Installing 64-bit Vi$ta on Intel motherboard with >2G RAM?

Could you do it?

On my nForce 570 Ultra board, I could not.

--
@~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (Xubuntu 8.04) Linux 2.6.25.6
^ ^ 22:17:01 up 12:07 3 users load average: 1.00 1.02 1.00
? ? (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...ub_addressesa/

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:19:03 +0800
"Man-wai Chang ToDie (33.6k)" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Could you do it?
>
> On my nForce 570 Ultra board, I could not.
>

You are aware that Vista maxes out, performance wise, at exactly 1.5GB
of physical RAM. Right? -Dave

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 11:21:04 +0100
Conor <conor_turton@hotmail.com> wrote:

> In article <20080611223725.4029b8bf.noway@nohow.not>, Dave says...
>
> > You are aware that Vista maxes out, performance wise, at exactly
> > 1.5GB of physical RAM. Right? -Dave
> >
> No because you're wrong.
>

No point arguing with me. Tell it to Microsoft. If you think
Microsoft is wrong about that, please explain why you think that
Microsoft is wrong.

In other words, my stating that 1.5GB of RAM is where Vista maxes out,
performance wise, is not my opinion. It is a fact, according to
Microsoft. But if Microsoft is wrong on that, it wouldn't shock me too
much. -Dave

> >
> > No point arguing with me. Tell it to Microsoft. If you think
> > Microsoft is wrong about that, please explain why you think that
> > Microsoft is wrong.
> >
> > In other words, my stating that 1.5GB of RAM is where Vista maxes
> > out, performance wise, is not my opinion. It is a fact, according
> > to Microsoft. But if Microsoft is wrong on that, it wouldn't shock
> > me too much. -Dave
> >
> PLenty of other sites that do benchmarking have said different,
> that's all.
>
> --
> Conor

Hmmmm...I'd be interested to know what software was running other than
the benchmark software. According to Microsoft, Vista will not run any
better if you install more than 1.5GB of RAM. You can slow down Vista
by giving it LESS than 1.5GB of RAM, but you can't speed it up by
adding more RAM to it, if you are at 1.5GB already. But obviously
there are some applications that can use more than 1.5GB of RAM.
It's just that your average home user (or even gamer) doesn't even
know what these apps. ARE, let alone need to run them. -Dave

> You are aware that Vista maxes out, performance wise, at exactly 1.5GB
> of physical RAM. Right? -Dave

Actually, I am referring to KB 929777. I don't have an Intel
motherboard to verify it. SO I asked.

--
@~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (Xubuntu 8.04) Linux 2.6.25.6
^ ^ 12:24:01 up 2:18 2 users load average: 1.01 1.10 1.06
? ? (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...ub_addressesa/

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 12:09:46 -0400
"Bob Knowlden" <nkbob@comcast.net> wrote:

> Can you supply a reference (link) to that?
>

It's built into Vista. If you run Vista (I triple boot Vista home
premium), run the performance index. It'll give you a numerical rating
of your hardware, based on the "weakest link". In other words, if your
video card scores 4, it's not going to matter that your hard drive
scored 6, your performance rating of your hardware will be 4. You
achieve top score in RAM with exactly 1.5GB, and a lower score
(variable) with less than 1.5GB. In other words, 2GB or 4GB or 8GB is
no better than 1.5GB, according to Vista (aka Microsoft programmers).

But then I've never seen a 1.5GB stick of RAM. So for the average
computer builder, I'd suggest using exactly 2GB of RAM (1 or 2
sticks). Even if you are a gamer, as no game written so far is going
to use that much RAM anyway. -Dave

In article <20080611223725.4029b8bf.noway@nohow.not>, Dave says...

> You are aware that Vista maxes out, performance wise, at exactly 1.5GB
> of physical RAM. Right? -Dave
>
No because you're wrong.

--
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams

In article <20080612085206.7c070b56.noway@nohow.not>, Dave says...
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 11:21:04 +0100
> Conor <conor_turton@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <20080611223725.4029b8bf.noway@nohow.not>, Dave says...
> >
> > > You are aware that Vista maxes out, performance wise, at exactly
> > > 1.5GB of physical RAM. Right? -Dave
> > >
> > No because you're wrong.
> >
>
> No point arguing with me. Tell it to Microsoft. If you think
> Microsoft is wrong about that, please explain why you think that
> Microsoft is wrong.
>
> In other words, my stating that 1.5GB of RAM is where Vista maxes out,
> performance wise, is not my opinion. It is a fact, according to
> Microsoft. But if Microsoft is wrong on that, it wouldn't shock me too
> much. -Dave
>
PLenty of other sites that do benchmarking have said different, that's
all.

--
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams

In article <20080612110815.4e7ab9c0.noway@nohow.not>, Dave says...
>
> > >
> > > No point arguing with me. Tell it to Microsoft. If you think
> > > Microsoft is wrong about that, please explain why you think that
> > > Microsoft is wrong.
> > >
> > > In other words, my stating that 1.5GB of RAM is where Vista maxes
> > > out, performance wise, is not my opinion. It is a fact, according
> > > to Microsoft. But if Microsoft is wrong on that, it wouldn't shock
> > > me too much. -Dave
> > >
> > PLenty of other sites that do benchmarking have said different,
> > that's all.
> >
> > --
> > Conor
>
> Hmmmm...I'd be interested to know what software was running other than
> the benchmark software.

These were mostly gaming sites and I suppose gaming is software most
likely to hammer a system.

--
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams

Can you supply a reference (link) to that?

"Dave" <noway@nohow.not> wrote in message
news:20080611223725.4029b8bf.noway@nohow.not...
> On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:19:03 +0800
> "Man-wai Chang ToDie (33.6k)" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Could you do it?
>>
>> On my nForce 570 Ultra board, I could not.
>>
>
> You are aware that Vista maxes out, performance wise, at exactly 1.5GB
> of physical RAM. Right? -Dave