Yeah I've seen that bug too, even with /PAE etc still doesn't fix it.
You should upgrade to Win7-64 :)

On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 06:32:30PM -0400, Jason Carson wrote:
> I have 6 GB of RAM and a GeForce 295 with 1.7 GB of memory but am running
> WinXP 32 bit and my system only shows that I have 2.49 GB of RAM.
> 
> > Well, it does sort of sound like that.  I have Win 7 ultimate with 6GB
> > RAM.
> > When I right-click on My Computer and select properties, it says I have
> > 6.0GB.  On my work machine (4GB RAM) with XP and 2 graphic cards, it says
> > I
> > have about 2.89GB RAM.
> >
> > Bobby
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com
> > [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Bino Gopal
> > Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 4:49 PM
> > To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com
> > Subject: Re: [H] Win7 Ent 32-bit vs 64-bit?
> >
> >
> > But from the MS article:
> >
> >
> >
> > Note When the physical RAM that is installed on a computer equals the
> > address space that is supported by the chipset, the total system memory
> > that
> > is available to the operating system is always less than the physical RAM
> > that is installed. For example, consider a computer that has an Intel 975X
> > chipset that supports 8 GB of address space. If you install 8 GB of RAM,
> > the
> > system memory that is available to the operating system will be reduced by
> > the PCI configuration requirements. In this scenario, PCI configuration
> > requirements reduce the memory that is available to the operating system
> > by
> > an amount that is between approximately 200 MB and approximately 1 GB. The
> > reduction depends on the configuration.
> >
> >
> >
> > So doesn't that imply that based on the fact that I only have 4GB, I'll
> > still be short some memory, unlike what some others said?  Or to put it
> > another way, like Gary said, what will the devices map into since they
> > can't
> > map to thin air (and apparently they still need to map).
> >
> >
> > And to put a further point on it, since the video card is a MMIO
> > (memory-mapped I/O) device, I assume it'll take memory away from the max
> > 4GB
> > too.  So the moral of the story is that sure I can upgrade to 64-bit Win7,
> > but if I don't put more than 4GB of memory in the system, I should end up
> > with exactly the same amount of memory as with 32-bit Win7 right?!
> >
> >
> >
> > Now, apps running faster is a whole 'nother reason and definitely worth
> > doing it for that! ;)
> >
> >
> > BINO
> >
> >
> >
> >> From: bh...@sc.rr.com
> >> To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com
> >> Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 22:32:12 -0400
> >> Subject: Re: [H] Win7 Ent 32-bit vs 64-bit?
> >>
> >> It maps into the address space of whatever the 64-bit address space is
> >> (8
> >> terabytes or something like that). When you have a 32-bit OS, the
> >> address
> >> space is only 4GB, the system maps in the hardware memory (BIOS,
> >> graphics
> >> card RAM, etc.) space from the top of the address space down. That is
> >> why
> >> you get between about 3-3.5GB of actual RAM when you have 4GB RAM on a
> >> 32-bit system. I know I'm not explaining this well, so take a look here:
> >>
> >>
> > http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2007/03/dude-wheres-my-4-gigabytes-of-ram.h
> >> tml
> >> and
> >> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605
> >>
> >> Bobby
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com
> >> [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Gary
> >> VanderMolen
> >> Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 9:09 PM
> >> To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com
> >> Subject: Re: [H] Win7 Ent 32-bit vs 64-bit?
> >>
> >> So what will they map into instead? As far as I know, the video has to
> >> map
> >> into RAM,
> >> regardless if the OS is 32-bit or 64-bit.
> >>
> >> Gary VanderMolen, Microsoft MVP (Mail)
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Bobby Heid
> >>
> >>
> >> IIRC, the BIOS and video RAM will not have to map into the 4GB address
> > space
> >> (in 64-bit). He will have the whole address space for RAM.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 

-- 
             
Bryan G. Seitz

Reply via email to