greenlighted
Member
If I'm doing something wrong here I apologize, but I kinda feel the need to correct some information from the last post in a recently closed thread. I normally wouldn't care that much, but since the poster labeled himself "as someone who works with computers" in order, I assume, to lend some credibility to his post I want to correct this "semi-expert" information. I mean no offense or anything to the poster, I just don't want the members here to get incorrect information. Here's the original post:
I think you misused some technical terms. As someone who works with computers, those specs make no sense to me. 4GB of software? 64GB of RAM? I was pretty sure Windows XP only effeciently utilized 1GB. Vista can go up to something like 18GB -- I think that was the original number put out by Microsoft, anyway...
The specs in the referred to post does indeed make sense. And Windows XP can "efficiently utilize" 4GB of memory. Worth noting is that this is for both hardware and software, so if you have a 512MB graphics card, the maximum amount of available "efficient memory" for an application has now been reduced by 512MB. Furthermore, there's by default a maximum limit of 2GB of memory per application, but it can quite easily be altered to 3GB.
I think you misused some technical terms. As someone who works with computers, those specs make no sense to me. 4GB of software? 64GB of RAM? I was pretty sure Windows XP only effeciently utilized 1GB. Vista can go up to something like 18GB -- I think that was the original number put out by Microsoft, anyway...
The specs in the referred to post does indeed make sense. And Windows XP can "efficiently utilize" 4GB of memory. Worth noting is that this is for both hardware and software, so if you have a 512MB graphics card, the maximum amount of available "efficient memory" for an application has now been reduced by 512MB. Furthermore, there's by default a maximum limit of 2GB of memory per application, but it can quite easily be altered to 3GB.