PDA

View Full Version : To Ram or not Ram....



PinoyKiw
07-12-2010, 04:58 PM
Just a general question.......

I have at the moment, a older Toshiba Satellite, exact model unknown right this moment. Doesn't really matter.

Runs WinXP Professional. Standard 32bit.

Currently has 1.5gb of Ram.

Goes great when using Office, Email, most other applications.

Slows down a bit when using either Lightroom 3 or NikonNX. Especially with NikonNX

I know that WindowsXP can only see a max of 2gb.

Assuming that the mother board can take more than 2gb of ram and right now I don't know if it can or not and for the purpose of this question, it doesn't matter, WindowsXP can only see and use 2gb, but what about Lightroom and NikonNX, would a increase of ram be of any benefit for those programs in making things go a little quicker/smoother or are they restrained by the max of 2gb that XP itself see's and uses.

Thanks

gcarmich
07-12-2010, 05:04 PM
Windows XP can see 3+ GB of ram, depends on how much is taken up by other mappings such as the graphics card. 3.25+ GB is about normal.

The programs your talking about will be restrained by the max amount of ram that windows can see.

Erayd
07-12-2010, 05:06 PM
Windows XP 32bit will quite happily see up to 4GB of address space. There are a few things other than RAM that use this (most notably the video card), but you'll usually still be able to use a shade over 3GB of RAM. Buying more RAM than that is pointless.

Noting you're using Lightroom, more RAM is very likely to help unless you're only doing fairly simple tasks with it.

PinoyKiw
07-12-2010, 05:09 PM
Ok, so while extra ram may be useful, Lightroom and Nikon will be restrained by XP itself. Thanks for your quick reply. Assuming this over worked laptop can take some more ram, might up it a little more and see if that helps.

Erayd
07-12-2010, 06:06 PM
Ok, so while extra ram may be useful, Lightroom and Nikon will be restrained by XP itself. Yep. More ram should definitely help though :D.

linw
08-12-2010, 08:13 AM
Personally, I would suspect that you are more cpu bound than memory bound. Check cpu loading first - easier and cheaper.

pctek
08-12-2010, 09:21 AM
I know that WindowsXP can only see a max of 2gb.


Nothing to do with what version of Windows. Its the 32bit versions that can't see 4GB (you get around 3.5 ish). 64bit sees more.

Not whether it's XP, Vista, whatever.

Chilling_Silence
08-12-2010, 09:24 AM
Personally, I would suspect that you are more cpu bound than memory bound. Check cpu loading first - easier and cheaper.

I would suggest that upgrading a CPU is much more difficult and expensive than RAM.
With the RAM you just clip it in to place. With the CPU you have to worry about the pins bending, the thermal paste, putting the HSF back on correctly.

That, and the CPU sits idle most of the time while working with photoshop / lightworks. It's RAM that makes a significant difference :)

linw
08-12-2010, 09:49 AM
I wasn't suggesting that the cpu could be replaced!

Poppa John
08-12-2010, 10:00 AM
Supplementary question.. I have XP Home SP3. 1 x 2GB ram stick & one empty slot. Does that mean I can fit another 2GB stick, the computer will accept it & work, taking as much of the 4GB of ram that it needs? Would it need anything else doing, bios or suchlike. Would it need to be the same brand of DDR2 ram stick? TIA PJ

Speedy Gonzales
08-12-2010, 10:05 AM
If it supports dual channel, it'd be better if you get an identical stick of ram. If the mobo can take up to 4 GB, it should be fine if you put another 2 GB stick in

Chilling_Silence
08-12-2010, 10:23 AM
Poppa John, grab the Crucial RAM scanner from www.crucial.com and post us the link to your results :)

Poppa John
08-12-2010, 10:29 AM
http://www.crucial.com/systemscanner/viewscanbyid.aspx?id=85FFE53E31D926C3

Is this what you mean Chill?

I don't think that the XP Home I have will do 64 bit, & if it does i am sure I will have problems with other installed programs. Such is my luck!!! PJ

gary67
08-12-2010, 10:37 AM
Thought I would run that tool to see what it would say apparently I can have 41Gig yet I only have two slots on my mobo now where to get hold of two 20.5Gig DDR2 Ram sticks

Snorkbox
08-12-2010, 10:57 AM
Are you sure you ran the correct tool?

Clicking the link above does not run the tool. You need to download it.

Speedy Gonzales
08-12-2010, 11:16 AM
Looks like they need to update the certificate in that tool, its expired. Even tho it runs

PinoyKiw
08-12-2010, 12:08 PM
Nothing to do with what version of Windows. Its the 32bit versions that can't see 4GB (you get around 3.5 ish). 64bit sees more.



Had it fixed in my mind that 2gb was the upper limit of XP.

Thanks everyone for your input.

Chilling, I might try that ram link as well to see what that coughs up.

PinoyKiw
08-12-2010, 12:15 PM
Poppa John, grab the Crucial RAM scanner from www.crucial.com and post us the link to your results :)

Thanks Chilling....tried that scanner myself.

Not dual something or other, cannot remember exact wording and I am limited to 2gb of ram on the current motherboard set up so I might still go ahead and swap out the 512 for a 1gb pending the replacements at a later date of these older laptops.

Chilling_Silence
08-12-2010, 12:36 PM
Yes PJ, that's the one, you're right in saying you can whack in another 2GB DDR2 stick of RAM and you'll be away laughing.

PinoyKiw, let us know how you get on :)

Poppa John
08-12-2010, 03:39 PM
Are you sure you ran the correct tool?

Clicking the link above does not run the tool. You need to download it.

Chill seems to have got the data from the link? PJ

Poppa John
08-12-2010, 03:40 PM
Yes PJ, that's the one, you're right in saying you can whack in another 2GB DDR2 stick of RAM and you'll be away laughing.

PinoyKiw, let us know how you get on :)

Chill, thanks for that. I assume that it has to be an identical stick. PJ

Nomad
08-12-2010, 04:07 PM
Capture NX is not really liked by some Nikon shooters. It's known to be slow and a clunky GUI.

I find that NX is a bit more fussy and that is NX is not really a start to end solution, like dust spots cannot be addressed other than shooting a reference and if the software can pick them out. So for me I end up using Photoshop as well.

RAM could help but I find that NX might want a faster CPU as well ...

Snorkbox
08-12-2010, 04:14 PM
Chill seems to have got the data from the link? PJ

Yes. But if someone else clicks on the link they will get YOUR data and not the data for their PC.

Ideally you want to get an identical stick or it won't run as dual data rate.

Chilling_Silence
08-12-2010, 06:17 PM
Yes but that's just the data for his RAM details.

Any stick will work, but matching as Snorkbox mentioned is ideal.

Chilling_Silence
08-12-2010, 06:17 PM
Yes but that's just the data for his RAM details.

Any stick will work, but matching as Snorkbox mentioned is ideal.

1101
09-12-2010, 08:38 AM
XP memory management is very poor above 1G. So over 1G gives negligible little
speed increase, in MOST cases
Also some older machines actually slow down(yes) if you stick over 1G in.

linw
09-12-2010, 08:57 AM
I'm with 1101 but am open to being surprised!

Chilling_Silence
09-12-2010, 11:23 AM
What makes you say it's poor over 1GB?

Heck these days I wouldnt run XP with less than 1GB. By the time you cold-boot the OS, throw in Anti-Virus, fire up a browser window or two, you're already over 1GB of utilization and then it's swapping to your pagefile and will be slow as hell...

Erayd
09-12-2010, 04:26 PM
XP memory management is very poor above 1G. So over 1G gives negligible little
speed increase, in MOST cases
Also some older machines actually slow down(yes) if you stick over 1G in.I can't say I agree with that. XP's memory management is crap, period - but adding more than 1GB of ram will certainly help a lot in a large majority of cases.