Windows Vista, 2GB Vs 3GB

Caporegime
Joined
3 Jan 2006
Posts
25,278
Location
Chadderton, Oldham
Hi.

Well I've been told that having 3gb in Vista prevents disk swapping, I'm thinking of ordering an extra 1gb (2x 512mb) of the same ram I have now, will this improve my experience? OcUK seems to be quite cheap with this ram atm so I thought I would go for it.


Thanks
Willz.
 
There's always a performance increase (all be it minor) when upgrading memory.

You may not notice unless you're using programs that are memory intensive. Some games will use it and multi-tasking will use it.

I'm assuming you're going for 3GB as you're running 32-bit? If not it may be wise to get 1GB sticks as you'll use up all your memory slos and won't have space for upgrades in the future.



M.
 
There's always a performance increase (all be it minor) when upgrading memory.

You may not notice unless you're using programs that are memory intensive. Some games will use it and multi-tasking will use it.

I'm assuming you're going for 3GB as you're running 32-bit? If not it may be wise to get 1GB sticks as you'll use up all your memory slos and won't have space for upgrades in the future.



M.

I cant afford 2gb, and yea I'm running 32bit.

Well, I like to have lots of applications open, I mean maybe it will increase loading times or something? some games I had like stalker got up to 90% memory usage :eek:

I mean, what I've been told is, the memory will help windows speed such as loading apps etc...

Wont the extra memory make windows Vista faster compared to having 2gb memory?
 
Last edited:
It will to a degree. Basically Windows caches everything to memory short-term until an application needs the memory.

The initial loading times won't seem that much different (unless they require a massive amount of memory to open) but when you're flicking between them it will.


M.
 
A nice benefit of adding any RAM to Vista is the fact that it'll be able to superfetch more, so more of your programs will start faster, rather than just your often used ones.
 
Chances are even if you upgrade to 3GB Windows 32bit may only see 2.7ish.

I would say don't bother just wait until the time you upgrade to 64bit OS and make the jump to 4GB.
 
That depends on a lot of factors. Most systems will see the full 3gb unless you have lots of graphics ram etc.

I'd say go for it meself :)
 
I think I will, I mean, Crysis will be pretty jerky on Vista with 2gb right?

Also, how long is it untill we'll all NEED to upgrade to stuff like DDR3?
 
Well I've just ordered it, was £43 with City Link Next Day from OcUK, so should certainly get it for tomorrow :), I was thinking maybe I'm wasting my money, but the fact there is no new card better than mine coming out this year, and Crysis will need over 2gb ram, I think it's a pretty acceptable purchase :).

I'm getting abit worried tho, I mean I always like to buy one thing for the PC every month, I'm gonna turn into a shopaholic :eek:, need to control my spending habbits :eek:
 
Any of you guys tried creating ram disk for swap out of, say, additional 2Gb, which wouldn't otherwise be usable in 32bit system?
 
Anyone here seen Stargate SG-1?
Well soon will come the day when we just insert another different coloured crystal to increase ram size and speed.
To be honest I don't think e are far off that now.

But like the man says we are only limited by the means we live by...

Windows Vista, like XP is limited by a 32 bit 4GB memory pool. That includes memory I/O addressing and IRQ sharing along with a Graphic accellerator and the memory installed in the PC which will not address over 4GB of Ram.
I have one PC with 4GB of RAM running 7800GTX Graphic cards in SLI mode and that only shows up as having 2.37GB of available Ram. you have to subtract 2*256MB and all your I/O addresses for bare system use which leaves you with the memory available to Windows. With 64bit windows you are limited again because your peripherals and internals occupy twice the Physical address space they did in 32 bit addressing. The problem here is not the Hardware but the way Windows chooses to address it.
I don't know if you were around back in the days of Dos and windows 3.10-11. But everything was setup using a memory extender. Memmaker or Qemm were the most popular. Memmaker came with MS Dos 6.21 onwards. I a script called config.sys all your devices were setup and memory allocated to each. From IDE, SCSI and Sound ISA or PCI cards to the Graphics card which at that time were around 2-16mb address space. If you had an eaarly motherboard you also didn't have the Co-Processor built into the CPU. CPU's with Co-Processors didn't arrive until the Intel 386DX and were not considered necesary until the Pentium processor arrived in late 1992 early 1993 here in the UK. The P60 was the first to arrive. This meant that a load was taken off of the the software having to create IRQ's and I/O outlets. Even then you had to buy your own seperate comm port ISA card for serial and parallel outlets. Many of these I/O addresses still had to be configured in the Config.SYS file and executed on startup in the Autoexec.BAT and EMS was used to buffer them above or withing the 640k MSDOS barrier. Today that barrier still stands. Even if you look in the latest Vista setup you will find these 2 files on your Boot partition. Whatever you do don't delete them.
The reason that they are still there is our common problem of stability whilst growing. The physical memory doesn't affect how much memory your PC has just the way it is used by the O/S that uses it.
When Windows 95 was released everyone jumped on the bandwagon, but it still inherited the 640k Dos memory barrier and many pieces of software used a clever piece of DirectX programming called PAE, or Physical Address Extender. which worked well for graphics cards like the 3DFX Voodoo cards in games because all the game saw was you initial graphics I/O and not the extended addressing of the 3DFX card attached to it.
To cut a long story short many of the terms and physics were adopted by other developers as a short cut to addressing the shortfalls of Windows memory addressing. MS even encorporated it into Windows98 and extended it further in 98SE. All this was of course 16bit programming. Dos was 8 bitso only had a 16mb overhead. 16 bit took us to an overhead of 256mb of maximum addressable memory. Although you can physically have more memory in your PC by altering a few values in your Windows SYStem.ini file in the Vcache The limit is still there. Because many users still wanted to play their older games (backward compatibility) you still had to use Memory makers in Dos. There the Dillemma began. and stil is to this day. Because of backward compatibility issues you are still limited on memory space in windows whether it is 32 bit or even the latest 64bit you will still get those issues. Apple have taken a better approach. The have built the hardware to go with their software operating system. Even if you buy their latest intel version of their OS you are still limited on the size of your graphics card. This is done so that you will get the maximum out of the O/S. Unfortunately Ms are relying on too many licensees to stop what they are doing to allow a form of requiem to be formed, because the market is so competitive.
The short or the long, it doesn't matter the problems with Windows date back to DOS which is still in use today. I installed a program the other day and a DOS batch exec box appeared on my screen. so we will never escape it. Unless someone re-writes windows with no backward compatibility in mind.

Boring I know but I have said it and am sure I am going to be be criticised for it.:eek:
 
Whats that do? I've never tried anything like that.

You basically create a virtual disk out of your ram, assign it a letter and set windows to use only that "drive" for swap file. Since it's ram, it's superfast and doesn't involve rotating or spinning plates or moving arms in HDD therefore no random access delays, no power ups etc etc. Effectively we are talking speed of several GBps instead of 3MBps (300Mb/s, is that correct?) on SATA
 
Last edited:
You basically create a virtual disk out of your ram, assign it a letter and set windows to use only that "drive" for swap file. Since it's ram, it's superfast and doesn't involve rotating or spinning plates or moving arms in HDD therefore no random access delays, no power ups etc etc. Effectively we are talking speed of several GBps instead of 3MBps (300Mb/s, is that correct?) on SATA

Well I usually get 14mbps - 50mbps with SATA lol.
 
More than 2GB in 32bit windows XP or Vista is of limited usefullness, unless you heavily multitask. Each application in 32bit windows is limited to a 2GB memory pool. Ok so if you run several memory hungry apps you 'may' get to use most of the ram, but if you generally run a single app at any one time, the only benifit is the OS itself will be outside the 2gb memory pool assigned to the application.

The exception to this is programs that are designed specifically for PAE memory, Microsoft SQL server is one such example. These programs can actually be assigned all your memory.
 
Back
Top Bottom