scbs29 wrote:
> Hello all
> I am considering upgrading my pc, Pentium 4 dual core 3GHz, 2GB DDR
> ram to something a bit faster.If I do upgrade I have pretty well
> decided on an AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition and an Asus
> MSA78L/USB3 mobo. Another requirement is to increase the amount of
> RAM. My mobo at the moment, ASRock P4VM890 will only accept up to 2GB
> DDR, and I would like to go to 4GB DDR3 since I have started doing
> some video editing.
> I have been looking at RAM in XP and have found various reports that
> XP 32Bit will only handle 2Gb, 3Gb, 4Gb depending where you look.
> Can anyone shed light on this? Would XP Pro 32Bit handle 4 GB RAM with
> the above processor and mobo. I do not want to switch to Windows 7
> because I prefer XP and some software that I use will not run on Win7.
>
> remove fred before emailing
> Registered Linux User 490858

I have WinXP Pro X32 and also 4GB of RAM installed (2x2GB).

Task Manager reports 3,144,748 bytes of RAM.

If I installed a second video card, that requires some address space,
and the Task Manager report would be reduced.

Now, a second question would be, how can I use that RAM ?

A typical application here, can only use about 1.8GB of RAM via
normal allocation. So a single program might not use all of the
RAM. I might need to run two programs to use 3,144,748. So your
video editor program, might not get that much more than it has
currently.

Setting a switch in boot.ini, and using a LARGEADDRESSAWARE application,
would allow a single application to get closer to using 3GB. Otherwise,
with ordinary programs, you'd likely need to use two of them to use
all the RAM.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr.../gg487508.aspx

It is not worthwhile for me to change how I have physically configured
my RAM. With the price of RAM, it's just easier to install 2x2GB and
be done with it. At one time, smaller DIMMs were more popular and more
available. Now, DIMMs tend to larger sizes. So 2x2GB is just convenient.

*******

As for your current motherboard, a little known thing, is some of the
last VIA chipsets, could actually use 2GB DIMMs. Using a hacked BIOS,
my motherboard that normally accepts 2x1GB as its config, would also work
with 2GB+1GB or 2GB+2GB. The problem with it was, the BIOS didn't know how
to set the timing in a stable manner, so the 2GB DIMMs were throwing errors.
I had to return to the 2x1GB config. And the funny part of it as well,
is the support of 2GB on the chipset, was not even noted on the VIA website.
But some hacker tried it out, and the support must already have been in
the BIOS. It just wasn't tuned properly for actual usage. The 2GB DIMMs
ended up in my current motherboard. The VIA chipsets also run the RAM
rather slowly, in terms of clock rate, but that turned out to not be
a big deal. The best setting was DDR2-533, as DDR2-667 was a little
unstable. But the 533 setting was "like a rock". That machine is my
"second in line", and used for experiments.

When you see the prices of RAM, like the price of DDR3 RAM, you might
consider just buying 2x4GB DIMMs, and ignoring the wasted RAM. The thing
is, the price of RAM *will* rise, sooner or later, and dirt cheap 4GB
modules won't stay as dirt cheap forever. For example, this 2x4GB kit
is only $46. How can you say no to that ? :-) If my machine supported
DDR3, I'd have a set like that two days from now. There's always some
experiment, that will use it.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820231416

If you want to use that extra RAM, you can install this. It'll make
a RAMDisk for you. The free version, will use up to 4GB of unused
memory. And this works with WinXP. So you can have a 4GB RAMDisk and
still have 3,144,748 bytes free. That is an example of an experiment
you can try.

http://memory.dataram.com/products-a...ftware/ramdisk

This is a benchmark of the RAMDisk when I tested it. Then you can
tell people, the RAM wasn't "wasted". You ought to be able to get
a better benchmark than I got. An example of something to use the
RAMDisk for, is a scratch disk for Photoshop.

http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/8...am2gbabove.gif

Paul

scbs29 wrote:

>
>
> Thanks for the answers.
> What about 64Bit XP Pro ?
> Is it any good ? Worth considering ?
>
> remove fred before emailing
> Registered Linux User 490858

Newegg used to sell copies of the 64 bit version.

Under the Feedback tab, you can find customer comments on
what a PITA the software was.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16832116378

"Pros: - It works... sort of

Cons: -slow
-tons of bugs

Other Thoughts: I bought this OS last year, and since then I've
found numerous problems. I had a problem where I
couldn't get any Windows updates, (and the huge list
of troubleshooting suggestions didn't help) I can't
play Dirt 2 due to a bug that only occurs on
Windows XP 64 bit, and this operating system has been
generally slow for me, even with an Intel Core 2 Duo
E8500 3.16 GHz and 4 GB DDR3 ram. (I typically can't
moothly run two programs at once)
"

It can also be a problem, with the drivers. You'd want to check
the motherboard site, and see if that OS has driver support on
the site or not.

HTH,
Paul

Paul <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>I have WinXP Pro X32 and also 4GB of RAM installed (2x2GB).
>
>Task Manager reports 3,144,748 bytes of RAM.
>
>If I installed a second video card, that requires some address space,
>and the Task Manager report would be reduced.
>
>Now, a second question would be, how can I use that RAM ?

Only by going to a 64-bit system. A 32-bit system has 4GB of address
space, that has to be used for video RAM and BIOS as well as main RAM.
The more video RAM you have, the less system RAM you'll be able to
access.

>A typical application here, can only use about 1.8GB of RAM via
>normal allocation. So a single program might not use all of the
>RAM.

Now you're into virtual memory. Each 32-bit program thinks that it has
4GB of memory, the upper 2GB of which is reserved for the system. The
virtual memory system makes sure that this works properly, keeping
track of what pages are in physical RAM and which on disk for each
process and swapping things in and out accordingly.

--
Tim Slattery
(E-Mail Removed)

scbs29 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>What about 64Bit XP Pro ?
>Is it any good ? Worth considering ?

I'm using it here at work. We had been using 32-bit XP Pro, we now use
the same hardware but with 64-bit Win7. Even though we still use
almost all 32-bit programs, things work considerable faster than they
used to.

If you go to a 64-bit system, you'll be able to use all your system
RAM and all your video memory. In 64-bit Win7 You'll be able to use up
to 192 GB of RAM (16GB in Home Premium), probably much more than your
motherboard will handle.


--
Tim Slattery
(E-Mail Removed)