Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Most of the laptops I work with have 512MB of memory. The majority of the desktops I am involved with have 1GB with the main machine and its alternate/backup have 2CB.

Recently I have been considering getting them upgraded to 4GB at least, but really do not know how significantly that might speed them up. I also wonder how much better they would perform with 8 or even 16 Gigs on them, since I think the 64-bit CPUs might be able to handle it.

Is it worth the extra expense?

1 posted on 04/11/2015 11:25:09 AM PDT by Utilizer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last
To: Utilizer

More is usually better- depending on what you do with the machine. Don’t get more than 4 GB unless you have a 64 bit operating system though. I max everything, always.


2 posted on 04/11/2015 11:28:28 AM PDT by Riley (The Fourth Estate is the Fifth Column.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: dayglored

Ping!


3 posted on 04/11/2015 11:28:39 AM PDT by Utilizer (Bacon A'kbar! - In world today are only peaceful people, and the muzlims trying to kill them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Utilizer

Depends on what you’re doing. Bring up the disk monitor and watch for the amount of thrashing going on.


5 posted on 04/11/2015 11:30:05 AM PDT by Calvin Locke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Utilizer
If you're using WIndows 7, I think you'd notice the difference between 4 and 8. The problem is that W7, and the utilities that often get loaded with it, can take 1.5 to 2 GB on their own. If you are running some memory hog programs, once you hit the full limit and your PC decides to use a lot of virtual disk memory, everything slows down.

One memory hog program is Firefox if it's been left on a while. I've found that it often has substantial memory leaks, and can take a lot of space if it's been on for a few days. (That can be reclaimed by exiting and restarting the program.) YMMV, of course.

6 posted on 04/11/2015 11:30:58 AM PDT by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Utilizer

“...alternate/backup have 2CB”? Sorry, that should read 2GB, not 2CB.

Need to type slower and more awake. :)


7 posted on 04/11/2015 11:31:29 AM PDT by Utilizer (Bacon A'kbar! - In world today are only peaceful people, and the muzlims trying to kill them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Utilizer
I dare say, most people use their computer for accessing the Internet and for simple word-processing.

A basic machine handles that sort of thing just fine.

Now, if you're editing video, or playing certain games, then more RAM and a better processor may be of some benefit.

But overall, the capabilities of the machines outweigh the needs of almost all consumers. Corporations want you to buy "more", but few people need "more".

9 posted on 04/11/2015 11:34:16 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy ("Victim" -- some people eagerly take on the label because of the many advantages that come with it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Utilizer

How much RAM do you really need?

Never enough!


10 posted on 04/11/2015 11:34:45 AM PDT by COBOL2Java ("God save America" - we are at the dawn of a new dark age)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Utilizer

4GB would be the bare minimum I would recommend for a Win 7 machine. You will see a significant increase in response speed going up to 8GB, and then a diminishing return to about 16GB. After that, unless you are running several very intensive programs, you will not see any speed increase.


12 posted on 04/11/2015 11:36:03 AM PDT by Anitius Severinus Boethius (www.wilsonharpbooks.com - Sign up for my new release e-mail and get my first novel for free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Utilizer

Well, a lot of it has to do with resource usage.
If you remember the Commodore 128, which had 128kb of RAM there was some pretty amazing stuff they did — to include a graphical operating-environment; see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEOS_%288-bit_operating_system%29

The Amiga also had some impressive abilities, despite what would be considered meager system resources by today’s standards.

So the question becomes so much more interesting when you consider how effectively you are using what you have.


13 posted on 04/11/2015 11:36:50 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Utilizer

When it comes to memory, more is ALWAYS better.

Computers are so fast now that they have to have brakes on them because of the limitation of the speed of light across the length of the motherboard. Unless you are doing some kind of heavy math, you won’t know the difference on processing, but, you will on memory.

Graphics memory is another place that more is better.


14 posted on 04/11/2015 11:36:58 AM PDT by Conan the Librarian (The Best in Life is to crush my enemies, see them driven before me, and the Dewey Decimal System)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Utilizer
5.9 Liters of turbocharged Cummins diesel power is good for my RAM needs.


17 posted on 04/11/2015 11:39:28 AM PDT by Rodamala
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Utilizer
512MB of memory? YES!

I remember working on the RCA301 with 10K memory. :)

18 posted on 04/11/2015 11:41:21 AM PDT by WilliamofCarmichael (If modern America's Man on Horseback is out there, Get on the damn horse already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Utilizer

For routine work:

XP works well with 1MB

Vista works well with 2MB

Windows 7 works well with 4MB

Less than those isn’t a great idea.

For heavy duty loads like various sorts of virtual machine usage, more is better, much better.


19 posted on 04/11/2015 11:43:55 AM PDT by catnipman (Cat Nipman: Vote Republican in 2012 and only be called racist one more time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Utilizer

The biggest speed bump comes from a SSD instead of a HD.


20 posted on 04/11/2015 11:43:55 AM PDT by zeebee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Utilizer

4 is what I have on most machines. It seems to be the bang for buck for business machines. If are running programs for photo editing, videos, large spread sheets and the like you can’t get to much. I settle for 16GB.


21 posted on 04/11/2015 11:45:07 AM PDT by ThomasThomas (EGO venit lego tantum titulus Posteri)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Utilizer

640K


23 posted on 04/11/2015 11:46:40 AM PDT by bigbob (The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly. Abraham Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Utilizer

You want as much RAM that it takes to allow you to set the swap file to zero which will speed up your machine if you have enough RAM, check the monitors to see how the swap file is utilized. With the swap file at zero, MS will say you won’t be able to get the diagnostic dump MS supposedly uses to determine what caused the abend.
The funny thing is that in over 20 years of using NT, not once was I asked to upload that file and when I suggested it once, the engineer laughed.


25 posted on 04/11/2015 11:48:41 AM PDT by Lx (Do you like it? Do you like it, Scott? I call it, "Mr. & Mrs. Tenorman Chili.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Utilizer
Does anyone really need this much RAM?

Back in 1972 or 73 I had a computer programming class at a local community college. I remember one day the instructor pointing to a hand held Texas Instrument calculator I had with me and saying that would be the only computing power we would ever need..........LOL!

27 posted on 04/11/2015 11:51:07 AM PDT by Hot Tabasco (Uncle Sy: "Beavers are like Ninjas, they only come out at night and they're hard to find")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Utilizer

Need?
.
Like so many things in life, bigger is better. Period.


31 posted on 04/11/2015 11:55:43 AM PDT by Jeff Chandler (Doctrine doesn't change. The trick is to find a way around it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Utilizer

If you are talking PCs and you still run XP 32bit, you only need 2 Gb because that is all it can access. Anything above XP I would say to get what you can afford. I try to have at least 6 Gb on a laptop, but on some of my workstations I have 8, 16, or 32 Gb. Usually the difference between 6 and 32 Gb is not noticeable when just doing web access and simple things like word processing, but when I require continuous number crunching, opening and closing numerous files automatically, and running numerous background programs, the 16 and 32 Gb systems leaves the others in the dust. Don’t forget to get as much graphics memory that you can afford, especially if you are doing gaming or anything that uses rendering.


32 posted on 04/11/2015 11:55:52 AM PDT by Kirkwood (Zombie Hunter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson