Only 3gb Usable out of 4gb Memory in Windows 7

[ocean]

I had a problem which I never addressed in windows XP. I installed 4GB of ram, but my XP used to see only 3gb. Now I thought installing WIndows 7 would solve this, but no again only 3gb is usable out of the 4. Here is the specs of my machine, any help is appreciated.

Healthy Relationships

Free Relationship Advice


Running Windows 7 on following:

Handwritten Letter Service

Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo CPU E7200 @2.53GHz

Installed Memory: 4.00 GB (3.00 GB Usable)

System type: 32-bit Operating System

Motherboard:Gigabyte mATX Intel G31 775 DDR2-800 GA-G31M-S2L

New Relationship Advice

Graphics Card: Nvidia Geforce 9600 GT


Please Help.


Side questions for windows 7
1. Can i use vista drivers to install my monitor? because right now windows 7 sees it as pnp monitor, and on Dell's website my monitor drivers are not available for Windows 7 only for Vista. I have the Dell sp2208wfp
2. Can I use Google Chrome? the Vista version? for win 7?
3. Are there any tweaks that i can use in order to boost the performance for windows 7, it seems a bit slow on my machine.

Here are the results:
Windows Experience Index follows:
Processor: 5.9
Memory: 5.9
Graphics: 6.8
Gaming Graphics:6.8
Primary hard disk:5.9
Healthy Relationships

Any help appreciated.

 

[ptolomy_was_right]

Support for heterogeneous multi-adapters is a "big" improvement, for the minute percentage of users who need it. Few would want to mix adapters from different vendors other than out of sheer necessity, not preference. e.g. you need to buy a second graphics card in a pinch and that's all you could get on such short notice. It is much more preferable to have display adapters that use the same driver, for a number of reasons.

Mixed adapters doesn't come without a price. One of the improvements in Windows 7 WDDM 1.1 and WDM architecture was to reduce memory consumption to a single video memory allocation for each top-level window and eliminate the extra system memory copy for every window that was enforced in WDDM 1.0 on Windows Vista. However, when you use heterogeneous multi-adapters in Windows 7, this improvement in memory consumption is disabled (i.e. it reverts back to the behavior of WDDM on Windows Vista). Oops.


And its really too bad that you can't provide any objective evidence to back this up. Again, multiple independent reviews have looked into this. At best, Windows 7 brings very modest improvements in "demand for system resources", including memory consumption and footprint. And whatever Windows 7 does improve insofar as system resource consumption, nobody has been able to show there is any real-world performance benefit to it. Windows Vista and 7 perform comparably in objective tests.

Vista looks nice but if you want yr CPU or it's cooling fan to have a long life I would go straight to 7. Vista sucked; why else did everyone downgrade to XP Pro and then jump on Win 7 ASAP?? Like the guy above says, it's had it's day (and it was a short one)

As has been proven over and over (by informed persons), there was an anti-Vista bandwagon that for whatever reason became very enticing for people - mostly ignorant people - to jump on without much basis for their complaints. When there was a basis for their complaints, it was just as often (if not more often) because their hardware completely lacked Vista drivers, the early Vista drivers were buggy, or their Windows XP applications were buggy (or just wouldn't work) on Vista because the vendor hadn't released any patches or updates for it (e.g. trying to run an older "designed for Windows XP" application that was released in 2003 or 2004 but had long been replaced by a newer version, which the user didn't want to pay for). None of these factors can be blamed on short-comings in Windows Vista.

People are still complaining about Windows 7 on slower, lower-end computers and downgrading to Windows XP. Check the support forums at HP, Dell, Gateway, and all the other OEMs. Downgrading to XP is still happening, even though many of these downgraders are using newer hardware with substantially better performance than people were trying to run Vista on two and three years ago. Here is a great example that I recently encountered: Windows XP and HP G61-511WM

Even if Microsoft literally relaunched Windows Vista as Windows 7 without any modifications at all, you would still expect far fewer people to complain about the performance of Windows 7, the lack of drivers for their hardware, or application compatibility, because THREE FULL YEARS worth of new hardware and software launches have come and gone in the meantime.

And guess what can be found on every support forum? Yup....

"My printer/sound device/video capture/scanner/wireless adapter doesn't have drivers for Windows 7/ or the drivers for Windows 7 are buggy/ or the application is glitchy under Windows 7. Everything works perfectly on Windows Vista. Guess I'll have to go back to Windows Vista until the hardware/application developers get their drivers/applications working with Windows 7."

HAHAHAHAHA! Guess that means Windows 7 sucks and Vista is greatness?

Look man, I liked Vista enough to NOT downgrade to XP (which even back then was looking very old)... but you quote "slower lower-end" systems and people still complaining and going back to XP. My system is 2.5 years old and pretty lower-end (maxing 4GB RAM with Core 2 Duo 1.7 no VT-x), and the difference between Vista and 7 was significant. I was on 3GB of RAM on Vista x86 Home Prem and it was sluggish, was about to buy the 4th gig when 7 came along and I literally didn't need to. Well I have now anyway (and upgraded to x64 of course), but the fact remains: personal experience is worth 10 times Microsoft propoganda etc and I and others I know have found 7 to be a huge relief (on the same hardware). You can link me to as many forums etc as you want, but how can personal exerience lie? My next-door neighbours just bought a new system with 4GB RAM and Vista X64, and they can't believe how slow it is compared to their old system running XP with just 512MB RAM and a significantly slower processor. An upgrade install to 7 x64 will cheer them up

 

[tcsenter]

Look man, I liked Vista enough to NOT downgrade to XP (which even back then was looking very old)... but you quote "slower lower-end" systems and people still complaining and going back to XP. My system is 2.5 years old and pretty lower-end (maxing 4GB RAM with Core 2 Duo 1.7 no VT-x), and the difference between Vista and 7 was significant.

OK, if you say so. But I guess I'll have to take your word for it, because you can't show it by any objective measure (neither can anyone else).

Well I have now anyway (and upgraded to x64 of course), but the fact remains: personal experience is worth 10 times Microsoft propoganda etc and I and others I know have found 7 to be a huge relief (on the same hardware). You can link me to as many forums etc as you want, but how can personal exerience lie?

Seriously? You've never heard people who thought they cured their cancer by drinking some water from a faucet that had created a rust stain on a sidewalk that looked like the Virgin Mary? Or their diabetes was cured because they ate a potato chip that looked like Baby Jesus? Or vaccines caused their children to develop autism?

People are strange and unreliable, sometimes even dumb and delusional. That's why we have science.

 

[ptolomy_was_right]

OK, if you say so. But I guess I'll have to take your word for it, because you can't show it by any objective measure (neither can anyone else).

Well I have now anyway (and upgraded to x64 of course), but the fact remains: personal experience is worth 10 times Microsoft propoganda etc and I and others I know have found 7 to be a huge relief (on the same hardware). You can link me to as many forums etc as you want, but how can personal exerience lie?

Seriously? You've never heard people who thought they cured their cancer by drinking some water from a faucet that had created a rust stain on a sidewalk that looked like the Virgin Mary? Or their diabetes was cured because they ate a potato chip that looked like Baby Jesus? Or vaccines caused their children to develop autism?

People are strange and unreliable, sometimes even dumb and delusional. That's why we have science.

If I could be bothered, sure I could search around forums etc and quote some links at you. Most of them, however, are also from ordinary people having issues with one OS or another. You've clearly been on this forum longer than I have, kudos for that, but I've been around a bit and like 4745454b says, "Guess you can always find examples of everything". On any topic, you can pretty much construct a decent argument for either side. It's called debating. Thru 2 degrees I thrashed the hell out of it, researching everything to buggery, but I just don't believe in that now. Because usually it's just two people/parties with two fixed ideas trying to prove the other wrong. Neither will bend; it's just about winning the argument. You're right, there are plenty of people who love Vista and swear by it. But a lot of those probs you talked about-- "My printer/scanner etc won't work now in Win 7" in forums... they're lay-people trying to sort their problem out. I have a very old CanoScan (D646U) that Canon categorically state is incompatible with any Win OS beyond XP. But with a bit of fiddling around, installing and then locating the (XP) drivers manually, it worked fine (no WIA but TWAIN, which is just fine since I scan using Photoshop). since I installed x64 OS it hasn't worked, so I just installed XP in VMWare Player and scan from there.

So have you actually tried Win 7 and evaluated it for yourself up against Vista (same versions, not in VM), or are you just going on what people in forums and tech-journalists say? There's nothing like first-hand experience in any sphere, computing being no different. I've seen plenty of objective evidence, I just haven't quoted it at you, that's all. Personally I was on the verge of buying a Mac until 7 showed up (and was dual-booting Vista with Linux Ubuntu), but will still probably get a MacBook Pro and run 7 x64 from Bootcamp. Currently I'm dual-booting Win7 and Leopard 10.5.7 on a Sony VAIO (that took some doing, I can tell you); UNIX-based systems are still, and always will be, superior in terms of speed, stability demand on system resources. I won't defect completely however because I like 7 a lot.

 

[jrock3144]

Vaarien, what is the model number of your motherboard you are referring to?

Memory remap!!! just like he said. windows 7 x64 will use up to 16GB of RAM automaticaly. the problem is with your system

 

[jrock3144]

Ok, but isnts 64-bit OS less compatible with most programs?

ocean, I run Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit and it will run everything that is 32-bit and also run 64-bit programs and drivers as well. the way it works is under C: / Program files, you will have two folders

x64 Program Files (64-bit programs)
and
x86 Program Files (32-bit programs)

I don't have any problems running any of my 32-bit programs or drivers in 7 at all. Runs smooth as glass. It is totaly backwards compatable with 32-bit.

If you can't find a driver just use a Vista driver.

The reason they are telling you to use the x64 system is because it will use all of your memory installed (up to 16GB of RAM if your motherboard is capable of that)

Trust Us!!! You wont be sorry you did

 

[ptolomy_was_right]

Memory remap!!! just like he said. windows 7 x64 will use up to 16GB of RAM automaticaly. the problem is with your system

Except wasn't it only 7x64 Ultimate & Pro Plus that can use up to 16, and down and down till you reach home basic and starter which can only use 4GB? I have Ultiate so I didn't take much notice, but I guess that;s one of the benefits of Ultimate and Pro Plus

 

[Scotteq]

Except wasn't it only 7x64 Ultimate & Pro Plus that can use up to 16, and down and down till you reach home basic and starter which can only use 4GB? I have Ultiate so I didn't take much notice, but I guess that;s one of the benefits of Ultimate and Pro Plus

The actual memory limits are as follows:

64 bit Starter - 2GB for Memory (Netbook/OEM only)
64 bit Basic - 8GB for Memory
64 bit Home Premium - 16 GB
64 bit Professional, Enterprise, and Ultimate are 192GB




http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778(VS.85).aspx

 

[ptolomy_was_right]

The actual memory limits are as follows:

64 bit Starter - 2GB for Memory (Netbook/OEM only)
64 bit Basic - 8GB for Memory
64 bit Home Premium - 16 GB
64 bit Professional, Enterprise, and Ultimate are 192GB




http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778(VS.85).aspx

Thanks for clearing that up. I knew there was some kind of tiered system; like I said, having Ultimate meant I didn't retain the details. Poor Starter!

 

[Scotteq]

Meh - Starter is only available as an OEM install directly on Netbooks. (And Basic is supposed to be only available in 3rd world nations. Elsewhere, Home Premium is the lowest version available.)


Kind of begs the question, though... If it's limited to 2GB of ram anyhow, and installed on what is essentially an Oversided~Cellphone~You~Can't~Make~Calls~On, then why the hell would you install a 64 bit OS?

 

[ptolomy_was_right]

Meh - Starter is only available as an OEM install directly on Netbooks.

Yes, I gathered that, but still... even for a netbook 2GB isn't masses to cap it at. Agree tho' that what's the point in an x64 netbook? Esp if it's running Starter and can only use 2B RAM... irrational?

 

[jrock3144]

You guys are right when I looked in my documentation for my OEM install CD for Windows 7 it said exactly that. but I assumed that he was at least interested in Home Pre.

By the way, My OEM CD has Basic, Home Premium, Profesional, & Ultimate in 32-bit & 64-Bit

 

[Guest]

omg !!! im using windows 7 x64. i plugged in 4gb and it says 3.25 usable next to it !! wth ! i tried everything except reformatting.

 

[uhaul]

here is the cpu z valdiation info, prolly a little more specific than i can be

Intel Pentium D 930
Windows 7 (6.1) Home Premium Edition (Build 7600)
CPU Arch : 1 CPU - 2 Cores - 2 Threads
CPU PSN : Intel Pentium D CPU 3.00GHz
CPU EXT : MMX SSE SSE2 SSE3 EM64T
CPUID : F.6.2 / Extended : F.6
CPU Cache : L1 : 2 x 12 / 2 x 16 KB - L2 : 2 x 2048 KB
Core : Presler (65 nm) / Stepping : B1

Freq : 3000.92 MHz (200.06 * 15)
MB Brand : Asus
MB Model : EMERY
NB : Intel i945P rev A1
SB : Intel 82801GB (ICH7/R) rev A1

GPU Type : NVIDIA GeForce 9500 GT
GPU Clocks : Core 550 MHz / RAM 400 MHz
DirectX Version : 10.0

RAM : 8192 MB DDR2 Dual Channel
RAM Speed : 333.4 MHz (3:5) @ 5-5-5-15
Slot 1 : 2048MB (6400)
Slot 1 Manufacturer : PNY Electronics
Slot 2 : 2048MB (6400)
Slot 2 Manufacturer : PNY Electronics
Slot 3 : 2048MB (5300)
Slot 3 Manufacturer : Kingston
Slot 4 : 2048MB (6400)
Slot 4 Manufacturer : Corsair

The slot 3 kingston 5300 is slowing down all the 6400, leave the match set of PNY and it should run faster.

 

[webwarrior]

You found a great solution, thanks.

just a pity other people did not read through the thread that you actually found a solution to one of the posts, where someone had a 64 bit installation, and it did not show all the ram for them.

I got 8GB available out of 12, changed it, and after a reboot, it was back to 8GB again.

Processor: core i7 X 980
Motherboard: X58A-UD7
4 X 1TB Seagate baracuda drives in Raid 10
6 X 2GB G-Skill Ram F3-12800CL9T-6GBNQ
PC-X2000 lian Li Tower case (Really good case, I suggest it to serious 3D animators, to keep your pc's cool)

K, I found a solution... weird though...

I was using MSCONFIG to make sure windows started with all four cpu cores (i.e. msconfig / Boot / Advanced Options / number of processors).

I guess I also selected use max memory option as well.

In windows Resource Monitor 1026 MB was set aside for "Hardware Reserved"

I unselected the "use max memory" and now Win7 reports the full memory and the Hardware Reserved dropped to zero.

Hope it helps someone else.

 

[webwarrior]

Did you know that Flash 10 3D rendering engine performs better on 64 bit installations?

Intel 965 chipset supports 8GB physical address space and supports memory remapping required to use all 4GB installed RAM with 64-bit OS. Whether the system BIOS implements support for memory remapping or not is a separate question.

It is true that 64-bit OS (particularly one that supports 32-bit side-by-side as opposed to strictly 64-bit only) will have substantially increased memory usage and footprint.

This may or may not be counterproductive on systems limited by the hardware to 32-bit addressing model, where you might only get 3.00GB-ish useable (or less) out of 4.00GB installed. There is a trade-off but whether it is still positive or negative would depend on a few individual factors.

64-bit isn't necessarily greater just because you have it. Many alleged "64-bit ready" applications are just the 32-bit application with pointer handling cleaned up and legacy 16-bit code removed so that it will be 'compatible' with 64-bit Windows. Doesn't necessarily mean it will utilize the processing resources of 64-bit CPUs.

Even where an application may utilize 64-bit, doesn't necessarily mean its going to be faster. e.g. how much 'faster' can Notepad or Wordpad get?

In the browser testing that shows 64-bit browsers performing better than 32-bit browsers, they have to open more than 100 windows or tabs in order to show any benefit. Who has 100+ browser windows or tabs open? I'm sure there are some people who do (and probably amount to about 1% of the computer using world), but seriously. I rarely have more than 20 browser windows or tabs open simultaneously.

Some applications really benefit from 64-bit but a whole lot of them just don't under typical mainstream usage.

 

[webwarrior]

Just do some serious video editing, and then see how fast the ram goes. 8GB is barely enough!

The question would be do you have any programs that need that much RAM? (or use a combo of apps that need that much ram?

 

[Guest]

THIS FIX WORKS FOR SURE , IT WORKED FOR ME .(WINDOWS 7 32 BIT)

I HAVE 3 GB INSTALLED ON MY PC , IT SHOWED ONLY 1GB USAGE , I FOLLOWED THE BELOW FIX AND IT WORKED.


K, I found a solution... weird though...

I was using MSCONFIG to make sure windows started with all four cpu cores (i.e. msconfig / Boot / Advanced Options / number of processors).

I guess I also selected use max memory option as well.

In windows Resource Monitor 1026 MB was set aside for "Hardware Reserved"

I unselected the "use max memory" and now Win7 reports the full memory and the Hardware Reserved dropped to zero.

Hope it helps someone else.

 

[lander]

ok this is not a hack i have tested with many anti viruses spams debugers and then viwed its data in a secured invirment to see what exactly does and is clean to use please feel free to test for self but i have pic of 3 windows in one o/s system resources device manager 8.00 gigs of memory no restrictions as before said i had 4 gigs 3 usable before .....i took time and all postings to find this and want to pass it on this is update version as of posting date http://rapidshare.com/#!linklist|DV3IKU||| name of file is 32Bit DDR-RAM Patch originaly where i found link to get is
http://www.unawave.de/windows-7-tipps/32-bit-ram-barrier.html?lang=EN scroll down to where says ''''''The small program "4GB-RAMPatch.exe" patches the kernel and removes the kernel lock'''''' it will show as did me this has been reported unsafe well test it! then d/l it directly to a flash drive and anti virus n alike test it as i did then you will use it reboot and have all youre memory!! well seems i cant upload the picture but any want to see it happy to send email is hilander6nine@hotmail.com please put subject win7 32bit ram fix issue so i will not filter as junk

 

[Q36]

I am running Windows 7 x64 and my computer properties still show 4gb ram (3gb usable). I have tried everything. Literally.

See what Microsoft says their OS can do:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/978610

They say what limitations Win 7 has with memory, and what (if anything) you can do about it.

 

[cyberakash]

Running Windows 7 on following:

Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo CPU E7200 @2.53GHz

Installed Memory: 4.00 GB (3.00 GB Usable)

System type: 32-bit Operating System

Got it figured out now? Win7 ships with a 64bit version, and your hardware should be ok to use it. Upgrade to the 64bit version and fix this issue.

Your mother supports only 677mhz of ram
so u can use 2gb 677mhz ram-(2+2) 4 Gb of ram
From this u can solve the issue

 

[EugeneTrueGent]

It won't. Trust us.

I've got Win 7 x64, but it sees only 3gb out of 4gb installed.
It's a laptop Asus F3t. Could it be motherboard restricted?

 

[tcsenter]

I've got Win 7 x64, but it sees only 3gb out of 4gb installed.
It's a laptop Asus F3t. Could it be motherboard restricted?

Most likely, yes. That laptop uses the older ATI Xpress chipset, which was hard limited to a MAX 4GB RAM and did not support the memory remapping feature required to overcome the old '32-bit' addressing limit. Even later ATI chipsets including the 690G (due to the SB600) had driver problems/glitches with 4GB or more RAM (though it was supposed to support more), so many companies limited support to 4GB MAX in BIOS which effectively imposed the same limit as the older chipset. ATI/AMD only solved these addressing issues about two years ago with the AMD 7xx family chipsets (and later). e.g. AMD 740, 760, 785, and later with the SB700 Southbridge (and later)

 

[EugeneTrueGent]

Thanks, very helpful))

 

[ocean]

I had a problem which I never addressed in windows XP. I installed 4GB of ram, but my XP used to see only 3gb. Now I thought installing WIndows 7 would solve this, but no again only 3gb is usable out of the 4. Here is the specs of my machine, any help is appreciated.

Healthy Relationships

Free Relationship Advice


Running Windows 7 on following:

Handwritten Letter Service

Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo CPU E7200 @2.53GHz

Installed Memory: 4.00 GB (3.00 GB Usable)

System type: 32-bit Operating System

Motherboard:Gigabyte mATX Intel G31 775 DDR2-800 GA-G31M-S2L

New Relationship Advice

Graphics Card: Nvidia Geforce 9600 GT


Please Help.


Side questions for windows 7
1. Can i use vista drivers to install my monitor? because right now windows 7 sees it as pnp monitor, and on Dell's website my monitor drivers are not available for Windows 7 only for Vista. I have the Dell sp2208wfp
2. Can I use Google Chrome? the Vista version? for win 7?
3. Are there any tweaks that i can use in order to boost the performance for windows 7, it seems a bit slow on my machine.

Here are the results:
Windows Experience Index follows:
Processor: 5.9
Memory: 5.9
Graphics: 6.8
Gaming Graphics:6.8
Primary hard disk:5.9
Healthy Relationships

Any help appreciated.

fixed it 😉

 

[trancedavy]

SOLVED: Laptop with 4GB ram, running Windows 7 64-bit, stating 1.99GB usable RAM


I have a Toshiba laptop with 4GB ram, running Windows 7 64-bit.

I kept getting the Installed RAM 4GB (1.99GB usable RAM) message in Control Panel -> System, and it was bugging me for a couple of weeks.

After looking around at all these different blogs and things, and after reading and playing with all the settings in msconfig etc, all to no avail...

SOLVED: in the end all I needed to do was shut down and physically open up my laptop and physically reseat the RAM modules back into their sockets.

Upon rebooting the laptop and checking Control Panel -> System. I now have 4GB installed RAM, all showing to be usable again. I retested my Windows Experience score again, and instantly my Memory score went up from 5.5 to 7.0 - sweet!!! Now hopefully I have the fast laptop that I purchased back again!!!

Cheers,
David.