More than 2GB RAM useless for 32 bit systems?

[danielbaars]

Is it true that having more than 2GB of RAM installed on a 32 bit XP
systems is of very little use?

I have 2GB right now and I could do with some more as I run a lot of
software simultaneously and work with large (Photoshop) files. A
pretty normal set of software that I could have active simultaneously:
Photoshop, InDesign, Illustrator, Acrobat, UEStudio, xplorer2, iTunes,
Skype, Outlook and Firefox with tabs open to Gmail, Google Calendar
and Backpack. Always running in the background are things like VNC,
SnagIt, Pando, Wacom Tablet driver and ZoneAlarm Security Suite.

Setup is:
Dell Optiplex GX620 Pentium(R) D CPU 3.2GHz
2GB RAM
256mb ATI Radeon X600
20" + 14" TFT monitor
2x 250GB internal HDs
9 external USB 2.0 drives

Would increasing the amount of physical RAM improve performance or
would it be a waste of money?

Regards,


DB

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Is it true that having more than 2GB of RAM installed on a 32 bit XP
systems is of very little use?

No, it's false. 32-bit XP can use up to 4GB. However the 4GB address space
has to be shared with memory used for other devices. So Windows (not just XP
but all 32-bit versions, including 32-bit Vista) can't use that entire 4GB
for itself.

How much it can use is not simply 3GB, but depends on what devices are
installed. It's normally a little more than 3GB, but never as low as 2GB

I have 2GB right now and I could do with some more as I run a lot of
software simultaneously and work with large (Photoshop) files. A
pretty normal set of software that I could have active simultaneously:
Photoshop, InDesign, Illustrator, Acrobat, UEStudio, xplorer2, iTunes,
Skype, Outlook and Firefox with tabs open to Gmail, Google Calendar
and Backpack. Always running in the background are things like VNC,
SnagIt, Pando, Wacom Tablet driver and ZoneAlarm Security Suite.

Would increasing the amount of physical RAM improve performance or
would it be a waste of money?

If you are working with large Photoshop files, my guess is that going to 3GB
would improve your performance.

 

[Tim Slattery]

Is it true that having more than 2GB of RAM installed on a 32 bit XP
systems is of very little use?

I have 2GB right now and I could do with some more as I run a lot of
software simultaneously and work with large (Photoshop) files. A
pretty normal set of software that I could have active simultaneously:
Photoshop, InDesign, Illustrator, Acrobat, UEStudio, xplorer2, iTunes,
Skype, Outlook and Firefox with tabs open to Gmail, Google Calendar
and Backpack. Always running in the background are things like VNC,
SnagIt, Pando, Wacom Tablet driver and ZoneAlarm Security Suite.

Would increasing the amount of physical RAM improve performance or
would it be a waste of money?

It depends. Are you waiting for things to happen while your disk drive
churns? In that case, you would probably benefit from more RAM, since
things are being swapped to and from your paging file a LOT. If things
are happening quickly - switching programs, command execution, etc -
then you probably have enough already.

 

[Anna]

Is it true that having more than 2GB of RAM installed on a 32 bit XP
systems is of very little use?

I have 2GB right now and I could do with some more as I run a lot of
software simultaneously and work with large (Photoshop) files. A
pretty normal set of software that I could have active simultaneously:
Photoshop, InDesign, Illustrator, Acrobat, UEStudio, xplorer2, iTunes,
Skype, Outlook and Firefox with tabs open to Gmail, Google Calendar
and Backpack. Always running in the background are things like VNC,
SnagIt, Pando, Wacom Tablet driver and ZoneAlarm Security Suite.

Setup is:
Dell Optiplex GX620 Pentium(R) D CPU 3.2GHz
2GB RAM
256mb ATI Radeon X600
20" + 14" TFT monitor
2x 250GB internal HDs
9 external USB 2.0 drives

Would increasing the amount of physical RAM improve performance or
would it be a waste of money?

Regards,


DB

DB:
I can assure you that having a total of 3 (and preferably) 4 GB of RAM in
your situation will most definitely not be "a waste of money". We know of
many users running the same programs as you listed (or similar ones) who
have reported to us that increasing their memory to 3 or 4 GB of RAM made a
world of difference.
Anna

P.S.
Nine external USB HDDs?

 

[danielbaars]

To everyone who responded: many thanks, I'm glad I asked, very
enlightening answers!

P.S.
Nine external USB HDDs?

Hahaha, you noticed! That is a subject for another question I would
like to post about in the near future: my truly horrible experiences
with DVDs as a backup medium. I have basically come to the conclusion
that you cannot rely on a DVD backup so now I'm keeping all my stuff
on external harddisks.

Again, thanks for your reply!


DB

 

[danielbaars]

No, it's false. 32-bit XP can use up to 4GB. However the 4GB address space
has to be shared with memory used for other devices. So Windows (not just XP
but all 32-bit versions, including 32-bit Vista) can't use that entire 4GB
for itself.

How much it can use is not simply 3GB, but depends on what devices are
installed. It's normally a little more than 3GB, but never as low as 2GB

Perhaps a stupid question but what do you mean by 'devices'? Is XP a
'device' or are you talking about hardware that uses memory?

Regards,


DB

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Perhaps a stupid question but what do you mean by 'devices'? Is XP a
'device' or are you talking about hardware that uses memory?

Hardware. Video cards, and so on.

 

[Homer J. Simpson]

People keep confusing the 2GB of addressable space per process and having
2GB of RAM. In short, they have nothing to do with each other. I say, load
her up 'til you see no more speed increase. Personally right now I find 2GB
to be the sweet spot on my system; I wouldn't get much further benefit,
cost-wise, with more--if I consider the way I typically use my system.
Needless to say, YMMV.