32 bit XP will only recognize 3.5 GB of RAM of the installed 4 GB. The 64
bit version of XP will recognize and use the full 4 GB of RAM.
--
--DaveW
"Mac Cool" <Mac@2cool.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A9EC1B2B2C4MacCool@130.133.1.4...
>I understand that for some reason it will only recognize about 3.5GB but
> I've read different explanations as to why. According to MS website, XP
> will use 4 GB. So what's the deal, should I go with 4GB? It's only $30
> more than 2GB. When I use the memory configurator doohickies they only
> find compatible memory up to 2GB for my ECS 6100SM but maybe that doesn't
> mean anything.
> IF it was such a "100% stable" (??) opsys, why do I have to reboot my
> work machine daily (or more) just to be able to print MS Word docs?
Maybe you have a junky computer, maybe you don't know what you're doing,
maybe you have an inept IT dept. I just retired a five year old Dell that
was my daily workstation, in five years XP didn't crash once.
Your entire post is full of tired myths and worn out cliches that linux
users have been spreading for over a decade.
class_a:
> Sorry, but XP is most certainly not a 100% stable OS.
False. Maybe your computer is infected with spyware or maybe you didn't
do your research and have a driver conflict or maybe you just used a
cheap PSU.
> work (in a 24/7 environment) and each work station has to be rebooted
> once or twice a week due to various problems that constantly crop up
Maybe you aren't managing the machines very well, more likely your users
are mucking around where they shouldn't. Replace XP with linux then.
> boxes in work) and I have had uptimes in the 100+days range, which
> would have been longer only I did a kernel upgrade that necessitated
> a reboot.
Look, the no reboot thing on linux is a myth (as you just admitted) and
second, rebooting once in a blue moon is not big deal. I shut down XP
about twice a month otherwise it runs 24/7 and I only need to reboot if
I upgrade drivers (maybe once a year) or the occasional MS update may
require a reboot (not as often as you try to make it out to be). 100
days should be no problem even for linux, on XP it would be
>> There are several times as much software available for XP,
>
> That I don't buy at all.
But other people do. Whether you buy it or not doesn't negate the fact.
Sourceforge is great, the opensource movement is awesome but the problem
with linux is that the effort is so fractured. A new distro comes out
every other day and each year you read some media article about the
newest hottest distro that will unseat Windows then it just fades away.
The condition is worsened by overzealous users such as yourself that
grossly exaggerate linux' capabilities.
> Name me an application, any application, and I should be able to find
> a FREE linux alternative that will do the same thing as an expensive
> Windoze version.
Usenet binary application. Professional level vector graphics program.
>> it has better hardware compatibility,
>
> Really? Have you tried some older hardware on XP? Some of it
> doesn't work (due to a lack of XP drivers), but does in the latest
> linux distro as it is supported at kernel level!
So linux supports obsolete hardware. Have you considered that the
hardware is obsolete because no one wants to use it.
And yet linux was years behind MS supporting such commonplace items as
usb mice, wireless mice, some popular graphics cards and firewire
external drives, just to name a few off the top of my head. linux will
no doubt continue to be behind the curve going forward.
>> requires less work to make work
>
> Now I know you are kidding (or a troll). XP needs a HUGE amount more
> work to keep running when compared to linux.
Anyone who installs linux will know you for a liar within the hour. Go
ahead and cry troll, because that and your myths are all you have.
>> and has better support by huge margin.
>
> Again, don't make me laugh.
You should laugh at the pathetic support linux has. If you have a
problem it will involve visiting half a dozen forums or newsgroups while
a few people give you half clues and the rest reply RTFM. Not to mention
the next to worthless documentation.
> Linux? It's usually patched the same day the flaw is discovered.
Sure and the check is in the mail.
> Tell me, do you run anti-virus software? Yes? Why is that? I don't
> because I don't need to.
Why would you need to, almost all the spyware, viruses and whatnot are
written by linux nerds when they're not busy fixing linux.
> riddled with viruses due to a major flaw in the security structure of
> the OS at the most basic level.
And yet, the only people I know who get infections are clueless users
who do stupid things. It's true, most windows users are clueless about
computers and especially security, this is not MS fault.
> Because my linux box is more stable
Perhaps you should write a post and we can help diagnose your problem,
most likely spyware, a driver conflict or cheap psu.
> and thus requires less work
We can probably help fix that.
> and is faster(!)
Probably can fix that too.
> due to a more efficient OS
LOL
> I have MORE time to get out in the sun and to meet my neighbors.
> I have a laptop that came with Windows XP media center. I shrunk the
> partition and loaded Opensuse 10.3 Linux. Opensuse automatically
> created a dual boot menu so I can use either operating system. I always
> use Opensuse. It never breaks or hangs on me and I don't have to reboot
> it fifty times to do upgrades. You never have to reboot it for installs
> and upgrades unless it's a kernel upgrade which are not often.
> Everytime you have to pass gas you have to reboot Windows XP.
If not rebooting (which is not true for any distro I've used) is the best
you can do, you should just quit now. If you're gonna step up then come
with something besides the same tired decade old myths, class a already
covered those for you.
Mac Cool wrote:
> nobody >:
>
>> IF it was such a "100% stable" (??) opsys, why do I have to reboot my
>> work machine daily (or more) just to be able to print MS Word docs?
>
> Maybe you have a junky computer, maybe you don't know what you're doing,
> maybe you have an inept IT dept. I just retired a five year old Dell that
> was my daily workstation, in five years XP didn't crash once.
Pooter is a fairly new Gateway cow. I think I know what I'm doing (mostly).
Inept IT is most likely. When they roll out system changes, it's
guaranteed that at least one of your most-needed apps will have
problems, at the minimum. One of the last "security updates" killed off
the COM port on the laptops we use to address/maintain our SONET
network, telephone switches, and LM radio equipment. It even disabled
Device Mangler on some machines so that we couldn't even see what
happened to the COM port.
What scares me it that there's a high probability that IT will be my new
home at work. My shoulders and back have had it from pulling cable and
installing radios, so it looks like they'll have to move me. Small plum
though, they'll have to send me to school for an A+ cert on their dime.
> Mac Cool wrote:
>> class_a:
>>
>>>> Why would I want less functionality and stability than I
>>>> already have with XP?
>>> You're kidding, right?
>>
>> Why would I be kidding. XP is a 100% stable OS with far more
>> functionality and compatibility than any linux distro.
>
> Sorry, but XP is most certainly not a 100% stable OS. I use XP in
> work (in a 24/7 environment) and each work station has to be
> rebooted once or twice a week due to various problems that
> constantly crop up and which never give enough information in the
> error messages to fix. OTOH, I use linux at home (heavily,
> running more apps than the XP boxes in work) and I have had
> uptimes in the 100+days range, which would have been longer only I
> did a kernel upgrade that necessitated a reboot.
>
>> There are several times as much software available for XP,
>
> That I don't buy at all.
Of course you don't, troll.
>
>
> Path: nlpi102-int.nbdc.sbc.com!nlpi062.nbdc.sbc.com!prodigy.com! nlpi057.nbdc.sbc.com!prodigy.net!nx01.iad01.newsho sting.com!newshosting.com!216.196.98.140.MISMATCH! border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!lo cal02.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news. comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 15:46:57 -0500
> Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 16:48:35 -0400
> From: class_a <class_a comcast.net>
> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080421)
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
> Subject: Re: Is it worth buying 4GB RAM for an XP machine?
> References: <Xns9A9EC1B2B2C4MacCool 130.133.1.4> <482b959a$0$3395$4c368faf roadrunner.com> <Xns9A9EE8D73BFD7MacCool 130.133.1.4> <m9SdnRwhQ8-hkrHVnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d comcast.com> <Xns9A9F62E5ED9CDMacCool 130.133.1.4>
> In-Reply-To: <Xns9A9F62E5ED9CDMacCool 130.133.1.4>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Message-ID: <U9udnSGXk-fcPLHVnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d comcast.com>
> Lines: 56
> X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 76.106.5.189
> X-Trace: sv3-aGUiieneThJ6WWS99fsWDAlSX/ppxr6RkpbE5mNNB5ImTq6eKxOXH0wuL7srCfycLi10qaM5EPN8 R93!ebf+nSRy376a2hgxIz34QFoyzgF1GO2LSbt4L1HWfmZVgi gn0aUBpN9cq3qm8dXJ++ljqydF/fdx!/r8ncBc65aySVbx06gj4h2sv2f7t
> X-Complaints-To: abuse comcast.net
> X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca comcast.net
> X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
> X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
> X-Postfilter: 1.3.39
> Bytes: 3941
> Xref: prodigy.net alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:506392
> X-Received-Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 16:46:59 EDT (nlpi102-int.nbdc.sbc.com)
>
> Mac Cool wrote:
>> Claude Hopper
>>
>>> Get 4 gig. It will come in handy when you convert to Linux and a
>>> dual boot machine.
Says a Linux Lunatic.
>> Why would I want less functionality and stability than I already
>> have with XP? The only thing I get with linux is nerd cred and
>> headaches. No thanks. The only reason linux continues is that it
>> gives nerds an excuse to avoid the sun and their neighbors.
>
>
> Linux continues nowadays for at least two reasons:
>
> 1) It satisfies people who want a rationally and tastefully
> designed OS, including those who grew up on Unix. This you call
> nerd cred, I guess.
I think the motive "giving nerds a reason to avoid the sun and their
neighbors" is most fitting. On the other hand... if you can't afford
to buy a copy of Windows and you're too honest to steal it, you have
my respect.
> 2) It brings large savings to those who need a lot of copies:
> government, point-of-sale, schools, supercomputers.
>
> Those are footholds from which Linux will not be dislodged.
Those account for a tiny percentage of personal computer users.
The only hope for Linux is to continue as a server operating system,
and that's probably questionable.
> Windows is at the top of the hill. Its position is formidable,
Its position is held firmly in place by a positive feedback loop
(programmers <-> consumers) and network effects. The only known
threat to Windows was Java.
> but not as secure and being slowly but continually weakened.
Hey, that's what Microsoft claimed during the big antitrust trial
"We don't hold monopoly power! Linux is threatening us!"
And the cow jumped over the moon.
A long time ago when I first came on the Internet, I was in a
discussion group reading two guys talking about Linux versus
Windows. The argument from Linux Lunatics then sounds exactly the
same as it does now. Linux is still the Holy Grail of personal
computer operating systems.
Claude Hopper (11) 5. ? <boobooililililil roadrunner.com> wrote:
> Mac Cool wrote:
>> I understand that for some reason it will only recognize about 3.5GB but
>> I've read different explanations as to why. According to MS website, XP
>> will use 4 GB. So what's the deal, should I go with 4GB? It's only $30
>> more than 2GB. When I use the memory configurator doohickies they only
>> find compatible memory up to 2GB for my ECS 6100SM but maybe that doesn't
>> mean anything.
> Get 4 gig. It will come in handy when you convert to Linux and a dual
> boot machine.
> That I don't buy at all. Have you heard of Sourceforge? More linux
> based software there than you'd know what to do with, and it's free!
> Name me an application, any application, and I should be able to find a
> FREE linux alternative that will do the same thing as an expensive
> Windoze version.
You are at best on very shaky ground when you say that. Actually it is
against both common sense and experience.
You "should be able to" do that ten or twenty years from now---not now.
Re: Is it worth buying 4GB RAM for an XP machine? 
Linear Mode
