project-navigation
Personal tools

Author Topic: Skirmish: Team without items ? (R24950)  (Read 3988 times)

odie

  • Guest
Re: Skirmish: Team without items ? (R24950)
« Reply #15 on: July 08, 2009, 05:19:37 am »
Yep. XP suports a max of 2GB RAM as well.

That is not true Another Guy, 2GB RAM is not true. I have assembled many machines with 4GB (we are talking abt at least 10 machines) with XP (pro or home).

I have one who has an even crazy 8GB Ram installed -.-" Dun ask me why he did it, he's filthy $$ loaded.
And it seemed to run......


@Odie:
XP does not fully support my brandnew i7 :-P

Ah Duke,

That sux...... Why is it so?? So far, i see XP seemed ok with most chips (though i dun use i7 chips at all before....)

Offline Destructavator

  • Combination Multiple Specialty Developer
  • Administrator
  • PHALANX Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 1908
  • Creater of Scorchcrafter, knows the zarakites...
    • View Profile
Re: Skirmish: Team without items ? (R24950)
« Reply #16 on: July 08, 2009, 06:02:30 am »
Quote
That is not true Another Guy, 2GB RAM is not true. I have assembled many machines with 4GB (we are talking abt at least 10 machines) with XP (pro or home).

I'm typing this right now on an XP machine with 4GB installed, although the OS only sees 3.5GB.  I admit, however, that I haven't tried to let a single running application access all of it at once, I remember from somewhere someone saying something about how a single app in XP can only use so much memory, although I haven't tested if this is true.

Offline Another Guy

  • Squad Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 239
    • View Profile
Re: Skirmish: Team without items ? (R24950)
« Reply #17 on: July 08, 2009, 06:43:07 am »
XP can't handle very well appz using more than 2GB RAM. However, OS won't simply pretend it doesn't exist, of couse. But overall, I agree: Vista sux. But it is a necessary evil.

odie

  • Guest
Re: Skirmish: Team without items ? (R24950)
« Reply #18 on: July 08, 2009, 06:55:03 am »
I'm typing this right now on an XP machine with 4GB installed, although the OS only sees 3.5GB.  I admit, however, that I haven't tried to let a single running application access all of it at once, I remember from somewhere someone saying something about how a single app in XP can only use so much memory, although I haven't tested if this is true.

Ah, well, it should be correctly used for u then. U must not forget that there are such things as onboard graphics memory (if urs is not a dedicated graphics card - most common cause for <Max ram issue), pci cards / roms memory usage, and even controllers memory..... all these eat up some memory....

Hence, even with 4GB max installed, u might not have all of them for your pleasure.

And to answer the question on whether its possible for a single application to use 4GB - yes theorectically, but it would be insane. But this is not happening on XP, since max memory "handle-able" by XP is 2^32 = 4294967296b = 4194304kb = 4096MB = 4GB exactly (1GB = 1024MB, 1MB = 1024kb, 1kb = 1024b, b=bytes=8 bits)

Why? Cos XP is a 32bits application. Hence, Vista works more "efficiently" in theory than XP becos of this 64 bit capabilities. Then again, XP needs some about 750MB ram to run (as basic with SP3 and basic antivirus and firewalls), whilst vista requires a whopping close to 1.3GB-1.7GB to run efficiently (with SP and basic apps). So, unless u have 4GB XP vs 8GB Vista, u will hardly say which is better...... (And question is do u really need 64 bits app since most do not support it, drivers support sux and aint we hearing its being 'abandoned' for a new windows OS soon?)

For more on the 4GB thingy, see this.



Edit - Another Guy, it is NOT a necessary evil. It is an absolutely redundant evil...... that should be eliminated. Lol.