# RAM upgraded...or was it?

**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ram-upgraded-or-was-it/218906
**Category:** Factual Questions
**Created:** [December 14, 2003, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ram-upgraded-or-was-it/218906 "2003-12-14T05:37:18Z")
**Posts on this page:** 12
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![Atreyu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5e9695/32.png) [@Atreyu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atreyu)
#### Post date: [December 14, 2003, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ram-upgraded-or-was-it/218906/1 "2003-12-14T05:37:18Z")

</div>

Let’s see if I can be concise in my description of what’s happened.

Earlier today I upgraded the RAM in my computer to 512 MB, using a single memory chip in one slot.

When I check the System Information window by right-clicking on “My Computer”, it tells me that the computer is indeed running with 512 MB of RAM.

However, Norton’s Systemworks seems to be insisting that the amount of physical memory is no greater than 128 MB of RAM, which was the original amount. Checking the Resource Meter and System Monitor programs available from the System Tools menu indicates the same thing.

So, I’m getting two different descriptions here of the amount of RAM apparently available to me.

I’m using a Dell Dimension 4100, operating with Windows ME [sub](I know, I know[/sub]). I’ve searched Dell’s support website, with no luck. An e-mail to Dell resulted in an automated response that was staggeringly unhelpful.

The one quirk that may help explain this is that my computer manual (which I should have consulted before buying the RAM upgrade) says that each slot only has a capacity of 256 MB. But if that’s the case, why does the System Information window report that it’s running with 512 MB?

Can anyone help me here?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![CnoteChris](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/278dde/32.png) [@CnoteChris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CnoteChris)
#### Post date: [December 14, 2003, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ram-upgraded-or-was-it/218906/2 "2003-12-14T05:55:18Z")

</div>

I’d trust the system information number over anything Norton says.

-Norton isn’t the best at that stuff.

How old a system is a Dell 4100?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![Atreyu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5e9695/32.png) [@Atreyu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atreyu)
#### Post date: [December 14, 2003, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ram-upgraded-or-was-it/218906/3 "2003-12-14T05:57:01Z")

</div>

**CnoteChris** , I bought the computer in October 2000, which makes it slightly more than three years old. I realize that probably makes it middle-aged by computer standards.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![5cents](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/5/46a35a/32.png) [@5cents](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/5cents)
#### Post date: [December 14, 2003, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ram-upgraded-or-was-it/218906/4 "2003-12-14T05:57:34Z")

</div>

Start up Windows Explorer (hold down windows key, press “E”). Select “Help”, then “About Windows”. What is the number beside “Physical Memory Available to Windows”?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![5cents](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/5/46a35a/32.png) [@5cents](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/5cents)
#### Post date: [December 14, 2003, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ram-upgraded-or-was-it/218906/5 "2003-12-14T06:01:49Z")

</div>

Another thought - could it be that the low number you are seeing is memory currently available (i.e. not being used by the operating system or any other program)?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![Atreyu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5e9695/32.png) [@Atreyu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atreyu)
#### Post date: [December 14, 2003, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ram-upgraded-or-was-it/218906/6 "2003-12-14T06:01:52Z")

</div>

**5cents** , the answer is: 523,532 KB.

That _really_ doesn’t sound right.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![UnwrittenNocturne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/6de8d8/32.png) [@UnwrittenNocturne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UnwrittenNocturne)
#### Post date: [December 14, 2003, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ram-upgraded-or-was-it/218906/7 "2003-12-14T06:17:30Z")

</div>

Actually that is right for 512 MB - remember you are not dealing with a base 10 system here

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![DreadCthulhu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DreadCthulhu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DreadCthulhu)
#### Post date: [December 14, 2003, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ram-upgraded-or-was-it/218906/8 "2003-12-14T06:22:03Z")

</div>

523,532 KB is 512 Megabytes. You have to remember a megabyte is 1024 KB. 523,532/1024 = 512

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![netscape\_6](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/8c91f0/32.png) [@netscape\_6](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/netscape_6)
#### Post date: [December 14, 2003, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ram-upgraded-or-was-it/218906/9 "2003-12-14T06:38:31Z")

</div>

maxmem has a function to tell you how much memory is free. just put the mouse over the graph. [http://www.analogx.com/contents/download/system/maxmem.htm](http://www.analogx.com/contents/download/system/maxmem.htm)

run it. right click on it and a agressive freeing of ram. then put your mouse over it and the amount free should pop up. with 512 around 400 megs should be free.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![netscape\_6](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/8c91f0/32.png) [@netscape\_6](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/netscape_6)
#### Post date: [December 14, 2003, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ram-upgraded-or-was-it/218906/10 "2003-12-14T06:45:02Z")

</div>

must be getting to late for the math part of my mind. 70% (how much agressive tries to free) would be around 350 not 400. anything over 128 megs will answer your question anyway though.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![CookingWithGas](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cookingwithgas/32/485_2.png) [@CookingWithGas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CookingWithGas)
#### Post date: [December 14, 2003, 8:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ram-upgraded-or-was-it/218906/11 "2003-12-14T08:20:35Z")

</div>

I am trying to figure out how you did your upgrade. You replaced an existing 128 chip with a 512? Or added a 512? Not sure how much this helps, but some computers require chips to match. I have an IBM Aptiva that shipped with 64M and I added a 128 chip but the computer only recognized 128M. Had I pulled the 64 and put in 2 chips, it would recognize 256. Still doesn’t explain the discrepancy, though.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![SeekingTruth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/34f0e0/32.png) [@SeekingTruth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SeekingTruth)
#### Post date: [December 14, 2003, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ram-upgraded-or-was-it/218906/12 "2003-12-14T13:52:36Z")

</div>

FWIW, almost all computers nowadays run pc2100 ram chips, I think. I have a new Presario that shipped with 128. Like my last 3 computers, you have to use the same size ram if using more than one. I went with 2 256 for the 512.

Oddly, under system check, it lists 490. _shrug_
