Upgrade of memory question

  • Thread starter Thread starter --Ivan--
  • Start date Start date
I

--Ivan--

Hi, ive got a computer thats about 3 years old right now its got 1gb DDR PC3200
im not sure whats the max i can put in it is it 2 gig or??
Ive got 512mb DDR and not sure if its ok if i put it in or not.. any
suggestions??
Thanks very much for your help
 
--Ivan-- wrote:
> Hi, ive got a computer thats about 3 years old right now its got 1gb DDR PC3200
> im not sure whats the max i can put in it is it 2 gig or??
> Ive got 512mb DDR and not sure if its ok if i put it in or not.. any
> suggestions??
> Thanks very much for your help

You should have a manual or you can go to your manufacturer's home page
and see what they have for download.

Failing that, then I like this utility from CPUID called CPU-Z.
http://www.cpuid.com/index.php
It seems to dump a good amount of info about the memory chips and the
sockets you have etc.

Crucial.com also has a scanner that you can run to diagnose the same
issue. Crucial is a good manufacturer of memory. I download the
utility, did not run the online scan. (just me).
 
What is the Make and Model of your PC?

JS

"--Ivan--" <Ivan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CEC260F0-00A9-4DE6-A101-0EEE18710CC4@microsoft.com...
> Hi, ive got a computer thats about 3 years old right now its got 1gb DDR
> PC3200
> im not sure whats the max i can put in it is it 2 gig or??
> Ive got 512mb DDR and not sure if its ok if i put it in or not.. any
> suggestions??
> Thanks very much for your help
 
--Ivan-- wrote:
> Hi, ive got a computer thats about 3 years old right now its got 1gb DDR PC3200
> im not sure whats the max i can put in it is it 2 gig or??
> Ive got 512mb DDR and not sure if its ok if i put it in or not.. any
> suggestions??
> Thanks very much for your help

Go to http://www.crucial.com/ and use the tools on that web page.

--
Lem -- MS-MVP

To the moon and back with 2K words of RAM and 36K words of ROM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Guidance_Computer
http://history.nasa.gov/afj/compessay.htm
 
--Ivan-- wrote:
> Hi, ive got a computer thats about 3 years old right now its got 1gb
DDR PC3200
> im not sure whats the max i can put in it is it 2 gig or??
> Ive got 512mb DDR and not sure if its ok if i put it in or not.. any
> suggestions??
> Thanks very much for your help


Probably 4GB max. Adding the 512MB module should be fine. Dual channel
memory controllers may require it be placed in a specific slot.
 
--Ivan-- wrote:
> Hi, ive got a computer thats about 3 years old right now its got 1gb DDR PC3200
> im not sure whats the max i can put in it is it 2 gig or??
> Ive got 512mb DDR and not sure if its ok if i put it in or not.. any
> suggestions??
> Thanks very much for your help
I've read messages about people having issues with >3gigs. Seems
someplace around 3.x gigs on XP 32 bit, it can't see. So putting 4
gig in might not be of value. I have no specs on all this, but for sure
2 or 3 gig would not hurt you (max). 512 is worth thinking about
upgrading.

Someone might interject some factual info on this upper limit.
 
On Jun 6, 9:32 pm, Big_Al <Bi...@MD.com> wrote:
> I've read messages about people having issues with >3gigs. Seems
> someplace around 3.x gigs on XP 32 bit, it can't see. So putting 4
> gig in might not be of value. I have no specs on all this, but for sure
> 2 or 3 gig would not hurt you (max). 512 is worth thinking about
> upgrading.

Also, a little known fact about my motherboard is that using the 4Gb
max will force you to run @ 333Mhz instead of the normal 400Mhz max.

I would rather have 3Gbs @ 400Mhz than 4Gbs @ 333Mhz.


Always read the fine print.
 
Big_Al wrote:
> --Ivan-- wrote:
>> Hi, ive got a computer thats about 3 years old right now its got 1gb
>> DDR PC3200
>> im not sure whats the max i can put in it is it 2 gig or??
>> Ive got 512mb DDR and not sure if its ok if i put it in or not.. any
>> suggestions??
>> Thanks very much for your help
> I've read messages about people having issues with >3gigs. Seems
> someplace around 3.x gigs on XP 32 bit, it can't see. So putting 4
> gig in might not be of value. I have no specs on all this, but for sure
> 2 or 3 gig would not hurt you (max). 512 is worth thinking about
> upgrading.
>
> Someone might interject some factual info on this upper limit.

It's not "issues." See "4 GB RAM in Windows XP" by MS-MVP Tim Slattery
http://members.cox.net/slatteryt/RAM.html

--
Lem -- MS-MVP

To the moon and back with 2K words of RAM and 36K words of ROM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Guidance_Computer
http://history.nasa.gov/afj/compessay.htm
 
Unless he's got a good reason for adding memory 1GB is fine for most PC's.
He also did not say how many free slots are available.

JS

"--Ivan--" <Ivan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CEC260F0-00A9-4DE6-A101-0EEE18710CC4@microsoft.com...
> Hi, ive got a computer thats about 3 years old right now its got 1gb DDR
> PC3200
> im not sure whats the max i can put in it is it 2 gig or??
> Ive got 512mb DDR and not sure if its ok if i put it in or not.. any
> suggestions??
> Thanks very much for your help
 
Lem wrote:
> Big_Al wrote:
>> --Ivan-- wrote:
>>> Hi, ive got a computer thats about 3 years old right now its got 1gb
>>> DDR PC3200
>>> im not sure whats the max i can put in it is it 2 gig or??
>>> Ive got 512mb DDR and not sure if its ok if i put it in or not.. any
>>> suggestions??
>>> Thanks very much for your help
>> I've read messages about people having issues with >3gigs. Seems
>> someplace around 3.x gigs on XP 32 bit, it can't see. So putting 4
>> gig in might not be of value. I have no specs on all this, but for
>> sure 2 or 3 gig would not hurt you (max). 512 is worth thinking
>> about upgrading.
>>
>> Someone might interject some factual info on this upper limit.
>
> It's not "issues." See "4 GB RAM in Windows XP" by MS-MVP Tim Slattery
> http://members.cox.net/slatteryt/RAM.html
>
Well, if its not an issue then what is it, a hidden feature?
By 'issue' I mean its a thing that users are dealing with. If it were
not an issue then no one would be asking questions.
Its semantics, issue/smissue, but call it what you want, its still
something to know and understand.
 
On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 01:32:45 GMT, Big_Al <BigAl@MD.com> wrote:

> --Ivan-- wrote:
> > Hi, ive got a computer thats about 3 years old right now its got 1gb DDR PC3200
> > im not sure whats the max i can put in it is it 2 gig or??
> > Ive got 512mb DDR and not sure if its ok if i put it in or not.. any
> > suggestions??
> > Thanks very much for your help

> I've read messages about people having issues with >3gigs. Seems
> someplace around 3.x gigs on XP 32 bit, it can't see. So putting 4
> gig in might not be of value.



All 32-bit client versions of Windows (not just XP) have a 4GB address
space. That's the theoretical upper limit beyond which you can not go.
But you can't use the entire 4GB of address space. Even though you
have a 4GB address space, you can only use *around* 3.1GB of RAM.
That's because some of that space is used by hardware and is not
available to the operating system and applications. The amount you can
use varies, depending on what hardware you have installed, but can
range from as little as 2GB to as much as 3.5GB. It's usually around
3.1GB.


Note that the hardware is using the address *space*, not the actual
RAM itself. The rest of the RAM goes unused because there is no
address space to map it too.


> I have no specs on all this, but for sure
> 2 or 3 gig would not hurt you (max).



4GB won't hurt him either. It may not help, but certainly won't hurt.

Over and above how much RAM he *can* install, Ivan should think about
how much he can make effective use of. Despite how often you hear that
more RAM will increase your performance, that's true only up to a
limit, and for most people, the 1GB he already has is already above
that limit.

How much RAM you need for good performance is *not* a
one-size-fits-all situation. You get good performance if the amount of
RAM you have keeps you from using the page file, and that depends on
what apps you run. Most people running a typical range of business
applications find that somewhere around 256-384MB works well, others
need 512MB. Almost anyone will see poor performance with less than
256MB. Some people, particularly those doing things like editing large
photographic images, can see a performance boost by adding even more
than 512MB--sometimes much more.

If you are currently using the page file significantly, more memory
will decrease or eliminate that usage, and improve your performance.
If you are not using the page file significantly, more memory will do
nothing for you. Go to
http://billsway.com/notes_public/winxp_tweaks/ and download
WinXP-2K_Pagefile.zip and monitor your pagefile usage. That should
give you a good idea of whether more memory can help, and if so, how
much more.


--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
 
Question Ken,

If you only have 512MB of ram (which for most users is considered enough)
then where does XP go to use that memory often mentioned by you and others
as "some of that space is used by hardware". And if so does it include
hardware such as a Video card with 256MB of onboard ram and how much memory
would the video card use of that 4GB of memory?

JS

"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:c3bl44dsf4l3kgh9qrvp7eil549kg2nn3m@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 01:32:45 GMT, Big_Al <BigAl@MD.com> wrote:
>
>> --Ivan-- wrote:
>> > Hi, ive got a computer thats about 3 years old right now its got 1gb
>> > DDR PC3200
>> > im not sure whats the max i can put in it is it 2 gig or??
>> > Ive got 512mb DDR and not sure if its ok if i put it in or not.. any
>> > suggestions??
>> > Thanks very much for your help
>
>> I've read messages about people having issues with >3gigs. Seems
>> someplace around 3.x gigs on XP 32 bit, it can't see. So putting 4
>> gig in might not be of value.
>
>
>
> All 32-bit client versions of Windows (not just XP) have a 4GB address
> space. That's the theoretical upper limit beyond which you can not go.
> But you can't use the entire 4GB of address space. Even though you
> have a 4GB address space, you can only use *around* 3.1GB of RAM.
> That's because some of that space is used by hardware and is not
> available to the operating system and applications. The amount you can
> use varies, depending on what hardware you have installed, but can
> range from as little as 2GB to as much as 3.5GB. It's usually around
> 3.1GB.
>
>
> Note that the hardware is using the address *space*, not the actual
> RAM itself. The rest of the RAM goes unused because there is no
> address space to map it too.
>
>
>> I have no specs on all this, but for sure
>> 2 or 3 gig would not hurt you (max).
>
>
>
> 4GB won't hurt him either. It may not help, but certainly won't hurt.
>
> Over and above how much RAM he *can* install, Ivan should think about
> how much he can make effective use of. Despite how often you hear that
> more RAM will increase your performance, that's true only up to a
> limit, and for most people, the 1GB he already has is already above
> that limit.
>
> How much RAM you need for good performance is *not* a
> one-size-fits-all situation. You get good performance if the amount of
> RAM you have keeps you from using the page file, and that depends on
> what apps you run. Most people running a typical range of business
> applications find that somewhere around 256-384MB works well, others
> need 512MB. Almost anyone will see poor performance with less than
> 256MB. Some people, particularly those doing things like editing large
> photographic images, can see a performance boost by adding even more
> than 512MB--sometimes much more.
>
> If you are currently using the page file significantly, more memory
> will decrease or eliminate that usage, and improve your performance.
> If you are not using the page file significantly, more memory will do
> nothing for you. Go to
> http://billsway.com/notes_public/winxp_tweaks/ and download
> WinXP-2K_Pagefile.zip and monitor your pagefile usage. That should
> give you a good idea of whether more memory can help, and if so, how
> much more.
>
>
> --
> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
> Please Reply to the Newsgroup
 
On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 12:09:37 -0400, "JS" <@> wrote:

> Question Ken,
>
> If you only have 512MB of ram (which for most users is considered enough)
> then where does XP go to use that memory often mentioned by you and others
> as "some of that space is used by hardware".


No, note that it does not use *memory* for that which I've cited as
"some of that space is used by hardware." What it uses is *address
space*, which is not physical RAM. It has a 4GB address space,
regardless of how much RAM you have. If, for example, it needs 1GB of
address space for your hardware, that leaves 3GB of address space to
map your physical RAM. RAM can't be used unless it has available
address space to map to, so that remaining 3GB of address space is the
limiting factor for how much RAM you can use.

Note the last paragraph of my first comment below: "Note that the
hardware is using the address *space*, not the actual RAM itself. The
rest of the RAM goes unused because there is no address space to map
it too."


> And if so does it include
> hardware such as a Video card with 256MB of onboard ram and how much memory
> would the video card use of that 4GB of memory?
>
> JS
>
> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
> news:c3bl44dsf4l3kgh9qrvp7eil549kg2nn3m@4ax.com...
> > On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 01:32:45 GMT, Big_Al <BigAl@MD.com> wrote:
> >
> >> --Ivan-- wrote:
> >> > Hi, ive got a computer thats about 3 years old right now its got 1gb
> >> > DDR PC3200
> >> > im not sure whats the max i can put in it is it 2 gig or??
> >> > Ive got 512mb DDR and not sure if its ok if i put it in or not.. any
> >> > suggestions??
> >> > Thanks very much for your help
> >
> >> I've read messages about people having issues with >3gigs. Seems
> >> someplace around 3.x gigs on XP 32 bit, it can't see. So putting 4
> >> gig in might not be of value.
> >
> >
> >
> > All 32-bit client versions of Windows (not just XP) have a 4GB address
> > space. That's the theoretical upper limit beyond which you can not go.
> > But you can't use the entire 4GB of address space. Even though you
> > have a 4GB address space, you can only use *around* 3.1GB of RAM.
> > That's because some of that space is used by hardware and is not
> > available to the operating system and applications. The amount you can
> > use varies, depending on what hardware you have installed, but can
> > range from as little as 2GB to as much as 3.5GB. It's usually around
> > 3.1GB.
> >
> >
> > Note that the hardware is using the address *space*, not the actual
> > RAM itself. The rest of the RAM goes unused because there is no
> > address space to map it too.
> >
> >
> >> I have no specs on all this, but for sure
> >> 2 or 3 gig would not hurt you (max).
> >
> >
> >
> > 4GB won't hurt him either. It may not help, but certainly won't hurt.
> >
> > Over and above how much RAM he *can* install, Ivan should think about
> > how much he can make effective use of. Despite how often you hear that
> > more RAM will increase your performance, that's true only up to a
> > limit, and for most people, the 1GB he already has is already above
> > that limit.
> >
> > How much RAM you need for good performance is *not* a
> > one-size-fits-all situation. You get good performance if the amount of
> > RAM you have keeps you from using the page file, and that depends on
> > what apps you run. Most people running a typical range of business
> > applications find that somewhere around 256-384MB works well, others
> > need 512MB. Almost anyone will see poor performance with less than
> > 256MB. Some people, particularly those doing things like editing large
> > photographic images, can see a performance boost by adding even more
> > than 512MB--sometimes much more.
> >
> > If you are currently using the page file significantly, more memory
> > will decrease or eliminate that usage, and improve your performance.
> > If you are not using the page file significantly, more memory will do
> > nothing for you. Go to
> > http://billsway.com/notes_public/winxp_tweaks/ and download
> > WinXP-2K_Pagefile.zip and monitor your pagefile usage. That should
> > give you a good idea of whether more memory can help, and if so, how
> > much more.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
> > Please Reply to the Newsgroup
>

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
 
Thanks Ken, very good and clear explanation.

JS

"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:nrkl4419nud8te3moofdoh433infd8p660@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 12:09:37 -0400, "JS" <@> wrote:
>
>> Question Ken,
>>
>> If you only have 512MB of ram (which for most users is considered enough)
>> then where does XP go to use that memory often mentioned by you and
>> others
>> as "some of that space is used by hardware".
>
>
> No, note that it does not use *memory* for that which I've cited as
> "some of that space is used by hardware." What it uses is *address
> space*, which is not physical RAM. It has a 4GB address space,
> regardless of how much RAM you have. If, for example, it needs 1GB of
> address space for your hardware, that leaves 3GB of address space to
> map your physical RAM. RAM can't be used unless it has available
> address space to map to, so that remaining 3GB of address space is the
> limiting factor for how much RAM you can use.
>
> Note the last paragraph of my first comment below: "Note that the
> hardware is using the address *space*, not the actual RAM itself. The
> rest of the RAM goes unused because there is no address space to map
> it too."
>
>
>> And if so does it include
>> hardware such as a Video card with 256MB of onboard ram and how much
>> memory
>> would the video card use of that 4GB of memory?
>>
>> JS
>>
>> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
>> news:c3bl44dsf4l3kgh9qrvp7eil549kg2nn3m@4ax.com...
>> > On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 01:32:45 GMT, Big_Al <BigAl@MD.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> --Ivan-- wrote:
>> >> > Hi, ive got a computer thats about 3 years old right now its got 1gb
>> >> > DDR PC3200
>> >> > im not sure whats the max i can put in it is it 2 gig or??
>> >> > Ive got 512mb DDR and not sure if its ok if i put it in or not.. any
>> >> > suggestions??
>> >> > Thanks very much for your help
>> >
>> >> I've read messages about people having issues with >3gigs. Seems
>> >> someplace around 3.x gigs on XP 32 bit, it can't see. So putting 4
>> >> gig in might not be of value.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > All 32-bit client versions of Windows (not just XP) have a 4GB address
>> > space. That's the theoretical upper limit beyond which you can not go.
>> > But you can't use the entire 4GB of address space. Even though you
>> > have a 4GB address space, you can only use *around* 3.1GB of RAM.
>> > That's because some of that space is used by hardware and is not
>> > available to the operating system and applications. The amount you can
>> > use varies, depending on what hardware you have installed, but can
>> > range from as little as 2GB to as much as 3.5GB. It's usually around
>> > 3.1GB.
>> >
>> >
>> > Note that the hardware is using the address *space*, not the actual
>> > RAM itself. The rest of the RAM goes unused because there is no
>> > address space to map it too.
>> >
>> >
>> >> I have no specs on all this, but for sure
>> >> 2 or 3 gig would not hurt you (max).
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 4GB won't hurt him either. It may not help, but certainly won't hurt.
>> >
>> > Over and above how much RAM he *can* install, Ivan should think about
>> > how much he can make effective use of. Despite how often you hear that
>> > more RAM will increase your performance, that's true only up to a
>> > limit, and for most people, the 1GB he already has is already above
>> > that limit.
>> >
>> > How much RAM you need for good performance is *not* a
>> > one-size-fits-all situation. You get good performance if the amount of
>> > RAM you have keeps you from using the page file, and that depends on
>> > what apps you run. Most people running a typical range of business
>> > applications find that somewhere around 256-384MB works well, others
>> > need 512MB. Almost anyone will see poor performance with less than
>> > 256MB. Some people, particularly those doing things like editing large
>> > photographic images, can see a performance boost by adding even more
>> > than 512MB--sometimes much more.
>> >
>> > If you are currently using the page file significantly, more memory
>> > will decrease or eliminate that usage, and improve your performance.
>> > If you are not using the page file significantly, more memory will do
>> > nothing for you. Go to
>> > http://billsway.com/notes_public/winxp_tweaks/ and download
>> > WinXP-2K_Pagefile.zip and monitor your pagefile usage. That should
>> > give you a good idea of whether more memory can help, and if so, how
>> > much more.
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
>> > Please Reply to the Newsgroup
>>
>
> --
> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
> Please Reply to the Newsgroup
 
On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 15:29:07 -0400, "JS" <@> wrote:

> Thanks Ken, very good and clear explanation.


You're welcome, and thanks for the kind words.



> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
> news:nrkl4419nud8te3moofdoh433infd8p660@4ax.com...
> > On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 12:09:37 -0400, "JS" <@> wrote:
> >
> >> Question Ken,
> >>
> >> If you only have 512MB of ram (which for most users is considered enough)
> >> then where does XP go to use that memory often mentioned by you and
> >> others
> >> as "some of that space is used by hardware".
> >
> >
> > No, note that it does not use *memory* for that which I've cited as
> > "some of that space is used by hardware." What it uses is *address
> > space*, which is not physical RAM. It has a 4GB address space,
> > regardless of how much RAM you have. If, for example, it needs 1GB of
> > address space for your hardware, that leaves 3GB of address space to
> > map your physical RAM. RAM can't be used unless it has available
> > address space to map to, so that remaining 3GB of address space is the
> > limiting factor for how much RAM you can use.
> >
> > Note the last paragraph of my first comment below: "Note that the
> > hardware is using the address *space*, not the actual RAM itself. The
> > rest of the RAM goes unused because there is no address space to map
> > it too."
> >
> >
> >> And if so does it include
> >> hardware such as a Video card with 256MB of onboard ram and how much
> >> memory
> >> would the video card use of that 4GB of memory?
> >>
> >> JS
> >>
> >> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
> >> news:c3bl44dsf4l3kgh9qrvp7eil549kg2nn3m@4ax.com...
> >> > On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 01:32:45 GMT, Big_Al <BigAl@MD.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> --Ivan-- wrote:
> >> >> > Hi, ive got a computer thats about 3 years old right now its got 1gb
> >> >> > DDR PC3200
> >> >> > im not sure whats the max i can put in it is it 2 gig or??
> >> >> > Ive got 512mb DDR and not sure if its ok if i put it in or not.. any
> >> >> > suggestions??
> >> >> > Thanks very much for your help
> >> >
> >> >> I've read messages about people having issues with >3gigs. Seems
> >> >> someplace around 3.x gigs on XP 32 bit, it can't see. So putting 4
> >> >> gig in might not be of value.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > All 32-bit client versions of Windows (not just XP) have a 4GB address
> >> > space. That's the theoretical upper limit beyond which you can not go.
> >> > But you can't use the entire 4GB of address space. Even though you
> >> > have a 4GB address space, you can only use *around* 3.1GB of RAM.
> >> > That's because some of that space is used by hardware and is not
> >> > available to the operating system and applications. The amount you can
> >> > use varies, depending on what hardware you have installed, but can
> >> > range from as little as 2GB to as much as 3.5GB. It's usually around
> >> > 3.1GB.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Note that the hardware is using the address *space*, not the actual
> >> > RAM itself. The rest of the RAM goes unused because there is no
> >> > address space to map it too.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> I have no specs on all this, but for sure
> >> >> 2 or 3 gig would not hurt you (max).
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 4GB won't hurt him either. It may not help, but certainly won't hurt.
> >> >
> >> > Over and above how much RAM he *can* install, Ivan should think about
> >> > how much he can make effective use of. Despite how often you hear that
> >> > more RAM will increase your performance, that's true only up to a
> >> > limit, and for most people, the 1GB he already has is already above
> >> > that limit.
> >> >
> >> > How much RAM you need for good performance is *not* a
> >> > one-size-fits-all situation. You get good performance if the amount of
> >> > RAM you have keeps you from using the page file, and that depends on
> >> > what apps you run. Most people running a typical range of business
> >> > applications find that somewhere around 256-384MB works well, others
> >> > need 512MB. Almost anyone will see poor performance with less than
> >> > 256MB. Some people, particularly those doing things like editing large
> >> > photographic images, can see a performance boost by adding even more
> >> > than 512MB--sometimes much more.
> >> >
> >> > If you are currently using the page file significantly, more memory
> >> > will decrease or eliminate that usage, and improve your performance.
> >> > If you are not using the page file significantly, more memory will do
> >> > nothing for you. Go to
> >> > http://billsway.com/notes_public/winxp_tweaks/ and download
> >> > WinXP-2K_Pagefile.zip and monitor your pagefile usage. That should
> >> > give you a good idea of whether more memory can help, and if so, how
> >> > much more.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
> >> > Please Reply to the Newsgroup
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
> > Please Reply to the Newsgroup
>

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
 
On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 18:03:12 -0700, --Ivan--
<Ivan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>Hi, ive got a computer thats about 3 years old right now its got 1gb DDR PC3200
>im not sure whats the max i can put in it is it 2 gig or??
>Ive got 512mb DDR and not sure if its ok if i put it in or not.. any
>suggestions??
>Thanks very much for your help
Why ask HERE? We know NOTHING about you mainboard also, this has
NOTHING to do with XP.

Ask elsewhere
 
Gurney wrote:
>
> >Hi, ive got a computer thats about 3 years old right now its got 1gb DDR PC3200
> >im not sure whats the max i can put in it is it 2 gig or??
> >Ive got 512mb DDR and not sure if its ok if i put it in or not.. any
> >suggestions??
> >Thanks very much for your help
> Why ask HERE? We know NOTHING about you mainboard also, this has
> NOTHING to do with XP.

mainboard info available below

--
http://www.bootdisk.com/
 
Of course it has to do with XP. Windows XP runs in it.
"Gurney" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message
news:co9m44pj5ftkv9i3120qk9500ajsvgtntg@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 18:03:12 -0700, --Ivan--
> <Ivan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>>Hi, ive got a computer thats about 3 years old right now its got 1gb DDR
>>PC3200
>>im not sure whats the max i can put in it is it 2 gig or??
>>Ive got 512mb DDR and not sure if its ok if i put it in or not.. any
>>suggestions??
>>Thanks very much for your help
> Why ask HERE? We know NOTHING about you mainboard also, this has
> NOTHING to do with XP.
>
> Ask elsewhere
>
 
Big_Al <BigAl@MD.com> wrote:

>--Ivan-- wrote:
>> Hi, ive got a computer thats about 3 years old right now its got 1gb DDR PC3200
>> im not sure whats the max i can put in it is it 2 gig or??
>> Ive got 512mb DDR and not sure if its ok if i put it in or not.. any
>> suggestions??
>> Thanks very much for your help
>I've read messages about people having issues with >3gigs. Seems
>someplace around 3.x gigs on XP 32 bit, it can't see.

32-bit systems, both XP and Vista have 4GB of address space. That
space must be used to access BIOS, video RAM, etc as well as system
RAM. Video cards have LOTS of RAM these days, so there's usually
something like 3.2 to 3.5 GB of address space left for RAM after the
other things are taken care of. See
http://members.cox.net/slatteryt/RAM.html

OP has only 1GB at the moment, and is considering another 512MB. That
won't get him near the ceiling. Assuming his motherboard can handle
that much RAM, the OS should see it all.

As to the original question - how much RAM can he put on his MoBo - we
don't know. OP will have to look at the motherboard or system
documentation that came with his machine.

--
Tim Slattery
MS MVP(Shell/User)
Slattery_T@bls.gov
http://members.cox.net/slatteryt
 
Back
Top