PC hardware: Why all the hype for installing lots of RAM?
- 10/30/09 3:38 PM
Turn off paging
by Marc Thibault - 10/31/09 6:45 AM In reply to: Why all the hype for installing lots of RAM? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
A last bit of advice: Windows will use virtual memory/demand paging whether you need it or not. To get maximum advantage from extra memory, turn it off.
RE: Turn off paging
by spec1alk - 10/31/09 8:22 AM In reply to: Turn off paging by Marc ThibaultDo not turn off paging. This is a bad idea and MS has posted Knowledge Base (KB) articles saying so.
...for people who actually utilize their computer to the max
by z0iid - 10/31/09 8:06 AM In reply to: Why all the hype for installing lots of RAM? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
on my work computer, i've been running xp32bit for 3 years, just installed 64bit 7 a few weeks ago. so currently i only have 4gb, and will upgrading to 8gb soon. i will also be upgrading the dual-core to quad-core. i am constantly pegging the processor at 100% usage. why?
because I always have at least 2 vm's running, testing my software packages, reverting the snapshots. at the same time, i have a minimum of 10 tabs in firefox open (by it self, firefox can utilize 1gb of ram if you have enough stuff open.) I only had/have 4gb due to the 32bit limitation - now that I'm not tethered by that, I can give my vm's a respectable amount of ram, and function properly.
so the short answer to your question - anyone who works with vm's DOES need lots of ram, and actually utilizes it.
re: VM
by scleung - 10/31/09 8:43 AM In reply to: ...for people who actually utilize their computer to the max by z0iidAmen to that. I don't use VM for testing. However, I use VM to contact to different client sites via VPN. Also, VM provides more security to my financial data. I created a VM just for doing financial activities. I put the VM files on a USB drive and I only bring that VM up whenever I need it. Otherwise, my host machine has no trace of any financial activities.
Why all the hype for installing lots of RAM when the system
by spec1alk - 10/31/09 8:11 AM In reply to: Why all the hype for installing lots of RAM? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
I didn't read all of the responses, so bear with me here if I am repeating information that has already been mentioned.
How much memory you need really depends on what OS you are running, your computing style, and what kind of apps you will be running or work you will be doing.
If you are running windows, I would recommend using a tool like Process Explorer to monitor your memory usage.
The OS makes a huge difference. Linux is much more efficient at utilizing physical memory (RAM) over virtual memory (VM) than Windows is. VM can be a good thing, but the problem it is that it involves writing data from RAM onto your hard-disk. This is called paging. RAM is substantially faster than disk (I don't know the exact figures off the top of my head but I feel comfortable saying RAM is several hundred times faster than your typical non-raid disk). Windows seems to use much more VM. Additionally the version of windows and patches/service pack installed makes a big difference. Windows 2000 only uses about 96-128mb of ram. A clean install of Windows XP Pro with no service pack only uses about 128mb of ram, but install SP2 or 3 on XP and now the system uses 200-256mb of memory after booting. I don't run Vista personally, but I hear it uses quite a bit more ram than XP (so much so that NetBook manufacturers are still shipping XP due to it's smaller memory footprint). Vista memory usage may also depend on the edition of vista (i.e. Ultimate) and if you are running some of the more exotic features (i.e. Aero). Windows 7 is supposed to be much better in this respect, but I don't have firsthand experience.
The second thing is your computing style. How many processes are running on your machine after boot (I have 47 running while typing this, but I have several browser windows open and MS Outlook). Are you the type of person to have many applications running at once or do you only have a few running at once. The more apps you run at once, the more memory you need in order to avoid paging in windows.
Lastly you have the apps you need to run or work you need to do. My particular job (Software Developer) requires me to be able to run multiple instances of MS Visual Studio (VS) 2008 and NetBeans (Java IDE). Each instance of VS uses about 100-350mb of ram (depending on the project). NetBeans uses about 150mb of ram with no projects open, each project adds about 50-150mb of ram usage depending on the complexity and size of the project.
In addition to running these IDEs, I typically need to have MS Outlook, Anti-Virus/Firewall, multiple browsers (IE, FireFox, and Chrome), and some other misc apps running.
I originally had 2GB of memory in my laptop and found that my machine was regularly paging quite a bit to disk. This caused poor performance. I requested (and was granted) an upgrade to 4GB. This still made a huge difference. The machine pages much less and runs much faster.
I also want to mention a couple things.
1. While you may not currently use 4GB of memory now, the trend is for all software to continue to use more. So you may find yourself using more memory in a couple years.
2. Memory is cheap! Prices have dropped so much so quickly that it likely costs Dell LESS to install the 4GB of memory in your new machine than it did to install 3GB in your previous one.
3. I have heard that Windows 7 is the last 32-bit OS MS will ship, eliminating the 4GB memory limit.
I kind of see this question as being similar to "Why do you need more than one CPU core?" The answer is similar in both cases, you need to balance your need (based on OS, computing style, applications, and future requirements/expansion) vs price.
Right now memory is so cheap I wouldn't bother installing anything less than 4GB in a DDR2 system because the price difference between 2GB or less is so small. Similar case in a DDR3 system, there is such a small price difference between triple channel 3GB (3x1GB) and 6GB (3x2GB) that I wouldn't bother with anything less than 6GB.
CPUs are a different story. While 2 cores are pretty much standard on all CPUs anymore, there is a substantial price increase when moving up in CPU Mhz and Cores. My stance here is to figure out your budget for the CPU and then buy the highest rated CPU within your budget.
Pushing to the max!
by Dumbpeni - 10/31/09 10:18 AM In reply to: Why all the hype for installing lots of RAM? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
I have 2 gb RAM and XP . I had been able to push my RAM usage past 1 GB by opening all kinds of things I can think of at the same time. Like opening your fav browser and opening as many tabs or windows as you can. It is kind of a game to see how far I could go before it crashes or freezes up in an infinite loop or something like that. I had to reboot and start all over. It is fun though. Your CPU usage will scream at 100% most of the times. Tweak a bit by closing here and there like going two steps forward and a step backward and so on. You can try the Startup menu and add as many crap in there as possible for a quick start up of all the clutter . Be sure not to let any of your utility apps like scanning, defrag or back up start or it will hog up CPU usage like a pitbull. It is really fun.
More RAM is always an advantage...
by minutepoet - 10/31/09 12:19 PM In reply to: Why all the hype for installing lots of RAM? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
I've a pc with 512MB 2 years ago and I couldn't run games like Need for Speed Most Wanted on it despite having a good graphics card like nVidia. It always appeared choppy and never ran smooth. I've bought a dell studio laptop with 3 gig RAM which improved my experience like never before. It made all the programs run faster and smoother and it resulted in a huge time save. At the same time I never saw my RAM going up than 1.5 GB in usage. I saw a post in this in which the user had purchased a software called Ramdisk plus. I better try one of those. Who knows..may be it'll make my pc more faster.
What kind of computer user are you?
by skimps - 10/31/09 12:28 PM In reply to: Why all the hype for installing lots of RAM? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
As others have already said, performance is all linked together. But I think many people tend to forget the most important link, IMO: What kind of computer user are you? This should always be the first link of the chain, so I'll waste some space reiterating.
If you're a power user who can't stand the least hesitation in any program or function and typically runs a dozen or more resource hogs at a time, you need a high-end machine (motherboard, processor, ram, graphics card, fast hard drives, good cooling and appropriate power supply) and preferably a machine that is upgradeable. If you're mostly a casual user with only a few basic programs running at a time, then having a high end machine or maximum RAM is probably a waste.
Unless it's a laptop. If even casual users want a laptop to be comfortable to use for a few years, or even right away, they should spend some money, IMO. I can't stand cheap laptops. As far as I'm concerned, cheap laptops should come with instructions for disposal right on the machine.
So anyway (sorry for the digression) unless you need it and expect to use it, there is no reason to have a boatload of RAM, the fastest-hottest multicore processor, or the latest graphics card wonder. Unless your computer is running too slowly for you to use it without frustration, you don't need to worry about how much RAM you have or if you are fully utilizing it or not. If the computer comes with more RAM than you currently need or can use but at a good price, so what? The basic rule of good tech support is: If it's not broke, don't fix it. If your computer *is* frustrating you, then, as many others have already said, you need to look at more than just the RAM.
That being said, the system requirements of software manufacturers do not seem to ever go down rather than up. In terms of longevity, more RAM (and more system capability in general) is better than less.
Windows 7
by cliff27 - 10/31/09 2:23 PM In reply to: Why all the hype for installing lots of RAM? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
Simple question....Most windows 7 systems seem to ship with 4 ram, which is currently sufficient. Wouldn't it be wise though to get 8 ram or so if you plan on keeping the computer for awhile (say, up to 5 years). Isn't this especially true with the all in one machines, which are tough, if not impossible to upgrade?
Keeping up for what???
by scleung - 10/31/09 3:37 PM In reply to: Windows 7 by cliff27I've been coming across this type of postings alot. For some reason, people think that RAM requirement will grow with time. I know Bill Gates could be evil but I don't think his company are getting incomes from the sales of RAM. So I doubt very much that Windows 7 will start eating up your RAM over time.
One of my clients is a global I.T. consulting company. They provided a PC for me and I've been using the same PC for the last 4 years with one 1GB of RAM, the CPU is a Intel dual core. The PC is still running great and I am planning to use the same PC with no hardware upgrade for the next 5 years. If my system gets upgraded, the request will not be coming from me because I don't need it.
Is it possible that you will need 8GB of RAM in the future? Sure that's possible but it's not because of time. Your RAM requirement is based on the applications running on your computer and the number of applications you would want to run at the same time. Any PC could run one applications nicely but a PC with more RAM could handle multiple applications nicely.
Not much RAM for business
by Walter L. Johnson - 11/2/09 1:24 AM In reply to: Keeping up for what??? by scleungActually, if you run the same applications, especially business application or internet browsing, for years on end without upgrading the applications, the only reason you ever need to upgrade is if you can't find replacement parts as components fail. Even that is not much of a problem if you only have the machine turned on for a couple of hours a week. But, not being able to replace a damaged PCMIA dial up modem card (migrated to PC Card Bus name) is what made my brother-in-law's laptop computer obsolete. It was several years old and for everyone else annoyingly slow, but it didn't bother him as much as realizing what was an expensive laptop was now practically junk over one part.
Everyone tells him that if he switches to a broadband connection he will never want to use dial-up again, but he is content to never try roadband since he knows it costs more. He bought a replacement dial up PCMIA card only to find the box said it would work even under Windows 95, but the installation instructions said otherwise, so it had to be returned. He now has a still usable laptop that won't connect to the internet, his only real application.
He is finally going to buy a new laptop even knowing he will get less for his money than if he bought a desktop PC, but he is going to have to hurry to find one with a dial up modem still built in.
The reason a PC seems to get slower over time if you don't add memory is that software litter occurs and can only be totally eliminated by completely reinstalling windows. For most people it is simply less work to buy more memory and hard disc space than to figure out what is causing the problem and to learn how to avoid recreating problems. Generally, hardware is now much cheaper than the labor it takes to repair hardware or clean up software installations.
RAM requirement varies from business to business
by scleung - 11/2/09 7:01 AM In reply to: Not much RAM for business by Walter L. Johnson1GB RAM is not enough for running a server, that's true. But for workstations, I can argue that it is enough for a lot of people even in the I.T field. Again, it all depends on what the computer is used for. All of the real applications at my company run in UNIX or Windows 2003 servers. I'm using my PC to interface with these servers. It's true that I may have 10 to 15 windows running at the same time. But these windows are mostly interface programs which take up very little RAM and small amount of CPU cycles. The other windows are more email and small spreadsheet. So whenever I see people saying RAM will help your system run faster, that statement is not 100% true. It only applies to people who don't have enough RAM. 1GB is fine for what I'm doing.
Why RAM now instead of later
by Walter L. Johnson - 11/1/09 1:03 AM In reply to: Windows 7 by cliff27Once you have the minimum RAM specified for your operating system, you could wait to buy more RAM. Here are the reasons that might not be wise:
1) Types of memory change and if you can get by for years and years with the same PC (must not be a gamer), it may be hard to get the right type of RAM to add more in keeping with your application needs.
2) If you have only the minimum RAM and one of the chips fails and you are not able to replace it, you would be pretty much forced to replace the motherboard, memory and CPU or revert to an older version of Windows or current Linux. This makes extra memory cheap insurance.
3) I lost the use of one PC because memory technology had advanced and the motherboard I had only accepted RAM with chips on one side, but new memory had chips on both sides. So, even if the RAM is available, your specific subtype of chip may not be.
4) A motherboard has a set number of slots for memory, so if you have only two slots, going from 2 GB to 4 GB might mean not adding memory, but actually replacing memory. In the example the 2 GB RAM might be 2 - 1 GM memory cards, and going to 4 GB would require taking out the 2 - 1 GB RAM and installing in its place 2 - 2 GB RAM.
RE: Why RAM now instead of later
by wasyed - 11/1/09 10:33 AM In reply to: Why RAM now instead of later by Walter L. Johnson1) It's never hard to get memory of the right type, there's always ebay and online stores that carry memory when needed for an older type of memory at a fair price often. (stay away from specialty stores that'll charge you more because the type is scarce.) Don't believe me? look up EDO RAM on ebay, there's a lot around still.
2) what if you have the maximum RAM, and all the chips fail? Won't that be more waste of money? Also as I said before, you can always find older RAM technologies around the internet. Besides if you're not able to possibly change the RAM, its time for an upgrade regardless!
3) I'm running a computer in my car that takes single sided chips and just changed the RAM a few months ago and got 2 sticks of PC133 RAM for 10 dollars (at cogan's computer fair, [new england based fairs])
4) This 4th one isnt very clear on why its better to RAM now instead of later. If I started off with 4GB then great maybe I had the money to, if i have to replace my 2-1GB sticks for 2-2GB sticks later on then by that time the 2GB sticks will be cheaper.
unless you are ready to upgrade your entire motherboard (which by the time it might be better to upgrade regardless often times) you really do not have to.
the reason why
by wasyed - 11/2/09 9:01 AM In reply to: Windows 7 by cliff27I think the reason why they ship with more RAM now is not just because its needed, because windows 7 can run fine on less RAM, but probably because RAM is getting cheaper and cheaper. Therefor you can provide more RAM for the same price as a few years ago.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
