So, justifying my optimism that there was a solution, and confounding my pessimism that it would not be found, the RAM saga has ended happily. For those who have an interest in such things, here is the explanation. For those who don’t, you can stop reading now.
The existing 3 go. of RAM in the computer was in two modules, both of which are the same size physically, but one supplies 2 go. of memory and the other supplies 1 go. of memory
The idea was to remove the 1 go. module and replace it with a new 2 go module, giving a total RAM of 4 go. But as mentioned in the previous post, that did not work. The computer declared that it only had 1 go. of RAM.
The first attempt to rectify the situation consisted of
ramming reseating the new 2 go module back into its slot, and the result was an improvement – 3 go. of RAM now found, bringing us back to square one and still leaving 1 go. AWOL.
Let me ask a question.
If you had two objects before you, indistinguishable except that one carried a reference “1” and the other was marked “2”, would you logically expect the numbers to be indicative of their capacity? If so, in this instance, you would be wrong.
Because the module marked “2” only supplied 1 go. of RAM, while the module marked “1” supplied 2 go. Geddit?
So with the new 2 go module
rammed reseated, and the original “2” that was actually 1 replaced with the original “1”that was actually 2, we achieved the desired 4.
Oh never mind.