"The RAM wall", and obsolescence

[StrangerGuy]

I don't think running Windows 7 in a PIII would be a pretty thing, even if you had 8 GB of RAM in it.

XP is not pretty even with a single core 1.8GHz Sempr0n, let alone 7.

The laboratory I'm working at yet our general use PCs are still single cores yet we have i7s for HPLC equipment etc. What a travesty.

 

[VirtualLarry]

RAM becomes an issue when you don't have enough of it and that in turn results in the computer using the hard drive as virtual RAM, dragging the experience to a literal crawl. Right now, 4 GB is plenty for those who like to web browse and not much else, i.e Facebook, watch porn all day, etc

I used to think that way too, but I just tonight experienced my web browser freezing up for several seconds. After it finished and started responding, I checked my RAM usage in Task Manager, and I was using up pretty-much all of my 4GB of RAM in this box.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I don't think running Windows 7 in a PIII would be a pretty thing, even if you had 8 GB of RAM in it.

But at least it would be possible, and keep that computer usable and out of the dumpster for someone.

 

[Xpage]

XP is not pretty even with a single core 1.8GHz Sempr0n, let alone 7.

The laboratory I'm working at yet our general use PCs are still single cores yet we have i7s for HPLC equipment etc. What a travesty.

lol, i know right? I see it too often. Still in college or at a real job?




Also even if RAM becomes limiting, having a SSD would make latency to a hard driven not as terrible as it used to be as on a rotational platter

 

[Maximilian]

This thread went south fast lol... seriously what is difficult to understand about what the OP says? He even gave a clear example of a PIII computer.

Anyways i dont think its just RAM being a limitation. Yes a PIII could run windows 7 32 bit but even if it had enough RAM the performance of most apps on the system would be abysmal with that CPU. IMO the whole platform becomes obsolete around a similar time.

Perhaps with C2Q a RAM limitation may happen, what did they support at max? 8GB? C2Q is when CPU performance really began to outstrip the demand for it.

 

[Turbonium]

I was basically forced to build my dad a new computer recently, because the previous system's Pentium 4 motherboard supported a maximum of 2GB of RAM. So even if I upgraded the OS from Windows XP to Windows 7 (albeit 32-bit), it would have run like shit. Had it not been for that limitation, I would have just gotten Windows 7 32-bit, and upgraded the box to 4GB of RAM (from 1GB).

Sure, it wouldn't be "fast", but it wouldn't be "slow" either, especially for basic office tasks. And all for cheap.

 

[lamedude]

The 440BX/810/815 can do 512MB and 440BX can do 1GB with registered RAM. VIA's P3 chipsets support 1-2GB. Enough to run the OS just not the web unless you use Lynx.

 

[bononos]

Actually you could have at least 128GB in 4 dimms. Its nothing but an artificial product limit in the (lower) CPUs. So not sure what the point actually is.

The same servers you mention that could handle up to 64GB. They can now today handle up to 4096GB.

The OP has a good point. My old PIII laptop can only support 512Mb, which limits it to win2k. And I've maxed out with 2 1Gb sticks in a core2 laptop which my dad uses to type something instead of using his tablet. Just because there happen to 32Gb dimms doesn't mean old devices can use them. But the way things are looking now with current platforms/chipsets that can support 32Gb total/4 dimms. I think memory is not going to be the limiting factor for obsolescence.

 

[2is]

I never have and doubt ever will upgrade a system because of system ram limitation. I respectfully disagree with this assessment. I have 16GB in my current system and can easily upgrade to 32GB if necessary. 16GB is already about twice as much as I actually need. Should I stop gaming today, I doubt my next upgrade is going to be because I needed more than 32GB, especially considering OS have gotten leaner and not "bloatier" over the years. Win7 was less memory hungry than Vista, Windows 8 less than Windows 7.

 

[Turbonium]

I never have and doubt ever will upgrade a system because of system ram limitation. I respectfully disagree with this assessment. I have 16GB in my current system and can easily upgrade to 32GB if necessary. 16GB is already about twice as much as I actually need. Should I stop gaming today, I doubt my next upgrade is going to be because I needed more than 32GB, especially considering OS have gotten leaner and not "bloatier" over the years. Win7 was less memory hungry than Vista, Windows 8 less than Windows 7.

I disagree. Read my post above as to why.

I mean, I would keep running Windows XP on the aforementioned Pentium 4 system, but that just poses a security risk, especially given support for the OS will eventually (and soon) end. I just feel as though the industry itself forces us to adopt newer stuff eventually.

 

[2is]

I disagree. Read my post above as to why.

I mean, I would keep running Windows XP on the aforementioned Pentium 4 system, but that just poses a security risk, especially given support for the OS will eventually (and soon) end. I just feel as though the industry itself forces us to adopt newer stuff eventually.

You disagree? Really? Let me show you how that makes no sense...

I was basically forced to build my dad a new computer recently, because the previous system's Pentium 4 motherboard supported a maximum of 2GB of RAM. So even if I upgraded the OS from Windows XP to Windows 7 (albeit 32-bit), it would have run like shit. Had it not been for that limitation, I would have just gotten Windows 7 32-bit, and upgraded the box to 4GB of RAM (from 1GB).

Sure, it wouldn't be "fast", but it wouldn't be "slow" either, especially for basic office tasks. And all for cheap.

I disagree

You can't disagree. I was providing my own experience and how I never have and doubt I ever will upgrade for the reasons the OP has outlined. We aren't the same person, your experience is obviously different than mine, but you can't "disagree"

 

[Turbonium]

Lol? I guess you can't disagree with some people without striking the wrong chord with them.

 

[2is]

It has nothing to do with "striking a chord" it has to do with disagreeing with something you cant actually disagree with. It's like me saying

"I ran out of gas on my way to work"

and you saying

"I disagree, I made it to work just fine"

it just doesn't work.

 

[Turbonium]

Would it have made you feel better if I had said "I disagree with your opinion regarding the assessment/OP's viewpoint being wrong"?

By the way, look at your own post:

I never have and doubt ever will upgrade a system because of system ram limitation. I respectfully disagree with this assessment. I have 16GB in my current system and...

Lol...

 

[Haserath]

You could load a Linux OS that is light on RAM and use that for older comps. A P4 is a bit clunky, but it runs Linux just fine with a decent drive.

Windows just has a bunch of bloat that doesn't need to be there. Linux would be great on old systems.

 

[2is]

I didn't give my opinion. I gave you factual information that I have never had to upgrade due to a platform memory constraint.

I am disagreeing with the OP's assessment, which was a general (not specific, to his own personal experience) one that RAM is the reason people would need to upgrade if they weren't gamers.

I'm disagreeing with an assessment, you're "disagreeing" with my own experience that I've never upgraded because of a ram limitation. There's a difference. Like I said, your disagreement would be like you disagreeing with me running out of gas... Doesn't matter how you re-word it, still doesn't work.

Notice I'm not (actually) disagreeing with your experience that you did upgrade because of a RAM limitation. Why? Because that would be impossible, and if I tried, it would be retarded.

But if you still disagree, then please let me know when I upgraded because I needed more RAM, because I certainly don't remember it.

 

[Turbonium]

I didn't give my opinion. I gave you factual information that I have never had to upgrade due to a platform memory constraint.

I am disagreeing with the OP's assessment, which was a general (not specific, to his own personal experience) one that RAM is the reason people would need to upgrade if they weren't gamers.

I'm disagreeing with an assessment, you're "disagreeing" with my own experience that I've never upgraded because of a ram limitation. There's a difference.

Are you dense? Read my previous post.

And to make it clearer for you:

- OP makes a post saying RAM limitations is often a reason behind getting a new system entirely.
- You make a post saying you disagree with that view.
- I make a post saying I disagree with you (i.e. agree with OP).
- You nitpick the semantics of how I stated it, and throw a fit, as is evidenced by the wording of your original response to my "disagreement".

You could load a Linux OS that is light on RAM and use that for older comps. A P4 is a bit clunky, but it runs Linux just fine with a decent drive.

Windows just has a bunch of bloat that doesn't need to be there. Linux would be great on old systems.

I agree, but the system in question was being used by my dad, so Linux was out of the question.

 

[2is]

Agreeing with the OP is not the same as disagreeing with me. It's not dense, it's recognizing the difference while you've failed to do so.

But if you want me to make ridiculous statements... I disagree with your disagreement... Now we're speaking the same language by your definition.

 

[Homeles]

I was basically forced to build my dad a new computer recently, because the previous system's Pentium 4 motherboard supported a maximum of 2GB of RAM.

Good. I don't know why people hold onto stuff like that for so long. I don't know what your dad's usage habits are, but power savings more than likely would have more than likely taken a sizable chunk out of the cost to upgrade. Especially when we're talking about Pentium 4.

So while you offer an circumstance where it's necessary to replace a system due to system limitation of RAM... you really shouldn't have held onto that computer for so long anyways.

 

[Turbonium]

Agreeing with the OP is not the same as disagreeing with me. It's not dense, it's recognizing the difference while you've failed to do so.

But if you want me to make ridiculous statements... I disagree with your disagreement... Now we're speaking the same language by your definition.

Agreeing with the OP is not the same as disagreeing with you, yes, but it's implied in the context of the post. That's where you assume a reasonable person will take context into account when reading a post and read in between the lines, especially taking into account the post in full.

All posts in a thread are, in my experience, contextual. This is also why quoting is used or not used. You're reading way too much into shit in the wrong context. I was replying relative to the fact that I had just made a post, and then you made a post. Do you make a post ignoring all the posts after it? What if there is a discussion going on? Do you have to quote the previous statement? All of them perhaps? Or perhaps quote the OP? What exactly is the convention? Please, enlighten me, seeing as I've broken some rule that only you seem to know of.

But yes, thank you for disagreeing with my disagreement. Now you're getting the hang of it.

Also: You're not directly addressing the fact that you were very hostile in your initial response to me, hence "striking a chord".

Good. I don't know why people hold onto stuff like that for so long. I don't know what your dad's usage habits are, but power savings more than likely would have more than likely taken a sizable chunk out of the cost to upgrade. Especially when we're talking about Pentium 4.

So while you offer an circumstance where it's necessary to replace a system due to system limitation of RAM... you really shouldn't have held onto that computer for so long anyways.

Probably not, but my dad just does office work. So yea, power savings aside, and OS security issues aside, there wasn't really a reason to upgrade up until then. The new computer is WAY more quiet, though.

 

[2is]

I disagree that you think I was hostile in my initial response to you.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

I don't think running Windows 7 in a PIII would be a pretty thing, even if you had 8 GB of RAM in it.

Not if it was single-channel PC133, anyway.

Vista worked alright on my PIII-733 before I shelved it, but it was a dual CPU rig, and it had RDRAM (PC800 dual channel). Most PIIIs were singles with PC100/133 RAM.

Win7 is, generally, more responsive for me than Vista.

To expand on the OP, it's not just RAM limits - the I/O capabilities of older chipsets, in general, choke even the not-so-bad CPUs, starting with the FSB. (Then the memory controllers, then the PCI slots and their bandwidth limitations...)

 

[Turbonium]

I disagree that you think I was hostile in my initial response to you.

I agree to disagree.

Tell me if I'm not being clear enough. I even quoted your post to avoid confusion as to which post in particular I was replying to.

 

[Ferzerp]

The amusing thing is that the premise of this thread is based on the assumption that win7 won't be perfectly fine on 2GB of ram....

The entire premise is based on a flawed assumption.

 

[fuzzymath10]

Almost every upgrade I have done is for CPU reasons.

Anything a P4 could do remotely well it could do with 2GB of memory. My parents' desktop from 2002 had W7 x86 with 1.25GB, and it spent most of the time waiting for the P4 1.8A to catch up. My netbook has 2GB, and has the same issue. If I could have doubled the CPU power, things would have run nearly twice as fast.

My Q8200 with 4GB memory could not play SC2 adequately, so I got an i5. I have 16GB in it only because it was cheap; the CPU (slow cores) was the main issue.

My old Dell laptop from 2003 has 2GB memory and also spent a lot of time waiting for the mobile P4 2.2 to do anything.

Not many tasks use a crapload of memory without being significantly influenced by the CPU.

By the time your browser is using a lot of memory, there are probably so many tabs that a P4 (let alone 700MHz P3) would choke on the scripts before memory became an issue.

CPU and RAM bottlenecks were much easier to hit in the past with even mundane tasks (the OS alone could tie up much of your memory or CPU power...swap files!). Most people now are either constrained by fixed storage speeds or the CPU.