total memory available is only 3.3GB with 4GB physical memory under windows 7 64 bit 11-29-09

I had 4GB physical memoryon the PC. With Windows vista 32 bit,
available memory is shown as 3.3GB.  I asked and was told that only
under 64 bit windows, will the available memory be 4GB.  When I
upgraded to windows 7, I chosed 64 bit, but the available memory shown
in the system is still 3.3 GB. 

Why is this and is there a way to make the full 4GB available?

It's possible that my video card is using RAM instead of its own RAM.
If I install a video card with its own RAM, will the full 4GB be
available?

Thanks.
0
someone
11/29/2009 7:56:16 PM
windows.64bit.general 524 articles. 1 followers. Follow

22 Replies
858 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 36

Little has changed in this respect in Windows 7.

Starting with Vista SP1, Windows now 'reports all of the installed RAM', 
instead of only what is available to the OS.

However, nothing has changed as far as what is available to the OS. As 
others have stated, with 4GB RAM installed, around 2.5 to 3.6GB will be 
available, depending on the system.

Hope this helps.

And read the Microsoft KB @ http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605/en-us


someone@somewhere.com wrote:
> I had 4GB physical memoryon the PC. With Windows vista 32 bit,
> available memory is shown as 3.3GB.  I asked and was told that only
> under 64 bit windows, will the available memory be 4GB.  When I
> upgraded to windows 7, I chosed 64 bit, but the available memory shown
> in the system is still 3.3 GB. 
> 
> Why is this and is there a way to make the full 4GB available?
> 
> It's possible that my video card is using RAM instead of its own RAM.
> If I install a video card with its own RAM, will the full 4GB be
> available?
> 
> Thanks.
0
Bobby
11/29/2009 8:17:02 PM
?:
        You need to verify that the ram remapping above 4GB is enabled in 
the bios to read the full system ram. Have a great day.

-- 
Dennis Pack
Win-7 Enterprise x64, Win-7 Professional x64.
<someone@somewhere.com> wrote in message 
news:1ek5h5dth9fp23vd7ii587aut0plsvtig9@4ax.com...
>I had 4GB physical memoryon the PC. With Windows vista 32 bit,
> available memory is shown as 3.3GB.  I asked and was told that only
> under 64 bit windows, will the available memory be 4GB.  When I
> upgraded to windows 7, I chosed 64 bit, but the available memory shown
> in the system is still 3.3 GB.
>
> Why is this and is there a way to make the full 4GB available?
>
> It's possible that my video card is using RAM instead of its own RAM.
> If I install a video card with its own RAM, will the full 4GB be
> available?
>
> Thanks.
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus 
> signature database 4647 (20091129) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
> 


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4647 (20091129) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com



0
Dennis
11/29/2009 8:23:29 PM
32-bit Windows can address a maximum of 4GB. Graphics memory and system 
BIOSes are included in the 4GB, so available addresses for RAM are less: 
usually from about 3.5GB down to 2.7GB or so if a very large graphics 
card is fitted.

64-bit Windows can address a much larger space, so provided the BIOS 
allows the hardware addresses to be mapped above 4GB the full 4GB of RAM 
- or more if fitted - can be addressed and used.

If you use onboard graphics which uses system RAM whatever is allocated 
to graphics will not be available to applications. For 32-bit Windows it 
would make no difference if 4GB was fitted, but would if there was less. 
For 64-bit Windows separate physical graphics RAM is an advantage.


On 29/11/2009 19:56, someone@somewhere.com wrote:
> I had 4GB physical memoryon the PC. With Windows vista 32 bit,
> available memory is shown as 3.3GB.  I asked and was told that only
> under 64 bit windows, will the available memory be 4GB.  When I
> upgraded to windows 7, I chosed 64 bit, but the available memory shown
> in the system is still 3.3 GB.
>
> Why is this and is there a way to make the full 4GB available?
>
> It's possible that my video card is using RAM instead of its own RAM.
> If I install a video card with its own RAM, will the full 4GB be
> available?
>
> Thanks.
0
Dominic
11/29/2009 8:24:29 PM
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 14:56:16 -0500, someone@somewhere.com wrote:

> I had 4GB physical memoryon the PC. With Windows vista 32 bit,
> available memory is shown as 3.3GB. 


Three points here:

1. All 32-bit client versions of Windows (not just Vista/XP/7) have a
4GB address space (64-bit versions can use much more). That's the
theoretical upper limit beyond which you can not go. 

But you can't use the entire 4GB of address space. Even though you
have a 4GB address space, you can only use *around* 3.1GB of RAM.
That's because some of that space is used by hardware and is not
available to the operating system and applications. The amount you can
use varies, depending on what hardware you have installed, but can
range from as little as 2GB to as much as 3.5GB. It's usually around
3.1GB. 

Note that the hardware is using the address *space*, not the actual
RAM itself. If you have a greater amount of RAM, the rest of the RAM
goes unused because there is no address space to map it to. 

2. In SP1 and SP2, Vista now reports all the RAM that's installed, not
just what you can access. I think that's a very poor thing Microsoft
did, since it misleads people. Nevertheless, you need to tell us what
level of Vista it was. Was SP1 or SP2 installed? If so, what I said
above doesn't matter and all 4GB should be reported.

3. So if it was SP1 or SP2, and 3.3GB was reported, then that was all
there was. You presumably have on-motherboard video support rather
than a separate video card, and the rest of the RAM was used for that.
But .7GB seems like a very strange number for on-motherboard video
support.



> I asked and was told that only
> under 64 bit windows, will the available memory be 4GB.


Correct.


> When I
> upgraded to windows 7, I chosed 64 bit, but the available memory shown
> in the system is still 3.3 GB. 
> 
> Why is this and is there a way to make the full 4GB available?
>
> It's possible that my video card is using RAM instead of its own RAM.


Your video card doesn't use System RAM. But again, if you have
on-motherboard video support instead of a video card, that's
presumably where the rest of RAM is being used, and whether Windows is
32-bit or 64-bit doesn't matter. (But again the amount seems very
strange)


> If I install a video card with its own RAM, will the full 4GB be
> available?


If it weren't for that .7GB being so strange, I would say that was
almost definitely your issue and yes, installing a video card would
solve the problem. But with that strange number, I'm not sure.

-- 
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
0
Ken
11/29/2009 9:51:46 PM
On 29/11/2009 in message <ijq5h5lbomqkm9qb9mv97h2qt20ndmio41@4ax.com> Ken 
Blake, MVP wrote:

>1. All 32-bit client versions of Windows (not just Vista/XP/7) have a
>4GB address space (64-bit versions can use much more). That's the
>theoretical upper limit beyond which you can not go.

The OP said he had installed Win7-64 though.

-- 
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
The facts, although interesting, are irrelevant
0
Jeff
11/29/2009 10:50:58 PM
I wrote an article & here's a short snippet.  Before you read let me 
wonder - why don't you search Forums because I have to paste my own article 
like 6 times already.

===============
As you know from Electrical Engineering basics, theoretical memory space is
defined by the address bus width.  In a binary system it's simply 2^N where
N is the address width.
In plain English:
If your Windows is 32-bit it can theoretically manage 2^32 = 4GB.
If your hardware (e.g. Intel945 chipset?) is 32 bit but Windows is 64 bit,
or hardware is 64bit but Windows is 32 bit it's still 4GB as obviously the
lower address width limits the system, and disregards 64 bit elsewhere.

The practical numbers are somewhat different:
a) Windows 32-bit claims a whopping 0.75GB for itself ("untouchable" by
you - the user) due to I/O overhead in a 4GB memory space leaving you with
ONLY 3.25GB of usable memory
Too long to explain but just accept it as a fact - almost a Gigabyte is
eaten by the BIOS, I/O, etc. memory addresses your applications cannot use.
b) On the upside you can go over 4GB EVEN in a 32-bit Windows if this
Windows is a Server, and not a Client version.
There's a 99.9% chance you running a Client and not Server Windows, so your
usable memory is therefore:
3.25GB  But I don't know exactly what Win version you run, so you can
calculate by understanding this article, i.e if you're so advanced as to
have Windows SERVER edition, then even in 32-bit configuration it can "page"
more than 4GB.

Now why I say you didn't waste money.
How much did you pay for 4GB and how much WOULD you pay for 3GB?  The
$dollar difference as of September2009 is NOT worth any regret.
You'd lose pennies, stop worrying & have at least 4GB.  Also better if you
install memory modules "symmetrically" which, as a consequence, also means
you'd have an even number of memory units.
In plain English, it's better to install two modules 2GB+2GB = 4GB, than
2GB+1GB = 3GB which is assymetric, although such may not longer be of any
importance for new computers, in the past it was an issue.  Still I
recommend not to play with assymetry for DDR2 memory, I don't know about
DDR3 and this example covers 4GB.  You might have 4GB+4GB=8GB for example,
for 64-bit Windows AND 64-bit hardware as a requirement.
Why would anyone need 8GB?  Well, I even need MORE - 16GB for
CAD/Engineering & Graphics design work, so I can lots of memory running
heavy-duty engineering simulations.
Plus it stimulates industry (but hurts environment) heheh....

So memory space is defined by 3 factors:
OS bit width
Hardware bitwidth
Whether your Windows addressing is using virtuial/paging/etc to bypass
normal addressing limted to 2^N - i.e. is it a regular Win Client or Server,
and how much your Windows wastes for itself (overhead)
I am not likely to check your further questions, so dont ask :)  I am too
busy, maybe others will help more.
Just get 4GB and be done with it.

BUT IF YOU NEED 1GB+1GB MODULES = 2GB of laptop, DDR667 speed memory, let me
know - I can ship for free (you just pay shipping by Post Office in USA or
abroad), I removed them and replaced with 8GB on my laptop.  I am too lazy
to write ads and sell it, just take for free.  I maybe back here to check
your response for thsi reason only.

0
Stan
11/29/2009 11:34:28 PM
As you know from Electrical Engineering basics, theoretical memory space is
defined by the address bus width.  In a binary system it's simply 2^N where
N is the address width.
In plain English:
If your Windows is 32-bit it can theoretically manage 2^32 = 4GB.
If your hardware (e.g. Intel945 chipset?) is 32 bit but Windows is 64 bit,
or hardware is 64bit but Windows is 32 bit it's still 4GB as obviously the
lower address width limits the system, and disregards 64 bit elsewhere.

The practical numbers are somewhat different:
a) Windows 32-bit claims a whopping 0.75GB for itself ("untouchable" by
you - the user) due to I/O overhead in a 4GB memory space leaving you with
ONLY 3.25GB of usable memory
Too long to explain but just accept it as a fact - almost a Gigabyte is
eaten by the BIOS, I/O, etc. memory addresses your applications cannot use.
b) On the upside you can go over 4GB EVEN in a 32-bit Windows if this
Windows is a Server, and not a Client version.
There's a 99.9% chance you running a Client and not Server Windows, so your
usable memory is therefore:
3.25GB  But I don't know exactly what Win version you run, so you can
calculate by understanding this article, i.e if you're so advanced as to
have Windows SERVER edition, then even in 32-bit configuration it can "page"
more than 4GB.

Now why I say you didn't waste money.
How much did you pay for 4GB and how much WOULD you pay for 3GB?  The
$dollar difference as of September2009 is NOT worth any regret.
You'd lose pennies, stop worrying & have at least 4GB.  Also better if you
install memory modules "symmetrically" which, as a consequence, also means
you'd have an even number of memory units.
In plain English, it's better to install two modules 2GB+2GB = 4GB, than
2GB+1GB = 3GB which is assymetric, although such may not longer be of any
importance for new computers, in the past it was an issue.  Still I
recommend not to play with assymetry for DDR2 memory, I don't know about
DDR3 and this example covers 4GB.  You might have 4GB+4GB=8GB for example,
for 64-bit Windows AND 64-bit hardware as a requirement.
Why would anyone need 8GB?  Well, I even need MORE - 16GB for
CAD/Engineering & Graphics design work, so I can lots of memory running
heavy-duty engineering simulations.
Plus it stimulates industry (but hurts environment) heheh....

So memory space is defined by 3 factors:
OS bit width
Hardware bitwidth
Whether your Windows addressing is using virtuial/paging/etc to bypass
normal addressing limted to 2^N - i.e. is it a regular Win Client or Server,
and how much your Windows wastes for itself (overhead)
I am not likely to check your further questions, so dont ask :)  I am too
busy, maybe others will help more.
Just get 4GB and be done with it.

BUT IF YOU NEED 1GB+1GB MODULES = 2GB of laptop, DDR667 speed memory, let me
know - I can ship for free (you just pay shipping by Post Office in USA or
abroad), I removed them and replaced with 8GB on my laptop.  I am too lazy
to write ads and sell it, just take for free.  I maybe back here to check
your response for thsi reason only.

0
Stan
11/29/2009 11:59:38 PM
The original post is confusing. 64 bit isn't a regular upgrade from 32 bit. 
It would require a custom or clean install. It appears that the OP might 
have just upgraded 32 bit Vista to 32 bit Windows 7 and thus the same amount 
of ram is being reported.

Wayne

"Jeff Gaines" <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:xn0gi8ml3231b2p006@msnews.microsoft.com...
> On 29/11/2009 in message <ijq5h5lbomqkm9qb9mv97h2qt20ndmio41@4ax.com> Ken 
> Blake, MVP wrote:
>
>>1. All 32-bit client versions of Windows (not just Vista/XP/7) have a
>>4GB address space (64-bit versions can use much more). That's the
>>theoretical upper limit beyond which you can not go.
>
> The OP said he had installed Win7-64 though.
>
> -- 
> Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
> The facts, although interesting, are irrelevant 

0
wayneP
11/30/2009 4:37:13 PM
Like others said, the OP most likely needs to remap memory above the 4GB 
barrier (in the BIOS).

John

wayneP wrote:
> The original post is confusing. 64 bit isn't a regular upgrade from 32 
> bit. It would require a custom or clean install. It appears that the OP 
> might have just upgraded 32 bit Vista to 32 bit Windows 7 and thus the 
> same amount of ram is being reported.
> 
> Wayne
> 
> "Jeff Gaines" <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message 
> news:xn0gi8ml3231b2p006@msnews.microsoft.com...
>> On 29/11/2009 in message <ijq5h5lbomqkm9qb9mv97h2qt20ndmio41@4ax.com> 
>> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>>
>>> 1. All 32-bit client versions of Windows (not just Vista/XP/7) have a
>>> 4GB address space (64-bit versions can use much more). That's the
>>> theoretical upper limit beyond which you can not go.
>>
>> The OP said he had installed Win7-64 though.
>>
>> -- 
>> Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
>> The facts, although interesting, are irrelevant 
> 
0
John
11/30/2009 5:07:02 PM
I thought recent mobos did memory remapping by default. I know there is no 
option in the BIOS of my A780GM-A Ultra to remap memory. With my recently 
installed Vista 64, there is an indication that there is 3.75 GB of memory 
(2x2 GB sticks) installed and 2.52 is available. The onboard video is using 
256 MB and I assume other system devices and/or processes account for the 
remainder of the difference between 3.75 and 2.52.

Wayne

"John John - MVP" <audetweld@nbnot.nb.ca> wrote in message 
news:#bmjJ#dcKHA.5472@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Like others said, the OP most likely needs to remap memory above the 4GB 
> barrier (in the BIOS).
>
> John
>
> wayneP wrote:
>> The original post is confusing. 64 bit isn't a regular upgrade from 32 
>> bit. It would require a custom or clean install. It appears that the OP 
>> might have just upgraded 32 bit Vista to 32 bit Windows 7 and thus the 
>> same amount of ram is being reported.
>>
>> Wayne
>>
>> "Jeff Gaines" <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message 
>> news:xn0gi8ml3231b2p006@msnews.microsoft.com...
>>> On 29/11/2009 in message <ijq5h5lbomqkm9qb9mv97h2qt20ndmio41@4ax.com> 
>>> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>>>
>>>> 1. All 32-bit client versions of Windows (not just Vista/XP/7) have a
>>>> 4GB address space (64-bit versions can use much more). That's the
>>>> theoretical upper limit beyond which you can not go.
>>>
>>> The OP said he had installed Win7-64 though.
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
>>> The facts, although interesting, are irrelevant
>> 
0
wayneP
11/30/2009 7:42:28 PM
If you have 4GB installed and if the onboard video is using 256MB then 
the remaining 3.75GB should be available to your x64 operating system. 
Where do you see that only 2.52GB is installed?  I don't know what you 
are running on your computer but unless you are running very hungry 
applications I have a hard time believing that your processes are using 
1.25GB of RAM!

This (lost RAM) is an addressing issue only, the hardware doesn't use 
the lost RAM nor does the operating system.  The hardware reserves 
addresses at the top of the memory range just under the 4GB barrier so 
that it can communicate directly with the processor, in turn the 
reserved addresses are not available for the installed RAM so you cannot 
see or use all the RAM (on 32-bit Windows), the RAM is without addresses 
so it goes unused.  The way around the problem is to remap the RAM 
without addresses above the 4GB barrier and to use a 64-bit or PAE 
capable operating system to access the memory above the 4GB barrier.

John

wayneP wrote:
> I thought recent mobos did memory remapping by default. I know there is 
> no option in the BIOS of my A780GM-A Ultra to remap memory. With my 
> recently installed Vista 64, there is an indication that there is 3.75 
> GB of memory (2x2 GB sticks) installed and 2.52 is available. The 
> onboard video is using 256 MB and I assume other system devices and/or 
> processes account for the remainder of the difference between 3.75 and 
> 2.52.
> 
> Wayne
> 
> "John John - MVP" <audetweld@nbnot.nb.ca> wrote in message 
> news:#bmjJ#dcKHA.5472@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> Like others said, the OP most likely needs to remap memory above the 
>> 4GB barrier (in the BIOS).
>>
>> John
>>
>> wayneP wrote:
>>> The original post is confusing. 64 bit isn't a regular upgrade from 
>>> 32 bit. It would require a custom or clean install. It appears that 
>>> the OP might have just upgraded 32 bit Vista to 32 bit Windows 7 and 
>>> thus the same amount of ram is being reported.
>>>
>>> Wayne
>>>
>>> "Jeff Gaines" <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message 
>>> news:xn0gi8ml3231b2p006@msnews.microsoft.com...
>>>> On 29/11/2009 in message 
>>>> <ijq5h5lbomqkm9qb9mv97h2qt20ndmio41@4ax.com> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 1. All 32-bit client versions of Windows (not just Vista/XP/7) have a
>>>>> 4GB address space (64-bit versions can use much more). That's the
>>>>> theoretical upper limit beyond which you can not go.
>>>>
>>>> The OP said he had installed Win7-64 though.
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
>>>> The facts, although interesting, are irrelevant
>>>
0
John
11/30/2009 9:07:52 PM
John John - MVP wrote:
> If you have 4GB installed and if the onboard video is using 256MB then 
> the remaining 3.75GB should be available to your x64 operating system. 
> Where do you see that only 2.52GB is installed?  I don't know what you 
> are running on your computer but unless you are running very hungry 
> applications I have a hard time believing that your processes are using 
> 1.25GB of RAM!
> 
> This (lost RAM) is an addressing issue only, the hardware doesn't use 
> the lost RAM nor does the operating system.  The hardware reserves 
> addresses at the top of the memory range just under the 4GB barrier so 
> that it can communicate directly with the processor, in turn the 
> reserved addresses are not available for the installed RAM so you cannot 
> see or use all the RAM (on 32-bit Windows), the RAM is without addresses 
> so it goes unused.  The way around the problem is to remap the RAM 
> without addresses above the 4GB barrier and to use a 64-bit or PAE 
> capable operating system to access the memory above the 4GB barrier.
> 
> John
> 
> wayneP wrote:
>> I thought recent mobos did memory remapping by default. I know there 
>> is no option in the BIOS of my A780GM-A Ultra to remap memory. With my 
>> recently installed Vista 64, there is an indication that there is 3.75 
>> GB of memory (2x2 GB sticks) installed and 2.52 is available. The 
>> onboard video is using 256 MB and I assume other system devices and/or 
>> processes account for the remainder of the difference between 3.75 and 
>> 2.52.
>>
>> Wayne
>>
>> "John John - MVP" <audetweld@nbnot.nb.ca> wrote in message 
>> news:#bmjJ#dcKHA.5472@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>> Like others said, the OP most likely needs to remap memory above the 
>>> 4GB barrier (in the BIOS).
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> wayneP wrote:
>>>> The original post is confusing. 64 bit isn't a regular upgrade from 
>>>> 32 bit. It would require a custom or clean install. It appears that 
>>>> the OP might have just upgraded 32 bit Vista to 32 bit Windows 7 and 
>>>> thus the same amount of ram is being reported.
>>>>
>>>> Wayne
>>>>
>>>> "Jeff Gaines" <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message 
>>>> news:xn0gi8ml3231b2p006@msnews.microsoft.com...
>>>>> On 29/11/2009 in message 
>>>>> <ijq5h5lbomqkm9qb9mv97h2qt20ndmio41@4ax.com> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. All 32-bit client versions of Windows (not just Vista/XP/7) have a
>>>>>> 4GB address space (64-bit versions can use much more). That's the
>>>>>> theoretical upper limit beyond which you can not go.
>>>>>
>>>>> The OP said he had installed Win7-64 though.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
>>>>> The facts, although interesting, are irrelevant
>>>>
Hello
I have 64Bit Vista Ultiamte and 8Gb of RAM, the Operating System sees 
all of the RAM, when I was running 32bit Vista with 4Gb of RAM the most 
it could see was 2.25Gb due to the fact that I am running a pair of 
GPU's each with 512Mb of RAM.

Mike
0
Michael
11/30/2009 9:28:05 PM
Michael John Ruff wrote:
> John John - MVP wrote:
>> If you have 4GB installed and if the onboard video is using 256MB then 
>> the remaining 3.75GB should be available to your x64 operating system. 
>> Where do you see that only 2.52GB is installed?  I don't know what you 
>> are running on your computer but unless you are running very hungry 
>> applications I have a hard time believing that your processes are 
>> using 1.25GB of RAM!
>>
>> This (lost RAM) is an addressing issue only, the hardware doesn't use 
>> the lost RAM nor does the operating system.  The hardware reserves 
>> addresses at the top of the memory range just under the 4GB barrier so 
>> that it can communicate directly with the processor, in turn the 
>> reserved addresses are not available for the installed RAM so you 
>> cannot see or use all the RAM (on 32-bit Windows), the RAM is without 
>> addresses so it goes unused.  The way around the problem is to remap 
>> the RAM without addresses above the 4GB barrier and to use a 64-bit or 
>> PAE capable operating system to access the memory above the 4GB barrier.
>>
>> John
>>
>> wayneP wrote:
>>> I thought recent mobos did memory remapping by default. I know there 
>>> is no option in the BIOS of my A780GM-A Ultra to remap memory. With 
>>> my recently installed Vista 64, there is an indication that there is 
>>> 3.75 GB of memory (2x2 GB sticks) installed and 2.52 is available. 
>>> The onboard video is using 256 MB and I assume other system devices 
>>> and/or processes account for the remainder of the difference between 
>>> 3.75 and 2.52.
>>>
>>> Wayne
>>>
>>> "John John - MVP" <audetweld@nbnot.nb.ca> wrote in message 
>>> news:#bmjJ#dcKHA.5472@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>> Like others said, the OP most likely needs to remap memory above the 
>>>> 4GB barrier (in the BIOS).
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>> wayneP wrote:
>>>>> The original post is confusing. 64 bit isn't a regular upgrade from 
>>>>> 32 bit. It would require a custom or clean install. It appears that 
>>>>> the OP might have just upgraded 32 bit Vista to 32 bit Windows 7 
>>>>> and thus the same amount of ram is being reported.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wayne
>>>>>
>>>>> "Jeff Gaines" <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message 
>>>>> news:xn0gi8ml3231b2p006@msnews.microsoft.com...
>>>>>> On 29/11/2009 in message 
>>>>>> <ijq5h5lbomqkm9qb9mv97h2qt20ndmio41@4ax.com> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. All 32-bit client versions of Windows (not just Vista/XP/7) 
>>>>>>> have a
>>>>>>> 4GB address space (64-bit versions can use much more). That's the
>>>>>>> theoretical upper limit beyond which you can not go.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The OP said he had installed Win7-64 though.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
>>>>>> The facts, although interesting, are irrelevant
>>>>>
> Hello
> I have 64Bit Vista Ultiamte and 8Gb of RAM, the Operating System sees 
> all of the RAM, when I was running 32bit Vista with 4Gb of RAM the most 
> it could see was 2.25Gb due to the fact that I am running a pair of 
> GPU's each with 512Mb of RAM.

Not all machines do this automatic remapping, true that it is to be 
expected on newer machines but don't bet the farm that all machines do it.

John
0
John
11/30/2009 9:58:05 PM
I'm running Vista x64 Ultimate and under System Tools there is a System Info 
option. This isn't something I look at regularly but I did check it just 
after I rebuilt this machine with a tri-core Phenom II and installed x64.

In there it shows Total Physical Memory and Available Physical Memory. This 
is where I saw 2.52 GB available memory (not 2,52 installed) before posting 
yesterday. This number changes and this AM it is showing 3.00 GB. The fact 
that it changes led me to believe that the number has something to do with 
what is running on the machine at the given time.

Wayne

"John John - MVP" <audetweld@nbnot.nb.ca> wrote in message 
news:#HyouEgcKHA.4724@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> If you have 4GB installed and if the onboard video is using 256MB then the 
> remaining 3.75GB should be available to your x64 operating system. Where 
> do you see that only 2.52GB is installed?  I don't know what you are 
> running on your computer but unless you are running very hungry 
> applications I have a hard time believing that your processes are using 
> 1.25GB of RAM!
>
> This (lost RAM) is an addressing issue only, the hardware doesn't use the 
> lost RAM nor does the operating system.  The hardware reserves addresses 
> at the top of the memory range just under the 4GB barrier so that it can 
> communicate directly with the processor, in turn the reserved addresses 
> are not available for the installed RAM so you cannot see or use all the 
> RAM (on 32-bit Windows), the RAM is without addresses so it goes unused. 
> The way around the problem is to remap the RAM without addresses above the 
> 4GB barrier and to use a 64-bit or PAE capable operating system to access 
> the memory above the 4GB barrier.
>
> John
>
> wayneP wrote:
>> I thought recent mobos did memory remapping by default. I know there is 
>> no option in the BIOS of my A780GM-A Ultra to remap memory. With my 
>> recently installed Vista 64, there is an indication that there is 3.75 GB 
>> of memory (2x2 GB sticks) installed and 2.52 is available. The onboard 
>> video is using 256 MB and I assume other system devices and/or processes 
>> account for the remainder of the difference between 3.75 and 2.52.
>>
>> Wayne
>>
>> "John John - MVP" <audetweld@nbnot.nb.ca> wrote in message 
>> news:#bmjJ#dcKHA.5472@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>> Like others said, the OP most likely needs to remap memory above the 4GB 
>>> barrier (in the BIOS).
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> wayneP wrote:
>>>> The original post is confusing. 64 bit isn't a regular upgrade from 32 
>>>> bit. It would require a custom or clean install. It appears that the OP 
>>>> might have just upgraded 32 bit Vista to 32 bit Windows 7 and thus the 
>>>> same amount of ram is being reported.
>>>>
>>>> Wayne
>>>>
>>>> "Jeff Gaines" <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message 
>>>> news:xn0gi8ml3231b2p006@msnews.microsoft.com...
>>>>> On 29/11/2009 in message <ijq5h5lbomqkm9qb9mv97h2qt20ndmio41@4ax.com> 
>>>>> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. All 32-bit client versions of Windows (not just Vista/XP/7) have a
>>>>>> 4GB address space (64-bit versions can use much more). That's the
>>>>>> theoretical upper limit beyond which you can not go.
>>>>>
>>>>> The OP said he had installed Win7-64 though.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
>>>>> The facts, although interesting, are irrelevant
>>>> 
0
wayneP
12/1/2009 1:57:48 PM
You are quite right, it depends on how many programs/processes are running.
This little gadget:
http://addgadget.com/all_cpu_meter/
might help you understand your memory use, besides the cpu load on each core.
It shows you the used, free and total memory.
Carlos

"wayneP" wrote:

> I'm running Vista x64 Ultimate and under System Tools there is a System Info 
> option. This isn't something I look at regularly but I did check it just 
> after I rebuilt this machine with a tri-core Phenom II and installed x64.
> 
> In there it shows Total Physical Memory and Available Physical Memory. This 
> is where I saw 2.52 GB available memory (not 2,52 installed) before posting 
> yesterday. This number changes and this AM it is showing 3.00 GB. The fact 
> that it changes led me to believe that the number has something to do with 
> what is running on the machine at the given time.
> 
> Wayne
> 
> "John John - MVP" <audetweld@nbnot.nb.ca> wrote in message 
> news:#HyouEgcKHA.4724@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> > If you have 4GB installed and if the onboard video is using 256MB then the 
> > remaining 3.75GB should be available to your x64 operating system. Where 
> > do you see that only 2.52GB is installed?  I don't know what you are 
> > running on your computer but unless you are running very hungry 
> > applications I have a hard time believing that your processes are using 
> > 1.25GB of RAM!
> >
> > This (lost RAM) is an addressing issue only, the hardware doesn't use the 
> > lost RAM nor does the operating system.  The hardware reserves addresses 
> > at the top of the memory range just under the 4GB barrier so that it can 
> > communicate directly with the processor, in turn the reserved addresses 
> > are not available for the installed RAM so you cannot see or use all the 
> > RAM (on 32-bit Windows), the RAM is without addresses so it goes unused. 
> > The way around the problem is to remap the RAM without addresses above the 
> > 4GB barrier and to use a 64-bit or PAE capable operating system to access 
> > the memory above the 4GB barrier.
> >
> > John
> >
> > wayneP wrote:
> >> I thought recent mobos did memory remapping by default. I know there is 
> >> no option in the BIOS of my A780GM-A Ultra to remap memory. With my 
> >> recently installed Vista 64, there is an indication that there is 3.75 GB 
> >> of memory (2x2 GB sticks) installed and 2.52 is available. The onboard 
> >> video is using 256 MB and I assume other system devices and/or processes 
> >> account for the remainder of the difference between 3.75 and 2.52.
> >>
> >> Wayne
> >>
> >> "John John - MVP" <audetweld@nbnot.nb.ca> wrote in message 
> >> news:#bmjJ#dcKHA.5472@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> >>> Like others said, the OP most likely needs to remap memory above the 4GB 
> >>> barrier (in the BIOS).
> >>>
> >>> John
> >>>
> >>> wayneP wrote:
> >>>> The original post is confusing. 64 bit isn't a regular upgrade from 32 
> >>>> bit. It would require a custom or clean install. It appears that the OP 
> >>>> might have just upgraded 32 bit Vista to 32 bit Windows 7 and thus the 
> >>>> same amount of ram is being reported.
> >>>>
> >>>> Wayne
> >>>>
> >>>> "Jeff Gaines" <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message 
> >>>> news:xn0gi8ml3231b2p006@msnews.microsoft.com...
> >>>>> On 29/11/2009 in message <ijq5h5lbomqkm9qb9mv97h2qt20ndmio41@4ax.com> 
> >>>>> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> 1. All 32-bit client versions of Windows (not just Vista/XP/7) have a
> >>>>>> 4GB address space (64-bit versions can use much more). That's the
> >>>>>> theoretical upper limit beyond which you can not go.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The OP said he had installed Win7-64 though.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -- 
> >>>>> Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
> >>>>> The facts, although interesting, are irrelevant
> >>>> 
0
Utf
12/1/2009 3:34:01 PM
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 08:57:48 -0500, "wayneP" <meatprivacydotnet> wrote:

> I'm running Vista x64 Ultimate and under System Tools there is a System Info 
> option. This isn't something I look at regularly but I did check it just 
> after I rebuilt this machine with a tri-core Phenom II and installed x64.
> 
> In there it shows Total Physical Memory and Available Physical Memory. This 
> is where I saw 2.52 GB available memory (not 2,52 installed) before posting 
> yesterday. This number changes and this AM it is showing 3.00 GB. The fact 
> that it changes led me to believe that the number has something to do with 
> what is running on the machine at the given time.


What you say is correct. Available physical memory is the difference
between the total amount of RAM and what is in use at the time.

If you typically have that much available memory, you have more RAM
installed than you need--more than what you do with your computer can
make effective use of.


 
> "John John - MVP" <audetweld@nbnot.nb.ca> wrote in message 
> news:#HyouEgcKHA.4724@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> > If you have 4GB installed and if the onboard video is using 256MB then the 
> > remaining 3.75GB should be available to your x64 operating system. Where 
> > do you see that only 2.52GB is installed?  I don't know what you are 
> > running on your computer but unless you are running very hungry 
> > applications I have a hard time believing that your processes are using 
> > 1.25GB of RAM!
> >
> > This (lost RAM) is an addressing issue only, the hardware doesn't use the 
> > lost RAM nor does the operating system.  The hardware reserves addresses 
> > at the top of the memory range just under the 4GB barrier so that it can 
> > communicate directly with the processor, in turn the reserved addresses 
> > are not available for the installed RAM so you cannot see or use all the 
> > RAM (on 32-bit Windows), the RAM is without addresses so it goes unused. 
> > The way around the problem is to remap the RAM without addresses above the 
> > 4GB barrier and to use a 64-bit or PAE capable operating system to access 
> > the memory above the 4GB barrier.
> >
> > John
> >
> > wayneP wrote:
> >> I thought recent mobos did memory remapping by default. I know there is 
> >> no option in the BIOS of my A780GM-A Ultra to remap memory. With my 
> >> recently installed Vista 64, there is an indication that there is 3.75 GB 
> >> of memory (2x2 GB sticks) installed and 2.52 is available. The onboard 
> >> video is using 256 MB and I assume other system devices and/or processes 
> >> account for the remainder of the difference between 3.75 and 2.52.
> >>
> >> Wayne
> >>
> >> "John John - MVP" <audetweld@nbnot.nb.ca> wrote in message 
> >> news:#bmjJ#dcKHA.5472@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> >>> Like others said, the OP most likely needs to remap memory above the 4GB 
> >>> barrier (in the BIOS).
> >>>
> >>> John
> >>>
> >>> wayneP wrote:
> >>>> The original post is confusing. 64 bit isn't a regular upgrade from 32 
> >>>> bit. It would require a custom or clean install. It appears that the OP 
> >>>> might have just upgraded 32 bit Vista to 32 bit Windows 7 and thus the 
> >>>> same amount of ram is being reported.
> >>>>
> >>>> Wayne
> >>>>
> >>>> "Jeff Gaines" <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message 
> >>>> news:xn0gi8ml3231b2p006@msnews.microsoft.com...
> >>>>> On 29/11/2009 in message <ijq5h5lbomqkm9qb9mv97h2qt20ndmio41@4ax.com> 
> >>>>> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> 1. All 32-bit client versions of Windows (not just Vista/XP/7) have a
> >>>>>> 4GB address space (64-bit versions can use much more). That's the
> >>>>>> theoretical upper limit beyond which you can not go.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The OP said he had installed Win7-64 though.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -- 
> >>>>> Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
> >>>>> The facts, although interesting, are irrelevant
> >>>> 

-- 
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
0
Ken
12/1/2009 4:47:07 PM
See attached for phyical and available memory as reported by Win7.

Thanks.

On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 08:57:48 -0500, "wayneP" <meatprivacydotnet> wrote:

>I'm running Vista x64 Ultimate and under System Tools there is a System Info 
>option. This isn't something I look at regularly but I did check it just 
>after I rebuilt this machine with a tri-core Phenom II and installed x64.
>
>In there it shows Total Physical Memory and Available Physical Memory. This 
>is where I saw 2.52 GB available memory (not 2,52 installed) before posting 
>yesterday. This number changes and this AM it is showing 3.00 GB. The fact 
>that it changes led me to believe that the number has something to do with 
>what is running on the machine at the given time.
>
>Wayne
>
>"John John - MVP" <audetweld@nbnot.nb.ca> wrote in message 
>news:#HyouEgcKHA.4724@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> If you have 4GB installed and if the onboard video is using 256MB then the 
>> remaining 3.75GB should be available to your x64 operating system. Where 
>> do you see that only 2.52GB is installed?  I don't know what you are 
>> running on your computer but unless you are running very hungry 
>> applications I have a hard time believing that your processes are using 
>> 1.25GB of RAM!
>>
>> This (lost RAM) is an addressing issue only, the hardware doesn't use the 
>> lost RAM nor does the operating system.  The hardware reserves addresses 
>> at the top of the memory range just under the 4GB barrier so that it can 
>> communicate directly with the processor, in turn the reserved addresses 
>> are not available for the installed RAM so you cannot see or use all the 
>> RAM (on 32-bit Windows), the RAM is without addresses so it goes unused. 
>> The way around the problem is to remap the RAM without addresses above the 
>> 4GB barrier and to use a 64-bit or PAE capable operating system to access 
>> the memory above the 4GB barrier.
>>
>> John
>>
>> wayneP wrote:
>>> I thought recent mobos did memory remapping by default. I know there is 
>>> no option in the BIOS of my A780GM-A Ultra to remap memory. With my 
>>> recently installed Vista 64, there is an indication that there is 3.75 GB 
>>> of memory (2x2 GB sticks) installed and 2.52 is available. The onboard 
>>> video is using 256 MB and I assume other system devices and/or processes 
>>> account for the remainder of the difference between 3.75 and 2.52.
>>>
>>> Wayne
>>>
>>> "John John - MVP" <audetweld@nbnot.nb.ca> wrote in message 
>>> news:#bmjJ#dcKHA.5472@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>> Like others said, the OP most likely needs to remap memory above the 4GB 
>>>> barrier (in the BIOS).
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>> wayneP wrote:
>>>>> The original post is confusing. 64 bit isn't a regular upgrade from 32 
>>>>> bit. It would require a custom or clean install. It appears that the OP 
>>>>> might have just upgraded 32 bit Vista to 32 bit Windows 7 and thus the 
>>>>> same amount of ram is being reported.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wayne
>>>>>
>>>>> "Jeff Gaines" <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message 
>>>>> news:xn0gi8ml3231b2p006@msnews.microsoft.com...
>>>>>> On 29/11/2009 in message <ijq5h5lbomqkm9qb9mv97h2qt20ndmio41@4ax.com> 
>>>>>> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. All 32-bit client versions of Windows (not just Vista/XP/7) have a
>>>>>>> 4GB address space (64-bit versions can use much more). That's the
>>>>>>> theoretical upper limit beyond which you can not go.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The OP said he had installed Win7-64 though.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
>>>>>> The facts, although interesting, are irrelevant
>>>>> 
0
someone
1/12/2010 4:00:13 AM
Attachement doesn't seemt to show up in previous post.

On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 23:00:13 -0500, someone@somewhere.com wrote:

>See attached for phyical and available memory as reported by Win7.
>
>Thanks.
>
>On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 08:57:48 -0500, "wayneP" <meatprivacydotnet> wrote:
>
>>I'm running Vista x64 Ultimate and under System Tools there is a System Info 
>>option. This isn't something I look at regularly but I did check it just 
>>after I rebuilt this machine with a tri-core Phenom II and installed x64.
>>
>>In there it shows Total Physical Memory and Available Physical Memory. This 
>>is where I saw 2.52 GB available memory (not 2,52 installed) before posting 
>>yesterday. This number changes and this AM it is showing 3.00 GB. The fact 
>>that it changes led me to believe that the number has something to do with 
>>what is running on the machine at the given time.
>>
>>Wayne
>>
>>"John John - MVP" <audetweld@nbnot.nb.ca> wrote in message 
>>news:#HyouEgcKHA.4724@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>> If you have 4GB installed and if the onboard video is using 256MB then the 
>>> remaining 3.75GB should be available to your x64 operating system. Where 
>>> do you see that only 2.52GB is installed?  I don't know what you are 
>>> running on your computer but unless you are running very hungry 
>>> applications I have a hard time believing that your processes are using 
>>> 1.25GB of RAM!
>>>
>>> This (lost RAM) is an addressing issue only, the hardware doesn't use the 
>>> lost RAM nor does the operating system.  The hardware reserves addresses 
>>> at the top of the memory range just under the 4GB barrier so that it can 
>>> communicate directly with the processor, in turn the reserved addresses 
>>> are not available for the installed RAM so you cannot see or use all the 
>>> RAM (on 32-bit Windows), the RAM is without addresses so it goes unused. 
>>> The way around the problem is to remap the RAM without addresses above the 
>>> 4GB barrier and to use a 64-bit or PAE capable operating system to access 
>>> the memory above the 4GB barrier.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> wayneP wrote:
>>>> I thought recent mobos did memory remapping by default. I know there is 
>>>> no option in the BIOS of my A780GM-A Ultra to remap memory. With my 
>>>> recently installed Vista 64, there is an indication that there is 3.75 GB 
>>>> of memory (2x2 GB sticks) installed and 2.52 is available. The onboard 
>>>> video is using 256 MB and I assume other system devices and/or processes 
>>>> account for the remainder of the difference between 3.75 and 2.52.
>>>>
>>>> Wayne
>>>>
>>>> "John John - MVP" <audetweld@nbnot.nb.ca> wrote in message 
>>>> news:#bmjJ#dcKHA.5472@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>>> Like others said, the OP most likely needs to remap memory above the 4GB 
>>>>> barrier (in the BIOS).
>>>>>
>>>>> John
>>>>>
>>>>> wayneP wrote:
>>>>>> The original post is confusing. 64 bit isn't a regular upgrade from 32 
>>>>>> bit. It would require a custom or clean install. It appears that the OP 
>>>>>> might have just upgraded 32 bit Vista to 32 bit Windows 7 and thus the 
>>>>>> same amount of ram is being reported.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wayne
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Jeff Gaines" <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message 
>>>>>> news:xn0gi8ml3231b2p006@msnews.microsoft.com...
>>>>>>> On 29/11/2009 in message <ijq5h5lbomqkm9qb9mv97h2qt20ndmio41@4ax.com> 
>>>>>>> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. All 32-bit client versions of Windows (not just Vista/XP/7) have a
>>>>>>>> 4GB address space (64-bit versions can use much more). That's the
>>>>>>>> theoretical upper limit beyond which you can not go.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The OP said he had installed Win7-64 though.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>> Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
>>>>>>> The facts, although interesting, are irrelevant
>>>>>> 
0
someone
1/12/2010 4:08:54 AM
Don't know why attachment still doesn't show up.

Anyway, the following line is shown by win7 (Computer->Properties):

Installed Memory (RAM): 4.00GB (3.25GB usable).

Task Manager->Performance shows 3326MB as Total Physical memory.

This is 64 bit win 7 for sure.

Why only 3.25GB shown as usable?  Under Vista 32 bit, it was the same.
Only 3.2 GB was shown as usable.  I thought upgrading to 64 bit (it
was a clean install during "upgrading" of course) will help.


On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 23:08:54 -0500, someone@somewhere.com wrote:

>Attachement doesn't seemt to show up in previous post.
>
>On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 23:00:13 -0500, someone@somewhere.com wrote:
>
>>See attached for phyical and available memory as reported by Win7.
>>
>>Thanks.
>>
>>On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 08:57:48 -0500, "wayneP" <meatprivacydotnet> wrote:
>>
>>>I'm running Vista x64 Ultimate and under System Tools there is a System Info 
>>>option. This isn't something I look at regularly but I did check it just 
>>>after I rebuilt this machine with a tri-core Phenom II and installed x64.
>>>
>>>In there it shows Total Physical Memory and Available Physical Memory. This 
>>>is where I saw 2.52 GB available memory (not 2,52 installed) before posting 
>>>yesterday. This number changes and this AM it is showing 3.00 GB. The fact 
>>>that it changes led me to believe that the number has something to do with 
>>>what is running on the machine at the given time.
>>>
>>>Wayne
>>>
>>>"John John - MVP" <audetweld@nbnot.nb.ca> wrote in message 
>>>news:#HyouEgcKHA.4724@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>> If you have 4GB installed and if the onboard video is using 256MB then the 
>>>> remaining 3.75GB should be available to your x64 operating system. Where 
>>>> do you see that only 2.52GB is installed?  I don't know what you are 
>>>> running on your computer but unless you are running very hungry 
>>>> applications I have a hard time believing that your processes are using 
>>>> 1.25GB of RAM!
>>>>
>>>> This (lost RAM) is an addressing issue only, the hardware doesn't use the 
>>>> lost RAM nor does the operating system.  The hardware reserves addresses 
>>>> at the top of the memory range just under the 4GB barrier so that it can 
>>>> communicate directly with the processor, in turn the reserved addresses 
>>>> are not available for the installed RAM so you cannot see or use all the 
>>>> RAM (on 32-bit Windows), the RAM is without addresses so it goes unused. 
>>>> The way around the problem is to remap the RAM without addresses above the 
>>>> 4GB barrier and to use a 64-bit or PAE capable operating system to access 
>>>> the memory above the 4GB barrier.
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>> wayneP wrote:
>>>>> I thought recent mobos did memory remapping by default. I know there is 
>>>>> no option in the BIOS of my A780GM-A Ultra to remap memory. With my 
>>>>> recently installed Vista 64, there is an indication that there is 3.75 GB 
>>>>> of memory (2x2 GB sticks) installed and 2.52 is available. The onboard 
>>>>> video is using 256 MB and I assume other system devices and/or processes 
>>>>> account for the remainder of the difference between 3.75 and 2.52.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wayne
>>>>>
>>>>> "John John - MVP" <audetweld@nbnot.nb.ca> wrote in message 
>>>>> news:#bmjJ#dcKHA.5472@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>>>> Like others said, the OP most likely needs to remap memory above the 4GB 
>>>>>> barrier (in the BIOS).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John
>>>>>>
>>>>>> wayneP wrote:
>>>>>>> The original post is confusing. 64 bit isn't a regular upgrade from 32 
>>>>>>> bit. It would require a custom or clean install. It appears that the OP 
>>>>>>> might have just upgraded 32 bit Vista to 32 bit Windows 7 and thus the 
>>>>>>> same amount of ram is being reported.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wayne
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Jeff Gaines" <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message 
>>>>>>> news:xn0gi8ml3231b2p006@msnews.microsoft.com...
>>>>>>>> On 29/11/2009 in message <ijq5h5lbomqkm9qb9mv97h2qt20ndmio41@4ax.com> 
>>>>>>>> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1. All 32-bit client versions of Windows (not just Vista/XP/7) have a
>>>>>>>>> 4GB address space (64-bit versions can use much more). That's the
>>>>>>>>> theoretical upper limit beyond which you can not go.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The OP said he had installed Win7-64 though.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>> Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
>>>>>>>> The facts, although interesting, are irrelevant
>>>>>>> 
0
someone
1/12/2010 4:16:08 AM
someone;1195609 Wrote: 
> I had 4GB physical memoryon the PC. With Windows vista 32 bit,
> available memory is shown as 3.3GB. I asked and was told that only
> under 64 bit windows, will the available memory be 4GB. When I
> upgraded to windows 7, I chosed 64 bit, but the available memory shown
> in the system is still 3.3 GB.
> 
> Why is this and is there a way to make the full 4GB available?
> 
> It's possible that my video card is using RAM instead of its own RAM.
> If I install a video card with its own RAM, will the full 4GB be
> available?
> 
> Thanks.


What is your graphics card. If you have a card with own memory, then
you should see the ful 4GBs in 64bit because that only needs address
space which is ample on a 64bit. 
But if you have an on-board graphics that uses "shared" memory which is
real RAM, it could use the 700MBs that are missing - and it could vary
depending what the graphics uses.


-- 
whs
0
whs
1/12/2010 4:30:21 AM
someone@somewhere.com wrote:
> Don't know why attachment still doesn't show up.
> 
> Anyway, the following line is shown by win7 (Computer->Properties):
> 
> Installed Memory (RAM): 4.00GB (3.25GB usable).
> 
> Task Manager->Performance shows 3326MB as Total Physical memory.
> 
> This is 64 bit win 7 for sure.
> 
> Why only 3.25GB shown as usable?  Under Vista 32 bit, it was the same.
> Only 3.2 GB was shown as usable.  I thought upgrading to 64 bit (it
> was a clean install during "upgrading" of course) will help.
> 
> 
> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 23:08:54 -0500, someone@somewhere.com wrote:
> 
>> Attachement doesn't seemt to show up in previous post.
>>
>> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 23:00:13 -0500, someone@somewhere.com wrote:
>>
>>> See attached for phyical and available memory as reported by Win7.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 08:57:48 -0500, "wayneP" <meatprivacydotnet> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm running Vista x64 Ultimate and under System Tools there is a System Info 
>>>> option. This isn't something I look at regularly but I did check it just 
>>>> after I rebuilt this machine with a tri-core Phenom II and installed x64.
>>>>
>>>> In there it shows Total Physical Memory and Available Physical Memory. This 
>>>> is where I saw 2.52 GB available memory (not 2,52 installed) before posting 
>>>> yesterday. This number changes and this AM it is showing 3.00 GB. The fact 
>>>> that it changes led me to believe that the number has something to do with 
>>>> what is running on the machine at the given time.
>>>>
>>>> Wayne
>>>>
>>>> "John John - MVP" <audetweld@nbnot.nb.ca> wrote in message 
>>>> news:#HyouEgcKHA.4724@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>> If you have 4GB installed and if the onboard video is using 256MB then the 
>>>>> remaining 3.75GB should be available to your x64 operating system. Where 
>>>>> do you see that only 2.52GB is installed?  I don't know what you are 
>>>>> running on your computer but unless you are running very hungry 
>>>>> applications I have a hard time believing that your processes are using 
>>>>> 1.25GB of RAM!
>>>>>
>>>>> This (lost RAM) is an addressing issue only, the hardware doesn't use the 
>>>>> lost RAM nor does the operating system.  The hardware reserves addresses 
>>>>> at the top of the memory range just under the 4GB barrier so that it can 
>>>>> communicate directly with the processor, in turn the reserved addresses 
>>>>> are not available for the installed RAM so you cannot see or use all the 
>>>>> RAM (on 32-bit Windows), the RAM is without addresses so it goes unused. 
>>>>> The way around the problem is to remap the RAM without addresses above the 
>>>>> 4GB barrier and to use a 64-bit or PAE capable operating system to access 
>>>>> the memory above the 4GB barrier.
>>>>>
>>>>> John
>>>>>
>>>>> wayneP wrote:
>>>>>> I thought recent mobos did memory remapping by default. I know there is 
>>>>>> no option in the BIOS of my A780GM-A Ultra to remap memory. With my 
>>>>>> recently installed Vista 64, there is an indication that there is 3.75 GB 
>>>>>> of memory (2x2 GB sticks) installed and 2.52 is available. The onboard 
>>>>>> video is using 256 MB and I assume other system devices and/or processes 
>>>>>> account for the remainder of the difference between 3.75 and 2.52.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wayne
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "John John - MVP" <audetweld@nbnot.nb.ca> wrote in message 
>>>>>> news:#bmjJ#dcKHA.5472@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>> Like others said, the OP most likely needs to remap memory above the 4GB 
>>>>>>> barrier (in the BIOS).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wayneP wrote:
>>>>>>>> The original post is confusing. 64 bit isn't a regular upgrade from 32 
>>>>>>>> bit. It would require a custom or clean install. It appears that the OP 
>>>>>>>> might have just upgraded 32 bit Vista to 32 bit Windows 7 and thus the 
>>>>>>>> same amount of ram is being reported.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wayne
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Jeff Gaines" <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message 
>>>>>>>> news:xn0gi8ml3231b2p006@msnews.microsoft.com...
>>>>>>>>> On 29/11/2009 in message <ijq5h5lbomqkm9qb9mv97h2qt20ndmio41@4ax.com> 
>>>>>>>>> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1. All 32-bit client versions of Windows (not just Vista/XP/7) have a
>>>>>>>>>> 4GB address space (64-bit versions can use much more). That's the
>>>>>>>>>> theoretical upper limit beyond which you can not go.
>>>>>>>>> The OP said he had installed Win7-64 though.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>> Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
>>>>>>>>> The facts, although interesting, are irrelevant
Hello

Very Strange I run Windows 7 64 bit and have 8Gb which all shows, 
running 2 Graphics cards with 512Mb each.

All I can think is that the motherboard doesnt fully support 64 bit ?

Mike
0
Michael
1/12/2010 9:32:34 AM
Something related to your motherboard.  Could be a BIOS setting for 
Memory Remap or a number of other things.  You would need to check with 
the manufacturer of your motherboard to find out the rest of the story.


On 2010-01-11 23:16, someone@somewhere.com wrote:
> Don't know why attachment still doesn't show up.
>
> Anyway, the following line is shown by win7 (Computer->Properties):
>
> Installed Memory (RAM): 4.00GB (3.25GB usable).
>
> Task Manager->Performance shows 3326MB as Total Physical memory.
>
> This is 64 bit win 7 for sure.
>
> Why only 3.25GB shown as usable?  Under Vista 32 bit, it was the same.
> Only 3.2 GB was shown as usable.  I thought upgrading to 64 bit (it
> was a clean install during "upgrading" of course) will help.
>
>
> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 23:08:54 -0500, someone@somewhere.com wrote:
>
>> Attachement doesn't seemt to show up in previous post.
>>
>> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 23:00:13 -0500, someone@somewhere.com wrote:
>>
>>> See attached for phyical and available memory as reported by Win7.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 08:57:48 -0500, "wayneP"<meatprivacydotnet>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm running Vista x64 Ultimate and under System Tools there is a System Info
>>>> option. This isn't something I look at regularly but I did check it just
>>>> after I rebuilt this machine with a tri-core Phenom II and installed x64.
>>>>
>>>> In there it shows Total Physical Memory and Available Physical Memory. This
>>>> is where I saw 2.52 GB available memory (not 2,52 installed) before posting
>>>> yesterday. This number changes and this AM it is showing 3.00 GB. The fact
>>>> that it changes led me to believe that the number has something to do with
>>>> what is running on the machine at the given time.
>>>>
>>>> Wayne
>>>>
>>>> "John John - MVP"<audetweld@nbnot.nb.ca>  wrote in message
>>>> news:#HyouEgcKHA.4724@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>> If you have 4GB installed and if the onboard video is using 256MB then the
>>>>> remaining 3.75GB should be available to your x64 operating system. Where
>>>>> do you see that only 2.52GB is installed?  I don't know what you are
>>>>> running on your computer but unless you are running very hungry
>>>>> applications I have a hard time believing that your processes are using
>>>>> 1.25GB of RAM!
>>>>>
>>>>> This (lost RAM) is an addressing issue only, the hardware doesn't use the
>>>>> lost RAM nor does the operating system.  The hardware reserves addresses
>>>>> at the top of the memory range just under the 4GB barrier so that it can
>>>>> communicate directly with the processor, in turn the reserved addresses
>>>>> are not available for the installed RAM so you cannot see or use all the
>>>>> RAM (on 32-bit Windows), the RAM is without addresses so it goes unused.
>>>>> The way around the problem is to remap the RAM without addresses above the
>>>>> 4GB barrier and to use a 64-bit or PAE capable operating system to access
>>>>> the memory above the 4GB barrier.
>>>>>
>>>>> John
>>>>>
>>>>> wayneP wrote:
>>>>>> I thought recent mobos did memory remapping by default. I know there is
>>>>>> no option in the BIOS of my A780GM-A Ultra to remap memory. With my
>>>>>> recently installed Vista 64, there is an indication that there is 3.75 GB
>>>>>> of memory (2x2 GB sticks) installed and 2.52 is available. The onboard
>>>>>> video is using 256 MB and I assume other system devices and/or processes
>>>>>> account for the remainder of the difference between 3.75 and 2.52.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wayne
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "John John - MVP"<audetweld@nbnot.nb.ca>  wrote in message
>>>>>> news:#bmjJ#dcKHA.5472@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>> Like others said, the OP most likely needs to remap memory above the 4GB
>>>>>>> barrier (in the BIOS).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wayneP wrote:
>>>>>>>> The original post is confusing. 64 bit isn't a regular upgrade from 32
>>>>>>>> bit. It would require a custom or clean install. It appears that the OP
>>>>>>>> might have just upgraded 32 bit Vista to 32 bit Windows 7 and thus the
>>>>>>>> same amount of ram is being reported.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wayne
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Jeff Gaines"<jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk>  wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:xn0gi8ml3231b2p006@msnews.microsoft.com...
>>>>>>>>> On 29/11/2009 in message<ijq5h5lbomqkm9qb9mv97h2qt20ndmio41@4ax.com>
>>>>>>>>> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1. All 32-bit client versions of Windows (not just Vista/XP/7) have a
>>>>>>>>>> 4GB address space (64-bit versions can use much more). That's the
>>>>>>>>>> theoretical upper limit beyond which you can not go.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The OP said he had installed Win7-64 though.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
>>>>>>>>> The facts, although interesting, are irrelevant
>>>>>>>>
0
Bobby
1/12/2010 10:33:22 AM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

Physical Inventory Count Service Provider
Would someone be able to recommend a service provider that would be able to come in an apparel retail store and do a physical inventory count? we've tried newestech handhelds, but we just dont have the right staff to do it. TIA -- Eddie B No suggestions? We are in Southern California. -- Eddie B "Eddie B" wrote: > Would someone be able to recommend a service provider that would be able to > come in an apparel retail store and do a physical inventory count? we've > tried newestech handhelds, but we just dont have the right staff to do it. > > TIA ...

Invoice Designer #3
I'm running Money Small Business 2004. I have gone into the invoice designer section of the program, and created an invoice template that I wish to use to print out my invoices. However I cannot find any way of getting the invoices created within Money to print out in this format. Is there any way to save this template so that it overwrites the standard invoice template which is quite unsuitable for my requirements (or is there some other way of getting the layout that I want?). None of the the help files within the program, the on-line Money 2004 manual or the web-based help files s...

3.0 Customization
Is it possible in 3.0 to have one set of screens appear for one group of users and another set for another group. For instance, could our service people only see the service screens while our sales people only see the sales screens? I know I can restrict access to different areas, but we want to have a totally different look and feel for each group... Sorry - I dont believe this can be done "Matt Harvey" <rifleman@gmail.com> wrote in message news:OR2vU$3GGHA.740@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... > Is it possible in 3.0 to have one set of screens appear for one group of >...

Report CRM 3.0
Hi, I would need to find out the detailed procedure (step by step) to customize a report…. Could anybody inform about any links or documents concerning this issue? Thank's Marco I'm not sure if it's detailed enough, but the technical training manual has a section on creating and customizing reports. You can find it here: http://www.microsoft.com/businesssolutions/crm/using/whatsnewtechnical.mspx HTH, -- Jeffry van de Vuurst CWR Mobility www.cwrmobility.com -- "Marco Rocca" <Marco Rocca@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:CEF80683-EC26-456C-82C...

Exchange 5.5 to 2003 upgrade issue 3
We have upgraded our Exchange 5.5 server to 2003 and moved all the mailboxes and moved and re-homed the folders following the KB articles. We turned off the 5.5 services and for a week everything was working fine. Now for some reason the messages to the main distribution list is being sent to the old 5.5 server on a x400 protocol. How can I stop this and assure that the 2003 server is self contained so I can get rid of this server? ...

linking worksheets #3
I know ho to link cells to oher cells. But is there a convenient way to link ranges or worksheets to others. Hi just link the first cell e.g. ='sheet1'!A1 and copy this formula for your range. The reference will adapt automatically -- Regards Frank Kabel Frankfurt, Germany j van c wrote: > I know ho to link cells to oher cells. But is there a convenient way > to link ranges or worksheets to others. ...

Offline Database Sync #3
Is there anyway to manually sync the offline database with the online database on the server? We have a register that travels to several weekend shows. We use the offline database when it travels and would like to reconnect it when it returns to the store. Since we process credit cards with a secure wireless connection, we want to run a Z report each day and settle the EDC Batch for credit card transactions. In order to accomplish that we do the following. We sync the offline database before the show. Then modify the SO Admin to point the primary database to the offline databas...

Just Testing 09-07-07
Just Testing please ignore -- Jim Bunton ...

clip ART #7
i AM HAVING TROUBLE DOWNLOADING CLIP ART FROM OFF LINE WHEN i DOWN LOAD IT AND TRY TO OPEN IN IT'S ALL FILE NAMES AND NO PICTURES JUST WORDS HELP When you download from the ClipArt site the file is either .cil or .mpf depending on your version. Double-click the package and the images will automatically go into your Organizer/Gallery. You may have lost the association too, right-click the file, properties, opens with... change, point to your Organizer/Gallery. -- Mary Sauer MS MVP http://office.microsoft.com/clipart/ http://www.mvps.org/msauer/getting_started.htm "Janet Price" ...

Using atl based win dll with CString functions from the mfc projec #3
I have atl based general windows dll with class which contains functions which uses CString as parameters or return values. This dll might be used from the atl or mfc project. Dll can be used from ATL project without problems but whenever I try to use this class from the MFC project I get the following linker errors: error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol "__declspec(dllimport) public: int __thiscall MyClass::AddMenu(long,class ATL::CStringT<wchar_t,class StrTraitMFC_DLL<wchar_t,class ATL::ChTraitsCRT<wchar_t> > > const &,long)" ... If I replace CStri...

Lexmark driver for Windows Vista??
does anyone know how to get a driver for my Vista program for a Lexmark X75 printrio? Any help appreciated? On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 15:07:39 -0500, "Kitty Stringfellow" <kikkimomjj@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >does anyone know how to get a driver for my Vista program for a Lexmark X75 >printrio? >Any help appreciated? I'd suggest reposting your question in a newsgroup supporting Vista, or Lexmark. This newsgroup is for questions about designing relational database Queries in Microsoft Access. John W. Vinson [MVP] ...

Can you create custom activities? MSCRM 3.0
Hi, Is there a way to create a new custom activity instead of customising an existing one? I have created a custom entity called 'Chat' utilising an IFRAME. All works well but this entity really should be an activity considering it's properties. In fact I've just been introduced to MS-CRM 3.0 and don't really understand what the difference is between an entity and activity. Would anyone shed the light for me? BTW, I think 3.0 looks great. Gotta admit it's improved. Cheers. Ty In my experience, you cannot create custom activities. In fact, I have been dire...

conditional formatting in excel #3
how do you add a phrase to a field if the filed is blankl, also, can you have a notifiction sent to you when a date on a spreadsheet has expired? > how do you add a phrase to a field if the filed is blankl, What "phrase" do you mean? A Comment? A value? also, can you have > a notifiction sent to you when a date on a spreadsheet has expired? Maybe you can apply an open event (date to be tested being say in F1): Private Sub Workbook_Open() If Range("F1") < Date Then MsgBox "Date expired" End If End Sub Regards, Stefi ...

macro for invoice totals
I have this macro that inserts lines and copies a invoice header. Now I want to total the invoice. In the first row after a value in B in E the word totals must be inserted, H, I and K must be summed the amount of lines differ on each invoice but there is a heading from where it must be summed. CTNS(H), QTY(I), Total(K) Thanks a lot. Public Sub Deilv2() Dim LastRow As Long Dim row_index As Long Dim rng As Range Set rng = Range("B2:K25") Application.ScreenUpdating = False LastRow = ActiveSheet.Cells(Rows.Count, "b").End(xlUp).Row For row_index = LastRow - 1 To 26 S...

Program Trying to Access Email Addresses #3
Outlook 2002. When I try to create new mail, forward, or reply I get a dialog box telling me: A program is trying to access e-mail addresses you have stored in Outlook. Do you want to allow this? If this is unexpected, it may be a virus and you should choose "No". How do I determine what program is trying to access the Outlook addresses? I have up to date Norton Anti-virus definitions and have done a system scan, with nothing detected. Thanks for the help. ...

Excel Problem #3
I have win2000 with Office 2000 in the network! When i try to rename one excel file my computer make restart. This hapening not to all files,and all files there are in the same folder in the network! What hapen,and what i can do so as to work out the problem? I have all the required permissions on that network folder. No one else has any of the files open. They are not shared workbooks. ...

invoice for envelopes with windows
What invoice template can I use that will consistently place the name and mailing address on the invoice form so that it will always fit in the window of an standard #10 business envelope? There is no standard location for the window. I would suggest folding a piece of paper and measuring where the window is on the envelopes you use. -- JoAnn Paules MVP Microsoft [Publisher] Tech Editor for "Microsoft Publisher 2007 For Dummies" "Mary" <Mary@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:68FC09EF-AA33-40D7-8472-1602F50D69BD@microsoft.com... > What invoi...

Only new email window?
Is there a way that I could have a shortcut on my desktop that does not open the whole application, but rather ONLY open my new email window? I send out a lot of email, and I also have a lot of other apps running. Please let me know if that is possible. Thank you, Steve Steve F. <sf@flintind.com> wrote: > Is there a way that I could have a shortcut on my desktop that does > not open the whole application, but rather ONLY open my new email > window? I send out a lot of email, and I also have a lot of other > apps running. Create a shortcut whose target is: "%Pr...

parent window?
hi, Im trying to display bmp image using static control.I have created a pointer as cstatic stc; when i use stc.Create(NULL,SS_BITMAP,pos,?); what shall i give for the parent window of static control? i used getactivewindow(),but i was not able to display bmp when setbitmap(Hbmp) is used. thanks in advance susi ...

Frame window does not get displayed properly
Hi All, I have a Dialog based applciation. I want to create a Frame window when clicked on the button on Dialog. The problem is I handled the Painting of the dialog (I draw a picture on so WM_PAINT message I handle.) but doing this I am not able to draw the frame window properly. It appears to be transparent to me . I am setting the CFrameWnd to be the child of CDialog Please Can you let me know how to draw the farme window of how can I have a floting window on a dialog. Thanks Anup I don't know if what you are doing is a good idea. But if you want to have a floating window ins...

Unable to send E-Mails #3
I have recently installed broadband and when I attempt to send an E-Mail I get the following message. 554 <E-Mail Adress>: Recipient address rejected: Relay access denied Any help would be gratefully appreciated On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 13:27:03 -0800, LarryM wrote: > I have recently installed broadband and when I attempt to send an E-Mail I > get the following message. > 554 <E-Mail Adress>: Recipient address rejected: Relay access denied > > Any help would be gratefully appreciated You probably need to authenticate to your outgoing server. Set that up on the &...

FRx 6.7 Compatability with GP 10. 0
Hi, Is FRx 6.7 is campatable with GP 10.0? I have installed Frx 6.7 with and using successfully as local cleint but as requirement I need to run the same Balance Sheet Report which I have created on my client machine want to run on the different client machines withou installing the FRx. Do I need to installed FRx on each client machine? Please give the details. Your immediate help will be greatly appreciated. -- Developer Yes. Frx 6.7 is compatible with GP 10.0. Make sure to apply the latest service pack. I am not sure I understand your question. Are you asking if you need to c...

SMTP ERROR #11
I keep getting this error when sending email comcast.net , any ideas ? jxxx@comcast.net on 3/7/2006 4:23 PM There was a SMTP communication problem with the recipient's email server. Please contact your system administrator. <xx.domain.com #5.5.0 smtp;550-xx.xx.yy.zz blocked by ldap:ou=rblmx,dc=comcast,dc=net> 1- Check if your exchange server can resolve this domain name. 2- try using telnet to port 25 on that server and see if it connects. 3- check with ww.ordb.org they might be listed there. -- My Regards, Omar El-Sherif "tricky4" <tricky4@discussions...

Excel Macro #3
I am linking a subtotal workbook to three different workbooks. I have 72 cells on each of the 3 workbooks to link to. I have created a macro basically by using the macro builder in excel, however this takes approximately 72 lines of code for each file because each file has a different name. Is there a simpler VBA code that I could use for all three files? Thanks Frank Post your code (not your workbook) here "Frank" <fborger@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:07b401c36e49$a2591180$a001280a@phx.gbl... > I am linking a subtotal workbook to three different > workbook...

Mail Relay #7
I have a Exhcahge 2003 FE/BE setup. WE are adding another email server for encryption that will be a n outgoing relay. this will sit between my FE server and my firewall. Do I have to setup another connector to point to this server for all mail? Thanks Rick All outbound internet mail? You can insert the server as a smarthost on SMTP Connector for address space *. -- Bharat Suneja MVP - Exchange www.zenprise.com NEW blog location: www.exchangepedia.com/blog ---------------------------------------------- "Rick" <drummer10980@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1159524368.41...