" Sweet Spot" for XP SP3?

[Sue]

Hi,
I am getting to the point where I will need to buy a new laptop and want to
have it configured to make optimal use of the XP SP3 OS. When XP came out,
those in the know reported that 2 GB of RAM was ideal for XP and more would
actually slow it down. I am wondering if the new SP makes optimal use of
additional RAM or it remains best to stick to 2 GB.
Thanks!
Sue

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

There is no reason to stick to 2GB with an version of XP that I know of
unless your mobo has an issue with it. SP3 does not change how ram is
handled. With XP SP3 the amount of ram reported on the system properties
page remains the amount available to user programs rather than the total
installed. There is no change.

 

[PA Bear [MS MVP]]

Only those posting in this forum can answer your question at this point,
Sue:
http://forums.microsoft.com/TechNet/ShowForum.aspx?ForumID=2010&SiteID=17

 

[Tony Meloche]

Hi,
I am getting to the point where I will need to buy a new laptop and want to
have it configured to make optimal use of the XP SP3 OS. When XP came out,
those in the know reported that 2 GB of RAM was ideal for XP and more would
actually slow it down. I am wondering if the new SP makes optimal use of
additional RAM or it remains best to stick to 2 GB.
Thanks!
Sue

SP3 - when it is released - is overwhelmingly updates and patches for
existing programs. I would think SP3 in and of itself should make no
difference whatsoever in your RAM needs.

Tony

 

[BigJim]

no one will know that until the actual release data. Just guessing I don't
think anything will change.

 

[Uncle Grumpy]

I am getting to the point where I will need to buy a new laptop and want to
have it configured to make optimal use of the XP SP3 OS.

Are you going to buy it with no operating system installed?? Most new
computers have Vista installed. A few manufacturers offer the option
of buying it with Windows XP installed.

In the latter case, they might even come pre-installed with SP3, but
they most certainly will come with SP2

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

Those of us using XP SP3 RC now certainly know! And anyone else can know
too by reading the release notes at:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/936929. You mean you haven't done that yet?

 

[philo]

Hi,
I am getting to the point where I will need to buy a new laptop and want to
have it configured to make optimal use of the XP SP3 OS. When XP came out,
those in the know reported that 2 GB of RAM was ideal for XP and more would
actually slow it down. I am wondering if the new SP makes optimal use of
additional RAM or it remains best to stick to 2 GB.
Thanks!
Sue

XP 32 bit can make use of approx 3.2 gigs of RAM.

If you need to use more RAM then you will need the 64bit version of XP
and the appropriate hardware of course

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

Not true. The available memory for user programs that is reported on the
system properties page is driven by the amount of ram reserved by the BIOS
for memory-mapped IO for devices like video cards. It varies from as little
as 2.5GB to 3.5GB depending on the computer. It is not that Windows cannot
use all 4GB but that the BIOS is denying some memory to user programs.
Vista x86 SP1 now reports 4GB on the system properties page but only because
MS has changed what is reported there from user space to installed ram.

 

[PA Bear [MS MVP]]

When has MS announced that the current WinXP SP3 RC is the RTM version?

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

They haven't but any further changes are now locked down. The bug level is
now at the showstopper (catastropic) point and therefore the release notes
are definitive as to changes being made to the functionalities of Windows by
SP3.

 

[John John]

Vista x86 SP1 now reports 4GB on the system properties
page but only because MS has changed what is reported there from user
space to installed ram.

In other words it's just cosmetic, it doesn't change the fact that the
operating system cannot use the full 4gb and that it is not available
for the tasks at hand. I'm not sure that a phony reporting of the
(available) RAM is a good idea, it doesn't improve anything and it only
serves to further muddle the issue and make the 32-bit OS that can't use
PAE appear better than it is, probably a decision driven by the
marketing department. Of course the PC vendors too are just going to
love this, an opportunity for yet another scam, sell useless RAM to
unsuspecting customers and they won't even know the difference!

John

 

[philo]

Not true. The available memory for user programs that is reported on the
system properties page is driven by the amount of ram reserved by the BIOS
for memory-mapped IO for devices like video cards. It varies from as little
as 2.5GB to 3.5GB depending on the computer. It is not that Windows cannot
use all 4GB but that the BIOS is denying some memory to user programs.
Vista x86 SP1 now reports 4GB on the system properties page but only because
MS has changed what is reported there from user space to installed ram.

Note: I said APPROX!

3.2 gigs is what most users report when 4 gigs is installed
that does not change the fact that the 64 bit version of the OS is needed to
utalize more than 4 gigs of RAM

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

Yes it is informational only, if that's what you mean by "cosmetic."

Having said that, winver still shows the amount available to user programs
just as it always has in XP. The change in reporting on the system
properties page was due to MS deciding that this is what the majority of the
user base wanted to see there. MS has not had much success in explaining
what the reported amount on the system properties page and in winver really
meant and I think they just gave in.

IMO as the use of personal computers has spread the user base as a whole has
become corresponding less sophisticated about computers to the point now
that only a tiny percent of consumers could even figure out what
conversations like this one were all about much less follow them. Now I
think we have a case where most users just want a number there that they can
take some comfort from, forget about what it does or does not mean. A sad
state. I think the saying "be careful what you ask for, you may get it"
applies.

 

[PA Bear [MS MVP]]

And is this publically available information, Colin?

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

Yes. It is SOP for all release candidates.

And is this publically available information, Colin?

 

[Martin C]

The OP stated that "2 GB of RAM was ideal for XP and more would actually
slow it down"

This is news to me and may actually change my mind in adding more RAM. I
have 1GB and was going to add an extra 2GB. Why does having more than 2GB
actually slow the system down? Would I really be better off with just an
extra 1GB?

Martin

 

[Tim Slattery]

XP 32 bit can make use of approx 3.2 gigs of RAM.

That varies according to your video card, BIOS, etc. See
http://members.cox.net/slatteryt/RAM.html

 

[John John]

I think that is an old wives tale! Adding more RAM may or may not make
the computer perform better or go faster, but it won't slow it down.

John

 

[Tim Slattery]

Hi,
I am getting to the point where I will need to buy a new laptop and want to
have it configured to make optimal use of the XP SP3 OS. When XP came out,
those in the know reported that 2 GB of RAM was ideal for XP and more would
actually slow it down.

That is not, and never was, true.

I am wondering if the new SP makes optimal use of
additional RAM or it remains best to stick to 2 GB.

Most users don't need more than 2GB. If you're using RAM-hungry
applications like image or video editing or virtual machines
(VirtualPC and others), you will likely benefit from the extra RAM.

On the other hand, RAM is cheap and more certainly won't hurt you.