Vista x64 Sudden Memory Reporting Error/No Hardware Change!

[Keyn]

Wow, I can't believe I'm posting on Tom's Hardware. For nearly TEN years, this has been the go-to site for me to resolve my own issues. Reading the forums here has always got me through...until now.

What I've got:

Intel Core2 Duo (E8400) 3.0GHz
EVGA 790i SLI FTW
4 GB Crucial (2x 2 GB in slots 1&3)
EVGA nVidia 260 GTX (896MB)
Windows Vista Home (x64)
PSU (not sure off hand but WAY more W than needed [900W peak?])

What happened:

I fired up FSX (flight sim) as normal, selected an aircraft in the menu then got a windows error dialog saying something to the effect of, "Your computer has run out of physical memory". I opened Task Manager and it reports 2046 MB RAM. It has ALWAYS reported 4GB. Let me stress I have made NO direct changes to the hardware or system settings. No updates, upgrades etc.

What I did about it:

Reboot to BIOS. BIOS reports 4GB. Continue to Vista. Task Manager reports 2GB. Run CPU-Z, it reports 4GB. Google 'RAM reporting issues'. Run Windows Memory Diagnostic, no results in Event Viewer, it didn't log other than saying it was run (subsequent test results 0 errors). Create Memtest86 boot disk. Reboot to Memtest and walk off. Come back four hours later and see >10,000,000 errors. Realizing one stick must be dead, magically unseated, or spontaneously bad mobo slot. I begin to test each stick in each slot: POST>Task Manager>Windows RAM diagnostic each time (to rule out a bad seating).. Results: 0 errors. Any stick in any slot in any configuration. 0 Errors. BIOS stil reports 4 GB, Task Manager: 2GB.

So I said , and went to bed. Couldn't sleep. Booted Memtest again and stared at the screen until tired. It is now on Pass 9, with 0 Errors and has been running over 9 nine hours.

What I think (NOTE: speculation ahead):

I did get TONS of errors from Memtest 1st time through, but so far this round, 0. I think maybe the RAM wasn't totally seated (5 yrs ago) and the pressure finally allowed it to slip a little too loose, Vista responded by doing some kind of remap thing. This made Vista tell me I hadn't enough physical memory, and supports the 10 million Memtest errors I got first run. After reseating, subsequent tests show 0 errors, but I'm guessing Vista refuses to believe I have more than 2046 MB based on some remap somewhere that happened when the RAM module slipped loose. This is ALL speculation and either I'm frickin' Sherlock Holmes and just need assistance making Vista recognize the other stick, or I'm a total PC imbecile (Personally I suspect the latter).

What do YOU folks think?
Thank you VERY much for just reading this bloody post!

 

[terry4536]

Your error isn't with your RAM exactly. The error is with your virtual memory. You can assign a larger portion of your hard disc space to virtual memory.

It is probably time to replace your RAM if you are getting that many errors on memtest. Vista 64 Home Basic will 8 GB of RAM. Vista 64 Home Premium will 16 GB of RAM. I would recommend 2 x 4 GB OF RAM. You will need to check the specifications of your motherboard as the speed of the RAM allowed.

That should solve both of your memory issues.

 

[Keyn]

Your error isn't with your RAM exactly. The error is with your virtual memory. You can assign a larger portion of your hard disc space to virtual memory.

It is probably time to replace your RAM if you are getting that many errors on memtest. Vista 64 Home Basic will 8 GB of RAM. Vista 64 Home Premium will 16 GB of RAM. I would recommend 2 x 4 GB OF RAM. You will need to check the specifications of your motherboard as the speed of the RAM allowed.

That should solve both of your memory issues.

First let me say thanks very much for the response. Correct me please, but isn't virtual memory just empty space allocated on the HDD so that windows can use it as a kind of extended random access while it loads new data? If so, the amount set by me shouldn't change unless I (or some software) directly make it change, right? If this is true and I haven't made any changes myself, nor installed/uninstalled anything and my AV/Malware reports clean...then how can it be so spontaneous?...unless it's a HDD failure?

Also, if it is an issue with Virtual Memory, why do I get an error about Physical Memory, and why does Task Mgr suddenly report a different amount of Physical Memory?

 

[terry4536]

The time that I first got the error above was on an old Windows XP system that was limited on RAM and limited on disc space. But that is how the error is reported. Search your system for the virtual memory manager. Increase the amount of disc space allocated to virtual memory. But I would also replace (and increase) the RAM because of the second problem of memory errors.

 

[James Mason]

Did you try booting up with only one of the sticks in the board? and then try with the other? if it boots with one but not the other, a ram module could be dead, and you' have to buy a new set.

 

[Keyn]

The time that I first got the error above was on an old Windows XP system that was limited on RAM and limited on disc space. But that is how the error is reported. Search your system for the virtual memory manager. Increase the amount of disc space allocated to virtual memory. But I would also replace (and increase) the RAM because of the second problem of memory errors.

Hello again. I've gotten Virtual Memory errors before where I had to increase the HDD allotment. But this error is specifically a Physical Memory issue. I went ahead and changed the size but of course there was no change to what Task Manager is saying is available for Physical Memory...still 2 GB. The sticks aren't dead as I stated above, only the 1st time did I get any errors. Every test afterward is 0 errors.

 

[Keyn]

Did you try booting up with only one of the sticks in the board? and then try with the other? if it boots with one but not the other, a ram module could be dead, and you' have to buy a new set.

Hey, thanks for the reply. As I stated above, I tried every possible of combination of stick/slot, with 0 errors. I did get a LOT of errors 1st time through, but they weren't repeatable. Yet Task Mgr reports 2 GB and even System Info shows 4GB

 

[GeorgeSenior]

Run Windows Memory Diagnostic to detect memory problems as bleow:

1. Click Start.
2. Type "Windows Memory Diagnostic"
3. Press ENTER.
4. Click "Restart now and check for problems" button.
5. Your computer will restart and start checking memory problems.

The most important thing is your system settings. Use this utility to scan and fix problems related to your system settings and hardware configuratins.

 

[Keyn]

Run Windows Memory Diagnostic to detect memory problems as bleow:

1. Click Start.
2. Type "Windows Memory Diagnostic"
3. Press ENTER.
4. Click "Restart now and check for problems" button.
5. Your computer will restart and start checking memory problems.

The most important thing is your system settings. Use this utility to scan and fix problems related to your system settings and hardware configuratins.

Hi George!!!! How are you???? I can only guess that you created an account JUST to help me!!! WOW!!! You're SO nice!!!

But, obviously you didn't read my post...and if you really think I'm going to even maybe, possibly consider clicking your link in any universe or any possible planes of existence then you, buddy, have lost your ever-loving mind!

To everyone else, I apologize for the excessive punctuation. 😉

 

[Keyn]

SOLUTION: Found on a Win 7 KB article:

MSCONFIG>BootTab>AdvancedOptionsButton>UntickMaximumMemory

QUESTION: How in the *$#& did it get ticked in the FIRST place???

 

[James Mason]

SOLUTION: Found on a Win 7 KB article:

MSCONFIG>BootTab>AdvancedOptionsButton>UntickMaximumMemory

QUESTION: How in the *$#& did it get ticked in the FIRST place???

Probably a windows update or something.

 

[Keyn]

SOLUTION: Found on a Win 7 KB article:

MSCONFIG>BootTab>AdvancedOptionsButton>UntickMaximumMemory

QUESTION: How in the *$#& did it get ticked in the FIRST place???

Probably a windows update or something.

I suppose, but if so we should be seeing a LOT of these errors...I dunno.

Thanks for taking the time to help, James. I appreciate it.

 

[terry4536]

What was the article?