PC hardware: Why all the hype for installing lots of RAM?
- 10/30/09 3:38 PM
The So-called Best Antivirus Program
by GlassDeviant - 11/13/09 6:56 PM In reply to: Have to disagree by genej313There is no such thing as the "Best" antivirus program, because three are always new viruses, new malware, new threats (rootkits, for example), and each vendor finds and creates signatures and removal code for them at different times.
At any given time almost every product on the market has had an advantage, and you will never be able to have the "best" one for the life of your subscription, even if you only subscribe for 3 months.
The best you can do is to get one that is consistently close to the top, and practice safe computing by not opening emails that you cannot identify the source of, not browsing to shady websites, not clocking on everything that pops up in your face, etc.
Or you can unplug your computer and lock it in a safe, because that's the only way you are going to keep it perfectly safe from harm.
You are right but remember updates
by Walter L. Johnson - 11/14/09 2:23 AM In reply to: The So-called Best Antivirus Program by GlassDeviantGreat comment.
A lot of virus research goes on and it is shared among all the major anti-virus vendors one way or another in addition to industry supported academic virus-research broadly shared. The companies primarily distinguish themselves by the user interface, frequency of updates, software to identify potential new viruses, integration with a utility and/or security suite, program quality, how quick they create fixes to remove new viruses, worms, etc., efficiency, and I suspect even how long they keep looking for old viruses that have lost popularity. I used to periodically run scans with several virus programs, but an old cheap, or free with system, anti-virus program detected an old virus in my floppy disc library that a new program missed.
Symptoms of viral infections are listed at: http://www.viruslist.com/en/viruses/encyclopedia?chapter=153280800 . Nothing is superior to being selective in opening emails, attachments, or external files, and never letting a PC with confidential data be attached to the Internet or open outside of company or home free programs and files to read.
You can also encrypt your hard drive and take other measures to make stolen files unreadable. With enough money you can even get a Tempest certified computer that shields its electromagnetic emissions so well they cannot be turned back into text or used to recreate the keystrokes. Locking a computer in a safe is going farther though than even national security requirements, which just locks up hard drives with classified data.
It all boils down to how much you are willing to spend for security in time and money. Any cell phone in the US can be tapped illegally with a $20 to $30 program shipped from overseas, so we avoid giving complete confidential data by cell phone, but as one banker put it. There are practical limits to security. A cell phone becomes useless if you never use it, and so does a computer.
Anyone with serious security needs should read up extensively on computer security. For the rest of us, even a free anti-virus program that has been kept updated can be enough, while today's top anti-virus program is no good if you never download and install updates. A virus can infect millions of computers in a single day, so updating you virus definitions, etc. once a year is not of much use. You should use auto update with any anti-virus program.
Exactly
by TreknologyNet - 11/14/09 2:38 AM In reply to: The So-called Best Antivirus Program by GlassDeviant"Or you can unplug your computer and lock it in a safe, because that's the only way you are going to keep it perfectly safe from harm."
The best firewall is a zero connection--but you still must remember the European disaster that Microsoft faced when shipping stamped Windows discs that contained a virus.
Norton Rules but free anti-virus sucks?
by slpavman - 10/31/09 12:42 AM In reply to: RAM Increase Does it Help? by pugsley0134Are you kidding? I paid for NAV (twice!) and then uninstalled it and re-installed the free version of AVG, and it whoops Norton Anti-Virus - "hands down"! Over and over, my AVG would stop stuff that NAV missed (I ran both for a while). AVG has a much smaller footprint and so doesn't use NEAR the resources that NAV does! Plus Norton programs (several)are notorious for occasionally causing major problems.
Nearly every "super-geek" I know runs AVG ... many have the "paid" version now, to help support a company that supported them for years, for free!
As far as the RAM goes, typically (NOT always) anything over 2 GB is over-kill and will neither get used NOR improve your performance. It USED to be the best "bang for the buck" upgrade, but anymore, the "bottleneck" (nearly) always lies elsewhere (processor speed and/or temperature, video card, highly fragmented HDDs, to name a few ...).
1/2 gb is NOT enough
by halkelley - 10/31/09 9:13 AM In reply to: Misinformation by yourpcmedicxp and all MS os's are memory hogs...ditto apps by MS and all the major manufacturers...anyone will notice big improvements in performance going to 750mb and more so to 1gb...and if you're a power user, even more
The version of Windows Running Mattersin RAM usage
by Walter L. Johnson - 10/31/09 4:07 PM In reply to: Misinformation by yourpcmedicIt is likely that if a PC RAM monitor can only recognize up to 1 GB of RAM that it is either reporting the maximum memory the largest application running is using or that there is some software limitation from legacy applications. Indeed the first X86 architecture would not have any use for more than 1 MB of RAM and then only if running a system utility to used memory above 640 KB,even if you could install 2 GB of RAM. You will see that limitation if you run an old copy of DOS. Emulation of that or later limited RAM operating systems will also make the recognized RAM limited.
The truth is there have always been ways though to use more memory than the operating system can address. One of the common ways was to create virtual hard drives of RAM to make programs load quicker, but there were other approaches too all of which worked by limiting paging of program memory in and out of hard disk or RAM disk storage.
However, the maximum RAM, more than most people can afford, is fully utilized in Running 64 bit versions of Windows Vista or 7, which can directly address more RAM memory than common motherboards will allow to be installed.
As Misinformation implied, memory is used in all kinds of different ways that may not be apparent to any one program. The most common use is to avoid paging part of programs in and out of hard disc storage, which slows a program considerably. But part of RAM can also be used by cheaper graphics cards instead of the card having on it more expensive video memory types. RAM can be used even to store ISO images of CD and DVD media to reduce the possibility of errors from hard disks that are too slow to keep up with the CD or DVD burner.
You can never buy too much RAM, as long as your motherboard supports it and you can afford it. Indeed solid state hard discs are now made of a type of RAM that retains its memory when the power is turned off and accessing that memory is many times faster than accessing old hard drives.
Look at the problem this way, what good would your brain be if you had to delete information in order to store new information? The CPU is essentially the brain and the RAM is what you can remember without concentrating, while the hard drive is what you can remember after thinking for awhile. How dumb we we seem to others if every memory had to come slowly back?
The version of Windows Running Mattersin RAM usage
by Tedcopy - 11/3/09 9:48 AM In reply to: The version of Windows Running Mattersin RAM usage by Walter L. JohnsonVery nice answer!
ram hype
by cache47 - 11/2/09 9:04 AM In reply to: Misinformation by yourpcmedicYou mean a company with the name "YourPCMedic"?
Match your RAM to your system and your "user habits"
by desirawson - 11/4/09 8:45 PM In reply to: Misinformation by yourpcmedicWIN 32 does not recognize anything above 3GB of RAM, 4 GB is for WIN 64. I am also a computer geek for a living and the amount of misinformation by "misinformation" is amazing. 512MB is not going to run much and even when it does it will be slow beyond anything anyone who doesn't work on computers would expect. He is correct that McAfee and those other large virus programs are absolutely a legal virus (notice the drop in price). There are many programs that are much better out there that are FREE such as Avast antivirus. MS already has a firewall and if you are running on a home network you are doubly covered. However, you must keep your computer up to date -XP only installs security updates, Vista installs all but optional hardware updates. There are BIOS updates as well so check for updates on the website that your computer make is as well as MS updates which should be done monthly, along with a registry cleaner, windows defender and MONTHLY maintenance, clean disk, (XP scan disk) and defrag. If it takes too long for you there are many programs made by Uniblue that are inexpensive and take care of the job in minutes.
bloated security suites
by ericocean - 11/12/09 11:02 AM In reply to: Misinformation by yourpcmedicSpot on! Dumped my Suite for antivirus program. Like I went from first to fourth gear.
I'm not sure which is "bloated".
by TreknologyNet - 11/12/09 9:51 PM In reply to: bloated security suites by ericoceanI was put onto SpyBot years ago. At that time a full computer scan took about 20 minutes. The program hasn't changed, but the malware database sure has! A full scan now takes 5 hours although, to be fair, it doesn't interfere with memory usage just disc-access which means real time stuff like watching DVDs isn't on the recommended list.
Dell laptop memory install Prpoblem
by mattpam99 - 10/25/09 10:57 AM In reply to: Why all the hype for installing lots of RAM? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
Have a Dell laptop. Ordered memory upgrade from Kingston. They shipped wrong ram cards which I had to return. When I replaced the original memory cards the laptop refuses to boot! I took the cards out and reinserted them but still no boot. What on earth is going on? The humidity in my house was high so there was no static problem. The computer is out of warranty and Dell wants an arm and leg just to talk to them! -Help - Matthew
RE: Dell laptop memory install Prpoblem
by wasyed - 10/25/09 12:34 PM In reply to: Dell laptop memory install Prpoblem by mattpam99I remember once when I upgraded one of the RAM sticks in my laptop it didnt boot as well. And then I switched the location of the two (made sure the original OEM stick was in slot 1, and new ram in slot 2), the system booted up and read the memory just fine. I've had the same problem with two other friends laptops (compaqs this time), and a third friend (I think it was a hp or compaq as well back when they were seperate) which it would not boot unless we purchased the original ones that come with the laptop (expensive if you get them from the manufacturer of the laptop, but picked it up for fairly cheap on ebay)
Sometimes laptops, and desktops, are tied to certain RAM sticks. You have to get certain brands sometimes, sometimes you have to get OEM only, and so on.
Have you tried using one at a time? have you tried using one new and one old? Which dell do you have? Also when you say it doesn't boot, does it post atleast or go to the dell screen at least?
sometimes a simple BIOS upgrade helps but I do not recommend unless you feel comfortable doing a bios flash upgrade, keep in mind a bad bios flash can just make your laptop a HUGE paper weight.
The computer does not boot when upgrading your RAM.
by alza68 - 10/25/09 1:52 PM In reply to: RE: Dell laptop memory install Prpoblem by wasyedFrankly, I was adviced by several computer retailers,and various information on the net concerning upgrading the RAM would enhance the speed of the computer, I had 512 mb of RAM when I bought the compaq pressario 3607TU,with windows XP professional OS. Eventually, I decided to upgrade the RAM to 2gb I Procured a 2 gb RAM from a store and inserted this along with my old 512 mb. I rebooted the computer and found the system did not start. I removed the 2gb RAM Stick and placed my original 512 mb Stick,the computer rebooted without any hassles.
Later I removed the 512mb RAM stick and replaced it with 2GB RAM stick and the computer did reboot. Later I became aware that there is a maximum capacity for this computer according to the specifications indicted at the HP site, that this computer can handle a maximum of 2gb Ram. Therefore I recommend anyone upgrading RAM must be aware that the maximum RAM that the computer can handle, else, whatever is bought will remain useless, unless you could return the stick and procure the money back from the vendor you have bought the same.
I do not know if everybody will concord to this piece of information, but this was what I had experienced. I had purchased eagerly and enthusiastically bigger RAM for swifter performance but this limitation had hindered my expectations,the earlier RAM sticks remains useless. The performance has augmented but not considerably as directed by the vendor or information I had obtained from the net.
Regards,
alza68.
Let me quote from a post somewhat higher ...
by Kees Bakker - 10/25/09 2:03 PM
In reply to: The computer does not boot when upgrading your RAM. by alza68
by yourpcmedic: "A windows XP machine using standard consumer applications, a simple anti-virus software (rather than the overbloated security suites), and is free of malware and bloatware, will run well on 512MB ram. More than that is typicly overkill for a well running system."
But you're certainly ready for Windows 7 now!
Kees
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
