RAM for XP

[Timothy]

Richard/NAC

No need to have more than a total of 512Mb. That is the sweet spot for WinXP.I thought this worthy of a new thread.

Is this true if XP is running serious apps, such as SQLServer + IIS etc?

Will

[BlueRobin]

TN: nah, more the better eh?

[Timothy]

more the better eh?That has always been my view, but I can imagine that there might be an optimum (oh, alright "sweet spot":= :hmm: ), and if Richard says there is I would be happy to believe him.

Will

[RomeoTangoFoxtrotMike]

Will,
That has always been my view, but I can imagine that there might be an optimum (oh, alright "sweet spot" ), and if Richard says there is I would be happy to believe him.
With real ;) operating systems you're pretty much right; however it's my understanding that Windows divvies up the memory into fixed-sized chunks / tables (depending on how much physical memory you have) for various purposes, which is why you get those "the system is dangerously low of resources" messages, despite there apparently being shed loads of spare memory -- if one of those fixed-sized tables fills up, you're stuffed :mad:

I'm quite prepared to believe that once you get above a certain "sweet-spot" you're into deminishing returns on the amount of effort required to manage the additional memory ... :hmm:

[Timothy]

Is this as true of "grown-up" Windows (NT, 2K, XP) as it was of "baby" Windows (9x, ME)?

I thought not, but then I don't know much:( :{ :confused:

Will

[RomeoTangoFoxtrotMike]

Is this as true of "grown-up" Windows (NT, 2K, XP) as it was of "baby" Windows (9x, ME)?

Probably not, but MS definitely "have their own way of doing things", according to my contacts... :E

Will the grown-up versions be better than the baby-Wins (in this context) ? probably. Will they still share some of the legacy baggage ? Almost certainly :) Make what you will of that :ok:

[Mac the Knife]

9.x can theoretically address up to 4GB, but can only use up to 2GB. In addition: "The Windows 32-bit protected-mode cache driver (Vcache) determines the maximum cache size based on the amount of RAM that is present when Windows starts. Vcache then reserves enough memory addresses to permit it to access a cache of the maximum size so that it can increase the cache to that size if needed. These addresses are allocated in a range of virtual addresses from 0xC0000000 through 0xFFFFFFFF (3 to 4 gigabytes) known as the system arena.

On [9.x] computers with large amounts of RAM, [in practice >512MB] the maximum cache size can be large enough that Vcache consumes all of the addresses in the system arena, leaving no virtual memory addresses available for other functions such as opening an MS-DOS prompt (creating a new virtual machine)." [Best workaround for this in 98 is to use the MaxFileCache setting in the System.ini file to reduce the maximum amount of memory that Vcache uses to 512 megabytes (524,288 KB) or less.] But 9.x starts to fall over it's shoelaces keeping track of much more than 256MB anyway - it wasn't written with BIG memory in mind and the management overhead means that there's little benefit.

Windows 2000/XP Professional is a different kettle of fish and can address up to 4 GB of memory quite happily. However, it only allows applications to use 2 GB of it. The other 2 GB is for operating system use only. You can modify it to allow applications to use 3 GB by editing the boot.ini, but the application(s) need to be "large address space aware" to gain any benefit.

AFAIK unless you are running a big server (which needs gobs of RAM) or editing really huge files like video then there really isn't much benefit in going over 512MB (apart from boasting rights...). XP in fact runs reasonably well with 256MB.

Well, that's as I understand it (dons flak jacket for correction).

[goates]

From my own experience, WinXP will run fine with 256MB if you are only checking email, surfing the net or using MS Office etc. This isn't too bad for less demanding games either. Many of the newer games, and flight sims, are much happier with 512MB and sometimes more. One terrain add-on for X-Plane recomended 768MB for best performance and/or high resolutions. For some of the new games that are supposed to come out sometime this year, more than 512MB would probably help.

Just wait until the 64-bit version of WinXP comes out. Then we can listen to people brag about how they can use more than 8GB of memory...

goates

[Naples Air Center, Inc.]

Humm... Shame I was not online when this debate started. I would like to have jumped in that the beginning.

WCollins,

Lets get the comment into context.

Fogbound had just bought a Packard Bell Easynote T5 135 notebook for £799. I could not see telling him that he should spend a lot of money to get that notebook up to 1GB or 2GB of SODIMMs. I cannot see him using the notebook for SQLServer + IIS. He would end up spending more money on RAM than what he paid for the notebook itself.

For the average user, 512Mb is perfect for them. If someone doing Audio/Video Editing and some other memory intensive applications, 1Gb or more RAM is required. I cannot see recommending to someone who just bought a notebook to buy a pair of:

1GB 200Pin SODIMM PC2100 DDR Non-Parity CL2.5 (http://www.dabs.com/uk/productview?quicklinx=2H04) from Dabs.com for a total of £858.00.

If they are going to surf the net and play a some games.

With Win9x it has been shown over and over that if you add more than 256Mb of RAM, the computer will run slower. (Due to the size of the index for the RAM.) With WinXP it has been shown that you hit the best performance when you hit 512Mb of RAM and unless you are working with large files that need the added RAM, there is no gain in performance in adding more.

Take Care,

Richard

[Timothy]

I cannot see him using the notebook for SQLServer + IIS.It's exactly what I use mine for :8 :O

But thanks for the info :ok:

Will

[Naples Air Center, Inc.]

WCollins,

Never know, maybe we should Fogbound what his plans are for his new notebook. ;)

Take Care,

Richard