How much memory is too much?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Just a basic question, I think. On an XP Pro machine, is there a point
where you can have "too much" memory? (You know, where the "excess" just
isn't necessary, or can't be used?)

Thanks.
Ken

(Remember the days when it was a big deal to configure your machine to use
anything more than 640 K?)

 

[null]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Ken Isaacson wrote:

> Just a basic question, I think. On an XP Pro machine, is there a point
> where you can have "too much" memory? (You know, where the "excess" just
> isn't necessary, or can't be used?)
>
> Thanks.
> Ken
>
> (Remember the days when it was a big deal to configure your machine to use
> anything more than 640 K?)
>
>

I suppose a TeraByte or two would be too much.

IMHO, it really depends on what you use the PC for. If you work with
large data files, graphics, applications, etc., then the more RAM the
better. The average user though would probably find that 512 MB of RAM
is the 'sweet spot' for performance vs. cost.

--
The reader should exercise normal caution and backup the Registry and
data files regularly, and especially before making any changes to their
PC, as well as performing regular virus and spyware scans. I am not
liable for problems or mishaps that occur from the reader using advice
posted here. No warranty, express or implied, is given with the posting
of this message.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Thanks.

Now, an academic question: Is there a *limit* as to how much memory a
computer/software can actually use? Or can it theoretically use as much as
you can throw at it?


"null" <null@planetzero.com> wrote in message
news:OWVM3yclEHA.952@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Ken Isaacson wrote:
>
> > Just a basic question, I think. On an XP Pro machine, is there a point
> > where you can have "too much" memory? (You know, where the "excess"
just
> > isn't necessary, or can't be used?)
> >
> > Thanks.
> > Ken
> >
> > (Remember the days when it was a big deal to configure your machine to
use
> > anything more than 640 K?)
> >
> >
>
> I suppose a TeraByte or two would be too much.
>
> IMHO, it really depends on what you use the PC for. If you work with
> large data files, graphics, applications, etc., then the more RAM the
> better. The average user though would probably find that 512 MB of RAM
> is the 'sweet spot' for performance vs. cost.
>
> --
> The reader should exercise normal caution and backup the Registry and
> data files regularly, and especially before making any changes to their
> PC, as well as performing regular virus and spyware scans. I am not
> liable for problems or mishaps that occur from the reader using advice
> posted here. No warranty, express or implied, is given with the posting
> of this message.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

There is a limitation on the motherboard.... check the website of your
motherboard manufacturer for the specs.
--
Cari (MS-MVP Printing, Imaging & Hardware)
www.coribright.com

"Ken Isaacson" <NoSpamK@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:u3Zzd1clEHA.1904@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Thanks.
>
> Now, an academic question: Is there a *limit* as to how much memory a
> computer/software can actually use? Or can it theoretically use as much
> as
> you can throw at it?
>
>
> "null" <null@planetzero.com> wrote in message
> news:OWVM3yclEHA.952@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> Ken Isaacson wrote:
>>
>> > Just a basic question, I think. On an XP Pro machine, is there a point
>> > where you can have "too much" memory? (You know, where the "excess"
> just
>> > isn't necessary, or can't be used?)
>> >
>> > Thanks.
>> > Ken
>> >
>> > (Remember the days when it was a big deal to configure your machine to
> use
>> > anything more than 640 K?)
>> >
>> >
>>
>> I suppose a TeraByte or two would be too much.
>>
>> IMHO, it really depends on what you use the PC for. If you work with
>> large data files, graphics, applications, etc., then the more RAM the
>> better. The average user though would probably find that 512 MB of RAM
>> is the 'sweet spot' for performance vs. cost.
>>
>> --
>> The reader should exercise normal caution and backup the Registry and
>> data files regularly, and especially before making any changes to their
>> PC, as well as performing regular virus and spyware scans. I am not
>> liable for problems or mishaps that occur from the reader using advice
>> posted here. No warranty, express or implied, is given with the posting
>> of this message.
>>
>
>

 

[null]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Cari (MS-MVP) wrote:

> There is a limitation on the motherboard.... check the website of your
> motherboard manufacturer for the specs.

WinXP also has a limit, but you aren't going to reach it today.

--
The reader should exercise normal caution and backup the Registry and
data files regularly, and especially before making any changes to their
PC, as well as performing regular virus and spyware scans. I am not
liable for problems or mishaps that occur from the reader using advice
posted here. No warranty, express or implied, is given with the posting
of this message.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

I can reach the limit on mine quite easily. Here is the answer you are
looking for.

Windows XP usually stops gaining performance due to memory around 512 MB
to 1 GB of memory. For the 32bit version of Windows, you can only use
4GB. This is actually not just a Windows limitation but also a
processor limitation. 32bit processors cannot address more than 4 GB of
memory. Now if you hop into 64bit processors, you are in a whole
different arena, but you will also need a 64bit OS in order to go over 4
GB. Windows XP 64-bit Edition will only allow up to 32 GB though
current 64bit motherboards allow up to 64 GB of Dual Channel Memory.
The theoretical capacity of a 64bit processor is 18 Million Terabytes.
That is huge!

----
Nathan McNulty


null wrote:
> Cari (MS-MVP) wrote:
>
>> There is a limitation on the motherboard.... check the website of your
>> motherboard manufacturer for the specs.
>
>
> WinXP also has a limit, but you aren't going to reach it today.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

32-bit system can address 4GB. Even with PAE enabled, the underlying
architecture of the system is still based on 32-bit linear addresses.

With PAE enabled, the operating system moves from a two-level linear address
translation to a three-level address translation. The extra layer of
translation is what provides access to physical memory beyond 4 GB. Instead
of a linear address being split into three separate fields for indexing into
memory tables, it is split into four separate fields; a 2-bit field, two
9-bit fields, and a 12-bit field that corresponds to the page size
implemented by Intel Architecture (4 KB).

During a context switch the CR3 register is set by the operating system to
point to a Page directory pointer index that is 2-bits wide. The first two
bits are used as an index into this table, with the resulting value pointing
to a Page directory. The first 9-bit field is then used to index into the
Page directory. The indexed value then points to a Page table. The second
9-bit field is an index into the Page table. This value points to the actual
page in memory where the desired byte is located. Finding this byte is a
simple matter of using the remaining twelve bits of data to index into the
page.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

It's also a very frightening thought for my bank managers!
--
Cari (MS-MVP Windows Client - Printing, Imaging & Hardware)
www.coribright.com

"Nathan McNulty" <nospam@msn.com> wrote in message
news:%233d72belEHA.3564@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>snip

> The theoretical capacity of a 64bit processor is 18 Million Terabytes.
> That is huge!
>
> ----
> Nathan McNulty
>
>