False memory reported in Windows System Information

[Duckycards]

Hi!

I have 1 gigabyte of ram memory in my computer. Bios reports this amount of ram correctly on boot up but when I check the ram in System Information it only reports 768 megs of ram. Microsoft Support was unable to help. Is this a mb problem? I am running WindowsXP on an AMD Athlon 1.1 Ghz computer. The mb is ASUS.

All of the memory sticks are ok.

Sure would appreciate some help on this. Thanks very much!

[BipolarBill]

Is that 768MB or RAM free or total physical? I would recommend a 3rd-party application like SciSoft Sandra:

http://www.sisoftware.demon.co.uk/san_dem/html/dload.htm

Another opinion is needed, eh?

Welcome to SysOpt!

P.S. Don't let Sandra scare you - it's not always right. It's just another tool.

[Duckycards]

Thanks for the response. It is reporting 768 total physical ram memory. Microsoft says it has to be the mb but I'm not convinced. Everything else seems ok.

[dave-harper]

what kind of asus ??

i've seen a lot of info where it says you can use 512 dimms and there are four slots - but that doesn't mean you can put in 2048 of ram

you could use 4 - 256 = 1024 but you can only use like 3 - 512 = 1.5 gig ram

it could be a situation like that though you details would be different or there is a part of the windows setup where you can limit the amount of ram windows sees

i'll have to check the exact details on where that is though

[Duckycards]

The mb is ASUS A7V. It has 3 mem slots that will take SDRAMs in any combination. I have 2 256 mb sticks and one 512 mb stick for a total of 1024 mb. Bios reports it correctly.

I just ran Sandra and in one section it showed 1024 mb but in another section it showed 768. :confused:

I can't remember where I saw those numbers so I need to check Sandra again. Also, I'm getting "TIPS" in Sandra saying I might want to try the Unicode version. I'm running XP... should I be using the Unicode version of Sandra?

Thanks again!

[BipolarBill]

My guess is that one 256MB DIMM is flaky or not matched.

[Duckycards]

That may be it.... but I wonder because when I remove the 512 dimm System Information accurately reports 512 from the two 256 mb dimms. And if one of the 256 sticks is "flaky" then why does Sandra report the full 1024 mb?

According to the asus manual I can use dimms in any combination from 8 mb up to 512 mb. With three slots that would give me a max total of 1.5 Gbytes.

Thanks again for your help! :)

[i1zombie]

Unless you are running a server, does anyone really need a gig of memory?

[AllGamer]

Originally posted by Duckycards
Hi!

I have 1 gigabyte of ram memory in my computer. Bios reports this amount of ram correctly on boot up but when I check the ram in System Information it only reports 768 megs of ram. Microsoft Support was unable to help. Is this a mb problem? I am running WindowsXP on an AMD Athlon 1.1 Ghz computer. The mb is ASUS.

All of the memory sticks are ok.

Sure would appreciate some help on this. Thanks very much!

Windows might report a WRONG memory size, but that is a quite way off even for a miss report.

I do know that if you have 1Gig RAM it thinks it has 998 Meg or RAM, but 768 is a bit far fetched here.

So what i think might be going on here is that AT THE BIOS LEVEL, it's most likely that you have SHARED memory with your Video card, or who know what else.

What is the "suppose size" of your Video card RAM?

hmm.. but even if Hypotetically that's the case, that still wont explaine the rest of the missing 180 to 200+ meg.

at the moment nothing comes to mind, what else in WinXP can we consuming that much RAM.

i've used XP in my system and i have 2Gig or RAM, but it did report 2048 meg when you looked it up on any memory detection screen in WinXP.

As for the 2 x 256 + 1 x 512

it might be just the way how XP detects the RAM, that might be going crazy.

but if in DOS and BIOS, inlcuding sandra reports the full 1024 meg, i think you should be fine.

just ignore WinXP, you know how buggy windows is.

[Duckycards]

Hi again.

i1zombie: No amount of ram memory is too much if you can get it cheap enough. I was running with 512 (two 256's) and had a chance to get a good deal on a 512 module so I bought it. I couldn't believe the difference I saw in performance immediately. I won't say I couldn't get by with less, but it sure made a big difference. I do a lot of multitasking and work with a lot of large graphic files and my printer is running most of the time. That takes a lot of memory. Anyway... what's wrong with more memory than you need if you can get it cheap enough?

AllGamer: Thanks for your information. I do think all of the installed ram is available to Windows. You're right.... Windows is BUGGY! :)

[AllGamer]

Originally posted by Duckycards
Hi again.

i1zombie: No amount of ram memory is too much if you can get it cheap enough. I was running with 512 (two 256's) and had a chance to get a good deal on a 512 module so I bought it. I couldn't believe the difference I saw in performance immediately. I won't say I couldn't get by with less, but it sure made a big difference. I do a lot of multitasking and work with a lot of large graphic files and my printer is running most of the time. That takes a lot of memory. Anyway... what's wrong with more memory than you need if you can get it cheap enough?

AllGamer: Thanks for your information. I do think all of the installed ram is available to Windows. You're right.... Windows is BUGGY! :)


i Agree with you, since when too much memory is too much, when you can really USE IT UP, and can affort to buy it, cheap or not.

hey if you want your computer to "work" then you need to provide it with whatever it needs to work properly, and to work good.

before i got my new system with 2 Gig or ram, every one i knew, friend, families, co wokers, you name it, has been telling me i was nuts to waste that money in that much RAM and that i'll have trouble with programs.

well now the fact is, they want to do the same, but RAM prices has sky rocketed again

lucky me, i saw the good time to buy, kinda like buying stocks man.

and 2nd fact, the only program not counting Win9x (which are known, yet with workaround), is with the QuickCam installation Software.
if it's already installed, then it works.
just the install was going crazy.

and it was really a stupid MSI error

see all the time, again is MS themself who screw things up.

But they fixed that, after i bugged them about it, and they released a new installer.

that's it, that's all.

for everything else, i can do all kind of crazy stuff, in real time with no problem multitasking between Games, TV, Java, and tons of other stuff loaded in real time together, and ALT+TAB bing among these back and forth without a problem.

Geez if i knew this sooner, long time ago i'll have solved heck a lot of problems with Wiindoze, dying out on me when Editing huge files, graphical or other program files.

yeah all these extra rams makes it easier for coding trainers for games, since it makes it easier to switch back and forth without USING a SWAP or PAGEFILE at all.

just plain all RAM.

in DOS and Win 3.11 it makes heck a lot of a Super FAST HDD by loading it with RAMdrive.

DOS maxes out at 64 meg.

anways... time to go for a nap