4GB of RAM for Windows XP

[DeadSeaSquirrels]

I'm wondering if I should get more than 2GB of RAM for my computer. I know XP uses a max of 2GB, but would it still be smart enough to efficiently allocate the other 2GB for programs running on it? Or do you guys not think it's really useful unless using XP 64? I'd love to go to XP 64, but I have too many other apps that probably wouldn't work in a 64 bit environment to switch at this point. Anybody use 64? Any thoughts?

 

[OoteR02]

You can put in 4 gigs of ram... but it doesn't get utilized as you would want (If I remember right windows can have a total of 3.5 gigs between ram and swap). The OS can't address the full 4 gigs of ram, so your "programs" don't get access to it beyond what XP sees. 64 bit is the only way to use all 4 gigs. I believe in regular XP you have to tweak settings to actually use the ram above 3gigs rather than the swap file.

Never used the 64bit XP myself.

 

[Tarrant64]

Originally posted by: OoteR02
You can put in 4 gigs of ram... but it doesn't get utilized as you would want (If I remember right windows can have a total of 3.5 gigs between ram and swap). The OS can't address the full 4 gigs of ram, so your "programs" don't get access to it beyond what XP sees. 64 bit is the only way to use all 4 gigs. I believe in regular XP you have to tweak settings to actually use the ram above 3gigs rather than the swap file.

Never used the 64bit XP myself.

Correct.


And actually a lot of old reviews stated that there really is no advantage for most things using 64-bit version of Windows. And actually in some cases it was slower than 32-bit Windows XP.

I have used the 64-bit version of XP, and there were a lot of issues with 3rd party software not working right.

 

[masteraleph]

Don't even think about using XP-64. Vista-64 operates well and actually has a fair amount of support, especially for newer hardware. XP64 is the pits in terms of driver support, though.

 

[Nothinman]

You can put in 4 gigs of ram... but it doesn't get utilized as you would want (If I remember right windows can have a total of 3.5 gigs between ram and swap).

No, the amount of memory and swap that you can have are completely unrelated.

The OS can't address the full 4 gigs of ram, so your "programs" don't get access to it beyond what XP sees.

It can but the consumer releases of 32-bit Windows are limited to 4G exactly and the upper part of that range is already used for hardware so it can't be used by real memory. If your BIOS supports it you can remap the memory above the 4G mark but the consumer 32-bit Windows releases still won't see it since they're limited to 4G exactly. 64-bit releases of either will see it just fine, as will 64-bit versions of Linux and 32-bit versions of Linux with CONFIG_HIGHMEM64G enabled.

I believe in regular XP you have to tweak settings to actually use the ram above 3gigs rather than the swap file.

Not true at all.

And actually a lot of old reviews stated that there really is no advantage for most things using 64-bit version of Windows. And actually in some cases it was slower than 32-bit Windows XP.

Considering that 99% of your apps are still going to be 32-bit, yea. And yes, 64-bit can be a bit slower since it uses a little bit more memory.

 

[Arkaign]

Nothinman is right. Let me tell you from personal experience with both XP32 and Vista32, that if you have a good video card with a lot of onboard memory, you'll see a corresponding amount removed from what the OS reports. Example, with a 256MB NVidia 7900 card and 4GB of DDR2-800, the OS only reports me having 3.25GB. Meh, doesn't really hurt anything, but I doubt you'll see much performance boost over 2GB unless you're hitting a memory wall (BF2 + giant map + video encoding in the background + AV/Firewall app + etc). Supreme Commander is supposed to be a memory hog as well.

If you're going 4GB, why not go Vista64? Tell us what apps/games you run/want to run, and the rest of your hardware. At least with Vista64, you'll see all of your ram, and you'll be able to upgrade to 8GB or more later.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Nothinman is right. Let me tell you from personal experience with both XP32 and Vista32, that if you have a good video card with a lot of onboard memory, you'll see a corresponding amount removed from what the OS reports. Example, with a 256MB NVidia 7900 card and 4GB of DDR2-800, the OS only reports me having 3.25GB. Meh, doesn't really hurt anything, but I doubt you'll see much performance boost over 2GB unless you're hitting a memory wall (BF2 + giant map + video encoding in the background + AV/Firewall app + etc). Supreme Commander is supposed to be a memory hog as well.

If you're going 4GB, why not go Vista64? Tell us what apps/games you run/want to run, and the rest of your hardware. At least with Vista64, you'll see all of your ram, and you'll be able to upgrade to 8GB or more later.

i got 5 GB's cheap. I'm putting in 4GB instead of 3GB so I can utilize the systme in dual channel.. I know windows XP isn't going to utilize it all, but when crysis comes out, I am planning on putting Vista64 on the machine as well (have a few 10k scsi disks) and that should be able to use it just fine..

A coworker and I had a talk about it.. Either go 2GB so you get dual channel, or 4GB in dual channel but know you can use it all.. 3GB (1GBx3) puts your machine in single channel so you loose performance

 

[Nothinman]

i got 5 GB's cheap. I'm putting in 4GB instead of 3GB so I can utilize the systme in dual channel.. I know windows XP isn't going to utilize it all, but when crysis comes out, I am planning on putting Vista64 on the machine as well (have a few 10k scsi disks) and that should be able to use it just fine..

That's pretty retarded, buying hardware that you know you know you can't use that is...

 

[Nocturnal]

You can utilize 3GB with dual channel with 2x1GB and 2x512MB sticks 🙂 That is what I have 🙂