# BIOS UPdate



## Xp_Office

hi recently upgrade my ram from 2gb to 4gb but only reads 2.5gb but went to bios settings says total memory 4gb total available memory 2.5gb, my operating system is vista business but i know on 32byte only shows 3.3 or  3.5gb of ram i was wondering if there is any updates for my bios here is the spec of my bios.

Manufacturer : American Megatrends Inc. 
Version : W8350F03 
Date : 08/24/2007  (mm/dd/yyyy) 
Address : 0x0 on 1024 KB 
Copyright : (C)2005 American Megatrends, Inc 
Motherboard ID : 64-0100-009999-00101111-082407-Calistoga-W8350F03 
DMI Version : 2.3


----------



## PC eye

The main download page for updates is seen at  http://support.alienware.co.uk/Support_Pages/Restricted_Pages/driver_downloads.aspx

Once you have the correct board selected from the list you click the next button in order to move onto the page for the various downloads available. The bios is reading the correct amount of memory installed while Windows is simply showing what is available for programs once the system processes and board have already taken some 512mb or better.


----------



## Okedokey

A 32 bit OS can only address a total of 4GB ram.  That includes your graphics cards, sound cards etc and system memory (e.g. all memory).  So, given the fact that you have 2 x 512mb of memory on your GPUs, that takes 1gb of memory address space.  That leaves 3GB.  The other 512mb (ie to make 2.5gb available) may be being used in hard drive memory and sound integrated memory.  SP1 has changed Vista to show all of the installed memory but that doesnt mean that it is available.  It sounds to me that you only have 2.5GB available to be addressed to due to the 32bit OS limitations and becuase you have taken up addressable memory with other hardware.  It sounds about right to me.  You could also check that your onboard graphics is disabled and therefore not taking any addressable memory.


----------



## PC eye

You always want any onboard video or sound disabled as a rule anyways if you have an expansion card for either installed. One setting in the bios on many allows for increasing or decreasing the amount of shared memory being the aperature size. 

That was more commonly increased for the smaller sized AGP cards while the default 64mb is quite adequate for the newer larger sized PCI-E model cards seen at this time. It should be at the default 64mb but if not that would account for seeing less ram available to a degree.


----------



## Xp_Office

bigfellla said:


> A 32 bit OS can only address a total of 4GB ram.  That includes your graphics cards, sound cards etc and system memory (e.g. all memory).  So, given the fact that you have 2 x 512mb of memory on your GPUs, that takes 1gb of memory address space.  That leaves 3GB.  The other 512mb (ie to make 2.5gb available) may be being used in hard drive memory and sound integrated memory.  SP1 has changed Vista to show all of the installed memory but that doesnt mean that it is available.  It sounds to me that you only have 2.5GB available to be addressed to due to the 32bit OS limitations and becuase you have taken up addressable memory with other hardware.  It sounds about right to me.  You could also check that your onboard graphics is disabled and therefore not taking any addressable memory.



32bit can only go to 3.5gb not 4gb, doesnt include the graphics cards at the 2 cards has its own 512mb the memory in the hard drive is virtual memory it is store on the hard drive but does not get used unless the main memory is full


----------



## mep916

A BIOS update won't allow the OS to address 4GB of RAM. You'll need to install a 64 bit operating system to use the total amount.


----------



## jdbennet

> A BIOS update won't allow the OS to address 4GB of RAM



well, yes sort of. A PAE compatible OS and CPU can allow a 32 bit OS and CPU to use up to 64gb. Windows XP is just limited at 4gb because thats how MS make thier money. A PAE enabled 32 bit copy of 2003 Enterprise can handle 32gb.


----------



## PC eye

The following edition of Windows Server could go higher. But how is that possible? A server edition is network orientated. For a stand alone desktop however you are not logging onto a network in order to get to the desktop in that sense.

It's not so much that MS made the big bucks as it is the limitations seen with 32bit kernel. MS plans to dump 32bit editions all together following the release of the next version(Windows 7) due to the vast changes in hardwares and Vista's long overdue release. 512mb to 768mb then followed by 1gb was what was seen at XP's release to then see 4-8gb even 16gb boards coming out at Long Horn's? "64bit is soon to be!"


----------



## StrangleHold

Xp_Office said:


> hi recently upgrade my ram from 2gb to 4gb but only reads 2.5gb but went to bios settings says total memory 4gb total available memory 2.5gb, my operating system is vista business but i know on 32byte only shows 3.3 or 3.5gb of ram i was wondering if there is any updates for my bios here is the spec of my bios.
> 
> Manufacturer : American Megatrends Inc.
> Version : W8350F03
> Date : 08/24/2007 (mm/dd/yyyy)
> Address : 0x0 on 1024 KB
> Copyright : (C)2005 American Megatrends, Inc
> Motherboard ID : 64-0100-009999-00101111-082407-Calistoga-W8350F03
> DMI Version : 2.3


 
With your 32bit OS and running SLI, some of the memory is mapped by the IO as in things that run off the PCI/AGP or PCIe bus. So running 2 cards in SLI will eat more of it.


----------



## Okedokey

Firstly mep916 is 100% right.



mep916 said:


> A BIOS update won't allow the OS to address 4GB of RAM. You'll need to install a 64 bit operating system to use the total amount.





jdbennet said:


> well, yes sort of. A PAE compatible OS and CPU can allow a 32 bit OS and CPU to use up to 64gb. Windows XP is just limited at 4gb because thats how MS make thier money. A PAE enabled 32 bit copy of 2003 Enterprise can handle 32gb.



Secondly jd, this is irrelevant because we are not talking about a server edition of Windows (with 100% PAE-aware kernel mode drivers) which are currently the only PAE compatiable OSs from MS.

32bit Vista, like 32bit XP and later, doesn't really support PAE.  You can turn PAE on, but you won’t then actually be able to address any more memory.  The only reason to turn PAE on is if you want to activate the no-execute (NX) or execute-disable (XD) features of modern CPUs.  That's all PAE does on these operating systems.  The reason why PAE doesn't expand the memory map on these OSs is because for PAE to work, all of its kernel mode drivers need to be PAE-aware (as they are in server editions).  If _any _of them aren't, the computer will hang.  MS gave up on having enough PAE-aware drivers in 2004.  As such, they also abandoned 32bit PAE mode for Windows.  Consequently, PAE gives you exactly the same 4GB maximum as non-PAE mode.



Xp_Office said:


> 32bit can only go to 3.5gb not 4gb, doesn’t include the graphics cards at the 2 cards has its own 512mb the memory in the hard drive is virtual memory it is store on the hard drive but does not get used unless the main memory is full



And thridly, this is just completely wrong (i.e. every point in the sentence).

In 32 bit Windows operating systems, the total addressable space available is* 4GB.*   Why?  A 32bit OS can only address 2^32bit = 4294967296 or 4GB TOTAL.  If you install a total of 4GB worth of RAM, the system will detect/use/display less than 4GB of total memory (SP1 will show all, but you cannot use it all) because of address space allocation for other critical functions, such as:

- System BIOS (including motherboard, add-on cards, etc..)
- Motherboards resources
- Memory mapped I/O
- Configuration for AGP/PCI-Ex/PCI
- Other memory allocations for PCI devices

If you don't believe me, may be you will believe MS: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605

*"Various devices in a typical computer require memory-mapped access. This is known as memory-mapped I/O (MMIO). For the MMIO space to be available to 32-bit operating systems, the MMIO space must reside within the first 4 GB of address space.

For example, if you have a video card that has 256 MB of onboard memory, that memory must be mapped within the first 4 GB of address space. If 4 GB of system memory is already installed, part of that address space must be reserved by the graphics memory mapping. Graphics memory mapping overwrites a part of the system memory. These conditions reduce the total amount of system memory that is available to the operating system."*

So as I said originally:



bigfellla said:


> ...So, given the fact that you have 2 x 512mb of memory on your GPUs, that takes 1gb of memory address space.  That leaves 3GB.  The other 512mb (i.e. to make 2.5gb available) may be being used in hard drive memory and sound integrated memory.  SP1 has changed Vista to show all of the installed memory but that doesn’t mean that it is available.  It sounds to me that you only have 2.5GB available to be addressed to due to the 32bit OS limitations and because you have taken up addressable memory with other hardware.  It sounds about right to me.  You could also check that your onboard graphics is disabled and therefore not taking any addressable memory.



If you wish to take full advantage of your installed system memory, the *only *way is to install a 64bit operating system, and since XP 64bit sucks, you are looking at Vista Ultimate.  Just make sure your laptop has all the required supporting 64bit drivers.


----------



## PC eye

That statement is the most crucial part when deciding on a 64bit OS. The 64bit of XP as well as the first 64bit distro saw virtually no driver support. 

A rush even into a 64bit edition of Vista Ultimate or Home Premium is still premature since too much is still 32bit orientated even though Vista is seeing more drivers available. I'm not knocking it but simply pointing out that the eventual transition to strictly 64bit is still going to be some time to come.

MS plans to dump 32bit following Windows 7? For now that's only an unconfirmed article someone published with no official MS statement to date. This is simply to clarify the reference made earlier on that. 

Even with all that Vista alone even for the 32bit edititions still seems to lack on hardware/software support. The software disk plus updates at Asus are still XP orientated for the board here. I simply got board driver through the MS update site.

Vista compatible tv tuner card? HAR! I'm currently in the face of tech support at one company since you can't watch any incoming signal whlie still hearing sound in Vista while everything works fine in XP! Vista ready? That's a joke! You certainly wouldn't want to go with XP Pro64 that saw virtually no support.


----------



## jdbennet

yeah they plan to dump 32 bit after windows 7

theyve said openly that the next windows server (2012?) will be 64 bit only, and windows the next windows NT desktop OS is historically based on the most recent stable server OS.


----------



## Jerrick

I wont go to Vista until Miroslav Philharmonix and Cubase sx3 work on it. Which sucks cause I love Vista, but I cant do any recoridng on it.


----------



## PC eye

Don't feel bad! the tuner card that worked while for a year on Vista here quit without warning not seeing any picture in both XP and Vista. 

The card in now was a quick grab of a different brand with the Vista compatible labeling? The replies from the tech support there try these links? I had already gone over all of their links when seeing that! 

What is seen now however in SP1 is the needed correction in order for the 32bit editions to fully see and list the total amount of memory installed. If Vista had been out 3yrs. following XP then Windows 7 would now be seeing a need for an SP1 if the design failed to include the hardwares changes seen in the last few years alone.


----------



## Okedokey

You will always be able to emulate.  Jerrick, use Virtual PC from MS (free download) and then you can install Vista/XP 32bit within a sandbox in Vista 64 and use your old apps.  However I updated my machine to 64bit Vista, and I didn't have one application or driver issue.  Not one.


----------



## PC eye

Apparently you are running some cross platform programs there. If you run into any written for XP alone you will likely find the installer won't even finish let alone running the app or game unless you see a patch or an updated version released.


----------



## Okedokey

Not in Virtual PC as it is sandboxed.  The local OS has nothing to do with it.  You run 64bit Vista and then install 32bit XP in Virtual PC and then run whatever apps you want.


----------



## houseofbugs

Your issue is either one of two things.

1. Your motherboard has a limitation.
2. Your OS is only seeing that much because of 32Bit.

~Tim


----------



## jdbennet

virtualpc is crap for games though


----------



## Okedokey

this is true, but games that require the kind of hardware acceleration missing from virtual pc, will run in 64bit.


----------



## PC eye

I found the free MS tool there not too good for anything when that was given a try. For actually seeing something old run in through a virtual window try running an 8bit app on a Vista machine. No way you say?





Surprise! "Look it's Duke!" t's also likely the DOSBox 6.2 will work on a 64bit edition of Vista as well as on the 32bit editions. (Too bad they never did come out with Duke Nukem Forever)


----------



## tyttebøvs

bigfellla said:


> In 32 bit Windows operating systems, the total addressable space available is* 4GB.*   Why?  A 32bit CPU can only address 2^32bit = 4294967296 or 4GB TOTAL.



The real "why" was explained earlier. You cannot blame the CPU. The limitation is 100% artificially made by Microsoft. Windows runs in DEP (and therefore PAE) mode by default, and if the kernel wasn't crippled, you would have access to as much as you would in a 64bit OS.


----------



## PC eye

Due to the initial complaints seen about Vista companies like Dell suddenly started seeing 3gb of memory over 1gb coming on their new models. Lately other brands like Acer are now seeing the 64bit editions rather then 32bit offered for business or consumer. The AMD AM2 X2 models are seen there that you would see on another model running a 32bit edition.

Reportedly a 64bit OS utilizes things better while in actuality not being any faster then the equivalent 32bit edition. The 64bit editions of Vista have their limitations with Home Basic seeing a max of 8gb with Premium sees upto 16gb. The Business, Ultimate, and Enterprise 64bit editions are able to see upto 128gb being more server orientated.


----------



## jdbennet

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx

interseting reading


----------



## PC eye

The MS page there points out the limitations seen on the different editions of each version. You'll note the 64bit editions for Server 2003 as well as 2008 see upto 2TB capability there.


----------



## Okedokey

tyttebøvs said:


> The real "why" was explained earlier. You cannot blame the CPU. The limitation is 100% artificially made by Microsoft. Windows runs in DEP (and therefore PAE) mode by default, and if the kernel wasn't crippled, you would have access to as much as you would in a 64bit OS.



Source?  MS cannot even get companies to support 32 Vista drivers in time, how on earth do you think they are going to be able to get PAE-aware kernel drivers for all possible hardware?  They are not - and  you think that is MS's fault?  Regardless this is a fanciful explanation, as the REAL (i.e. practical/now/actual) reason is what i explained.


----------



## PC eye

Good grief! Just think back to a few years after 98SE was out and people were still having fun trying to find drivers for that old version! Why do you think XP Pro64 was the actual ME II flop?! Vista would have to be relabeled ME III for that.


----------



## StrangleHold

Vista is to Windows 2000 as ME is to 98, they are just better at covering up and white washing the problems of what its not compared to what it was suppost to be, then they were 8 years ago.

 Why do you think they are trying to get code name Windows 7 out so fast. Its just windows 2000 with a truck load of garbage on top of it and could not be fixed if they tried. Just a get us by OS till they can get a OS out thats what Vista was suppost to be.


----------



## PC eye

Looking for miraculous events or something? Gee? ME IV in 2010? Thinking about a Mac!  

"I'd like to order a Big Mac if you don't mind." "you again with all that fast food MS tosses your way!" 

Why do you think SP3 wasn't released until Vista had been out for some time? Have to get the sales of a new version going first before seeing an older one fixed.


----------



## tyttebøvs

bigfellla said:


> Source?  MS cannot even get companies to support 32 Vista drivers in time, how on earth do you think they are going to be able to get PAE-aware kernel drivers for all possible hardware?  They are not - and  you think that is MS's fault?  Regardless this is a fanciful explanation, as the REAL (i.e. practical/now/actual) reason is what i explained.



I was not talking about drivers. You blamed the CPU. I referred back to the real why, which stated that bad drivers was one of the sources to as why they crippled the kernel.

A *good* driver will work on all systems, because it doesn't care about hardware specific addressing.

Edit: Before SP2, they allowed as much address space as necessary to fully address 4GB of RAM (plus MMIO).


----------



## tyttebøvs

Nothing to do with MS? It has everything to do with them. They program the memory manager, they chose to put in the limitation. And one reason they put that limitation in is because there are some bad drivers that will mess up some systems. It is not a hardware limitation (well, it can be, but the same goes for a 64bit OS).

Edit: I see your edit. "Why? A 32bit OS can only address 2^32bit". That is not true either, which you and others have already stated.


----------



## Okedokey

But hang on...by definition, a 32-bit processor uses 32 bits to refer to the location of each byte of memory. 2^32 = 4.2 billion, which means a memory address that's 32 bits long can only refer to 4.2 billion unique locations (i.e. 4 GB).   How is this MS?


----------



## tyttebøvs

I'm confused now. Did you not mention PAE yourself?


----------



## Okedokey

Yes i did, but the requirement that ALL drivers be PAE aware is not within the reasonable control of MS.  They cannot even get 3rd party vendors to produce 32bit drivers for Vista, let alone 64bit or PAE aware drivers.  How is this MS's fault?  I am not condoning this, i am simply stating the fact that currently the ONLY way to address more than 4GB of memory on a computer that you and I have, is to use 64bit OS, regardless of the OS provider.


----------



## tyttebøvs

I am agreeing with you, that some drivers break. But going from there to saying that a 32bit OS/CPU cannot go above 4GB is faulty.

And as I said, if the driver is written according to the guidelines, it will not break. Many other 32bit OSes will gladly go above 4GB.

Another thing about the guidelines. You can adjust the layout of the virtual address space, so the user space gets bigger than 2GB. But some applications takes shortcuts, and will break if they are allowed to expand beyond 2GB. Therefore, Microsoft put in "another limitation" on this, so that an application needs to be marked "largeaddressaware" to use more than 2GB.

So, it is all about the driver developers. They forced Microsoft to cripple their kernel.


----------



## Okedokey

The only OS that can claim to do this is via PAE is Apple and they can only od this because they make the hardware and the software - all others face the same issue as MS regarding the PAE driver issue.


----------



## tyttebøvs

bigfellla said:


> The only OS that can claim to do this is via PAE is Apple and they can only od this because they make the hardware and the software - all others face the same issue as MS regarding the PAE driver issue.



Huh? Check back in the thread. jdbennet also posted a microsoft-link. I also mentioned that XP before SP2 was allowed to break the 4G barrier, to allow full 4GB RAM.

All Linux versions can do. Etc. ..


----------



## Okedokey

Yes via what?  PAE< the same restrictions apply.


----------



## tyttebøvs

"the same restrictions apply" I'm not following you. What?

Check Microsoft server editions. Check Linux. How much memory can they address in PAE mode? A lot more than 4GB that is for sure.


----------



## Okedokey

We are not talking about MS server editions (i mentioned those previously), or Linux.  Answer this, how do you address more than 4GB in Vista 32bit under the current driver limitations?  You cannot, that is the point of this thread.  Of course it is possible, i am not saying it is not, but under the current situation with non-PAE aware drivers, (not all MS's fault), it is not available.  All of this has been said previously.  You are just arguing for the sake of it, the point is, the OP wondered why his OS/bios showed less than 4GB of RAM, the question has been answered.   

If you would like to show how smart you are and argue the merits of one OS to another, start your own thread.


----------



## jdbennet

it must be an MS limitation because server 2008s codebase is 95% based on vista SP1 and it supports a whole lot more


----------



## tyttebøvs

Previously, you said it was "ALL 32bit OSes", and you said "How is this MS".

Now you are down to only Vista? Because, yes, that is true. You cannot get Vista to go above 4G, because Microsoft chose not to support any address space above this point, because of the driver issue we have talked so much about.


----------



## jdbennet

but server 2008 only has core,signed drivers by default. So surely these would be PAE?


----------



## Okedokey

Ok, how do you get XP 32bit to address more than 4gb?


----------



## tyttebøvs

bigfellla said:


> Ok, how do you get XP 32bit to address more than 4gb?



Before SP2, you enabled PAE.

And note that I am not saying more than 4GB *RAM*, but more than 4GB *address space*. To address 4GB RAM + MMIO you need more than 4GB of address space, and then PAE is required.


----------



## jdbennet

windows 2000 Advanced Server can - it supports up to 8gb using /PAE on its 32 bit edition - and xp is based off the win2k codebase. That proves that the 4gb limit  is enforced by microsoft to make money and stop people using desktop editions as servers. I mean, it was released like 5+ years before vista.


----------



## Okedokey

MS holds the lions share of the market, and it doesn't control the hardware.  You factor in those commercial realities and you then should understand how that is different to a few amature OSs such as linux etc, where they can ensure the drivers are readily available.  The point of this thread is that with XP or later, MS has dropped PAE, because it cannot ensure that PAE aware drivers will be avaialble, this is a commercial decision yes, but it is reality none-the less.  You need a 64bit OS to address more than 4gb of ram under Windows period.  that is the point of this thread, and as i said, if you want to discuss the merits of this further i suggest you start your own thread.


----------



## tyttebøvs

It might be the point in this thread. But the discussion went on and on because you kept insisting that it was the "32" in 32bit OS that was the culprit, and Microsoft didn't have any say in what was possible.

"few amature OSs such as linux" Well...


----------



## Okedokey

Ok, stick to the point as the rest of it is irrelevent.


----------



## tyttebøvs

I am sticking to the point. All I have ever done in this thread is replaying to what you've said.


----------



## Okedokey

tyttebøvs said:


> I am sticking to the point. All I have ever done in this thread is replaying to what you've said.



The post has been answered, long ago, if you want to start a discussion regarding the benefits or otherwise of MS's decision to drop PAE drivers over 4 years ago, please be my guest, otherwise unless you have an alternative way to address more than 4gb in Vista 32bit, shut up, because you are just trolling now, especially when you say this elsewhere:



tyttebøvs said:


> There are many rumours about pae ... Many of them are not true. This is one of them. Only server editions of windows supports >4GB





tyttebøvs said:


> They go to great lengths to document how anything above 4G is just being ignored, though. And I have yet to see anyone being able to do it.





tyttebøvs said:


> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/888137
> "the kernel memory manager ignores any physical address that is more than 4 GB"
> 
> To make use of 4GB RAM you need an address space that is *bigger* than 4GB, because the same address space needs to hold various IO devices.



here: http://www.computerforum.com/121393-how-tomake-vista-32-bit-see-4gb-4.html and here: http://www.computerforum.com/120025-2gig-4-a-2.html


----------



## tyttebøvs

Holy crap, now you are telling me to shut up? I replied to your false statements about 32bit operating systems and 32bit CPUs.

Sometimes I don't know why I bother coming by here.


----------



## jdbennet

bigfella seemingly every time someone proves you wrong, you go down the whole "irrelevent path" even when it is indeed relevent.

and tyttebovs, if you dont like it, leave.

i wish people woiuld just stop bitching.


----------



## Okedokey

It is irrelevent, as the scope of the OP's question was to do with Windows 32bit, which can, (under current limitations) only address 4GB of memory period.  Discussions about the merits of other OS's , MS's decision to drop PAE drivers or anything else is irrelevent.

If you or anyone else wishes to start another thread, we can discuss it, but the question was answered 3 days and 44 posts ago.  Comon.


----------



## jdbennet

the whole point is though, that PAE extends the 4gb limit, hence the discussion

I agree thoigh, that this thread has gone on for too long. Lets lay it to rest.


----------



## Okedokey

Yes, I have never said it wouldn't though, but if you have 32bit XP or later, you cannot address more than 4GB, thus the reason the OP's os displayed 2.5GB , as PAE is not available in this OS as it stands.  A 32bit CPU without PAE and its drivers, cannot address more than 4GB or memory, period.  As we are talking about an OS that doesn't support PAE, we may as well be talking about the weather (irrelevant).


----------



## jdbennet

okay


----------



## tyttebøvs

bigfellla said:
			
		

> They go to great lengths to document how anything above 4G is just being ignored, though. And I have yet to see anyone being able to do it.
> 
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/888137
> "the kernel memory manager ignores any physical address that is more than 4 GB"



Are you trying NOT to read what I write? I specifically wrote *before* SP2.

And now, after xxx number of posts, your focus is ONLY on Vista and XP *after *SP2. Before that, you said something else. You said something about ALL 32bit OSes, and something about 32bit CPUs. About Microsoft did no such thing as limiting their kernel to only allow 4GB of total address space.

But it seems that discussing this with you leads to nowhere (telling me to shut up?). So this is my exit.


----------



## Okedokey

regardless, its irrelevant to the topic.


----------



## tyttebøvs

That guy just doesn't get it.


----------



## mep916

bigfellla said:


> shut up, because you are just trolling now



No need to have an attitude. If someone disagrees with you or offers an alternative explanation, that does not mean they're trolling. 

Everyone made their point, so let's end it here.


----------

