I just upgraded my physical memory to 4GB but under system properties, it
only shows as 2.7 or so. 32 Bit Windows 7. Why?

~alan

32 bit versions of Windows can only address about 3.2 GB.



--
Windows 7 RC
[url]http://get.live.com/wlmail/overview[/url]
[url]http://download.live.com/wlmail[/url]

"Alan Shepro" <a.shepro******.com> wrote in message
news:C6CB2F0D.492%a.shepro******.com...[color=blue]
> I just upgraded my physical memory to 4GB but under system properties, it
> only shows as 2.7 or so. 32 Bit Windows 7. Why?
>
> ~alan
>[/color]

On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 22:41:59 -0400, Dave wrote:
[color=blue]
> 32 bit versions of Windows can only address about 3.2 GB.[/color]

So, where is the other .5gb?

[url]http://members.cox.net/slatteryt/RAM.html[/url]

"Alan Shepro" wrote:
[color=blue]
> I just upgraded my physical memory to 4GB but under system properties, it
> only shows as 2.7 or so. 32 Bit Windows 7. Why?
>
> ~alan
>
>[/color]

> these forums are for 64-bit versions of windows[color=blue]
> so don't post 32 bit problems in here[/color]

You are very wrong . This forum and all the others on this MS server are for 32 bit
and for 64 bit

As for the first part of your post. That is a bunch of croq and sure sounds like you
have no idea what you are saying

--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

"Steve0" <guest@unknown-email.com> wrote in message
news:bde98b9d2e3235ede5038d51473464e4@nntp-gateway.com...[color=blue]
>
> I've had a 32bit windows showing 4GB of memory
>
> Try putting only 1 stick in then starting
> then shutdown and put in another
>
> until all are in
>
> also hit ctrl alt delete
> under the performance tab you will see a section called
> Physical Memory (MB)
>
> that should tell you exactly how much memory windows is using
>
> one last thing
>
> these forums are for 64-bit versions of windows
> so don't post 32 bit problems in here
>
>
> --
> Steve0[/color]

ray wrote:[color=blue]
> On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 22:41:59 -0400, Dave wrote:
>[color=green]
>> 32 bit versions of Windows can only address about 3.2 GB.[/color]
>
> So, where is the other .5gb?[/color]

Do you have onboard video or a separate video card? that could account
for the 512 meg.

>[color=blue]
> these forums are for 64-bit versions of windows
> so don't post 32 bit problems in here
>[/color]

Since when?

"Steve0" wrote:
[color=blue]
>
> I've had a 32bit windows showing 4GB of memory
>
> Try putting only 1 stick in then starting
> then shutdown and put in another
>
> until all are in
>
> also hit ctrl alt delete
> under the performance tab you will see a section called
> Physical Memory (MB)
>
> that should tell you exactly how much memory windows is using
>
> one last thing
>
> these forums are for 64-bit versions of windows
> so don't post 32 bit problems in here
>
>
> --
> Steve0
>[/color]

for Christ's sake, how many times can people ask the same question?

Go search forums for my 2-page article on this subject.
You get 3.25GB, get it?

Don't asdk why, I already explained 100 times

Steve0 <guest@unknown-email.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>
>Since when?
>The website is vistaX64
>This website was made for windows 64 bit problems.[/color]

[snip]

You're a complete moron and are clueless as well.

That "website" is a gateway to the MS Usenet newsgroups. It leeches
the vast majority of its posts from MS servers - all those from users
whose number of posts are "n/a" are the leeched posts, i.e., they come
from OUTSIDE that site.

The 32-bit version of Vista has 4GB of address space. A portion of this,
roughly about .8GB in most systems, is reserved for the system hardware. The
remainder (3.2GB) is assigned to memory. The memory isn't missing, there
just aren't enough addresses to use all of it.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
[url]http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/[/url]
Windows help - [url]www.rickrogers.org[/url]
Vote for my shoe: [url]http://rick-mvp.blogspot.com[/url]

"ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message
news:7glv3cF2mtst4U79@mid.individual.net...[color=blue]
> On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 22:41:59 -0400, Dave wrote:
>[color=green]
>> 32 bit versions of Windows can only address about 3.2 GB.[/color]
>
> So, where is the other .5gb?[/color]

"Steve0" <guest@unknown-email.com> wrote in message
news:fe98255386e44c45b3d00c2ce1a11d2f@nntp-gateway.com...[color=blue]
>
> Since when?
> The website is vistaX64
> This website was made for windows 64 bit problems.
>
>
> so if you are going to post something about a 32bit system
> then you should make it very clear that you are posting a 32bit
> problem
>
>
> to Peter
> I was telling him to put one stick in at a time and run the computer
> and every time he restarts add another stick
>
> and as for the task manager
> well I know I'm 100% right on that one.
>
>
> --
> Steve0[/color]

The Forum you are talking about leaches off of Window's Vista's newsgroup
server and this is actually a newsgroup and not a forum. Your Forum and
those at techarena do the same thing and cause the same types of problems
for those that use a proper newsreader instead of the web based forums. We
normally don't see any posts previous to the one you are physically posting.

So your comment about being for Vista 64 is NOT correct. In Windows Mail or
Windows Live Mail (whichever other mail program you decide to use) set up an
account on news.microsoft.com and use the newsgroup
microsoft.public.windows.vista.general to see what I am talking about.

On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 06:07:20 -0400, Rick Rogers wrote:
[color=blue]
> The 32-bit version of Vista has 4GB of address space. A portion of this,
> roughly about .8GB in most systems, is reserved for the system hardware.
> The remainder (3.2GB) is assigned to memory. The memory isn't missing,
> there just aren't enough addresses to use all of it.[/color]

You'll note the OP indicated about 2.7gb available. 3.2 - 2.7 = .5gb.

On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 01:07:27 -0500, Andy Huang wrote:
[color=blue]
> for Christ's sake, how many times can people ask the same question?
>
> Go search forums for my 2-page article on this subject. You get 3.25GB,
> get it?
>
> Don't asdk why, I already explained 100 times[/color]

3.2 - 2.7 = .5gb unaccounted for.

On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 21:43:41 -0400, Alan Shepro <a.shepro******.com>
wrote:
[color=blue]
> I just upgraded my physical memory to 4GB but under system properties, it
> only shows as 2.7 or so. 32 Bit Windows 7. Why?[/color]


2.7 is on the low side, but only by a little bit. And how much you get
to use depends on *your* computer. Read the following for an
explanation of why:

All 32-bit client versions of Windows (not just Vista/XP/7) have a 4GB
address space (64-bit versions can use much more). 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 is not
available to the operating system and applications. The amount you can
use varies, depending on what hardware you have installed, but can
range from as little as 2GB to as much as 3.5GB. It's usually around
3.1GB.

Note that the hardware is using the address *space*, not the actual
RAM itself. If you have a greater amount of RAM, the rest of the RAM
goes unused because there is no address space to map it to.

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

"ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message
news:7gn94nF2opmmpU2@mid.individual.net...[color=blue]
> On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 06:07:20 -0400, Rick Rogers wrote:
>[color=green]
>> The 32-bit version of Vista has 4GB of address space. A portion of this,
>> roughly about .8GB in most systems, is reserved for the system hardware.
>> The remainder (3.2GB) is assigned to memory. The memory isn't missing,
>> there just aren't enough addresses to use all of it.[/color]
>
> You'll note the OP indicated about 2.7gb available. 3.2 - 2.7 = .5gb.[/color]

The 3.2GB value is usually with a 512MB video card. If
the OP has a 1GB video card, 2.7GB available looks about
right. This is one drawback with PCIe video cards. AGP
cards don't have this issue, but they have lower bus bandwidth.