4GB RAM showing up as 3.50GB installed: 3.22GB Usable [duplicate]












0
















This question already has an answer here:




  • Windows 7 x64 3.2Gb RAM usable instead of 4Gb installed [duplicate]

    1 answer



  • 64-bit Windows 7 can only use 3.25GB of RAM instead of 4GB? [duplicate]

    2 answers



  • Why does my sytem only uses 3.2GB of my 4GM RAM?

    6 answers



  • 4.00GB (3.25GB usable) in Windows 7 x64

    6 answers




A pair of RAM was installed in a Windows 7 x64 16.04 Ubuntu dual-boot Dell Optiplex 320 box. Upgrade from 2GB => 4GB



I realize that usable space on a hard drive is typically ~10% less than the stated size, however




  1. Isn't 3.22 GB usable a bit on the low side?

  2. What is a reasonable expectation?

  3. How to test if RAM is defective?

  4. Is this low reading a Windows peculiarity?

  5. Can I conclude that both 2GB modules are physically installed correctly?


If the gap is because of the GPU + Windows taking memory, how can I measure that the 4GB was actually delivered by the RAM Modules?






windows-7 memory







share|improve this question















marked as duplicate by Mokubai♦ Dec 24 '18 at 21:39


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
















  • That is a machine from 2006, a generation that regularly had limitations and prodded the boundary of 4GB limitations. All of the pieces of hardware in the system take a chunk out of the addressable space on such a machine. If you have a dedicated graphics card then it will mask out RAM for the rest of the system.

    – Mokubai♦
    Dec 24 '18 at 21:39


















0
















This question already has an answer here:




  • Windows 7 x64 3.2Gb RAM usable instead of 4Gb installed [duplicate]

    1 answer



  • 64-bit Windows 7 can only use 3.25GB of RAM instead of 4GB? [duplicate]

    2 answers



  • Why does my sytem only uses 3.2GB of my 4GM RAM?

    6 answers



  • 4.00GB (3.25GB usable) in Windows 7 x64

    6 answers




A pair of RAM was installed in a Windows 7 x64 16.04 Ubuntu dual-boot Dell Optiplex 320 box. Upgrade from 2GB => 4GB



I realize that usable space on a hard drive is typically ~10% less than the stated size, however




  1. Isn't 3.22 GB usable a bit on the low side?

  2. What is a reasonable expectation?

  3. How to test if RAM is defective?

  4. Is this low reading a Windows peculiarity?

  5. Can I conclude that both 2GB modules are physically installed correctly?


If the gap is because of the GPU + Windows taking memory, how can I measure that the 4GB was actually delivered by the RAM Modules?






windows-7 memory







share|improve this question















marked as duplicate by Mokubai♦ Dec 24 '18 at 21:39


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
















  • That is a machine from 2006, a generation that regularly had limitations and prodded the boundary of 4GB limitations. All of the pieces of hardware in the system take a chunk out of the addressable space on such a machine. If you have a dedicated graphics card then it will mask out RAM for the rest of the system.

    – Mokubai♦
    Dec 24 '18 at 21:39
















0












0








0









This question already has an answer here:




  • Windows 7 x64 3.2Gb RAM usable instead of 4Gb installed [duplicate]

    1 answer



  • 64-bit Windows 7 can only use 3.25GB of RAM instead of 4GB? [duplicate]

    2 answers



  • Why does my sytem only uses 3.2GB of my 4GM RAM?

    6 answers



  • 4.00GB (3.25GB usable) in Windows 7 x64

    6 answers




A pair of RAM was installed in a Windows 7 x64 16.04 Ubuntu dual-boot Dell Optiplex 320 box. Upgrade from 2GB => 4GB



I realize that usable space on a hard drive is typically ~10% less than the stated size, however




  1. Isn't 3.22 GB usable a bit on the low side?

  2. What is a reasonable expectation?

  3. How to test if RAM is defective?

  4. Is this low reading a Windows peculiarity?

  5. Can I conclude that both 2GB modules are physically installed correctly?


If the gap is because of the GPU + Windows taking memory, how can I measure that the 4GB was actually delivered by the RAM Modules?






windows-7 memory







share|improve this question

















This question already has an answer here:




  • Windows 7 x64 3.2Gb RAM usable instead of 4Gb installed [duplicate]

    1 answer



  • 64-bit Windows 7 can only use 3.25GB of RAM instead of 4GB? [duplicate]

    2 answers



  • Why does my sytem only uses 3.2GB of my 4GM RAM?

    6 answers



  • 4.00GB (3.25GB usable) in Windows 7 x64

    6 answers




A pair of RAM was installed in a Windows 7 x64 16.04 Ubuntu dual-boot Dell Optiplex 320 box. Upgrade from 2GB => 4GB



I realize that usable space on a hard drive is typically ~10% less than the stated size, however




  1. Isn't 3.22 GB usable a bit on the low side?

  2. What is a reasonable expectation?

  3. How to test if RAM is defective?

  4. Is this low reading a Windows peculiarity?

  5. Can I conclude that both 2GB modules are physically installed correctly?


If the gap is because of the GPU + Windows taking memory, how can I measure that the 4GB was actually delivered by the RAM Modules?





This question already has an answer here:




  • Windows 7 x64 3.2Gb RAM usable instead of 4Gb installed [duplicate]

    1 answer



  • 64-bit Windows 7 can only use 3.25GB of RAM instead of 4GB? [duplicate]

    2 answers



  • Why does my sytem only uses 3.2GB of my 4GM RAM?

    6 answers



  • 4.00GB (3.25GB usable) in Windows 7 x64

    6 answers







windows-7 memory




windows-7 memory






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Dec 24 '18 at 21:49







gatorback

















asked Dec 24 '18 at 21:21









gatorbackgatorback

393417




393417




marked as duplicate by Mokubai♦ Dec 24 '18 at 21:39


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.






marked as duplicate by Mokubai♦ Dec 24 '18 at 21:39


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.















  • That is a machine from 2006, a generation that regularly had limitations and prodded the boundary of 4GB limitations. All of the pieces of hardware in the system take a chunk out of the addressable space on such a machine. If you have a dedicated graphics card then it will mask out RAM for the rest of the system.

    – Mokubai♦
    Dec 24 '18 at 21:39





















  • That is a machine from 2006, a generation that regularly had limitations and prodded the boundary of 4GB limitations. All of the pieces of hardware in the system take a chunk out of the addressable space on such a machine. If you have a dedicated graphics card then it will mask out RAM for the rest of the system.

    – Mokubai♦
    Dec 24 '18 at 21:39



















That is a machine from 2006, a generation that regularly had limitations and prodded the boundary of 4GB limitations. All of the pieces of hardware in the system take a chunk out of the addressable space on such a machine. If you have a dedicated graphics card then it will mask out RAM for the rest of the system.

– Mokubai♦
Dec 24 '18 at 21:39







That is a machine from 2006, a generation that regularly had limitations and prodded the boundary of 4GB limitations. All of the pieces of hardware in the system take a chunk out of the addressable space on such a machine. If you have a dedicated graphics card then it will mask out RAM for the rest of the system.

– Mokubai♦
Dec 24 '18 at 21:39












0






active

oldest

votes

















0






active

oldest

votes








0






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes

-

Popular posts from this blog

"Incorrect syntax near the keyword 'ON'. (on update cascade, on delete cascade,)

Image
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box; } 2 total noob sorry any help greatly appreciated. I keep getting this "Incorrect syntax near the keyword 'ON'." heres my codes code one CREATE TABLE supplier ( supplierID INT PRIMARY KEY, ISBN INT FOREIGN KEY REFERENCES book(ISBN), price DECIMAL (5,2), ON UPDATE CASCADE, ON DELETE CASCADE, ); code two CREATE TABLE orders ( orderID INT PRIMARY KEY, customerID INT FOREIGN KEY REFERENCES customer(customerID), ISBN INT FOREIGN KEY REFERENCES book(ISBN), orderDate date, ON UPDATE CASCADE, ON DELETE CASCADE, ); Ive run out of stuff to try other than dumbing it down to uselessness. ...
Read more

Alcedinidae

Image
Alcedinidae Martin-pêcheur à dos bleu ( Alcedo azurea ) Classification (COI) Règne Animalia Embranchement Chordata Sous-embr. Vertebrata Classe Aves Ordre Coraciiformes Famille Alcedinidae Rafinesque, 1815 Les Alcédinidés ou Alcedinidae forment une famille d'oiseaux plus connus sous les noms de martins-pêcheurs et martins-chasseurs. Sommaire 1 Description 2 Répartition et habitat 3 Systématique 3.1 Liste alphabétique des genres 3.2 Liste des espèces 4 Chez les Anciens : l'alcyon 4.1 Étymologie (Littré) 4.2 Oiseau « fabuleux » ? 5 Notes 6 Articles connexes 7 Liens externes 7.1 Bibliographie Description | Ce sont des oiseaux compacts de taille petite à moyenne (10 à 46 cm), au bec droit et long, en forme de poignard. Leurs pattes sont courtes, et ils portent un plumage aux couleurs vives. Répartition et habitat | Cosmopolites, ils fréquentent surtout ...
Read more

Origin of the phrase “under your belt”?

Image
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0; } 17 1 Today, I found myself discussing what students should have "under their belts" during a lecture, and I wondered to myself if there was some inappropriate undertone here that I might be unaware of. Question : What is the origin of the phrase "under your belt"? A google search revealed some webpages (e.g. [1]) that assert its origin is related to consumption of food -- once a meal has been eaten, it's under your belt (which is a relief). However, with such websites, I have no way to determine fact from "random guy on the internet making stuff up". etymology idioms ...
Read more