Mak wrote:
> read this too:
> http://forums.2cpu.com/showthread.ph...4&page=1&pp=30
>

Thanks for the interesting link. Reading through it, it seems no one except
some programmers at Microsoft really understands how Windows works with
large amounts of ram. My personal experience shows little or no speed gains
even with large video or graphics files above 2 GB. Once you hit 2 GB the
speed of other components like the hard drive controller and the drives
themselves become much more significant. Although closely related Server
2003 does show better performance with 4 GB than 2 GB. After reading the
thread you linked to this may just be because of the better motherboards
it's usually installed on. Maybe using a server board that supports PAE with
XP would show some improved performance with XP and 4 GB. It would be an
interesting experiment. Has anyone tried it?

Kerry

Sounds I should leave well enough alone. 3gb it is. In reality 4gb may be used
a little but maybe not in some ways possibly.

"Kerry Brown" wrote:

> Mak wrote:
> > read this too:
> > http://forums.2cpu.com/showthread.ph...4&page=1&pp=30
> >
>
> Thanks for the interesting link. Reading through it, it seems no one except
> some programmers at Microsoft really understands how Windows works with
> large amounts of ram. My personal experience shows little or no speed gains
> even with large video or graphics files above 2 GB. Once you hit 2 GB the
> speed of other components like the hard drive controller and the drives
> themselves become much more significant. Although closely related Server
> 2003 does show better performance with 4 GB than 2 GB. After reading the
> thread you linked to this may just be because of the better motherboards
> it's usually installed on. Maybe using a server board that supports PAE with
> XP would show some improved performance with XP and 4 GB. It would be an
> interesting experiment. Has anyone tried it?
>
> Kerry
>
>
>