Max RAM possible?
 

  You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more

[Closed] Max RAM possible?

17 Posts
11 Users
0 Reactions
46 Views
Posts: 1109
Full Member
Topic starter
 

According to HP specs and scanners, my laptop can have a max of 4Gb, i.e.

2 x 2Gb DDR2 667MHz (PC2-5300) 200-PIN SODIMM

Now, I'm running Vista 64bit so I'm wondering if there's any way around this. I'm guessing not because it's a hw thang, not OS related. Need as much power as I can get for a couple of apps, hence any ideas?

TVM


 
Posted : 03/02/2010 3:07 pm
Posts: 251
Full Member
 

you can up paging memory on the hard disk but it'll slow everything down with extra disk activity.


 
Posted : 03/02/2010 3:09 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

HP are so wrong. I mean why should they know better than a forum full of random blokes about the hardware specs of your laptop? Do they think they designed and built it or something?


 
Posted : 03/02/2010 3:10 pm
Posts: 251
Full Member
 

you coudl always upgrade to Windows 7 (or down to XP) - it'll speed things up more than another Gb of ram....


 
Posted : 03/02/2010 3:11 pm
Posts: 1109
Full Member
Topic starter
 

Don't want to upgrade to W7 yet and I'm bored of XP. TBH Vista works just fine for me - runs everything as quickly if not quicker than on XP anyway.


 
Posted : 03/02/2010 3:21 pm
Posts: 31206
Full Member
 

4GB will be a hardware limit of the motherboard. Not much you can do about that.
Though I find that 4GB is typically enough at the moment on my desktop (for running big image editors like Photoshop, CaptureNX etc).

Only other boost might be to fit a solid state drive as mentioned in the post the other day.


 
Posted : 03/02/2010 3:23 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

you coudl always upgrade to Windows 7 (or down to XP) - it'll speed things up more than another Gb of ram....

People I know who know about these things suggest Win7 doesn't improve speed over Vista (not surprising given how similar they actually are underneath), whilst XP would likely actually be slower for that hardware spec. You appear to still be living in 2006, when Vista got this bad rep. due to people trying to run it on underspecced machines.


 
Posted : 03/02/2010 3:26 pm
Posts: 1109
Full Member
Topic starter
 

+1

when Vista got this bad rep.

Agreed. Loads of people had issues with stability, sw compatibility, etc. We're now 3yrs+ further on and things are a lot better.


 
Posted : 03/02/2010 3:35 pm
Posts: 31206
Full Member
 

+1 running Vista64 at home and it isn't slow at all. (Got Win7 sitting on the shelf but haven't installed it yet).


 
Posted : 03/02/2010 3:39 pm
Posts: 2
Free Member
 

You can use ReadyBoost in Vista to use any USB flash memory as RAM
[url= http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2017818,00.asp ] well thats the theory never used Vista myself but worth a Google.


 
Posted : 03/02/2010 3:44 pm
Posts: 0
 

There is nothing really wrong with Vista, however I personally find it to be differcult at times and it is well documented that it is a bit hungry on system resources (Memory). 4GB of memory should be plenty for a laptop, I would recommend looking at the task manager and see what is using all of your RAM. I would also advise removing all any vendor bloat-ware (HP branded rubbish apps that is likely to be pre installed) generally this is pretty useless and again will eat into your valuable resources. The advice offered above in regards to adding a SSD would indeed give you a better performance in most respects albeit at a bit of a premium. Also I would recommend looking at Win7 I find it to be much more user friendly (Interface) and not so intensive on your hardware, you will not see a massive overall performance difference from Vista though (Just nicer IMO).


 
Posted : 03/02/2010 3:48 pm
 IA
Posts: 563
Free Member
 

What apps are you running? 4Gb is still quite a lot of memory, and most apps won't be RAM-bound I'd imagine, Or if they are, it's because they're I/O bound in which case see the SSD thread.


 
Posted : 03/02/2010 3:49 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

You appear to still be living in 2006, when Vista got this bad rep. due to people trying to run it on underspecced machines.

Shouldn't a new OS make your old hardware run faster? That would be coding progress right?


 
Posted : 03/02/2010 3:58 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Don't you get to the stage where the RAM no longer matters because the MB will only operate at a certain speed?


 
Posted : 03/02/2010 3:59 pm
Posts: 14
Free Member
 

Do they think they designed and built it or something?

I bet the OP is actually the HP support line, checking up on their best and most reliable source of information.


 
Posted : 03/02/2010 4:01 pm
Posts: 251
Full Member
 

having just upgraded a relatively new pc (i.e. not much crap on it) to W7 from Vista my experience is that it's faster for the applications that I run.


 
Posted : 03/02/2010 4:01 pm
Posts: 1109
Full Member
Topic starter
 

Don't get me wrong - laptop is running 2gb at present and very fast - more than happy with it for the usual day to day stuff.

What apps are you running? 4Gb is still quite a lot of memory, and most apps won't be RAM-bound I'd imagine, Or if they are, it's because they're I/O bound in which case see the SSD thread.

I need to run several heavy apps at once; Mind Manager 8, all Office 2007 stuff especially PowerPoint with loads of custom images, GIMP, Articulate Studio, and other stuff. Runs almost okay with this lot, and another 2gb will probably do the trick. But if I can get more than that then even better.

Cheers


 
Posted : 03/02/2010 4:21 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

I would change to Windows 7. You would not believe the speed difference apparently. What the hell is Vista!? 😆


 
Posted : 03/02/2010 4:26 pm

6 DAYS LEFT
We are currently at 95% of our target!