8GB Ram in Vista 32

[LordDon]

I'm curious if anyone has any good pages on this topic or, better yet, has actually tried it. In my googling of max amount of RAM in a 32-bit OS I came across the claim that you could install 8GB of RAM on a 32-bit OS, take the system-unrecognized 4GB and make a ramdisk out of it, then drop your pagefile on the ramdisk.

A 4GB non-HD-thrashy pagefile accessed directly from RAM sounds pretty damn cool to me. Anyone tried it?

[Voodoo]

I'm curious if anyone has any good pages on this topic or, better yet, has actually tried it. In my googling of max amount of RAM in a 32-bit OS I came across the claim that you could install 8GB of RAM on a 32-bit OS, take the system-unrecognized 4GB and make a ramdisk out of it, then drop your pagefile on the ramdisk.

A 4GB non-HD-thrashy pagefile accessed directly from RAM sounds pretty damn cool to me. Anyone tried it?

I haven't tried it but I'm unsure of how the ramdisk driver would be able to address the memory above the limit.

EDIT: Neat, found a page all about what you are talking about. How interesting...

http://www.superspeed.com/desktop/ramdisk.php

I'm unsure though, based on the price quoted, if it would be worth it. To stop my virtual memory trashing I placed it on my second drive and setup its size manually. I also set it up on the second drive when it was initially formatted so that it is placed at the fastest part of the drive.

[LiquidRain]

It wouldn't be worth it. Ever.

The way Windows handles page files and memory, you should always use every byte of your memory for RAM, not page files.

And seriously. When was the last time you hit swap space in your page file? Seriously now. With 2GB on XP or Linux and 4GB on Vista, it's never happened to me. (granted I don't use Photoshop on print resolution images, but still)

I'm sorry I don't have any links for you to read on Windows' lazy writeback cache method of page file usage (a quick google doesn't get me anything immediately useful) but this particular topic has been beaten and beaten and beaten and beaten beyond death in every PC forum ever created.

Trust me when I say:

1. You are not being clever
2. You are not helping your PC be faster. In fact you will make it slower.
3. It's been tried.
4. It's been tested.
5. It's been benched.
6. It's not a good idea.

Just use 64-bit Vista and consume the entire 8GB.

[LordDon]

Come to find my question is moot anyway, my motherboard only supports 4gb DDR3 ram. Is there a noticeable performance improvement between DDR2 and DDR3?

[Ancalagon]

4GB DDR3? Are you sure? What kind of computer do you have? How many RAM slots?

Yes, there is a difference in performance between DDR2 and DDR3, but it isnt massive. Not really worth upgrading unless you want to buy a Nehalem CPU. Certain AMD CPU's can work with either DDR3 or DDR2, but no other CPU can.

[LordDon]

My motherboard is pretty flexible where upgrades are concerned.

GA-EP35C-DS3R (http://www.gigabyte.com.tw/Products/Motherboard/Products_Overview.aspx?ClassValue=Motherboard&ProductID=2740&ProductName=GA-EP35C-DS3R)

[LiquidRain]

Do you really need 8 gigs? Even 4 with Vista is more than enough to keep any app purring along happily unless you do serious Photoshop or other heavy work.

That said, I would Google reviews of your motherboard or motherboard chipset first. See if, on that specific board, DDR3 makes a noticeable difference. If there are no good reviews, I'd say spring for DDR3 when prices lower a bit more (they've tanked in the last couple months) *if* you are using a Core 2 Quad. Core 2 Duos won't make as much use of more memory bandwidth.

[LordDon]

I do use Photoshop and XSI Softimage, but then I'm currently only running a Core 2 Duo 45nm that I still need to get around to OC'ing. I figure if I'm going to jump from 2gb to 4gb, why not go to DDR3 in the process.

Maybe I'll just buy another 2GB of DDR2 until I get around to upgrading to a quad core and get the DDR3 then.

[mesh]

While I've been running x64 for some time without major issues, I have given thought to going back to a 32bit OS, even if the rig currently has 8gb.

The reason behind this is I'm getting increasingly tired of running most programs under the 32-64 translation engine.

If such a ramdisk product works, it would mean I could be under 32bit and still use all my ram.

A pagefile is unlikely to be a practical or useful way to use it however. I would likely copy my most used programs to it with a script in the background delay-copying everything back to hdd.

Might also use it as a temp dir, though I've never managed to keep apps from not using the temp dir I specify.

[torrefaction]

Seriously? Do you know how negligible the Windows on Windows stuff is? On modern systems, it's barely any at all. And with games, even games that are still 32-bit, at least they can use ALL 4 gigs if you have it to spare. There's very few, if any, reasons left to run 32-bit Windows.

[Hexxagonal]

I used to have that Gigabyte motherboard. It was awesome. 2 were dead on arrival and 2 died within a year. I didn't even bother to get a replacement after the 4th one.

[Ghostbear]

I used to have that Gigabyte motherboard. It was awesome. 2 were dead on arrival and 2 died within a year. I didn't even bother to get a replacement after the 4th one.

Something similar happened to me, I am now using an Asus P5Q

[Slack3r78]

Seriously[/I] now. With 2GB on XP or Linux and 4GB on Vista, it's never happened to me. (granted I don't use Photoshop on print resolution images, but still)
I get some pretty wicked thrashing on systems with 1.5-2GB, but generally don't have many problems once I hit 4GB.

[Slack3r78]

The reason behind this is I'm getting increasingly tired of running most programs under the 32-64 translation engine.
I'm really lost for words here beyond 'L-O-L'.