As the title really. I have a motherboard capable of running 3GB of RAM and
was thinking of installing 3GB to max out the board and give me chance to
try out Vista shortly. But in the meantime, will this work OK in Windows XP
Pro? Can XP handle 3GB od RAM ok?

Thanks a lot

Yes.

Eric wrote:

> As the title really. I have a motherboard capable of running 3GB of RAM and
> was thinking of installing 3GB to max out the board and give me chance to
> try out Vista shortly. But in the meantime, will this work OK in Windows XP
> Pro? Can XP handle 3GB od RAM ok?
>
> Thanks a lot
>
>
>

No problem for XP and a good choice for Vista.

JS
http://www.pagestart.com


"Eric" <eric-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:gb0c94$7um$(E-Mail Removed)...
> As the title really. I have a motherboard capable of running 3GB of RAM
> and
> was thinking of installing 3GB to max out the board and give me chance to
> try out Vista shortly. But in the meantime, will this work OK in Windows
> XP
> Pro? Can XP handle 3GB od RAM ok?
>
> Thanks a lot
>
>
>

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 15:17:06 +0100, "Eric"
<eric-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> As the title really. I have a motherboard capable of running 3GB of RAM and
> was thinking of installing 3GB to max out the board and give me chance to
> try out Vista shortly. But in the meantime, will this work OK in Windows XP
> Pro? Can XP handle 3GB od RAM ok?


Yes it can. But will that much RAM improve Windows XP's performance?
The answer depends on what apps you run, but the answer is very likely
no, and that it will provide no additional performance over what apps
you run. Here's my standard post on this subject:

How much RAM you need for good performance is *not* a
one-size-fits-all situation. You get good performance if the amount of
RAM you have keeps you from using the page file, and that depends on
what apps you run. Most people running a typical range of business
applications find that somewhere around 256-384MB works well, others
need 512MB. Almost anyone will see poor performance with less than
256MB. Some people, particularly those doing things like editing large
photographic images, can see a performance boost by adding even more
than 512MB--sometimes much more.

If you are currently using the page file significantly, more memory
will decrease or eliminate that usage, and improve your performance.
If you are not using the page file significantly, more memory will do
nothing for you. Go to
http://billsway.com/notes%5Fpublic/winxp%5Ftweaks/ and download
WinXP-2K_Pagefile.zip and monitor your pagefile usage. That should
give you a good idea of whether more memory can help, and if so, how
much more.

Also bear in mind one additional point: how much RAM can be used (in
either XP or Vista) depends on your hardware configuration. Most
computers can use a little more than 3GB, but bear in mind that
there's a slight possibility that yours will not.

All 32-bit client versions of Windows (not just Vista/XP) have a 4GB
address space. That's the theoretical upper limit beyond which you can
not go.

But you can't use the entire 4GB of address space. Even though you
have a 4GB address space, you can only use *around* 3.1GB of RAM.
That's because some of that space is used by hardware and is not
available to the operating system and applications. The amount you can
use varies, depending on what hardware you have installed, but can
range from as little as 2GB to as much as 3.5GB. It's usually around
3.1GB.

Note that the hardware is using the address *space*, not the actual
RAM itself. The rest of the RAM goes unused because there is no
address space to map it too.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

I wouldn't use XP with less than 1Gb RAM when I can fit at least this.
"Ken Blake, MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 15:17:06 +0100, "Eric"
> <eric-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> As the title really. I have a motherboard capable of running 3GB of RAM
>> and
>> was thinking of installing 3GB to max out the board and give me chance to
>> try out Vista shortly. But in the meantime, will this work OK in Windows
>> XP
>> Pro? Can XP handle 3GB od RAM ok?
>
>
> Yes it can. But will that much RAM improve Windows XP's performance?
> The answer depends on what apps you run, but the answer is very likely
> no, and that it will provide no additional performance over what apps
> you run. Here's my standard post on this subject:
>
> How much RAM you need for good performance is *not* a
> one-size-fits-all situation. You get good performance if the amount of
> RAM you have keeps you from using the page file, and that depends on
> what apps you run. Most people running a typical range of business
> applications find that somewhere around 256-384MB works well, others
> need 512MB. Almost anyone will see poor performance with less than
> 256MB. Some people, particularly those doing things like editing large
> photographic images, can see a performance boost by adding even more
> than 512MB--sometimes much more.
>
> If you are currently using the page file significantly, more memory
> will decrease or eliminate that usage, and improve your performance.
> If you are not using the page file significantly, more memory will do
> nothing for you. Go to
> http://billsway.com/notes%5Fpublic/winxp%5Ftweaks/ and download
> WinXP-2K_Pagefile.zip and monitor your pagefile usage. That should
> give you a good idea of whether more memory can help, and if so, how
> much more.
>
> Also bear in mind one additional point: how much RAM can be used (in
> either XP or Vista) depends on your hardware configuration. Most
> computers can use a little more than 3GB, but bear in mind that
> there's a slight possibility that yours will not.
>
> All 32-bit client versions of Windows (not just Vista/XP) have a 4GB
> address space. That's the theoretical upper limit beyond which you can
> not go.
>
> But you can't use the entire 4GB of address space. Even though you
> have a 4GB address space, you can only use *around* 3.1GB of RAM.
> That's because some of that space is used by hardware and is not
> available to the operating system and applications. The amount you can
> use varies, depending on what hardware you have installed, but can
> range from as little as 2GB to as much as 3.5GB. It's usually around
> 3.1GB.
>
> Note that the hardware is using the address *space*, not the actual
> RAM itself. The rest of the RAM goes unused because there is no
> address space to map it too.
>
> --
> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
> Please Reply to the Newsgroup

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 11:30:19 +1200, "Jason" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

> I wouldn't use XP with less than 1Gb RAM when I can fit at least this.



Your choice, of course. But only few people will see a performance
increment by running XP with 1GB instead of 512M.



> "Ken Blake, MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 15:17:06 +0100, "Eric"
> > <eric-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> >> As the title really. I have a motherboard capable of running 3GB of RAM
> >> and
> >> was thinking of installing 3GB to max out the board and give me chance to
> >> try out Vista shortly. But in the meantime, will this work OK in Windows
> >> XP
> >> Pro? Can XP handle 3GB od RAM ok?
> >
> >
> > Yes it can. But will that much RAM improve Windows XP's performance?
> > The answer depends on what apps you run, but the answer is very likely
> > no, and that it will provide no additional performance over what apps
> > you run. Here's my standard post on this subject:
> >
> > How much RAM you need for good performance is *not* a
> > one-size-fits-all situation. You get good performance if the amount of
> > RAM you have keeps you from using the page file, and that depends on
> > what apps you run. Most people running a typical range of business
> > applications find that somewhere around 256-384MB works well, others
> > need 512MB. Almost anyone will see poor performance with less than
> > 256MB. Some people, particularly those doing things like editing large
> > photographic images, can see a performance boost by adding even more
> > than 512MB--sometimes much more.
> >
> > If you are currently using the page file significantly, more memory
> > will decrease or eliminate that usage, and improve your performance.
> > If you are not using the page file significantly, more memory will do
> > nothing for you. Go to
> > http://billsway.com/notes%5Fpublic/winxp%5Ftweaks/ and download
> > WinXP-2K_Pagefile.zip and monitor your pagefile usage. That should
> > give you a good idea of whether more memory can help, and if so, how
> > much more.
> >
> > Also bear in mind one additional point: how much RAM can be used (in
> > either XP or Vista) depends on your hardware configuration. Most
> > computers can use a little more than 3GB, but bear in mind that
> > there's a slight possibility that yours will not.
> >
> > All 32-bit client versions of Windows (not just Vista/XP) have a 4GB
> > address space. That's the theoretical upper limit beyond which you can
> > not go.
> >
> > But you can't use the entire 4GB of address space. Even though you
> > have a 4GB address space, you can only use *around* 3.1GB of RAM.
> > That's because some of that space is used by hardware and is not
> > available to the operating system and applications. The amount you can
> > use varies, depending on what hardware you have installed, but can
> > range from as little as 2GB to as much as 3.5GB. It's usually around
> > 3.1GB.
> >
> > Note that the hardware is using the address *space*, not the actual
> > RAM itself. The rest of the RAM goes unused because there is no
> > address space to map it too.
> >
> > --
> > Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
> > Please Reply to the Newsgroup
>

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

"Jason" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:eUjDf#(E-Mail Removed)...
> I wouldn't use XP with less than 1Gb RAM when I can fit at least this.

I agree entirely. 256MB is really too little and an experienced user would
immediately see the slowdown in performance, even on a basic install of XP.

512 is maybe OK for most poople, but when RAM is as cheap as it is now, why
mess around with 512MB, when you can stick a GIG in there.

I agree with you Jason. I would never accept less than 1024MB on a Windows
XP system now. Infact I have never run less than this for quite a long time
now. I bought a laptop about 5 years ago and upgraded the RAM to 1G from
the standard 256MB (which was making the system sluggish).

I've found that RAM is relative to performance. (I installed 512Mb from 256
on a machine running 98 - Windows 2000 immediately improved and made no
difference to 98). On XP I've updated as I've changed motherboards -
starting with 512Mb, then 1Gb when I went to 2.8GHz - I now run 2Gb on the
replacement motherboard motherboard with 2.2GHz CPU. The same thing has
happened when upgrading hard drives. Each time I used a new hard drive as
the windows drive, windows and apps ran faster. This particular computer is
300GHz with 192Mb RAM, 18Gb Hard drive running XP Pro. Rather slow even
sending/receiving email/news and browsing on broadband. But can't afford to
upgrade/replace yet. Good for downloading large files off the 'net though.
"Don B" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:gb2tab$sdj$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "Jason" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:eUjDf#(E-Mail Removed)...
>> I wouldn't use XP with less than 1Gb RAM when I can fit at least this.
>
> I agree entirely. 256MB is really too little and an experienced user
> would
> immediately see the slowdown in performance, even on a basic install of
> XP.
>
> 512 is maybe OK for most poople, but when RAM is as cheap as it is now,
> why
> mess around with 512MB, when you can stick a GIG in there.
>
> I agree with you Jason. I would never accept less than 1024MB on a
> Windows
> XP system now. Infact I have never run less than this for quite a long
> time
> now. I bought a laptop about 5 years ago and upgraded the RAM to 1G from
> the standard 256MB (which was making the system sluggish).
>
>
>

DustWolf wrote:
> On 19 sep., 16:17, "Eric" <eric-nospam09834...@mail4u.net> wrote:
>> As the title really. I have a motherboard capable of running 3GB of
>> RAM and was thinking of installing 3GB to max out the board and give
>> me chance to try out Vista shortly. But in the meantime, will this
>> work OK in Windows XP Pro? Can XP handle 3GB od RAM ok?
>
> Yes.
>
> However additional free RAM will change nothing if it's not being
> used. Windows does not utilize the extra free RAM, but the space is
> available for use in application.

Windows DOES use extra free RAM to improve its efficiency.