Win XP - ram?
Easy
Would 1024MB be better than 512MB for normal non graphics progs?
(I know win 9x can't do anything with it)
Thanks.
Easy.
Andreas Kaestner
"Easy" <easy...@hotmail.com> schrieb:
> Is there a lmit to how much ram XP can usefully use please?
> Would 1024MB be better than 512MB for normal non graphics progs?
> (I know win 9x can't do anything with it)
That's not true.
Regards
Andreas
Paul - xxx
You are wrong.
"Easy" <easy...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9n0b56$tn9$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
Dr Evil
Easy <easy...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9n0b56$tn9$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
Ralph Wade Phillips
"Easy" <easy...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9n0b56$tn9$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Is there a lmit to how much ram XP can usefully use please?
It really depends on the motherboard more than XP or any other
NT-based OS today.
> Would 1024MB be better than 512MB for normal non graphics progs?
It really depends - if you don't use up all of 512M, then 1G won't
do anything but run up the bill. For single user apps, there's not many
times (save for audio, video, and graphics) that you need that much RAM for
TODAY. (Ask me again in six months, the answer may change to "Well, Office
XP/2004 requires 1GIG to load ... ")
> (I know win 9x can't do anything with it)
<cough> Since when? I've got one customer with 1GIG and another
with 768Meg. Now, both do graphics editing, but Win98SE and PhotoShop can
most DEFINATELY use it.
RwP
Ron Martell
Windows XP Home and Professional are both capable of using up to 4 gb
of physical RAM (twice the 2 gb design limit of Windows 95/98/Me).
However, benefits from adding RAM depend entirely on how you use the
computer.
The general principle is that if there is significant actual usage of
the paging file (swap file in 95/98/Me) then adding more RAM will
reduce or eliminate this usage thereby improving overall performance.
In Windows 95/98/Me a reliable indication of actual swap file usage is
provided by the System Monitor utility using the "memory manager -
swap file in use" function.
I have not yet discovered an equivalent reported value for Windows XP.
Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca
"The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."
pcbutts1
accurate.
--
Don't trust anyone. See them with your own eyes. New spy cams and Home
Security Systems with web access NOW available at http://www.seedsv.com .
"Ron Martell" <r...@onlinehelp.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:ue38ptgqnsdjiauri...@4ax.com...
Uwish
but in GENERAL it doesn't use memory above 512 Mb effectively. I am not
saying it doesn't entirely, but in order to do it, you should configure
your memory management manually and there are some tweaks you should do.
regards,
Ron Martell
>Just a comment on the 9x can't do anything. Well hate to break the news
>but in GENERAL it doesn't use memory above 512 Mb effectively. I am not
>saying it doesn't entirely, but in order to do it, you should configure
>your memory management manually and there are some tweaks you should do.
>
>regards,
>
There is only one tweak needed, and that is with respect to limiting
the amount of RAM that can be used for disk cache.
But Windows is fully capable of making effective use of RAM above 512
mb for programs execution and/or data files and there are a large
number of people who are successfully doing so.
What are the manual settings for management that you are talking
about, and also the other tweaks?
Easy
I was referring to the OS improving in general performance, not in Photoshop
etc..
Perhaps I am still wrongggg, u r all of that opinion it seems?
Easy.
"Easy" <easy...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9n0b56$tn9$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
Easy
help would be nicer than "I know and you don't" type remarks.
I do not profess to be a font of all knowledge, guess you must be Hawk.
Have a nice day, someone must love you.
Easy
"Easy" <easy...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9n0b56$tn9$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...