What Ram Is The Best For Me To Use

OK, on this computer, an AMD phenom 940 with two Nvidia 9600 GSO cards 512Mb in SLI, and 4Gb of RAM, running Vista 32 bit I get 3Gb of physical memory with Windows task manager. Total of 4Gb addressed by Vista 32 bit, adding the video card memory with the task manager 'physical' memory?

TM.jpg


Besides, 7 isn't even on the market yet, and unless you are an IT pro or an illegal downloader, you haven't even seen the benefits 7 64-bit will reap.

You can legally download and install the Windows 7 64 bit Release Candidate for free to experience it.
 
An RC version is a bit different than an RTM version. Which a few of my friends have already been playing with due to their MSDNAA licensing.

The way to compute it is simply:

2^32 = 4,294,967,296 or 4 GB of RAM.

lucky for us, 64-bit is a bit more giving:

2^64 = 1.84467441 × 10 to the 19th
 
An RC version is a bit different than an RTM version. Which a few of my friends have already been playing with due to their MSDNAA licensing.

The way to compute it is simply:

2^32 = 4,294,967,296 or 4 GB of RAM.

lucky for us, 64-bit is a bit more giving:

2^64 = 1.84467441 × 10 to the 19th

Just out of curiosity, how so?



And in other ways, 64 bit gives the ability to, theoretically, use an unimaginable amount of ram.
 
Well, RC of course stands for Release Candidate. This is the second to last level before it is released to the general public although it has three different stages, pre-alpha, alpha and beta. This release is of course still in beta because it's not in the RTM stage (at least not to the public). RTM on the other hand, is a version that is solidified. Basically it is given to the manufacturers of computers so that they can get their hardware the correct compability for working when it his the market. In this sense, RTM is a more complete version of an RC. The RC is only available to the public to find more flaws, not to be an official, complete version. Any other flaws found in the RC are passed along via updates to an RTM version.

Long story short:

RC = Beta ; RTM = finished code

Granted, this is all very general, and I have no idea the key differences between Windows 7 RC and RTM, although I'm very sure that they are different (at least with what I've heard from testing), which is why they have separate versions to begin with.

Now you have made me type it up enough that I want the RTM version so I am downloading it now. Haha.
 
Easy on flaming of opinions. Vista 64 is the reason Windows 7 64 is out. Need I mention that the 7 kernel is the Vista kernel is well? I hate running into people that skipped vista entirely because they don't understand operating systems in the least and claim that 7 'owns' Vista. Besides, 7 isn't even on the market yet, and unless you are an IT pro or an illegal downloader, you haven't even seen the benefits 7 64-bit will reap.

I wasn't flaming anyone so I have no idea where you get that from, but anyway, the fact (not opinion) remains that when Vista was released there were all kinds of program compatibility and driver issues, issues that remained for a long time, I didn't skip Vista entirely like you assumed, I tried it out and a few programs that I used didn't run in Vista, for me that sucked and I didn't even have to deal with any hardware issues like a lot of my friends did, I had a dual boot of Vista and XP running for about a year, after trying out Vista I found myself using it less and less until I hardly ever booted up with it at all during the last 8 months or so before I removed it...

Vista was also huge resource hog, Windows 7 doesn't have that problem, for me it's just as fast as XP was and that alone puts it ahead of Vista for about 75% of the users out there who have average or older systems, you don't have to understand Vista from a technical standpoint to see that it was slow on average systems and some programs and hardware just simply didn't work for a long time, it's short run compared to XP's speaks volumes about how viable Microsoft considered Vista as the replacement for XP after the initial debacle, it was so bad that retailers started giving people the option to get XP on their new systems instead of the newer Vista, even if Windows 7 is just an updated version of Vista, the changes made and the stigma of the actual Vista name made it more practical for Microsoft to change the name because first impressions and name recognition are huge...

and saying that Windows 7 isn't on the market yet so it's functionality as an operating system can't be determined doesn't make sense, that's what all the pre-releases are for, to see where there may be problems and to iron out the issues that come up before releasing the "final" product for the consumer, the final product and the RC will be different, but not drastically so, sure Vista is fine now and has been, but after how many service packs...? plain and simple, people are excited about Windows 7 because it has less issues during pre-release than Vista had after the first SP was released, there is no comparison between Vista and Windows 7 in comparable stages of their development, to deny that is just silly...
 
I wasn't flaming anyone so I have no idea where you get that from, but anyway, the fact (not opinion) remains that when Vista was released there were all kinds of program compatibility and driver issues, issues that remained for a long time, I didn't skip Vista entirely like you assumed, I tried it out and a few programs that I used didn't run in Vista, for me that sucked and I didn't even have to deal with any hardware issues like a lot of my friends did, I had a dual boot of Vista and XP running for about a year, after trying out Vista I found myself using it less and less until I hardly ever booted up with it at all during the last 8 months or so before I removed it...

Vista was also huge resource hog, Windows 7 doesn't have that problem, for me it's just as fast as XP was and that alone puts it ahead of Vista for about 75% of the users out there who have average or older systems, you don't have to understand Vista from a technical standpoint to see that it was slow on average systems and some programs and hardware just simply didn't work for a long time, it's short run compared to XP's speaks volumes about how viable Microsoft considered Vista as the replacement for XP after the initial debacle, it was so bad that retailers started giving people the option to get XP on their new systems instead of the newer Vista, even if Windows 7 is just an updated version of Vista, the changes made and the stigma of the actual Vista name made it more practical for Microsoft to change the name because first impressions and name recognition are huge...

and saying that Windows 7 isn't on the market yet so it's functionality as an operating system can't be determined doesn't make sense, that's what all the pre-releases are for, to see where there may be problems and to iron out the issues that come up before releasing the "final" product for the consumer, the final product and the RC will be different, but not drastically so, sure Vista is fine now and has been, but after how many service packs...? plain and simple, people are excited about Windows 7 because it has less issues during pre-release than Vista had after the first SP was released, there is no comparison between Vista and Windows 7 in comparable stages of their development, to deny that is just silly...
Yes, but the vista beta and vista RC were almost as fast as win7 RC. MS still has plenty of time to break it :rolleyes:
What Ram is good for gaming + Designing??

Thanks
The fastest you can find/afford. In general, you want the timings to be low, CAS latency to be low, DDR3 is great if your motherboard is compatible. Also, the more, the better. For the most part, you get what you pay for.
 
Back
Top Bottom