alright this is how it goes
how much RAM do you have? i know theres a huge difference between ram speeds and pc1300 to sdram. i don't care im just looking at the MB's (or you'd like to say in some cases Gig's).
Im Going 128 n up by doubling. i know ill miss people with like a 512mb & 256 (756) but just post which ever u think is close enough in ur case and post the correct amount.
If you need to check for RAM. Check through My Computers > Properties > General. in the bottom it'll display RAM
I have 2GB still, had it since 2004 I think. Doesn't 4GB require a 64-bit system? That poses a problem for me considering Vista 64-bit is a ton better than XP, but I am faced with the dilema of hating Vista and it's interface. I get stuck in this small hole unfortunately.
not true, just depends on your motherboard. i can go up to 4gbs
Actually there IS some truth to that.
The maximum memory space addressable by a 32 bit OS is 4GB, out of which a certain amount is reserved for hardware devices.
This would typically leave about 3-3.25 GB available for user applications.
With certain server class Intel hardware, operating systems can bypass this limit using what Intel calls Physical Address Extension.
But the easier way is to switch to 64-bit hardware and OS.
You may want to read this article for more information - http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605
There also exists a 64-bit version of XP ... or did you mean 64-bit Vista is better than 64-bit XP ?
p.s. - Oh, by the way, I have 4GB of RAM in my system, running Vista 64-bit.
RAM is relatively affordable nowadays, most new computers or laptops will have at least 1 Gig, if not 2, of RAM.
niceeeee what kind?
depends where you live. in NB of Canada. we only have two stores to really get RAM at.. which is futuresucks and staples.
RAM on deals are extremely hard to get. Supple vs. demand
256+512 on my old 1.6GHZ Pentium 3? 4? Compaq Presario B2000
1024x2 on my new 2.0Ghz Pentium Dual Core Centrino Dell Inspiron 1520
My desktop... eh.... >_>;;;; i'll check on that later on XD it's ancient tho. Possibly a 256MB.
There's one other ancienter one in my bro's room that's probably a 128MB, and another ancientest one that lies dead for the last possibly 8 years in the store room which I can't even begin to guess for XD
It's funny though o_O; I moved into the current house 6 years ago, i have no idea why the ancientest one was still with us o_o
is there a school by u? they usually accept donations lol
To answer your question: I own way over 4 GB... but it's not all in one pc.
I meant 64-bit Vista is better than 64-bit XP, the lack of applications compatible with the XP 64-bit would be a massive problem for me. I want 4GB of RAM but I'm kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place at the moment.
Yeah you need a 64bit OS it see more than 4Gbs. And it sucks because for Windows 32bit is still the main stream. I have 32bit because I didn't want to deal with the addishional problems that 64bit with the overall slower performance of 64bit because it is not supported as well. I really think that Vista should have been 64bit only forcing the support for the OS.
I've Windows Vista, I have 2 gigas of ram and it's enough
well i known users who actually ran windozzzzzz 2k with 6 1/2 GBs(was very sexy)... it wasn't 64bit either...
2 x 2GB DDR2 667MHz, Transcend
The pair can manage 800MHz at default timings, without breaking a sweat.
Put it up with a Bsel modded cheap E4500, and you have a system that can compete with the best.
Indeed. 3 GB certainly is possible.
But any more, and you either need specialized server grade motherboard or a 64-bit OS.
When I run a 32-bit OS, it detects only 3.25 GB out of the 4GB that is actually present.
I have 2 x 512MB (DDR500) Vitesta high performance RAM on my P4. Feel like upgrading my RAM capacity to another 2 x 512MB (DDR400) Corsair Economic range since RAM prices are pretty cheap now. What do you people think of this upgrade?
whats stopping you ?
i have 3 x 512mb (1 DDR533, 2 DDR667) in my pentium D 3.0. probably will add it till 4 x 512mb. they are working fine in my vista x86 and xp.
I have 2 x 1gb sticks of Geil PC2 6400 ram. 4-4-4-12 timings. I have to say it's the best ram ive ever had (sort of comes with the upgrading flow)
now own gig and 512
DCh 400Mhz 2x512MB Samsung on my new machine
PC2700 2x512MB on my lappy
PC133 512,2x256MB on my old system but I took out 2x256MB because it's waste of energy also Ubuntu is happy with 512MB it doesn't need more!
Linux owns ram.
I have 2GB of RAM memory.
Linux can btw address more then 4GiB of RAM memory by means of a PAE kernel on a 32bit CPU.
Though even then your still limited to 4GiB of ram per application...
32 bit windows can adress 4 GB memory, that means 4 GB complete computer memory, not only System RAM
For example if you have graphic card with 512 MB memory, that means thay your OS can adress about 3.5 GB RAM. because 3.5 GB + 0.5 GB = 4 GB
I thought WinXP32 only can address up to 3GB
Both are not completely correct: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000811.html
And Linux is not so good in RAM usage at all, except when compared to Vista...
Damn m0rphie! Nice rig.
I only have 2GBs. OCZ Special Ops Urban Elite 800MHz. Running vista 32-bit.
What do you mean it is not so good in RAM usage?? That it uses a lot of RAM or something? It depends on the distribution, or should I say it depends on X server. Gnome and KDE use more ram and Xfce uses smaller amount of it.
Xorg is a memory hog per definition, no matter what WM you use, even if it's TWM. Take for example the combination TWM/Xorg as a graphical system for Linux. The Windows 95 GUI has more features but is much less resource hungry! Don't believe me? Get an old 486 and try both. See which is more responsive (if you can get X running in the first place).
Considering that TWM itself hardly uses any resources, we can conclude that Xorg without WM uses more resources than Windows 95 with its "WM".
And don't come telling me that Windows 95 is outdated, because it's totally irrelevant. I already included that when I considered functionality in the above comparison. Windows 95 does more than Xorg/TWM at less memory cost. An approximately equal WM in functionality, say JWM, will have even more memory usage than Xorg/TWM.
Also don't come telling me Vista is a hog. I already stated that in my previous post. In contrast to the fanboys out there, I'm not pro-Windows when I'm stating something negative about Linux or vice-versa.
For comparison, the above mentioned Xfce is considered light by some users, but is already much heavier than the used managers TWM and JWM in this post. So for Xfce, it will be even worse. In fact, I compared Win98SE to the "light" Xubuntu which uses Xfce, on a Celeron 500.
what I just installed Ubuntu with just regular classic graphics of Gnome
512MB was more than enough!!! If you want that 3D environment then that's another story!!!
Besides, even for Linux 512MB is not light. I ran Debian on a P2 with 64MB and it was usable. Still not as smooth as Win98SE on such a machine, but I didn't have a licence for that machine.
umm who said I'm using the whole 512MB??? I said have installed 512MB, originally there was 1GB RAM but I found it too much so i took some RAM off to keep it to 1 stick of RAM heh that will save some energy!
and yea i read about your previous post and PLEASE don't remind of Windows95 I have nightmares because of that junk, at the end i was so good in debugging that junk I actually went through Chinese version of Windows95 and actually fixed it and NO i don't know any Chinese!!!
Off all things i tried I still have the happiest thoughts about Mandrake9 on my old system Abit KT7A-Raid AMD 1200MHz 386MB RAM GF2MX400 64MB system. I don't think I ever crashed used to do multiple things such as burning a CD, browsing internet while my friend compiling code remotely on my system and didn't even feel any slowdowns and my 100Mbps actually was fully utilized unlike with Win2k pro
the only reason i took it off was to try Redhat i think it was version 8.2 (heh can't remember) but remember hating it!!!! then not sure what happened next but i know i was running out of HD space
I guess you were good at breaking Win95 also then.
Remember Pecker Hell ? Win95's trench men of evil.
i have 2x1GB DDRII ram. its enough for me but maybe i will buy more. it is not so expensive.
This is odd... most people have 2GB. Why would that be?
I would have expected most people to have 1GB or below
most people who go here have bought a better computer @ 2 gigs and/or know how to upgrade there ram to 2 gigs... better yet.. most people who go to this Hardware & Elec know what RAM is lol
Not necessarily so, if you have enough money to buy new hardware all the time, some paid hosting would not be a problem.
I'd rather take the low DDR2 prices and Vista's outrageous RAM hunger as an explaination.
do you know by any chance how many vistas sold? or even in that factor why would people want to change? im on 1.5 gb ddr and its faster then my lil bros gig of ddr2 + a whole lot better processer and my computer still boots runs and shutsdown faster then vista even if its unofficially tweeked. Yes i have a Tweeked XP PROv2 but i also ran it off a clean boot n filled its harddrive with a crapload of videos and etc. it still ran better.
What are you trying to say? All I see is a non-argument about the amount of Vista sales plus a lot of bragging about your ueber 1337 tweaked rig.
Even if they only sold 10 copies of Vista, that would still amount for a (very small) increase in the average memory amount in people's computers.
I'm not denying or confirming anything about Vista's performance except that it needs a lot of memory. Anything else is totally irrelevant to this question. If you're after getting your daily Windows bashing quota filled, go to an Ubantu fanboy forum.
have you tried to strip Vista down from extra graphic stuff to use less memory? I mean how far low can you go?
I'm assuming you are talking to misterXY here and quoting the wrong post, since I myself have never even used Vista. Because I don't like that particular version of Windows.
I am am 512 and 256 Combienation...I know my PC i slow...But it's still good
I can still go on internet and play old games lol
Ever tried removing Ubuntu? No thanks i lost a 200gig harddrive last year to that bastard system.
If you don't install Ubantu in the first place, there's no risk of that happening.
By the way, in case you haven't noticed that I dislike Ubantu as well, here's a post where I warned that you could lose your data with it. Thanks for confirming.
it's the worst OS i ever since windows ME i touched.
It owns your computer, it doesn't like losing. if it dies so does your pc. i don't know if its ubuntu fault or my tech side, but i lost RAM as long with the HDD?
I have 2gb, soon on the way to 4gb, in my MacBook Pro.
I use Parallels VM to run Windows XP, OpenSuSE, and I'm looking to get into either Debian or Gentoo for the fun of it, and those can hog up a lot of memory.
Lol misterXY, losing RAM shouldn't be possible except with hardware failure?
lol i know its a lil bizzare but of all the machines i ran it too it wont work then i gave ubuntu i try n NONE of the pc's run it nemore. but i did try another ubuntu and it worked.... i decided to burn it n burn its ashes. won't say where i even live cause of the enviro-nazis out there. but ye it was possessed by the devil . lol
I've had 1 gig of ram for the longest time, and just a few months ago, I upgraded to 2 gigs. Life is so much better. It's like having more room to breathe.
even 512 more is deadly
I got 3 gb of RAM, 2x512 + 2x1024 and it's running perfectly fine EXCEPT this : My OLD computer with 1 gb of ram and a 2.1gHz processor is FASTER than my new computer with 3 gb and a 2.2gHz dual core. Why? Yeah, good answer Vista.
vista is just horrible. my lil bro has a laptop. not bad relatively new. boot times and shutdown even modded takes longer then my xp. on a laptop? thats just a huge disappointment right there...
The most RAM I have in a system right now is 8GB in my Mac Pro.
lucky. must be alot of fun
I love my Mac Pro! (^.^)
Best Design system I've ever had.
8GB, .... waste of money. What are you doing with that much of RAM? Just another example of Vista, I have a high speed connection (10mb/s) and I'm getting ~10KB/s when I'm using it with Vista. Ouch!
I'm not using Vista, im using Mac OS X 10.5.
And its not a waste for Heavy graphic Designers and 3d Animators/modelers, which I am.
Get a room [sound from the epd. of family guy when peter didn't choose the soup instead of salad] lol
no where did he say vista... but yes vista is another MoreErrors but only less errors this time.
needings 8 gigs on ur mac book pro, must be really heavy graphics! what o/s version?
Not a MacBook Pro, a Mac Pro. The Desktop with the pretty case.
I'm getting a MacBook Pro in about a month. Right now I only have a MacBook (white) with 2GB of DDR2.
I'm running OS X 10.5.2 (Leopard), and I have another drive with 10.4.11 (Tiger) on it.
I wasn't talking about him but about me lol
you're running 8 gigs off vista?
sorry about the mix up. ooo prettyyyyy lol:P
but i foreseen ur mac book pro:O i'm a wizard or something.
how is the leopard going for u? heard good n bad things but rather here it from someone who's in the same qualities i am also interested in.
No, I was talking about how slow was Vista in my previous post. I commented the post of the guy who was saying that he had 8 gb of ram then I came back to Vista.
ohh now that makes perfect sense lol
my lil bro runs off vista home premium. cant stand it. even when tweaked the boot time is horrific time wasting n shut down..well... LOOK AT THE PAINT DRY! GO GREEN GO GO GO! SCREW U BLUE! its that slow. if xp + bloated software from dell[its not a dell btw its an HP Pavilion] would run n shutdown faster then vista. BUT i never once it had a blue screen of death. had xp do it a few times over the yrs. ME doesnt even get that far to get a screen:P
well maybe you should give this a try http://windows.kde.org
Yep KDE for your windows but no Vista support yet also it's still in alpha productions NOT even beta yet!!!
With a few little hacks and GUI modifications, Leopard is beautiful and functional. The OS itself is quite amazing. I never use Tiger anymore.
There is my current Leopard Desktop.
not a bad idea. i hope it goes well. i don't know why this KDE isn't being tested out more:S
the screenshot looks nice, one lucky man.[or woman lol]
Having 512 MB DDR2 Ram. but i am facing problems while working with large size images in photoshop.
i have 2 gigs and a 512 mb ddr2
I have got 3 gigs of ram, almost unbelievable but it is true.
But i've just bought a new computer so it was standard in this one.
I've also got a video card of 265mb (or maybe 512mb, i'm not sure).
I don"t know if thats counts also, but whatever.
And if you have got an old computer and you also have 3 gig, buy a new one, old computer whit lots of ram don't do a lot more.
2 x 512 DDR Twinmos RAM.
My laptop has 2 GB of Kingston DDR2 RAM @ 667 MHz. I run Windows XP and Linux, so it's fine for now. I'll upgrade it to 4 GB whenever I make my first set of upgrades. I just opted 2 GB this time primarily because I wasn't planning on the move to 64 bit, yet.
My desktop has 1.5 GB of Corsair DDR RAM @ 400 MHz. It's an old Pentium 4 HT desktop, so I don't intend on upgrading any more (use to have only 512 MB). I primarily run Linux on it, and I can't seem to use all of my RAM because by the time I reach 1.2 GB, my CPU is at 100%. In Windows XP I can reach the full 1.5 GB. So, upgrading my RAM any more will cause almost no change in performance.
Other computers I've got range from 16 MB (old laptop from 1996) to 1 GB.
I Have 3 Gb in Dual Channel mode. 2 x 1Gb and 2 x 512MB DDR2 667 MHz. it 's pretty enough for me