Can XP handle 2x 2GB

normal 32bit xp will only see 3.5gb of that

not sure if 64bit xp can see more... i think it can
 
3GB is about all you will get with XP.....

With 64-bit Vista, you can see as much as the mobo will support for right now. I have been running tests this last week paging into 8GB of RAM on a Vista 64-bit system. 4GB is our test base for mobo reviews as of now as well since it is actually usable.
 
Windows XP 64 will see all 4GB of RAM. Since it is a 64 bit OS it will utilize the same bit path as anything Windows Vista 64 will support. I've tested it myself. A lot of people say bad things about XP 64, however, there has recently been an update service pack to it not too long ago so I'm anticpating trying this. I havnt heard any issues since the service pack so hopefully Microsoft got their act together on this OS.

To answer your question. XP 32 bit will only support approx 3.5GB of that 4GB. Is it worth it? i would say so, 1.5GB over your normal amount isnt a bad deal. Especially at the price you can get DDR2 RAM nowadays.
 
Xp will be a backup for me, I'm going to try and stay on Vista. As long as XP runs its doesnt matter if I loose half a gig of ram.

Thanks all!
 
I will go for 4 GB in my new PC even I am running XP-32 for now.

DDR2 memory is not expensive now. Furthermore, it will be a hassle to add 2 GB later because you may not able to find the same brand/model later.
 
XP-64 is a bad choice for several reasons. First, it's not really XP, as it's based on the Server 2003 codebase. Vista x64 is very much just a 64-bit version of Vista x32. This greatly improves application compatibility and driver support. Second, XP-64 was never released to major OEMs or to any retail channels. It's as if Microsoft released it as a technical curiosity rather than a full fledged OS. Sure, it can be useful in limited computing environments (I use it, for example, on my main development workstation at work due to having IIS6, the ability to output 64-bit binary, and for it's ability to run VS2003 w/o issue.) I would never use it on a home machine. Compatibility is lacking, and no one is really supporting the operating system at an adequate level.

Mark.
 
Markyip1 said:
XP-64 is a bad choice for several reasons. First, it's not really XP, as it's based on the Server 2003 codebase. Vista x64 is very much just a 64-bit version of Vista x32. This greatly improves application compatibility and driver support. Second, XP-64 was never released to major OEMs or to any retail channels. It's as if Microsoft released it as a technical curiosity rather than a full fledged OS. Sure, it can be useful in limited computing environments (I use it, for example, on my main development workstation at work due to having IIS6, the ability to output 64-bit binary, and for it's ability to run VS2003 w/o issue.) I would never use it on a home machine. Compatibility is lacking, and no one is really supporting the operating system at an adequate level.

Mark.
Click to expand...
Pretty much coincides with all I've read based on XP 64
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top