Windows Vista 32-bit With Asus P5k Deluxe Board

[PattayaDavid]

I have read many posts concerning the inability of Windows 32-bit operating systems recognizing the full 4 GB of RAM installed.  I recently ordered Vista Home Premium 64-bit with SP1 because the 64-bit version of Vista is supposed to recognize 4 GB or more memory, however while waiting for my new Vista 64-bit operating disk to arrive, I went ahead and installed an additional 2 GB of RAM bringing total installed to 4 GB.  After rebooting my computer, I was surprised to see that all 4 GB of RAM was recognized.  Is is possible that 4 GB of RAM is displayed, but less than 4 GB is used?  Is there anyway to check actual amount of RAM being utilized?

PattayaDave

[Tywais]

Bring up Windows Task Manager and look under Performance. That will tell you what the OS is using.

[Tywais]

More details > http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605

[dave_boo]

Are you seeing the 4 GB in the bios only or also in Vista? If you have Service Pack 1 installed, it shows the 4 GB, but doesn't actually utilise it.

[Tywais]

Are you seeing the 4 GB in the bios only or also in Vista? If you have Service Pack 1 installed, it shows the 4 GB, but doesn't actually utilise it.

Hey, that's my link.

[PattayaDavid]

Thanks for the Microsoft support links; now it makes sense again. I had installed Vista SP1 before I added the additional 2 GB of memory. Both the BIOS and System Information in Vista indicate 4 GB, however I haven't checked the Performance Tab as yet. I will do that when i power up later today; I am using my laptop at the moment.

I've been reading a lot of reviews and user comments concerning Vista 64-bit over the past week or so and most were quite favorable as most had stated that they were able to find most of the drivers they needed. I should receive my Vista 64 disk sometime next week. I'm crossing my fingers that it will be compatible with my favorite programs. My most heavily used programs are Outlook, Quicken 2007 and Opera browser. Does anyone know if these programs along with TurboTax is compatible with Vista 64?

Thanks again,

Pattayadavid

[ajarnmark]

Thanks for the Microsoft support links; now it makes sense again. I had installed Vista SP1 before I added the additional 2 GB of memory. Both the BIOS and System Information in Vista indicate 4 GB, however I haven't checked the Performance Tab as yet. I will do that when i power up later today; I am using my laptop at the moment.

I've been reading a lot of reviews and user comments concerning Vista 64-bit over the past week or so and most were quite favorable as most had stated that they were able to find most of the drivers they needed. I should receive my Vista 64 disk sometime next week. I'm crossing my fingers that it will be compatible with my favorite programs. My most heavily used programs are Outlook, Quicken 2007 and Opera browser. Does anyone know if these programs along with TurboTax is compatible with Vista 64?

Thanks again,

Pattayadavid

Read this article for RAM issues.

http://www.realtime-vista.com/installation...limitations.htm

I have been using Vista 64-bit Ultimate edition. It works wonderful. I have 2gb ram with 2.4ghz core 2 duo processor (me being poor guy, cant afford a better system )

Most of the software are working fine on 64bit. I believe software you are looking for should work fine. Read the following link:

http://www.tech-recipes.com/rx/1426/vista_...sion_x64_vs_x86

Though I believe it may not be true in all cases. When I install a 32bit software, it is always installed in (x86) folder. I am using following software so far:

1. Windows Live Messenger

2. Yahoo Messenger

3. Firefox

I can find all drivers for the hardware I have. All my hardware are working fine except for sound device, where all is ok except for recognition of microphone.

Overall: wonderful experience. Loading time is significantly shorter.

[PattayaDavid]

I checked my desktop computer under the Performance Tab of Task Manager and sure enough, I'm not seeing the full 4 GB of RAM just as you guys have pointed out. Mine shows the following:

Physical Memory (MB)

Total 3326

Cached 2155

Free 33

Kernel Memory (MB)

Total 161

Cached 108

Free 53

Page File

1451M/6873M

I really don't understand the meaning of these number, maybe somebody can help.

PattayaDavid

[dave_boo]

I checked my desktop computer under the Performance Tab of Task Manager and sure enough, I'm not seeing the full 4 GB of RAM just as you guys have pointed out. Mine shows the following:

Physical Memory (MB)

Total 3326

Cached 2155

Free 33

This one is self explanitory. It is the total of your physical RAM. Now, if you take off your Kernel memory from your, your video adapter memory, etc you get your total. Also, note how Windows is caching MUCH better than previous versions of their OS. Unused RAM (assuming that it is easily freed when needed!) is wasted RAM.

Kernel Memory (MB)

Total 161

Cached 108

Free 53

Kernel Memory was a significant advancement in OS design. Basically what it does is assign part of your RAM for only the kernel of the OS to use. Since only the kernel can touch it, stability is improved due to the fact that a mal-running program wouldn't take that memory away from the kernel.

Page File

1451M/6873M

Your Page File (commonly known as "Swapfile") is set to 1451 MB and is using 687 MB. I'd actually recommend disabling your Page File, rebooting, defragging, and reenabling it to 1000 MB.

I really don't understand the meaning of these number, maybe somebody can help.

PattayaDavid

[PattayaDavid]

I checked my desktop computer under the Performance Tab of Task Manager and sure enough, I'm not seeing the full 4 GB of RAM just as you guys have pointed out. Mine shows the following:

Physical Memory (MB)

Total 3326

Cached 2155

Free 33

This one is self explanitory. It is the total of your physical RAM. Now, if you take off your Kernel memory from your, your video adapter memory, etc you get your total. Also, note how Windows is caching MUCH better than previous versions of their OS. Unused RAM (assuming that it is easily freed when needed!) is wasted RAM.

Kernel Memory (MB)

Total 161

Cached 108

Free 53

Kernel Memory was a significant advancement in OS design. Basically what it does is assign part of your RAM for only the kernel of the OS to use. Since only the kernel can touch it, stability is improved due to the fact that a mal-running program wouldn't take that memory away from the kernel.

Page File

1451M/6873M

Your Page File (commonly known as "Swapfile") is set to 1451 MB and is using 687 MB. I'd actually recommend disabling your Page File, rebooting, defragging, and reenabling it to 1000 MB.

I really don't understand the meaning of these number, maybe somebody can help.

PattayaDavid

Thanks for your input, however you didn't really explain what benefit I should expect by changing my Page File from 1451MB to 1000MB on my desktop computer.  The numbers arrived above was pretty much with my system running with a minimum of programs open, mainly just my Opera browser.  Below is the numbers for my ThinkPad T61 under similar conditions.  What would be your recommendation for setup of the Page File here and why?

ThinkPad T61, Vista Home Premium 32-bit with 2 GB RAM installed.

Physical Memory (MB)

Total    2013

Cached 1018

Free        28

Kernel Memory (MB)

Total    193

Cached 123

Free       69

Page File

1953M/4266M

[slackula]

Thanks for your input, however you didn't really explain what benefit I should expect by changing my Page File from 1451MB to 1000MB on my desktop computer. The numbers arrived above was pretty much with my system running with a minimum of programs open, mainly just my Opera browser. Below is the numbers for my ThinkPad T61 under similar conditions. What would be your recommendation for setup of the Page File here and why?

ThinkPad T61, Vista Home Premium 32-bit with 2 GB RAM installed.

Physical Memory (MB)

Total 2013

Cached 1018

Free 28

Kernel Memory (MB)

Total 193

Cached 123

Free 69

Page File

1953M/4266M

Am I reading this correctly: his laptop has 2 GB of RAM and still needs almost half of a ~4.2 GB swap file running a "minimum of programs"??

Wow! If that's the case then it would appear that Vista Home Premium 32 bit would really like a minimum requirement of 4 gigs of RAM? That is insane, what is it doing with all that space?

If I am mis-reading this then I apologise, and you may feel free to slap me with wet fish as my punishment.

[dave_boo]

Yeah, I messed up in my reply. Vista is swapping 1451 MB to your hdd. Not good! It's also grown the swapfile to nearly 7 GB. Think about that for a second.....isn't that excessive? The reason that I suggested you reduce the swapfile size is because you're loosing insane amounts of hdd space to it. It appears that Vista is swapping something to your hdd. What? I can't tell you without looking at your Task Manager. By reducing the size of your Swapfile, you force Vista to use RAM. Using RAM is good in the sense that it's much faster and you won't wear out your hdd as quickly. I recommend going with only 1 (one) GB of Swapfile for anything over 2 GB of RAM. An excessive amount lets Windows put files that should be kept in RAM on the hdd.

[PattayaDavid]

I just bought my laptop back in the U.S. in February. I really haven't done much with it other than loading a few programs. All of the settings, page file etc. are as they came from the factory. The page file may be large due to the bulk of ThinkVantage utility softwre and the rescue software and the files for restoring the computer to original factory condition. I haven't changed anything on my destop either. All of the settings were made by Windows Vista Home Premium 32-bit. I did add an additional 2GB of memory last week to bring the total to 4GB. I don't know if that would have affected the page file setting or not. Anyway, if I understand correctly, you are suggesting that I set the page file on both my desktop and laptop to 1G (1000MB). I will give it a try and see what happens.

Pattayadavid

Edited May 26, 2008 by PattayaDavid

[whimsy]

Hi, there will be only minimal advantages performance wise (if any) with just 4GB of RAM on 64 bit versus 3.3GB of RAM and 32 bit. Possibly a bunch of technical headaches moving to 64 bit. Driver support is still a problem, though improving now. You may need to change your antivirus program to one that supports 64 bit and you will no longer be able to run any old 16 bit software you may have around.

Sounds like you want to USE your computer, not tinker with it. I wouldn't bother making the switch at this stage unless you have 64 bit software that you want to run. This link is still relevant re the pros and cons of switching to x64. http://4sysops.com/archives/vista-x64-vs-v...-vista-edition/

You could compensate somewhat for the 'missing' 700MB of RAM with 32 bit Vista by getting a 1 OR 2GB USB memory stick and letting ReadyBoost do it's thing. But it probably won't make much difference in a machine with over 3GB of RAM already.

Cheers.

[PattayaDavid]

Hi, there will be only minimal advantages performance wise (if any) with just 4GB of RAM on 64 bit versus 3.3GB of RAM and 32 bit. Possibly a bunch of technical headaches moving to 64 bit. Driver support is still a problem, though improving now. You may need to change your antivirus program to one that supports 64 bit and you will no longer be able to run any old 16 bit software you may have around.

Sounds like you want to USE your computer, not tinker with it. I wouldn't bother making the switch at this stage unless you have 64 bit software that you want to run. This link is still relevant re the pros and cons of switching to x64. http://4sysops.com/archives/vista-x64-vs-v...-vista-edition/

You could compensate somewhat for the 'missing' 700MB of RAM with 32 bit Vista by getting a 1 OR 2GB USB memory stick and letting ReadyBoost do it's thing. But it probably won't make much difference in a machine with over 3GB of RAM already.

Cheers.

Thanks for your input.  I too, have done quite a bit of research on Vista 64-bit and I think it will work ok for me.  I built a new computer last last year and thus far I have had no problem whatsoever finding 64-bit drivers and utility programs for all of my hardware including my printers, mouse and keyboard.  I will be installing the 64-bit version of Eset Smart Security 3 for anti-virus, spyware and malware protection.  As far as I know, I'm not running any 16-bit software.  My computer is for home use, not business, so I pretty much run the latest versions of software.  I'm sure that there will be some freeware programs that I won't be able to run on 64-bit Vista, but so far I have been able to either find 64-bit versions of the programs that i regularly use or have found that the 32-bit programs are compatible and signed.  Besides, I have already ordered the Vista-64 bit program with SP1 which should arrived any day now.  Also, I plan to add more memory once I get Vista-64 up and running.  Anyway, thanks for your input, but it looks like I am committed to Vista 64.  If it doesn't work out, I can always go back to 32-bit.

Pattayadavid

PS. Your link is pretty good reading, however it is 14 months old and from what I have read recently, there has been much improved support for Vista 64 over the past year. I couldn't same the same for Windows XP 64.

Edited May 28, 2008 by PattayaDavid

[whimsy]

OK no worries. Sounds like you have thought through the issues. Yes x64 driver support is better now. I'll be interested to hear if you do actually get any performance improvements.

Once you get > 4GB RAM running, you will the be in a good position to run RAM hungry things such as several virtual machines. That lets you set up a virtual client/server network on your PC to teach yourself about networks. If you have that sort of thing in mind, then that is a pretty good reason to go x64.

Cheers

Edited May 28, 2008 by whimsy