Don't need more memory - or do I?

[dbarton]

Sure seems like 256m is enough memory for my machine, but everyone says get 512m.. Which of thes specs tell me I need mor memory? Seems to run welll overall.

My system says:

physical:
total 261600
available 47204
systenm cache 53640

kernel memory:
total 76636
paged 46196
nonpaged 30440

 

[John]

available 47204

I'd definitely recommend an additional 256MB for your machine to minimize pagefile usage and speed up multi-tasking.

 

[aircooled]

512 is my minimum recommendation for any modern computer running 2000/XP. The difference in performance is quite noticable from 256. Personally, I'd go for a gig of RAM (or more) if it's in your budget....

 

[buleyb]

Originally posted by: aircooled
512 is my minimum recommendation for any modern computer running 2000/XP. The difference in performance is quite noticable from 256. Personally, I'd go for a gig of RAM (or more) if it's in your budget....

Ok, I'll bite. Why do you suggest a GB of ram?

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: buleyb

Originally posted by: aircooled
512 is my minimum recommendation for any modern computer running 2000/XP. The difference in performance is quite noticable from 256. Personally, I'd go for a gig of RAM (or more) if it's in your budget....

Ok, I'll bite. Why do you suggest a GB of ram?

Because all the cool kids have a gig, and if you want to be cool....

 

[adams828]

1gb will help out some users, it really depends on what you use your computer for. go into your task manager and look under the performance tab. where it says commit charge, see what it says your peak useage is. a good rule of thumb is whatever that number is, you should have ~double that much ram. but i'd say definitely get at least 256mb more so you have 512 total.. you should definitely notice an improvement from that.

 

[InlineFive]

As people above have said you need at least 512MB for the system to run somewhat smoothly. If you play lots of memory hog games however (BF1942, MMORPGs, etc.) prepare to take out the cash for 1GB as they run slow on 512MB. Not to mention that Microsoft Bloatware will keep increasing in size as time goes on and the computers will suck up even more memory then.

-Por

 

[buleyb]

Originally posted by: PorBleemo
As people above have said you need at least 512MB for the system to run somewhat smoothly. If you play lots of memory hog games however (BF1942, MMORPGs, etc.) prepare to take out the cash for 1GB as they run slow on 512MB. Not to mention that Microsoft Bloatware will keep increasing in size as time goes on and the computers will suck up even more memory then.

-Por

While I agree that some people will need 1GB of memory, I'm sick of it being the recommendation for most builders in here. Large scale online games are a good reason for this, as are many workstation tasks and development work.


As for Microsoft `Bloatware`, look into your memory usage and see whats burning the most RAM, Microsoft shouldn't be stereotyped for OS memory usage, especially when their numbers are well within reason.

 

[thorin]

Could you give us some relevant details like:

1) What OS?
2) What processor?
3) What you use your system for?

so we can give you a well informed answer.

Thorin

 

[Acanthus]

If you game, you need a gig.

 

[buleyb]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
If you game, you need a gig.

Not that clear cut. I like minesweeper, but I'm hardly being held back with my 512MB

And i'm not mocking the problem, single player games typically won't need it, and likely won't perform any better with it. Even multiplayer games aren't held to this rule of yours, just large scale ones.

 

[aircooled]

Originally posted by: buleyb

Originally posted by: aircooled
512 is my minimum recommendation for any modern computer running 2000/XP. The difference in performance is quite noticable from 256. Personally, I'd go for a gig of RAM (or more) if it's in your budget....

Ok, I'll bite. Why do you suggest a GB of ram?

assuming the OS is 2000 or higher and modern applications are being used a gig of RAM will make the computing experiece more effiecient and enjoyable.

windows 2000 and higher likes gobs of RAM.

personally I have 1.5 gigs but I use my computer for graphics, video capture/editing and stuff. It makes a difference. (Also like to play BF1942 sometimes).

 

[dullard]

'Need' is a word that will vary dramatically from person to person. I'm currently on a computer running Win XP with 128 MB of memory. I have Visual Basic 6, Word, Excel, MathCad, and Internet Explorer open, running, and I'm actively using them all at the same time without any noticible lag. This is in addition to McAffee and Zone Alarm and all the Windows stuff that run in the background. Basically if I can do all this with 128 MB, then 256 MB is sufficient for most people. It seems from your post that you fit this category.

There are programs that need a lot more memory though to run well. At home I use 384 MB for my gaming computer (Win XP) and it runs quite well (Note: I don't have BF1942 though) on every game I play including online games. I personally recommend 384 MB as a minimum for new computers bought today (to everyone even if you are not currently using memory intensive programs - just to allow for future uses which may arise) and 512 MB - 1 GB for the heavy computer enthusiasts who will run memory intensive programs. If I bought a gaming computer today, I'd get 768 MB.

Note: dual channel motherboards and people who overclock should probably avoid the less common 384 MB and 768 MB numbers - but for the rest of us they often are the ideal price/performance balance. Unfortunately too many people overlook these options.

 

[Atlantean]

Throw at least another stick of 256 in there if not a stick of 512... what are the stats on your machine?

 

[JBT]

I would reccommend getting atleast 512mb if you are running XP or 2000. The system will run much smoother. If you game at with anything newer 512 is a must. I play Desert Combat (BF1942 mod) and I lag like a b!tch for the first 30 seconds or so it kinda suck I wish I had a gig Most other games 512 is very nice though.
Your computer time will be much more enjoyable with more ram.

 

[dbarton]

I definitly hear all the tme that 512 is better, but based on the actual *real numbers* in the first email of this thread, would it really make a difference?

Never play games, but do run email and a few apps at the same time..

I'd just do it and see, but this is 1066 RDRAM so is over $100 for another 256m.

 

[Alptraum]

Originally posted by: dbarton
I definitly hear all the tme that 512 is better, but based on the actual *real numbers* in the first email of this thread, would it really make a difference?

Never play games, but do run email and a few apps at the same time..

I'd just do it and see, but this is 1066 RDRAM so is over $100 for another 256m.

Well, your 47megs free part puts your right on the edge. You may be going over that sometimes depending on when you took those stats. Try to baseline your mem usage for a week or so. If you see yourself going over 256 you should add some more. If not you are doing ok, thats pretty much all there is to it.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: buleyb

Originally posted by: aircooled
512 is my minimum recommendation for any modern computer running 2000/XP. The difference in performance is quite noticable from 256. Personally, I'd go for a gig of RAM (or more) if it's in your budget....

Ok, I'll bite. Why do you suggest a GB of ram?

I scanned an 18,500x28,000 pixel image earlier. It was 1.5 GB. On a 512mb system, it took about 20 minutes to scan because the hard drive was thrashed the whole time... It then took another 10 minutes to open the thing.

 

[thorin]

Originally posted by: Alptraum

Originally posted by: dbarton
I definitly hear all the tme that 512 is better, but based on the actual *real numbers* in the first email of this thread, would it really make a difference?

Never play games, but do run email and a few apps at the same time..

I'd just do it and see, but this is 1066 RDRAM so is over $100 for another 256m.

Well, your 47megs free part puts your right on the edge. You may be going over that sometimes depending on when you took those stats. Try to baseline your mem usage for a week or so. If you see yourself going over 256 you should add some more. If not you are doing ok, thats pretty much all there is to it.

Yup I agree, keep an eye on it for a while. If you're constantly going over 256 then buy some more. Also keep in mind you can go to 384 as Dullard suggested (unless Rambus has to be in pairs or some dumb crap like that.....I've never used rambus and never will......and have never bothered to learn anything about it).

Thorin

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: thorin

Originally posted by: Alptraum

Originally posted by: dbarton
I definitly hear all the tme that 512 is better, but based on the actual *real numbers* in the first email of this thread, would it really make a difference?

Never play games, but do run email and a few apps at the same time..

I'd just do it and see, but this is 1066 RDRAM so is over $100 for another 256m.

Well, your 47megs free part puts your right on the edge. You may be going over that sometimes depending on when you took those stats. Try to baseline your mem usage for a week or so. If you see yourself going over 256 you should add some more. If not you are doing ok, thats pretty much all there is to it.

Yup I agree, keep an eye on it for a while. If you're constantly going over 256 then buy some more. Also keep in mind you can go to 384 as Dullard suggested (unless Rambus has to be in pairs or some dumb crap like that.....I've never used rambus and never will......and have never bothered to learn anything about it).

Thorin

Rambus has to be installed in pairs, unless you have 32bit rambus (you most likely dont).

 

[thorin]

Damn RAMBUS sux.

Thorin

 

[Crassus]

Personally, I run with a 512 plus a 256 MB stick with Win2k.

Even if you never cross the line of 256 MB of actual memory usage, if you keep just under it your system basically runs almost with no HD-cache. That means that your system's speed will depend a lot on the speed of your HD, making program and data load sometimes quite painful. I remember playing Mafia where the first load took ages, but the second one took almost no time (= all data cached).
If you don't have enough ram, it will take ages every time ... :c)

Not to mention that an NT-system will move a lot more data into the swapfile when RAM is scarce, meaning that you have to wait not only during loads but also during all sorts of program activity ...

J m 2ct.

 

[kuritadelta]

I agree that 512MB is highly recommended.. but
1GB or over, you can be just wasting your money depending on what your computer use is for...
If you don't do applications that require lot of ram like video editing etc.. then you don't need more than 512MB.

If you just play games, 512 is suffice for most games out there.. I don't know too many games that will need more ram for better game play.

Lot of people will try to tell you more ram more ram! but like anything, it all depend on what your budget is and what applications/games will require. Anything more is just an overkill

 

[kuritadelta]

Originally posted by: dullard
'Need' is a word that will vary dramatically from person to person. I'm currently on a computer running Win XP with 128 MB of memory. I have Visual Basic 6, Word, Excel, MathCad, and Internet Explorer open, running, and I'm actively using them all at the same time without any noticible lag. This is in addition to McAffee and Zone Alarm and all the Windows stuff that run in the background. Basically if I can do all this with 128 MB, then 256 MB is sufficient for most people. It seems from your post that you fit this category.

128MB for XP? while it will run.. 256MB is recommended for XP OS itself.
On top of that you are running VB6, and apps, and multitasking without much lag??? hard to imagine...

 

[imported_Phil]

Actually, 64Mb is the minimum XP will run on. 128Mb is "recommended" by Microsoft.