Windows XP and RAM limitations

[Sebby]

A lot of bloatware these days could probably learn a thing or two from that, Rik.

[Rik]

It would be good, Seb. Stuff did run fast back then, if we could run the same code on new processors, it would be like greased lightning.

[Sebby]

I'm convinced that large software companies have agreements with processor manufacturers to make applications more demanding over time. That's not to say that applications don't naturally get more demanding over time, because they do, but I'm not sure whether to this extent.

[Rik]

I'm sure you're right, plus it's cheaper to write stuff with languages that bloat the finished result than it is to hand code.

[Odos]

Just to be clear then, assuming the board has 4 slots, 4x1gb sticks with the 32bit OS will give me the "bonus" of using the Dual channel feature where I will "Lose" perhaps 0.8gb I will still see better processing speed than with just 3 sticks. As you say, RAM is only about £15/gb nowadays.
Either way that's got to be more economic than buying a new OS. Who knows, maybe the new one will have some magic to recognise more ram anyway?
Sadly there does seem to be a hit on latency reported using 1gb sticks over 512's but them's the breaks I suppose.

Everything said so far is correct as far as it goes, I would still say go for 4 gig and not 3. The reason being that although having 4gig installed only shows up as 3.25gig to any applications etc the rest of the "lost" memory can actually be used for paging puposes by the OS when certain registry entries are modified.

I did this on my 32bit OS's when I installed them and no I can't remember what I did  It's a long, long time since I did a "fresh" install of a 32bit OS with more than 2 gig of memory ( I tend to use just 64bit these days ). I can remember finding out about this at the time by googling so I'm sure google would be your friend if your interested 

[wecpcs]

That really was the attitude at the time, Seb. Indeed, I can remember some incredulity at Adobe when a user built a machine with a gig of RAM, about 15 years ago, and Photoshop fell over because of it. Times certainly change.

I had that problem a few years ago when I was using a cut-down version of Adobe which came free with a scanner and it did the job I wanted, but when I upgraded the ram at that time from 512Mb to one 1Gb it reported that I did not have enough memory installed. After approaching Adobe support they basically said I had to upgrade to Photoshop Elements, which I reluctantly did, but it was overkill for what I wanted apart from the extra expense. Luckily I was able to get a copy of a magazine cover disk and managed to upgrade that, which saved a few pounds.

Colin

[Odos]

Further to my post above I had a little spare time and did a search. If anyones interested this may throw a little more light on things 
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-gb/library/aa366796(VS.85).aspx

[Rik]

Thanks, Tony. 

[JB]

Post deleted by 6JB

[Rik]

Did you mean to post in this thread, JB, or in the vulnerability one? Ah, you just answered my question.

[JB]

You're too quick Rik 

[Rik]

 

I have to be.