-
Posts
-
It’s not an excuse at all, its common sense.MS Office was never design for home users, it a work tool for business.
MS Office was always designed for servers not average home pc.
The main problem is that when you buy a new product like MS Office, you read the requirements and it should work on your home computer, but it doesn’t or runs so slow its un-useable like in this case.
Then it’s a matter of fixing the problem after you have spend £400 buying the software pack without buying a new pc.
A ram up grade is normally the easy way to solve the problem.
Has for the dual core chips, maybe you can write computer programs for computers that don’t exist yet but most people can’t.
Computer programs do take about 1-3 years to develop, then another 6 months to go market, there not instant.
But its nice to know there are people who still believe computers are magical things like you.
I think you are still going off on a tangent for something that is blatantly obvious… OS systems up to and including XP do NOT support 4gb of RAM!
Ok let me think back on this.
When we all start using Windows 3.1, they told us all that we need 2 MB of ram and a 286 processor.
But only work well on 386 processor with 4 MB of ram.
Windows 95 needed 16 MB and 486 processor.
But only work when you use 32 MB ram.
Windows 98 needed Pentium and 64 MB ram.
Only work well on the higher Pentium with 128 MB
I think it was Window Millennium after that, but I didn’t buy it.
Windows XP was next, that need a Pentium 2 and 128 MB, but it worked better on Pentium 3 with 256 MB ram.
That take you back about 15 years.
About 5-6 ago they started making motherboards with flash bois that could be up graded.
I am sure that most motherboards that where build after 2002 can have there bois up graded to deal with any amount of ram.
So when you say that the OS systems can’t take higher rates of ram or handle it, you’re wrong.
Like most programs they will just hit the max operating level.
I still have a celeron 1.6-laptop 1gb ram with Windows 95 and MS office 6 on it, still works and it still the faster computer I have.
@sword wrote:
I think you are still going off on a tangent for something that is blatantly obvious… OS systems up to and including XP do NOT support 4gb of RAM!
In fact the ability to support a particular value of RAM is a function of the motherboard and not the installed Operating System.
Some of the cheaper M/B’s for example only have two memory slots and can support a maximum of 2Gb – other have 3 or 4 slots and can support higher RAM values. Usually the 4 slot type require matching RAM sticks inserted in alternate slots for them to function properly.
I think what you are referring to is Windows XP’s ability to display how much RAM is installed on the M/B. Ususally (but not always) this is maxed at 3.0 – 3.5 Gb.
There is NOT a pc specialist in this country (unless he’s a crook) that will offer you 4gb of RAM with XP and downwards… the software does not accept it, it’ll run you a maximum of 2gb leaving the other 2gb redundant. The speed of a pc’s hardware is dependent on the software it is running, and if that software specifies a cut off point then that is all you will get… it really isn’t rocket science.
There is NOT a pc specialist in this country (unless he’s a crook) that will offer you 4gb of RAM with XP and downwards… the software does not accept it, it’ll run you a maximum of 2gb leaving the other 2gb redundant.
And there lays the fault in your argument.
Unless you have a system with redundant or spare ram capacity, you would never be able to run any kind of programs.
The main problem is that some operating systems use too much of the systems resources, leaving other programs un-useable. (Windows Vista)
If well all only ran our computers with just the o/s it would be ok but we don’t.
You need to ask the question, how much of the computer is being used to run the operating system and how much is being used by other things?
I am not a computer salesman, I don’t need to sell this, in the next 12 months most people with have 2GB-4Gb of ram on their computers and most will find there no real differants in their computers.
What they will find is they can use off the shelf programs that work and are easy to use without too many problems.
Or do you think we are all just ramming ram in for the sake of it?
That is probably (or prolly) the biggest load of tosh I have ever seen for an excuse to wriggle out of your initial advice to ram up to 4gb. You deserve a medal my son. Redundant ram does NOT conflict with software! If it wasn’t so sad it would be laughable.
Ok sword what do you think ram does on a computer and how does it work?I’m not here to go before your trial fella, I’m merely stating a fact regarding ram and XP downwards. If you cannot work out for yourself that you can have ‘redundant’ ram when the capabilities of an OS system won’t recognise above it’s limit, it is not me that needs a crash course in the simplicities of a computers hardware v software. Go back to googling.
Hi DOA,
You seem to know your stuff so can you explain the following:Due to the operating system limitation, the actual memory size may be less than 4GB for the reservation for system usage under Windows® XP and Windows® Vista™. For Windows® XP 64-bit and Windows® Vista™ 64-bit with 64-bit CPU, there is no such limitation.
Yes i have the all singing dancing amd dual core with 3 gig of ram and yes it will not run with a true 4 gig.Yes my M/B can take 8 gig of ram also the performance is truly chronic as dual core is made to run 64 bit progs not 32.
You can make some difference by adding a processor with a high L2cache.
Check this link
http://www.infomaticsonline.co.uk/crn/comment/2137545/faster-speeds-slow-change
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!