The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
3.25gb =! 4.0gb
Iceman.USAF
MajorEast CoastRegistered User regular
MajorEast CoastRegistered User regular
So, I built a new PC recently and it's wonderful. There is a slight problem, however, in that windows is only recognizing 3.25 gb of my 4gb of ram. I have 2x 2gb corsair XMS2 memory...windows vista (unactivated, for now, as I was using it on my laptop at school...I'll be switching my laptop back to XP pro and my desktop to vista, so I'm not trying to do anything shady here).
Any ideas? If need be I'll post the rest of my specs.
Any ideas? If need be I'll post the rest of my specs.
Iceman.USAF on
0
Posts
EDIT: I should clarify. 32 bit Windows can't recognize that much ram.
Edit: Not to mention the whole "4th gig is pointless in 32-bit OS" issue.
Is Vista 64 more legitimate than XP Pro? I remember having a hard time finding anything that worked for XP 64.
No, supports up to 8gb. It's got 4 slots. P5N32-E SLI.
Perhaps pointless right now, but I'll love it in a years time! lol
Ah. I only went that route because I ran into a chipset limit onetime myself. Basically just install 64bit Vista if you don't think you'll have any driver issues, then
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605/
Realistically, if you want to do gaming, 64 bit OS's like Vista still aren't all that widely supported, and even when they are they can sometimes lead to bugs and other problems. You're better off sticking with a 32-bit OS like XP or a 32-bit version of Vista for the time being.
It's probably going to be a few more years before 64-bit is more of an industry standard, at least for the home user software.
Going for a 64-bit OS at the moment is a bit like riiidddiiinnn' through, the DANGER ZOOOOONNNEEE!
!= is good, <> is also acceptable. What the hell uses =\=?
I am a freaking nerd.
I have no idea but most of the time I've seen that one.
*also prefers !=*
so if you want to switch to 64bit OS to take advantage of your ram it doesnt really matter all that much if you go with xp or vista... only reason why i have vista on one machine was out of curiosity... and i loathe that damn blue bar and green start button
A hulk's power is jumping.
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx#physical_memory_limits_windows_vista
PSN: super_emu
Xbox360 Gamertag: Emuchop
A little off topic but shit, I remember seeing that movie in the theatres.
Wii U - 'Nocero'
XBox ID - therealmasume
PS4 ID - realmasume
Top Gun is one of those films you think is so awesome as a kid, but once you're older you watch it and you think "How did I take this crap seriously?". Then you just laugh at how kitsch it all is.
the limit is 4gb addressable memory (or 2^32 locations) -- but this includes non-RAM memory, like VRAM and cache memory
!= comes from me being a CS major for 3 semesters. Then I went to Civil Engineering. Interesting eh? Still graduating on time!
Anyways, I'll try and pick up Vista 64 when I return to school...if they have it.
Is it something I can install right over normal Vista 32, or no?
Maths uses it. You know. Equals sign with a slash through it.
If you are using the green start button and blue bar as a symbol for Vista and your hatred towards it, carry on.
If you just don't like that color combination may I suggest right click desktop - Personalize - Window Color and Appearance - Graphite?
=/= is the proper mathematical symbol -- it represents "does not equal."
However, there was no way to replicate that in code without eating up another button, so they came up with != to be 2 keystrokes instead of =/='s 3.
One is mathematically correct, one is computer language correct. The point is, both are correct.
Well, =/= is an ASCII approximation of the correct symbol. The correct symbol is ≠. Most fonts have it, but you'd normally only see it on math-specific websites.
Edit: the point being that =/= is correct nowhere. In programming, you use !=, or sometimes /=, and in math you use ≠. Only forum posters use =/=. :P
Steam BoardGameGeek Twitter
Ah duh, obviously I know ≠, I thought that the =/= was used in programming somewhere, hence my confusion.
I am a freaking nerd.
I've got the "Plus" version of that board and I'm running 4GB on Vista Ultimate x64.
One thing to note is that a Vista key will work with either 32 or 64bit install media, but good luck finding 64bit install media. I had to buy 32bit and 64bit flavors to get my OEM discs.
Huh? I'm doing SLI in Vista x64.
Actually, 32bit high-end gaming systems are already irrelevant. Games crash when they hit the 4GB addressing limit in Vista and XP.
My teacher counted my pseudocode wrong because she had never seen != and had only ever seen ≠.
Which motherboard are you using? Most of the standard boards I see don't support SLI on vista 64bit properly , the OS runs glitchy and is unstable (graphical errors etc.)
It can be a real pain in the arse some times, and then in other times it can be the greatest thing ever.
Your teacher shouldn't be teaching anything to do with code, then.
3DS: 1650-8480-6786
Switch: SW-0653-8208-4705
I prefer ≠, personally.
They didn't come up with anything to represent the mathematical symbol. ! is a not operator, = is an equal operator. Thus != means "not equal".
Mentioned earlier: Asus P5N32-E SLI Plus. Seems fine. The only instabilities I had were with my factory OC'd 7800GTs not really being able to pull off the factory OC. Now I'm on dual 8800GT cards and I'm only having a problem with Hellgate London crashing.
Agreed, though she didn't take kindly to that suggestion.
Correct.
For example, if you put a bigger video card in, say go from a 512MB card to a 768MB, you'll see that a further 256MB of that system ram is now no longer read. So yes, it's total memory, not just the ram sticks you put in.
Actually iirc, that's not quite right, because the OS doesn't directly address the vram. A pci-e 16x video card will use more versus a pci-e 8x video card though, since the data buss is twice as large.
Regardless, a correlation to address space and video memory is there in Vista due to the way Microsoft does things now. The direct correlation is not there in Windows XP, though more hardware still eats more address space. Now, IIRC, a 32bit system should still support more than 4GB of RAM due to address translation, but individual 32bit applications can only address 4GB of memory and hardware I/O address ranges cut deeply into that. OS limitations only allow 2GB for 32bit applications and 2GB for I/O for each application and tweaking can only change that to be 1GB for I/O and 3GB for the application. As I understand it, RAM-limited multitasking will continue to improve with memory capacities over 4GB in a 32bit OS, while individual applications will not.
Don't even consider SLI in Vista if you aren't doing 64bit.
So in 32 bit architecture you can't get all 4gigs due to this addressable memory problem, however as MS states you do get about 3.12 gigs being read by the system... that's still over 50% more RAM vs a system with 2gigs... but the question is, is this increase worth it? I mean I am about to build a system and RAM is really cheap right now, so despite not getting max performance it still seems like a good idea to me to put 4 gigs in.
Am I crazy?
As far as performance goes, I've seen enough reports of a drop in performance to not bother personally. Probably something to do with the uneven amount of memory, so I just have a nice pair of 1GB stick in dual channel.