|
| | | | Post in reply to: Colin Barnhorst
Right. I agree with you there. As I said, I did contact the DIMM manufacturer
and get the exact timing and voltage to use with this memory as well as this
motherboard. They also said that each DIMM is embedded with the SPD which
tells the BIOS which timing and voltage to use. In this case, they are cas
latency 5, ras cas 5, row precharged delay 5 and voltage 1.8. I even hard-set
these in the BIOS to override the SPD with the same results. To me, this
eliminates the SPD as the problem. The BIOS had read it properly and set it
for the DIMMS in the first place.
And, I contacted AMD, the manufacturer or the Phenom 9500 in order to
investigate any issues there - with the memory controller or something else.
ASUS, Kingston and AMD all say that the BIOS is properly reading the SPD in
the DIMMS and utilizing all the RAM. They each say this is an OS issue.
Microsoft will not discuss the issue with me for less than $59 despite the
fact that I paid full price for both Microsoft Os' in use on the computer.
When one pays $399 for an operating system, they should get better treatment.
This is the first incident I ever brought here. All previous issues that
MIGHT be Microsoft-related I handled alone, with friends, or with Microsoft
in the first 90 days. For one thing, although I have been using computers
almost daily since 1978, I am not a good typist and it takes a long time to
write these messages and remove most of the errors.
I had hoped to run into someone with my same motherboard, cpu, memory and
Windows Vista Ultimate SP1 64-bit edition, to see how they make it all play
nicely together. That would have been great, but since it didn't happen, I
get to deal with real life on life's terms.
Frankly, all I am left to do is to examine the issue from all possible
sides, and try those solutions which are the least destructive and seem most
likely to work.
|
| |
| | | | | Post in reply to: Colin Barnhorst
If you read the entire article you will find lots of discussion about
requiring 64 bit Vista in some situations and at lease one reference to 64
bit Vista with 8GB installed.
|
| |
| | | | | Post in reply to: MrKit
If you a retail copy of the OS then you are entitled to free installation
support, period. The only other possibility is an OEM pack, and you would
be out of luck there. The purchaser of an OEM pack is responsible for
supporting the customer for whom he installed the software.
I would simplify. I would get XP off for the time being. I would focus on
Vista because it is the one that can access 8GB of ram. XP can't anyway.
You can always reinstall XP from an image to a second partition or drive and
do the usual repair of the dual-boot startup from the MS KB article on
installing XP second, or by using VistaBoot Pro. It is really hard to
troubleshoot a computer as it is and simplification is priceless. In fact,
it is an art form. 
|
| |
| | | | | Post in reply to: Curious
Yes, it points out that x64 is required to access all of 4GB of ram. That
is the workaround.
But the issue involving not seeing all of 4GB does not bear on x64. It is a
problem peculiar to the 32bit clients. The KB is complex. It first
addresses a Windows 32bit issue only, the effect of the BIOS reserving
memory for devices. You'll notice through the whole first half that all the
references are specifically 32bit Windows.
The subject changes midway, beginning with the Workaround. At that point it
discusses the requirements for x64 to see 4GB with 4GB installed. Most
64bit computers meet these requirements now. I did have one AMD64 x2 box
that needed the BIOS memory remapping option turned off or I would only see
3.5GB. But the Workaround does not help the 32bit Windows user. Notice
that the last bullet in the Workaround states a 64bit edition of Windows is
required.
Then comes the whole business about PAE which is pretty irrelevant to how
much memory can be accessed by the OS. It is relevant to program space, but
by this time the KB has suffered severe mission creep and the PAE part
should have been merely a link to the same info elsewhere.
PAE gets some techies excited but PAE can never be fully implemented in a
Windows client now. Its use for extending memory addressing also requires a
carefully controlled computing environement. All hardware and software must
be PAE aware. The use of non-PAE compliant software would bring a system to
its knees. That's why you only see support written into server editions of
Windows. When was the last time you checked Ad-Aware to see if it was PAE
compatible?
|
| |
| | | | | Post in reply to: Colin Barnhorst
Everything you say is true. I posted the link since their was some
information in it that applied to the subject of this thread and which might
be of benefit to MrKit. I certainly was not trying to imply that the link's
content would solve the Op's problem.
|
| |
| | | | | Post in reply to: Curious
It's a good link. I usually snip all but the 32bit stuff. Frankly I'll be
glad to see the issue die of old age someday when all new computers come
with 64bit Windows. Most users just don't have the computer background to
sort it out.
|
| |
| | | | | Post in reply to: Colin Barnhorst
Actually, it is not about program space (virtual address space), because
that does not change in pae mode. It only affects (bad) drivers that
takes for granted that nothing will ever exists above 4G. Normal
applications never sees anything more than 32bit addresses, and there
cannot be affected.
|
| |
| | | | | Post in reply to: Colin Barnhorst
I installed Vista initially about 18 months ago. The 90-day tech support has
long since expired. I mentioned that in at least a couple of my earlier
messages.
Both Windows XP Pro 64-bit AND Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit claim to be
able to use 8GB of memory.
I repeat something else I said more than once before - I will NOT be
removing my XP installation. It works, and I use it for things I cannot do in
Vista. It is much faster than Vista. There are many things that work in XP
and not Vista. Besides all that, it takes too long and is a big hassle to
re-install XP and then call in and beg for an activation when it won't
activate over the internet because so many tech support people in the
beginning told me to uninstall it. I used up the standard number of allowed
XP installs just doing what Microsoft said way back then.
So, since I am unwilling to remove XP, I am only looking for solutions that
do not require me to remove Windows XP, especially since no one has presented
one shred of evidence that XP is causing any kind of problem whatsoever. I
won't destroy something that's working in order to fight with something that
isn't working.
This is computer science, not an art class. Computers are black-and-white.
Art is relative.
|
| |
| | | | | Post in reply to: MrKit
Colin is the guru of 8GB memory support and addressing in this and several
other newsgroups.
He assumed that when you mentioned XP that you did not mean the 64bit
version of XP.
All versions of Vista can run 64 bit vista and can support more the 4GB of
memory. The 32bit versions can not support more the 4GB for any one process
however.
One difference between memory support in memory support in XP and in Vista
is that when Vista boots it will test the speed of all the memory to insure
that it is all running at the same speed. If it is not then it only
recognizes the slower memory.
|
| |
| | | | | Post in reply to: Curious
That is a job for the BIOS. It programs the memory controller, not the OS.
|
| |
| |
|