My Game is Bork, but I'm pretty sure it's not my fault.
witch:
Quote from: Gastfyr on 2008 October 04, 05:24:56
So anyway, my husband thinks we need to buy more ram. He seems to think more ram might fix the problem entirely. Doesn't sound like a bad idea to me, since I don't think it's possible to have "too much" RAM. lol
Actually, it is possible to have too much RAM. Each version of the Windoze operating system is capable of seeing and handling more RAM than those that came before but has its own limits. I think it was Win98 for example, that could only see/use a maximum of 768MB (I think) of RAM. I'm not sure of the limit for WinXP. (And too lazy to google). Each OS also needs more RAM. Vista is touted to run best with 4GB RAM.
Zazazu:
Quote from: jolrei on 2008 October 04, 20:58:03
Quote from: Yecats on 2008 October 04, 08:17:44
Zazazu: I have years and years of photos on my externals, along with music, movies, important documents, university lectures and other stuff that I need for future reference.
In a fire, I wouldn't have time to carry my huge heavy computer out to a safe place, but I can fit both hard drives into the pockets of my jacket and run. They're insured, but that can't bring back the memories.
I think what Zazazu means is that, depending on where you are in the house, and what time of day it is, and how far advanced the fire is when you notice it and have to flee, you may not be in any position to take hardware with you, regardless of how much you might miss the photographs. If I'm asleep and the fire alarm goes off, that means that the fire is already advanced enough to create significant smoke (dangerous) and may be burning quite well. I'm thinking I would likely grab the people and kitteh and just go. It's sad to lose the memories, but I'd rather be alive to miss my photographs than the alternative.
Precisely. Get out of my head, Jolrei! I have personal experience with this.
dragoness:
Quote from: witch on 2008 October 04, 21:29:46
Quote from: Gastfyr on 2008 October 04, 05:24:56
So anyway, my husband thinks we need to buy more ram. He seems to think more ram might fix the problem entirely. Doesn't sound like a bad idea to me, since I don't think it's possible to have "too much" RAM. lol
Actually, it is possible to have too much RAM. Each version of the Windoze operating system is capable of seeing and handling more RAM than those that came before but has its own limits. I think it was Win98 for example, that could only see/use a maximum of 768MB (I think) of RAM. I'm not sure of the limit for WinXP. (And too lazy to google). Each OS also needs more RAM. Vista is touted to run best with 4GB RAM.
I have the win32 version of XP and mine seems to be capped at 3GB of RAM. I know 4GB is installed. It doesn't hurt to have too much RAM, but if you're over what the system can use it does you no good. :)
HomeschooledByTards:
This link details why you can't use more than four gigs of ram with a 32 bit operating system (not CPU). VERY interesting read.
http://www.dansdata.com/askdan00015.htm
Quote
You can install at least 4Gb of memory on most motherboards today, but apparently you shouldn't install more than 3Gb if you're not running a 64-bit operating system.
Why?
Can't a 32-bit version of Windows (or Linux, or whatever) address 4,294,967,296 bytes (two to the power of 32) of memory, by definition?
When I open Task Manager and click the Performance tab, I see the memory limit is way more than 4Gb. I understand that includes the swap file, but if Windows can handle 8Gb or whatever of total memory including swap, why can't it handle 4Gb of physical RAM?
Steve
----
The executive summary: Yes, a plain PC running a 32-bit operating system - and if you're wondering if that includes your PC, then it almost definitely does - shouldn't have more than 3Gb of RAM (as I mentioned in passing in this Ask Dan), if you don't want to waste quite a lot of the last gigabyte.
If you install 4Gb, there is no way to make all of the RAM between 3Gb and 4Gb available without installing a 64-bit OS, which you can't do unless you have a 64-bit CPU. And even then it won't necessarily work.
So, to avoid hassles on current systems, it's best to stick with 3Gb or less.
J. M. Pescado:
Quote from: MoonDragoness on 2008 October 04, 20:15:37
The "mismatched RAM" thing is this: Your motherboard has (from the sound of things) 4 slots to put RAM sticks in: A B C D. They are grouped into pairs, AB and CD. If you put just two sticks of RAM total into your system, you need to use AB, not AC or AD, and the two need to be identical. If you put four sticks total, then the pair in AB need to be identical, and the pair in CD need to be identical. Most of the time AB can be different from CD, in my experience, but there's a possibility of buggeration if AB and CD are not identical to each other as well. (Note that AB and CD are not necessarily the two slots next to each other on the board. Often it's the first two of each pair, and the second two of each pair. Your motherboard's manual will tell you which two need to be used together.)
The actual reason this occurs is not that the RAMs need to specifically be identical, but that different RAMs have different timing characteristics. If the RAMs are timed wrong, they will fail to function correctly. The computer's BIOS normally autodetects these timings, but when your RAMs are mismatched, they may read the timings from the "fast" RAMs. The slow RAMs cannot keep up with this rate, so they fail. The solution is to pull up the BIOS and set your RAMs to the speed of the slow RAMs. Of course, finding out what those timings *ARE* is an adventure in itself, and not for the dumb. :P
Sometimes they're printed on the RAMs themselves, sometimes they're available from the manufacturer's websites, and sometimes you just have to plug and pray. :P
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page