4gb with vista

  • Thread starter Thread starter Alan Whimp
  • Start date Start date
A

Alan Whimp

Hi all if i put 4 gb of memory in my laptop do i have upgrade it to the 64
bit verison of Vista thanks alan W
 
Hi all if i put 4 gb of memory in my laptop do i have upgrade it to the 64
bit verison of Vista thanks alan W
Click to expand...

No, you don't have to upgrade to x64. But if you do not you will not be
able to use all the memory. Which isn't so bad from a futures perspective
or if you later decide to use x64.
 
hi ,
Just wanna let you know that 32 Bit OS can support max 4 gb ,even if u add
extra ram your computer will not use , its opposite with 64 bit it can
support roughly more 100 GB of ram ....
 
Exact figures, Vinny!

Memory specifications
All editions of Windows Vista 64-bit provide increased memory support beyond
the standard 4 gigabytes (GB) available with 32-bit editions. Refer to the
specific edition of Windows Vista 64-bit to determine maximum memory capacity.

Windows Vista Edition 64-bit memory support

Home Basic
8 GB

Home Premium
16 GB

Ultimate
128+ GB

Business
128+ GB

Enterprise
128+ GB
 
If you want to actually USE all 4 GB, then yes you need a 64 bit version of
Vista. Vista 32 bit will work with 4 GB, but only USE between 3 and 3.5
GB, depending on your hardware, video card, etc.
Click to expand...

sort of....Vista, and XP too for that matter, will see up to the max
but not all of it is available for the OS. Beyond 3 to 3.5 gig is
available to software but not to the OS. Software being what is loaded
after the OS finishes loading, Word, Outlook, Quicken, Roxio, Nero,
etc are examples of software. Vista reports was it can use, not what
it 'sees'. Confusing for us users, not a standard way of doing things,
but what else is new. A meg is 1024 bytes, you by a 160 gig hard drive
and it formats out to 145 gig or so. Another way for computer makers
to confuse the issue. AMD makes chips that are slower than Intel but
then names then like Intel chips except with the + behind it. Like AMD
X2 5600+, it is supposed to be as fast as an Intel 5600 cpu but only
runs at 2.8ghz!
 
f/fgeorge said:
AMD makes chips that are slower than Intel but
then names then like Intel chips except with the + behind it. Like AMD
X2 5600+, it is supposed to be as fast as an Intel 5600 cpu but only
runs at 2.8ghz!
Click to expand...

Not only do you have a limited grasp of the facts, they are out of date as
well.

You've obviously not heard about the Core 2, which replaced the Pentium 4
two years ago as Intel's flagship desktop processor. They run at much lower
clockspeeds, with much higher efficiency. AMD has really fallen back since
then, and their new much hyped Phenom processor has been very disappointing.

ss.
 
Synapse said:
Not only do you have a limited grasp of the facts, they are out of date as
well.

You've obviously not heard about the Core 2, which replaced the Pentium 4
two years ago as Intel's flagship desktop processor. They run at much lower
clockspeeds, with much higher efficiency. AMD has really fallen back since
then, and their new much hyped Phenom processor has been very disappointing.

ss.
Click to expand...

I'm building myself a new machine, but waiting on the AMD 9x50 series to
be released first before I continue.

--
"Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on
free speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the
creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer
rights in the digital age are not frivolous."
- Maura Corbett

DRM and unintended consequences:
http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/security/?p=435&tag=nl.e101
 
"The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'"
I'm building myself a new machine, but waiting on the AMD 9x50 series to
be released first before I continue.
Click to expand...

Why AMD? Are you building a budget system? AMD had a clear lead over Intel
during the Athlon64 vs. Pentium 4 days. I had a Pentium I, II, III, but not
a 4 - I got an Athlon64 3400+ instead. Now back to Intel with a Core 2 Duo.
It's nearly time for a new build (hi-end server/HTPC hybrid), but I do not
want to get an Intel quad core chip until they start making proper ones -
not the current dual cores stuck together kludge.

ss.
 
Synapse said:
"The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'"


Why AMD? Are you building a budget system? AMD had a clear lead over Intel
during the Athlon64 vs. Pentium 4 days. I had a Pentium I, II, III, but not
a 4 - I got an Athlon64 3400+ instead. Now back to Intel with a Core 2 Duo.
It's nearly time for a new build (hi-end server/HTPC hybrid), but I do not
want to get an Intel quad core chip until they start making proper ones -
not the current dual cores stuck together kludge.

ss.
Click to expand...

I know that Intel has the higher rated technologies right now, but they
really pissed me off with the whole 'vista capable' thing, so I'm
expressing my consumer support with my dollars. Not to mention, that
even though AMD CPUs are not as high performing as Intel right now, The
machine will do everything I need it to do and more. It's good enough
if it meets or exceeds my needs. Saving a bit of money doesn't suck either.

--
"Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on
free speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the
creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer
rights in the digital age are not frivolous."
- Maura Corbett
 
Back
Top