# Can U use 4GB Of RAM in Windows XP



## X-Terminator (Aug 16, 2008)

Can U use 4GB Of RAM in Windows XP


----------



## ktr (Aug 16, 2008)

XP 32bit will not recognize all 4gb of memory. At max, it's around 3.2~3.5gb.


----------



## X-Terminator (Aug 16, 2008)

Thanks For The info.  I am about to build a new computer ASRock X48TurboTwins-WiFi LGA 775 Intel X48 (Motherboard) / Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 Wolfdale 3.16GHz 6MB L2 Cache LGA 775 65W Dual-Core Processor (CPU) / Not Sure on RAM Yet, but I am going with DDR2 Not DDR3 Yet


----------



## ShiBDiB (Aug 16, 2008)

just get either 2x1 of quality stuff and u should b fine. Or if u have a little more cash go 2x2

what video card u getting?


----------



## X-Terminator (Aug 16, 2008)

I hate Vista So I am Sticking with XP (Transfer Rates Suck Ass in Vista)


----------



## Darknova (Aug 16, 2008)

Just go 64-bit and save yourself the hassle...


----------



## ShiBDiB (Aug 16, 2008)

X-Terminator said:


> I hate Vista So I am Sticking with XP (Transfer Rates Suck Ass in Vista)



Run vista on a good system and u wont notice any slowdowns... and im not sure what u mean by transfer rates suck.


----------



## X-Terminator (Aug 16, 2008)

I am afraid that my programs that i love won't be Compatible with 64-Bit


----------



## Darknova (Aug 16, 2008)

ShiBDiB said:


> Run vista on a good system and u wont notice any slowdowns... and im not sure what u mean by transfer rates suck.



Copy rates in Vista are lower than in XP. IE copying a file across a network etc. This is true. It's definately improved in SP1, but it's still not up to XP standards.


----------



## X-Terminator (Aug 16, 2008)

When moving files It is slow very slow


----------



## alexp999 (Aug 16, 2008)

X-Terminator said:


> I hate Vista So I am Sticking with XP (Transfer Rates Suck Ass in Vista)



Not since SP1.

Why do so many people hate Vista! If anything transfter rates will be better in Vista than XP if both up to date.

just another FYI, please dont start asking loads of 4gb and 32/64bit questions, there must be more threads on here about that than anything else! Please use search! 

just an idea. Someone should right a guide and FAQ for 4gb questions, then it can be sticked to avoid so many repeated threads.


----------



## Kursah (Aug 16, 2008)

That you love? Like what? I've ran Vista X64 for months now with nary an issue or incompatability. 32-bit programs for the most part, say 98-99% of them work fine in x64 from my experience.


----------



## Darknova (Aug 16, 2008)

X-Terminator said:


> I am afraid that my programs that i love won't be Compatible with 64-Bit



Erm....I'm running 32-bit programs on 64-bit.


----------



## X-Terminator (Aug 16, 2008)

hey thanks for the help guys I will try 64-Bit XP and see how it goes


----------



## ShiBDiB (Aug 16, 2008)

just get vista damnit... lol


----------



## X-Terminator (Aug 16, 2008)

alexp999 said:


> Not since SP1.
> 
> Why do so many people hate Vista! If anything transfter rates will be better in Vista than XP if both up to date.
> 
> ...



my son has vista SP1 32-Bit and the transfer rates has no difference from the first vista release


----------



## wolf2009 (Aug 16, 2008)

only in Xp- 64bit . But that windows has problems with drivers .


----------



## X-Terminator (Aug 16, 2008)

i bought vista 4 times 1 for my computer (Witch I was not impressed with it) / on my sons computer with SP1 and it still sucks ass / and on my laptop & my girlfriends Laptop and all versions suck in transfer rates.  That is my only complaint about Vista


----------



## wolf2009 (Aug 16, 2008)

X-Terminator said:


> i bought vista 4 times 1 for my computer (Witch I was not impressed with it) / on my sons computer with SP1 and it still sucks ass / and on my laptop & my girlfriends Laptop and all versions suck in transfer rates.  That is my only complaint about Vista



Did you ever stop to think those computer (hardware) might me too dated for vista ? 

//rant : Why do people expect to run Vista on XP hardware ? Same thing happened when XP couldn't run on Windows 98/2000 hardware . As time goes by everything becomes more beautiful, software has to look better than the last version. If this didn't happen then we would still be looking like playing Wii .


----------



## X-Terminator (Aug 16, 2008)

ShiBDiB said:


> just get either 2x1 of quality stuff and u should b fine. Or if u have a little more cash go 2x2
> 
> what video card u getting?



I can't afford video card yet So i am sticking with my 7950 GT

But in about 2 months it will be the 4870 X2


----------



## X-Terminator (Aug 16, 2008)

wolf2009 said:


> Did you ever stop to think those computer (hardware) might me too dated for vista ?
> 
> //rant : Why do people expect to run Vista on XP hardware ? Same thing happened when XP couldn't run on Windows 98/2000 hardware .



No I build new computer's often and all the computer's that I had vista on was very able to run it


----------



## Darknova (Aug 16, 2008)

wolf2009 said:


> only in Xp- 64bit . But that windows has problems with drivers .



Pfft, never had any issues. In most cases I was using Vista 64-bit drivers and just installed them manually.


----------



## ShadowFold (Aug 16, 2008)

Vista rocks man. I used to hate it too but I cant help but laugh at XP users now and there stubborn-ness


----------



## X-Terminator (Aug 16, 2008)

ShadowFold said:


> Vista rocks man. I used to hate it too but I cant help but laugh at XP users now and there stubborn-ness



Yes I am a bit stubborn but I run Vista on my laptop and When I transfer big files ie 700MB+
I am waiting for a long time and it just pisses me off and i just close my laptop and go back to my pc with XP


----------



## Kursah (Aug 16, 2008)

Well I can see this becoming another flame thread, xp vs vista, blah blah blah...I've used both x86 ans x64 XP and Vista..and various Vista versions...I disliked Vista x86 in any version, I found it to lose stability over time...sure some of it was my fault from tweaking and tuning shit I would've been better off leaving alone.

I got talked into going Vista x64 when I was planning on going x64 for full 4GB RAM usage in proper fashion. I was going to go back to XP x64 as I didn't have a bad experience with it, but it just seems like it was left in the corner on support imo...you can make it work just fine, but I wanted something that flat out worked out of the chute with modern support...Vista x64 fit that bill, I installed it and haven't looked back. It runs fast, my games load quickly, things copy pretty quick, my PC is very fast with Vista installed...this OS has been improved quite a bit since release as I've seen from experience.

I'd still recommend like a few others trying Vista x64, it's more stable imo, has a lot of support, and can only get better...XP has peaked and will eventually fade out, may not be today or tomorrow or next year, but it will happen. Eventually everyone's gonna go from pissing and moaning about XP vs Vista to Vista vs Windows 7, just wait and see...from what I've heard Windows 7 is pretty much a retuned Vista in a sense...so might as well get used to it.

That's my 2 cents, alright folks flame on!


----------



## SystemViper (Aug 16, 2008)

I am running XP Pro 64bit which is really server 2003...
Very sweet., i love it, i will wait a little longer for vista,


----------



## PP Mguire (Aug 16, 2008)

Turn off Remote Differential Compression in Vista and transfer rates will be the same if not faster than XP. Im getting a transfer rate of about 12-15mb/s on a 10/100 network and double that on Gigabit with Ultimate x86 SP1. RDC is meant to limit the use of bandwidth on your network and why its on by default is beyond me.


----------



## X-Terminator (Aug 16, 2008)

I want to thank everyone for your help I will try Vista 64-Bit since i never tried 64-bit (only 32-bit).


----------



## romboi99 (Aug 16, 2008)

lol im running Vista Ultimate x64 skinned , it has no themes no nothing its kicks ass in games like crisis that require dx10 but i use Winxp for everyday shit like watching/recording tv doing homework reading this forum, running dx9 games.... bbhla blah


----------



## X-Terminator (Aug 16, 2008)

PP Mguire said:


> Turn off Remote Differential Compression in Vista and transfer rates will be the same if not faster than XP. Im getting a transfer rate of about 12-15mb/s on a 10/100 network and double that on Gigabit with Ultimate x86 SP1. RDC is meant to limit the use of bandwidth on your network and why its on by default is beyond me.



I am checking on my son's computer right now and will let you know what happen thanks, this is the first reason i heard of for Vista transfer rate problems


----------



## mullered07 (Aug 16, 2008)

PP Mguire said:


> Turn off Remote Differential Compression in Vista and transfer rates will be the same if not faster than XP. Im getting a transfer rate of about 12-15mb/s on a 10/100 network and double that on Gigabit with Ultimate x86 SP1. RDC is meant to limit the use of bandwidth on your network and why its on by default is beyond me.



care to enlighten us how to do that, ive never even heard of it before, although dont spend any time transferring files over networks (unless you count downloading porn) so it might not be applicable to me, all i know is my comp kicks ass with vista and they go together like peas and carrots like a famous  american once said  lol


----------



## PP Mguire (Aug 16, 2008)

See here ya go.
Bout as fast as youll get on a 10/100 network






Control panel / programs features / turn windows features on-off / click the box off for RDC


----------



## DrPepper (Aug 16, 2008)

I'm trying vista x64 and no incompatibilities and I can use all 4gb of RAM home basic OEM is about £60 from overclockers UK


----------



## romboi99 (Aug 16, 2008)

lol i personally think vista sucks balls, nothing compares to good old winxp for internet surfing playing dx9 games, video encoding/decoding, watching porn lol, transferring stuff and other everyday computing stuff 

thats why i skinned my vista ultimate x64 with vlite and removed skins and all networking services ....well basically everythink and turned the vista ultimate into a gaming edition i get double frame rates in crysis


----------



## DrPepper (Aug 16, 2008)

romboi99 said:


> lol i personally think vista sucks balls, nothing compares to good old winxp for internet surfing playing dx9 games, video encoding/decoding, watching porn lol, transferring stuff and other everyday computing stuff
> 
> thats why i skinned my vista ultimate x64 with vlite and removed skins and all networking services ....well basically everythink and turned the vista ultimate into a gaming edition i get double frame rates in crysis



I run home basic  and I didn't find a fps difference in any games even when disabling services  I dunno why people are convinced it is slow.


----------



## PP Mguire (Aug 16, 2008)

Ugh to many people on this thread. 





Its been found that you get wierd problems with certain things when slimming Vista down and usualy it goes faster when you keep everything in tact and just disable things from inside Windows.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Aug 16, 2008)

DrPepper said:


> I run home basic  and I didn't find a fps difference in any games even when disabling services  I dunno why people are convinced it is slow.



Because they would rather believe every bad thing they hear about instead of actually trying it out for themselves. I have been using Vista for about a year and a half now and I coudlnt be happier. No program incompatibilities here.


----------



## PP Mguire (Aug 16, 2008)

I have to admit i used to bash Vista to an extent but what i said was true. If you dont have 3gig, 8000sereies video card (or comparible) youll lose ALOT of performance in Vista. Ima big time gamer so performance was neccesary. I used XP with SLI 7950GTs up until i fried one. XFX sent me an 8800GS back and next thing i know im playing in DX10 goodness and wont go back to XP. The things i hate about it are still there but ive gotten around them. Btw im running x86. I cant use x64 cause of my controller.


----------



## DrPepper (Aug 16, 2008)

PP Mguire said:


> I have to admit i used to bash Vista to an extent but what i said was true. If you dont have 3gig, 8000sereies video card (or comparible) youll lose ALOT of performance in Vista. Ima big time gamer so performance was neccesary. I used XP with SLI 7950GTs up until i fried one. XFX sent me an 8800GS back and next thing i know im playing in DX10 goodness and wont go back to XP. The things i hate about it are still there but ive gotten around them. Btw im running x86. I cant use x64 cause of my controller.



Sorry but I have to object once again  My laptop a single core celeron at 1.7ghz, 512mb of ram and onboard gfx run vista quite well.


----------



## PP Mguire (Aug 16, 2008)

Im speaking from a high performance gaming perspective.


----------



## Kursah (Aug 16, 2008)

PP_Macguire, I just transferred a 1GB file to my G/F's rig, also on Vista X64, we're both connected via CAT5e cables to our router, it was averaging 11-12MB/s. This is before disabling RDC, but I am going to disable it and see if it goes much beyond that. I can't really complain with file transfers as-is, but I suppose even an extra 1MB/s wouldn't hurt!


----------



## PP Mguire (Aug 16, 2008)

When you transferd the whole thing? With RDC on while transfering the 6gig Crysis ISO to my dads machine (10/100) it will slow down about the 1/4 mark to about 6mb/s. That is just unacceptable for me.


----------



## DrPepper (Aug 16, 2008)

PP Mguire said:


> Im speaking from a high performance gaming perspective.



Even so Athlon X2 4200, MSI K9N Neo V3 and 3gb of OEM ram with a 3450 still plays games quite well for me, Well its my little bro's pc but I use it for Lans.


----------



## X-Terminator (Aug 16, 2008)

PP Mguire said:


> When you transferd the whole thing? With RDC on while transfering the 6gig Crysis ISO to my dads machine (10/100) it will slow down about the 1/4 mark to about 6mb/s. That is just unacceptable for me.



This is what i am talking about Thank You


----------



## PP Mguire (Aug 16, 2008)

Please read what i said. 3gig, 8000 series or comparible, and i forgot to put dual core and it will run fine games wise. Im running X2 4200+, 8800GS, and 3gig DDR400 and x86 runs quite smooth for me even playing DX10 games. But when i was running SLI 7950GTs id take about a 10-15fps hit. No im not kidding.

Also X-Terminator a file transfer to a mid range laptop will usualy be slower becasue then your transfer speeds are bogged down by a 5400RPM drive. Usualy anyways. I know when copying files over the 10/100 to my laptop its real slow due to my slow 5400rpm drive.


----------



## DrPepper (Aug 16, 2008)

a 3450 is kinda comparable to a mid end 7 series except can do dx10


----------



## ghost101 (Aug 16, 2008)

romboi99 said:


> thats why i skinned my vista ultimate x64 with vlite and removed skins and all networking services ....well basically everythink and turned the vista ultimate into a gaming edition i get *double frame rates in crysis*



Either you were using 1GB of RAM and you simply freed up RAM in which case it was your fault. Or youre a liar. You cannot double framerates by simply turning services off.

XP doesnt even have anything close to double the framerates of Vista. Youre suggesting that youve got Vista to perform significantly better than XP in Crysis. right...

As far as file transfer across droves go, after SP1 I can transfer files faster than XP.


----------



## PP Mguire (Aug 16, 2008)

On here ive seen the 3450s do some good things performance wise though. I had both my 7950GTs OCed to beyond 7900GTX spec and id take a huge hit in Vista. And with DX9 cards theres really no reason to run Vista. So naturaly XP was my choice. Now that i have a single good card Vista runs awesome for me. Id rather use XP but oh well. I like DX10 to much. Ive just learned to get around Vistas quirks.

Also, heres a "review" showing why it seems like XP is faster. Hope this explains some things a bit. 
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1338


----------



## DrPepper (Aug 16, 2008)

PP Mguire said:


> On here ive seen the 3450s do some good things performance wise though. I had both my 7950GTs OCed to beyond 7900GTX spec and id take a huge hit in Vista. And with DX9 cards theres really no reason to run Vista. So naturaly XP was my choice. Now that i have a single good card Vista runs awesome for me. Id rather use XP but oh well. I like DX10 to much. Ive just learned to get around Vistas quirks.



I know I don't think I would use vista with a dx9 card either  Actualy that 3450 is really good, It plays all the games I want without having to lug a Huge full tower case about.


----------



## mullered07 (Aug 16, 2008)

PP Mguire said:


> I have to admit i used to bash Vista to an extent but what i said was true. If you dont have 3gig, 8000sereies video card (or comparible) youll lose ALOT of performance in Vista. Ima big time gamer so performance was neccesary. I used XP with SLI 7950GTs up until i fried one. XFX sent me an 8800GS back and next thing i know im playing in DX10 goodness and wont go back to XP. The things i hate about it are still there but ive gotten around them. Btw im running x86. I cant use x64 cause of my controller.



what controller is that afaik if you have a 64bit proc you can run vista, or do you mean a raid controller x64 has no drivers for ? you really should clarify


----------



## PP Mguire (Aug 16, 2008)

Even with SLI ive always used a mid tower 



> what controller is that afaik if you have a 64bit proc you can run vista, or do you mean a raid controller x64 has no drivers for ? you really should clarify


 I meant like Xbox controller  Im to lazy to do the XBCD 64bit fix and since i dont have 4gig+ of ram then x86 is fine for me.


----------



## Kursah (Aug 16, 2008)

PP Mguire said:


> When you transferd the whole thing? With RDC on while transfering the 6gig Crysis ISO to my dads machine (10/100) it will slow down about the 1/4 mark to about 6mb/s. That is just unacceptable for me.



It stayed pretty stable throughout the transfer, didn't take very long to complete. I now have RDC disabled on both rigs...I'll do another transfer in a little while...I have some other things to tend to today...gotta finish my current run of Bioshock and a few other games I've been meaning to play.

I don't do a lot of transferring either, but all of my transfers have been quick, the only time I can recall dropping speed like that is when I wasn backing up multiple multi-gb folders from her rig at the same time.

I had enough things to do to not worry about how fast it went as long as it got done within a reasonable ammount of time, which it did. To me this is a small issue, but I know to others it is a bad bad situation. Maybe this RDC will be the cure for those that hate Vista for that reason...who knows.


----------



## DrPepper (Aug 16, 2008)

Chipset drivers I think. 

I prefer mid towers but I can't fit all my HDD's in them comfotably


----------



## X-Terminator (Aug 16, 2008)

PP Mguire said:


> Please read what i said. 3gig, 8000 series or comparible, and i forgot to put dual core and it will run fine games wise. Im running X2 4200+, 8800GS, and 3gig DDR400 and x86 runs quite smooth for me even playing DX10 games. But when i was running SLI 7950GTs id take about a 10-15fps hit. No im not kidding.
> 
> Also X-Terminator a file transfer to a mid range laptop will usualy be slower becasue then your transfer speeds are bogged down by a 5400RPM drive. Usualy anyways. I know when copying files over the 10/100 to my laptop its real slow due to my slow 5400rpm drive.



it is a 7200rpm hard drive and i just transfered 2GB's of porn and got 17.1mb/s with the Remote Differential Compression feature turned off it was 13.2mb/s


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Aug 16, 2008)

DrPepper said:


> Sorry but I have to object once again  My laptop a single core celeron at 1.7ghz, 512mb of ram and onboard gfx run vista quite well.



As did my A64 3200+ 1GB Geil DDR400, Gigabyte GA-K8NSC-939, and BFG 6800GS (AGP). Ran it AND games just fine. (FEAR did like 2GB along with GRAW)


----------



## PP Mguire (Aug 16, 2008)

Well glad i could help. 

Yea i do big LAN parties so i had to figure out a way to fix this file transfer problem OR find out why it seems so slow in Vista. Well i did both and people are happy now. If youve ever been to any kind of decent LAN its l33ch city. And usualy in XP that Crysis ISO takes about 11 minutes to transfer whereas in Vista it takes 9-9.5.

Edit: Isnt that laptop your sons? And your transfering 2gig of porn to it?


----------



## X-Terminator (Aug 16, 2008)

PP Mguire said:


> Well glad i could help.
> 
> Yea i do big LAN parties so i had to figure out a way to fix this file transfer problem OR find out why it seems so slow in Vista. Well i did both and people are happy now. If youve ever been to any kind of decent LAN its l33ch city. And usualy in XP that Crysis ISO takes about 11 minutes to transfer whereas in Vista it takes 9-9.5.
> 
> Edit: Isnt that laptop your sons? And your transfering 2gig of porn to it?



that's why they invented the Delete Key


----------



## DrPepper (Aug 16, 2008)

Omg that was well spotted lmao.


----------



## MatTheCat (Aug 17, 2008)

X-Terminator said:


> Can U use 4GB Of RAM in Windows XP



If you are gonna upgrade to a HD 4870 X2, I would advise that you look into installing either XP64 or Vista 64.

x86 XP (32 bit) only recognises 3.2GB Ram in TOTAL. This means that your graphics card will leave the op system capable of recognising just 1.2GB Ram!

I use XP64 and have experienced very little of the driver/compatibility issues that are spoken off. (of course, some old games wont run and even some new games fail to install, i.e. PES2008).

As for Vista, the writing is on the wall. If you are a gamer you will not be willing to take the performance hit of Vista. Sure, Vista has DX10 but so far DX10 effects are implemented as an afterthought and thus sre not really anything to call home about. 

If it is any help, STEAM conducted a survey that indicated 85% of PC gamers use XP as there platform of choice. Vista may get there in the end...(SP2 perhaps), but for my money it sure aint there now.

XP64 ftw


----------



## redwings0921 (Aug 17, 2008)

pornshadedshushadedshushadedshu

or


----------



## PP Mguire (Aug 17, 2008)

> As for Vista, the writing is on the wall. If you are a gamer you will not be willing to take the performance hit of Vista. Sure, Vista has DX10 but so far DX10 effects are implemented as an afterthought and thus sre not really anything to call home about.


Vista is fine if you have 3gig, 8000 series or comparible vid card, and a dual core proccy or anything better. You dont get such a performance hit if anything at all.


----------



## Darknova (Aug 17, 2008)

MatTheCat said:


> As for Vista, the writing is on the wall. If you are a gamer you will not be willing to take the performance hit of Vista. Sure, Vista has DX10 but so far DX10 effects are implemented as an afterthought and thus sre not really anything to call home about.



HAHAH, sorry but that's hilarious. I've just come from XP x64 which I was a huge fan of. I loved it to bits and I bashed Vista in favour of XP x64, now it's the other way around. I'm getting better performance in some games than I got in XP x64 and the same performance in the rest, as well as that some of my older games that didn't work on XP x64 now work on Vista x64.

The writing may have been on the wall once, but it was painted over and now has "you're all wrong" on it.


----------



## ShogoXT (Aug 17, 2008)

It will work, you just will miss like 200MB of it. I wouldnt use that reason to use 64bit though, as it has a larger "footprint", so it will use 500MB more anyway.


----------



## MatTheCat (Aug 17, 2008)

Darknova said:


> HAHAH, sorry but that's hilarious. I've just come from XP x64 which I was a huge fan of. I loved it to bits and I bashed Vista in favour of XP x64, now it's the other way around. I'm getting better performance in some games than I got in XP x64 and the same performance in the rest, as well as that some of my older games that didn't work on XP x64 now work on Vista x64.
> 
> The writing may have been on the wall once, but it was painted over and now has "you're all wrong" on it.



I was having this argument with a mate the other week.

He has Vista installed and was telling me all about how good it is and how much it has improved since its release etc etc.....then in mid appraisals, he got a random Blue Screen of Death! 

P.S. And are you telling me that you haven't dropped like 15FPS in Crysis under Vista? (I am interested to know as you and I have similar systems).


----------



## PP Mguire (Aug 17, 2008)

Ive only dropped around 5fps. When i had SLI 7950GTs though it was a different story.


----------



## LiveOrDie (Aug 17, 2008)

if you want xp go with the 64bit version its alot faster and you can have more ram than your board can take lol


----------



## DrPepper (Aug 17, 2008)

MatTheCat said:


> I was having this argument with a mate the other week.
> 
> He has Vista installed and was telling me all about how good it is and how much it has improved since its release etc etc.....then in mid appraisals, he got a random Blue Screen of Death!
> 
> P.S. And are you telling me that you haven't dropped like 15FPS in Crysis under Vista? (I am interested to know as you and I have similar systems).



With DX10 enabled yes you lose 15fps, Enable DX9 only and there is no performance difference end of story I keep repeating this in numerous threads.


----------



## MatTheCat (Aug 17, 2008)

DrPepper said:


> With DX10 enabled yes you lose 15fps, Enable DX9 only and there is no performance difference end of story I keep repeating this in numerous threads.



Well, there sure is a lot of articles and reports on the interweb that tell a very different tale.

I really dont know myself as I have never tried Vista simply becuase I want to be sure I am not letting myself in for a lot of dissapointment and headaches if/when I do.


----------



## LiveOrDie (Aug 17, 2008)

MatTheCat said:


> Well, there sure is a lot of articles and reports on the interweb that tell a very different tale.
> 
> I really dont know myself as I have never tried Vista simply becuase I want to be sure I am not letting myself in for a lot of dissapointment and headaches if/when I do.



i've been using vista sence it come out i've never had a problem with it, i had alot more problems with xp, ill say if your system hardware is upto date you wont have any problems, and for crysis for get about it the frist game was just one big bug, the game was made for DX9 and was rushed for DX10, wait a month get crysis warhead and all those people that had problems with running it in DX10 wont.


----------



## Darknova (Aug 17, 2008)

MatTheCat said:


> I was having this argument with a mate the other week.
> 
> He has Vista installed and was telling me all about how good it is and how much it has improved since its release etc etc.....then in mid appraisals, he got a random Blue Screen of Death!
> 
> P.S. And are you telling me that you haven't dropped like 15FPS in Crysis under Vista? (I am interested to know as you and I have similar systems).



I get no more BSODs than I did with XP x64 lol. Only thing I had to change was pump a bit more voltage into my overclock to stay stable, but I was running voltage as low as I could with XP.

And no. Not dropped a single FPS, but then I never got high FPS anyway. I get 30-35 and that's perfectly smooth and stable for me


----------



## SerenadeRB (Aug 17, 2008)

PP Mguire said:


> Well glad i could help.
> 
> Edit: Isnt that laptop your sons? And your transfering 2gig of porn to it?



O_O

Fell of my chair 

Anyway, I run Vista and Xp and I do a lot of file transfers (to a backup comp.) and I never really thought about the XP/Vista differences, but I've never noticed (Running Sp1) so I'm sure if it isn't better, than it's not that much worse.
And I don't think that made much sense X_x Cut me some slack, I had a long night -_-


----------



## MadClown (Aug 17, 2008)

XP does detect 4GB, it can only use 3.25GB


----------



## MatTheCat (Aug 17, 2008)

Darknova said:


> And no. Not dropped a single FPS, but then I never got high FPS anyway. I get 30-35 and that's perfectly smooth and stable for me



eh?

With your rig you should be getting a solid 60FPS with some FSAA thrown in for good measure (with V-Sync enabled) in practically all games except Crysis and the odd poorly optimised deviant title.


----------



## Darknova (Aug 17, 2008)

MatTheCat said:


> eh?
> 
> With your rig you should be getting a solid 60FPS with some FSAA thrown in for good measure (with V-Sync enabled) in practically all games except Crysis and the odd poorly optimised deviant title.



You said Crysis 

Every game I have runs smooth and stable. Do I really need to see how many FPS I get? Not only that but thanks to the 4870 I can now run 4x AA with next to no performance hit. I'm happy. Very happy.


----------



## PP Mguire (Aug 18, 2008)

Thats how i am. Idc about what the # says. Jsut as long as the dip dosent lag me out im happy.


----------



## trt740 (Aug 18, 2008)

ktr said:


> XP 32bit will not recognize all 4gb of memory. At max, it's around 3.2~3.5gb.



not true you can set it up to use 4gb, Example, it can use 1gb for windows and 3gb for programs but won't use all 4gb all at once together. It is a server mod. What I'm saying is the memory is designated and not fluid as needed like it is in vista, only the first 3 gb really are in windows xp. You can install 4gb but unmodded  xp will only really uses 3gb fluidly and server modded you must designate what it uses over 3gb. You use a method called the 3 MB switch by changing the boot file you allowcate 1 gb to windows and 3 gb to programs. This really doesn't make a difference unless you use your computer as a server.


----------



## Wingo101 (Aug 18, 2008)

X-Terminator said:


> Can U use 4GB Of RAM in Windows XP



Yes, but you will need the 64 bit version.


----------



## trt740 (Aug 19, 2008)

Wingo101 said:


> Yes, but you will need the 64 bit version.



no you don't the 3mb switch is for xp allowing 4gb of ram to be used.


----------



## Darknova (Aug 19, 2008)

trt740 said:


> no you don't the 3mb switch is for xp allowing 4gb of ram to be used.



Erm....actually no. You see currently you can only have 2Gb of RAM for the kernel, and 2Gb for Programs right? So with 4Gb of RAM you lose RAM that is reserved for other system memory from the 2Gb that is used for the kernel. Now, with the 3Gb switch all you do is switch it to 3Gb for Programs and 1Gb for the kernel, but you still lose space based on how much other system memory you have.

I think you are thinking about the PAE switch, which moves the reserve space higher up out of the 4Gb address register, but that does have down-sides.


----------



## Damian^ (Aug 19, 2008)

SystemViper said:


> I am running XP Pro 64bit which is really server 2003...
> Very sweet., i love it, i will wait a little longer for vista,



ehh...what, its been out for about 2 years already, with a shit load of drivers released in about 3 months after release (about 4-6 months for 64bit drivers), new hotfixes, and even SP1. 
There really isn't an "I'll wait a bit more" saying its either you get it or pass. 
Vista is pretty much at its peak right now, at least i think so, and it runs fine on my semi mid rig (ie. 2GB of ram, amd 5200 x2). 

IMO, all this flaming and ranting has just made Vista look like POS, when in reality it isn't
+1 for trolls, 0 for people that have tried it.


----------



## PP Mguire (Aug 19, 2008)

I just realized there are alot of people from Texas on these forums


----------



## Damian^ (Aug 19, 2008)




----------



## VroomBang (Aug 20, 2008)

X-Terminator said:


> When moving files It is slow very slow



Even deleting a bloody shortcut on the desktop takes ages, as if it was running all sorts of idiotic checks in the background. Drives me mad. I got rid of Vista. It's inefficient, cumbersome and frustrating. Only my opinion of course.

XP all the way.


----------



## wiak (Aug 20, 2008)

vista SP1 file copy is no slower than XPs
and you cant get all 4GB in 32-bit windows vista/xp
only 64-bit will allow fully 4GB to be used or more


----------



## Cybrnook2002 (Aug 20, 2008)

You can as long as its XP 64 bit. No matter what anyone in here tells you 32 bit XP , vista whatever. CANNOT use 4GB of RAM. It can not and will not, not even with a hack. It is a physical limitation of 32 bit. But, if you need 64 bit xp im sure you can fiund a cheap copy of XP 64 on ebay or something. BUT, if your going 64, it might be better for you to do vista as XP 64 was more of a flop (not very popular). Its hard to find the right drivers for xp64 where vista 64 is more mainstream these days.


----------



## Jeno (Aug 20, 2008)

32bit can only use 3.2gb of ram weather its vista, xp, or 98 lol


----------



## Cybrnook2002 (Aug 20, 2008)

Jeno said:


> 32bit can only use 3.2gb of ram weather its vista, xp, or 98 lol




or 95 or even 3.1


----------



## spud107 (Aug 20, 2008)

arent programs also limited to only using upto 2gb each in 32bit?
another reason to go 64bit . . .


----------



## laszlo (Aug 20, 2008)

see here:
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/PAEmem.mspx

and here:http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080717201730AAhrEGC


----------



## Cybrnook2002 (Aug 20, 2008)

But Laszlo, you need to understand the ram from your video card is also deducted from that. Thats why everyone always sees 3.2-3.5. If you have 4GB ram in your machine and a video card with 512 mb, then the 512 mb from the card is automatically deducted form that 4GB limit you have. Putting your usable memory to less than 4 GB.

Like me I have 2x2 GB in my machine. I use xp 32 bit and I have a 4850 crossfire setup. That uses 1GB, so when I check the system properties , even with the PAE switch, i only have a recognized 3GB because my video cards use the other 1Gb available.

So in theory yes, 32 bit can use 4 gb ram. But you will only ever be able to use 4gb when there is a pc that has a video card with no ram.


----------



## laszlo (Aug 20, 2008)

Cybrnook2002 said:


> But Laszlo, you need to understand the ram from your video card is also deducted from that. Thats why everyone always sees 3.2-3.5. If you have 4GB ram in your machine and a video card with 512 mb, then the 512 mb from the card is automatically deducted form that 4GB limit you have. Putting your usable memory to less than 4 GB.
> 
> Like me I have 2x2 GB in my machine. I use xp 32 bit and I have a 4850 crossfire setup. That uses 1GB, so when I check the system properties , even with the PAE switch, i only have a recognized 3GB because my video cards use the other 1Gb available.
> 
> So in theory yes, 32 bit can use 4 gb ram. But you will only ever be able to use 4gb when there is a pc that has a video card with no ram.



i just answer to the thread question which is  "  Can U use 4GB Of RAM in Windows XP"

my answer is yes u can use is a different problem how much you access from it


----------



## trt740 (Aug 20, 2008)

Darknova said:


> Erm....actually no. You see currently you can only have 2Gb of RAM for the kernel, and 2Gb for Programs right? So with 4Gb of RAM you lose RAM that is reserved for other system memory from the 2Gb that is used for the kernel. Now, with the 3Gb switch all you do is switch it to 3Gb for Programs and 1Gb for the kernel, but you still lose space based on how much other system memory you have.
> 
> I think you are thinking about the PAE switch, which moves the reserve space higher up out of the 4Gb address register, but that does have down-sides.



dark read what I said above bro. I basically explained that already.


----------



## Tatty_One (Aug 20, 2008)

Or go 1GB > 512MB > 1GB > 512MB for 3gigs in dual channel.......in XP there aint nothing going to use more than that in anycase.


----------



## Omex (Sep 1, 2008)

I bought a Vista laptop. I used Vista and Office 2007 for 6 months and recently downgraded to XP. I'm so glad I did, laptops aren't meant to use Vista.

Vista and Office 2007 are very power-hungry, even for a 17" 3GB Dual Core laptop. Now, my programs load faster, my computer boots up faster. Almost zero browser crashes. So much better for my laptop. I'll admit Vista is something new, and looks nice, but for now I will stay loyal to XP.

My manual says my laptop will support up to 4GB, but if like said previously XP will not recognize all 4GB, then I will just stay with 3.


----------



## cdawall (Sep 1, 2008)

for those who keep saying XP 32B can't see 4GB of ram this is untrue XP see's a MAX of 4GB which include VGA etc so lets say you have a 256MB video card and 4GB of ram installed XP will see 3.75GB of ram so it still "see's" 4GB total of ram just not were you want it.

oh and just FYI XP runs great on 1-2GB anything over that is icing on the cake so don't worry how much it see's  and try vista 64b i wont go back to XP now


----------



## Aceman.au (Sep 1, 2008)

I have 4GB's of RAM and Windows XP only recognises 3.5GB's of the 4GB's...


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 1, 2008)

Windows XP 32-Bit will address 4GB of memory and 4GB only, even with the PAE enabled.  It is true that with PAE it is possible on 32-bit OSes to address more than 4GB of memory.  However, Microsoft has limitted XP 32-bit to 4GB of RAM regardless of if PAE is enabled or not.  They did this for driver compatibility.  Read Here.

Now, the addressed space includes graphics card memory, and any memory on any devices connected to the system.  This usually leaves 3.75GB or less available to address system RAM.  If you have 2 HD4870x2's for instance, you will have less than 2GB available.

Now, as for the XP vs. Vista file transfer speeds, use Robocopy if you are going to move large files in Vista and it will help with the slow file copy issues.  SP1 definitely helps the situation as Microsoft reworked the file transfer methods with SP1, however it isn't up to XP speeds, and probably never will be.  However, it is very livable.

*Edit:*

Ok, this thread got me kind of interested, so I ran some tests.

System Specs:
Q6600@3.2GHz
eVGA 780i A1
4GB G.Skill PC2-1100 5-5-5-15 @ PC2-800 4-4-4-12
500GB Seagate 7200.10 16MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s Drive
400GB Western Digital RE2 16MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s Drive

I setup a test folder that was 5.39GB(5.40GB on Disk) with 762 Files ranging in size from 2MB up to 933MB in 22 folders. Multiple files types were used: pictures, movies, MP3s, zip/rar, exe, text documents.

I ran 4 tests on each OS:
Same Drive Copy-I copy the folder from one location(Desktop) to another location on the same drive(C:\). This was done on the Seagate drive.
Different Drive Copy-I copy the folder from one location to another location on a different drive. The files were copied from the Seagate drive onto the Western Digital drive.
Delete-I used the Shift+Del command to delete the folder, this directly deletes the files, avoiding the Recycle Bin. This was done on the Seagate Drive.
Robocopy-I used the Robocopy command in a cmd prompt to copy the folder from one location to another location on a different drive. The files were copies from the Seagate drive onto the Westner Digital drive.

I timed each action using a stop watch from the moment I issued the command until the transfer/delete window disappeared.

Results(m:ss format):

Vista Same Drive Copy: 3:50
Vista Different Drive Copy: 1:55
Vista Delete: Virtually Instant(A window doesn't even appear, the folder just instantly disappears)
Vista Robocopy: 2:31

XP Same Drive Copy: 3:52
XP Different Drive Copy: 2:02
XP Delete: Virtually Instant(A window does appear, but disappears in less than a second)
XP Robocopy: 2:22

I was actually surprised by the results.  Vista seems to be ever so slightly faster than XP when using explorer to issue commands, but slower with Robocopy.  Either way, it seems Robocopy is the slowest method, but actually seems the fastest to me.  Maybe this is because of the way the window shows progress, it shows the percentage of each file as it goes through the list of files.  XP still seemed faster to me, even with the stop watch telling me otherwise.  The only thing I can guess is that the XP transfer window tricks us into believing this.  The Vista window is kind of dull and boring to watch, it just gives you the source and destination, and the stupid box animation at the top.  The XP window lists each file as it is copied, and gives the nice animation of the file moving from one folder to the next.  Because the XP box is a little more entertaining than the Vista transfer window, it tricks us into thinking it is moving faster(time flies when you are having fun type of deal).  And Robocopy does the same type of trick, because it lists each file, and counts the percentage of the file that is currently be transferred, it is kind of fun to watch, and probably why it seems to go the quickest, even when it is actually slower.


----------



## Deleted member 59511 (Sep 22, 2008)

System:
- Asus P5Q Deluxe
- Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550
- Corsair XMS2 DHX Series 4GB (PC2-6400U, CL4-4-4-12, im BIOS jedoch alles auf Standard belassen)

Hi, I'm going to use Windows XP SP3 32BIT. If I can't use the full 4GB it's not important, but system performance und stability is. So my question, will I suffer any stability or performance problems with 4GB installed while using XP 32BIT? Should I leave Memory Remapping on or off for better stability?

Thanks in advance.


----------

