Memory Upgrade Woes
in [Windows XP]
|
From: Db on 3 Aug 2010 14:57 glad you found the problem however, there is a bit more advice to consider. it is highly likely (highly) that xp will not need the additional ram. basically, by adding 2 gigs of ram would be wasteful. if I recall, xp and all the programs it runs will only use somewhere between 760 and 1 gig. -- -- db���`�...�><)))�> DatabaseBen, Retired Professional ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This NNTP newsgroup is evolving to: http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/default.aspx "Paul Richards" <paulrichards(a)XXXNOSPAMiinet.net.au> wrote in message news:uhl9gcsMLHA.5624(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > Paul Richards wrote: > >> Not sure if this is the correct forum but I'm running XP Pro so I'll >> start here. >> >> I've run a HP Pavilion DV6000 with 2 x 512mb RAM chips for 4 years >> now. No problems whatsoever. >> >> I decided to upgrade my memory to 2 x 1gb RAM chips. They are the >> correct specification for the HP machine - I've checked! >> >> With the 2gb memory I started getting program crashes ("Windows has >> encountered an error"-type messages), OS crashes and BSODs. I have use >> the Windows Memory Diagnostic tool to test the new chips - they passed >> all the standard tests. So what can be the cause of this instability? >> >> I've put my former 2 x 512mb RAM back, and calm is restored :-) > > Thanks for all the inputs. I've run the extensive tests of the Windows > Memory Diagnostic tool and one of the RAM chips displayed a number of > failures (the other one passed all the tests.) So I'm returning the > failed chip under warranty and hoping a replacement will lead to a > successful memory upgrade. > > -- > Paul > Melbourne, Australia
From: Unknown on 3 Aug 2010 16:07 That is not correct. XP can use all the ram installed. However only about 3.1 gigs is addressable. The remaining .9 gigs is used by hardware. "Db" <databaseb~@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:7D63D7CD-D490-4AC8-B5ED-9D8AC75C7E1F(a)microsoft.com... > glad you found the problem > > however, there is a bit more > advice to consider. > > it is highly likely (highly) > that xp will not need > the additional ram. > > basically, by adding > 2 gigs of ram would > be wasteful. > > if I recall, xp and all the > programs it runs will > only use somewhere > between 760 and 1 gig. > > > > > > -- > -- > db���`�...�><)))�> > > DatabaseBen, Retired Professional > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > This NNTP newsgroup is evolving to: > > http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/default.aspx > > > "Paul Richards" <paulrichards(a)XXXNOSPAMiinet.net.au> wrote in message > news:uhl9gcsMLHA.5624(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >> Paul Richards wrote: >> >>> Not sure if this is the correct forum but I'm running XP Pro so I'll >>> start here. >>> >>> I've run a HP Pavilion DV6000 with 2 x 512mb RAM chips for 4 years >>> now. No problems whatsoever. >>> >>> I decided to upgrade my memory to 2 x 1gb RAM chips. They are the >>> correct specification for the HP machine - I've checked! >>> >>> With the 2gb memory I started getting program crashes ("Windows has >>> encountered an error"-type messages), OS crashes and BSODs. I have use >>> the Windows Memory Diagnostic tool to test the new chips - they passed >>> all the standard tests. So what can be the cause of this instability? >>> >>> I've put my former 2 x 512mb RAM back, and calm is restored :-) >> >> Thanks for all the inputs. I've run the extensive tests of the Windows >> Memory Diagnostic tool and one of the RAM chips displayed a number of >> failures (the other one passed all the tests.) So I'm returning the >> failed chip under warranty and hoping a replacement will lead to a >> successful memory upgrade. >> >> -- >> Paul >> Melbourne, Australia >
From: Bob I on 4 Aug 2010 08:47 RAM, virtual memory, pagefile, and memory management in Windows http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2160852 Db wrote: > glad you found the problem > > however, there is a bit more > advice to consider. > > it is highly likely (highly) > that xp will not need > the additional ram. > > basically, by adding > 2 gigs of ram would > be wasteful. > > if I recall, xp and all the > programs it runs will > only use somewhere > between 760 and 1 gig. > > > > >
From: Tim Slattery on 4 Aug 2010 08:47 "Unknown" <unknown(a)unknown.kom> wrote: >That is not correct. XP can use all the ram installed. However only about >3.1 gigs is addressable. >The remaining .9 gigs is used by hardware. 32-bit operating systems - including XP, Vista, and Win7 - have a 32-bit (4GB) address space. Part of that must be used to access video RAM, BIOS, and a few other things. The address space left over after those things are taken care of is used to access your system RAM. Given the amount of RAM on video boards these days, that usually works out to about 3.2 to 3.5 GB of RAM that can be accessed. The only way around this is 64-bit computing. In 64-bit land the available address space is huge. The actual amount varies according to which version of which OS you're using. None at this time come close to using the entire 64-bit space (something like 1.8 * 10^18), but all implement much more address space than any 32-bit machine. -- Tim Slattery Slattery_T(a)bls.gov http://members.cox.net/slatteryt
First
|
Prev
|
Pages: 1 2 3 Prev: Blue Screen of Death & Making Bootable CD Next: Idle process @ 90%, hard drive busy |