You can never have enough RAM or desktop space. 256 is 'low end' IMHO. I'd go for 512 at least were it me. Esp. on a new computer.
When you upgrade your memory, first find the manufacturer and model of your computer or motherboard. Go to http://www.computer-memory-upgrade-stick.com and enter the info into the database. You will find out the exact RAM upgrades that will work with your system. I've been happy with the 512 megs of RAM I bought from them.
Well, first I'll say that I hate each and every one of you. It's threads like this that make me think I need more than what I have. If threads like this don't come about, I plod along with what I have and am generally happy. 
That being said, I voted that 256 is enough, because it is. It will run everything just fine on my rig. (winxp, lots of games)
THAT being said, I think everything would be much smoother with 512.
A funny thing BTW, when I fire my system up, I have around 150MB available, but after running a game, I'm at around 198MB available. If anyone has an idea what's up with that, feel free to PM me.
That being said, I voted that 256 is enough, because it is. It will run everything just fine on my rig. (winxp, lots of games)
THAT being said, I think everything would be much smoother with 512.
A funny thing BTW, when I fire my system up, I have around 150MB available, but after running a game, I'm at around 198MB available. If anyone has an idea what's up with that, feel free to PM me.
Since I have 2048 and frequently run into the paging file I have come to the conclusion that 2GB isn't enough. I also have a workstation with 3.5GB. I tried 4GB but can only see 3.5GB so the last 1GB DDR DIMM was half wasted which pissed me off. (they are damn expensive) Anyways, since we're this close to the hardware and operating system limitations, it's quite scary indeed! 64bit Operating Systems are going to be needed sooner than later!
Cheers!
Cheers!
These debates are so user specific. Depends on what kind of gaming he does. A REAL GAMER HAS THE GAME OPEN AND THAT'S IT. Also depends on what kind of game your playing, whether it be Starcraft or Quake III. Now that I have wasted my time giving my opinion, let us all fight over this topic once again!
<< Since I have 2048 and frequently run into the paging file I have come to the conclusion that 2GB isn't enough. I also have a workstation with 3.5GB. I tried 4GB but can only see 3.5GB so the last 1GB DDR DIMM was half wasted which pissed me off. (they are damn expensive) Anyways, since we're this close to the hardware and operating system limitations, it's quite scary indeed! 64bit Operating Systems are going to be needed sooner than later!
Cheers! >>
LMAO
Needless to say, I had 384MB in my main rig, but when I built my parents' system, I had to sacrifice a 128MB stick from my system for theirs, and I will say that the difference between 256MB and 384MB is readily noticable in Windows XP. 512MB is probably the most you'd ever need for even power users today. However, if I had the money, I wouldn't mind maxing this system out at 1.5GB of RAM anyway.
<< i wonder how a P4 would run with 128MB ddr ram... dell sells p4 systems with 128MB standard.. and im guessing the majority of people buying arent as computer savy as some of us ATers .. must be slow as a snail since all their systems are preinstalled with winxp. >>
Dell even sells P4's with 128MB SDRAM. I think that's the minimum for XP to run. What is this memory eating feature in XP?
For me that is false. At work, when I am running everything that I need to do my job, i constantly go over the 256MB mark.
The problem with most of these polls is that they are not specific enough (but the vagueness creates controversy and makes things interesting).
Is 256 ram ALWAYS enough? Certainly not. Is 256 ram usually enough? Mostly, yes, but it depends...
In my opinion, a computer should generally have at least one meg of ram for ever 4 megahertz of processing power i.e. 256 megs for a 1Ghz CPU, 512 for a 2Ghz, but that's just in general. For many users, especally business apps, 1Ghz is already more than enough speed, and in that case, 256 RAM is also more than enough.
On the other hand, if you are a power user, you might want to have 1 meg for every 2 megahertz of CPU power.
Certain applications simply need the RAM even if you have a decent CPU. Photoshop, 3Dstudio max, any kind of video editting... RAM is critical, so for Audio-video pros, they should have a 1:2 ratio. For other uses, 1:4 should do. For gaming, extra money maybe better spent on a better video card or CPU power rather than getting the 1:2 ratio.
The thing to remember is that that as long as you have some headroom for your RAM, the CPU doesn't have to go to the harddrive, which is by definition, much slower than systems RAM.
However, unless you are running mission critical software, I would recommend using a RAM defrag program such as the one in CPCool that frees up RAM that is holding a closed program in memmory.
Is 256 ram ALWAYS enough? Certainly not. Is 256 ram usually enough? Mostly, yes, but it depends...
In my opinion, a computer should generally have at least one meg of ram for ever 4 megahertz of processing power i.e. 256 megs for a 1Ghz CPU, 512 for a 2Ghz, but that's just in general. For many users, especally business apps, 1Ghz is already more than enough speed, and in that case, 256 RAM is also more than enough.
On the other hand, if you are a power user, you might want to have 1 meg for every 2 megahertz of CPU power.
Certain applications simply need the RAM even if you have a decent CPU. Photoshop, 3Dstudio max, any kind of video editting... RAM is critical, so for Audio-video pros, they should have a 1:2 ratio. For other uses, 1:4 should do. For gaming, extra money maybe better spent on a better video card or CPU power rather than getting the 1:2 ratio.
The thing to remember is that that as long as you have some headroom for your RAM, the CPU doesn't have to go to the harddrive, which is by definition, much slower than systems RAM.
However, unless you are running mission critical software, I would recommend using a RAM defrag program such as the one in CPCool that frees up RAM that is holding a closed program in memmory.
I have 256 DDR right now i multi task alot 3 messenger programs Seti win amp photoshop games IE Opera and a few other things I don't know about going o 512 i think 384 would be just fine just cause another 512 stick is just so expensive right now but definalty more than 256 is optimal.
""256 ram is enough" True or false?"
The question is wrong. It is to vague. There are many factors that control this:
OS: 256 is more than enough for Win9x. It's usually enough for 2000 was well. If XP is configured effeciently it is enough for XP as well. However, if you have all the [lame] XP options running like, user switching, system restore, the default services, etc. then once you start opening programs and trying to play games you may not have enough RAM.
The user: It depends on what your doing with the PC. Which programs? Which games? Are we talking Photoshop, 13 IE6 windows open, and Castle Wolf frag fest @ highest quality, etc.. Or, are we talking about MS Paint, 2 IE6 windows open, and Half-Life single player? It makes a huge difference.
Personally for me, I would not be happy with 256MB. However, I have WinXP which uses more RAM at startup than Win2000 and especially Win9x. I also usually have alot of high end apps going on at once. Even then 256MB would be enough for me 90% of the time. I think the only time I would notice a slowdown is when I'm in the middle of a big web development project and I have a couple dozen IE6 windows going, several notepad windows, Frontpage 2-3 instances, a few FTP windows, Photoshop and PSP, several explorer windows, miscellanous other crap, and probably Outlook and Winamp cuz they are always open.
I think for most users, even with XP and several apps going, 256MB is enough.
The question is wrong. It is to vague. There are many factors that control this:
OS: 256 is more than enough for Win9x. It's usually enough for 2000 was well. If XP is configured effeciently it is enough for XP as well. However, if you have all the [lame] XP options running like, user switching, system restore, the default services, etc. then once you start opening programs and trying to play games you may not have enough RAM.
The user: It depends on what your doing with the PC. Which programs? Which games? Are we talking Photoshop, 13 IE6 windows open, and Castle Wolf frag fest @ highest quality, etc.. Or, are we talking about MS Paint, 2 IE6 windows open, and Half-Life single player? It makes a huge difference.
Personally for me, I would not be happy with 256MB. However, I have WinXP which uses more RAM at startup than Win2000 and especially Win9x. I also usually have alot of high end apps going on at once. Even then 256MB would be enough for me 90% of the time. I think the only time I would notice a slowdown is when I'm in the middle of a big web development project and I have a couple dozen IE6 windows going, several notepad windows, Frontpage 2-3 instances, a few FTP windows, Photoshop and PSP, several explorer windows, miscellanous other crap, and probably Outlook and Winamp cuz they are always open.
I think for most users, even with XP and several apps going, 256MB is enough.
Oh yeah, I notice everybody talking about the page file like it's this evil thing that only gets used if your system sucks, or doesn't have enough RAM. Comments such as "I have 1GB of RAM and XP STILL uses the page file!"
This is simply not the case. It is true that Windows will use the page file as a substitute for RAM if there is not enough. This kills performance because we all know that RAM is much faster than a hard drive. However, if there is enough RAM, Windows will still use the pagefile for other things. The Main thing it will use if for is to cache commonly needed application/system files that are not needed in RAM at the moment (because the app is not running) but probably will be later. Basically, instead of just deleting data out of the RAM that is no longer needed, Windows will write that data to the pagefile for the next time it's needed.
When the time comes to load these files into RAM, it is faster for Windows to read from this custom cache in the pagefile than to search through the hard drive for the individual files. In this case the pagefile actually improves performance. Windows will attempt to use the pagefile in this fashion no matter how much RAM you have.
I have disabled the page file for a couple weeks at a time with no problems, because I have plenty of RAM. As soon as I enabled the page file again Windows used it as needed. My apps run just as fast (if not faster) when the page file is being used.
This is simply not the case. It is true that Windows will use the page file as a substitute for RAM if there is not enough. This kills performance because we all know that RAM is much faster than a hard drive. However, if there is enough RAM, Windows will still use the pagefile for other things. The Main thing it will use if for is to cache commonly needed application/system files that are not needed in RAM at the moment (because the app is not running) but probably will be later. Basically, instead of just deleting data out of the RAM that is no longer needed, Windows will write that data to the pagefile for the next time it's needed.
When the time comes to load these files into RAM, it is faster for Windows to read from this custom cache in the pagefile than to search through the hard drive for the individual files. In this case the pagefile actually improves performance. Windows will attempt to use the pagefile in this fashion no matter how much RAM you have.
I have disabled the page file for a couple weeks at a time with no problems, because I have plenty of RAM. As soon as I enabled the page file again Windows used it as needed. My apps run just as fast (if not faster) when the page file is being used.
has anyone brought up the quote from Bill Gates saying something like "640K is more than any user could need"?
i think more ram is always better (if not for present use, then for near future)
i think more ram is always better (if not for present use, then for near future)
i've been checking my usage, and it seems i use 300 megs just for surfing with a few other apps open 512 is really good i guess, 256 defeintly wouldn't cut it. i like to open games without closing my appz too multitask out and back in quickly.. ah sweet ram.
512 is really good i guess, 256 defeintly wouldn't cut it. i like to open games without closing my appz too multitask out and back in quickly.. ah sweet ram.Well, I prefer 512 but 256 is enough for me in most cases. I just have one question, why in the blue hell would you want to be running SETI or other very processor intensive programs when playing games? That is just beyond me. I guess you guys don't like kicking @ss at CS now do ya?
<< 256 works fine for me. I'm using XP and I play stuff like MoH and FS2002.. works just fine. I used to have 512mb, till a stick just died. I've noticed little to no difference in the responsiveness or frame rates of my games. 3DMark gives me like 80 less points though.. oh no!
With the prices as they are, 256mb is enough. When the prices go down, 256mb won't be.
>>Ditto - 80 points out of several thousand boils down to such a small percentage that I'm not sure how anybody could honestly percieve the difference...the way prices are now 256 is enough for most things but when they start heading down again then this whole canundrum begins to fall into the category of "ahh what the heck"
i got 256 ddr (w/ 1.2 tbird) running win xp and it is crap cuz i can't burn a cd and talk on aim at the same time. Well i can but it is terribly slow
LaSt
LaSt
<< i got 256 ddr (w/ 1.2 tbird) running win xp and it is crap cuz i can't burn a cd and talk on aim at the same time. Well i can but it is terribly slow
LaSt >>
Something is terribly wrong with your system, since on my 800MHz Duron with 256MB of SDR RAM, using Windows XP Professional, I can be running Outlook, IE, mIRC, MSN Messenger, Folding@Home, and more, and still be able to successfully burn a CD in Nero.
chibchakan
Platinum Member
- Oct 30, 2001
- 2,349
- 0
- 76
Yes, the EverQuest expansion apparently needs 512. Obviously they screwed up.
No, no other game needs it.
Yes, I use 2x256 on my systems.
NO, I don't think I'll need it any time soon unless one stick goes south!
No, no other game needs it.
Yes, I use 2x256 on my systems.
NO, I don't think I'll need it any time soon unless one stick goes south!
<< Depends on the usage pattern.
Maybe for YOU 256 is not enough, but for me it is.
My swap file hasnt been used in months. The only times I exceed my ram is when I'm doing some serious productivity (ie Flash, Dreamweaver, Photoshop, 4 IE windows, Icq, Winamp, Kazaa and several explorer windows) or when a program has crashed and eats up memory (IO've had a single proggie take up 700mb ram, lol)
When I game, I just minimize Gamespy and Icq and winamp, everythign else closed. >>
<< Depends on the system and the user demands... >>
thank god, some INTELLIGENCE appeared in this thread, finally.
this is like asking, "is a large t-shirt big enough?"
HOW BIG ARE YOU!?!???!
jesus christ, simple answer, OBSERVE.
IF YOU USE LESS THAN 256MB THEN......YES, IT IS ENOUGH.
IF YOU USE MORE THAN 256MB THEN.....NO!!!, IT IS NOT ENOUGH!!!!
DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:disgust::|
:frown:"Yes, the EverQuest expansion apparently needs 512. Obviously they screwed up."
WTF? How did they screw up? because they made a game that uses more ram then you usually use? Okkaayy, nice logic. Have you even played the Luclin expansion in the new zones? They are incredible and it is no wonder that they require so much ram.
I also would like to comment on everyone saying the question is too vague. If you would READ Skoorb's ORIGINAL post, you would have noted he said for a gaming rig. Not someone running Outlook and surfing the web. Not someone using photoshop. A gaming rig. Every friend I have who is a hardcore gamer, has 512+ in their system.
WTF? How did they screw up? because they made a game that uses more ram then you usually use? Okkaayy, nice logic. Have you even played the Luclin expansion in the new zones? They are incredible and it is no wonder that they require so much ram.
I also would like to comment on everyone saying the question is too vague. If you would READ Skoorb's ORIGINAL post, you would have noted he said for a gaming rig. Not someone running Outlook and surfing the web. Not someone using photoshop. A gaming rig. Every friend I have who is a hardcore gamer, has 512+ in their system.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter