Memory

[Don Landrum]

I have installed windows xp on my computer. intel III 800
20gig h.d. i have 296 meg ram now but i have more ram at
my disposal what would be the most usefull amount of
memory to install on a windows xp system. oh, and i did a
fresh install format not quick format.

[null]

Don Landrum wrote:
> I have installed windows xp on my computer. intel III 800
> 20gig h.d. i have 296 meg ram now but i have more ram at
> my disposal what would be the most usefull amount of
> memory to install on a windows xp system. oh, and i did a
> fresh install format not quick format.

The most useful amount of ram to install would be the max that your
motherboard will accept.

--
-the small one

All postings carry no guarantee or warranty, expressed or implied.
Proceed at your own risk, and perform system and data backups prior to
making changes to your system, and on a regular basis, to protect your
system.

[Ken Briscoe]

"Don Landrum" > wrote in message
...
> I have installed windows xp on my computer. intel III 800
> 20gig h.d. i have 296 meg ram now but i have more ram at
> my disposal what would be the most usefull amount of
> memory to install on a windows xp system. oh, and i did a
> fresh install format not quick format.

The "most useful" amount of RAM would be "as much as you can fit on your
motherboard". That said, 296 (that's a strange number, how did you get 296?
onboard video?) should be sufficient for casual use. More is always better,
but 296 will probably suffice if you're not doing alot of video editing or
huge number crunching, or things along those lines.

KB

[Perdita X. Dream]

Ken Briscoe wrote:
> "Don Landrum" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I have installed windows xp on my computer. intel III 800
>> 20gig h.d. i have 296 meg ram now but i have more ram at
>> my disposal what would be the most usefull amount of
>> memory to install on a windows xp system. oh, and i did a
>> fresh install format not quick format.
>
> The "most useful" amount of RAM would be "as much as you can fit on
> your motherboard". That said, 296 (that's a strange number, how did
> you get 296? onboard video?) should be sufficient for casual use.
> More is always better, but 296 will probably suffice if you're not
> doing alot of video editing or huge number crunching, or things along
> those lines.
>
> KB

I was just thinking the same thing and can only conclude it's a typo. 296 is
40 MORE than 256 and the maximum amount of RAM that can be allocated to
onboard graphics is 64 and 296+64 = 360, another strange number. These days
RAM is usually in multiples of 128MB.

--
Perdita X. Dream

Please help us to help you
http://groups.google.com
http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
Please note that the reply address is fake.
Keep all posts to the groups as private requests for assistance
(i.e. email/IM) cannot be acknowledged. Thank you.

[§kullywag©-]

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 23:50:27 +0100, "Perdita X. Dream"
> wrote:

>Ken Briscoe wrote:
>> "Don Landrum" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> I have installed windows xp on my computer. intel III 800
>>> 20gig h.d. i have 296 meg ram now but i have more ram at
>>> my disposal what would be the most usefull amount of
>>> memory to install on a windows xp system. oh, and i did a
>>> fresh install format not quick format.
>>
>> The "most useful" amount of RAM would be "as much as you can fit on
>> your motherboard". That said, 296 (that's a strange number, how did
>> you get 296? onboard video?) should be sufficient for casual use.
>> More is always better, but 296 will probably suffice if you're not
>> doing alot of video editing or huge number crunching, or things along
>> those lines.
>>
>> KB
>
>I was just thinking the same thing and can only conclude it's a typo. 296 is
>40 MORE than 256 and the maximum amount of RAM that can be allocated to
>onboard graphics is 64 and 296+64 = 360, another strange number. These days
>RAM is usually in multiples of 128MB.

It's cool to stock up with as much as your board will hold....BUT...
in all reallity, anything over 512MB more than likely will never (or
rarely) be needed with XP.
I have 1Gig installed, run A LOT of programs (games, video, ect) and
don't think I've used more than 40% physical memory.


§kullywag©-

[Francis]

I agree. I have 512 MB installed at home and that works fine for the
games/apps that I run.

However, at work we use 3D modeling programs that require tones of RAM (My
machine at work has 2 GB DDR RAM...freakin' awsome!!!)

But, other than that program, I don't think there is much else that would
utilize that amount of memory.

--Cheers


Francis



"§kullywag©-" > wrote in message
...
| On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 23:50:27 +0100, "Perdita X. Dream"
| > wrote:
|
| >Ken Briscoe wrote:
| >> "Don Landrum" > wrote in message
| >> ...
| >>> I have installed windows xp on my computer. intel III 800
| >>> 20gig h.d. i have 296 meg ram now but i have more ram at
| >>> my disposal what would be the most usefull amount of
| >>> memory to install on a windows xp system. oh, and i did a
| >>> fresh install format not quick format.
| >>
| >> The "most useful" amount of RAM would be "as much as you can fit on
| >> your motherboard". That said, 296 (that's a strange number, how did
| >> you get 296? onboard video?) should be sufficient for casual use.
| >> More is always better, but 296 will probably suffice if you're not
| >> doing alot of video editing or huge number crunching, or things along
| >> those lines.
| >>
| >> KB
| >
| >I was just thinking the same thing and can only conclude it's a typo. 296
is
| >40 MORE than 256 and the maximum amount of RAM that can be allocated to
| >onboard graphics is 64 and 296+64 = 360, another strange number. These
days
| >RAM is usually in multiples of 128MB.
|
| It's cool to stock up with as much as your board will hold....BUT...
| in all reallity, anything over 512MB more than likely will never (or
| rarely) be needed with XP.
| I have 1Gig installed, run A LOT of programs (games, video, ect) and
| don't think I've used more than 40% physical memory.
|
|
| §kullywag©-