• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Why aren't people getting 4 gigs of ram?

M

ManBearPig

Diamond Member
Seems like most people are going with 2 gigs for their new builds, but why?

Ive seen 2x1gb kits going for about 100 bucks, and vista is supposed to need about 2 gigs minimum (according to what most people say here) and 3 gigs as a sweet spot, but 4 works even better (which is worth upgrading for if the memory is that damn cheap).

So?
 
My guess would be because 4gb would require the move to 64-bit, and most people aren't ready for it or don't need it.
 
Originally posted by: Fullmetal Chocobo
My guess would be because 4gb would require the move to 64-bit, and most people aren't ready for it or don't need it.
Click to expand...

Yep. Also, XP32 runs really well with 2GB (at least for now) so the complications of moving to 64-bit, and finding drivers, and having software issues, etc etc... just isn't worth it yet.

I wonder why there's not more of a push to get Vista64 working better... Eventually the memory limitations and other limitations of a 32-bit OS will become apparent, and then what? Scramble at the last minute to get it all working? Blah.
 
I'd love to get Vista 64-bit, but I can't afford to have some stuff work and other stuff not. I might grab another hard drive, and try doing a 64-bit installation on there, but that's about it.
 
the threads over at the software section say that they havent had any incompatibilities with their software, and that drivers are steadily but slowly coming out and getting better.

i think i will go with vista x64, and eventually when i build my new computer (maybe this summer?) get 4gb of ram. can anyone tell me if its harder to OC with more memory (as in more sticks)?
 
It was harder to oc an AMD A64 rig with 4 sticks of memory than it was with 2 sticks, even if the speed and overall amount of RAM was the same. I don't know if that's true on C2D systems though.
 
Originally posted by: Megatomic
It was harder to oc an AMD A64 rig with 4 sticks of memory than it was with 2 sticks, even if the speed and overall amount of RAM was the same. I don't know if that's true on C2D systems though.
Click to expand...

I think it was due to the fact that the memory controller was on the die, so I don't believe it will be as much an issue with C2Ds.
 
i have only crested 2GB a couple of times (gaming of all things - bf2 w/ desert conflict mod - only running @ 1280x1024 but went to about 2.1GB, where bf2v goes ~ 1.5-1.6GB), so for me 2GB is plenty and will be for some time. i won't be going vista until a sp comes out if at all. seriously taking a look at ubuntu for my pc needs and the 360 for my gaming needs (i wish they made a really good k/b / mouse setup for the 360...)
 
Originally posted by: Fullmetal Chocobo
Originally posted by: Megatomic
It was harder to oc an AMD A64 rig with 4 sticks of memory than it was with 2 sticks, even if the speed and overall amount of RAM was the same. I don't know if that's true on C2D systems though.
Click to expand...

I think it was due to the fact that the memory controller was on the die, so I don't believe it will be as much an issue with C2Ds.
Click to expand...
I think you're right. IIRC, every time there was a core revision, there always seemed to be better oc results.
 
several reasons (and 2gb is going for about 75-80 now on hot deals).

vista sucks and a lot of people arent even bothering to move to it.

2gb is plenty for vista. 1gb probably is even useable, i have used it with 512mb for basic tasks, 4gb is overkill.


A lot of machines do not even really support 4gb. most pre i965 chipsets only see 3.25 gigs or so. macbook pros only see 3gb because the 945gm cannot see the rest from what i've heard.

 
4GB is just more than most people need. I use Vista Home Premium 32-bit and 1GB of RAM and it works great for general computing tasks.
 
2GB is still a lot on XP...why would I buy a new OS that doesn't offer me anything that I need...so that I would need more ram to do the same thing? I hear people say "I upgraded to vista and got 4GB of ram...my PC is faster now!" Well I hope so...because you bought more memory. It just doesn't make financial sense to me...I can get the same results for less. (I'm not saying vista doesn't offer any new features...just that none of them are really any use to me)

 
Originally posted by: Steve325
all I know is that on 2gb and vista ultimate my computer is running like a dream
Click to expand...

No thread crapping please. Everyone knows this is NOT the case.

Tell me, how do you like waiting a few seconds every time you want to copy/paste a file? My XP is instantaneous. Vista? Anything but.

Try unzipping a file from your C:/ drive onto a D:/ drive/partition. LOL. BLAZING FAST! Not.

Thanks, but I like to use my computer at full speed. Vista arbitrarily limits file transfer speed.

Tell me, why would I pay for fewer features?
 
... whoa there! Perhaps you don't have quite the same system configuration as he does? Perhaps he runs a different version of Vista from you. Either way, this is not the "tell us why Vista sux" thread! Sources for "vista arbitrarily limits transfer speed"? Perhaps your unzipping from one drive to another is across the same IDE controller and cable and therefore limited due to your hardware setup.
 
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Originally posted by: Steve325
all I know is that on 2gb and vista ultimate my computer is running like a dream
Click to expand...

No thread crapping please. Everyone knows this is NOT the case.

Tell me, how do you like waiting a few seconds every time you want to copy/paste a file? My XP is instantaneous. Vista? Anything but.

Try unzipping a file from your C:/ drive onto a D:/ drive/partition. LOL. BLAZING FAST! Not.

Thanks, but I like to use my computer at full speed. Vista arbitrarily limits file transfer speed.

Tell me, why would I pay for fewer features?
Click to expand...

Please don't turn this into a XP via Vista thread or I'll have to say how much I prefer Vista over XP due to its superior memory handing, improved security,DX10 features etc .... to name a few,getting back on topic the main reason I think is that a lot of games don't require more then 2GB of ram,when DX10 games arrive down the road and games become more demanding both in video card and memory usage this will surely change,I went with 4GB right now(actually when I had XP) because prices were dirt cheap and knew I would'nt be upgrading for awhile(apart from new video card).
 
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Originally posted by: Steve325
all I know is that on 2gb and vista ultimate my computer is running like a dream
Click to expand...

No thread crapping please. Everyone knows this is NOT the case.

Tell me, how do you like waiting a few seconds every time you want to copy/paste a file? My XP is instantaneous. Vista? Anything but.

Try unzipping a file from your C:/ drive onto a D:/ drive/partition. LOL. BLAZING FAST! Not.

Thanks, but I like to use my computer at full speed. Vista arbitrarily limits file transfer speed.

Tell me, why would I pay for fewer features?
Click to expand...

I have been using it without any problems including file transfer speed.
 
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Originally posted by: Steve325
all I know is that on 2gb and vista ultimate my computer is running like a dream
Click to expand...

No thread crapping please. Everyone knows this is NOT the case.

Tell me, how do you like waiting a few seconds every time you want to copy/paste a file? My XP is instantaneous. Vista? Anything but.

Try unzipping a file from your C:/ drive onto a D:/ drive/partition. LOL. BLAZING FAST! Not.

Thanks, but I like to use my computer at full speed. Vista arbitrarily limits file transfer speed.

Tell me, why would I pay for fewer features?
Click to expand...

The ironing is delicious.

OP: Besides the aforementioned need of 64 bit extensions to address that much memory, there is the fact that money does not grow on trees. (Unless you run an orchard, of course) 😛
 
Originally posted by: Heen05
Seems like most people are going with 2 gigs for their new builds, but why?

Ive seen 2x1gb kits going for about 100 bucks, and vista is supposed to need about 2 gigs minimum (according to what most people say here) and 3 gigs as a sweet spot, but 4 works even better (which is worth upgrading for if the memory is that damn cheap).

So?
Click to expand...

In my case, the proper question would be "Why get 4 GB of RAM?".
Bought a new computer a little while back, pretty high end, 8800GTX, C2D, etc, and after some consideration settled for 2 GB.
I don't run Vista, and I don't run any heavy duty DCC or similar software, in short, I don't need it, cheap as it may be.
And, it's not like I can't just buy two sticks more if the need arises later on.
 
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Originally posted by: Steve325
all I know is that on 2gb and vista ultimate my computer is running like a dream
Click to expand...

No thread crapping please. Everyone knows this is NOT the case.

Tell me, how do you like waiting a few seconds every time you want to copy/paste a file? My XP is instantaneous. Vista? Anything but.

Try unzipping a file from your C:/ drive onto a D:/ drive/partition. LOL. BLAZING FAST! Not.

Thanks, but I like to use my computer at full speed. Vista arbitrarily limits file transfer speed.

Tell me, why would I pay for fewer features?
Click to expand...

lol, everyone huh?

You obviously have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, and you should probably keep your trap shut until you do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top