I have 4 x 1Gb of DDR2 533MHz, but in windows read 3326 Mb. When I go in BIOS there shows 4 slots of 1 Gb DDR2 533MHz and that is OK. My motherboard can support 8Gb. Why in Vista read lower? Thank you
You have 32-bit Vista...
5 years is quite a while to go without any upgrades (well @ least for gaming it is (I'm a gamer)). 4 gigs is alot (the max Vista will do I think) but if you want it to last 5 years I would bump it up to 4 gigs.
You also might want to consider upgrading to Vista Ultimate. It doesn't need anymore RAM then premium and it has some features & tools to keep your computer running good for the 5 years, as I say again 5 years is quite awhile. But if you stick with Premium that is certiantly good eneugh.
Instead of shelling out for extra system ram put that cash into the OS; because the top of the line Vista business Ultimate (the highest priced version of Vista) comes with the ability to use an inexpensive USB thumb drive as system ram. This way you not only get the binifits of the extra ram but the better OS which also has the NEW "Bit Locking" which allows you to encript a HD that can NOT be read by simply daisy chaining it into another system to read it, instead you can bit lock it to another thumb drive, or SD Ram card or any othe removable media
You don't need to buy Vista Ultimate to gain ReadyBoost capabilities for a thumb drive. My HP Pavilion Media Center computer has Vista Home Premium with 3 GB of RAM installed. When I want to start the memory-intensive Flight Simulator X software, I add a 2 GB thumb drive. Without it, I tend to get an Out of Memory error from the software after a while. With the thumb drive, I haven't seen that error yet.
Only business Ultimate has the Bit lock tech ability
I recall getting my first 386 PC with my guru bro-in-law in the early 90's. 2mb of RAM...512 mb HD...he bumped it to 4mb of RAM.
A few weeks later, I made the bold statement that someday there would be a need for 2 to 4 GB of hard drive and 256mb of RAM.
He told me I was nuts.
I say, go for the 4 GB now, BUT, shop around. The cost of your extra 2 GB sounds very expensive, unless you are having someone install it for you.
You can find great deals on RAM at Tiger Direct and other such sites.
A year to 18 months from now, when you have bought some new programs and updated others AND when advancements we can't comprehend NOW will be casually accepted, you will be glad you "wasted" the money now.
Some hungry developer is going to work on all of the problems mentioned here, and there will be solutions in the not too distant future.
Also, don't forget that there will always be new advances in peripherals, and this will likely come into play in your need for RAM.
Besides, if you get 3mb now, depending on the configuration of your mother board, you will likely have to trash the 1GB to add the 2GB the other 2 GB.
I'm now looking forward to the days of 256GB of RAM and 4 TB of HD.
Heck, my Blackjack Smartphone already accepts a 2 GB micro SD chip...and I am sure making use of it.
ALWAYS dream ahead in the PC world...
Very interesting and amusing Giordios. We got to the moon but we didn't get much further. Methinks technology must have started to plateau by now. I mean you can see the difference (just) between 1920x1080 and 1366x768 but is anyone (other than Steve Austin.. $6M not Stone Cold) going to notice higher resolutions than that?
I have just come from Tom's where they did an exhaustive comparison of all RAM types. Although the price difference was significant a blind man on a galloping horse would be pushed to notice any realworld performance differences.
Maybe human faculties will begin evolving to keep pace with our computers.
Vista includes a handy new performance monitoring tool called resource monitor. The way I get to it is by doing a ctrl-alt-del, bringing up task manager, switching to the performance tab and clicking the resource monitor button. The statistic you want to look at is 'hard faults' under memory. I find the naming to be a little odd, but a hard fault is when Windows has to read or write to the page file rather than RAM. When I had 1GB RAM, I was frequently seeing well above 1000 faults/min for some processes. If you aren't seeing above 500 or so hard faults/min for the processes you think you need more memory for, you probably don't need more RAM. I wouldn't pay much attention to your virus scanner, or this statistic within a few minutes after starting Windows. With 3GB, my AV program (AVG,) still gets a lot of hard faults, and as Windows is starting, several processes do.
Video transcoding/editing may not take as much memory as you may think. Most transcoding utilities I have consume 1-200MB at most. Uncompressed DVD quality video is only about 0.5MB/frame. DVD compression doesn't usually need to deal with more than 30 frames at a time, so you can see it doesn't have a large memory footprint. Editing programs may take more because they tend to be bloated software.
I can assure you that 4 gigs ram will give you benfits of 3 gigs of ram on vista 32 bit.. and the 1 gig that doesnt show on vista 32 bit would be used to help Pci hardware.. e.g soundcars etc.. so its not all lost
"the 1 gig that doesnt show on vista 32 bit would be used to help Pci hardware.. e.g soundcars etc.. so its not all lost"
That's some drival or bad excuse you are hearing around sales counters today. It's a sure sign they are unaware how computers work.
Remember these are salespeople talking to consumers. They need these lies to keep from wasting time on the truth.
Bob
| Forum legend: | |
| Locked thread | |
| Moderator | |
![]() |
CNET staff |
![]() |
Samsung staff |
| Norton Authorized Support team | |
| AVG staff | |
| Windows Outreach team | |
![]() |
Dell staff |
| Intel staff | |