Touch the Future Now at Staples
PC hardware: Why all the hype for installing lots of RAM?
- 10/30/09 3:38 PM
Why all the hype for installing lots of RAM?
by Lee Koo (ADMIN) - 10/30/09 3:38 PM
Question:
Why all the hype for installing lots of RAM when the system doesn't utilize it?
I have always followed the advice of this community, and they have always been great suggestions. I have one question. I have 3GBs of RAM on my current Dell 531S and my new Dell 546, which I will be receiving, will have 4GB of RAM. I have two RAM monitors on my systems that keep an eye on RAM usage. They never go above 1GB and most of the time it is at 225MB to 500MB of usage. So why all the hype for lots of RAM? I periodically do film editing and it still uses only a little RAM. Is there something I am not doing to use more RAM? Is there a way to get the computer to utilize more, a setting I should redo or set? Suggestions and comments appreciated.
--Submitted by Jhampa S.
Here are some featured member answers to get you started, but
please read all the advice and suggestions that our
members have contributed to this question.
Why the hype --Submitted by scleung
http://forums.cnet.com/5208-7591_102-0.html?messageID=3158186#3158186
Misinformation --Submitted by yourpcmedic
http://forums.cnet.com/5208-7813_102-0.html?messageID=3158397#3158397
Peak performance is key --Submitted by say592
http://forums.cnet.com/5208-7591_102-0.html?messageID=3158191#3158191
Always max your allowable RAM --Submitted by High Desert Charlie
http://forums.cnet.com/5208-7591_102-0.html?messageID=3157033#3157033
Memory utilization --Submitted by GEO2003
http://forums.cnet.com/5208-7591_102-0.html?messageID=3157027#3157027
If you have additonal opinions or advice for Jhampa, please click on the reply link and post it. If you are providing troubleshooting advice, please be as detailed as possible when submitting your solution. Thanks!
Lots of RAM
by mjb5406 - 10/23/09 4:39 PM In reply to: Why all the hype for installing lots of RAM? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
Funny you should ask this since it was the subject of a question at my Windows 7 Launch Party last night. The answer is simple and complicated... if you are using a 32-bit operating system you are limited to 4GB of memory but you can't access it all. When the PC was originally designed, nobody ever thought anyone would need more than 4GB of memory... and the highest amount that can be accessed by a 32-bit number is 4,096,000 bytes (4GB). But you can't use it all... all of the hardware adapters in your PC (video, network, etc.) use a part of the top end of the 4GB space, so, in essence, you only have access to 3.25GB. When Vista was first released, it reported the real memory accessible... people screamed because they had 4GB and it only showed 3.25 so, in a later patch, Microsoft actually started reported it as 4GB (technically incorrect, but great marketing).
64-bit operating systems can access something like petabytes of memory, but are usually limited (by design) to like 256GB, which nobody can afford anyhow.
In either case, though, the system will work better with more memory because it can keep the OS and running programs in memory rather than swpping them out to (slower) disk, or "Virtual Memory" as they call it. Most OSes (Windows, Linux, UNIX. Mac OS X) use this "swap space" to enable multiple programs to run simultaneously, even if there is less memory than is needed.
Original design
by ejsecco - 10/24/09 11:18 AM In reply to: Lots of RAM by mjb5406mjb5406, you had a good post, but your history is wrong about the original design of the PC. The original PC used Intel's 8088 8/16-bit processor that can only address 1MB of memory using a 20-bit addressing scheme. At the time, Microsoft decided that only 640k would be accessible to programs because at the time, Bill Gates stated that he didn't think anyone would ever need more than that. The remaining 360k was reserved for the video card, etc.
You're Correct
by Hforman - 10/25/09 6:37 PM In reply to: Original design by ejseccoI guess some people here have been reading and believing in Wikipedia or are too young to know that the first commercially available personal computer was the TRS-80 from Radio Shack. Or remember anything from Sinclair computers. 640 mb wasn't even the first available memory configuration. It was much smaller than that and the only available storage was cassette tape. That was before the eight-inch floppies got popular.
Old Computer
by scleung - 10/25/09 7:07 PM In reply to: You're Correct by HformanMy old Trash 80 computer had 48K with a tape drive to store the program I typed in. I was the most high tech person on the block.
You had a big TRS 80 Model 1
by quantum_force - 10/30/09 6:03 PM In reply to: Old Computer by scleung48 K was luxury. My still running TRS 80 had 4K (later larger) of ROM and 16K of RAM...to get 64K required an external $299 box + about the same cost in RAM to populate it.
Commodore 64
by blauder - 10/30/09 8:55 PM In reply to: You had a big TRS 80 Model 1 by quantum_forceI was lucky, my old Commodore 64 had 64 kB RAM + 20 kB ROM AND it still works! Couldn't play Spore on it though. Ha!
Well, when I was a kid...
by real village idiot - 10/31/09 5:05 PM In reply to: Commodore 64 by blauderHah! My VIC-20 only had 5k! And only let me use 3.5k as I recall. Talk about uphill both ways!
mitts 680B
by donaldjj - 11/6/09 9:50 AM In reply to: Well, when I was a kid... by real village idiotmy first computer had only 512 bytes of ram 24 toggle switches and 24 leds for I/O. I later installed a Tarbell cassette interface which did not work well.
Later Iupgraded to a kim1 and later to a Commodore pet. I disagree that the TRS 80 was the first home computer as it didn't arive for 2 years after my mitts 680B
Don
MITS
by Walter L. Johnson - 11/7/09 5:08 AM In reply to: mitts 680B by donaldjjIt sounds like you and I had the same computer company to start with, except I think my model was earlier than yours. The MITS Altair 8800, where you had to read the LED lights as binary and convert them manually to base 10 numbers for results unless you flushed out the computer with $1,700 of optional components which I didn't see as cost effective. Math that way was hard, especially using toggle switches to make entries in binary numbers.
My boss and I had assembled it from a kit just for fun and I did the soldering. I had to take it back for repair though because the assembly instructions didn't do a good job describing how to ground everything. At the repair shop I saw the first Commodore PET for sale and sold the MITS on consignment before waiting for something even better or cheaper to come out. My boss and I bought the MITS partly for the novelty of assembling it from a kit. I kind of wish I still had that computer just as a display novelty, but I sold it when the Commodore PET computer came out obviously a much better value for the home user. The Commodore PET, then Commodore 20 and Commodore 64 were much more user friendly, and I think I still have a Commodore 20 in storage. Radio Shack (Tandy) popularized the TRS-80 but I never bought one, although I think it made some inroads in schools and I know a co-worker who bought one.
The only thing good I can say about the early computers was programming was more fun and less work in those days, but having so little computer memory and unreliable tape storage was not fun at all. All of the pocket calculators today can do math easier without worry about the number of bits in a register and trying to put too many into a register.
The "Good Old Days" are usually exaggerated in nostalgia, but I can honestly say I would not voluntarily go back to them.
According to http://oldcomputers.net/altair.html the Datapoint 2200 was the first computer, although it was actually a programmable terminal dating back to 1970. The Radio Shack TRS-80 came out in 1977, the same year the Commodore Pet came out, while the Mits Altair 8800 came out in 1975. What Radio Shack and Commodore did was popularize home computers, while the IBM PC in 1981 legitimize small computers for business and home use in general.
The good "OLD" days
by donaldjj - 11/7/09 10:31 AM In reply to: MITS by Walter L. Johnsonyes the 8080 was about 4-6 months older than the 680B. And i still have my pet, C=64, and associated herdware periferals. The 1.05 mb floppy that was years before anyone else had one. the intresting thing about that drive was that it would not work with the special high density floppys that rge other drives required.
I still enjoy going and playing with the old games such as MULE with its very catchy tune that you either love or hate. fortunatly the commodore emulators work nicely in the new machines.
oh yes. a memory stick can be trained to emulate a commodore drive and WILL work on a C=64. takes recoding the serial port routines though.
Don
JUNK code is mainly the problem.
by TreknologyNet - 11/1/09 2:09 AM In reply to: You had a big TRS 80 Model 1 by quantum_force[SOAPBOX]
I started in domestic computing when 4k was 'standard', 16k was 'luxury' and 64k was a "programmers' dream". Code had to be tight and specific.
When the basic IBM PC/XT was released, it frequently only had 256k installed because, as quoted elsewhere, Bill Gates said "No one would ever use 640k of memory."
It would seem that from that very moment on, MS set out to fill up as much memory as possible. When a new driver was installed in MSDOS, it did not REPLACE the original, it was loaded ABOVE the original which still sat in (now wasted) memory.
I had a simple BASIC word processor (self-written), which ran on my Trash-80 quite nicely at a blazing 1.7MHz. Porting that program to the PC's GW Basic, the program could not even keep up with the keyboard (and this is a machine running FOUR times faster). Compiling it improved the speed, but at a huge memory sacrifice (all the JUNK code embedded in the compiled version that is never going to be used).
Take a DOS Word document, and load it into any version of WIN Word, then look at the huge increase in file size when you save it. Most of that extra information is unnecessary JUNK.
The argument for JUNK code is "Well, by the time I've trimmed it down, there's a CPU that runs it faster anyway." This philosophy is now rampant in the programming community, with 90% of programmers out there relying on users having extra memory, hard disc space and CPU speed--rather than honing their own skills to keep their resources to a minimum. For those that do trim their code, the compiler of choice probably results in a sloppy translation anyway.
With multiple layers: BIOS, OS, GUI, Compiler/Translator, Proprietary hardware drivers that have to negotiate several of these layers simultaneously and with every one of the above containing at least 50% junk code, it all conspires to chew up your computer's resources at an exponential rate.
You will also notice this phenomenon on Web pages--ever-increasing graphic content aside, it can take 25k of data to transfer a fairly simple page from a server to your browser, which a competent HTML coder could reduce to about 2k.
Therefore, when it's no longer worth your own time to write your own program, when you can purchase someone else's, I always recommend the maximum affordable memory up to the capacity of the Motherboard/CPU/OS combination (there's no point installing unaddressable memory).
[/SOAPBOX]
As a programmer
by wasyed - 11/1/09 10:39 AM In reply to: JUNK code is mainly the problem. by TreknologyNetas a programmer i have to agree that a lot of programs can be trimmed down by A LOT! efficiency should be focused on as well when making a program but I have to agree that most programmers do not focus on that. I'm one of the few that actually try to be as effecient as possible. It does take a long time to try to trim code, I'm currently trying to do so right now and have been working on days trying to get the code slimmed down so it will load faster.
I'm also working on a webpage on the side too and stuck with the same issue, I was supposed to actually release the page about 2 weeks ago but its awfully heavy in code especially in my PHP and javascript portion of the pages. well back to work! 
Hardware cost vs Labor cost
by scleung - 11/1/09 1:47 PM In reply to: As a programmer by wasyedI can't speak for other platforms, but for PC's, as long as labor cost exceeds hardware cost, on the average you will not see software efficiency. I've been working with PC for more than 25 years. As hardware price goes down, the software efficiency goes down with it.
PS: Some of you may still remember Turbo Pascal, the entire compiler and editor fit into a 360k floppy. I don't think we will ever see this type of efficient applications again in our life time.
No Way
by msgale - 11/1/09 8:16 PM In reply to: JUNK code is mainly the problem. by TreknologyNetI have been trying to respond to your soapbox, and instead of a point by point rebuttal I have decided to use a series of questions.
1. Define "Junk code"
2. Assuming that "junk code" is code that never executes, Prove its existence.
3. "the compiler of choice probably results in a sloppy translation anyway" Name bad compilers, that produce "sloppy code"
4. I serious doubt that any word processor written for a trash-80, had any of the capabilities of current Word Processors, i.e. WYSIWYG display, multiple fonts, color, table generation, foot notes and endnotes, spell checkers, charting, graphics, mail merge, equation editing.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
