maximum RAM for homebuilt new system on XP/Vista?

  • Thread starter Thread starter idiotprogrammer
  • Start date Start date
I

idiotprogrammer

Hi, I'm building a new system with a brand new cpu/motherboard and
RAM.

I'm trying to figure out how much RAM I should buy.

Before I had 3 gigs which I intended to use for video editing.
Honestly, though I didn't do as much video editing as I had planned,
although I probably will more of it on my new system.

The cost diference between 3 gigs and 4 gigs is not that much for DDR2
800 (which my mobo supports) , and I'm trying to figure out how much
to get.

I'll have a AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core 6000+ , but I see a lot of
general help issues on the groups about RAM not being recognized on
XP. I haven't figured out which motherboard to get; a lot depends on
what I decide about RAM.

(A related issue of whether I should pay the extra $100 for a Vista
Installation DVD. I have some small problems with hardware/software
support, nothing major according to my preliminary research. Then
again, I haven't seen a real compelling reason to upgrade to Vista.
But if Vista would solve the RAM issue, I wouldn't have a problem
going for it).

>From what I've seen, for XP, the 4 gigs might be recognized by the
motherboard, but the last gig might not be "addressable" in XP.

So my questions:
1)is there something I can check for to make sure that 4 gigs of RAM
would be recognized/usable in my new system?
2)Does that require a Vista system?
3)Is 4 gigs that much better than 3 gigs? I don't play video games,
and as I said, I do some video editing, but not a lot.

If I can be settle for 3 gigs (and so far I've been happy with it), is
there a compelling reason to buy 4 for starting out?

Thanks.

robert nagle
Houston, Texas
http://www.imaginaryplanet.net/weblogs/idiotprogrammer
 
Ok, I just saw this thread.

http://groups.google.com/group/micr...e928f2a?lnk=gst&q=ram&rnum=2#639046a84e928f2a

The short answer: Vista 64 bit supports lots more RAM if your mobo
does.

But it has to be 64 bit. Now I need to figure out what hw problems I
have.

If my hw is "Vista-ready" or "vista-compatible", does that mean that
it would be supported by Vista 64 bit?

rj


On Sep 25, 3:31 pm, idiotprogrammer <idiotprogram...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, I'm building a new system with a brand new cpu/motherboard and
> RAM.
>
> I'm trying to figure out how much RAM I should buy.
>
> Before I had 3 gigs which I intended to use for video editing.
> Honestly, though I didn't do as much video editing as I had planned,
> although I probably will more of it on my new system.
>
> The cost diference between 3 gigs and 4 gigs is not that much for DDR2
> 800 (which my mobo supports) , and I'm trying to figure out how much
> to get.
>
> I'll have a AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core 6000+ , but I see a lot of
> general help issues on the groups about RAM not being recognized on
> XP. I haven't figured out which motherboard to get; a lot depends on
> what I decide about RAM.
>
> (A related issue of whether I should pay the extra $100 for a Vista
> Installation DVD. I have some small problems with hardware/software
> support, nothing major according to my preliminary research. Then
> again, I haven't seen a real compelling reason to upgrade to Vista.
> But if Vista would solve the RAM issue, I wouldn't have a problem
> going for it).
>
> >From what I've seen, for XP, the 4 gigs might be recognized by the
>
> motherboard, but the last gig might not be "addressable" in XP.
>
> So my questions:
> 1)is there something I can check for to make sure that 4 gigs of RAM
> would be recognized/usable in my new system?
> 2)Does that require a Vista system?
> 3)Is 4 gigs that much better than 3 gigs? I don't play video games,
> and as I said, I do some video editing, but not a lot.
>
> If I can be settle for 3 gigs (and so far I've been happy with it), is
> there a compelling reason to buy 4 for starting out?
>
> Thanks.
>
> robert nagle
> Houston, Texashttp://www.imaginaryplanet.net/weblogs/idiotprogrammer
 
If three is good for what you need then that is what you should buy. The
last gig in the address space is also used to communicate with hardware
so the not all of that last gig of RAM will be available to the user.

idiotprogrammer wrote:
> Hi, I'm building a new system with a brand new cpu/motherboard and
> RAM.
>
> I'm trying to figure out how much RAM I should buy.
>
> Before I had 3 gigs which I intended to use for video editing.
> Honestly, though I didn't do as much video editing as I had planned,
> although I probably will more of it on my new system.
>
> The cost diference between 3 gigs and 4 gigs is not that much for DDR2
> 800 (which my mobo supports) , and I'm trying to figure out how much
> to get.
>
> I'll have a AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core 6000+ , but I see a lot of
> general help issues on the groups about RAM not being recognized on
> XP. I haven't figured out which motherboard to get; a lot depends on
> what I decide about RAM.
>
> (A related issue of whether I should pay the extra $100 for a Vista
> Installation DVD. I have some small problems with hardware/software
> support, nothing major according to my preliminary research. Then
> again, I haven't seen a real compelling reason to upgrade to Vista.
> But if Vista would solve the RAM issue, I wouldn't have a problem
> going for it).
>
>>From what I've seen, for XP, the 4 gigs might be recognized by the
> motherboard, but the last gig might not be "addressable" in XP.
>
> So my questions:
> 1)is there something I can check for to make sure that 4 gigs of RAM
> would be recognized/usable in my new system?
> 2)Does that require a Vista system?
> 3)Is 4 gigs that much better than 3 gigs? I don't play video games,
> and as I said, I do some video editing, but not a lot.
>
> If I can be settle for 3 gigs (and so far I've been happy with it), is
> there a compelling reason to buy 4 for starting out?
>
> Thanks.
>
> robert nagle
> Houston, Texas
> http://www.imaginaryplanet.net/weblogs/idiotprogrammer
>
 
Vista ready for what? It's a pretty ambiguous rating. What it boils down
to is that it will work with at least the base version.

idiotprogrammer wrote:

> Ok, I just saw this thread.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/micr...e928f2a?lnk=gst&q=ram&rnum=2#639046a84e928f2a
>
> The short answer: Vista 64 bit supports lots more RAM if your mobo
> does.
>
> But it has to be 64 bit. Now I need to figure out what hw problems I
> have.
>
> If my hw is "Vista-ready" or "vista-compatible", does that mean that
> it would be supported by Vista 64 bit?
>
> rj
>
>
> On Sep 25, 3:31 pm, idiotprogrammer <idiotprogram...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Hi, I'm building a new system with a brand new cpu/motherboard and
>>RAM.
>>
>>I'm trying to figure out how much RAM I should buy.
>>
>>Before I had 3 gigs which I intended to use for video editing.
>>Honestly, though I didn't do as much video editing as I had planned,
>>although I probably will more of it on my new system.
>>
>>The cost diference between 3 gigs and 4 gigs is not that much for DDR2
>>800 (which my mobo supports) , and I'm trying to figure out how much
>>to get.
>>
>>I'll have a AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core 6000+ , but I see a lot of
>>general help issues on the groups about RAM not being recognized on
>>XP. I haven't figured out which motherboard to get; a lot depends on
>>what I decide about RAM.
>>
>>(A related issue of whether I should pay the extra $100 for a Vista
>>Installation DVD. I have some small problems with hardware/software
>>support, nothing major according to my preliminary research. Then
>>again, I haven't seen a real compelling reason to upgrade to Vista.
>>But if Vista would solve the RAM issue, I wouldn't have a problem
>>going for it).
>>
>>>From what I've seen, for XP, the 4 gigs might be recognized by the
>>
>>motherboard, but the last gig might not be "addressable" in XP.
>>
>>So my questions:
>>1)is there something I can check for to make sure that 4 gigs of RAM
>>would be recognized/usable in my new system?
>>2)Does that require a Vista system?
>>3)Is 4 gigs that much better than 3 gigs? I don't play video games,
>>and as I said, I do some video editing, but not a lot.
>>
>>If I can be settle for 3 gigs (and so far I've been happy with it), is
>>there a compelling reason to buy 4 for starting out?
>>
>>Thanks.
>>
>>robert nagle
>>Houston, Texashttp://www.imaginaryplanet.net/weblogs/idiotprogrammer
>
>
>
 
Wow, it's beginning to seem that the only reason to upgrade to vista
is if I can benefit from 64 bit vista. I have exactly one 64 bit
application (a video editor which would see significant performance
improvement), and the extra RAM would be nice.

but there are still wifi cards, usb devices and sound cards to worry
about. and possibly software incompatibilities.

I worked at Dell in 2000-1 and worked in a minor way on their 64 bit
PC project. Really amazing how the CPU and mobo and OS people are
there and cheering on 64 bit, but the device manufacturers seem to be
the weak link.



Robert Nagle



On Sep 25, 4:47 pm, Bob I <bire...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Vista ready for what? It's a pretty ambiguous rating. What it boils down
> to is that it will work with at least the base version.
>
> idiotprogrammer wrote:
> > Ok, I just saw this thread.
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardwar...
>
> > The short answer: Vista 64 bit supports lots more RAM if your mobo
> > does.
>
> > But it has to be 64 bit. Now I need to figure out what hw problems I
> > have.
>
> > If my hw is "Vista-ready" or "vista-compatible", does that mean that
> > it would be supported by Vista 64 bit?
>
> > rj
>
> > On Sep 25, 3:31 pm, idiotprogrammer <idiotprogram...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>Hi, I'm building a new system with a brand new cpu/motherboard and
> >>RAM.
>
> >>I'm trying to figure out how much RAM I should buy.
>
> >>Before I had 3 gigs which I intended to use for video editing.
> >>Honestly, though I didn't do as much video editing as I had planned,
> >>although I probably will more of it on my new system.
>
> >>The cost diference between 3 gigs and 4 gigs is not that much for DDR2
> >>800 (which my mobo supports) , and I'm trying to figure out how much
> >>to get.
>
> >>I'll have a AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core 6000+ , but I see a lot of
> >>general help issues on the groups about RAM not being recognized on
> >>XP. I haven't figured out which motherboard to get; a lot depends on
> >>what I decide about RAM.
>
> >>(A related issue of whether I should pay the extra $100 for a Vista
> >>Installation DVD. I have some small problems with hardware/software
> >>support, nothing major according to my preliminary research. Then
> >>again, I haven't seen a real compelling reason to upgrade to Vista.
> >>But if Vista would solve the RAM issue, I wouldn't have a problem
> >>going for it).
>
> >>>From what I've seen, for XP, the 4 gigs might be recognized by the
>
> >>motherboard, but the last gig might not be "addressable" in XP.
>
> >>So my questions:
> >>1)is there something I can check for to make sure that 4 gigs of RAM
> >>would be recognized/usable in my new system?
> >>2)Does that require a Vista system?
> >>3)Is 4 gigs that much better than 3 gigs? I don't play video games,
> >>and as I said, I do some video editing, but not a lot.
>
> >>If I can be settle for 3 gigs (and so far I've been happy with it), is
> >>there a compelling reason to buy 4 for starting out?
>
> >>Thanks.
>
> >>robert nagle
> >>Houston, Texashttp://www.imaginaryplanet.net/weblogs/idiotprogrammer
 
"idiotprogrammer" <idiotprogrammer@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190752301.118878.122790@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Hi, I'm building a new system with a brand new cpu/motherboard and
> RAM.
>
> I'm trying to figure out how much RAM I should buy.
>
> Before I had 3 gigs which I intended to use for video editing.
> Honestly, though I didn't do as much video editing as I had planned,
> although I probably will more of it on my new system.
>
> The cost diference between 3 gigs and 4 gigs is not that much for DDR2
> 800 (which my mobo supports) , and I'm trying to figure out how much
> to get.
>
> I'll have a AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core 6000+ , but I see a lot of
> general help issues on the groups about RAM not being recognized on
> XP. I haven't figured out which motherboard to get; a lot depends on
> what I decide about RAM.
>
> (A related issue of whether I should pay the extra $100 for a Vista
> Installation DVD. I have some small problems with hardware/software
> support, nothing major according to my preliminary research. Then
> again, I haven't seen a real compelling reason to upgrade to Vista.
> But if Vista would solve the RAM issue, I wouldn't have a problem
> going for it).
>
>>From what I've seen, for XP, the 4 gigs might be recognized by the
> motherboard, but the last gig might not be "addressable" in XP.
>
> So my questions:
> 1)is there something I can check for to make sure that 4 gigs of RAM
> would be recognized/usable in my new system?
> 2)Does that require a Vista system?
> 3)Is 4 gigs that much better than 3 gigs? I don't play video games,
> and as I said, I do some video editing, but not a lot.
>
> If I can be settle for 3 gigs (and so far I've been happy with it), is
> there a compelling reason to buy 4 for starting out?
>
> Thanks.
>
> robert nagle
> Houston, Texas
> http://www.imaginaryplanet.net/weblogs/idiotprogrammer
>

All answers/replies are assuming your video editing software works well in
Vista. Oh, forgot, you don't have Vista.
Dave
 
no my video editor program is specifically optimized for a 64 bit os
(Sony Vegas 8).

but that's the only one.

there seems to be no reason to upgrade from XP to Vista 32 bit; but 64
bit seems justified, although I'd like to have my hardware ready.



On Sep 25, 10:36 pm, "Lil' Dave" <spamyours...@virus.net> wrote:
> "idiotprogrammer" <idiotprogram...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1190752301.118878.122790@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Hi, I'm building a new system with a brand new cpu/motherboard and
> > RAM.
>
> > I'm trying to figure out how much RAM I should buy.
>
> > Before I had 3 gigs which I intended to use for video editing.
> > Honestly, though I didn't do as much video editing as I had planned,
> > although I probably will more of it on my new system.
>
> > The cost diference between 3 gigs and 4 gigs is not that much for DDR2
> > 800 (which my mobo supports) , and I'm trying to figure out how much
> > to get.
>
> > I'll have a AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core 6000+ , but I see a lot of
> > general help issues on the groups about RAM not being recognized on
> > XP. I haven't figured out which motherboard to get; a lot depends on
> > what I decide about RAM.
>
> > (A related issue of whether I should pay the extra $100 for a Vista
> > Installation DVD. I have some small problems with hardware/software
> > support, nothing major according to my preliminary research. Then
> > again, I haven't seen a real compelling reason to upgrade to Vista.
> > But if Vista would solve the RAM issue, I wouldn't have a problem
> > going for it).
>
> >>From what I've seen, for XP, the 4 gigs might be recognized by the
> > motherboard, but the last gig might not be "addressable" in XP.
>
> > So my questions:
> > 1)is there something I can check for to make sure that 4 gigs of RAM
> > would be recognized/usable in my new system?
> > 2)Does that require a Vista system?
> > 3)Is 4 gigs that much better than 3 gigs? I don't play video games,
> > and as I said, I do some video editing, but not a lot.
>
> > If I can be settle for 3 gigs (and so far I've been happy with it), is
> > there a compelling reason to buy 4 for starting out?
>
> > Thanks.
>
> > robert nagle
> > Houston, Texas
> >http://www.imaginaryplanet.net/weblogs/idiotprogrammer
>
> All answers/replies are assuming your video editing software works well in
> Vista. Oh, forgot, you don't have Vista.
> Dave
 
"Bob I" <birelan@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ulPpEn7$HHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> If three is good for what you need then that is what you should buy. The
> last gig in the address space is also used to communicate with hardware so
> the not all of that last gig of RAM will be available to the user.
>

That is true for the 32 bit versions of windows but not for the 64 bit.

> idiotprogrammer wrote:
>> Hi, I'm building a new system with a brand new cpu/motherboard and
>> RAM.
>>
>> I'm trying to figure out how much RAM I should buy.
>>
>> Before I had 3 gigs which I intended to use for video editing.
>> Honestly, though I didn't do as much video editing as I had planned,
>> although I probably will more of it on my new system.
>>
>> The cost diference between 3 gigs and 4 gigs is not that much for DDR2
>> 800 (which my mobo supports) , and I'm trying to figure out how much
>> to get.
>>
>> I'll have a AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core 6000+ , but I see a lot of
>> general help issues on the groups about RAM not being recognized on
>> XP. I haven't figured out which motherboard to get; a lot depends on
>> what I decide about RAM.
>>
>> (A related issue of whether I should pay the extra $100 for a Vista
>> Installation DVD. I have some small problems with hardware/software
>> support, nothing major according to my preliminary research. Then
>> again, I haven't seen a real compelling reason to upgrade to Vista.
>> But if Vista would solve the RAM issue, I wouldn't have a problem
>> going for it).
>>
>>>From what I've seen, for XP, the 4 gigs might be recognized by the
>> motherboard, but the last gig might not be "addressable" in XP.
>>
>> So my questions:
>> 1)is there something I can check for to make sure that 4 gigs of RAM
>> would be recognized/usable in my new system?
>> 2)Does that require a Vista system?
>> 3)Is 4 gigs that much better than 3 gigs? I don't play video games,
>> and as I said, I do some video editing, but not a lot.
>>
>> If I can be settle for 3 gigs (and so far I've been happy with it), is
>> there a compelling reason to buy 4 for starting out?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> robert nagle
>> Houston, Texas
>> http://www.imaginaryplanet.net/weblogs/idiotprogrammer
>>
>
 
M.I.5¾ wrote:

> "Bob I" <birelan@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ulPpEn7$HHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
>>If three is good for what you need then that is what you should buy. The
>>last gig in the address space is also used to communicate with hardware so
>>the not all of that last gig of RAM will be available to the user.
>>
>
>
> That is true for the 32 bit versions of windows but not for the 64 bit.
>

based on OP's statement below, 32 bit would be what was the reply addresses

>>>
>>>>From what I've seen, for XP, the 4 gigs might be recognized by the
>>>motherboard, but the last gig might not be "addressable" in XP.
>>>
 
If you wish to use almost all of the 4gig that you have your heart set on
you will need to migrate to 64 bit....I see that you Video Editing program
is 64 bit already.
So you need to make a list of all of the parts...hardware and sofware that
your system will have and then visit each manufact.website and try to find
64bit drivers.This is the stage where problems will come up as a lot of
these manufact.are not supplying 64 bit drivers.
Then you can seat yourself down and weigh the pros and cons ...........
peter
"idiotprogrammer" <idiotprogrammer@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190792253.664314.66840@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> no my video editor program is specifically optimized for a 64 bit os
> (Sony Vegas 8).
>
> but that's the only one.
>
> there seems to be no reason to upgrade from XP to Vista 32 bit; but 64
> bit seems justified, although I'd like to have my hardware ready.
>
>
>
> On Sep 25, 10:36 pm, "Lil' Dave" <spamyours...@virus.net> wrote:
>> "idiotprogrammer" <idiotprogram...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1190752301.118878.122790@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > Hi, I'm building a new system with a brand new cpu/motherboard and
>> > RAM.
>>
>> > I'm trying to figure out how much RAM I should buy.
>>
>> > Before I had 3 gigs which I intended to use for video editing.
>> > Honestly, though I didn't do as much video editing as I had planned,
>> > although I probably will more of it on my new system.
>>
>> > The cost diference between 3 gigs and 4 gigs is not that much for DDR2
>> > 800 (which my mobo supports) , and I'm trying to figure out how much
>> > to get.
>>
>> > I'll have a AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core 6000+ , but I see a lot of
>> > general help issues on the groups about RAM not being recognized on
>> > XP. I haven't figured out which motherboard to get; a lot depends on
>> > what I decide about RAM.
>>
>> > (A related issue of whether I should pay the extra $100 for a Vista
>> > Installation DVD. I have some small problems with hardware/software
>> > support, nothing major according to my preliminary research. Then
>> > again, I haven't seen a real compelling reason to upgrade to Vista.
>> > But if Vista would solve the RAM issue, I wouldn't have a problem
>> > going for it).
>>
>> >>From what I've seen, for XP, the 4 gigs might be recognized by the
>> > motherboard, but the last gig might not be "addressable" in XP.
>>
>> > So my questions:
>> > 1)is there something I can check for to make sure that 4 gigs of RAM
>> > would be recognized/usable in my new system?
>> > 2)Does that require a Vista system?
>> > 3)Is 4 gigs that much better than 3 gigs? I don't play video games,
>> > and as I said, I do some video editing, but not a lot.
>>
>> > If I can be settle for 3 gigs (and so far I've been happy with it), is
>> > there a compelling reason to buy 4 for starting out?
>>
>> > Thanks.
>>
>> > robert nagle
>> > Houston, Texas
>> >http://www.imaginaryplanet.net/weblogs/idiotprogrammer
>>
>> All answers/replies are assuming your video editing software works well
>> in
>> Vista. Oh, forgot, you don't have Vista.
>> Dave
>
>
 
Like it when the OP answers their own questions.
Dave
"idiotprogrammer" <idiotprogrammer@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190792253.664314.66840@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> no my video editor program is specifically optimized for a 64 bit os
> (Sony Vegas 8).
>
> but that's the only one.
>
> there seems to be no reason to upgrade from XP to Vista 32 bit; but 64
> bit seems justified, although I'd like to have my hardware ready.
>
>
>
> On Sep 25, 10:36 pm, "Lil' Dave" <spamyours...@virus.net> wrote:
>> "idiotprogrammer" <idiotprogram...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1190752301.118878.122790@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > Hi, I'm building a new system with a brand new cpu/motherboard and
>> > RAM.
>>
>> > I'm trying to figure out how much RAM I should buy.
>>
>> > Before I had 3 gigs which I intended to use for video editing.
>> > Honestly, though I didn't do as much video editing as I had planned,
>> > although I probably will more of it on my new system.
>>
>> > The cost diference between 3 gigs and 4 gigs is not that much for DDR2
>> > 800 (which my mobo supports) , and I'm trying to figure out how much
>> > to get.
>>
>> > I'll have a AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core 6000+ , but I see a lot of
>> > general help issues on the groups about RAM not being recognized on
>> > XP. I haven't figured out which motherboard to get; a lot depends on
>> > what I decide about RAM.
>>
>> > (A related issue of whether I should pay the extra $100 for a Vista
>> > Installation DVD. I have some small problems with hardware/software
>> > support, nothing major according to my preliminary research. Then
>> > again, I haven't seen a real compelling reason to upgrade to Vista.
>> > But if Vista would solve the RAM issue, I wouldn't have a problem
>> > going for it).
>>
>> >>From what I've seen, for XP, the 4 gigs might be recognized by the
>> > motherboard, but the last gig might not be "addressable" in XP.
>>
>> > So my questions:
>> > 1)is there something I can check for to make sure that 4 gigs of RAM
>> > would be recognized/usable in my new system?
>> > 2)Does that require a Vista system?
>> > 3)Is 4 gigs that much better than 3 gigs? I don't play video games,
>> > and as I said, I do some video editing, but not a lot.
>>
>> > If I can be settle for 3 gigs (and so far I've been happy with it), is
>> > there a compelling reason to buy 4 for starting out?
>>
>> > Thanks.
>>
>> > robert nagle
>> > Houston, Texas
>> >http://www.imaginaryplanet.net/weblogs/idiotprogrammer
>>
>> All answers/replies are assuming your video editing software works well
>> in
>> Vista. Oh, forgot, you don't have Vista.
>> Dave
>
>
 
"Bob I" <birelan@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:u98fqMEAIHA.5328@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
>
> M.I.5¾ wrote:
>
>> "Bob I" <birelan@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:ulPpEn7$HHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>
>>>If three is good for what you need then that is what you should buy. The
>>>last gig in the address space is also used to communicate with hardware
>>>so the not all of that last gig of RAM will be available to the user.
>>>
>>
>>
>> That is true for the 32 bit versions of windows but not for the 64 bit.
>>
>
> based on OP's statement below, 32 bit would be what was the reply
> addresses
>

Granted. I should have scrolled down.

>>>>
>>>>>From what I've seen, for XP, the 4 gigs might be recognized by the
>>>>motherboard, but the last gig might not be "addressable" in XP.
>>>>
>
 
Back
Top