Maximum Amount of ram in 32bit XP

[Greeny.]

Only if you're a techno leper TBH. Vista crashes far less than XP. It's much better at recovering from driver errors for starters. Some people...step away from the bandwagon :boring:

Ive used it on 4 different machines that ive build from fresh and its been worse and less stable in all of them than what im used to in XP. Im hardly a techno leper :boring:

Each to their own really, could argue about it all year.

 

[@Spoonie]

Ive used it on 4 different machines that ive build from fresh and its been worse and less stable in all of them than what im used to in XP. Im hardly a techno leper :boring:

Each to their own really, could argue about it all year.

The question is though why is it crashing. If its due to drivers then you can't really state Vista is less stable. Its suffering due to another component.

 

[PinkoCommie]

I think you are confusing 4GB of addressable space for 32bit processes. 32bit O/S itself is not limited to 4GB of RAM.

Meh, it's close enough for the purposes of this discussion unless you want to start getting into PAE. Doesn't help that most people are running 32bit OS's on 64bit processors, but for the layman as such, the rule of thumb is 4GB limit for 32bit OS.

 

[Munson]

Ive used it on 4 different machines that ive build from fresh and its been worse and less stable in all of them than what im used to in XP. Im hardly a techno leper :boring:

Each to their own really, could argue about it all year.

Erm, well obviously you can't build PCs properly then.

 

[PinkoCommie]

Erm, well obviously you can't build PCs properly then.

I think I know what his issue is actually. It's a layer 8 network problem.

 

[McBunny]

I think I know what his issue is actually. It's a layer 8 network problem.

quite possible i have alot of layer 8 problems with all os's though and copiers and phones and doors lol

 

[Greeny.]

Erm, well obviously you can't build PCs properly then.

Yes... funny that my XP PC is fine though and ive using brand new decent hardware in all of them.

LIKE I SAID, COULD ARGUE ALL YEAR LONG DOT DOT DOT


And no layer 8 problem you cheeky s**t. I was only saying what I had in my experience of Vista on my high end machine and building other new Vista machines.

 

[PinkoCommie]

quite possible i have alot of layer 8 problems with all os's though and copiers and phones and doors lol

Doors? That's beyond a layer 8 network issue, that's more of a manufacturing defect :evil:

 

[PinkoCommie]

Yes... funny that my XP PC is fine though and ive using brand new decent hardware in all of them.

LIKE I SAID, COULD ARGUE ALL YEAR LONG DOT DOT DOT

I blame the driver writers :evil:

 

[Greeny.]

Drivers are fine! OS is dire!

 

[Michael172]

God there are some rite bitches on this forum at times.


f**k sake. Just asked a question regarding the amount of ram 32bit XP could hold as i want to revert back to it, but keep as much ram in there as possible.



END OF THE STORY LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

 

[wozzaa]

Yes but you are reverting back for something that the OS can not control.

Hence me saying you do realise DDR 400 = 200mhz in programs. And DDR2 800 = 400mhz.

I think you are just getting confused with the readings. DDR = Double Data Rate. The clue is in the name. 200 = 400mhz as it is twice 200. But in your bios and other programs in windows will show up at its actual speed which is 200mhz. Like my 800mhz memory shows up as 400mhz. Perfectly normal.

If it was running at 200mhz it would be clocked in the bios at 100mhz.

only the bios or programs that can adjust the bios in windows can adjust that clock number. Windows has no control over it.

 

[Michael172]

Yes but you are reverting back for something that the OS can not control.

Hence me saying you do realise DDR 400 = 200mhz in programs. And DDR2 800 = 400mhz.

I think you are just getting confused with the readings. DDR = Double Data Rate. The clue is in the name. 200 = 400mhz as it is twice 200. But in your bios and other programs in windows will show up at its actual speed which is 200mhz. Like my 800mhz memory shows up as 400mhz. Perfectly normal.

If it was running at 200mhz it would be clocked in the bios at 100mhz.

only the bios or programs that can adjust the bios in windows can adjust that clock number. Windows has no control over it.

I must of been tired then, i ment it was running at 400mhz (So ddr2 @200mhz) and it then dropped to 200 mhz (100mhz in ddr2 terms)

:boring:

Must of been the motherboard then. NEVER MIND.

 

[Michael172]

I'm running Ubuntu now lol.

 

[Keydogg]

Lol at all this arguing, awesome!

XP < Vista < 7

 

[Keydogg]

Motherboard is P35C-DS3R.
Graphics card was a 8800GT (now some cheap PCI express radeon)

Can't remember what the processor is, Core 2 Quad, Q9450 I believe (having seen the bios post many times!)

RAM 4GB, no idea, other than matched pair from OC. Was going to try taking a stick out and running with one (or the other) and see if I still get problems.

On a side note, I have specifically resisted the urge to put on *any* of my own drivers on this machine, just to discount that theory!

Definitely try the RAM sticks, I was having a bad BSOD problem with vista and every time the stop screen was telling me it was a video driver causing the problem. What it actually was was the RAMwhich was struggling and every time a certain Nvidia file was used it BSOD'd. I tried 4 different nvidia drivers, reformatted 3 times and was still getting the same problem no matter what.

Then I decided to try someone elses RAM and voila, problem solved. New RAM and it's never BSOD'd since (6 months later). Also try setting the RAM voltage manually to the highest it will run at according to the manufacturer before trying new RAM!

 

[Mike_182]

Then I decided to try someone elses RAM and voila, problem solved. New RAM and it's never BSOD'd since (6 months later). Also try setting the RAM voltage manually to the highest it will run at according to the manufacturer before trying new RAM!

I'd try it .05v higher than MFR spec, maybe even .1v higher as if you have a full bank of four then it'll sponge all that with vdroop anyway!

 

[Keydogg]

That's a good point mike but with a full bank of 4 I think it's more the consitency of voltage rather than the lack of it so putting 0.1v more could mean that if the voltage spikes slightly it could do some damage.

This is why whether you have a 600w PSU or a 1000w PSU you would still get the same problem as it's the motherboard struggling to supply consistent voltages to the sticks afaik.

 

[Michael172]

someone had mentioned that my ram clocks were doing what they were doing because ive got 4 sticks of 1GB. I might sell them and buy 2X1GB.

Remember when i said i could have my cpu running at 3.19GHz and 1066mhz for the ram, but if i had it running 1mhz faster at 3.2GHz then i could only get about 1033mhz on the ram.

 

[Keydogg]

Yeah Michael 3 sticks is just putting mroe strain on the board and the NB, you would definitely be better off with 2x2GB, you could probably squeeze some more bandwidth out too then