Shop RadioShack for Great Gifts
PC hardware: Why all the hype for installing lots of RAM?
- 10/30/09 3:38 PM
Why the hype
by scleung - 10/24/09 10:13 PM In reply to: Why all the hype for installing lots of RAM? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
Jhampa
In my previous posting, I mentioned that 3GB is enough for most users and I believe you're in good shape. In this posting, I'm going to try to answer your real question "Why the hype for installing lots of RAM?" I think I know why. Cost is the main reason. 1) RAM is cheap. I remember when RAM was expensive, systems were sold only with 128mb or 256mb installed from factory. Not many people were talking about installing lots of RAM in those days. 2) RAM can be easily installed. Most people can handle that task. 3) "Get more RAM" is a generic solution for "system is running slow" problems. Sales people who don't fully understand your need or your problem will offer that solution to the customers. Not having enough RAM was an older problem that doesn't exist anymore when you're buying a new system today. But unfortunately, sales people continue to think that problem still exist.
/signed
by yourpcmedic - 10/25/09 9:06 AM In reply to: Why the hype by scleungI think your comment is spot on.
Future-Proofing
by PGHammer - 10/30/09 8:18 PM In reply to: /signed by yourpcmedicWhile 3 GB of RAM can be plenty if you are a light multi-tasker, if you run Microsoft Office (any recent version) and run two or more applications at once (especially if Outlook is one of them), or do any multiplayer gaming, you may find that you need more RAM. I have Office installed (Windows 7 x64 RTM) and *have* 3 GB of RAM, yet at times find my performance stonewalled due to lack of RAM; surprisingly, the culprit isn't Office, or even gaming (I do play games, though not much in the way of multiplayer), but IE (and lots of tabbing therein). And, as I said, I'm merely a light gamer. Throw in voice aqpplications, IMs, anti-cheat software (such as PunkBuster), and RAM usage for medium and heavy gamers only goes up.
3GB should be plenty...
by rx7racerca - 10/31/09 2:27 PM In reply to: Future-Proofing by PGHammer3 GB should be plenty for most users; while Vista and Windows7 64 bit are relatively memory hungry, keep in mind most people are still computing on systems that are a few years old, running 32 bit versions of Windows, and for most of them, 1GB of memory serves well, and 2GB is generous, even for light to medium duty gaming. Windows 32 will only see between 3 and somewhere under 4GB of RAM, depending on what video cards and other devices with onboard RAM are in the system, since Win32 can only address 4GB total.
Pretty much all systems sold in the last couple of years came with at least 2GB of memory, while for older systems, the kind of work being done on them is unlikely to benefit from more than 2GB of RAM.
If memory usage is high with Office (any version) and a browser open, there is something else going on with your system - too much crap/bloatware, or virus or spyware running in the background. On my Vista laptop I'm working on right now, I have IE and Firefox open with multiple tabs in each, a multi-page Word doc, Outlook, MSN Messenger, several widgets in the sidebar, and Norton 360, and my memory usage is sitting at 59% of 2GB.
Not if you're a medium to heavy multi-tasker!
by PGHammer - 11/2/09 4:08 PM In reply to: 3GB should be plenty... by rx7racercaIf you run many applications (and yes, that includes IM software, such as Yahoo Messenger, AV software and other utilities) at once, especially (not just even) on an older computer, don't settle for less than 2 GB of RAM, even if sticking with Windows XP. (Yes; I'm as serious as it gets.)
If you're running a laptop, notebook, netbook, or legacy laptop in the netbook role, and you have 1 GB or more of RAM, I would advise ditching XP for Windows 7 (due to greater efficiency in terms of performance on portable hardware, even compared to Windows XP).
We have two desktops (mine is a newer Celeron Dual-Core running Windows 7 64-bit/openSuSE 11.2 RC2 64-bit, while the other, which belongs to Mom, is a P4 Northwood running Windows 7 32-bit; both previously ran Vista in their respective bitnesses). My desktop has 3 GB of RAM, while Mom's desktop has 2 GB. The one legacy laptop (where Mom does most of her computing) currently runs XP (1 GB and a P4 Northwood), but will be upgraded to Windows 7 when I can configure a bootable thumb-drive (the laptop has no DVD drive).
bloat
by dependonme - 11/2/09 9:14 PM In reply to: 3GB should be plenty... by rx7racercaHow do I know what programs I can uninstall and which are required?
Sorry, I do not know a ram from a sheep!
Thanks
Do you really need a computer?
by Walter L. Johnson - 11/2/09 9:40 PM In reply to: bloat by dependonmeIf you don't know what application you plan to run, you have no reason to buy a PC at all. A PC is just a piece of furniture if it isn't used for something. A lot these days can be done just with a smart cell phone, like messaging.
I don't actually think one of my brother-in-laws needs a computer, but for the last decade he has been meaning to take a computer class. In the meantime he just uses AOL for internet access occasionally. He would be better off hiring a tutor to use an antique computer than to keep buying equipment he has such a limited use for. Libraries have computers for patrons who only need occasional access.
There are thousands of applications for hundreds of purposes, so no one can answer your question. Check out applications you can benefit from before buying a computer to run them and it will save you money.
Rams
by Darkside459 - 12/10/09 8:57 AM In reply to: 3GB should be plenty... by rx7racercaSorry but I didn't know where to comment so I just reply to your comment..
Anyways....
If you're not running 64bit OS than 2gb is the max you will ever need for 32bit. If you're a high user such as myself, where you multitask, High intense gaming, etc.. than at least 3gb rams is recommend for 32bit OS. But if you're more into like word processing, web browsing, watching DVD's than 1gb is good for standard user..
ram
by badass351 - 11/2/09 7:45 AM In reply to: Future-Proofing by PGHammer2 gig is allot for xp pro and home OS. Vista OS, is like xp plus, all bells and whistles. It robs all your ram. 4 gig is a min. system requirement for most pc games,running vista OS.... I never liked VISTA. I hope 7 gets better reviews.Halo for pc's require min.4 gig on vista, I hope 7 is less because, I run an AMD 64,BIT. But it has a max of 2 gig of ram. And I don't like Microsoft telling me what OS, I have to use!!!!!!!!!!!!
windows 7
by wasyed - 11/2/09 9:07 AM In reply to: ram by badass351Windows 7 seems to do a great job with memory management. I been using it since beta and love it. The only thing i didnt like is it kept bringing up games in window mode for some reason. and it runs so much more smoother and quicker then vista... vista was pretty much windows Me reincarnated.
Windows 7 is Vista made to appeal to computer geeks
by desirawson - 11/4/09 8:51 PM In reply to: ram by badass351There are only 7 differences (get it) between Vista and 7 and frankly if you don't "like" keeping your computer updated and working properly then you need to try something else like a Wii or Instict/IPhone. Vista is THE BEST OS that has happened to the computer world and when the older generation of computer geeks retire things will be so much more peaceful. Seen the commercial with the little girl who can make a PowerPoint Presentation without any help? IT IS REAL!
How would Microsoft pay its programmers w/o new releases
by Walter L. Johnson - 11/5/09 5:07 AM In reply to: Windows 7 is Vista made to appeal to computer geeks by desirawsonI am personally rarely prone to upgrading windows because of all the hardware driver issues that come up, but if you want patches for newly discovered security holes, there are only so many years that you can go without an upgrade if you want to safely access the internet.
Microsoft needs a revenue stream to pay all of its thousands of programmers and other staff since it doesn't charge for fixes or minor improvements to windows features.
If you were right about old programmers being obstacles to common sense why have so few businesses upgraded even to Vista? The one thing all of us old guys and gals have is learning the law of unexpected complications. No massive changes across a large organization are cheap or easy to implement. Training and troubleshooting are the real costs of major upgrades, not the software price. I like being on the leading edge myself until I lived through the other name for that, the bleeding edge.
Your observation about the greater ease of computer use for young adults is generally true, but when I was 40, I was more productive than the five workers who later replaced me and still couldn't do what I did. I actually wrote 100,000 lines of code in one year. My youngest son started his computer use in pre-school. In fact qualifying for the class required no diaper use, so he promptly trained himself almost immediately with only rare accidents at night, just so he could take computer classes. My hope is that such early exposure will create more space in the carpal tunnel while the body is still growing, but I have seen no research on this.
huh
by stdo57 - 12/4/09 8:33 PM In reply to: How would Microsoft pay its programmers w/o new releases by Walter L. Johnsoni have beta tesyed and purchased most ms os's but have to say me was bad.
i love linux also - you can play under the hood.
but vista is good and win 7 is fantastick.
apple is also very good.
WOW you are new to computers.
by LionsMike - 10/30/09 5:05 PM In reply to: Why the hype by scleungI remember waiting for RAM to come down in price so that I could upgrade at under $60.00 per Meg from 1 Meg of RAM to 4 Meg. I paid a little over $209.00 for 4 Meg( I had to remove the two 512K Ram cards and replace them with two 2 Meg cards). I also had buy a new BIOS board for $75.00 so that the processor could utilize the extremely high amount of RAM and a hard drive with more than 500 Meg. Shortly after that I replaced the CPU with one that contained a math coprocessorand operated at a blazing 100 Mhz.
WOW you are new to computers.
by Jimmu411 - 10/30/09 5:49 PM In reply to: WOW you are new to computers. by LionsMikeI remember scratching and saving to get the hundred dollars (over half a month's rent) to buy 16k of RAM to upgrade my 48k Apple II+ to a full 64K. It's all relative!
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
