| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 107734 | 2010-02-28 03:13:00 | Memory & 32Bit | Driftwood (5551) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 862254 | 2010-03-05 04:26:00 | I installed Vista 32 bit on my system with 4GB of RAM. It told me I had 3.5GB. After installing SP2 it told me I have 4GB XP SP3 still says 3.5GB Don't know if Vista does that to make people happy, or it's actually now using the full amount. I expect it's just to stop people getting confused... |
Agent_24 (57) | ||
| 862255 | 2010-03-06 11:42:00 | Fairly sure nmercer covered memory reporting in an earlier thread. Less confusion as I remember it rather than actually using the reported amount. |
Sweep (90) | ||
| 862256 | 2010-03-06 19:19:00 | I read once that 64bit eats a bit more for itself than 32bit, so 4GB didn't necessarily work out better but it said if you had 6GB it was good. You're right, but saying it like that makes it sound like it's the be-all and end-all issue. AFAIK it uses around 50MB -> 100MB more, mostly just due to loading backwards-compatible 32-bit libs and the likes. The performance gains to be had, amongst other benefits of 64-bit would pretty much always make it worthwhile though. Don't know if Vista does that to make people happy, or it's actually now using the full amount. I expect it's just to stop people getting confused... Yup, pretty much, explaining to the masses the limitations of 32-bit is just too much of a PITA, so it's easier show how much is *in* there rather than how much it can actually honestly use. Fairly sure nmercer covered memory reporting in an earlier thread. Less confusion as I remember it rather than actually using the reported amount. Ayup :D |
Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 1 2 3 | |||||