB.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is this unusual or indicative of a problem?
>>>>
>>>> Asked and answered several times per week. Suggest you peruse the
>>>> group.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm surprised you didn't give the OP your Ubuntu talk. What's
>>> wrong? You finally figured out that Ubuntu is a Pile of Junk?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> How come you didn't provide your expert opinion on the OP's problem
>> instead of bringing up Ubuntu?
>>
>> Alias
>
> Why is a lying linux loser like you in this ng, huh?
> Frank

Considering that I am not a "lying linux loser", your question is stupid.

Alias

Alias wrote:

> Frank wrote:
>
>> Alias wrote:
>>
>>> Bill Yanaire wrote:
>>>
>>>> "ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:65k91uF2fqrb7U5@mid.individual.net...
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 22:46:41 +1100, Qu0ll wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I know that when using 32-bit Vista you can't expect to see all
>>>>>> 4GB of
>>>>>> installed RAM but I was under the impression that you should see
>>>>>> between
>>>>>> 3.1 and 3.5GB. My new Dell Precision laptop has 4GB RAM but only
>>>>>> shows
>>>>>> exactly 3GB. The BIOS reports 4GB.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is this unusual or indicative of a problem?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Asked and answered several times per week. Suggest you peruse the
>>>>> group.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm surprised you didn't give the OP your Ubuntu talk. What's
>>>> wrong? You finally figured out that Ubuntu is a Pile of Junk?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> How come you didn't provide your expert opinion on the OP's problem
>>> instead of bringing up Ubuntu?
>>>
>>> Alias
>>
>>
>> Why is a lying linux loser like you in this ng, huh?
>> Frank
>
>
> Considering that I am not a "lying linux loser", your question is stupid.
>
> Alias
Liar...LOL!
Frank

On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 22:46:41 +1100, "Qu0ll" <Qu0llSixFour******.com>
wrote:

> I know that when using 32-bit Vista you can't expect to see all 4GB of
> installed RAM but I was under the impression that you should see between 3.1
> and 3.5GB. My new Dell Precision laptop has 4GB RAM but only shows exactly
> 3GB. The BIOS reports 4GB.
>
> Is this unusual or indicative of a problem?


No, it's normal. There's no 3.1-3.5GB range.

All 32-bit versions of Windows (not just Vista) have a 4GB address
space. That's the theoretical upper limit beyond which you can not go.
But you can't use the entire 4GB of address space. Even though you
have a 4GB address space, you can only use *around* 3.1GB of RAM.
That's because some of that space is used by hardware and not
available to the operating system and applications. The amount you can
use varies, depending on what hardware you have installed, but is
usually around 3.1GB. 3.0GB is slightly on the low side, but it's not
indicative of any sort of problem.

Note that the hardware is using the address *space*, not the actual
RAM itself. The rest of the RAM goes unused because there is no
address space to map it too.


--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

"Qu0ll" <Qu0llSixFour******.com> wrote in message
news:42B8305D-A848-4411-BA89-FA521D2D9D20@microsoft.com...
>I know that when using 32-bit Vista you can't expect to see all 4GB of
>installed RAM but I was under the impression that you should see between
>3.1 and 3.5GB. My new Dell Precision laptop has 4GB RAM but only shows
>exactly 3GB. The BIOS reports 4GB.
>
> Is this unusual or indicative of a problem?

See if Dell has a patch, sometimes under properties it displays wrong. My
Sony was displaying the wrong processor which was fixed with the patch.



>
> --
> And loving it,
>
> -Q
> _________________________________________________
> Qu0llSixFour******.com
> (Replace the "SixFour" with numbers to email me)