Win 7 32 bit Home Premium with 4 GB of RAM installed since 2013.
Sometime earlier this month (could it have been after I installed the updates on Feb. 6th?), I noticed this computer had slowed down. I'm seeing the circle a lot more than I used to on everything I do.
Then I stumbled across something that is puzzling me. My RAM is listed as 4GB installed. Previously it said 3.2GB usable; it now says 2.75GB usable. Well that explains the slowdown but not what happened to the "missing" RAM.
Here's what I've done so far to try and correct this.
1. Looked in boot tab of msconfig under advanced options to be sure Maximum Memory was not selected.
2. Looked in HKLM\System\Current Control Set\Control\Session Manager\Memory Management and changed Clear Page File at Shutdown (default 0) to 1 then 2 and finally back to 0.
3. Ran memTest86 from a bootable USB stick. No errors.
4. Looked over all the options in the BIOS to see if there was anything like Memory Mapping. There wasn't.
I did note that it said slot A has 2048MB of RAM, slot 2 has 2048 MB of RAM and the total is 4096MB of RAM.
5. Opened up the case. Removed both sticks of RAM. Thoroughly cleaned out the case, fans, and RAM slots. Reseated the RAM. No change in the usable memory.
Any ideas on what else I need to do to figure out where my usable RAM went?
I will probably restore my Feb. 6th image to see if that changes anything. I installed 3 January updates on the 6th: since the CPU is AMD, I installed 4073578, to prevent BSOD with January patches on AMD computers, Security only rollup 4056897 and Cum. IE Security 4056568
My guess is something changed with the integrated graphics settings.
Try the RAM one stick at a time.
Check to see if the usable RAM is reported as being the same for each stick. That will tell you if one of the sticks is bad. It they are both the same then you know to look elsewhere for the problem.
I'm not opening that tiny case again.
I assume that when I ran Memtest86, any errors would have shown if a stick was bad. Isn't that the way it works?
QuoteIsn't that the way it works?
I know nothing about what or how Memtest86 does whatever it does
Maybe you've already determined that it's the operating system and not the hardware. However if you still want to check for the possibility of a hardware problem then boot up into Linux and use the "free" command.
Just open a terminal window and type "free -m" without the quotes and hit return. The -m tell it to give the output in megabytes rather than kilobytes. It'll list total, used, free, shared, buffers and cached.
Be aware that if you're running Linux on a Live CD or a Live USB stick that some of your RAM will be eaten up by that.
Quote from: Digerati on February 17, 2018, 07:04:18 PM
My guess is something changed with the integrated graphics settings.
This was my first thought.
I don't see the need to boot into Linux.
QuoteI assume that when I ran Memtest86, any errors would have shown if a stick was bad. Isn't that the way it works?
Sadly,
no software based memory tester is 100% conclusive. If MemTest86 (http://www.memtest86.com/) reports any errors, even 1, the RAM is bad. But software based memory testers might report no errors, but the RAM still fails when in use, and/or when paired with other RAM sticks.
The only way to conclusively test RAM is with
very expensive test equipment, like this $4,450 RAMCheck LX Memory Tester (http://www.tequipment.net/InnoventionsINN-8686-DDR3+2.asp) or by swapping in known good RAM and see what happens. BTW, I am certain that tester has been discontinued (and no DDR4 successor is offered) simply because it is much cheaper to keep spare RAM around to swap in. So no one is buying those testers.
Thanks for furthering my education on RAM guys. I'll either learn to live with it or I'll restore Windows to an early Feb. image and see if it changes. I still haven't decided yet.
I would look at your graphics properties first.
I don't have a fancy card. I did look the other day but there isn't much you can do. It's Nvidia and I don't have any Control Center as far as I can see.
Here's what I see. Since I've never changed anything, I wouldn't have a clue how or what to try and tweak. The driver has been the same since 2009 when the computer was purchased.
When I booted into the XP side, I checked and it is the same avaiable RAM as the 7 side 2.75 GB.
And as seen in your image, 1.15 GB has been stolen... err... is being "shared" for graphics. That's where it is going. It does not mean that 1.15GB is always gone, but it will be at times, depending on the current task being run. But since Windows and Windows programs are pretty graphics oriented, that may be most of the time.
If your system performance is unsatisfactory, I recommend you invest in a graphics card. You don't have to spend a lot of money. In fact, just about any budget card (<$50) will make a significant difference. For one, with this being such an old system, just about any current card will likely have a faster graphics processor. And for another, it will come with its own dedicated graphics RAM, thus freeing up that stolen... err... shared RAM.
And if you stay on the budget side, it is likely your current power supply will be able to support it. Since you currently are running with 256MB of dedicated graphics memory, I would recommend a card with that at the very least. But 512MB or even 1GB would be better.
And you don't have to do anything special. No RAM is "shared" when a card is detected. Just install it and boot. Just be sure to unplug the computer from the wall and touch bare metal of the case interior BEFORE reaching in to discharge any static in your body first.
Since it is likely any PCIe slot has gone unused for many years, I would have a can of dusting gas (incorrectly called "canned air") handy to blast out any dust accumulation. If really bad, consider folding up a crisp, clean dollar bill ($1s work, $100s are more fun! ;)) and stuff the folded edge into the slot, rubbing back and forth. Surprisingly, dollar bills make for great electrical contact cleaners (I was actually taught that in Tech School). They are rough enough but not too rough, and they leave no lint or residues behind - even when used with electrical contact cleaner (https://www.amazon.com/WD-40-Specialist-Electrical-Contact-Cleaner/dp/B00CMT9TFY) - which I would use too in your situation (but then I keep that stuff on hand).
BUT, it was never like that.
I always had 3.2GB usable memory and now I don't.
I'm trying to determine WHAT changed this. I didn't make any changes. I was perfectly happy with what I had since 2009. Now I have a spinning circle and everything opens slowly. Clearly I'm not happy with the way the computer is now operating.
Another thing without an explanation. I'm unable to load the Crucial site on this computer. <sigh> That is a recent development. I assumed the first time that it happened that the site was down.
I'll have to check some of my posts because at one forum I did post, "I'm unable to check the slots on your computer because the Crucial site isn't loading". I'll need to find the date on that post.
The Crucial US site loads fine for me (using the latest PM x64 on W7) using http, though it loads but indicates a not secure site on https.
Re. the memory difference, could the Meltdown/Spectre-related ntoskrnl changes have brought this about (assuming that you've updated this year), or maybe Win32/GDI and associated font/graphics subsystem changes, like the monthly patches that are mainly for Flash vulnerabilities?
I'm unsure what performance differences the 6150SE original driver would be compared to the current one (I suspect they're much the same - weak), I've not used that chipset for ~10 years and then the GPU section was mediocre at best on 1280 (x1024? 5:4 ratio, iirc), I got fed up watching the screen being drawn and the excess kernel activity behind it - the SE effectively meaning half the speed of the full-fat discrete 6150 GPU version).
Sometimes it's better to give the iGPU the minimum System memory possible and allow Windows to use the remaining System memory as best it can.
1. Crucial opens fine on my netbook but not on my desktop computer. So something is going on, on this computer and I'm trying to get to the cause of these issues.
2. I did no spectre/meltdown patches. Flash is up to date. I did do an AMD patch before I did the two January updates. Perhaps that is the culprit.
Tomorrow, I will probably restore to before I put the 3 patches on and see what the RAM looks like and if I can get into the crucial site. If one or both things have not changed, then I'll restore an image from late December.
3. The driver that is on has been there since Windows 7 was installed and it was fine until a few weeks ago. It isn't the driver that is the problem. I'm trying to track down what decided to add more MB to my graphics. I guess I might never know.
4.
QuoteSometimes it's better to give the iGPU the minimum System memory possible and allow Windows to use the remaining System memory as best it can.
I haven't tinkered with this BUT something did.
Yesterday I restored to Feb. 6th - no change in usable RAM or crucial site loading.
This morning I restored to a Dec. 21st image. Before I did any updates, I checked usable RAM. It is still at 2.75GB. I also wanted to see if crucial ever loaded. It is like before. I see transferring assets and then it stalls for the last few MB. I decided to let it alone and it eventually loaded. I allowed some things in noscript so perhaps the next time it won't take quite as long to load.
Then I started updating. First I did flash then my two major browsers Palemoon and FF ESR. MBAM and MS Security Essentials updated the definitions but both wanted to scan since they thought the computer hadn't been scanned in a long time. I let them scan. Then I updated 7-zip becuase it is a security issue and last SpywareBlaster.
The last thing I'll do is the January updates.
We can consider this issue finished. I figured the issues are not related to a flash update, a browser update or the January Windows updates.
I think the shared memory setting, if available, would be in the BIOS settings. May be worth a look there to see if you can adjust it.
Since the amount of shared memory is set in the BIOS, it is not surprising restoring back to a different date didn't change anything.
Edit add: Aaron beat me to it.
Quoteshared memory setting, if available
I'm not sure I have this.
Back on 17 Feb., in my first post I stated that I looked over all the options in the BIOS. (I actually did not go into the section about setting up a BIOS password).
I'll have another look to see if I missed it.
I have often found it easier to download the motherboard manual and search it with Foxit Reader.