Does Windows XP show over 1GB of RAM?

[PowerMan57two]

Okay I have an ASUS P4G8X Deluxe motherboard. It can hold up to 4GB of RAM. There are 4 RAM slots, two black two blue. I have two 512MB sticks to equal 1GB RAM. Now when I add say another 512MB RAM for testing, Windows doesn't say 1.5GB RAM. It will say just 512MB RAM it doesn't see the other two sticks. It does this when I right click on my computer>properties. It shows I have 3.06Ghz but not 1.5GB RAM.

I'm not sure if it is just windows. If it is do you think the computer really knows I have 1.5GB RAM?

I was just doing this for testing ect. I wont really have 1.5GB of RAM. I just like to know so when I do have to upgrade I'm ready. I like to mess around with computers inside them and stuff. This is how I got to build my own PC.

[CCSDUDE]

Originally posted by PowerMan57two
Okay I have an ASUS P4G8X Deluxe motherboard. It can hold up to 4GB of RAM. There are 4 RAM slots, two black two blue. I have two 512MB sticks to equal 1GB RAM. Now when I add say another 512MB RAM for testing, Windows doesn't say 1.5GB RAM. It will say just 512MB RAM it doesn't see the other two sticks. It does this when I right click on my computer>properties. It shows I have 3.06Ghz but not 1.5GB RAM.

I'm not sure if it is just windows. If it is do you think the computer really knows I have 1.5GB RAM?

I was just doing this for testing ect. I wont really have 1.5GB of RAM. I just like to know so when I do have to upgrade I'm ready. I like to mess around with computers inside them and stuff. This is how I got to build my own PC.

Those color codes mean something....my guess is you tried to cram some PC2100 in a with PC1600...or vice versa.

Either way try pulling the two original DIMM's and placing them in the other two slots...then try them all on their own...

Just PLAY...worse you could do is get squat on post and have to put the 2 back in their normal slots....

[PowerMan57two]

Thanks. I will one day when I have some more time. And worse comes to worse I can call their tech. support and ask what to do to get more ram to have the computer read.

[CCSDUDE]

Originally posted by PowerMan57two
Thanks. I will one day when I have some more time. And worse comes to worse I can call their tech. support and ask what to do to get more ram to have the computer read.

It depends...some cheaper mobo's say up to 4gb and in the fine print it's up to 4gb of such an such type...and maybe 1.5 or 1gb of another type. I've come across a few Gigabyte boards that were like that...so just don't feel let down or cheated if they tell you it's maxed out at 1gb of 2100.

[PowerMan57two]

Well it says on the box Supports DDR266 Memory of up to 4GB! Does this help much?

[isus]

Originally posted by CCSDUDE
worse you could do is get squat on post...

technically, the worst that could happen would be you have some static on you and fry the ram... unlikely, but, just had to play with ccsdude.

but no, winxp should be able to see more than a gig of ram. it just has to be pretty much exactly the same ram. the best way to make sure it will work is to buy all the ram you need at one time, and all from the same vendor (basically, jsut hit 3 in the shopping basket/cart thingy)

[CCSDUDE]

Which slots are holding what?

Try putting the first two in the slots next to the IDE channels...then the last in the other...

From what I see it's laid out like this...

+--------------------------+ A 1
+--------------------------+ B 1
+--------------------------+ A2
+--------------------------+ B2

Which seems to mean 2 and 4 are a pair...as well as 1 and 3...seems a tad odd but it's worth a try.

Also try A/B1 as a pair and A/B2 as a pair...


Originally posted by isus
technically, the worst that could happen would be you have some static on you and fry the ram... unlikely, but, just had to play with ccsdude.

but no, winxp should be able to see more than a gig of ram. it just has to be pretty much exactly the same ram. the best way to make sure it will work is to buy all the ram you need at one time, and all from the same vendor (basically, jsut hit 3 in the shopping basket/cart thingy)

I've never 'fried' ram by any means...just touch the friggin' case a few times and work on solid ground...no shag rugs.

/joke

How about bridging some of the DDR connections with a lead pencil? That would make it all go fastester!

/joke off

[Psilaxs]

The biggest thing you need to consider is windows under 98% of all circumstances will NEVER use a gig of ram.

Put it this way, with 768 megs of ram i can completely disable my swap file under win 2K pro and WinXP pro. Runs fine.

The most ram i have seen my computer use is a little over 600 megs and that is when i had two instances of soldier of fortune 2 running and didn't know it. (and that was with the swap file turned off)

Unless you are a HARDCORE photo editor and are constantly editing and touching up 300+ megabyte uncompressed digital pictures, there is no need for that much ram.

[Psilaxs]

Here is an example, (and no this wasn't intentional)

I am running I am running 256 megs of ram and I have Musicmatch Jukebox playing, Overnet running, Internet Explorer, and Midnight Club 2 and i still have 50 megs of physical ram left, (now up to 94 after things settled down) And it hasn't touched the swap file, everything is still resident in ram.

So, unless you are going to be running Photoshop 7, Paintshop pro, Lightwave, 3d Studio max, Quake 3, Unreal Tournament 2003 while browsing the internet and running 5 filesharing apps all at the same time, you simply do not need that much ram except for bragging lol.

[Malakai1911]

psilaxis, you say you have 768mb of ram.

but your screenshot says you have 256.

what gives?

[begoodbebad]

Originally posted by Psilaxs
The biggest thing you need to consider is windows under 98% of all circumstances will NEVER use a gig of ram.

Put it this way, with 768 megs of ram i can completely disable my swap file under win 2K pro and WinXP pro. Runs fine.

The most ram i have seen my computer use is a little over 600 megs and that is when i had two instances of soldier of fortune 2 running and didn't know it. (and that was with the swap file turned off)

Unless you are a HARDCORE photo editor and are constantly editing and touching up 300+ megabyte uncompressed digital pictures, there is no need for that much ram.

You don't have to be hardcore. If you use Photoshop when you open your (for example) 50MB file, PS duplicates it in the background. 50 becomes 100(this is how the history/step back works) ...then every layer opened doubles this again. Its easy to see how if you are working with several images at once or batch processing images you are quickly using all your RAM even 1GB and also you are well into your scratch disk too.
So really you only need to d/l from a hi end digital camera your 50 Tiff or Raw files and start manipulating them and you will use any and all RAM available

[Psilaxs]

Originally posted by Malakai1911
psilaxis, you say you have 768mb of ram.

but your screenshot says you have 256.

what gives?

I have ran 768, but i have since used that ram where it is is needed more, in another computer.

I am currently running 256 as i stated in my last post.

[Psilaxs]

Originally posted by begoodbebad
You don't have to be hardcore. If you use Photoshop when you open your (for example) 50MB file, PS duplicates it in the background. 50 becomes 100(this is how the history/step back works) ...then every layer opened doubles this again. Its easy to see how if you are working with several images at once or batch processing images you are quickly using all your RAM even 1GB and also you are well into your scratch disk too.
So really you only need to d/l from a digitasl camera your 50 Tiff or Raw files and start manipulating them and you will use any and all RAM available

Not quite, while i am not a PS professional, i know enough about how computers work where this isn't the case (perhaps CCS can clear this up for us)

It doesnt keep several images in memory to go back to when you make a mistake, it keeps in memory the changes that you have made thus far to the picture. When you go back, it merely un does the last step, it doesn't revert to an entire new image.

[CCSDUDE]

That says your using around 240mb's for page file....same as swap...so yeah what gives? LOL

I'm running 1gb of PC133 and you do have a point...I almost NEVER max it. The only time I've ever really needed it was while using a certain video editing program with almost 2gigs worth of uncompressed HuffyUV avi's on the time line...and even then it was only at around 840megs.

Right on Psi....no it doesn't save a shitload of copies...just saves the 'code' to undo whatever spots you change. In PSP7 it's exactly like that. In PS....it does seem to slow down when your working with more then 1 layer....and when using undo it really does suck up memory like a sob...I personally HATE Photoshop...it's laid out in a retarded way just like all Adobe programs. PSP7's lay out kicks all forms of ass!

[Psilaxs]

Originally posted by CCSDUDE
That says your using around 240mb's for page file....same as swap...so yeah what gives? LOL

I'm running 1gb of PC133 and you do have a point...I almost NEVER max it. The only time I've ever really needed it was while using a certain video editing program with almost 2gigs worth of uncompressed HuffyUV avi's on the time line...and even then it was only at around 840megs.

Right on Psi....no it doesn't save a shitload of copies...just saves the 'code' to undo whatever spots you change. In PSP7 it's exactly like that. In PS....it does seem to slow down when your working with more then 1 layer....and when using undo it really does suck up memory like a sob...I personally HATE Photoshop...it's laid out in a retarded way just like all Adobe programs. PSP7's lay out kicks all forms of ass!

Thanks for the conformation and backup LOL.

Thing is, it seems the first thing people think is that they NEED 1 gig of ram. Hell 256 is plenty and with 512 I will almost guarantee you will not max it out. You have to FORCE it to max it out and even then it is hard to do.

But i see what your saying video editing will eat up gobs of ram,
but it isn't an issue for most people.

And from what little video editing i have done it goes so god awful slow it could be using the swap file instead of ram and the speed decrease wouldn't be that noticeable, because it slow as hell to begin with, and it also taxes the hell out of your CPU and video card thus slowing things down. This is where a video card with 128 or 256 megs of ram would help just as much, if not more so.

[CCSDUDE]

Originally posted by Psilaxs
Thanks for the conformation and backup LOL.

Thing is, it seems the first thing people think is that they NEED 1 gig of ram. Hell 256 is plenty and with 512 I will almost guarantee you will not max it out. You have to FORCE it to max it out and even then it is hard to do.

But i see what your saying video editing will eat up gobs of ram,
but it isn't an issue for most people.

And from what little video editing i have done it goes so god awful slow it could be using the swap file instead of ram and the speed decrease wouldn't be that noticeable, because it slow as hell to begin with, and it also taxes the hell out of your CPU and video card thus slowing things down. This is where a video card with 128 or 256 megs of ram would help just as much, if not more so.

Try editing with HuffyUV as your capture codec. The files are 'big' but not as big as normal uncompressed stuff. Think APE format for video...lol

Even on a P3 Xeon (pre 1ghz) it does a fairly speedy job with CPU usage being around 60% or less. I can even listen to ogg's or mp3's at 320/450kbs. So all in all it's not that bad...it's having either shitty ram (k-byte ...need I say more?) or not enough that'll do ya in.

[PowerMan57two]

CCSDUDE - Yes you have the line up right.

Psilaxs - As for ram 256MB would not hold me over. LoL sorry but on my 3rd computer it has 256mb ram, and I cannot stand it. Windows takes a while to bootup, program need to load ect. The lowest I would go is 512MB. But then I bought another ram stick and said what the heck why not 1GB?

I love the speed of my computer and it needs to be fast, I hate waiting. And I usually don't have a lot of programs open. And if I do they don't take up a lot.

Programs I may have open are -

AIM, emule/iMesh, Vice City playing, mediaplayer9, msn explorer7, msn messenger



or sometimes this is common to -

Photoshop 7.0, AIM, emule/imesh, mediaplayer 9, msn explorer 7, msn messenger, and sometimes a little something else like Word/frontpage or an ebook.


I love having not to worry about what programs I can have open and which I have to think about closing. And I am not bragging, lol, but just glad that I saved up andbought my own computer! It is the way to go from here on out!

Like you said right now for windows you don't need over 1GB which is true. But when time comes and I will need to upgrade I want to be ready so I know what to do when I have to by more ram.

[12345678910]

Originally posted by PowerMan57two
Programs I may have open are -

AIM, emule/iMesh, Vice City playing, mediaplayer9, msn explorer7, msn messenger

Have you ever used Trillian (http://trillian.cc)?

It's nice to have AIM, MSN, ICQ, IRC, and YIM all in one application. I'm pretty sure you could find the Pro version as well.

Lata,
12345678910

[begoodbebad]

Originally posted by CCSDUDE
That says your using around 240mb's for page file....same as swap...so yeah what gives? LOL

I'm running 1gb of PC133 and you do have a point...I almost NEVER max it. The only time I've ever really needed it was while using a certain video editing program with almost 2gigs worth of uncompressed HuffyUV avi's on the time line...and even then it was only at around 840megs.

Right on Psi....no it doesn't save a shitload of copies...just saves the 'code' to undo whatever spots you change. In PSP7 it's exactly like that. In PS....it does seem to slow down when your working with more then 1 layer....and when using undo it really does suck up memory like a sob...I personally HATE Photoshop...it's laid out in a retarded way just like all Adobe programs. PSP7's lay out kicks all forms of ass!

What about the layers? Surely they are complete images in themselves? I can see how the history/step back is working by saving changes but you can work on each layer independently and save each layer as a different image if you like...and each one has a history....what do you think?

Also out of interest I just opened PS7 (while also running eMule, outlook express, a couple of IE6 windows, media player with animator visualization) opened a file of around 55MB, made 2 duplicate layers, rotated, adjusted colour etc and I was into my scratch disk...I have 1GB pc 133 RAM and it does get used. Sometimes I have way more images queued for editing and process them in batches. As far as I can tell XP just keeps working faster the more RAM you give it and for video and photo editing more is always better and there is no such thing as enough. You can't be too rich or too happy.

[thongsai]

ur board supports both pc and ddr ram... no u cannot use both at the same time.. so if u want more than 1 gig of ram on ur board u r gonna need to do it with only two slots..

[DainBramaged]

Thongsai is correct, if memory serves me. You'd need to buy two sticks of 2048 MB each and only use the slots designated to work with PC266, or whatever. That's a pretty penny.

The other slots are for old, legacy PC 1xx RAM, to make computers extra cheap or something, I don't know.

[CCSDUDE]

Originally posted by thongsai
ur board supports both pc and ddr ram... no u cannot use both at the same time.. so if u want more than 1 gig of ram on ur board u r gonna need to do it with only two slots..

Had a feeling it would be something like that. I just ordered a cheap 67 dollar Asus mobo...and it's exactly the same. 2 pairs of slots...both colored (One's light brown/coffee and the other is dark brown) the coffee takes 333/266 and the dark brown takes 'classic' PC133/100...

And it states next to the * that you can only use one or the other.

The thing that threw me off on this mobo is the fact that you were able to pack 3 DDR's on a mobo that takes SDR and DDR as they're both different...unless you crammed the SOB in the slot...in which case either the PBC would have cracked or the plastic in the slot (if there are any 'standoffs' in the clip) would have gotten smushed. In which case the DDR wouldn't even read...

Very odd...very.....

As for Beg....I just loaded up 15 HQ 3000x4000 Asian scans and it topped out at around 204 mb's of mem usage...so I donno wtf is up with your system...I also tried it in PS and that took up around 320....most of which was used up by PS itself..not the images. Which is one reason why I can't stand PS...it's a bloated POS that doesn't have a layout that any sane person would use... : ) LOL

[begoodbebad]

Originally posted by CCSDUDE


As for Beg....I just loaded up 15 HQ 3000x4000 Asian scans and it topped out at around 204 mb's of mem usage...so I donno wtf is up with your system...I also tried it in PS and that took up around 320....most of which was used up by PS itself..not the images. Which is one reason why I can't stand PS...it's a bloated POS that doesn't have a layout that any sane person would use... : ) LOL

An image 3000 x 4000 is only 12MB. 15 of these is only 180MB in total, only slightly bigger than 3 of my neg scans. And its not loading them up that is the issue, its what you do with them! To make a real comparison with what I just did you would have to start rotating/distorting/ resizing etc and be doing it with 5 of your files at a time, have a few layers in the background, meanwhile running a bunch of other apps(some being RAM hungry) like I was. But this probably isn't the right time and place to discuss it so I'll just say that everyone I know who uses PS7 for batch processing big files/ working in multiple layers(photogrpahers and graphic designers) knows that 1GB RAM is fully useable. With the latest handheld pro digital cameras making 12 megapixel images and neg scanners that give 4000dpi people are routinely working with huuuge files and many of them.
Photoshops facility to allocate its own scratchdisk space is not superfluous!
And yes PS7 is a massive program but there are reasons for it. There is nothing to touch it for photo editing, it has functions that on other apps are either unavailable or too poorly executed to use. It certainly isn't the easiest to get to grips with, I only use a small proportion of its features(those relevant to photography) and this takes a fair amount of learning and even tuition to start with. Its layout seems superb and I appreciate it more I use it. It lets you be organised even with many tasks in hand, but yes it can be massive overkill when you just want to resize a small jpeg or similar. Anyone with plenty of experience of traditional darkroom and lab work is going to find Photoshop like a gift from the heavens with no complaints forthcoming.

[Psilaxs]

Originally posted by begoodbebad
An image 3000 x 4000 is only 12MB. 15 of these is only 180MB in total, only slightly bigger than 3 of my neg scans. And its not loading them up that is the issue, its what you do with them! To make a real comparison with what I just did you would have to start rotating/distorting/ resizing etc and be doing it with 5 of your files at a time, have a few layers in the background, meanwhile running a bunch of other apps(some being RAM hungry) like I was. But this probably isn't the right time and place to discuss it so I'll just say that everyone I know who uses PS7 for batch processing big files/ working in multiple layers(photogrpahers and graphic designers) knows that 1GB RAM is fully useable. With the latest handheld pro digital cameras making 12 megapixel images and neg scanners that give 4000dpi people are routinely working with huuuge files and many of them.
Photoshops facility to allocate its own scratchdisk space is not superfluous!
And yes PS7 is a massive program but there are reasons for it. There is nothing to touch it for photo editing, it has functions that on other apps are either unavailable or too poorly executed to use. It certainly isn't the easiest to get to grips with, I only use a small proportion of its features(those relevant to photography) and this takes a fair amount of learning and even tuition to start with. Its layout seems superb and I appreciate it more I use it. It lets you be organised even with many tasks in hand, but yes it can be massive overkill when you just want to resize a small jpeg or similar. Anyone with plenty of experience of traditional darkroom and lab work is going to find Photoshop like a gift from the heavens with no complaints forthcoming.

I can see where this is headed lol

And no, PS isn't a gift from the heavens, it is frustration from the demons.

They purposely make the program NON intuitive, Job security.

There is NO reason why someone should have to go to school for 2 years to learn paint shop, it is just ridiculous.

20 clicks, and a dozen menu's later i finally got that ONE effect!! Alright Woohoo!!

It is good at what it does, there is no denying that, but it is unnecessarily complicated, so they can make money of of training/school kickbacks etc.

[begoodbebad]

Originally posted by Psilaxs
I can see where this is headed lol


There is NO reason why someone should have to go to school for 2 years to learn paint shop, it is just ridiculous.



who the fuck said anything about 2 years!!!???

And it's Photoshop! Paint shop is a different program entirely.

I just got a little tuition over several evenings from a photographer/web designer/teacher I know.

Anyhow for me its end of subject, reason and communication having got abandoned somewhere. I like it and you don't and I guess thats all it means.

edit 04 August :
addendum: I just started scanning 35mm negs into Photoshop via twain device Nikon SuperCoolScan 4000ED. Photoshop, running the Nikon scanner, is using 546MB RAM. Add in the other services and I'm using 870MB RAM. The other apps running (on the desktop) are eMule Outlook and IE6. It's clear that 512MB is not adequate for everyone and If I wanted to burn a disc now I would be into the HDD scratchdisk. If I wanted to be scanning negs into PS7 and meanwhile be working on media files would need well over 1GB. Often I would like to be able to do this but I wait until the scanning has finished. 2GB would not be unreasonable or excessive to really let me do what I wanted rather than being restricted to what my RAM dictates..

[Psilaxs]

Originally posted by begoodbebad
who the fuck said anything about 2 years!!!???

And it's Photoshop! Paint shop is a different program entirely.

I just got a little tuition over several evenings from a photographer/web designer/teacher I know.

Anyhow for me its end of subject, reason and communication having got abandoned somewhere. I like it and you don't and I guess thats all it means.

When i said paint shop i meant Photoshop, stop splitting hairs, you don't like my opinion about a program thats fine.

But don't get so peeved about it man, yeesh.

I think Photoshop is great at what it does, but it just over bloated and non intuitive.

[Induna]

So when you burn a CD using Nero or whatever, how much physical/virtual memory does that take up? Try opening up a new application whilst burning. No chance.


One other question, somebody asked me if it's possible to run 2 CD burners at the same time. I would assume you could if you had like 2GB of RAM or something. Has anybody here ever tried it?

[CCSDUDE]

Originally posted by Induna
So when you burn a CD using Nero or whatever, how much physical/virtual memory does that take up? Try opening up a new application whilst burning. No chance.


One other question, somebody asked me if it's possible to run 2 CD burners at the same time. I would assume you could if you had like 2GB of RAM or something. Has anybody here ever tried it?

Actually, depending on speed, CDRW drives use very little ram...no more then 40 mb's for the fastest drives out there. It's just feeding chunks off the HD...course I haven't used some of the brand spankin' new drives yet or the newer bloatware they've got going around so I can't make a call on that.

[Induna]

I don't understand then. When burning a CD and then trying to open up a different app, something as small as Wordpad, I get a message saying, there's not enough memory to run this application. It seems as though you can't do jack shit whilst the burner is on.

I wouldn't even attempt to try a media player at the same time, unless I want my system to freeze up and reboot.

[jonnymnemonic]

It depends on what you're doing. Some high-end audio applications are freakin' memory hungry. I have a gig in my machine and have used far more than that.

But 98 percent of all computer users may be right. I probably do stress this machine out more than most people ever would. ;)

[Krell]

Wow thats very leet.


PowerMan57two - did you get your answer yet?

[overdo]

i have 512meg RAM and running XP off a 1gig page file. i have used my RAM up until only 20megs were left. the first instance was playing C&C Generals but this didn't surprise me. i didn't bother disabling any extra stuff like AV etc. the second instance was running a database compiling program which scans files and then adds the new data into the database, kinda obvious really. that takes my RAM down to 20megs also.

[phalkon30]

I'm pretty sure that you're working with Dual channel DDR RAM. The two blue slots will "effectively double the speed of the RAM". There may be an option in your BIOS to use dual channel, or just use them normally.

Also, ignore what windows says for right now, what does your BIOS say?

EDIT: Found it: Dual-Channel DDR
Dual-channel DDR technology doubles the bandwidth of your system memory and hence boost the system performance to out perform any memory existing solutions in the market. The P4G8X Deluxe allows you to hancle memory-intensive tasks with ease.

http://www.asus.com/mb/socket478/p4g8x-d/overview.htm# has more info on your board.

[rbspace]

If your mother board doesn't see that extra ram did you try to update the motherboard drivers? You may even have to switch jumper settings depending on the board...