Can you have too much memory?

I'm running Windows XP with 250mb of RAM and I want to double it or even triple it. Is it possible to have too much memory?

I'm running Windows XP with 250mb of RAM and I want to double it or even triple it. Is it possible to have too much memory?


I don't remember.

It's like having "too big of tits" or "too long a dick."

Depends on what you need the RAM for. High end programs, for example, graphics and CAD need that kind of RAM. Do you use those kind of programs?

I'm running Windows XP with 250mb of RAM and I want to double it or even triple it. Is it possible to have too much memory?


I don't remember.

It's like having "too big of tits" or "too long a dick."

Depends on what you need the RAM for. High end programs, for example, graphics and CAD need that kind of RAM. Do you use those kind of programs?


I'm getting into graphics with Paint Shop Pro plus some CAD, mostly sheds and barns plus a ton of 'documents' and genealogy and I'm starting a book on family history.

I'm getting into graphics with Paint Shop Pro plus some CAD, mostly sheds and barns plus a ton of 'documents' and genealogy and I'm starting a book on family history.


Paint Shop Pro doesn't need more than 256, in fact, that's excessive for it, IMO. I've never done CAD, but it's all based on "rendering" the final image and doing the calculations...everything is vector graphics (mostly) with CAD. Just add another 256 if you feel it starting to "slow down." I wouldn't make a "super computer" out of it right yet.

(Side note) If I was REALLY into graphics, I'd go Mac.

[The Guardian]

Lonestar: For Windows XP or any other NT-class operating system, the answer is no. It will use as much as you put on the system and the hardware can address. My personal workstation (Windows 2000) has 512M of RAM in it.

Win 9x (95,98,ME) will top out in utilizing around 96MB, so any RAM beyond that is as useful as the screendoor on the submarine.

Win 9x (95,98,ME) will top out in utilizing around 96MB, so any RAM beyond that is as useful as the screendoor on the submarine.


What about for "rendering," Lance? I suppose you can render to file. That speeds it up 3X's rather than rendering to screen. <shrugs>

Lonestar: For Windows XP or any other NT-class operating system, the answer is no. It will use as much as you put on the system and the hardware can address. My personal workstation (Windows 2000) has 512M of RAM in it.

Win 9x (95,98,ME) will top out in utilizing around 96MB, so any RAM beyond that is as useful as the screendoor on the submarine.


Yes I remembered that about Windows98 so that's why I asked about XP. I'll go with badnews suggestion and bump it up another 250 that should be enough.

thanks guys!

[The Guardian]

Here's the catch. Most files and images that we work with in high-end programs are considerably bigger than will fit in the computer's memory.

What will not fit, is swapped in and out from a swap file on your hard drive. The bigger your RAM in XP, the less the computer has to spend swapping. That is why when you are working with big files you will typically hear/see the computer hit the drive when you page thru it or manipulate a different piece. And memory is far far faster than drives, even the <10ns drives we have today.

Rendering, OTOH, is a CPU/graphics processor intensive process. You can speed this up by:

1. Having an absolute kick-ass graphics card. With lots of memory and AGP. You will spend dollars for this, but if you are into serious graphics, it will be worth it.

2. Multiple processors. NT O/S's will utilize multiple processors on the motherboard to multi-process tasks. (My workstation has 2 866's on it) For not horribly unreasonable dollars, I think you can get a MB that will carry 4 CPU's. Anything more and you are talking server and lots of dollars. Do beware that this can limit your upgradability of the system because Intel is fond of changing processor sockets.

And if you really want to speed things up, go with SCSI architecture over IDE. The latest ultra-wide SCSI will support a sustained data transfer rate of 160MB whereas IDE tops out around 33MB I believe.

[nickg]

It's like having "too long a dick."


i'm sure my wife would agree.

[Meshuga Mikey]

Yea if you buy more than your machine has slots to hold ~!!! :o