| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 114544 | 2010-12-07 04:58:00 | To Ram or not Ram.... | PinoyKiw (9675) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1159635 | 2010-12-07 04:58:00 | Just a general question....... I have at the moment, a older Toshiba Satellite, exact model unknown right this moment. Doesn't really matter. Runs WinXP Professional. Standard 32bit. Currently has 1.5gb of Ram. Goes great when using Office, Email, most other applications. Slows down a bit when using either Lightroom 3 or NikonNX. Especially with NikonNX I know that WindowsXP can only see a max of 2gb. Assuming that the mother board can take more than 2gb of ram and right now I don't know if it can or not and for the purpose of this question, it doesn't matter, WindowsXP can only see and use 2gb, but what about Lightroom and NikonNX, would a increase of ram be of any benefit for those programs in making things go a little quicker/smoother or are they restrained by the max of 2gb that XP itself see's and uses. Thanks |
PinoyKiw (9675) | ||
| 1159636 | 2010-12-07 05:04:00 | Windows XP can see 3+ GB of ram, depends on how much is taken up by other mappings such as the graphics card. 3.25+ GB is about normal. The programs your talking about will be restrained by the max amount of ram that windows can see. |
gcarmich (10068) | ||
| 1159637 | 2010-12-07 05:06:00 | Windows XP 32bit will quite happily see up to 4GB of address space. There are a few things other than RAM that use this (most notably the video card), but you'll usually still be able to use a shade over 3GB of RAM. Buying more RAM than that is pointless. Noting you're using Lightroom, more RAM is very likely to help unless you're only doing fairly simple tasks with it. |
Erayd (23) | ||
| 1159638 | 2010-12-07 05:09:00 | Ok, so while extra ram may be useful, Lightroom and Nikon will be restrained by XP itself. Thanks for your quick reply. Assuming this over worked laptop can take some more ram, might up it a little more and see if that helps. | PinoyKiw (9675) | ||
| 1159639 | 2010-12-07 06:06:00 | Ok, so while extra ram may be useful, Lightroom and Nikon will be restrained by XP itself. Yep. More ram should definitely help though :D. | Erayd (23) | ||
| 1159640 | 2010-12-07 20:13:00 | Personally, I would suspect that you are more cpu bound than memory bound. Check cpu loading first - easier and cheaper. | linw (53) | ||
| 1159641 | 2010-12-07 21:21:00 | I know that WindowsXP can only see a max of 2gb . Nothing to do with what version of Windows . Its the 32bit versions that can't see 4GB (you get around 3 . 5 ish) . 64bit sees more . Not whether it's XP, Vista, whatever . |
pctek (84) | ||
| 1159642 | 2010-12-07 21:24:00 | Personally, I would suspect that you are more cpu bound than memory bound. Check cpu loading first - easier and cheaper. I would suggest that upgrading a CPU is much more difficult and expensive than RAM. With the RAM you just clip it in to place. With the CPU you have to worry about the pins bending, the thermal paste, putting the HSF back on correctly. That, and the CPU sits idle most of the time while working with photoshop / lightworks. It's RAM that makes a significant difference :) |
Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 1159643 | 2010-12-07 21:49:00 | I wasn't suggesting that the cpu could be replaced! | linw (53) | ||
| 1159644 | 2010-12-07 22:00:00 | Supplementary question.. I have XP Home SP3. 1 x 2GB ram stick & one empty slot. Does that mean I can fit another 2GB stick, the computer will accept it & work, taking as much of the 4GB of ram that it needs? Would it need anything else doing, bios or suchlike. Would it need to be the same brand of DDR2 ram stick? TIA PJ | Poppa John (284) | ||
| 1 2 3 | |||||