A Windows Vista forum. Vista Banter

Welcome to Vista Banter.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have access to ask questions and reply to others posts, upload your own photos and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact support.

Go Back   Home » Vista Banter forum » Microsoft Windows Vista » Hardware and Windows Vista
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Hardware and Windows Vista Hardware issues in relation to Windows Vista. (microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices)

Anyone trying 8GB of memory on Vista 64?



 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11 (permalink)  
Old January 20th 08, 07:12 PM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices
Noel[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Anyone trying 8GB of memory on Vista 64?


Colin Barnhorst;578269 Wrote:
You may have much better luck with pc5300 ram. This newsgroup has dozens
of
postings on the problems of trying to use pc6400 ram in all four dimm
slots
on many mobos.

Hmm, wonder why the bandwidth rating of the DIMMS would have anything
to do with the outcome in this instance. I've already purchased PC6400
DIMMS so will try them and see. For what it's worth, they will be
running at 333mHz, not 400mHz.

There are reports of success with Vista 64 and 4 x 2GB as well, on P35
chipsets.



--
Noel
  #12 (permalink)  
Old January 20th 08, 07:19 PM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices
Noel[_9_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Anyone trying 8GB of memory on Vista 64?


Colin Barnhorst;579100 Wrote:
Like I said, try it with pc5300, not pc6400. By the way, dual booting XP
and Vista on a production or primary home computer is not a good idea.
All
of the VSS files used by Vista's recovery facilities are wiped out on
each
boot into XP. That means restore points, previous versions files,
CompletePC Backup images, and backup files made by the new file backup
program just vanish.


Ouch, how evil is that?! That is truly an awful design plan, and how
could that not be intentional? Obviously I know very little about the
whole issue, but from what you say Colin I can't of a more aweful design
behavior to force people into Vista to stay. Sick!

I keep reading all over the place of people dual booting this, but I
haven't dug deep enough to discover what the pitfalls are. I HAVE a
loosely formed impression that this issue occurs when you install Vista
first. Is there anything to this? If what you say is true then I guess I
will not be dual booting, and will just do the build with XP, and wait
until XP is no longer EVER required. Guess I'll park my other 4gb of
PC-6400 in a cool dry place until happier days. That's pathetic . . .


--
Noel
  #13 (permalink)  
Old January 20th 08, 07:20 PM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices
Colin Barnhorst[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,464
Default Anyone trying 8GB of memory on Vista 64?

Based on my reading in the newsgroups, running 667 should be OK. You did
mention pc6400 but did not say you were not running it at 800.

"Noel" wrote in message
...

Colin Barnhorst;578269 Wrote:
You may have much better luck with pc5300 ram. This newsgroup has dozens
of
postings on the problems of trying to use pc6400 ram in all four dimm
slots
on many mobos.

Hmm, wonder why the bandwidth rating of the DIMMS would have anything
to do with the outcome in this instance. I've already purchased PC6400
DIMMS so will try them and see. For what it's worth, they will be
running at 333mHz, not 400mHz.

There are reports of success with Vista 64 and 4 x 2GB as well, on P35
chipsets.



--
Noel


  #14 (permalink)  
Old January 20th 08, 08:07 PM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices
Noel[_10_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Anyone trying 8GB of memory on Vista 64?


Colin Barnhorst;579718 Wrote:
Based on my reading in the newsgroups, running 667 should be OK. You did
mention pc6400 but did not say you were not running it at 800.

Yeah, cool. I decided to go with a strategy that deviates from my
history of only buying the best bang:buck parts and instead opted to buy
some "high end" parts no matter what the cost! I have some bucks laying
around, am not in debt, and have a huge fear of impending national and
world economic doom, so would rather have quality tangible goods versus
too many paper dollars . . .

So, I sprung for an insanely priced QX9650 retail. Then, I sprung for
PC Power n Cooling highest end 750W quiet PS. Going this route let me
spend low dollars on Muskin PC-6400 ram, a pretty low cost 8800GT ($249)
. Didn't even need PC-6400, but again the price was pleasant for 8GB so
what the hey. I'm hopeful the system should be very stable from a
hardware point of view. I have reasonably quiet and seriously effective
"air" cooling, so should be hitting 4.0 to 4.25 GHz with even the
slightest luck. Beyond that there is a good argument performance won't
increase with the Penryns. So there you go.



--
Noel
  #15 (permalink)  
Old January 20th 08, 08:21 PM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices
Colin Barnhorst[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,464
Default Anyone trying 8GB of memory on Vista 64?

It makes no difference which OS is installed first.

This is all by design in the sense that both XP and Vista are running as
designed. They just aren't designed to be run together on the same box
without measures to isolate Vista from XP.

Let me offer a partial analogy. Let's say you have been parking your
standard sized car in your garage for years. Now you decide to trade in the
sedan for a Hummer. You get home and discover that the Hummer won't fit in
the garage. Is it because the garage was poorly designed? No. Is it
because the Hummer was poorly designed? No. Each was designed OK and
neither malfunctions. The problem comes up when you try to combine the two.

That's how it is with XP and Vista. It is not because of a bug suddenly
appearing in XP. It hasn't. It isn't because of a bug in Vista. Nothing
like this happens when you run Vista by itself. The problem only appears
when you combine the two.

MS has made the decision not to do to XP what it would take to make XP's VSS
driver Vista compatible. It turns out that VSS is so pervasive that a
serious rewrite to XP would be required. Since multibooting is extremely
rare (only a tiny fraction of 1% of the Windows user base of hundreds of
millions do it), it just is not cost-effective for MS to do the rewrite when
the impact is so negligible. Of course a disproportiate number of users who
visit this newsgroup are technology enthusiasts so when you read this ng it
appears to be a bigger issue than it really is. It is our ox that has been
gored.

Obviously you can do as you like, but at least make an informed decision
based on what you use Vista for and the risks to your important data that is
involved when using XP on the same machine. For example, if you are into
things like photo-editing then the shadowcopies feature (the new Previous
Versions tab on the file properties page) may be very important to you.

The decision I made was to run XP on a different box. Another alternative I
use is to run XP in a virtual machine using Virtual PC 2007 on my Vista
machine. It just depends of what I want to do in XP as to which alternative
I use to do it.

"Noel" wrote in message
...

Colin Barnhorst;579100 Wrote:
Like I said, try it with pc5300, not pc6400. By the way, dual booting XP
and Vista on a production or primary home computer is not a good idea.
All
of the VSS files used by Vista's recovery facilities are wiped out on
each
boot into XP. That means restore points, previous versions files,
CompletePC Backup images, and backup files made by the new file backup
program just vanish.


Ouch, how evil is that?! That is truly an awful design plan, and how
could that not be intentional? Obviously I know very little about the
whole issue, but from what you say Colin I can't of a more aweful design
behavior to force people into Vista to stay. Sick!

I keep reading all over the place of people dual booting this, but I
haven't dug deep enough to discover what the pitfalls are. I HAVE a
loosely formed impression that this issue occurs when you install Vista
first. Is there anything to this? If what you say is true then I guess I
will not be dual booting, and will just do the build with XP, and wait
until XP is no longer EVER required. Guess I'll park my other 4gb of
PC-6400 in a cool dry place until happier days. That's pathetic . . .


--
Noel


  #16 (permalink)  
Old January 20th 08, 08:28 PM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices
Noel[_11_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Anyone trying 8GB of memory on Vista 64?


Colin, what do you make of this article? Scrolling down I see a few
people who experience the problem you refer to, but others who say all
is well provided the follow this article's guide:

'How to dual-boot Vista with XP - step-by-step guide with screenshots |
APC Magazine'
(http://apcmag.com/5023/dual_booting_...#comment-31514)


--
Noel
  #17 (permalink)  
Old January 20th 08, 08:30 PM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices
Jawade
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 169
Default Anyone trying 8GB of memory on Vista 64?

In article , Colin Barnhorst
says...
That has been tried since early in the beta test program and did no good.
None of the favorites among boot managers hide the Vista volume in such a
way as to prevent the problem.


I believe you don't have to hide the Vista volume if you use an
other bootmanager. On my site I present my bootmanager, but it is
in the Dutch language. It can hide with every startup by choice.

--
Met vriendelijke groeten, Jawade. Weer veel vernieuwd!
http://jawade.nl/ Met een mirror op http://jawade.fortunecity.com/
Bootmanager (+Vista), ClrMBR, DiskEditors, POP3lezer, Filebrowser,
Kalender, Webtellers en IP-log, Linux-Diskeditor, USB-stick tester
  #18 (permalink)  
Old January 20th 08, 09:10 PM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices
Colin Barnhorst[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,464
Default Anyone trying 8GB of memory on Vista 64?

I don't know how yours works but all the ones tried could hide a volume from
user programs but could not hide the volume from XP's volsnap.sys. Be sure
you have verified that Vista VSS files persist after booting into XP in
other than safe mode (the problem does not occur if booting XP in safe mode
because volsnap.sys is one of the drivers not loaded in safe mode).

"Jawade" wrote in message
...
In article , Colin
Barnhorst
says...
That has been tried since early in the beta test program and did no good.
None of the favorites among boot managers hide the Vista volume in such a
way as to prevent the problem.


I believe you don't have to hide the Vista volume if you use an
other bootmanager. On my site I present my bootmanager, but it is
in the Dutch language. It can hide with every startup by choice.

--
Met vriendelijke groeten, Jawade. Weer veel vernieuwd!
http://jawade.nl/ Met een mirror op http://jawade.fortunecity.com/
Bootmanager (+Vista), ClrMBR, DiskEditors, POP3lezer, Filebrowser,
Kalender, Webtellers en IP-log, Linux-Diskeditor, USB-stick tester


  #19 (permalink)  
Old January 20th 08, 09:13 PM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices
Colin Barnhorst[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,464
Default Anyone trying 8GB of memory on Vista 64?

This article is great for setting up a dual boot system but it does not
address the issue of what happens to Vista VSS files when XP boots; the XP
volsnap.sys problem.

"Noel" wrote in message
...

Colin, what do you make of this article? Scrolling down I see a few
people who experience the problem you refer to, but others who say all
is well provided the follow this article's guide:

'How to dual-boot Vista with XP - step-by-step guide with screenshots |
APC Magazine'
(http://apcmag.com/5023/dual_booting_...#comment-31514)


--
Noel


  #20 (permalink)  
Old January 20th 08, 10:11 PM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices
Jawade
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 169
Default Anyone trying 8GB of memory on Vista 64?

In article , Colin Barnhorst
says...
I don't know how yours works but all the ones tried could hide a volume from
user programs but could not hide the volume from XP's volsnap.sys. Be sure
you have verified that Vista VSS files persist after booting into XP in
other than safe mode (the problem does not occur if booting XP in safe mode
because volsnap.sys is one of the drivers not loaded in safe mode).


OK, i did't know that. Mine hide the other partition in the
MBR, the type byte. And it happens before any thing is started.
If Windows works fair (!) it cannot look at the hidden volume.
I have an virtual machine with Vista & XP with my bootmanager
and had never problems. But I didnt check all the points.

--
Met vriendelijke groeten, Jawade. Weer veel vernieuwd!
http://jawade.nl/ Met een mirror op http://jawade.fortunecity.com/
Bootmanager (+Vista), ClrMBR, DiskEditors, POP3lezer, Filebrowser,
Kalender, Webtellers en IP-log, Linux-Diskeditor, USB-stick tester
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT. The time now is 08:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.0.0 RC6
Copyright ©2004-2024 Vista Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.