Recommended Posts

lol, well its technically supposed to be 1024, but I believe 2 or so is reserved for system usage only so there you go..

If you were worried enough, that you made a post, and took a screen shot of it as you did, then close a background program, or unchceck a startup program :D

  ~*McoreD*~ said:
lol, I didn't misspell MB and GB. It's really in MiB and GiB. :)

Look at the screenshot you posted... notice the "MB" at the end of it? Yes, well that's the accepted term. MiB and GiB are not used, regardless of whether technically they should or whether you think they should.

  theyarecomingforyou said:

Look at the screenshot you posted... notice the "MB" at the end of it? Yes, well that's the accepted term. MiB and GiB are not used, regardless of whether technically they should or whether you think they should.

It's NOT accepted just because Microsoft hasn't switched to the new standard yet. :)

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html

Linux already uses the proper binary prefixes. However, as much as I would love to start discussion on this, I can't under this thread because I am really after if a) the OS inaccurately calculates the RAM size or b) the RAM size is physically that size.

  ~*McoreD*~ said:
It's NOT accepted just because Microsoft hasn't switched to the new standard yet. :)

No, it's not accepted because nobody has any need to use it. Our language and terminology aren't based on what is technically right but upon what trends dominate - that is how brands like "kleenex", "xerox", "google" and "hoover" became everyday words. You can't just go around using foreign terms and expect people to know the intimate details behind them. We all know that's you're clearly a superior person but when dealing with us simpletons on the forum you could trying using the same terminology as the other 95% of the population.

  theyarecomingforyou said:

No, it's not accepted because nobody has any need to use it. Our language and terminology aren't based on what is technically right but upon what trends dominate - that is how brands like "kleenex", "xerox", "google" and "hoover" became everyday words. You can't just go around using foreign terms and expect people to know the intimate details behind them. We all know that's you're clearly a superior person but when dealing with us simpletons on the forum you could trying using the same terminology as the other 95% of the population.

I understand your point. However, you are not a simpleton, I am not a superior. I see it as ignorance and reluctance to adopt change. I try not to just go around using foreign terms and expect people to know the intimate details behind them. I link them to a web site which explains the topic and invite them to learn. But only a few actually bothers to read and understand. It's alright. :)

Anybody have another point of view for this? I am still eager to know any technical reasons behind this.

Now I think that OS miscalculates RAM amount.

I had this friend who did this test:

When he put two 1024 MiB RAMs in single channel mode, he got 1.99 GiB in System Properties.

When he put the same two 1024 MiB RAMs in dual channel mode, he got 1.98 GiB in System Properties.

So I am leaning towards thinking that OS miscalculates RAM and doesn't show as 2.00 GiB.

If it makes u feel better, I have 1024MB of ram in my PC, and my mIRC PC Stats script reports it having 1023MB im in WindowsXP though......does that help? :p

I do agree with someone else's point of view though as to why, as in its reserved for the system....maybe Vista reserves it for the Kernal only?

  theyarecomingforyou said:

No, it's not accepted because nobody has any need to use it. Our language and terminology aren't based on what is technically right but upon what trends dominate - that is how brands like "kleenex", "xerox", "google" and "hoover" became everyday words. You can't just go around using foreign terms and expect people to know the intimate details behind them. We all know that's you're clearly a superior person but when dealing with us simpletons on the forum you could trying using the same terminology as the other 95% of the population.

...dude, chill out, you're wrong, it's not the end of the world.

1MB=1,000,000B

1MiB=1,048,576B

Ram is always sold in MiB's, HDD's are sold in GB's

Edit: To poster below....MiB is the correct term, 1024MB would be 1,024,000,000B, which it is not, it's 1,073,741,824B

To MajorTom, from a table in the last link "2^20 pronounced mebi, symbol Mi" Add a B for Byte and you've got MiB

Edited by Jesse Carlton
  ~*McoreD*~ said:

Anybody have another point of view for this? I am still eager to know any technical reasons behind this.

Now I think that OS miscalculates RAM amount.

I had this friend who did this test:

When he put two 1024 MiB RAMs in single channel mode, he got 1.99 GiB in System Properties.

When he put the same two 1024 MiB RAMs in dual channel mode, he got 1.98 GiB in System Properties.

So I am leaning towards thinking that OS miscalculates RAM and doesn't show as 2.00 GiB.

First off, please stop saying MiB. That is completely incorrect. MB refers to megabyte, Mb (notice the lower-case 'b') refers to megabit. GB = Gigabyte, Gb = Gigabit. Got it?

Now, for your question. Nobody can ever have a full 1024MB of RAM, or a full 2048MB, or whatever. This is because the motherboard's BIOS dedicates 1MB to 2MB for itself. This small amount of space is used for the POST operations as well as times when the OS needs low-level access to the motherboard's chipset.

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html

Better def of the term MiB... either way I say just leave him alone he wants to be cool.

BTW get over the ram issue, 2mb... do you have a Intel GMA video card onboard? or it could be PCI-Express reserving it for it's BIOS, or the MB bios as posted above.

  NextGen_Gamer said:

Now, for your question. Nobody can ever have a full 1024MB of RAM, or a full 2048MB, or whatever. This is because the motherboard's BIOS dedicates 1MB to 2MB for itself. This small amount of space is used for the POST operations as well as times when the OS needs low-level access to the motherboard's chipset.

That's the kind of answer I was expecting. Thanks. Another PC with Vista has detected 1024 as 998. So I am guessing the amount allocated by the motherboard depends on the type of motherboard as well. He's got 128 shared video card memory. So only 870 left as primary memory.

A similar thing happens in 3dmark06. I noticed that if you have a dfi motherboard then 3dmark06 reads your memory as slightly too little. But noticed that people with asus motherboards didn't have the issue. So maybe this error stems from the o/s reading the motherboard like I believe 3dmark does.

  ~*McoreD*~ said:
Anybody have another point of view for this? I am still eager to know any technical reasons behind this.

Now I think that OS miscalculates RAM amount.

I had this friend who did this test:

When he put two 1024 MiB RAMs in single channel mode, he got 1.99 GiB in System Properties.

When he put the same two 1024 MiB RAMs in dual channel mode, he got 1.98 GiB in System Properties.

So I am leaning towards thinking that OS miscalculates RAM and doesn't show as 2.00 GiB.

When I had a desktop, I had 4x512MB DDR Ram in Dual Channel ... now, perhaps, I had actually 2050mb, because when I checked in System Properties (XP, Vista, 2000, Ubuntu and Apple OSX 10.4.6) it ALWAYS whoed 2048mb RAM

Mind you, I had an Intel D915GAV motherboard with a Prescott 2.93Ghz processor and Crucial Value Ram so I don't know why evertything showed me 2Gb DDR RAM

  • 4 weeks later...

lawl this thread makes me laugh :D

i love you nerds debating whether it's proper to say MB or MiB :happy:

in the end, dont worry about your 2MBs missing. perhaps the production of the chips wasnt just that accurate and they rounded it off. i mean, my cpu might be 2.66GHz on default, but cpu-z says 2.65GHz. who knows. whatever.

Hi all,

I'm new here, but have been building Systems for 25 Years, and have been building Xtreme Gamers, Servers & Workstations, in business for 8 years now.

I was looking into processes running in Vista RC1<<<notice the correct term for this..hehe.

Several of My Vista RC1 PC's show Memory differently.

(which I'll refer to as MEM for short) They show as, 1022MB, 918MB, and 1012MB, on the three I have KVMed together. None of these have on-board RAM, and all are different motherboard(which I'll refer to as MOBO) manufacturer's (refer to as MANU) In fact my three Fav's ASUS, ABIT & Gigabyte

It appears the Kernel is not holding 2MB back for it own specific use.

From my experience, have differnet amounts of MEM that are used for the BIOS, & also reserved, for other MOBO processes..like the chipsets...as was stated here previously

Single & Dual-Channel RAM work in entirely different methods; would be my thought as to why it(setups in single & DC modes) show differnet amounts

XP has been showing different amounts of RAM for many years now, and not just what would be missing for on-board video, but discrepancies, by RAM MANU, MOBO MANU, chipset MANU, etc...

Remember this is only Vista RC1...hopefully M$ who is perfectly aware of the MEM discrepancies, will have a better grasp on this, before final launch(leaving out Vista SP1,SP2,SP33 etc...LOL)

As far as the Discussion on MB & MiB...I think when the rest of the word catches on, using Mib & MiB

"might" be proper. Right now, it just looks funny... Besides you could confuse someone into thinking you're talking about the "The MIB" :whistle:

ALso the author of this thread, would have to change the name of the POST to:

Missing 2.97152 MiB RAM

to be "Precise"

Regards,

Dagra

PS...I joined, as this place seems like a decent place to hang...

Also to explain that Mesa thing on the M$ survey(

In Which this site & the Mesa thing popped up in a Google search..for what I don't remember, my short term MEM is shot...lol

When I have time to find the post I'll add it on, if someone else whats to fine by me...

IT(Mesa) stands for:

Microsoft Exchange Server Account

Although it sounds cool for a new M$ OS

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.