Max RAM used by XP

[Jerry]

Trying to figure out how much RAM to purchase with a new
computer (running XP Prof). Some merchants recommend no
more than 768 MG (512 and 256 cards) since "XP can not use
more than 768." Others say go for the 1024 MG--"planning
for the future." It's not much of a price increase, but I
am interested in knowing if the 768 MG limit is true.

[Jim Macklin]

The limit is 4 GB, but most motherboards can use more than 2
GB. XP runs best around 512 MB for normal use. Heavy video
editing and such will use as much RAM as you can afford.


"Jerry" > wrote in message
...
| Trying to figure out how much RAM to purchase with a new
| computer (running XP Prof). Some merchants recommend no
| more than 768 MG (512 and 256 cards) since "XP can not use
| more than 768." Others say go for the 1024 MG--"planning
| for the future." It's not much of a price increase, but I
| am interested in knowing if the 768 MG limit is true.

[Silly You]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message =
...

> The limit is 4 GB, but most motherboards can use more than 2 GB.

True

> XP runs best around 512 MB for normal use.

False

> Heavy video editing and such will use as much RAM as you can afford.

Dumbass, that you are, refer back to your first line of fact about the =
4GB limit!

[Jim Macklin]

I should check to see why my block sender list didn't block
Silly You, he must have spoofed his address just to keep his
posts in the public domain.

But I do see an error, I should have said, "The limit is 4
GB, but most motherboards can NOT use more than 2 GB." So
the original statement wasn't true.

As far as the sweet spot for RAM, all the test reports I've
read indicate that anything below 128 is terrible, 256 isn't
bad and there is significant improvement (less pagefile use)
with 512...

Any one raised on or near a farm knows that asses are rather
smart, compared to horses asses. Only Silly You knows for
sure which category fits.




"Silly You" <G{#?¦h|pTÿú+yùìâ+> wrote in message
news:13d01fa00638a67d9db5a61034962bb6@TeraNews...

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...

> The limit is 4 GB, but most motherboards can use more than
2 GB.

True

> XP runs best around 512 MB for normal use.

False

> Heavy video editing and such will use as much RAM as you
can afford.

Dumbass, that you are, refer back to your first line of fact
about the 4GB limit!

[Sillly You]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message =
...

> I should check to see why my block sender list didn't block
> Silly You, he must have spoofed his address just to keep his
> posts in the public domain.

Bwahahahahaha! Spoofing my posts have nothing to do with my posts =
showing up here. You think that blocking me stops my posts from being in =
the group altogether? Bwahahahahahaha!




>=20
> As far as the sweet spot for RAM, all the test reports I've
> read indicate that anything below 128 is terrible, 256 isn't
> bad and there is significant improvement (less pagefile use)
> with 512...
>=20

Still false, as you originally implied the need for RAM under "normal =
use". 256 suffices just peachy!

> Any one raised on or near a farm knows that asses are rather
> smart, compared to horses asses. Only Silly You knows for
> sure which category fits.

LMAO!

You still didn't address this statement by you;

> Heavy video editing and such will use as much RAM as you can afford.
=20
BY implying any amount of RAM you can afford, this means as much as you =
want (over and above the 4gig limit XP imposes).



> "Silly You" <G{#?=A6h|pT=FF=FA+y=F9=EC=E2+> wrote in message
> news:13d01fa00638a67d9db5a61034962bb6@TeraNews...
>=20
> "Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
> ...
>=20
> > The limit is 4 GB, but most motherboards can use more than
> 2 GB.
>=20
> True
>=20
> > XP runs best around 512 MB for normal use.
>=20
> False
>=20
> > Heavy video editing and such will use as much RAM as you
> can afford.
>=20
> Dumbass, that you are, refer back to your first line of fact
> about the 4GB limit!
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>

[bobbyjak]

512mb should be fine..I have 1gb on a Dell 4500 with XP PRO..

"Jerry" > wrote in message ...
> Trying to figure out how much RAM to purchase with a new
> computer (running XP Prof). Some merchants recommend no
> more than 768 MG (512 and 256 cards) since "XP can not use
> more than 768." Others say go for the 1024 MG--"planning
> for the future." It's not much of a price increase, but I
> am interested in knowing if the 768 MG limit is true.

[Ken Blake]

In , Jerry wrote:

> Trying to figure out how much RAM to purchase with a new
> computer (running XP Prof). Some merchants recommend no
> more than 768 MG (512 and 256 cards) since "XP can not use
> more than 768." Others say go for the 1024 MG--"planning
> for the future." It's not much of a price increase, but I
> am interested in knowing if the 768 MG limit is true.


It's completely false. The actual limit is 4GB.

However a more important question is how much *you* need to
maximize your performance. That's dependent on what apps you run.
Most people need somewhere in the range of 256-512MB, however
those doing things like editing large photographic images can
often see big performance improvements by going to more--even
much more.

Assuming that you're running a typical range of business
applications, it's not likely that more than 512MB would be of
benefit, and I wouldn't recommend more than that. "Planning for
the future" by adding more makes no sense. You can always add
more RAM if you need it later.

--
Ken Blake
Please reply to the newsgroup

[Alex Nichol]

Jerry wrote:

>Trying to figure out how much RAM to purchase with a new=20
>computer (running XP Prof). Some merchants recommend no=20
>more than 768 MG (512 and 256 cards) since "XP can not use=20
>more than 768." Others say go for the 1024 MG--"planning=20
>for the future." It's not much of a price increase, but I=20
>am interested in knowing if the 768 MG limit is true.

It is not true. XP can use up to 3GB - more with special settings that
are probably not productive in practice. But 768 may be excessively
generous, it depends entirely on what your workload is. I would start
with 5212, and get one of the tools linked from my page
www.aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm to find what the actual usage of the page
file is under *your* normal load. You may find it near enough nil, in
which case buying more is a waste of money: or if you have some
workloads you might find an extra 512 or even more was justified.=20

--=20
Alex Nichol MS MVP (Windows Technologies)
Bournemouth, U.K.

[Unknown]

512 meg is very adequate. However more importantly is make sure the computer
you are buying can have more installed. (What is the max memory for your
computer)
"Ken Blake" > wrote in message
...
> In , Jerry wrote:
>
> > Trying to figure out how much RAM to purchase with a new
> > computer (running XP Prof). Some merchants recommend no
> > more than 768 MG (512 and 256 cards) since "XP can not use
> > more than 768." Others say go for the 1024 MG--"planning
> > for the future." It's not much of a price increase, but I
> > am interested in knowing if the 768 MG limit is true.
>
>
> It's completely false. The actual limit is 4GB.
>
> However a more important question is how much *you* need to
> maximize your performance. That's dependent on what apps you run.
> Most people need somewhere in the range of 256-512MB, however
> those doing things like editing large photographic images can
> often see big performance improvements by going to more--even
> much more.
>
> Assuming that you're running a typical range of business
> applications, it's not likely that more than 512MB would be of
> benefit, and I wouldn't recommend more than that. "Planning for
> the future" by adding more makes no sense. You can always add
> more RAM if you need it later.
>
> --
> Ken Blake
> Please reply to the newsgroup
>
>

[Etienne Dehò \(506040\)]

Ouch - Silly You, that hurt. My heartfelt sympathy.

[Dr. Harvie Wahl-Banghor]

Some time, on or about: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 00:30:40 -0700, "Jerry"
> was criminally insane in my professional
opinion when they claimed the following balderdash:

>Trying to figure out how much RAM to purchase with a new
>computer (running XP Prof). Some merchants recommend no
>more than 768 MG (512 and 256 cards) since "XP can not use
>more than 768." Others say go for the 1024 MG--"planning
>for the future." It's not much of a price increase, but I
>am interested in knowing if the 768 MG limit is true.

Who ever told you that XP can't use over 768 megs of RAM doesn't know
what they are talking about. Most modern motherboards will now accept
up to 3 gigs of RAM and unlike earlier versions of Windows (ie, 95/
98/ ME) can and will make full use of it. I must mention that a
majority of people will never make full use of that much memory unless
they are running some pretty heavy duty video editing programs or
programming applications. I do, however, suggest a Gig of RAM.

[Jerry]

Thanks to all with answers to my RAM question. Looks like
512 is a good answer and 1G if I've got a few extra bucks.
J

>-----Original Message-----
>In , Jerry wrote:
>
>> Trying to figure out how much RAM to purchase with a new
>> computer (running XP Prof). Some merchants recommend no
>> more than 768 MG (512 and 256 cards) since "XP can not
use
>> more than 768." Others say go for the 1024 MG--
"planning
>> for the future." It's not much of a price increase, but
I
>> am interested in knowing if the 768 MG limit is true.
>
>
>It's completely false. The actual limit is 4GB.
>
>However a more important question is how much *you* need
to
>maximize your performance. That's dependent on what apps
you run.
>Most people need somewhere in the range of 256-512MB,
however
>those doing things like editing large photographic images
can
>often see big performance improvements by going to more--
even
>much more.
>
>Assuming that you're running a typical range of business
>applications, it's not likely that more than 512MB would
be of
>benefit, and I wouldn't recommend more than
that. "Planning for
>the future" by adding more makes no sense. You can always
add
>more RAM if you need it later.
>
>--
>Ken Blake
>Please reply to the newsgroup
>
>
>.
>

[Donald Link]

Yeh but think of the power if you could just hav 3 gigs of ram running.
Along with the 2 x 250 gig hard drives amd 3 mhz MB with the super, super
video and sound card.
>
> Who ever told you that XP can't use over 768 megs of RAM doesn't know
> what they are talking about. Most modern motherboards will now accept
> up to 3 gigs of RAM and unlike earlier versions of Windows (ie, 95/
> 98/ ME) can and will make full use of it. I must mention that a
> majority of people will never make full use of that much memory unless
> they are running some pretty heavy duty video editing programs or
> programming applications. I do, however, suggest a Gig of RAM.
>