If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Too much RAM?
Ok, I have asked a similar question before. But my system can apparently take
4 1Mb Ram sticks in 4 slots. I know they are suppose to go in pairs. What happens if I put in 2mb pieces? I know that XP 32-bit has a limit of 4Gb. From what I was told, in othe posts it seems, they just don't work if it is too much. It's unrecognized. But I am just making sure. In my motherboard manual it says 2Gb pieces can work. It lists one company that has 2Gb pieces that work. I quickly scanned the list though. On crucial.com, and www.oempcworld.com they say the 4 1Gb sticks. I trust the manual (although there are features I have that are not included or listed as optional). Conflicting and confusing. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Too much RAM?
Brian V wrote:
Ok, I have asked a similar question before. But my system can apparently take 4 1Mb Ram sticks in 4 slots. I know they are suppose to go in pairs. What happens if I put in 2mb pieces? I know that XP 32-bit has a limit of 4Gb. From what I was told, in othe posts it seems, they just don't work if it is too much. It's unrecognized. But I am just making sure. In my motherboard manual it says 2Gb pieces can work. It lists one company that has 2Gb pieces that work. I quickly scanned the list though. On crucial.com, and www.oempcworld.com they say the 4 1Gb sticks. I trust the manual (although there are features I have that are not included or listed as optional). Conflicting and confusing. Don't make it complicated. It's not, not really. Do you *need* or will you ever even use more than 2GB with Windows XP as a regular home user? Not likely without virtual machines and/or some video/music editing. Does 32-bit Windows recognize more than 4GB memory - not really, in fact very seldom will you hear about people even getting Windows (32-bit) to even acknowledge in the simplest form more than 3.5GB. It depends on the hardware configuration, etc. If you want more RAM than that and will actually use it for something - get a 64-bit OS. As for your motherboard - trust what the Crucial web page tells you. They guarantee it. -- Shenan Stanley MS-MVP -- How To Ask Questions The Smart Way http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Too much RAM?
Brian V wrote:
Ok, I have asked a similar question before. But my system can apparently take 4 1Mb Ram sticks in 4 slots. I know they are suppose to go in pairs. What happens if I put in 2mb pieces? I know that XP 32-bit has a limit of 4Gb. From what I was told, in othe posts it seems, they just don't work if it is too much. It's unrecognized. But I am just making sure. In my motherboard manual it says 2Gb pieces can work. It lists one company that has 2Gb pieces that work. I quickly scanned the list though. On crucial.com, and www.oempcworld.com they say the 4 1Gb sticks. I trust the manual (although there are features I have that are not included or listed as optional). Conflicting and confusing. Don't make it complicated. It's not, not really. Do you *need* or will you ever even use more than 2GB with Windows XP as a regular home user? Not likely without virtual machines and/or some video/music editing. Does 32-bit Windows recognize more than 4GB memory - not really, in fact very seldom will you hear about people even getting Windows (32-bit) to even acknowledge in the simplest form more than 3.5GB. It depends on the hardware configuration, etc. If you want more RAM than that and will actually use it for something - get a 64-bit OS. As for your motherboard - trust what the Crucial web page tells you. They guarantee it. -- Shenan Stanley MS-MVP -- How To Ask Questions The Smart Way http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Too much RAM?
Brian V wrote:
Ok, I have asked a similar question before. But my system can apparently take 4 1Mb Ram sticks in 4 slots. I know they are suppose to go in pairs. What happens if I put in 2mb pieces? I know that XP 32-bit has a limit of 4Gb. From what I was told, in othe posts it seems, they just don't work if it is too much. It's unrecognized. But I am just making sure. In my motherboard manual it says 2Gb pieces can work. It lists one company that has 2Gb pieces that work. I quickly scanned the list though. On crucial.com, and www.oempcworld.com they say the 4 1Gb sticks. I trust the manual (although there are features I have that are not included or listed as optional). Conflicting and confusing. These are some test results for the E380. Documentation says up to 4x1GB can be installed (and that recommendation is likely based on the assumption a 32 bit OS will always be used). Yet, the test results here show BIOS problems when more than 2GB total is installed. http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/topic169530.html It is perfectly OK for a person to do their own experiments. Take my current computer as an example. It is rated to hold 2x1GB. I installed 2x1GB and the machine is stable and error free. Based on some info from Germany, that it was possible to install more memory, I bought 2x2GB and tried them, and they worked! That is above the manufacturer's recommendation. Only problem is, the memory operation is not error free (I test for that before using the memory to boot the OS). So those 2x2GB sticks sit in my hardware junk pile. Nothing was harmed by doing the experiment, except my bank account. Because memory was cheap at the time, there was little harm to trying. If a person did not believe the results in that bleepingcomputer thread, they could always test the limits for themselves. The excess memory could always be sold on Ebay, for a loss. Make sure *all* power to the computer is off, before changing memory configuration. With regard to the architecture of that motherboard and CPU choice, SIW reports that based on the CPU installed, it could actually take up to 4x4GB modules. But you'd need a 64 bit OS to get the value from such an expenditure. And if the BIOS throws a wobbly because of the RAM configuration, there isn't much that can be done about it. It is up to the computer manufacturer to stay up-to-date on BIOS bug fixes. http://www.fixya.com/support/t120159..._em61sm_em61pm I recommend more searches on "EM61SM/EM61PM" (the motherboard name), to see how friendly that motherboard is to exceeding the original hardware configuration (i.e. supporting hardware upgrades or surviving a BIOS flash upgrade attempt). Any time a person takes it upon themselves to upgrade hardware, no matter how experienced they are, they should read up on all previous experiments done, to avoid grief or wasted expenditures. At present, a 32 bit OS only benefits from 4GB installed, and may report something like "3.2GB free" or less (depending on the address space required by the graphics card and its chunk of onboard memory). Since the Acer computer likely shipped with a 32 bit OS, that is one reason to not go overboard. The way this works, is the processor and OS have some limits as to the address space supported. If you have 5GB worth of hardware addresses and only 4GB worth of address space, the "excess hardware" must be ignored. If you install 16GB of RAM, and the OS is WinXP 32 bit, then expect to see "3.2GB free" reported. Same would happen if you installed 4GB of RAM - it would still report "3.2GB free". If you installed 3GB of RAM, it would report some number less than 3GB as free. Out of the total address space, some is set aside to support the addressing of system busses. Address space is allocated in 256MB chunks. So if you installed a single PCI card, and it needed 4 bytes of address space, a 256MB chunk would be allocated by the BIOS when it sets up the decoding map. If the PCI card needed an address space of 256.1MB, then the BIOS would allocate 512MB of address space for the bus. There are at least two busses in the system, PCI and PCI Express. So at least 512MB of address space must be allocated just for them. That is how, without too much effort, you're seeing "3.2GB free" on your computer with 4x1GB installed. First, decoding space for buses is allocated, and the remaining address space can be used to access memory. It doesn't have to work that way, but it is the way Microsoft wants it to work. PAE actually supports a 36 bit address space on a 32 bit OS. But Microsoft has other ideas, and the current limit is 32 bits of address space. I find I could use more than 2GB of RAM, if I'm running virtual machines on my PC. Otherwise, I find 2GB is enough for other purposes. Paul |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Too much RAM?
Brian V wrote:
Ok, I have asked a similar question before. But my system can apparently take 4 1Mb Ram sticks in 4 slots. I know they are suppose to go in pairs. What happens if I put in 2mb pieces? I know that XP 32-bit has a limit of 4Gb. From what I was told, in othe posts it seems, they just don't work if it is too much. It's unrecognized. But I am just making sure. In my motherboard manual it says 2Gb pieces can work. It lists one company that has 2Gb pieces that work. I quickly scanned the list though. On crucial.com, and www.oempcworld.com they say the 4 1Gb sticks. I trust the manual (although there are features I have that are not included or listed as optional). Conflicting and confusing. These are some test results for the E380. Documentation says up to 4x1GB can be installed (and that recommendation is likely based on the assumption a 32 bit OS will always be used). Yet, the test results here show BIOS problems when more than 2GB total is installed. http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/topic169530.html It is perfectly OK for a person to do their own experiments. Take my current computer as an example. It is rated to hold 2x1GB. I installed 2x1GB and the machine is stable and error free. Based on some info from Germany, that it was possible to install more memory, I bought 2x2GB and tried them, and they worked! That is above the manufacturer's recommendation. Only problem is, the memory operation is not error free (I test for that before using the memory to boot the OS). So those 2x2GB sticks sit in my hardware junk pile. Nothing was harmed by doing the experiment, except my bank account. Because memory was cheap at the time, there was little harm to trying. If a person did not believe the results in that bleepingcomputer thread, they could always test the limits for themselves. The excess memory could always be sold on Ebay, for a loss. Make sure *all* power to the computer is off, before changing memory configuration. With regard to the architecture of that motherboard and CPU choice, SIW reports that based on the CPU installed, it could actually take up to 4x4GB modules. But you'd need a 64 bit OS to get the value from such an expenditure. And if the BIOS throws a wobbly because of the RAM configuration, there isn't much that can be done about it. It is up to the computer manufacturer to stay up-to-date on BIOS bug fixes. http://www.fixya.com/support/t120159..._em61sm_em61pm I recommend more searches on "EM61SM/EM61PM" (the motherboard name), to see how friendly that motherboard is to exceeding the original hardware configuration (i.e. supporting hardware upgrades or surviving a BIOS flash upgrade attempt). Any time a person takes it upon themselves to upgrade hardware, no matter how experienced they are, they should read up on all previous experiments done, to avoid grief or wasted expenditures. At present, a 32 bit OS only benefits from 4GB installed, and may report something like "3.2GB free" or less (depending on the address space required by the graphics card and its chunk of onboard memory). Since the Acer computer likely shipped with a 32 bit OS, that is one reason to not go overboard. The way this works, is the processor and OS have some limits as to the address space supported. If you have 5GB worth of hardware addresses and only 4GB worth of address space, the "excess hardware" must be ignored. If you install 16GB of RAM, and the OS is WinXP 32 bit, then expect to see "3.2GB free" reported. Same would happen if you installed 4GB of RAM - it would still report "3.2GB free". If you installed 3GB of RAM, it would report some number less than 3GB as free. Out of the total address space, some is set aside to support the addressing of system busses. Address space is allocated in 256MB chunks. So if you installed a single PCI card, and it needed 4 bytes of address space, a 256MB chunk would be allocated by the BIOS when it sets up the decoding map. If the PCI card needed an address space of 256.1MB, then the BIOS would allocate 512MB of address space for the bus. There are at least two busses in the system, PCI and PCI Express. So at least 512MB of address space must be allocated just for them. That is how, without too much effort, you're seeing "3.2GB free" on your computer with 4x1GB installed. First, decoding space for buses is allocated, and the remaining address space can be used to access memory. It doesn't have to work that way, but it is the way Microsoft wants it to work. PAE actually supports a 36 bit address space on a 32 bit OS. But Microsoft has other ideas, and the current limit is 32 bits of address space. I find I could use more than 2GB of RAM, if I'm running virtual machines on my PC. Otherwise, I find 2GB is enough for other purposes. Paul |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Too much RAM?
Shenan Stanley wrote:
Brian V wrote: Ok, I have asked a similar question before. But my system can apparently take 4 1Mb Ram sticks in 4 slots. I know they are suppose to go in pairs. What happens if I put in 2mb pieces? I know that XP 32-bit has a limit of 4Gb. From what I was told, in othe posts it seems, they just don't work if it is too much. It's unrecognized. But I am just making sure. In my motherboard manual it says 2Gb pieces can work. It lists one company that has 2Gb pieces that work. I quickly scanned the list though. On crucial.com, and www.oempcworld.com they say the 4 1Gb sticks. I trust the manual (although there are features I have that are not included or listed as optional). Conflicting and confusing. Don't make it complicated. It's not, not really. Do you *need* or will you ever even use more than 2GB with Windows XP as a regular home user? Not likely without virtual machines and/or some video/music editing. Does 32-bit Windows recognize more than 4GB memory - not really, in fact very seldom will you hear about people even getting Windows (32-bit) to even acknowledge in the simplest form more than 3.5GB. It depends on the hardware configuration, etc. If you want more RAM than that and will actually use it for something - get a 64-bit OS. As for your motherboard - trust what the Crucial web page tells you. They guarantee it. I found this article the other day, and you might want to take a look at what this guy has discovered. Not really a surprise, but still an interesting read. http://www.geoffchappell.com/viewer....nse/memory.htm Paul |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Too much RAM?
Shenan Stanley wrote:
Brian V wrote: Ok, I have asked a similar question before. But my system can apparently take 4 1Mb Ram sticks in 4 slots. I know they are suppose to go in pairs. What happens if I put in 2mb pieces? I know that XP 32-bit has a limit of 4Gb. From what I was told, in othe posts it seems, they just don't work if it is too much. It's unrecognized. But I am just making sure. In my motherboard manual it says 2Gb pieces can work. It lists one company that has 2Gb pieces that work. I quickly scanned the list though. On crucial.com, and www.oempcworld.com they say the 4 1Gb sticks. I trust the manual (although there are features I have that are not included or listed as optional). Conflicting and confusing. Don't make it complicated. It's not, not really. Do you *need* or will you ever even use more than 2GB with Windows XP as a regular home user? Not likely without virtual machines and/or some video/music editing. Does 32-bit Windows recognize more than 4GB memory - not really, in fact very seldom will you hear about people even getting Windows (32-bit) to even acknowledge in the simplest form more than 3.5GB. It depends on the hardware configuration, etc. If you want more RAM than that and will actually use it for something - get a 64-bit OS. As for your motherboard - trust what the Crucial web page tells you. They guarantee it. I found this article the other day, and you might want to take a look at what this guy has discovered. Not really a surprise, but still an interesting read. http://www.geoffchappell.com/viewer....nse/memory.htm Paul |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Too much RAM?
So this RAM allocation for the PCI cards: Would that cover all of them? Or
allocation per each? There's 4 in the back of my tower. Would 2 share this allocation? If I am not using what's in the Pci slots, is the RAM allocated to toher stuff then? Or always set for the Pci slots? What about if I installed MIDI to connect a keyboard to? It's probably going in a PCI slot, but what if one was in a front port? Is that another situation (the front ports)? The mroe I deal with music, the mroe RAM I need because of editing and multiple tracks being used at the same time. Tracks would be like running multiple programs at once, the more there are, the more RAM used. What that also means is each instrument or each sound assigned to a seperate field. It's about editing afterwards. I am going to start those video editing programs soon. I have one, just learning stuff about my computer first and I'll start. Those files are big though. Eg: ACVHD, BLu-Ray, Hi-def files, etc. They need 2.4Ghz or more. Quad core or i7 for the really high resolution files. Ram is 1.5 at bare minimum, mostly 2.5 recommended. Because there's processing, and graphics and sound. RAM per each has been recommended to me. My video program is lesser than HD. But hopefully by the end of this year, I am buying one of the HD ones. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Too much RAM?
So this RAM allocation for the PCI cards: Would that cover all of them? Or
allocation per each? There's 4 in the back of my tower. Would 2 share this allocation? If I am not using what's in the Pci slots, is the RAM allocated to toher stuff then? Or always set for the Pci slots? What about if I installed MIDI to connect a keyboard to? It's probably going in a PCI slot, but what if one was in a front port? Is that another situation (the front ports)? The mroe I deal with music, the mroe RAM I need because of editing and multiple tracks being used at the same time. Tracks would be like running multiple programs at once, the more there are, the more RAM used. What that also means is each instrument or each sound assigned to a seperate field. It's about editing afterwards. I am going to start those video editing programs soon. I have one, just learning stuff about my computer first and I'll start. Those files are big though. Eg: ACVHD, BLu-Ray, Hi-def files, etc. They need 2.4Ghz or more. Quad core or i7 for the really high resolution files. Ram is 1.5 at bare minimum, mostly 2.5 recommended. Because there's processing, and graphics and sound. RAM per each has been recommended to me. My video program is lesser than HD. But hopefully by the end of this year, I am buying one of the HD ones. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Too much RAM?
Brian V wrote:
So this RAM allocation for the PCI cards: Would that cover all of them? Or allocation per each? There's 4 in the back of my tower. Would 2 share this allocation? If I am not using what's in the Pci slots, is the RAM allocated to toher stuff then? Or always set for the Pci slots? What about if I installed MIDI to connect a keyboard to? It's probably going in a PCI slot, but what if one was in a front port? Is that another situation (the front ports)? The mroe I deal with music, the mroe RAM I need because of editing and multiple tracks being used at the same time. Tracks would be like running multiple programs at once, the more there are, the more RAM used. What that also means is each instrument or each sound assigned to a seperate field. It's about editing afterwards. I am going to start those video editing programs soon. I have one, just learning stuff about my computer first and I'll start. Those files are big though. Eg: ACVHD, BLu-Ray, Hi-def files, etc. They need 2.4Ghz or more. Quad core or i7 for the really high resolution files. Ram is 1.5 at bare minimum, mostly 2.5 recommended. Because there's processing, and graphics and sound. RAM per each has been recommended to me. My video program is lesser than HD. But hopefully by the end of this year, I am buying one of the HD ones. Not everything you do on the computer, is "all held in RAM". For example, I recorded 2 hours of TV the other day, with a WinTV BT878 based card. The resulting uncompressed file is 136GB. That is larger than the 2GB of RAM on my computer. And yet, the program I used to edit it, had no problem handling it. Because, it just goes to the disk, to get the clip needed at the moment. Only a small portion of the 136GB is held in RAM at any one time. Sure, some programs have "hard" requirements, because they do things in real time. For example, I agree that if you store wave tables in RAM, for playing back a composition, it is best if all the wave tables are pre-loaded. It would be difficult for the disk to provide everything at just the right moment (maybe an SSD disk could do that). But for a lot of other things, the disk drive is used to advantage. I'm sure lots of people do video editing, with between 1GB and 2GB of RAM and are quite happy with that. Since the video can easily be larger than the RAM available on the computer, the program already has the flexibility to use the hard drive for source or destination. To render the clip to the screen, the processor must be powerful enough to convert the current video format, into a picture on the video card. Some video cards have video acceleration features. So the job doesn't always have to be done with the CPU, and there may be options to do it with the GPU on the video card. There have even been video editing hardware kits, with separate accelerator cards for that kind of thing. So it doesn't always have to be done with the CPU. And researching this topic is pretty hard. You cannot always determine in advance, before buying your hardware, as to what resources your programs will use. I find the "System Requirements" web page for most software programs, to be poorly done and useless for planning. Here are a couple of links, about video acceleration via the graphics card. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UVD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nvidia_PureVideo Paul |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Too much RAM?
Brian V wrote:
So this RAM allocation for the PCI cards: Would that cover all of them? Or allocation per each? There's 4 in the back of my tower. Would 2 share this allocation? If I am not using what's in the Pci slots, is the RAM allocated to toher stuff then? Or always set for the Pci slots? What about if I installed MIDI to connect a keyboard to? It's probably going in a PCI slot, but what if one was in a front port? Is that another situation (the front ports)? The mroe I deal with music, the mroe RAM I need because of editing and multiple tracks being used at the same time. Tracks would be like running multiple programs at once, the more there are, the more RAM used. What that also means is each instrument or each sound assigned to a seperate field. It's about editing afterwards. I am going to start those video editing programs soon. I have one, just learning stuff about my computer first and I'll start. Those files are big though. Eg: ACVHD, BLu-Ray, Hi-def files, etc. They need 2.4Ghz or more. Quad core or i7 for the really high resolution files. Ram is 1.5 at bare minimum, mostly 2.5 recommended. Because there's processing, and graphics and sound. RAM per each has been recommended to me. My video program is lesser than HD. But hopefully by the end of this year, I am buying one of the HD ones. Not everything you do on the computer, is "all held in RAM". For example, I recorded 2 hours of TV the other day, with a WinTV BT878 based card. The resulting uncompressed file is 136GB. That is larger than the 2GB of RAM on my computer. And yet, the program I used to edit it, had no problem handling it. Because, it just goes to the disk, to get the clip needed at the moment. Only a small portion of the 136GB is held in RAM at any one time. Sure, some programs have "hard" requirements, because they do things in real time. For example, I agree that if you store wave tables in RAM, for playing back a composition, it is best if all the wave tables are pre-loaded. It would be difficult for the disk to provide everything at just the right moment (maybe an SSD disk could do that). But for a lot of other things, the disk drive is used to advantage. I'm sure lots of people do video editing, with between 1GB and 2GB of RAM and are quite happy with that. Since the video can easily be larger than the RAM available on the computer, the program already has the flexibility to use the hard drive for source or destination. To render the clip to the screen, the processor must be powerful enough to convert the current video format, into a picture on the video card. Some video cards have video acceleration features. So the job doesn't always have to be done with the CPU, and there may be options to do it with the GPU on the video card. There have even been video editing hardware kits, with separate accelerator cards for that kind of thing. So it doesn't always have to be done with the CPU. And researching this topic is pretty hard. You cannot always determine in advance, before buying your hardware, as to what resources your programs will use. I find the "System Requirements" web page for most software programs, to be poorly done and useless for planning. Here are a couple of links, about video acceleration via the graphics card. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UVD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nvidia_PureVideo Paul |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Too much RAM?
Certain programs or certain processes in the programs in the music and or
video need enough RAM. Yes in some cases the msot is: It will be slow. But in most cases there are hang-ups, crashed and freezes. So you waste lots of time. Depending on the program, they all glitch no matter what you spend or do on the program, hardware or computer. That is ok. You deal with it at Gb RAM or infinite RAM. I agree with your point Paul. But concerning the back ports: It was mentioned that a certain amount of RAM can be allocated to the ports. Not what if I installed a MIDI connector back there, or a graphics card with no onboard RAM, or more USB ports or whatever..... Your saying this action of installing the hardware with no onboard RAM takes RAM. Right? And if it wanted 259 Mb, it allocates 512Mb? Now, what if the components are not in use? Is this allocation always happening? The other thing is - If I were to install RAM or any hardware in my computer: how can I test it and not wreck my system? Just get into the BIOS on start-up? (usually the delete key. It says something when I turn my computer on). I also have installed Windows XP - SP3 in safe-mode once. Do I go in there? Or just start-up like normal and if it works, it's ok? Would I wreck my system if I just started it up? Or can I shut-it down, remove the components and be ok if there's an error? When I'v added something new, the detected new hardware message pops up. It may not work and I have to download something or activate it in the control panel somewhere. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Too much RAM?
Certain programs or certain processes in the programs in the music and or
video need enough RAM. Yes in some cases the msot is: It will be slow. But in most cases there are hang-ups, crashed and freezes. So you waste lots of time. Depending on the program, they all glitch no matter what you spend or do on the program, hardware or computer. That is ok. You deal with it at Gb RAM or infinite RAM. I agree with your point Paul. But concerning the back ports: It was mentioned that a certain amount of RAM can be allocated to the ports. Not what if I installed a MIDI connector back there, or a graphics card with no onboard RAM, or more USB ports or whatever..... Your saying this action of installing the hardware with no onboard RAM takes RAM. Right? And if it wanted 259 Mb, it allocates 512Mb? Now, what if the components are not in use? Is this allocation always happening? The other thing is - If I were to install RAM or any hardware in my computer: how can I test it and not wreck my system? Just get into the BIOS on start-up? (usually the delete key. It says something when I turn my computer on). I also have installed Windows XP - SP3 in safe-mode once. Do I go in there? Or just start-up like normal and if it works, it's ok? Would I wreck my system if I just started it up? Or can I shut-it down, remove the components and be ok if there's an error? When I'v added something new, the detected new hardware message pops up. It may not work and I have to download something or activate it in the control panel somewhere. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Too much RAM?
I'v read lots of the articles I keep getting given. Some I don't get yet, but
it's comming. But most I understand. I just need to apply it to ideas and ask some questions in-case of trouble shooting. I'd like to upgrade my system a little bit. Install the Vista upgrade 32-bit. Then get a 64-bit OS. Probably Vista first since this CPU can handle it. Then Windows 7 with a brand new computer. It's all learning. The more I know, the better system I can get for a cheaper price. The more confident I am about the system, the better and easier I can navigate to do something or not. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Too much RAM?
I'v read lots of the articles I keep getting given. Some I don't get yet, but
it's comming. But most I understand. I just need to apply it to ideas and ask some questions in-case of trouble shooting. I'd like to upgrade my system a little bit. Install the Vista upgrade 32-bit. Then get a 64-bit OS. Probably Vista first since this CPU can handle it. Then Windows 7 with a brand new computer. It's all learning. The more I know, the better system I can get for a cheaper price. The more confident I am about the system, the better and easier I can navigate to do something or not. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|