Question about RAM

steveklein · Post by **steveklein** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:33 pm

hey guys. i had a question about RAM.

i've got the following RAM right now that i bought 7 months ago:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6820144199

and am considering an upgrade. I run Windows XP and this computer is set up as my box with 1.5 TB of video and audio files (yes, i ripped 70% my family's entire 12,000 album cd collection over the years; my dad and sister did the rest)

in any event my mobo
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6813131043
has 4 slots for ram. right now i've got 2x512 which i think is okay, but i am considering adding more. i can add 2 more 512 sticks which is probably more than enough and that's what i'm leaning towards for a few reasons
- cheaper
- same kind of ram that i already have model number and everything

for an extra $25 i can actually get 2 1gb sticks of pc533 ram. here's my question.

if i have 2 x 512mb of 667 and 2x 1GB of 533... is this a good idea (different clock speed ram? also, how would i set it up in the box? right now i've got 1 dimm with 512 on each side. in the new configuration would i move the 512s side by side or just add the 1gb's in so there would be 1.5gb on each side?

so 2GB for a little cheaper or 3GB for a little more and "odd" configuration

Post by **NeilBlanchard** » Sat Sep 29, 2007 2:18 am

Hello Steve,

Either should be fine -- 3GB is really the upper limit for 32bit Windows. With 3GB, you would probably never use the HD for virtual memory, which would minimize fragmentation.

If you mix the speeds, it will default to the lower speed -- which won't make much difference at all. The increase in capacity will improve things a lot more than the drop in speed, I think.

steveklein · Post by **steveklein** » Sat Sep 29, 2007 7:10 am

NeilBlanchard wrote:Hello Steve,

Either should be fine -- 3GB is really the upper limit for 32bit Windows. With 3GB, you would probably never use the HD for virtual memory, which would minimize fragmentation.

If you mix the speeds, it will default to the lower speed -- which won't make much difference at all. The increase in capacity will improve things a lot more than the drop in speed, I think.

ok, then im gonna go with 3GB. i may put vista ont his PC in 2008 and i heard it is a memory hog so i might as well and it is only like a $25 difference.

right now i use onboard video; thats' my next planned upgrade

thanks so much for the info.

bonestonne · Post by **bonestonne** » Sat Sep 29, 2007 7:38 am

3GB is a great number, and i'm joining that crowd at the end of october, lastest at november.

but i strongly urge not to resort to Vista. sales have been very low, and before they even got a SP1 out, there is a Vista-To-XP Downgrade available for anyone running Vista Ultimate or Vista Business that wants it, Retail or OEM versions. with the fact out in the air, it makes you wonder if Vista was ever worth having, and since my box was never opened, it runs a debate on returning it .

if you're really pushing for performance try to find 667mhz RAM, but even if its all bumped down to 533, its not that big a deal.

Lensman · Post by **Lensman** » Sat Sep 29, 2007 4:32 pm

Vista will be fine in a couple of years. It's main problem is that XP wasn't all that bad.

Moving from XP to Vista was a pain in the ass for me, but not as much of a pain as moving from XP to XP x64 at work.

Davinator · Post by **Davinator** » Tue Oct 02, 2007 2:08 pm

Lensman:

It's main problem is that XP wasn't all that bad.

Two relevant strips from last week:
http://www.userfriendly.org/cartoons/ar ... 010727.gif
http://www.userfriendly.org/cartoons/ar ... 010728.gif

- Dave

mrinsane19 · Post by **mrinsane19** » Tue Oct 02, 2007 2:31 pm

bonestonne wrote:there is a Vista-To-XP Downgrade available for anyone running Vista Ultimate or Vista Business that wants it, Retail or OEM versions.

XP Pro OEM also included a downgrade license, I installed Win 2000 on a number of machines for one client, up to and including last year (may still use it for all i know, i just work elsewhere now). It's nothing to do with Vista being poor, it's just continuing support for people choosing to run an older OS for whatever reason that may be.

There is nothing inherently wrong with vista... some people are just scared of change methinks.

steveklein · Post by **steveklein** » Fri Oct 05, 2007 7:52 am

mrinsane19 wrote:
bonestonne wrote:there is a Vista-To-XP Downgrade available for anyone running Vista Ultimate or Vista Business that wants it, Retail or OEM versions.
XP Pro OEM also included a downgrade license, I installed Win 2000 on a number of machines for one client, up to and including last year (may still use it for all i know, i just work elsewhere now). It's nothing to do with Vista being poor, it's just continuing support for people choosing to run an older OS for whatever reason that may be.

There is nothing inherently wrong with vista... some people are just scared of change methinks.

i am scared of change, but from what people have told me, if i have xp running like a champ (which i do) then there is zero none nada reason to upgrade to vista at the present time.

for what it's worth, i ended up going with 2GB of 667MHz RAM instead of 3GB of 533. Main reason was because it was cheaper. Decided against a video card for now... oh well... I'll be happy when I do get one, say next summer, when I spend $100 for a card that costs $250 today

mark314 · Post by **mark314** » Fri Oct 05, 2007 12:07 pm

I put Vista on my new computer 6 months ago and I haven't looked back.

Above and beyond the nicer look, the indexing and searching, the thing I've noticed the most is the improved startup/shutdown times and sleep.

Startup and shutdown are clean and fast, and sleep works perfectly. One button press, in 2 seconds the screen is black, in 5 seconds the system fans have powered down and the system could be mistaken for being off. In fact, the first time I slept the computer I thought it *was* off. But press a key and within 5 seconds you are at your desktop.

I haven't actually power cycled my computer more than once in the last few months.

As for a memory hog: Vista might use a bit more memory to run the system but it also uses superfetch to preload your most used programs into the idle memory so that when you do decide to open them, they open much faster. On the other hand XP just leaves it sitting there doing nothing.

No offense bonestonne but don't judge Vista based on your experience with its beta. I've been using it since it came out, I've weathered some poor Nvidia video card drivers, and its now rock solid.

Verdict: go with Vista to get the most use out of your new memory.