3.25GB of RAM instead of 4GB?

So why would the following setup show 2.75mb vs 3.0mb or 3.25mb?

680i LT Motherboard
E8400
2x2GB PC2 800
8800GT 256MB
Creative Audigy 2
 
I'm very surprised that it's Vista's GUI that makes your eyes bleed, and not XP's. For me, it's the other way around. Unless there is a way to literally transform XP's GUI to Vista's, I won't be using XP.
Click to expand...
Heh, guess I'm pretty different. :) If Vista's GUI suits you, that's cool. (No sarcasm intended) I just want simplicity by GUI. I wouldn't even mind using Ubuntu if it weren't for how the GUI is now. I'd probably fall in love with Mac OS X's GUI (and therefore the OS as well).

So then why the fuck are you telling us this? If you don't like too bad, or you can suck it up and try it for more than five minutes.
Click to expand...
Pardon me, but I tried Vista for at least a few hours and I have found that it's the GUI that kills me. :) To explain this, it's simply the individualistic differences between you and I. My perspective and niche is quite different from yours and perhaps most people's; I hope that doesn't offend you. :p

The icons in XP are distinct from each other. In Vista, all the icons blend in together -- therefore it takes an extra bit of time to figure out whether that file is a folder you're looking at or something else. The shapes make a difference too. For example, the difference in shape between the My Computer icon and a folder icon in Vista is pretty distinct, that's one factor. But then the second factor is the shades of colors and uniqueness between the two icons (by color). They blend in too much together in my opinion, thus would prove potential hinderance to my productivity.

/me shrugs

This is just me. If you don't like 'me,' great! :p Doesn't hurt me a bit to disagree.
 
This is not entirely off topic but when I installed 4 gigs of RAM into my computer i knew that the OS (XP32) could not address all of the RAM. But my simple installation of RAM turned out to be a nightmare.
For some reason, the new module that i installed was running at a faster (or whatever you call it) latency than the rest of my RAM and that and maybe some other factor brought on by the installation was causing my PC to crash incessantly. Is there something else i need to know about the 32bit limitation of my 4 gigs? I need to know so that i can promptly return my RAM to FRY's.
 
monkoosbob0 said:
This is not entirely off topic but when I installed 4 gigs of RAM into my computer i knew that the OS (XP32) could not address all of the RAM. But my simple installation of RAM turned out to be a nightmare.
For some reason, the new module that i installed was running at a faster (or whatever you call it) latency than the rest of my RAM and that and maybe some other factor brought on by the installation was causing my PC to crash incessantly. Is there something else i need to know about the 32bit limitation of my 4 gigs? I need to know so that i can promptly return my RAM to FRY's.
Click to expand...

You may have just gotten bad or defective RAM.
 
Haha, see that's what i thought so i decided that i should run memtest, but you wouldn't believe how difficult that turned out to be. I DL'd it and got ready to run it when i remembered that it has to be run from dos, and the last time i was in my computer i forgot to plug my floppy drive back in, and anyway i didn't have any floppies. (who does nowadays?) So pretty much i still haven't run memtest and you could very well be right... except that i am writing this on the very same computer and wouldn't it not work at all if the memory was bad?
 
monkoosbob0 said:
Haha, see that's what i thought so i decided that i should run memtest, but you wouldn't believe how difficult that turned out to be. I DL'd it and got ready to run it when i remembered that it has to be run from dos, and the last time i was in my computer i forgot to plug my floppy drive back in, and anyway i didn't have any floppies. (who does nowadays?) So pretty much i still haven't run memtest and you could very well be right... except that i am writing this on the very same computer and wouldn't it not work at all if the memory was bad?
Click to expand...

You could've just use the CD version of Memtest.

PCs will boot and work with defective RAM. Though you'll see constant crashes, BSODs, and other stability problems.
 
good god, there's a cd version...
yeah that makes sense about my PC working b/c when i run programs that utilize copious amounts of RAM that's when i see the most instability.
Man i should have just saved my money and bought my graphics card instead of waiting. I was right about to my a HD 4850, when i decided to hold off for another week and by some RAM then.
 
The Vista debate is so off-topic... yet I find myself compelled to make one comment...
Cerulean said:
Pardon me, but I tried Vista for at least a few hours and I have found that it's the GUI that kills me. :)
Click to expand...
When I started "playing" with the Beta release, I couldn't stand it. It was like re-living Win-ME all over again! :p I absolutely hated the GUI, compared to XP.
--BUT--
After a couple weeks of testing, it started to grow on me a bit. By the release of RC1, I was very comfortable with the Vista GUI. Actually, working in XP (in my main rig and work rig) I found myself longing for some of the simple Vista features that were absent from XP.

So, take it from me... a few hours, or even a few days, is not enough time to adequately assess Vista. Give it a chance. You may find you start to appreciate it, as I did. Or, you may continue to hate it, but at least you can say you really gave it a fair chance.

BTW, I am neither a Vista "hater" nor a Vista "lover". I still run XP in all my rigs, even though I do own copies of Vista Premium and Vista Ultimate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top