POLL: "256 ram is enough" True or false?

[Nitemare]

I had 512 running in my old system and it would still use my pagefile on a routine basis.

256 is ok if all you have is the OS and game running, I'd recommend 512 if you multi task or play at high res..

 

[StageLeft]

<<

<< Do none of you multitask?

OS + game + winamp + windows explorer + perhaps IE open. 256 is really gonna cut it all the way into this year? Not a chance! >>



When I'm gaming??

NOPE!

OS+Game. Period.

amish >>

You do realize that windows can now multitask right? I run this at ALL times:

-operating system
-windows explorer. If this ain't open I'm not booted up.
-msn messenger
-icq
-zone alarm
-united devices distributing app
-winamp. if this ain't open i'm not booted up.
-IE. I MIGHT close an IE window when a game starts but probably not. I like to get right back to surfing the second a game stops.
-game - for instance warcraft 3 which sucks up a mean 100 megs alone.

Now tell me 256 megs runs all properly?

I have yet to undertsand why so many people are content with running 1-2 apps at a time in an operating system as stable and as capable as Win2k or similar. Stop thinking this is 3.1!

 

[FrogDog]

<<

<< Do none of you multitask?

OS + game + winamp + windows explorer + perhaps IE open. 256 is really gonna cut it all the way into this year? Not a chance! >>



When I'm gaming??

NOPE!

OS+Game. Period.

amish >>

Exactly. Skoorb and I were just arguing about that on MSN. Why he leaves all that stuff open while gaming is beyond me! OK Soorb, if you want to surf the net, manage your files and game at the same time, spend the extra $80 on the ram.

 

[Electric Amish]

<<

<<

<< Do none of you multitask?

OS + game + winamp + windows explorer + perhaps IE open. 256 is really gonna cut it all the way into this year? Not a chance! >>



When I'm gaming??

NOPE!

OS+Game. Period.

amish >>

You do realize that windows can now multitask right? I run this at ALL times:

-operating system
-windows explorer. If this ain't open I'm not booted up.
-msn messenger
-icq
-zone alarm
-united devices distributing app
-winamp. if this ain't open i'm not booted up.
-IE. I MIGHT close an IE window when a game starts but probably not. I like to get right back to surfing the second a game stops.
-game - for instance warcraft 3 which sucks up a mean 100 megs alone.

Now tell me 256 megs runs all properly?

I have yet to undertsand why so many people are content with running 1-2 apps at a time in an operating system as stable and as capable as Win2k or similar. Stop thinking this is 3.1! >>



I don't have them open because I'm not using them. If I need something, I open it. It doesn't mean I shut something down to use something else. Why would I have all that crap open while I'm engrossed in a game? Just because you CAN multi-task doesn't mean that you MUST at all times.

amish

 

[wolf550e]

512 for me

 

[yakko]

I say run XP get 1gb or more of ram and turn off that stupid swap file.

Edit- kan't speel this weak.

 

[StageLeft]

<< I don't have them open because I'm not using them. If I need something, I open it. It doesn't mean I shut something down to use something else. Why would I have all that crap open while I'm engrossed in a game? Just because you CAN multi-task doesn't mean that you MUST at all times.

amish >>

I use these all at the same time. I want ICQ open so I can receive messages. Close it and open it between games? That takes a while. Same for MSN. I like to know when somebody gives me a message or I get a hotmail. IE open? I like to keep a tab on certain threads or pages (such as the war3 ladder page so I can alt-tab when a game starts to determine an enemy-rank). Winamp? Listen to music as I game. The only one I could close is windows explorer which I don't want to close because then opening it requires re-mapping to the directory I had open at the time (probably on a mp3 directory), so I use ALL of these at once.

 

[Haircut]

I also fall into the just OS and game loaded category when I am gaming.

When you close IE all it takes is a single click in the quick launch bar to get it back again.
I really can't say I have noticed any difference having 512 megs of RAM, all games were smooth with 256.

 

[Electric Amish]

<<

<< I don't have them open because I'm not using them. If I need something, I open it. It doesn't mean I shut something down to use something else. Why would I have all that crap open while I'm engrossed in a game? Just because you CAN multi-task doesn't mean that you MUST at all times.

amish >>

I use these all at the same time. I want ICQ open so I can receive messages. Close it and open it between games? That takes a while. Same for MSN. I like to know when somebody gives me a message or I get a hotmail. IE open? I like to keep a tab on certain threads or pages (such as the war3 ladder page so I can alt-tab when a game starts to determine an enemy-rank). Winamp? Listen to music as I game. The only one I could close is windows explorer which I don't want to close because then opening it requires re-mapping to the directory I had open at the time (probably on a mp3 directory), so I use ALL of these at once. >>



If you use them all the time then, sure you would do better to have 512mb. A person should build a computer to THEIR usage requirements, tho. If they don't use it like you do, then they don't need 512mb if they don't want to spend the extra cash.

amish

 

[BooneRebel]

Enough for someone else's PC? Sure. Enough for my own? Not a chance. That's like asking if the processor is fast enough....

 

[cressida]

512 here too

 

[SCSIfreek]

<< Do none of you multitask?

OS + game + winamp + windows explorer + perhaps IE open. 256 is really gonna cut it all the way into this year? Not a chance! >>


Well I'm on a all SCSI system so I do multi-task but not to the extend of some users here had mentioned. Why the hell would you be playing DVD, listening to MP3, burning a CDR and gaming at the some damn time ?


256MB is enough for now but having 512MB show little difference. More is better always stands true

--Scsi

 

[StageLeft]

Lets not forget that as the year goes on games will need more and more ram. If you think a p4 1.6 running XP in dec/02 is going to cut it for just OS + game (not even listening to music or anything) you ain't right!

 

[topcat903]

there is no such thing as enough memory.

"there's always room for jello"...and likewise for memory (if you have the available slot...hehehe).

 

[Jfrag Teh Foul]

<< I'd say it depends on the OS and what app's you going to be using and how much multitasking . 512 mb is very comfy, don't have to worry much about straining system resources >>



Agreed. I was using WinXP Pro with 256 and wasn't happy with performance on my machine until I went up to 512.

 

[Electric Amish]

<< Lets not forget that as the year goes on games will need more and more ram. If you think a p4 1.6 running XP in dec/02 is going to cut it for just OS + game (not even listening to music or anything) you ain't right! >>




I think it will be fine, but I suppose we'll have to wait until Dec. to see.

IMO, the bottleneck for today's PC's are still the video cards and the programming of the game, not the CPU or the system memory bandwidth.

amish

 

[StageLeft]

<< IMO, the bottleneck for today's PC's are still the video cards and the programming of the game, not the CPU or the system memory bandwidth.

amish >>

Tell that to the people who tried the EQ expansion.

Tell that to the guy who this thread is about who loaded what I said to load and thinks his 35 free is "plenty" !

 

[DCFife]

256 megs is enough, but once you've had 512 or more you will INSIST on having nothing less!

Dave

 

[Dragnov]

Well I went from 256mb to 512mb and I haven't noticed any real discernable difference. However, it's convenient to know that you wont' be straining your resources ever no matter what you throw at it. I say to people, do yourself a favor and throw in another 256mb... well at least this was back when it was like $20. Well worth it I say.

 

[FrogDog]

<<

<< IMO, the bottleneck for today's PC's are still the video cards and the programming of the game, not the CPU or the system memory bandwidth.

amish >>

Tell that to the people who tried the EQ expansion.

Tell that to the guy who this thread is about who loaded what I said to load and thinks his 35 free is "plenty" ! >>

I just loaded warcraft 3, one IE window (why he wanted me to open this is again, beyond me), one Windows Explorer window (again...I don't know why), plus all the stuff I ususally have open when I play a game - zone alarm, winamp, ICQ and MSN. After all of this I had 35MB of ram free. I saw absolutely no system slow down at all at this point. So why then do I need an extra 256MB? Don't forget that I never have IE or WE open when gaming, so you can bump that 35MB free to about 50MB.

 

[CocaCola5]

I think they used to say, keep your RAM to 10% of your disk drive.

 

[StageLeft]

<< I saw absolutely no system slow down at all at this point. >>

How do you know? What are you comparing this to? You've never used 512 megs ram so how do you know that regular system sluggishness that you get (as we all do since our comps are not infinitely fast) would be alleviated with more ram? Two years ago I went from 128 to 192 in win2k. I didn't think I was lacking ram then but when I got 192 it was obvious. As dave said

<< 256 megs is enough, but once you've had 512 or more you will INSIST on having nothing less! >>

 

[FrogDog]

<<

<< I saw absolutely no system slow down at all at this point. >>

How do you know? What are you comparing this to? You've never used 512 megs ram so how do you know that regular system sluggishness that you get (as we all do since our comps are not infinitely fast) would be alleviated with more ram? Two years ago I went from 128 to 192 in win2k. I didn't think I was lacking ram then but when I got 192 it was obvious. As dave said

<< 256 megs is enough, but once you've had 512 or more you will INSIST on having nothing less! >>

>>

It was running at the same speed as it does when I have 120MB free (nothing open).

 

[Turin39789]

I run 640 mb, was going to do 512, but I am still on sdram and when i went to 256mb sticks, I couldnt get anyone to buy my 128's, so one more went in. Tbird 1.4

I use it. I surf with IE, if i find a page i want to come back to I open another IE. It is nothing for me to have 14+ IE's open. At the same time I may be doing this to distract myself from the program or paper I should be writing so Word or Visual C++ is sometimes open. And then i want to play a game, I dont have to close anything, bookmark anything for later nothing. I jut open it and have no trouble. If I am building my system that i will be wasting all of my time on, I dont want to have to limit myself, manage resources to be able to play well etc. Oh and edonkey or gnucleus or furthernet or something is always open and eating my bandwith. That is the only thing i have to close before gaming because edonkey ravages your connection when you up the max connections and my moronic POS school caps our lan at about 112/24 fvsck I should just get an ISDN installed

 

[StageLeft]

<<

<<

<< I saw absolutely no system slow down at all at this point. >>

How do you know? What are you comparing this to? You've never used 512 megs ram so how do you know that regular system sluggishness that you get (as we all do since our comps are not infinitely fast) would be alleviated with more ram? Two years ago I went from 128 to 192 in win2k. I didn't think I was lacking ram then but when I got 192 it was obvious. As dave said

<< 256 megs is enough, but once you've had 512 or more you will INSIST on having nothing less! >>

>>

It was running at the same speed as it does when I have 120MB free (nothing open). >>

What are the benchmark numbers?