"JC" wrote:

I have 4GB of physical RAM, windows vista shows only 3326MB. Does it really
help with performance if I have 4GB or should I just install 3GB memory? I
just bought the additional 2GB memory (had 2GB before) and wondering if I
should exchange for a 1GB one. Thanks.

Maybe interesting would be for notebooks!
If my notebook only has 2 slots, and I have 2GB stick installed, and wished
to increase RAM should I install 1 stick of 1GB, or 1 stick of 2GB?
If I would install 1GB, I'll have more then enough RAM, but the question
would be, would it still be Dual channel compatible or something?

If I'd install a 2GB stick, would my notebook use considerably more energy
then using only a 1 Gb stick?

I have experimented with my 2x1GB/2x512MB DDR PC5300 SODIMM Memory sticks,
and the benchmarks told me that my system was faster using 1x1GB then 2x512MB.
Also my system was faster using 1x2GB instead of 2X1024MB.
Now I want to know if it'll be faster using 1X2GB, or 2X2GB.
Ofcourse the LARGE Memory benchmark tests show that 4GB will be better then 2.
But in many cases the LARGE benchmark tests are not-real life, unless you
do video/photo editing, or play lots of games on your laptop.

That's not the case with me, I just want the smaller applications to run
smoothly.
By adding a 1x2GB RAM stick, I've been able to increase my VISTA experience
from 3,0 to 3,1 (since my videocard uses 64MB shared memory), and yes I know,
it's an 'older' laptop.

So all of the tested memory was Kingston value memory; DDR, on a Sony Vaio
notebook.

I don't have any explenations as to why; but these where just but my
observations.
I would like to know what this 'Dual channel DDR'-theory is. (I'm just
running a 32-bit processor, and am not thinking about upgrading it to a 64
version).