Computer Guys!

[drunk_medic]

I live on earth. While PROGRAMS may not be as stable on vista, Vista itself is far more stable than XP. Vista has NEVER froze on me or blue screened me for any reason, anything but the case for XP

Maximum PC - This Month's Issue: "Inside Microsoft's $6 Billion Failure"

I have run XP Home, Pro and Media Center Edition 2005 since the beginning of 2002. They have graced graphic cards as old as GeForce2 up through X1950 Pro. Processors have been Intel 733 MHz, AMD Athlon 1.2GHz, Pentium 4 2.4GHz, AMD Sempron 2300+, Celeron 2.53 GHz, and an Opteron 165 [dual 1.8 GHz], PLUS the variety of motherboards to support them. I have used onboard LAN and PCI network cards, onboard sound and a few models of Sound Blaster cards, onboard IDE controllers and Promise IDE controllers, and an onboard SATA RAID controller.
This is a large variety of hardware, so the chance that I would encounter bullshit is pretty high.
I remember I had a blue screen incident once when I was fiddling with things and a SATA cable came undone while the computer was on. That's about all I can remember.
I experiment with software and hardware all the time and I stopped using virus protection in 2006. I use Spybot Search and Destroy, surf with Firefox and view media with Media Player Classic. I use legitimate software that is either freeware, or that I pay for and I have ZERO PROBLEMS. If you have problems with XP, it's either your hardware, drivers or something YOU are doing. If your exact setup does not work with XP but DOES work well in Vista, I would suspect crap/wrong drivers used in the past.

 

[IwantMKIII]

Maximum PC - This Month's Issue: "Inside Microsoft's $6 Billion Failure"

I have run XP Home, Pro and Media Center Edition 2005 since the beginning of 2002. They have graced graphic cards as old as GeForce2 up through X1950 Pro. Processors have been Intel 733 MHz, AMD Athlon 1.2GHz, Pentium 4 2.4GHz, AMD Sempron 2300+, Celeron 2.53 GHz, and an Opteron 165 [dual 1.8 GHz], PLUS the variety of motherboards to support them. I have used onboard LAN and PCI network cards, onboard sound and a few models of Sound Blaster cards, onboard IDE controllers and Promise IDE controllers, and an onboard SATA RAID controller.
This is a large variety of hardware, so the chance that I would encounter bullshit is pretty high.
I remember I had a blue screen incident once when I was fiddling with things and a SATA cable came undone while the computer was on. That's about all I can remember.
I experiment with software and hardware all the time and I stopped using virus protection in 2006. I use Spybot Search and Destroy, surf with Firefox and view media with Media Player Classic. I use legitimate software that is either freeware, or that I pay for and I have ZERO PROBLEMS. If you have problems with XP, it's either your hardware, drivers or something YOU are doing. If your exact setup does not work with XP but DOES work well in Vista, I would suspect crap/wrong drivers used in the past.

Maybe so, XP still fails to serve our workstation to its potential. As XP support dwindles to nothing, Vista's will only increase and maybe one of these days it will utilize all 8 of our CPU cores.

XP, Vista, or OS in the future, doesn't matter to me, either way, at most i pay $15 and get what OS want and will serve me best :naughty:

 

[IwantMKIII]

I figured since Microsoft says their own OS will not use more than 3GB thats would be enough proof. I have personally seen machines with 4GB only show 3GB in system properties. Its an OS limitation Microsoft admits...If you require more I suggest you look for yourself.

Well if this is true, why am i using 4GB when i check memory availability. While yes, its says 3GB/8GB MB memory, the other 1GB being utilized is in the graphics card...1+3=4

 

[Poodles]

Server 2008 > Vista
Server 2003 > XP

Vista is being SCRAPPED according to hints from M$, so the support card isn't great. Also, the support for their server OS's has always been a hell of a lot faster (big corporate customers = big money)

 

[drunk_medic]

Server 2008 > Vista
Server 2003 > XP

Vista is being SCRAPPED according to hints from M$, so the support card isn't great. Also, the support for their server OS's has always been a hell of a lot faster (big corporate customers = big money)

I downloaded the trial version of Server2008 from Microsoft's website. 2.5GB ISO file for the 64bbit version, and it is "extendable" up to 240 days of use. I also got the "Server08->Workstation08" converter program. I figure trying this out on a brand new computer won't hurt, and XP can keep me trucking on what I am using now.

 

[IwantMKIII]

Server 2008 > Vista
Server 2003 > XP

Vista is being SCRAPPED according to hints from M$, so the support card isn't great. Also, the support for their server OS's has always been a hell of a lot faster (big corporate customers = big money)

i mentioned this earlier. This coming summer supposedly its being replaced. Though from what i hear its basically vista with a service pack

 

[Facime]

Well if this is true, why am i using 4GB when i check memory availability. While yes, its says 3GB/8GB MB memory, the other 1GB being utilized is in the graphics card...1+3=4

Some hardware options DO allow for the use of >3Gb, Some mobos allow you to chose to puch the reserved registers to over the 4GB point, but not most. The point is, above 3GB for XP32 the experts agree more than 3 is pointless.

Of course as cheap as RAM is now, I build lots of computers with 2x2GB running DC. If you have 4 slots its pointless to do less and better allows for upgrading.

Its a moot point as its not what the OP asked. I answered Justins questions and I stand behind my 8 years of hardware experience.

 

[IwantMKIII]

Some hardware options DO allow for the use of >3Gb, Some mobos allow you to chose to puch the reserved registers to over the 4GB point, but not most. The point is, above 3GB for XP32 the experts agree more than 3 is pointless.

Of course as cheap as RAM is now, I build lots of computers with 2x2GB running DC. If you have 4 slots its pointless to do less and better allows for upgrading.

Its a moot point as its not what the OP asked. I answered Justins questions and I stand behind my 8 years of hardware experience.

1 i don't go cheap on RAM, i use only ECC DDR2 RAM for our workstation (DDR3 is unavailable for workstations at this point so dont ask), on another note, 32bit in incapable of going over 4GB, its mathematically impossible.Either way, my system still recognizes 4GB, and that's the only point i was trying to make. It may or may not utilize it, which i asked why or why not in the begining, but the fact remains, 4GB is usable potentially. On this note DISREGAURD any other posts i make later tonight until tomorrow as i will be drinking heavily lol :biglaugh:

 

[Facime]

edit: nvm, not worth it.

 

[Who]

So would I be able to run two sticks of 1GB in dual channel form and a single stick of 1gb in single channel?


I have two gb right now and want to know if I should throw in this additional 1gb that I have available or not

Justin to answer your question.

Your motherboard first must support dual channel memory access.

Both sticks must be identical. By identical I mean IDENTICAL. Memory companies match them and sell them in the same package for a reason. I tried two different 1 gig sticks from crucial with all the same specs. They were not packaged together and some of the cryptic numbers on the chips did not match and my Asus board and my Intel board would not go into dual channel mode.

I don't think that one bank of memory can run in dual channel and one in single channel mode. Even if it could you would have a bottle neck when the board or os accessed the single channel mode stick and it would negate the whole issue. You could use all 3 gigs but after 2 gigs the performance increase curve flattens out on XP at least. If you have the 3 gigs go ahead and use it but don't buy any more memory. The whole dual channel mode benefits are debatable.

Try not to get caught up with all the PC mag memory speed testing software that shows you all the jazzed up pie charts and graphs. The performance increase is small.

IMPO upgrading existing computers is a waste of money.

Computers are a visual experience. Spend your most money on a monitor once. Buy yourself the top of the line monitor $$$$. If you can afford a FDA, medical grade monitor you would be shocked at the image quality and colors. You can use a good monitor for years and years from one computer to another.
The cpu box, computer itself is like a new car. The day you buy it or drive it off the lot its outdated and lost half of its value. Don't upgrade computers. If your addicted to the latest technology. Every three to four years donate your pc to your local charity or your family. Get yourself a new entry level business / home computer (without a monitor) from dell or as I like to call it Dellsposable computer. Even at the entry level a new computer every three to four years is a major leap in technology.

If your into gaming.... buy a sony ps, wii or xbox.

 

[Poodles]

Justin to answer your question.

Your motherboard first must support dual channel memory access.

Both sticks must be identical. By identical I mean IDENTICAL. Memory companies match them and sell them in the same package for a reason. I tried two different 1 gig sticks from crucial with all the same specs. They were not packaged together and some of the cryptic numbers on the chips did not match and my Asus board and my Intel board would not go into dual channel mode.

I don't think that one bank of memory can run in dual channel and one in single channel mode. Even if it could you would have a bottle neck when the board or os accessed the single channel mode stick and it would negate the whole issue. You could use all 3 gigs but after 2 gigs the performance increase curve flattens out on XP at least. If you have the 3 gigs go ahead and use it but don't buy any more memory. The whole dual channel mode benefits are debatable.

Try not to get caught up with all the PC mag memory speed testing software that shows you all the jazzed up pie charts and graphs. The performance increase is small.

Some motherboards are more finicky than others on dual channel. My sticks aren't matched, but will run at dual channel anyway. The advantage of dual channel isn't debatable, it doe increase speed noticably. Now the other speed numbers on RAM
-speed (this is required to be a certain level for your motherboard)
-CAS
-timing
The difference is TINY, as such you buy the better brand RAM with the better chips and don't worry about the speeds.

Also, building computer is cheaper than anything from Dell, and consoles suck for any serious gaming...

 

[Who]

^ I thought the dual channel benefits were application specific but I could be wrong.

I agree with you on high end top speed computers. Building your own is cheaper and rewarding. I put together 3 or 4 myself in the past. By entry level DEll-sposable pc's I mean entry level. The first choice on the list, the loss lead as they call it in retail. If you change any features on the package, they got you. I personally do not game with PC's so I do not need the power.

 

[IwantMKIII]

alright good....i didn't post after midnight...lol

 

[IwantMKIII]

Some motherboards are more finicky than others on dual channel. My sticks aren't matched, but will run at dual channel anyway. The advantage of dual channel isn't debatable, it doe increase speed noticably. Now the other speed numbers on RAM
-speed (this is required to be a certain level for your motherboard)
-CAS
-timing
The difference is TINY, as such you buy the better brand RAM with the better chips and don't worry about the speeds.

Also, building computer is cheaper than anything from Dell, and consoles suck for any serious gaming...

This. I had some other guy spec out a workstation from Dell. Came out to $7000. I spec'd a new computer that was quite superior for 1000 less.

 

[Doward]

Ok, just for the record, there is a lot of BS being slung in here. Let me get my wadders on.

32bit can not access anything beyond 4Gb of ram. I'm not explaining it all right now (I've got a client to meet up with) but here is a quick explanation: http://www.dansdata.com/askdan00015.htm

To the OP - Windows XP Professional, with 2Gb Dual Channel ram. You can not have dual channel on 2 sticks, and single channel on another - no consumer level memory controller can do that. You will default to ALL running single channel.

Run the 2Gb - unless you are running a serious server (150+ clients) 4Gb+ is worthless. You can run XP amazing with 2Gb. My current box has 15 processes running (XP Pro, 2Gb ram, Firefox open)

If you want to discuss it more, just PM me

 

[Figit090]

with today's programs, not re-loading windows XP or several years, and one GB dual chanel, i'm just starting to realize issues with memory.

i mention not reloading windows because something has become skewed in this box, and causes some user profiles to fuck up, leaving only the MAIN admin account seemingly perfect. Other accounts have issues with right-clicking on the desktop and cannot make major settings/programs changes, as if they are guest account. Dr. watson has issues as well. all accounts are set to admin so i dont know whats wrong. registry messed up maybe? i dont know enough about computers.

 

[Facime]

32bit can not access anything beyond 4Gb of ram.

no one said you could. Most of the discussion (and I agree ignorance) revolved around the 3GB limit in XP32.

I believe I already answered the same way for the OP as the rest of your post, except that I still think 3gb in SC is better for the average user than 2gb in DC.

 

[drunk_medic]

no one said you could. Most of the discussion (and I agree ignorance) revolved around the 3GB limit in XP32.

I believe I already answered the same way for the OP as the rest of your post, except that I still think 3gb in SC is better for the average user than 2gb in DC.

In many cases, this is true. In one of Falcon Northwest's systems, a model of Fragbox curiously came with 2GB in one stick of SC DDR-2 RAM. I saw tests of this machine where the reviewer threw dual-channel in just to benchmark and test it, and there really wasn't much of a performance increase. SC in that machine was not worth the extra price.

 

[Facime]

O and I just realized the question was 1GB DC or 1.5 SC...and I definately say 1.5SC. Dual channel is going to be pretty much negated if you have to hit the page file regularly.

 

[Doward]

No, the question is 2Gb Dual Channel or 3Gb Single Channel.

The 2Gb Dual Channel will be the better option. With Windows XP running full tilt, unless you are massively overloaded with bloatware you will have better performance from the dual channel ram.

64bit vs 128bit connection? Is this really being asked?

2 gigs of 6.4 gigs/sec bandwidth vs 3 gigs of 3.2 gigs/sec bandwidth shouldn't be a question.

Now, if this was a question of dual 128MB sticks vs a single 512MB stick, yes, go with the extra ram - you need a MINIMUM of 512MB of ram for WindowsXP to run decently. 1.0GB is the recommended amount of ram, and 2.0GB for heavy duty work. Anything over 2.0GB of ram on a WindowsXP box is simply there for ePenis status.

I suggest some of you learn how to optimize your systems' performance

*edit*

OP, your real question should be 'I have X brand DDR400 ram, running Y brand memory chips. How low of a latency can I get with these?' I highly doubt World of Warcraft is saturating a 6.4GBs bus BTW, why hasn't anyone asked what processor the OP is running? Makes a hell of a difference to know what the processor is capable of throwing down the ol' FSB.

Also, whowouldfigga - wtf? Don't ride the latest technology. More correctly, there are FOUR places you should not cheap out - Monitor, Motherboard, Case, and Speakers. I've been using the same speakers, monitor, case, and motherboard through 3 upgrades, and after 2.5 years, I'm finally upgrading my motherboard (to an Asus P5Q3 Pro, for anyone wondering)

Never buy the latest. See what's out right now? Wait 6 months, then buy it. Or in other words, buy what was the latest, 6 months ago. Enjoy 90% of the power of the 'latest and greatest' at 50% of the price