 |
 |
XP vs VISTA RAM recognition
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Canada
Status:
Offline
|
|
Hello All,
I have a dilemma on which OS to put on my boot camp partition. I would prefer XP but as many people know there is a RAM limitation issue while VISTA will be able to recognize all 4gigs of RAM that have been installed.
I will be running it on my iMac that's in my sig. Work done on the windows portion will be mainly stuff like Project and uggh Contribute. I wouldn't mind trying to play Left 4 Dead and possibly WarHammer down the line as well. Same situation will be with my Macbook as well. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated!
|
|
________________________________________________
iMac 20" 2.66g GHz Dual-Core
Macbook 2GHz Dual-Core
iPhone 16GB, iTouch 8GB
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status:
Offline
|
|
XP with 3.mumble GB or Vista 64-bit with 4GB? I'd go with XP for games.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Canada
Status:
Offline
|
|
Thanks mduell. I was wondering if Vista being able to see 4gb would help but I guess it would just suck it up for the OS.
|
|
________________________________________________
iMac 20" 2.66g GHz Dual-Core
Macbook 2GHz Dual-Core
iPhone 16GB, iTouch 8GB
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Northwest Ohio
Status:
Offline
|
|
Actually, Vista x32 was changed in SP1 to report the physical amount of RAM installed regardless of what's actually available to the OS.
The OS will say that 4 GB is installed, but what's really only available is the 3.25 GB or whatever. Presumably they did that so that people wouldn't call computer manufacturers to ask them why their shiny new computer with 4 GB RAM says it has "only 3.25 GB."
Highly deceptive.
Now, if you install Vista x64, then the full 4 GB is available.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator  Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the verge of insanity
Status:
Offline
|
|
XP 64 allows for 4GB of ram use as well, I think.
|
|
I like my water with hops, malt, hops, yeast, and hops.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Administrator  Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Person Man 
Actually, Vista x32 was changed in SP1 to report the physical amount of RAM installed regardless of what's actually available to the OS.
The OS will say that 4 GB is installed, but what's really only available is the 3.25 GB or whatever. Presumably they did that so that people wouldn't call computer manufacturers to ask them why their shiny new computer with 4 GB RAM says it has "only 3.25 GB."
Highly deceptive.
Now, if you install Vista x64, then the full 4 GB is available.
I believe that it's more a matter of the computer recognizing the devices that are installed, but not having available addressing free to use all of the memory in those devices. A bunch of addressing is used for things like redirecting video memory and other such things. I don't think Windows' designers are with it enough to be that crafty... 
|
Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top