4 Gigs RAM vs 1 for MS Access?

[(PeteCresswell)]

Guy in the group I serve just got a new laptop.

2 GHZ processor, but 4 (count 'em F-O-U-R) gigs of RAM.

On the face if it, it puts my 3 GHZ Pentium-4 developer's box
with one gig of RAM to shame.

That thing had some *serious* snap to it.

Yet it seems like I'm almost never using the full gig when I'm
just developing on my PC. PhotoShop and sound editing,
maybe... but just MS Access and a couple other apps, no.

Is this possible? Should I spring for some more RAM?

Or is there some other explanation?

 

[Rick Brandt]

Guy in the group I serve just got a new laptop.

2 GHZ processor, but 4 (count 'em F-O-U-R) gigs of RAM.

On the face if it, it puts my 3 GHZ Pentium-4 developer's box
with one gig of RAM to shame.

That thing had some *serious* snap to it.

Yet it seems like I'm almost never using the full gig when I'm
just developing on my PC. PhotoShop and sound editing,
maybe... but just MS Access and a couple other apps, no.

Is this possible? Should I spring for some more RAM?

Or is there some other explanation?

Pretty sure you need a 64 bit version of Windows to even access more than
3GB and change of RAM.

 

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Rick Brandt:

Pretty sure you need a 64 bit version of Windows to even access more than
3GB and change of RAM.

I didn't look *real* close, but on the outside of the box there
was a little plate that contained the word "Vista".

But when I did the MyComputer/Props thing it seemed to me like it
said XP Pro.

Conflict? Or is there a 64-bit version of Pro?

My kneejerk was that the company bought a bunch of those laptops
with Vista bundled and then just re-imaged them with the standard
company image, which includes CP Pro.

OTOH, even if it's a 32-bit OS, I'd guess it's still getting to 3
of those gigs..... and my wonderment still stands.

??

 

[a a r o n . k e m p f]

Pretty sure you need a 64 bit version of Windows to even access more
than
2GB and change of RAM.

 

[a a r o n . k e m p f]

Pretty sure you need a 64 bit version of Windows to even access more
than
2GB and change of RAM.

 

[Arvin Meyer [MVP]]

That's correct. 32 Bit Windows can only access about 3.2 GB of RAM. You can
however allocate the rest to a video display (Don't ask me how though)

My development machine has 2 GB of RAM and it really flies. One of my
laptops is running 2 GB with Vista, and it usually is using about 80% with
Office 2007. My newest laptop is a 3 GB Quad core and is quite zippy, even
with Vista.

3 GBs of RAM may cause problems with older versions of Access unless all the
service packs are deployed.

 

[Tom van Stiphout]

On Thu, 15 May 2008 20:23:44 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" <[email protected]>
wrote:

Processor architecture and size of L0 cache has a lot to do with
performance. Don't try to compare apples to oranges.
MsAccess.exe + access dlls + Your.mdb + some space for temporary
objects probably equals to a lot less than 1GB. So more won't help.

A 32-bit operating system can address 2^32 bytes of memory. Not 2^31
like some were suggesting. Windows Server has employed some wizardry
to get past this glass ceiling (memory windowing being one technique)
but it's not the same as a 64-bit OS which can addres 2^64 bytes of
memory natively.

Individual applications can restrict how much memory they want to work
with. I don't know of definite reports about MsAccess being
restrictive, although older versions (A97?) had degraded performance
when > 1GB was available.

-Tom.

 

[Arvin Meyer [MVP]]

Individual applications can restrict how much memory they want to work
with. I don't know of definite reports about MsAccess being
restrictive, although older versions (A97?) had degraded performance
when > 1GB was available.

My 2 GB, 3.0 GHz Pentium flies with Access 97. Starting my 18 MB code
library is instantaneous. I had always heard that it had problems with >
2GB, but that's not true either. It works just as well on my 3 GB Vista
machine. The only real problem I have with it is the A 97 help files don't
work in Vista, so I'm installing a virtual XP machine.

 

[Tony Toews [MVP]]

3 GBs of RAM may cause problems with older versions of Access unless all the
service packs are deployed.

Actually that's more than 1 Gb of RAM with A97. Newer I don't think
there's a problem.

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/

 

[Tom van Stiphout]

You're probably fully patched, as you should be. I'm speculating these
are issues that the MSFT development team was able to take care of
relatively easily.

MSFT updates has always been my friend, but I am often surprised by
clients saying they don't ever install updates. I've never got a
coherent explanation as to why not. "It messed me up one day" is the
best I can get. As a small company I have the luxury of saying
"Upgrade or else...". Some of our applications actually have specific
checks as to the version of Office or Jet, and won't run unless.

-Tom.

 

[Rick Brandt]

Actually that's more than 1 Gb of RAM with A97. Newer I don't think
there's a problem.

And that was patched I think. I run A97 on a PC with 2GB and have no
problems.

 

[Fred]

Why not upgrade your Vista to XP?

My 2 GB, 3.0 GHz Pentium flies with Access 97. Starting my 18 MB code
library is instantaneous. I had always heard that it had problems with >
2GB, but that's not true either. It works just as well on my 3 GB Vista
machine. The only real problem I have with it is the A 97 help files don't
work in Vista, so I'm installing a virtual XP machine.
--
Arvin Meyer, MCP, MVP
http://www.datastrat.com
http://www.mvps.org/access
http://www.accessmvp.com

 

[Fred]

Updates certainly are a mixed bag. On the "minus" side of the equation, if
from Microsoft, they often break or mess up things, create all sorts of
unnecessary hassles, and, often serve Microsoft's agenda at the expense of
their customer's agendas.

Of course there are also a lot of plusses.

 

[Tony Toews [MVP]]

And that was patched I think. I run A97 on a PC with 2GB and have no
problems.

Correct. SR2 and Jet 3.5 SP3.

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/

 

[Arvin Meyer [MVP]]

That's what I plan on doing with the virtual machine Some machines,
especially new laptops do not have drivers for XP. Two of mine fall into
that category. I have no choice but to leave them in Vista.
--
Arvin Meyer, MCP, MVP
http://www.datastrat.com
http://www.mvps.org/access
http://www.accessmvp.com

 

[Tony Toews [MVP]]

MSFT updates has always been my friend, but I am often surprised by
clients saying they don't ever install updates. I've never got a
coherent explanation as to why not. "It messed me up one day" is the
best I can get. As a small company I have the luxury of saying
"Upgrade or else...". Some of our applications actually have specific
checks as to the version of Office or Jet, and won't run unless.

I agree with checking the various versions of exe's or dll's.

What I've done is use the various API calls available and am checking
the version number and date/time of a crucial dll, msjetxx.dll, to
ensure it matches what I have on my system. See the Verify
Appropriate Jet Service Pack is installed page at my website for more
details including sample code:
www.granite.ab.ca\access\verifyjetsp.htm

Tony

--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/