Memory upgrade not represented in System Info

natalie

Distinguished
Apr 8, 2004
27
0
18,530
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Hi,
I just upgraded my memory from 128M to 512M (two 256M
cards). BIOS is recognizing the memory and diagnostics
show everything is fine. However, when I view System Info
from Windows XP it show "Total Physical Memory" as
256M...... Has anyone experienced this before? I'm
wondering if XP is even using the additional 256M of
memory??
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Natalie, if you have more than two memory slots then try the one you havent
used. Swap them around and see if XP will see it.
"natalie" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:914d01c496af$9077f3c0$a601280a@phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I just upgraded my memory from 128M to 512M (two 256M
> cards). BIOS is recognizing the memory and diagnostics
> show everything is fine. However, when I view System Info
> from Windows XP it show "Total Physical Memory" as
> 256M...... Has anyone experienced this before? I'm
> wondering if XP is even using the additional 256M of
> memory??
 

natalie

Distinguished
Apr 8, 2004
27
0
18,530
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Thanks a ton for the reply, Rich. I only have two memory
slots. Interestingly enough - although "total physical
memory" notes 256M, "total available memory" notes 300-
400M. So I GUess applications are using the full
512M...since having more "available" than "total" makes no
sense.....

My hibernate file is automatically created for 512M also.

It just bugs me that the OS is not noting the full 512M
for "total memory"....

>-----Original Message-----
>Natalie, if you have more than two memory slots then try
the one you havent
>used. Swap them around and see if XP will see it.
>"natalie" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message
>news:914d01c496af$9077f3c0$a601280a@phx.gbl...
>> Hi,
>> I just upgraded my memory from 128M to 512M (two 256M
>> cards). BIOS is recognizing the memory and diagnostics
>> show everything is fine. However, when I view System
Info
>> from Windows XP it show "Total Physical Memory" as
>> 256M...... Has anyone experienced this before? I'm
>> wondering if XP is even using the additional 256M of
>> memory??
>
>
>.
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

There are a couple of reasons it may do this. First might be if the
memory were running in Dual Channel mode, Windows has a difficulty with
this on some motherboards. This really is because of the BIOS on those
motherboards which can be fixed by a simple update. The other problem
may be the software that is gathering the information. It may be
polling the hardware incorrectly or the hardware is giving back the
wrong data. Make sure you have installed Service Pack 2 which will
include the latest version of DirectX. This may help the situation.

----
Nathan McNulty


Natalie wrote:
> Thanks a ton for the reply, Rich. I only have two memory
> slots. Interestingly enough - although "total physical
> memory" notes 256M, "total available memory" notes 300-
> 400M. So I GUess applications are using the full
> 512M...since having more "available" than "total" makes no
> sense.....
>
> My hibernate file is automatically created for 512M also.
>
> It just bugs me that the OS is not noting the full 512M
> for "total memory"....
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>Natalie, if you have more than two memory slots then try
>
> the one you havent
>
>>used. Swap them around and see if XP will see it.
>>"natalie" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
>
> message
>
>>news:914d01c496af$9077f3c0$a601280a@phx.gbl...
>>
>>>Hi,
>>>I just upgraded my memory from 128M to 512M (two 256M
>>>cards). BIOS is recognizing the memory and diagnostics
>>>show everything is fine. However, when I view System
>
> Info
>
>>>from Windows XP it show "Total Physical Memory" as
>>>256M...... Has anyone experienced this before? I'm
>>>wondering if XP is even using the additional 256M of
>>>memory??
>>
>>
>>.
>>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

"natalie" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>I just upgraded my memory from 128M to 512M (two 256M
>cards). BIOS is recognizing the memory and diagnostics
>show everything is fine. However, when I view System Info
>from Windows XP it show "Total Physical Memory" as
>256M...... Has anyone experienced this before? I'm
>wondering if XP is even using the additional 256M of
>memory??

Open Control Panel - System - General. What is shown at the bottom of
that Window for the memory total?

The System Information utility in Windows XP has been known to report
an incorrect RAM amount under some circumstances. So if the figure in
Control Panel - System - General (also get there by r-click My
Computer and select Properties) is correct then all is well.

If Control Panel - System - General also reports only 256 mb of RAM
then there are two possible causes for this:

1. Use Start - Run - MSCONFIG and go to the BOOT.INI tab. Click on
the "Advanced Options" button and make sure that the checkbox for the
/MAXMEM= line is clear and that there is no value in the data box for
that line.

2. If that is not the cause then it could be a hardware compatibility
issue with your motherboard. Specifically older motherboards that use
PC133 SDRAM cannot properly use the newer high density (single sided)
PC133 SDRAM modules and will only recognize half the capacity of these
modules. These motherboards require the older low density (double
sided) PC133 SDRAM modules which are much harder to obtain and cost
about double the price of the single sided modules.

Good luck


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

The answers to your question helped me some, but my question goes a bit
further. I have upgraded as well, 1.50 GB (three cards). I use my computer
for graphics so it is needed. My question is where this memory is "alloted."
Only 37.2 GB on C, Scratch has 74.5 GB, and Archive has 127 GB. Shouldn't the
bulk of the memory be on C? And how would I change this? Can anyone help? My
computer is running as slow as it did before adding the extra memory!

"natalie" wrote:

> Hi,
> I just upgraded my memory from 128M to 512M (two 256M
> cards). BIOS is recognizing the memory and diagnostics
> show everything is fine. However, when I view System Info
> from Windows XP it show "Total Physical Memory" as
> 256M...... Has anyone experienced this before? I'm
> wondering if XP is even using the additional 256M of
> memory??
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

"Lori" <Lori@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:12DB0355-1D10-498D-97C0-F3CAB0962392@microsoft.com...
| The answers to your question helped me some, but my question goes a bit
| further. I have upgraded as well, 1.50 GB (three cards). I use my computer
| for graphics so it is needed. My question is where this memory is
"alloted."
| Only 37.2 GB on C, Scratch has 74.5 GB, and Archive has 127 GB. Shouldn't
the
| bulk of the memory be on C? And how would I change this? Can anyone help?
My
| computer is running as slow as it did before adding the extra memory!

You're confusing RAM with hard disk space. The RAM you installed has nothing
to do with the amount of space available on your drive(s). Is all of your
RAM seen by the BIOS? How much did you have before upgrading? Are you sure
that lack of RAM was the source of your problem?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Lori
If you check your mobo manual you may find that there are
"pairs" for the RAM slots and only certain combinations are
supported. Often slot 0 and 2 are paired as would be 1 & 3.
Putting RAM in slots 0,1, & 2 would only use slots 0 and 2
if the RAM was properly matched.

As far as hard drive space, you only need to have a C: drive
(partition) big enough to hold the operating system and
applications plus leave at least 15-20% free space to allow
defragmentation. You can reduce the excess space allocated
to system restore (default is 12% which is way too much on a
big drive).
System performance depends on the condition of the registry
(bad links to programs) and the number of programs/ services
running (often there are spyware and viruses) that are using
CPU cycles.

If you download the EVEREST scan tool free from
www.lavalys.com and run it on your computer, it will report
the make and model of your motherboard and other details
about your system, including details about the RAM. There
is also a benchmark program in EVEREST that will give you an
idea about the performance of the computer in relation to
other similar models.

You should run a complete anti-virus scan, scan with spyware
tools (Ad-Aware SE Personal is free from www.lavasoftusa.com
and SpyBot S&D is free from www.safer-networking.org ) these
are good places to start.
Also run disk clean-up and defrag you computer.


"Raymond J. Johnson Jr." <RayJay@nospam.org> wrote in
message news:OvI8LWH2EHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
|
| "Lori" <Lori@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
| news:12DB0355-1D10-498D-97C0-F3CAB0962392@microsoft.com...
|| The answers to your question helped me some, but my
question goes a bit
|| further. I have upgraded as well, 1.50 GB (three cards).
I use my computer
|| for graphics so it is needed. My question is where this
memory is
| "alloted."
|| Only 37.2 GB on C, Scratch has 74.5 GB, and Archive has
127 GB. Shouldn't
| the
|| bulk of the memory be on C? And how would I change this?
Can anyone help?
| My
|| computer is running as slow as it did before adding the
extra memory!
|
| You're confusing RAM with hard disk space. The RAM you
installed has nothing
| to do with the amount of space available on your drive(s).
Is all of your
| RAM seen by the BIOS? How much did you have before
upgrading? Are you sure
| that lack of RAM was the source of your problem?
|
|