How much memory is too much?

[edro]

Windows 2000?

A few machines here at work "need" to be upgraded to 2GB of PC2700 DDR...

I highly doubt that Win2k can even use over 1GB... Am I right?

I dunno...

Oh, and they are using small applications, nothing like CADD or anything.

 

[LemonHerbWRX]

I think when playing games you can have to much memory, and it can slow down proformance just a bit. With windows 9x you can also just have to much memory. But for CAD and what not I don't think 2gig would be a problem at all, it should help a lot.

 

[martind1]

2 gigs is alot.

depending on what its is needed to do 1gig might be alot too. maybe 512 is most neede. not sure what apps you use.

 

[LemonHerbWRX]

I read it wrong anyways, I thought you said they used CAD. Basically, if you are the IT guy there or in charge of this kind of stuff tell them that it will slow them down, they wont know any better. It shouldn't hurt, and if it does slow it down it would be minimal, but why waste money.

And just as a note from what I remember I think the Max ammount of ram 2k or xp can use is like 4gigs. Server can use quite a bit more.

 

[InlineFive]

Actually benchmarks have shown that for standard applications (no CAD for example) over 1GB may degrade performance. You must have some pretty heavy multitasking Word people there. 😉

-Por

 

[martind1]

I don't think too much ram will slow down the system.


2 gig is extravagant. Though typically too much memory is only controlled by how much the OS can support.

 

[LemonHerbWRX]

Benchmarks show that on single applications to much ram can slow them down. That was what I was referring to priviously basically with games. Unfortunatly benchmarks are generally synthetic, and in the buiness world there is more to worry about then your FPS. You have your virus scanner running 24/7 plus your outlook and couple other office applications all day. You have all your background stuff, nothing huge but more applications, VNC is up all the time. You are using more services and processes then standard 2k or XP because you are in a domain. Plus any other needed applications that your coperation may run. Also you multi-task within programs, you have your people who run three or four excel spreadsheets at a time that can get pretty huge is size.

Another trick is to plan for the future, It is really hard to look at a computer as a 3 year investment when it is just so expensive to replace a few hundred or thousand of them, a LOT of ram can help you be prepared for later on. But as I said before, I read it wrong, if they were using CAD I would say stuff it up with ram. But since they are not go something less, 512 is what our desktops run here, and more important PCs run a gig. Nothing runs more then that unless it is a server.

I remember reading articles about to much ram slowing things down. And in windows 9x it could slow things down considerably, in windows 2k it barely made a change, there was just little benefit over a gig unless you were running something taxing. I haven't seen one for XP though, I assume it is the same as 2k.

 

[martind1]

Ya 98 could only handle so much ram, the rest would be waste. That is true with w2k and xp as well, though If you have more ram then they can use, then you definatly have too much.

I have yet to use any machine in an office that has more than 512k ram, and those were the higher end workstations. (not including servers and special needs - like cad- machines)

 

[buleyb]

Windows 2000 Pro can use 4GB of RAM, but not all of that is accessible to user applications.

We have 2k and XP machines here that need the /3GB switch to allow 3GB of memory for user applications.

By default, 2GB is the max for user apps, and 2GB is the max for system use.

Hardware-wise, you might be able to get to 4GB with registered/ECC modules if your workstations support it.

 

[martind1]

soo i guess then, over 2 gb is too much. still, sure that money cant go to better uses?

 

[LemonHerbWRX]

Originally posted by: martind1
soo i guess then, over 2 gb is too much. still, sure that money cant go to better uses?

I agree, but what I get out of the original question is that one of the users or managers decided that they needed more RAM to fix a problem after talking to a lame computer guy, or a friend who is a supposed computer super guy. Either that or the user/manager themself thing they are uber puter savy and decided that the maxing out the motherboard's RAM capacity would fix every problem under then sun. These are likely the same kind of people that advise running defrag to fix every problem that shows up.

So finess is required

 

[martind1]

true. just tell him he is wasting money, and try it on one machine first.

 

[LemonHerbWRX]

That would be a bad idea, that is assuming that the person would think it was the same or slower. First 2 gig of ram will have a major placebo effect, and second no one likes to be wrong.

this is where you either say no and leave it at that, or just lie and say your computers don't support that.

 

[martind1]

or you lie and say you installed it and don't. pocket the cash and have a party.


everyone wins.

 

[edro]

Well, I have 512mb RAM on my computer here at home and I just opened almost every application I have in my Quick Launch ( 26 applications, not including 10 IE windows, 10 Firebird windows and 10 Firefox windows) After all that crap was open, I then launched Counter-Strike and it ran like normal.

I checked my resources, and I had 63mb Physical memory free. 😀

I should just find the memory size registry key so it shows up as 2GB and put the 2gb in my machine at work 😀

 

[buleyb]

Well all those applications pale in comparison to some CAD/CAM programs, not to mention programs like MATLAB working with large data sets. I agree, add RAM to one, see if there is a NOTICABLE improvement, not just "works faster", but a measured time difference in rendering or manipulation. It is possible that the problem isn't RAM bound at all, but GPU, CPU, or I/O bound.

EDIT: Ok, so in rereading the original post, 2GB for small office apps is rediculus. 1GB max, 512MB sould cover almost everything in the small office app environment. Let them try though, nothing will improve much.

 

[martind1]

oh, thats true too. might not een be memory thats causing the problems. try a sample computer before you spend this money on unneccessary memory

 

[LemonHerbWRX]

Usually there isn't even a problem. Just a precieved problem. I just love when I hear "My computer at home runs faster." or "My network at home runs faster then this." I have had a user who was convinced that his LCD monitor was blurry, I had a dozen people look at it and none of them thought anything was wrong. We changed the monitor twice, and the PC twice before he thought it was okay. No one else sees a differnce. Half the time you don't have to fix the computer you have to fix the user. Social engineering.

 

[TimothyX]

i think that any more than 768 is too much. even in games, unless you are encoding and playing DX2 and burning a cd and watching pr0n, no more than 256 will be used, and adding the OS you should still have 250 megs or ram left.

 

[SwampsterFL]

Given the resources of most common motherboards, you would need to use 1GB modules to achieve your stated goal of 2GB.

Have you priced this size module in the desired speed range? I would suspect that answer to that, once known to management, would make all previous considerations mote.

 

[martind1]

Originally posted by: SwampsterFL
Given the resources of most common motherboards, you would need to use 1GB modules to achieve your stated goal of 2GB.

Have you priced this size module in the desired speed range? I would suspect that answer to that, once known to management, would make all previous considerations mote.

I think you mean, moot not mote.