is 2gb of ram

Many of the LGA 1366 boards support 24G now (triple channel, 6 slots),
but DDR3 memory 4G isn't widely available yet. Give it a few more
months.



Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

 

It might be an AMD thing, but the mobo vendors spec slower RAM if you
really stuff it. I built a linux system out of a quad core AMD using
an Asus M3N78 PRO with 8 Gbytes. I don't do any graphics on the
system, so I used the on board video and it steals about a Gbyte. I
think when the dust settles, I get about 6.5G. I have an app that uses
about 5G. Anyway, past 4G they suggested slower RAM, probably due to
capacitance issues.

I believe Intel puts the memory controller in the chipset, while AMD
puts it in the CPU. So I don't know if Intel can handle more ram
without a slow down, but it would be worth checking out.

 

You statement should be: If you've installed Ubuntu, you are too stupid to
own a computer.

 

On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 19:09:20 +0200, vista is bad for ya wrote:

On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 19:09:20 +0200, vista is bad for ya top-posted

My first Windows computer came with W95 pre-installed, with a Cyrix 6X86
(120 MHz, with perfomance equivalent to a 150 MHz intel, a whopping 32MB
of RAM, and 4GB drive, which I partitioned into 4x 1G partitions because
of the cluster size problem.

When W2K came out, I bought a copy for about $200.00, and just for S&G,
I installed it on the Cyrix.

I was astonished that it installed, but wasn't surprised when it took
about an hour to run what would have been a 3 min. process, but it DID,
ultimately, "work". ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

XP didn't have a different driver model, nor did it have major
compatibilities that continued years after introduction. Yes, XP is
a bloated mess, even compared to Win2K. Yes, I'd still rather have
Win2K, but I'll make do with XP. I will *not* make do with Vista.
BTDT.

M$ reneged on the strict activation rules.

You're full of shit, too.

 

It used 2K drivers, dickless.

You're full of... Bullshit.

Bullshit. What about software that runs perfectly well under 2K and
XP and not at all under Vista? Throw it away? No thanks. I'll
switch. Vista had its chance.

 

So, the XP driver model was perfect?
MS should stick with the same technology forever?
They shouldn't try to fix the security issues they have found, and
learned from?
I guess you still run only 1M of RAM and DOS 6.22.
You should really think about what you are saying before you say it.
I really liked OS-9 (not sApples OS9, the real one), but seriously,
where would that put me now?

Not bullshit.
It went through exactly the same bad press and hard feelings.
I waited until SP1 on XP before I would even try it out.

No one is FORCING you to buy MS products.
http://www.freedos.org/

So are you, I'll bet dimes do doughnuts you were spouting the same shit
back then, if your mommy would let you use her computer.

I have no feelings one way or another about the situation.
These are just tools. We could be arguing about the benefits of
Craftsmen screw drivers compared to Kobalt brand. I run a mix of XP and
Vista systems. Getting them to work together was no more difficult than
getting XP and 98SE to get along. I have one Vista Ultimate 64 machine
running on basic hardware and 4GB of RAM. It tools right along, I have
a bleeding edge (literally, i7 Extreme with 12GB of RAM, 4TB RAID 10
Array) and it would run anything fast. What it will not run natively I
run in a VMware Unity window. You don't even realize you are running a
virtuaized app. They are just tools, bend them to your will or gripe
about them, whatever.

 

People who ask questions, maybe not in their own field
of expertise, tend to learn things.

People who think they know everything, and call other people
stupid, should probably try learning something outside
their own field of expertise...

Mike, did you leap fully formed from the womb? Did you
never have to ask anyone about anything? Since you
have been born you have known everything? Just curious...


Easy to use graphics effects:
http://www.ransen.com/